Is anyone avoiding beef, chicken and eggs? (other than vegans, vegatarians etc)
I live in CA and we're eliminating dairy products, but what about the meat and eggs? Any thoughts on levels of cesium 137 contamination?
Search
I live in CA and we're eliminating dairy products, but what about the meat and eggs? Any thoughts on levels of cesium 137 contamination?
flaring tempers
I've read the exchanges between Dr. Chivers and Dr. Marjorie, and I must say, regardless of whether one (Chivers) "may" have a more functional/theoretical bent re: nuclear energy, or whether the other (Marjorie) "may" take a more "humanistic"/"application" approach to this situation, what it boils down to is pure childishness. I never once perceived Dr. Chivers' replies to be inappropriate or combative in any way. True, one or two anonymous replies made were less than professional, but those individuals never claimed to be professionals. If there is a perceived "downhill" spiral on this forum, it may be due to the panic-stricken individuals who are desperate (and therefore prone to knee-jerk) to understand the events while still maintaining a modicum of normalcy in their daily life patterns (eating meat, for example)...but it is certainly not due to any of the responses being given by the Berkeley team.
Frankly, it is Marjorie's "every man for himself" tack that in some way could be blamed for the fact that we even stand here today, eyeball deep in nuclear fears. If large corporations, governments and other specialty interests actually gave a rat's a** for humanity at large and cared about community vs. their own personal gain, perhaps their greed wouldn't have taken us to this brink. People who cannot withstand honest refutation or challenge or constructive criticism only muddle the conversation we're trying to have.
Once again I have to say, even if there is a somewhat pro-nuclear bias to the reportage going on at Berkeley, it is still leagues beyond local and federal agency reportage in terms of detail, breadth and constancy. I am SO glad to have them here.
I DON'T see it as
I DON'T see it as 'childishness'. Dchivers is doing his best to help this group, while Marjorie was/is the ONLY MD I know of posting on this site with her actual name attached to her posts. Thank god for an MD willing to chime in! This forum provides a healthy debate about what's good and what's not good and I welcome it. If dchivers is the only one left to moderate, give info, well I'll take it. What the heck else do we have outside this forum?
Marjorie, I hope you're still on board here and I hope you come back with a bunch of your colleagues too. God knows we need as many educated minds as we can get. The mainstream media WILL NEVER touch the food subject. Just look at the BP oil spill updated info coming out now on this anniversary. Radiation will be here longer than any washed up oil ever will.
Perhaps "childishness" was
Perhaps "childishness" was too strong a word, I agree...but reading her progression of posts was disappointing to me, because I, like you and many others, truly appreciated the input from an open-minded MD. I found her posts refreshing at first, but they began to devolve into a defensive stance, one which did not speak to a desire to help the general populace, but to defend her own POV, and effectively advise everyone seeking her expertise to "figure it out for themselves." I of course don't want to drag this observation out, but I was disappointed in her own lack of professionalism as she opted--after only a few exchanges--to completely jump ship, abandoning those who applauded and strongly desired her insight. It's just too bad, is all.
Levels in food from Chernobyl from Denmark Study
I found this source of data. The third value in the food represents the total Bq 137. The order of highest to lowest goes like this, Fish, Milk, Meat, Grain, Cofee/Tea, Potatoes, fruits, veges and so on. Maybe this helps all? Here is the link to the source. But see below for data. http://www.davistownmuseum.org/cbm/Rad7b.html
Aarkrog, A. et. al. (February 1995). Environmental radioactivity in Denmark in 1992 and 1993. Riso-R-756(EN). Riso National Laboratory, Roskilde, Denmark.
Riso reports continue to be one of the best basic references documenting lingering anthropogenic radioactive contamination of the environment.
The pervasive impact of the Chernobyl accident is clearly documented by the low levels of 137Cs in the human diet, the human body, and in the environment in 1992 and 1993 compared with 1986.
In the event of another Chernobyl-type nuclear accident at any location, the database of the Riso National Laboratory will provide an important index of environmental contamination by anthropogenic radioactivity. Will the present golden age of low-levels of hemispheric wide contamination continue in the next millennium, and if not, what will be the source points of the radioactive plumes of the future?
Table 5.9.4.B. Estimate of the mean content of 137Cs in the human diet in 1993 Type of food Annual quantity in kg Bq 137Cs per kg Total Bq 137Cs Percentage of total
Bq 137Cs in food
Milk and cream 164.0 0.067 10.99 9.5
Cheese 9.1 0.048 0.44 0.4
Grain products 80.3 0.100 8.01 6.9
Potatoes 73.0 0.046 3.36 2.9
Vegetables 43.8 0.020 0.88 0.8
Fruit 51.1 0.019 0.97 0.8
Meat 54.7 0.23 12.58 10.8
Eggs 10.9 0.030 0.33 0.3
Fish 10.9 6.74 73.5 63.1
Coffee and tea 5.5 0.95 5.23 4.5
Drinking water 548 0 0 0
Total 116.29
This table's total of 116.29 Bq for 137Cs contrasts with 124.15 Bq in 1992. (Table 5.9.4.A, pg. 76).
