Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 2011-04-09 08:07.
That article suggests the maximum long-term legal dose is 3.0 pC/l. Since UCB measured almost twice that, and that CS-137 is long-lasting, I would conclude that California milk will be above the legal standard for a while.
Here's to hoping it miraculously disappears, but I'm not fooling myself.
Submitted by Webworker (not verified) on Sat, 2011-04-09 09:07.
“There is no safe level of radionuclide exposure, whether from food, water or other sources. Period,” said Jeff Patterson, DO, immediate past president of Physicians for Social Responsibility. “Exposure to radionuclides, such as iodine-131 and cesium-137, increases the incidence of cancer. For this reason, every effort must be taken to minimize the radionuclide content in food and water.”
Submitted by the golden kazoo (not verified) on Sat, 2011-04-09 10:23.
information wants to be free. i don't see what difference that would make, there is a definite lack of consistent information about radiation levels, actual measurements and health concerns. six or nine months from now it may well be a different story. this can only get worse, much worse.
Submitted by Webworker (not verified) on Sat, 2011-04-09 10:04.
No it is not my opinion it is the opinion of the person quoted in the statement.
Here's another NOT my opinion but the FDA's
Normal food production and processing procedures that could reduce the amount of radioactive contamination in or on the food could be simple, (such as holding to allow for radioactive decay, or removal of surface contamination by brushing, washing, or peeling) or could be complex. The blending of contaminated food with uncontaminated food is not permitted because this is a violation of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDA 1991).”
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 2011-04-09 09:45.
While I agree in principal with what you say, we already get a lot more radiation from our food and water than this situation has added.
Joseph had stated that the additional radiation is competable to the diameter of a human hair, and the background radiation us the diameter of a baseball to give it a sense of scale.
Agreed that we don't want to add more to the overall total if we can
avoid it, and this site gives good information about which items carry what risk.
But most municipal water systems have the following in them, and have for ever in varying amounts because they are natural and present in the soil:
Uranium
Thorium
Radioactive Lead
Radon
Polonium and
Tritium
I would advise anyone to get their water tested, especially well water if you want to cut back on radioactive uptake.
Submitted by the godlen kazoo (not verified) on Sat, 2011-04-09 10:34.
Joseph had stated that the additional radiation is competable to the diameter of a human hair, and the background radiation us the diameter of a baseball to give it a sense of scale. it is very sad if you belief such an offhand assessment. remember those of us here in california, the bay area, colorado, parts of the midwest and the pacific northwest are up to this point getting the most fallout from the three or four fukushima daiichi reactors in full or partial meltdown. don't kid yourself. here. you would have to be out of your mind and/or severely uninformed to think that background radiation is normal or healthful, or good for you, contrary to what the Talking Heads might throw your way.
i have nothing against joseph and the BRAWM team, they are poordiving a valuable service, most mass media corporate outlets won't even touch this story. ingesting harmful toxic and highly radionuclides and/or coming into contact with the same is extremely hazardous for health, consider it to be a death sentence.
you would have to be out of your mind and/or severely uninformed to think that background radiation is normal...
============================
Again we get this ignorant fiction from the anti-nukes that background radiation isn't normal. The anti-nukes "think" that radioactivity and radiation was invented by Man in 1945. It's just not true.
Let's look where the background radiation exposure comes from. Courtesy of the Health Physics Society at the University of Michigan:
The biggest sources of radiation, comprising over 80% of the average dose are entirely natural Radon is due to the decay of naturally radioactive materials. Man is not the source of Radon. Cosmic Rays are due to Mother Nature also. Man is not responsible for Cosmic Rays. Internal radioactivity are the elements of your own body that are radioactive like Carbon-14 and Potassium-40. Again, these radionuclides are naturally occurring and not due to the activities of Man. Cosmic rays are responsible from creating Carbon-14:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14
When cosmic rays enter the atmosphere, they undergo various transformations, including the production of neutrons. The resulting neutrons participate in the following reaction:
n + N-14 --> C-14 + p
Another 18% of the average radiation exposure is due to artificial sources, principally due to the use of radiation in the medical field.
If you want to see how much is due to nuclear power and nuclear weapons testing; look at the fields labeled "nuclear fuel cycle" and "fallout". Each of these is LESS THAN 0.03%.
