Europeans warned to avoid milk and vegetables due to high radiation levels

Considering the cesium

Considering the cesium levels appearing in boise, is anyone concerned about potatoes? I noticed that Idaho potatoes were only $2.50 for a 5lb bag at the store today and thought, Wow! that's a great deal. Then I remembered the most recent data for Boise and decided to buy Ohio grown potatoes. Not sure if it matters, but with a 30 year half-life, i'm wondering if the potato crop in idaho is going to be ruined for the rest of my life.

Calculation Question

Does anyone know if the EPA standard of 3 pCi/L for Iodine131 in drinking water is based on a calculation of exposure over time? Apparently, 4 Millirems per year is supposed to be the max exposure the EPA would consider safe for man-made photon particles and beta emitters in drinking water.

So, how does that equate to the 3 pCi/L? I've heard some folks say that the 3 pCi/L isn't a danger level, just a reference point to identify the existence of radiation at all. I'm just wondering if there's anywhere where the EPA specifically says "Drinking water with > 3 pCi/L of Iodine131 is dangerous.

I don't know how to convert pCi/L of water to Millirems over time. But it would be nice to see how that's done. For example, if the Berkeley milk stays at 19 pCi/L, and I drink a liter a day, which is reasonable, how many millirems is that after 365 days?

EPA "safe' std = zero; "practical" std = 49,000 pCi/lifetime

The EPA MCL standard is based on a 70 year lifetime. Please notice that the EPA has issued two standards under the Clean Water Act: the MCLG (zero) and the MCL (4 mrem).

The 1974 Safe Drinking Water Act requires EPA to determine 2 different standards for contaminants (including radiological substances). The first, called the MCLG (“maximum contaminant level goals”), is “the level of contaminants in drinking water at which no adverse health effects are likely to occur.” This health goal is “based solely on possible health risks and exposure over a lifetime with an adequate margin of safety.” It is non-enforceable. For radionuclides, EPA has determined that this level is ZERO. Id.

Then, EPA sets an enforceable regulation, called a maximum contaminant level (MCL), “as close to the health goals (the MCLG) as possible, considering cost, benefits and the ability of public water systems to detect and remove contaminants using suitable treatment technologies.” That’s the MCL – in this case, the gross MCL for beta particles. The standard is 4 millirems/year (or 700 pCi). This would be 49,000 pCi in a lifetime.

The EPA has clearly stated that the only “safe” level of radionuclides in drinking water is *zero*. That is its MCGL standard. Its MCL standard (4 mrem/yr dose or no more than 700 pCi/year exposure) is not purely based on human health; it takes into account a “cost, benefits and the ability of public water systems to detect and remove contaminants using suitable treatment technologies,” while, however, attempting to get “as close to the health goals (the MCLG) as possible.” The “safe” level is zero. Zero times 70 years is still zero.

In the media and on many website you may have seen some people (including, bizarrely, the EPA), cite to FDA guidelines called DILs to tell you that the releases we are seeing are "safe" or not a threat to human health. This is wrong. The FDA has stated that its DILs are NOT safety standards. The FDA DILs allow 1 person in 4400 to get a lethal cancer before the FDA will intervene to stop the sale of a food. They allow 33,000 pCi of radioactive cesium and 4,700 pCi of radioactive iodine per kilogram of food (or liter of milk) - with no consumption limit.

Just 1 1/2 Liters of contaminated milk under the FDA DIL would exceed the EPA’s lifetime limit for drinking water - which of course is simply the best effort to get to the "safe" level of zero exposure which EPA has determined under the MCLG. Please do not make the mistake of thinking that comparisons to the FDA's DIL guidelines will give you an idea of what exposure is safe.

Jeff McMahon at Forbes Magazine has insight on this today

He states there that EPA's Maximum Contaminant Level for radioiodine in milk is 700 pCi/L per year. If you drink a liter a day (not counting the pCi/L for radio-Cesium which when added to the radiodine, according to one commenter on the blog, comes out to about 54 pCi/L collectively with the I-191 based on BRAWM's samples of milk) then it would take you a little over a month (five weeks) to reach the EPA maximum contaminant level (MCL)if the levels stay at this amount.

When you factor in the radio-cesium detected with the radioiodine and use the same standard of 700 pCi per year then you will, if the math is correct and there really is a collective dose of at least 54 pCi of these radionuclides per year (because they are not testing for strontium 90 or reporting other radionuclides that may be in the milk) THEN...

You would reach the maximum annual dose in less than 13 days.

I do not know how this translates to mrems, but I suspect it ain't good.

This chart MIGHT help but still does not have the correlation from pCi/L to mrems.

i think before getting too

i think before getting too concerned, it's important to check the math.

