New here: is this an accurate summary?
I've just read over several threads as well as the official pages on milk sampling data and how effective dose is calculated. I've also done some reading on the FDA and EPA sites about what safe doses are.
My current understanding is that the EPA safe dose is based on a continued exposure at that dose for a period of 70 years, while the FDA safe dose is based on a single exposure at a given point in time. The EPA safe dose is 81 Becquerels/liter for I-131 and cesium-137, while the FDA safe dose is 174 Becquerels/liter for I-131 and 1,222 Becquerels/liter for cesium-137.
We normally get milk from a local family farm where we are part of a cow-share program. They just had their milk tested. The results were:
I-131: 2.92 +/- 0.29
I-132: N/D
Te-132: N/D
Cs-134: 0.40 +/- 0.04
Cs-137: 0.41 +/- 0.04
This would suggest to me that this milk is completely safe to drink by both the EPA and FDA standards. The levels of I-131 are <3% of the EPA limit (which again, assumes continued exposure for 70 years) and the levels of c-137 are <0.005% the FDA limit for a single day exposure.
If all of this is accurate, then I do not understand what everyone is worried about. Expressed in terms of the number of liters of milk one would have to consume to exceed the radiation they'd receive from a round-trip flight, the results above are:
I-131: 925
I-132: N/D
Te-132: N/D
Cs-134: 6,000
Cs-137: 6,500
Again, since it's preposterous that anyone could consume anywhere near that much milk, I am left wondering why the concern?
I am aware that being exposed to radiation during a flight is not the same as ingesting it from food or liquid. But I am not clear on how that difference changes this analysis, and more importantly, if it increases the risk to a significant enough degree that I/we should be concerned.
My wife is 6 months pregnant so of course we are especially interested in getting to the bottom of this.
I have also read studies that small doses of radiation have a hormetic effect, which means that they can actually improve immune function and decrease the risk of developing cancer. I've not seen this mentioned anywhere in these forums or anywhere else for that matter.
Please let me know what I may be missing in this analysis.
Chris Kresser
Berkeley, CA
too many unknowns
It is a mistake to think that EPA or FDA limits are 'safe' levels. They are not, in fact I think someone posted on this forum a statement from one of those agencies saying there is no safe level of radiation. The EPA and FDA levels are set according to what they think is an 'acceptable' risk, balanced against the theoretical benefits of nukes. In other words, the risk assessors do a calculation of how many people they are willing to sacrifice for the fantastic-ness of having that technology, chemical, etc available.
Regarding low levels of radiation that have been found in some experiments to prevent or benefit cancer, these are time-limited measurable doses and they will vary in their effect depending on how susceptible the subject is. The radiation from Fuku is different--it is not time-limited and involves internal emitters. And no one is checking as to who is susceptible to harm from low doses, who might benefit, and who will not be affected. It is a lottery and no one has the right to subject humankind to that.
Safe = Zero
You should study The Petkau Effect before claiming "low-level" fission products are "safe," or even, "good for you." (rolls eyes)
Exactly, Thank you!!!
Exactly, Thank you!!!
I miscalculated the EPA limit
In my first post, I miscalculated the EPA limit. The amount in the milk tested is actually 78.3 pCi, which significantly exceeds the EPA limit of 3 pCi - but that assumes consumption for 70 years.
It is still less than 2% of the FDA DIL, which is their safe dose for a single exposure.
I agree that dairy is not necessary to health, and certainly humans evolved for 2.5 million years without it. On the other hand, it is rich in fat-soluble vitamins and other nutrients that are highly beneficial for a developing fetus.
Leafy vegetables are likely to have the same amounts of radioactive isotopes, so if one is going to limit dairy to be as safe as possible they should probably also limit leafy veggies as well.
Cretinism etiology
;)
Foetal sensitivity to radiation is often taken as 100X that of an adult male. So, with that assumption a 2% dose for you is a matter of greater concern for the baby 'on board'.
Pregnant and nursing moms bio-concentrate radionuclides and pass them on to baby; and have greater personal sensitivity than the FOB.
Each radioisotope has it's own target area. So the Iodine radionuclides can 'take out' the foetal thyroid or produce cancer several years from now. Other health effects will also be bad. Absent a thyroid, the child is destined for cretinism, unless promptly diagnosed and treated with a lifetime of injectables.