Additionally, people get radiation exposure for living in Denver where there is less atmosphere above to shield from cosmic radiation; and those that spend a lot of time flying in airliners. These people don't show marked increases in cancer or death than other members of the population.
The statement that any exposure to radiation, no matter how small, is harzardous and should be considered a death sentence is just flat out WRONG! It's plain old propaganda and "fear mongering" to advance a political end.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 2011-04-09 09:43.
just curious, are you a member of the BRAWM team? I only ask because it can be confusing which posters are affiliated and those just giving their personal opinion.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 2011-04-09 07:18.
interesting that they leave out westcoast states like California completely. Nice strategy of the EPA, I bet ya the values in California cities would be ABOVE the allowable amount and that is why they simply leave it out.
Hope God will bring justice upon them. I really do.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 2011-04-09 08:06.
Multiple locations in the West are listed: SF, LA, Richmond (CA), Phoenix, Spokane, Portland, Tacoma, Albuquerque. Please explain or post elsewhere so you don't mislead users. This site is for facts.
Submitted by rED mERCURY (not verified) on Sun, 2011-10-23 17:25.
The EPA is 'right' in terms of reportage that will result in efficient herd management.
It seems key components of the EPA ecosystem (legal, political, etc) are in a state of decay resulting from organizational poisoning and mutilation courtesy of Donald Rumsfeld and company. While individuals within the EPA are sincere and capable the public output is quite compromised. Expect very little anything from them in the area of HONEST and MEANINGFUL radiological monitoring and reporting.
There are PLENTY of places to find the fallout and even more reasons not to look there if you are the EPA.
Hear no, See no, Speak no.......
(lest we upset the corporate masters...)
I made a comment before about
I made a comment before about my thoughts on milk radiation, but it didn't show up??
Did you say Vermont...
Is Arnie Gunderson explaining why this MUST be due to the operation of Vermont Yankee?
That article suggests the
That article suggests the maximum long-term legal dose is 3.0 pC/l. Since UCB measured almost twice that, and that CS-137 is long-lasting, I would conclude that California milk will be above the legal standard for a while.
Here's to hoping it miraculously disappears, but I'm not fooling myself.
There is no safe level of radionuclide exposure
“There is no safe level of radionuclide exposure, whether from food, water or other sources. Period,” said Jeff Patterson, DO, immediate past president of Physicians for Social Responsibility. “Exposure to radionuclides, such as iodine-131 and cesium-137, increases the incidence of cancer. For this reason, every effort must be taken to minimize the radionuclide content in food and water.”
Again, for
Again, for clarification...are posts by webworker from someone on the team?
eat a banana, go to jail continued...
information wants to be free. i don't see what difference that would make, there is a definite lack of consistent information about radiation levels, actual measurements and health concerns. six or nine months from now it may well be a different story. this can only get worse, much worse.
Fear monger.
Fear monger.
The BRAWN team have been
The BRAWN team have been signing their posts (member of BRAWN team). So the poster above seems to just be voicing their opinion.
Don't Take My Word For It
I'm not expressing my opinion. I am quoting those who are supposed to be the most knowledgeable on this subject.
How about this link:
Physicians for Social Responsibility Deeply Concerned About Reports of Increased Radioactivity in Food Supply
Not MY Opinion
No it is not my opinion it is the opinion of the person quoted in the statement.
Here's another NOT my opinion but the FDA's
Normal food production and processing procedures that could reduce the amount of radioactive contamination in or on the food could be simple, (such as holding to allow for radioactive decay, or removal of surface contamination by brushing, washing, or peeling) or could be complex. The blending of contaminated food with uncontaminated food is not permitted because this is a violation of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDA 1991).”
Are you affiliated with the
Are you affiliated with the golden kazoo gathering isp's?
BRAWM, not BRAWN. iPhones
BRAWM, not BRAWN. iPhones are terrible for autocorrection.
While I agree in principal
While I agree in principal with what you say, we already get a lot more radiation from our food and water than this situation has added.
Joseph had stated that the additional radiation is competable to the diameter of a human hair, and the background radiation us the diameter of a baseball to give it a sense of scale.
Agreed that we don't want to add more to the overall total if we can
avoid it, and this site gives good information about which items carry what risk.