If the EPA's Maximum Contaminant Level for radioiodine in milk is 700 pCi/L per year, that means drinking 700 pCi/L water every day, for a year, not a total of 700 pCi/L over the course of a year.

No, that is incorrect. It is TOTAL per year

3 pCi/L per DAY is the EPA level and granted the two numbers are at odds with each other as 3 pCiL per day equals more than 1000 pCi/Li per year, but I believe that this assumes that we consume 700 liters per year. If one drinks 1000 lieters per year at this rate one would get almost 50% more than the EPA limit.

anyway, I am relying on the Frobes blog which references an EPA publication although I could not find that figure in that document as it is more than 100 pages long and the search feature sucks.

Just click print and save as

Just click print and save as a PDF. There is a print button inside the website for it. The iodine info is on page 24 of 156 once you have the PDF.

thanks for the link. that's

thanks for the link. that's a great story. did you actually download the pdf referenced in the story?^%2281119911%22&QFieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&UseQField=pubnumber&IntQFieldOp=1&ExtQFieldOp=1&XmlQuery=&File=D%3A\ZYFILES\INDEX%20DATA\91THRU94\TXT\00000024\9100J0C1.txt&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=anonymous&SortMethod=h|-&MaximumDocuments=10&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/i425&Display=p|f&DefSeekPage=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results%20page&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=1

It actually looks like (page II-9, or 24 of 159 on the pdf) they don't consider I-131 as part of the 4 millirem mandate. It says that one group calculates that to get 4 millirems, you'd have to have 700 piC/L in your water, but at the same time, it says the MCL compliance level is only 3 pC/L. Still confusing to me. The 4 millirem scale suggests that 1 person in 10,000 will die of cancer at that exposure, on average. That's concerning, too.

Yeah. It looks like 3 pCi/L limit adds up to 700/yr depending

on the average amount of milk you drink (less than 1 liter per day)

it is confusing which is why the lack of government info is frustrating.

But if the limit in milk is 3 pCi/L then it would mean drinking no more than 233 liters of milk per year
at that level of contamination. Does that sound right?

To put it in perspective: EPA max contaminant level is <2pCi/day

So if we are getting something like 54 picocuries of radionuclide dose per day per liter from milk alone (and remember there may be strontium 90 in the milk too) we are getting 27 times the permissible dose based on the annual Maximum Contaminant Level (MDL).

My main worry is that if it is in the new rains it will add to the milk, spinach, veggies, etc and the collective doses will be FAR above the annual limits in VERY short periods of time.

I hate to be an alarmist but frankly I think it is necessary to hammer these points home:

BRAWM says there is NO DOSE THRESHOLD below which there is no longer any harm.

The samples are showing cumulative doses ON A DAILY BASIS many times the EPA permissible levels for radionuclide contamination if you add together the various food and water and air sources.

The limits for maximum radiation contaminant levels that the EPA uses are based on risks of deadly consequences to the US population.

So IF radiation levels in milk, food and rain are tens or dozens of times higher than those doses known to create deadly risks, then why are we still saying the amounts are miniscule and the risks are tiny.

And, again, the risks are greatest for infants, children, pregnant women and fetuses and women (who are more likely to get cancer than men).

We were planning to switch

We were planning to switch our son to whole milk on his first birthday (in about a week)but now we are seriously considering continuing formula. It really sucks that we can't expect more from the FDA EPA USDA MEDIA. This should be a wake up call to everybody!!

i just loaded up on formula

i just loaded up on formula today. i hate the idea of it, but i called the horizon organic co and they said they don't test for radiation and "are working closely with the epa." that's not good enough for me.

Maybe we should just keep on

Maybe we should just keep on trusting the experts. You know the guys who said this could never happen and even if something did happen it couldn't be this serious. The guys who knew this was a level 7 on March 17 but didn't bother to let the Japanese or the world know until yesterday.

Corporate media just went along and moved Fukushima to the back burner. I am finished with them as any source of real news.

Jones and others like him are outside of the corporate media. I don't believe anything I read online off hand and I know everybody gets the story wrong sometimes but I think the percentage of truth on is high enough to deserve attention. Unlike CNN MSNBC FOX who just copy and paste AP and NYT stories.