It may be difficult to diagnose the cause of cretinism in your offspring however, given the genetic contribution of the FOB. Oh and the term cretin is not historically perjorative.
;)
wrong or right
this is not wrong or right question.its really to each his own. at least u r educating yourself unlike many who dont even know what cesium is? the ucberkely tests indicate cesuim levels are on uptick and radiodine are tapering down.so keep an eye on new tests as cesium levels seem to be rising.now as an american male u have a 44.29%( chance of developing cancer females 37.76% these elements being here for 60 years in food chain surely wont be decreasing your risk factors imho it may increase the risk factor...
http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerBasics/lifetime-probability-of-develo...
you are completely wrong
you are completely wrong that small dose can improve immune function and prevent cancer!
I'm wrong because you say so? Not very convincing.
Here are several studies that support the hormetic effects of radiation. Please show us your proof.
"The possibility of the use of low dose radiation in cancer treatment to improve the outcome of conventional radiotherapy was raised by citing previous reports on experimental studies, which showed increased efficacy in tumor control with significant reduction of total dose of radiation when low dose radiation was used in the combined treatment protocol."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20332172
"However, this authoritative body recognized also the existence of radiation hormesis, termed as 'adaptive response.' The political and vested interests behind exclusion of hormesis from the current risk assessment methodology are discussed."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20332170
"The LNT model has sufficient evidence at high doses but has been extrapolated in a linear fashion to low dose regions with much less scientific evidence. Much experimentation has suggested discrepancies of this extrapolation at low doses. The hypothesis of radiation hormesis suggests low dose radiation is beneficial to the irradiated cell and organism. There is definite standing ground for the hormesis hypothesis both evolutionarily and biophysically, but experimental evidence is yet to change official policies on this matter."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20169836
"Thus, the combination of a failed understanding of the hormetic hypothesis and its linkage with a strong chemical hormesis database, flawed analyses by prestigious scientists at the critical stage of scientific research development, reinforced by a Cold War mentality led to marginalization of an hypothesis (i.e., radiation hormesis) that had substantial scientific foundations and generalizability."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10745295
"Evidence is presented which supports the conclusion that the hormetic dose-response model is the most common and fundamental in the biological and biomedical sciences, being highly generalizable across biological model, endpoint measured and chemical class and physical agent. The paper provides a broad spectrum of applications of the hormesis concept for clinical medicine including anxiety, seizure, memory, stroke, cancer chemotherapy, dermatological processes such as hair growth, osteoporosis, ocular diseases, including retinal detachment, statin effects on cardiovascular function and tumour development, benign prostate enlargement, male sexual behaviours/dysfunctions, and prion diseases."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18662293
"Current recommendations for limiting exposure to ionizing radiation are based on the linear-no-threshold (LNT) model for radiation carcinogenesis under which every dose, no matter how low, carries with it some cancer risk. In this review, epidemiological evidences are discussed that the LNT hypothesis is incorrect at low doses. A large set of data was accumulated that showed that cancer risk after ordinarily encountered radiation exposure (natural background radiation, medical X-rays, etc.) is much lower than projections based on the LNT model. The discovery of the low-level radiation hormesis (stimulating effect) implies a non-linear dose-response curve in the low-dose region. The further studies in this field will provide new insights about the mechanisms of radiation carcinogenesis."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21434396
"A statistically significant decrease in cancer risk with increased exposure was found for values ? 157 Bq m(-3) normalized to the reference exposure of 4.4 Bq m(-3), the lowest radon concentration measured(adjusted odds ratio (AOR) [95% CI] = 0.42 [0.180, 1.00], p = 0.049). This result is consistent with those reported elsewhere that considered radon exposure with cubic spline terms (Thompson, RE et al. 2008)."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21431078