But most municipal water systems have the following in them, and have for ever in varying amounts because they are natural and present in the soil:
Uranium
Thorium
Radioactive Lead
Radon
Polonium and
Tritium
I would advise anyone to get their water tested, especially well water if you want to cut back on radioactive uptake.
eat a banana, go to jail continued...
Joseph had stated that the additional radiation is competable to the diameter of a human hair, and the background radiation us the diameter of a baseball to give it a sense of scale. it is very sad if you belief such an offhand assessment. remember those of us here in california, the bay area, colorado, parts of the midwest and the pacific northwest are up to this point getting the most fallout from the three or four fukushima daiichi reactors in full or partial meltdown. don't kid yourself. here. you would have to be out of your mind and/or severely uninformed to think that background radiation is normal or healthful, or good for you, contrary to what the Talking Heads might throw your way.
i have nothing against joseph and the BRAWM team, they are poordiving a valuable service, most mass media corporate outlets won't even touch this story. ingesting harmful toxic and highly radionuclides and/or coming into contact with the same is extremely hazardous for health, consider it to be a death sentence.
Background radiation IS NORMAL!!
you would have to be out of your mind and/or severely uninformed to think that background radiation is normal...
============================
Again we get this ignorant fiction from the anti-nukes that background radiation isn't normal. The anti-nukes "think" that radioactivity and radiation was invented by Man in 1945. It's just not true.
Let's look where the background radiation exposure comes from. Courtesy of the Health Physics Society at the University of Michigan:
http://www.umich.edu/~radinfo/introduction/radrus.htm
The biggest sources of radiation, comprising over 80% of the average dose are entirely natural Radon is due to the decay of naturally radioactive materials. Man is not the source of Radon. Cosmic Rays are due to Mother Nature also. Man is not responsible for Cosmic Rays. Internal radioactivity are the elements of your own body that are radioactive like Carbon-14 and Potassium-40. Again, these radionuclides are naturally occurring and not due to the activities of Man. Cosmic rays are responsible from creating Carbon-14:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14
When cosmic rays enter the atmosphere, they undergo various transformations, including the production of neutrons. The resulting neutrons participate in the following reaction:
n + N-14 --> C-14 + p
Another 18% of the average radiation exposure is due to artificial sources, principally due to the use of radiation in the medical field.
If you want to see how much is due to nuclear power and nuclear weapons testing; look at the fields labeled "nuclear fuel cycle" and "fallout". Each of these is LESS THAN 0.03%.
Additionally, people get radiation exposure for living in Denver where there is less atmosphere above to shield from cosmic radiation; and those that spend a lot of time flying in airliners. These people don't show marked increases in cancer or death than other members of the population.
The statement that any exposure to radiation, no matter how small, is harzardous and should be considered a death sentence is just flat out WRONG! It's plain old propaganda and "fear mongering" to advance a political end.
OK, how about some data to
OK, how about some data to back up those claims?
just curious, are you a
just curious, are you a member of the BRAWM team? I only ask because it can be confusing which posters are affiliated and those just giving their personal opinion.
Milk Info
found these looking around
Current EPA Rainwater & Milk Radiation Data
RADIATION, MILK & IODINE
interesting that they leave
interesting that they leave out westcoast states like California completely. Nice strategy of the EPA, I bet ya the values in California cities would be ABOVE the allowable amount and that is why they simply leave it out.
Hope God will bring justice upon them. I really do.
West coast cities NOT left out
Multiple locations in the West are listed: SF, LA, Richmond (CA), Phoenix, Spokane, Portland, Tacoma, Albuquerque. Please explain or post elsewhere so you don't mislead users. This site is for facts.
Yet they show no detection
Yet they show no detection for CS-137 in the west, where UCB has.
Who is right?
EPA
The EPA is 'right' in terms of reportage that will result in efficient herd management.
It seems key components of the EPA ecosystem (legal, political, etc) are in a state of decay resulting from organizational poisoning and mutilation courtesy of Donald Rumsfeld and company. While individuals within the EPA are sincere and capable the public output is quite compromised. Expect very little anything from them in the area of HONEST and MEANINGFUL radiological monitoring and reporting.
There are PLENTY of places to find the fallout and even more reasons not to look there if you are the EPA.
Hear no, See no, Speak no.......
(lest we upset the corporate masters...)