Fukushima radiation taints

Fukushima radiation taints US milk supplies at levels 300% higher than EPA maximums

Radioactive materials in dairy products, environment and seafood

Anybody with links for data covering Reno, NV and all Western states? I do not have a geiger counter designed to detect unacceptable radiation levels in food so for now I am doing as others are, eliminating dairy products save for harder aged and grating cheeses that predate this disaster mostly from California and areas where it is known there is no nuclear plant within 500 miles using the chart at listed on their Fukushima page (we're still too primitive in our technology and so ALL nuclear plants release radioactive materials into the environment so this is part of the decision making process for me. Plus, places like Idaho for example are known to have old waste buried that surely is responsible for levels of I-131 and Cs-137 coming through and from their water table and this just touches the surface since nobody has a clue as to how much of the elevated levels detected come from classified military activities and all the depleted uranium used in bullets etc. for wars worldwide that is caught up into the troposphere and jetstream.)

Also, I'd like to continue purchase of Mountain High yoghurt which is from Colorado and there's no currently available data about Colorado dairy products' levels of I-131, Cs-137 etc. As long as dairy companies continue to fail to offer this information during this time I have to assume the levels are unnaturally high and beyond what humans have evolved to healthfully exist with!


-Off the menu in addition to most dairy products, this culinarily frustrated home chef has discontinued all seafood, sea salt, including fake crab, crab, red snapper, salmon, shrimp, shad, tuna etc.

FYI: San Francisco Bay has been 'Hot' for years further justifying elimination of seafoods from human consumption see:

(Note: this occured prior to the area being partitioned off from the public.) A retired Navy captain and a friend were out sailing in the Farallons located in the San Francisco Bay. Knowing full-well of the reality of the nuclear waste dump there they caught some fish and tested it with a geiger counter the retired captain had. Needless to say the readings were off the charts in terms of safety for human consumption and some of their catches had odd deformities. There are sponges that grow around the drums containing the nuclear waste that normally grow to a few feet, they are now growing in excess of 20 feet!

“If you live in the San Francisco Bay Area, you may be surprised to learn that “more than 47,800 drums and other containers of low-level radioactive waste were dumped onto the ocean floor west of San Francisco between 1946 and 1970.” (Source: The U.S. Geological Survey, a bureau of the Department of the Interior.)

Just 25 to 30 miles offshore from the Golden Gate bridge — in a marine wildlife sanctuary, no less — the ocean floor is littered with rusting 55-gallon barrels of radioactive waste. The U.S. Navy shipped this toxic cargo from the Radiological Defense Laboratory at the Hunters Point shipyard in San Francisco and dropped it in the sea near the Farallon Islands — creating the first and largest offshore nuclear waste dump in the United States. Navy gunners were instructed to shoot holes in the barrels that didn’t sink right away.”

Comment by HotCaviar | April 12, 2011 | Reply

HotCaviar, EPA has some new (4/13) data for Reno, NV....

...Check out the Forum Topic I just created / posted a few minutes ago, and go to:

Rick Cromack.
Allen, Texas

here's the source

Whatever you think of Jones, he is basing this on real recommendations from a French radiation research group:

Primarily this is recommended for pregnant women, nursing mothers and infants, but I would think all children and adults too should take due precautions just to minimize the potential for bioaccumulation of radionuclides.

Wasn't the advisory for

Wasn't the advisory for vulnerable populations?(pregnant/breastfeeding women, young children, etc)

And I think it was mostly leafy vegetables.

Though it begs the question about what should we eat now and what should we buy from the supermarket.

Do you have a real source?

Do you have a real source? Not the fearmongering fraud that Alex Jones is.

Seriously. You have to consider the sources...

of some of these reports.

Empower yourself with knowledge, use your best judgment, trust your gut and live your life to the fullest. All cliches but what else can we do?

Milk? Nah, haven't drunk the stuff in years. Leafy greens? Not gonna stop shopping at my local farmer's market or growing my own stuff. I mean, at what point do you stop living and let fear take over?

Let's face it...yes, we all have to die - life's only guarantee - but we all want to avoid painful deaths...a loss of control. What if we tried acceptance of the idea that control is an illusion? We can ask questions, raise our voices but what *real* control do we have over the situation...of what particles and such are swirling around in our water and air?

It's a Fair Point, and No Denying It...

"Let's face it...yes, we all have to die - life's only guarantee - but we all want to avoid...a loss of control. What if we tried acceptance of the idea that control is an illusion? We can ask questions, raise our voices but what *real* control do we have over the situation...of what particles and such are swirling around in our water and air?"

An uncomfortable thought, but, you know, that's reality. Much as I hat admitting it.

Rick Cromack.
Allen, Texas

Can you prove he is fraud?

Can you prove he is fraud? Where is your link? Fear mongering? After 911 DHS told people to get plastic sheeting and duct tape in case of a dirty bomb. Were they feaRMONGERING??

re: duct tape and plastic

"Were they feaRMONGERING??"

Without a doubt, yes.