"Strontium-90 and Cesium-137 in Humans. The 90Sr mean content in adult human bone (vertebrae) collected in 1992 was 18 Bq (kg Ca)-1. Whole body measurements of 137Cs were resumed after the Chernobyl accident. The measured mean level in 1990 was 359 Bq 137Cs (kg K)-1." (pg. 108).
What We've Been Doing
We've been stocking up on meat and poultry, as our budget allows. For eggs, we started purchasing eggs from New Zealand: www.frenzeggs.co.nz. You can go to the website for store locations. We buy our eggs at Whole Foods Market. I don't remember how much they cost. I'm sure it's not cheap, but we don't eat a lot of eggs.
We spoke with our local Whole Foods Market and they told us that the turkey that they brought in for Easter was packaged before March 11th. I would think that it would be same for ham.
If you speak with your local grocer, they may be able to give you information about packing dates. The manager of our store was very helpful.
Very helpful T.O. mom...
Thanks.
Vegan better
I'm wondering if there are studies to support Dr Alexander's claim that "While plants will definitely uptake this new bulk load of radioactive atoms from the environment, they will be the most dilute medium of it in the food chain."
organ meat
I'm thinking about folks that feed their dogs raw meat.
Clearly, the thyroid would accumulate the I-131.
Would the other organs be more like to accumulate any radioactivity, than muscle meat? What about the liver? Kidney? Heart I guess is muscle meat...
I'm guessing cooking would have no effect whatsoever?
Chicken, eggs and pork
I'm wondering why anyone is discussing chickens and eggs. My understanding about conventional 'factory farming' (as opposed to organic and free range) is that the animals never see the light of day.. that they are kept crammed in pens and in huge indoor populations. My understanding is that they are fed indoors also. And that eggs are collected from these indoor populations as well. What is it I don't know about?
I'm also under the impression that factory farmed pigs never see the light of day either.
Cesium and Strontium
Thanks for your comments Dr Chivers. I'm running out of pre-Fukushima eggs to feed my 2 year old and wanted to add my voice to the concern about eggs. I read somewhere that the iodine concentrates in the egg yolk..
Also in the absence of information about Sr90 I don't know what to do about bone broth...normally one of the healthiest foods known to man.
re: animal products in diet
If ever there was a time to become a vegetarian or better yet vegan, it is now.
I have shifted to an almost 100% vegan diet over the last few weeks. I have somewhat been meaning to do this for many years and now I have little appetite for animal products given what I understand about contamination.
The facts are that large amounts of radioactive atoms from Fukushima will now be a part of the global ecosystem. We still haven't reached an endpoint to them being added to the environment, and the game plan to correct the situation spans longer than 6 months. We can argue all day long about safe levels, minuscule values, thresholds, internal vs external exposure etc but the facts are the facts. Consuming radioactive atoms is not great for your health and over time increases the chances of sustaining a deadly DNA mutation -> cancer. While plants will definitely uptake this new bulk load of radioactive atoms from the environment, they will be the most dilute medium of it in the food chain. Think about it- livestock has to eat plants to survive and eventually act as biological concentrators of the radioactive isotopes in our food chain. If you are a vegetarian/vegan, your lifetime exposure to radioactive atoms from Fukushima (as well as Chernobyl and above ground nuclear testing) will be much lower than those who eat animal products.
Dr. Marjorie Alexander
dear vegan "doctor" please
dear vegan "doctor"
please be aware that mushrooms are one of the most potent bioaccumulators of radiatioactive particles that we know of (please refer to paul stamets, mycilium running). most vegans i know rely on protein from fungus sources. you may actually be consuming ~more~ contaminants than omnis depending on what you are eating.
eating low on the food chain may be prudent to avoid nuclear contaminants but one must also consider which of those foods are bioaccumulators.
for my omni friends, there are many protein food choices available that are less risky: small freshwater fish, foods imported from unaffected areas, etc.
I'm interested, do you have
I'm interested, do you have a reference for the claim: "If you are a vegetarian/vegan, your lifetime exposure to radioactive atoms from Fukushima (as well as Chernobyl and above ground nuclear testing) will be much lower than those who eat animal products."
dchivers I am stating my
dchivers I am stating my opinion here based on my understanding of biology, physiology, metabolism, excretion etc. I am MD (University of Michigan, 2002). There are likely studies or references out there that you can google that address this if you feel better seeing it in print somewhere.