"Current guidelines for limiting exposure of humans to ionizing radiation are based on the linear-no-threshold (LNT) hypothesis for radiation carcinogenesis under which cancer risk increases linearly as the radiation dose increases. With the LNT model even a very small dose could cause cancer and the model is used in establishing guidelines for limiting radiation exposure of humans. A slope change at low doses and dose rates is implemented using an empirical dose and dose rate effectiveness factor (DDREF). This imposes usually unacknowledged nonlinearity but not a threshold in the dose-response curve for cancer induction. In contrast, with the hormetic model, low doses of radiation reduce the cancer incidence while it is elevated after high doses. Based on a review of epidemiological and other data for exposure to low radiation doses and dose rates, it was found that the LNT model fails badly. Cancer risk after ordinarily encountered radiation exposure (medical X-rays, natural background radiation, etc.) is much lower than projections based on the LNT model and is often less than the risk for spontaneous cancer (a hormetic response). Understanding the mechanistic basis for hormetic responses will provide new insights about both risks and benefits from low-dose radiation exposure."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20585444
"A large set of data was accumulated that showed that cancer risk after ordinarily encountered radiation exposure (natural background radiation, medical X-rays, etc.) is much lower than projections based on the LNT model. The discovery of the low-level radiation hormesis (stimulating effect) implies a non-linear dose-response curve in the low-dose region. The further studies in this field will provide new insights about the mechanisms of radiation carcinogenesis."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21434396
"Radiation hormesis is explained, pointing out that beneficial effects are expected following a low dose or dose rate because protective responses against stresses are stimulated. The notions that no amount of radiation is small enough to be harmless and that a nuclear accident could kill hundreds of thousands are challenged in light of experience: more than a century with radiation and six decades with reactors. If nuclear energy is to play a significant role in meeting future needs, regulatory authorities must examine the scientific evidence and communicate the real health effects of nuclear radiation. Negative images and implications of health risks derived by unscientific extrapolations of harmful effects of high doses must be dispelled."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19343116
"Yet the current system of radiation protection needs revision because radiation-induced natural protection (hormesis) has been neglected. A novel, nonlinear, hormetic relative risk model for radiation-induced cancers is discussed in the context of establishing new radiation exposure limits for nuclear workers and the public."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19088900
"In this paper, low, essentially harmless doses of gamma rays spread over an extended period are shown via use of a biological-based, hormetic relative risk (HRR) model to be highly efficient in preventing lung cancer induction by alpha radiation from inhaled plutonium."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18846259
I could go on but hopefully you get the idea.
I am an MD. Let us just
I am an MD. Let us just focus on the radioactive iodine for now.
HIGH dosages of radioactive iodine are used to treat an overactive thyroid in medicine. The reason why very high dosages of I131 are used is because the goal is to destroy the thyroid tissue.
It has been shown during these treatment trials that if the I131 is not high enough or at low levels, it will actually cause thyroid cancer.
You can read about this everywhere but check wikepidia first.
the likelyhood of thyroid cancer when the patient receives a low dose or very low dose is high, that is why they use such a high dose of I131 that the cells get killed. even though in the thyroid cells that do not die, with lingering low levels of iodine risk of thyorid cancer is high.
Check Wikepedia first.....
Check Wikepedia first..... That is the worst advice I have ever seen someone give. "the likelyhood of thyroid cancer when the patient receives a low dose or very low dose is high" That is just pure BS. The liklehood of getting cancer from a very low dose is high? The Linear No Threshold model of radiation exposure is the only studies I have seen that have scientific merit. Therefore Low dose = low (er) risk.
Anonymous MD, Why is it that
Anonymous MD, Why is it that some sources claim that people over 40 years of age are less susceptible to the I-131 thyroid damage? In contrast I have read that children under 10 years of age are very susceptible to damage.
Mann Coulter, is that you?
Radiation is good for, LOL.
Radiation hormesis = lies from the multi-billion dollar nuclear industry.
If that is true, why isn't
If that is true, why isn't it being promoted by the nuclear industry and even scoffed at by "regulatory" agencies with ties to the industry?
hormetics
There is a lot of information out there, for and against. This Wikipedia link has lots of info discussing both sides:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis
The upshot is that there might be some positive effect there, but it varies depending on dose, target, isotope, etc. No clear answer, really.
I'm going to go out on a different limb here, at the risk of irritating some folks, and suggest that, even though contaminants in milk are pretty low right now, you could just skip dairy products for a while. Especiall for small kids or the pregnant. You don't really need them, anyway; there are a lot of cultures around the globe that either don't use them at all, or use them a lot less than we do in the West.
(I'm not anti-dairy, not at all. I am lactose intolerant, so I've had to adapt to that... rice milk on the cereal, etc.)
There are a lot of reasons why we use dairy so much: reasonable cost for the nutrition you get, easy access, taste, tradition, etc. But you can move away, at least for a while.