But to understand, all you need to do is learn about where radioactive molecules build up in living bodies (humans/animals). You can also look at the actual math to prove this to yourself- the measured radioactivity per kg measured in plant matter versus measured in milk (but be careful of units...you will likely have to do some conversions). Its a pretty straight forward conclusion I have drawn. And you could certainly study radioactive isotope levels in bones of vegans versus meat/dairy eaters to prove this. Perhaps someone has even done that- do some research if you need further reassurance of this simple concept.
Sorry if you are a meat eater and this isn't good news. Keep in mind that even animal products are still testing at fairly low levels, but as time goes on it becomes clear that the global ecosystem has been contaminated to what most would consider a significant level. Does that mean that by becoming vegan today you are preventing yourself from getting cancer 30 years from now? Not necessarily. And then again maybe. You are entering the arena of statistics, numbers and chance. We know that globally many will get cancer as a result of the Fukushima event, over time. It is a matter of simple logic to conclude that those who eat animal products over their lifetime carry more of that risk than those who do not eat animal products.
There are likely studies!!
There are likely studies!! You, an MD Suppose there are studies? If a human eats only vegetables, thier needs in Kg are about 3x to meet daily caloric intake. Leafy vegetables are the first to uptake radioactivity. Yes, milk is a concentrator. Do you understand that milk can provide every dietary need in small quantities? Be a Vegan if you wish, I don't care, but don't push it on the masses that you are intelligent or know something about radioactivity or bioaccumulation in meats and fats.
Sorry, maybe I should have
Sorry, maybe I should have been more clear. I am part of the BRAWM team and I (try to) run this forum. When someone comes on stating their credentials and makes a claim, we would like to see references. If this is just your opinion as an MD, then that is fine, we will take it as such. However, I have to say that there are many unverified "MD"s on this site who make claims that are not backed up by research data. I invite professionals to post on this site but to do so in a scientifically responsible way. In our responses to the public we have worked to reference our claims with journal publications so that one can filter as best they can the signal from the noise.
No problem dchivers. I have
No problem dchivers. I have recently seen this board going nuts too...I don't come here that often anymore...mostly to look at what your BRAWM team has to say about recent developments.
But what I stated about being exposed to more radionuclides over your lifetime as an animal product eater- I stand by. If you are part of the team, you know this holds true. Animals are bioaccumulators of the most biologically active radionuclides that have effects on human health. This is a fact (that apparently some on the board are not happy to hear). I don't believe in sugar coating the facts for people at this stage of development. This forum has done wonders to keep people calm and informed in the face of panic and disinformation- I appreciate that. I'm not saying everyone should stop buying animal products (which are still testing at very low levels) only because of this event- but if you have been on the fence about having them in your diet now is a wonderful time to make the change- it could possibly have a cumulative lifetime effect for you. I still think that likely some of this has already been researched....its just such a common sense thing that I haven't bothered to search medline for studies (be my guest anyone out there...prove it to yourselves and for now consider it one person's informed opinion). When I do get the chance to look up more, if I find a good reference I'll come back and share. But again, I want to reiterate that all you need to do to prove this simple concept to yourself is to look at the contamination levels of produce vs animal products- the animal products will always be way higher because the animal eats many many KGs of produce to yield your liter of milk or lay your egg.
The above point someone made about mushrooms is interesting- thanks. I'll look into that. I think I saw someone else ranting about how much food it takes to get nutrition as a vegetarian/vegan. Please educate yourself and do more research- some of the healthiest populations on earth with the lowest incidence of cancers and cardiac disease are vegetarian/vegan.
Anyways, dchivers thanks for all the work you guys have put into the forum during panicked times. I'm sure it could make one a bit insane after awhile (looking at some of the posts and all the different opinions- I don't think I could do it for long) but it is a very valuable service.
marjorie
I have to say that I am not
I have to say that I am not a vegetarian but I have lots of friends who are and I am not biased at all (I think) agains vegans, vegetarians, etc., however, I think your point is that animals are bio-accumulators of radio nuclides and I would agree. However, if you follow the food web, most animals are eating grasses and grains (or other animals who eat grasses or grains) which I think is the major pathway to this accumulation. The most efficient method of radionuclide uptake from soils (natural or otherwise) is through leafy green plants such as spinach, kale, or grass. Then the animal will bioaccumulate with some uptake efficiency and biological half-life, and will in the case of natural radionuclides like K40, U238, Th232 develop a steady state concentration throughout their body.
OK, so WE are animals too. We bioaccumulate in the same method as other animals. Now, this is just logic so stay with me:
Plants --> Animals --> Human (Pure Meat Eater)
Plants --> Human (Pure Vegetarian)
So, if I normalize the caloric intake for both pathways wouldn't the Animals in the pure meat eater case act as a filter? This is obviously very simplified, but I think what you are suggesting is that other animals (not humans) take on more plant food per calorie of intake as compared to humans and, at the same time, humans bioaccumulate less than other animals. This is counter-intuitive to me so I am very interested. I will take a look on PubMed as well.
dchivers, In regards to the
dchivers,
In regards to the diet that resutls in the greatest exposure to Cs-137, I did some crude back of the envelope computations using Table 15 from the UNSCEAR 1988 Report Annex D.
http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/publications/1988.html
The table shows the Cs-137 content by food type by country during the year after Chenobyl. There is quite a bit of variability in this data, but if you generalize, meat has the most Cs-137 by weight, followed by milk and grains. Leafy vegetables have the least.
However, if you adjust these value by their Caloric density, you get a very different picture. Grains have the highest Caloric density, and have the lowest Cs-137 per cal. Even though Meat has the highest content of Cs-137 by weight it has the next lowest Cs-137 per cal because it has the next highest caloric density. Milk and leafy vegetables fare the worst because they have lower caloric densities.
You can compute caloric densities for various foods at:
http://nutritiondata.self.com/
I hope someone can look at this study more carefully than I did and confirm what I have said. I did not have much time and did very crude calculations and just glossed over the data. I would have liked to put the information in a spread sheet to take some averages, medians and ratios, etc.
Hope this info helps
This fits with my
This fits with my understanding. I just did not want to see a blanket statement with out some calculation or a reference to a publication that has the calculations. The Chernobyl data is the standard and making the caloric normalization seems correct. I will try and get some real numbers on this thread and still look for publications on the subject. Good work!
re: dchivers? Dr?
The caloric analysis is an interesting point worth looking at if people in the area of Fukushima want to plan their diet by caloric intake of different sources. It is yet another detail oriented opinion but in my opinion at the end of the day when you look at an American diet that includes heavily consumed animal products vs those without animal products, the Animal product eaters at the extreme top of the food chain carry the highest risk of consuming the most bioconcentrated biologically active radionuclides. There are many variables at play on a case by case basis- (what animals ate how much of which contaminated crops, caloric value of each food item being discussed etc) but when you understand the food chain of living things, it is a highly logical generalization that what is at the very top of the food chain gets the most of these radionuclides over a lifetime. Has there been a study? I doubt it because the nuclear industry and the beef industry would be in big trouble if that study were done and we all know how those games are played in the research world.
Why does my opinion (based valid science of the food chain) bother you so much? With all due respect, Dan what kind of a doctor are you? is this you?
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/People/Daniel_Chivers
It says that you are a nuclear engineering research staff member- it doesn't say MD or even pHD. So lets see, what agenda could be at work here to "spin" basic simple medical information? You guys are working very hard to jump all over a very simple concept that many with a BIOLOGY background (you know, we went to school to learn about living things, not radioactive molecules in big vats of boiling water like you studied) find to be a basic fact.
I will restate- this is an opinion based on an education of living biology and biosystems. There are other physicians who concur. As a scientist, I understand that what we believe is always being updated or revised. Its great that people are thinking for themselves- the guy who made the point about caloric intake is busy working/reading/learning to help find the truth. If you want to have a different opinion from mine, fine. There are many opinions right now circulating and as some of your posters have wisely pointed out- there is much that is not known right now- the reason for the diversity of opinion. The behavior of certain individuals on this forum is becoming highly suspect to me of a pro-nuclear industry agenda. People need the truth, not your politics.
Well, I guess you came back
Well, I guess you came back to the thread anyway. I thank you for your response. Listen, I'm out in the open here, ..., which is more than I can say for most. My Ph.D. degree is in Nuclear Engineering where I worked on high sensitivity radiation detection techniques and nuclear forensics. My minor concentration was in risk analysis where I studied in depth the risks of nuclear accidents and how radionuclides pathway to the human body both from these accidents and from nuclear waste. I am a former navy nuclear reactor operator and since 1992 I have been qualified to work in high radiation areas. OK, so am I qualified to give an opinion on biological understanding,..., emphatically NO. In fact, I think my posts are not attacking you or your opinion, but that that opinion seemed to not be based in anything other than other opinion, albeit an educated one.
Real knowledge is hard to come by. As research scientists, we are very sensitive to the difference between knowledge acquired from carefully controlled studies and that acquired from "textbook" knowledge extrapolation. The latter is normally fraught with danger. In fact, if a text book could explain everything in this manner, why would we need to publish?
I have stated that I was interested in the subject and that I wanted to learn (that is kind of my job) and asked for references. I apologize for some of the others on this forum who are not very respectful of your opinion, but I'm not sure why you need to attack me?
I respect your opinion, doctor, but with all due respect, as a scientist, I require real peer-reviewed journal articles to provide a basis for my knowledge. I'm sure they are out there, because there are thousands of medical researchers in this field that do not need money from industry. Maybe this is a jumping off point for you to perform your own research on the matter? If there truly is not any publications on the subject, you would become quite famous...
This reference provides a
This reference provides a study of the natural uranium series radionuclides within both aquatic and terrestrial food chains and confirms previous studies on both chains that highest bioaccumulation occurs lower in the food chain (about an order of magnitude per step in the chain):
Aquatic Food Chain:
"The data reflect the site specific nature of bioconcentration coefficient determination. In general the data uphold the contention that at each step in the foodchain there is a drop of about one order of magnitude in the bioconcentration coefficient relative to water, in agreement with BLAYLOCK & WITHERSPOON (1976), KOVALSKY et al. (1967) and THOMPSON et al. (1972), all of whom show Unat and 226Ra concentrations decreasing with increasing trophic levels; algae > invertebrates > fish.
Terrestrial Food Chain:
"Several small mammals, their preferred food species, and a predator were collected as examples of a carnivore foodchain (Table 5). The Pb210 and Po210 content of the small mammals was about an order
of magnitude greater than the Ra226 burden, and is in agreement with data from HOLTZMANN (1966). "
and
"The data suggest that the routes of uptake of 210pb and 210po in the terrestrial system are through the aerial parts of plants, as suggested by HILL (1967), but that neither Unat or Ra226 is acccumulated to any great extent by terrestrial herbivores in areas of high natural radioactivity. "
Reference:
Uptake and translocation of naturally-occurring radionuclides of the uranium series
D. C. Mahon
BULLETIN OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION AND TOXICOLOGY
Volume 29, Number 6, 697-703, DOI: 10.100
Maybe I should have provided
Maybe I should have provided an interpretation of this: It seems that these studies, the one within this cited reference and the references within, suggest that an order of magnitude reduction in bioaccumulation per trophic level (per step in the food chain). This seems to back my understanding that the further we distance ourselves from contaminated water via trophic levels, the lower our own bioaccumulation would be. My own understanding of the basic governing equations of uptake and biological half-live (growth/decay) along with uptake inefficiency also tends toward this conclusion.
Now, let me be clear: In my opinion, eating vegetables instead of meat is a NET POSITIVE in health and fitness and in no way am I suggesting going to an all meat diet here. The amounts of radionuclides, both natural and from man-made sources, that we bioaccumulate produces health effects that pale in comparison to the risk of heart disease and obesity. The number one cause of death in the US is heart disease,..., more than cancer,..., more than car accidents. If one moved to an all-meat diet due to this event, they would surely, again in my opinion, produce detrimental effects to their health.
Here is a 1979 review of
Here is a 1979 review of over 100 publications on the subject matter. I will try and trudge through this in time and provide some insight. The pdf should be available for download to the open public.
http://dspace.udel.edu:8080/dspace/handle/19716/1385
I personally....
hope you don't leave this forum. I am desperately searching for educated answers about food right now. Having an MD on this forum is a great thing. I wish more of your friends/colleagues would get on here too.
Just this past Friday I talked to a board certified cardiovascular/thoracic surgeon and after telling her of BRAWMS data, she told me to stop drinking milk, drink prepackaged powdered milk and eat only imported foods. She also told me not to trust the government when they say the levels are safe.
When I first told her, she was shocked that cesium is in the milk and other foods. She had no idea until I pointed her to this site. Hopefully she'll chime in if she's reading this.
ONE QUESTION... are you eating local vegetables or are you eating imported only?
Many many thanks!
Yes, I am still eating local
Yes, I am still eating local vegetables but am also paying close attention to what tested radioisotope levels of air/water/milk reflect in my area. You can likely find this information via the website of your state's Emergency Information Network. If you cannot find data to look at, call your local congressperson and ask them to guide you to where you can find that data online.
There is solid data that shows that molecules from Fukushima have already made it entirely around the globe at least once. You asked about local vs imported foods- here is what you need to understand. The whole world is at risk for getting hit with molecules from Fuskushima (just as it did with Chernobyl) although the risk is less for the southern hemisphere...it is air flow and precipitation that predicts where radionuclides will concentrate and have significant effects on the food chain.
In my opinion, the reasonable approach right now is to stay posted on what testing levels are showing in your state and also any regulatory threshold levels they may choose to increase (some government regulatory agencies are doing this in response to recent events and that's not reassuring). Think for yourself, follow trends in the numbers and if there is a regional spike in levels (due to radionuclides getting deposited in focal areas from precipitation) then you may want to avoid diary/meat/egg products from the area showing the spike if it is significant and you have other shopping alternatives. The levels are still low. While these man-made accidents are damaging our planet, it is important to remember that there is environmental radiation that is a part of nature (that comes from solar flares etc) and you even get a spike of exposure to radiation when you eat brazil nuts or smoke a cigarette (due to heavy metals). So living in fear is not warranted or useful- just staying informed. We are talking about levels right now that will take many many years to have clinical cumulative meaning, so exposure is relative. I have become vegan recently because I had wanted to make the change for many years and getting diary products right now is a bit suspect- if you can avoid it at little personal cost, why not play it safe? Of note, there was a spike in environmental and diary levels in my area starting at the end of March. The levels have since gone back down to close-to-undetectable. But fukushima is ongoing, and some of the reporting on it is less than forthright so we should pay attention to regulatory testing.
One last note, coming to this forum weeks ago it was full of honest diligent students posting data and critically thinking to do their best to answer people's questions. I think this forum has gone downhill in its objectivity since then- you clearly have nuclear industry employees posting now and they have an agenda that will affect how information is presented. This is probably no longer your best information source. I have clear guidelines about what I choose to be around- the behavior here has been very unprofessional and less than objective so I'm stepping out. Use your state testing data, your physician and other forums NOT AFFILIATED with the nuclear industry itself for your best information.
-marjorie
Thank you for that...
Dchivers mentioned it could make you famous... what would be nice is if someone like yourself started an independent website helping guide people through food choices and how to avoid the highest radiation levels in the food chain. Right now we are students without a teacher. Only you and my cardio/thoracic surgeon have raised their hand to give an MD's perspective on this. It seems there is no central source with information backed up by chernobyl (or other) data to show us the way through this. I know it's all over the globe, but if getting my food from the southern hemisphere is what I have to do, I'll do it. Unfortunately not all companies ship food here (like eggs in bulk), so we'll have to make do at some point. But at least for peace of mind, it would be nice to have an independent central source that we can trust showing us the way. Someone giving talks on the subject would be great too.
Having said that, I am so grateful BRAWM has this forum up. If they didn't, I would just be another uninformed citizen feeding the local milk to my kids. Thanks for this forum BRAWM. I look forward to whatever data you dig up too.
re: a good question
Before I stop coming to this forum thread I want to quickly address your question and even give a video post (Dr. Helen Caldicott, who understands the food chain issue I point out- as most MD's and biologist do). The climate here is pretty disrespectful among some (as you will always get on the internet) and I have better things to do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMmaduq-5bw
You are right to say that a human will concentrate the radionuclides they eat just as an animal will- they are no different. But in lieu of drinking a quart of milk does a vegetarian eat the equivalent of all the grass the cow ate to produce that quart of milk? No. This is where the concentration effect happens on the food chain. Animal product eaters are at the apex of the food chain.
This is basic science level stuff. Some of the other posters here are behaving pretty poorly and disrespectfully, so I prefer not to continue to visit this thread. I just wanted to address your carefully thought out question and share the video (which has info phrased in a dark way in places- she is clearly going for maximum impact in what she is saying-even she has an agenda [anti-nuclear in this case] but her facts are correct, this is from March 18th). Life goes on, and we cannot shrink into a ball of despair and fear regarding the Fukushima event. But the wise are aware that industries have agendas and are able to control how information gets out and is perceived- Chernobyl has proven this. To those who have behaved less than politely on this forum, it is not my job to educate you- its your job to educate yourselves. I have given of my time to share one educated opinion. Good luck and bye ;)
Thanks, and by-bye, once you
Thanks, and by-bye, once you say "who understands the food chain issue I point out- as most MD's and biologist do".. but earlier you said "I have been trained in Internal Medicine and I have to tell you- MD's DO NOT know this stuff off hand....they are all looking it up right now and educating themselves to be able to answer their patients' questions." Except you. Go look it up and then maybe you can look your patients in the eye when you answer their questions. I have no problem with Vegans, the problem I have is with people pushing an OPINION instead of fact based study results. By-Bye.
Dr Alexander
Dr Alexander, thanks for your straight-talking input regarding animal absorption. We are sorely in need of a knowledgeable and independent biologist on this site (as even Dr Chivers has stated this is not his area of expertise), to offer their professional opinions. I, for one, find it very distasteful that some posters have attacked you personally when they did not like what they heard about animals. This type of personal attack has nothing to do with the facts, but everything to do with the underhanded motives of the attackers.
No worries. Tensions are
No worries. Tensions are high, forums are full of panic and disinfo- times are tough regarding keeping facts clear. Thinking for yourselves is always key though- just because I have been through medical school or someone else has their PhD DOES NOT mean that anyone should ever give up their power to think and take what is being offered at face value. I have been trained in Internal Medicine and I have to tell you- MD's DO NOT know this stuff off hand....they are all looking it up right now and educating themselves to be able to answer their patients' questions. But most of the time they do have the basic science background and physiology experience to piece together a decent informed opinion. Always beware of spin and agenda from all sources- it is rampant right now and gets in the way when people just need solid facts. Regulatory agencies and even academic institutions with connections to the nuclear industry have influence at work all the time, whether all the involved individuals understand or not. For myself, I have found that sampling a broad variety of opinions cross checked against running my own numbers from numerous sources (government and academic) gives the clearest picture. Good luck, stay sane. No matter what, we are all in this together here on our little planet. The silly personality stuff going on in forums is irrelevant and to be ignored...what matters right now are facts and good information.
marjorie
Hey Doctor, You say "MD's
Hey Doctor, You say "MD's DO NOT know this stuff off hand....they are all looking it up right now.." Except you, your'e not looking it up ."...its just such a common sense thing that I haven't bothered to search medline for studies.." "For myself, I have found that sampling a broad variety of opinions.." "...what matters right now are facts and good information." I agree, please, doctor present some facts! Otherwise you are just feeding the paranoia and misinformation that abounds on this and other internet sites. Please, if you are a doctor, provide some facts, or at least opinion based on fact rather than "common sense".
Ignorance is bliss!
How about this, no one has the answers simply because we are playing with some of the most dangerous particles on this planet. How on earth the U.S. has a 104 reactors and not one person can come forward with truth or information is beside me. I don't get it at all. We are giving everyone a hard time, but the truth is we are all guessing, including Dr. Chivers. If you think it's bad to eat meat, than don't eat it. If you think it's safe, then enjoy. At the end of the day we all determine our own calculated risk and those risk calculations could be so far off because we just don't have any facts.
Let's rid ourselves of nuclear energy and get Dr. Chivers in a position to run our solar and geothermal plants.
Well said.
Well said.
agreed!
agreed!
I think a biologist or
I think a biologist or physician would be the person that could answer the biological radionuclide absorption best. Barring that or until we hear from an MD, cesium is absorbed by the bones, iodine by the thyroid, and strontium by the muscles (there are others such as uranium, plutonium, etc), so unless Fukushima stops releasing, these things will end up in the food. But I think the question-if we continue to eat fresh foods-is which animal products would be the "safest"?
You have it backwards,
You have it backwards, strontium goes to bones preferentially and cesium to muscle.
You don't need an MD to figure that one out.
D. Chivers, What are your
D. Chivers,
What are your thoughts about things like grains, corn and fruit& veggies with with thicker peels?
Thanks
I would not think meat and
I would not think meat and eggs would be detectable.
Hypotheses (these are educated guesses, so if anyone has better info, please post):
Eggs:
Chickens are not eating leafy greens (like grass) in high quantities. Grasses uptake the rainwater.
I would think the volume of food consumed per egg is smaller than the food consumed for a cow for 4 oz of milk. But I may be wrong on that. That would be an interesting calculation.
Meat:
Again, we are talking about biological half life here. Milk is a "collector" and it is easier for the isotopes to get there, whereas the tissue is much harder, I gather. We would not want to eat the cow thyroid gland as this is where most of the I131 would end up. Other than that, I think meat should be low in contamination.
Chickens will preferentially
Chickens will preferentially eat bugs, especially juicy ones like slugs and snails. Seeds come next. They do eat quite a lot of fresh greens as well. They will also eat the shells of their own eggs, whether there are grit and calcium supplements available or not. (Personal observation) Slugs and snails eat huge quantities of greens for their size; I think they're related to humming birds, but much less cute. A little slug can devour an entire squash transplant in a night. (Personal observation)
Snails accumulate radioactive isotopes in their bodies at high concentrations, and that concentration depends on the species of snail and the availability of free calcium in the environment.
"Application of molluscs for radioecological monitoring of the Chernobyl outburst."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=snail%20shells%20chernobyl
Apparently feeding contaminated grass pellets produces lower concentration of 137Cs in the eggs, leg meat, and breast meat of chickens than feeding contaminated wheat, and the addition of ammonium-ferric-cyano-ferrate supplementation to the diet will dramatically reduce 137Cs uptake.
"137Cs transfer after Chernobyl from fodder into chicken meat and eggs."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=chicken%20eggs%20chernobyl
So my advice to people concerned about poultry is to eat the eggs first, leg meat second, and breast meat third, preferably from chickens eating a vegetarian grass diet supplemented with ammonium-ferric-cyano-ferrate.
There really is a huge amount of published literature on practically every uptake and remediation imaginable, thanks to studies done over the 25 years since Chernobyl. There isn't any need to guess about any of this. We (at least the published researchers and their readers) already KNOW.
But that knowledge doesn't seem to have made it into the collective conscious. And reading all these articles, even just the abstracts, one at a time, is a full time job!
That's why I keep hoping someone IN the field will post links to the best collection of meta-analysis on food contamination and remediation, and someone on this forum will make it a sticky!
Question about Cesium
Dr. Chivers / BRAWM / UCBNE team:
Quick question about cesium deposition in animals: Previously I had read (not sure where) that unlike Iodine, that tends to aggregate in the thyroidal gland, Cesium is more or less evenly distributed throughout the (muscle tissue, if I remember correctly, and perhaps to a somewhat greater extent, fatty deposits of the) body. ASSUMING "green" / leafy intake, does this in any way change your estimation? Many thanks,
Rick Cromack.
Allen, Texas
RichardFCromackJr@gmai.com
Yes, I think this is right
Yes, I think this is right as far as the deposition being uniform for Cs137. However, I think most of it will end up in the waste pile and not in the blood stream or tissue. Given the amount of tissue of one cow, the dilution must be pretty large. I don't think the cesium remains in the tissue as it will flush out with a biological half life. This is not the same for Sr-90 which ends up in the bones (similar to calcium) and thus will not flush out as readily. It is a pretty complicated set of equations to compute, but my gut feeling is the amounts would be low.
Also, if you eat that much red meat, you probably have more to worry about from heart disease.
I asked about eggs earlier
I asked about eggs earlier and didn't get a response. I wish someone would test them. I would guess they would be a concentrator as much, if not more than milk. I buy mine at the farmer's market, from chickens that are outside on pasture almost all the time, so I am particularly worried.
I also get my eggs from the
I also get my eggs from the farmers market and I am also worried. Eggs are high in iodine so wouldn't they also be particularly high in radioiodine, if it was in the grass? I bought 3 dozen eggs last Tuesday and now I might toss the ones I haven't eaten :( I feel uncomfortable eating any more.
i am worried about eggs too,
i am worried about eggs too, and also buy organic eggs from pastured free range hens. they would not only eat grass, but drink water from rain puddles. wish someone could test them. i have given up milk, and now i think i should give up eggs too.
What kind of sucks about this is that organic meat, eggs, greens
usually come from places where they eat more naturally outdoors (grass, free range chickens and eggs, etc)
So for now the grass fed organic produce may be more contaminated than factory farmed animals with respect to the amount fo radiation they contain.
SO - do we eat food contaminated with radionuclides or food from inhuamne factories that have high levels of antibiotics, chemicals, genetic modification, groeth hormones.
Or do we buy from Argentina and Chile, tropical fruit from equatorial regions and buy frozen foods (organic) packeaged before March 11th?
These are our choices.
It sucks that my locally grown (and California etc) organic food may be the worst option for the next season and foreseeable future.
oh well
Cows (and humans) have been
Cows (and humans) have been fed zeolite and clay to take radiation from their bodies. Zeolite is also used to "clean" soil. Perhaps chickens would benefit from it, as well.
I think people will have to re-think their growing and eating paradigms. Greenhouses that grow veggies with filtered air and water; protein made from bacteria and container grown algae. How relieved would you be to find veggies that were labeled "radiation free" right now? New career, anyone?
Not trying to be a dooms-dayer. Just being realistic. Considering Chernobyl is still leaking and Fukushima my never be contained (not to mention how many other power plants are in danger of failing), this may be the way of the future. Who knows, there may even be a time when humans need to live in covered cities just to survive high radiation levels.
We are an arrogant species to think that we can play with nuclear energy and never have to suffer dire the effects of its contaminants. We're going to have to 1) be flexible and 2) put on our thinking caps to come up with creative solutions to the potential looming food crisis.
thank goodness we have so
thank goodness we have so many choices!
i was reading an article recently about belarus where very poor people are eating cesium in their foods all the time. the cancer rates and birth defects in their communities are astounding. they pay 2.50/liter for clean drinking water for their children. it's staggeringly sad. i hope that japan is able to remediate their situation quickly so that future generations of their children dont suffer the same fate.
we are soooooo lucky here. we have so many choices and so much information to draw from. be glad for your freedom and your ability to choose.
I have the same...
I have the same dilemma -- do we eat non-organic and hope for the best? I wish I had an educated mind to tell me what to do. Walking through the grocery store is like walking through a mental minefield.