EPA has not been posting any new results for milk
What is going on with the EPA? Does anyone know who to call over there? They have no contact number on their testing website. They have not posted any new milk tests since April 10th (and that was for samples taken on April 4th - over 2 weeks ago). This is a sad commentary on the state of our public infrastructure if we can't get results quicker than this. I suspect they may have samples with results they don't want to post. The last couple of milk samples they posted were bizarre in that they didn't list anything under I-131 or CS-137, not even "non dedect", it was just blank. Which means they either didn't test for it (doesn't make any sense) or they don't want to post the result.
PISSED OFF citizen here and wondering what to do about it..
I don't have the words to
I don't have the words to describe how disappointed and angry I feel about the way our government has handled this situation. I hate this country and it's government, also Canada,! So much for the people, by the people! I truly think that we as citizens need to withhold our taxes next year in protest of this. I can not find a way to understand how we can bomb Libya and not have the money to protect our own by t the minimum providing information!
CRIMINAL!!!
EPA not posting results for milk
News Blackouts, skillful information managing does not increase trust in our government. Initially thrilled with how the EPA was going to post results, only to learn that Non detects aren't really non detects and that by the time you get results you already consumed poison.
No one wants to hurt the milk industry, money comes first, right?
energy that will replace this dirty fuel
PISSED OFF citizen here and wondering what to do about it..
two things, one is education look at the nasa photos that are going on t-shirts to make a statement a movemnet look on google www.ozone.bz
second my company has found a new clean energy we are working on every day and will be ready real soon
VP R & D
reginald Garcia www.emcoamerica.com
Yes and the very few results
Yes and the very few results the EPA actually did post were already days and weeks old when they posted the data. The EPA is a huge failure.
New Numbers Seem Lower Than BRAWM Team's
For the milk data posted today, the isotopes detected in
Oakland Ca. were:
(Date Collected 4/13/2011)
I-131: 3.7 pCi/L (.137 Bq/L)
Cs-134: 2.5 pCi/L (.093 Bq/L)
The lowest measurement the BRAWM team shows is:
I-131: 0.23 Bq/L (best by date 04/08/2011)
Cs-134: 0.27 Bq/L (best by date 05/02/2011)
I don't know if the EPA adjusts their data for I-131 decay
as does the BRAWM team.
Just to be clear: I am terrible at the math
.23 bQ/l = 6.1 PcI/L for I-131
and
.27 Bq/L = 7.9 Pci/L for Cs-134
Right
and the new data shows much higher levels"
.49 Bq/L to 1.49 Bq/L for I-131 in milk and raw milk
which equals 13.3 to 40.3 pCi/L of I-131
Cesium 137 is also about 13.0 pCi/L in both raw and store bought milk
This is frankly getting a little scary to me. I am not drinking milk but do drink kefir and eat yoghurt . But if the levels are that high in milk then they are going to be high ion produce.
Frankly I was reading the results as pCi/L in the results and not Bq/Li so was reassured a little but when I realize to convert you multiply Bq by 27 to calculate Picocuries I suddenly began feeling a little ill about it.
If 3 pCi/Li is the EPA daily contamination dose limit I began to realize that we are WAY over those limits and may be for some time if the cesium gets and stays in the cow feed and other produce and veggies.
am I wrong about this. I worry about the cesium 137 as I am using povadone iodine (patched on skin by hand) for me and my kids and am avoiding milk. But I have well water and eat some fresh veggies (lettuce, greens) and wash them well and remove outer leaves, but it seems that if this is bioaccumulating in cows and their milk there is a lot more radionuclide contamination than I really expected by this point in time.
I am anxious now to see the new rain reports and soil reports.
Reply to Just to be Clear post
We don't know what type of milk the EPA is testing. We know that the BRAWM team is testing milk from local dairies with cows grazing on local grass. This might be the difference in the reported radioisotope levels.
Hoping for some BRAWM response
Am I misreading or misunderstanding these results?
And has there been new rain? Or soil results?
just for your info,
just for your info, according to the French article weeks ago, washing produce does not remove the iodine as it gets absorbed into the plant internally.
A couple of points
I don't think we have enough data to call anything a trend, but:
The .23 Bq/L was for best buy date of 4/8/11. The 4/4/11 sample
before that was .55 Bq/L. It peaked (so far) at 1.16 Bq/L in the
4/21/11 sample. Now the last two samples were at .49 Bq/L. Hence
the BRAWM team's statement "The store-bought milk levels of I-131, Cs-134, and Cs-137 are showing definite signs of leveling off"
2nd Point
oops. Forgot my second point.
While no level of additional exposure is "safe", the 3 pCi/L
level for I-131 from the EPA is for drinking water over a period
of 70 years. NOT a daily contamination dose limit. There is a
debate about which limit we should be concerned about. The EPA
limit *for milk* (which is anywhere between 50 and 700 pCi/L
depending on the document you read), or the FDA "Derived Inter-
vention Level" (DIL) of 4700 pCi/L.
Govt. conspiracy theories aside, the I-131 4700 pCi/L limit was
referenced in a joint statement back on 3/30/11. That quote and
the link to that release are copied below. So, you can take it
for what it's worth.
"Results from a screening sample taken March 25 from Spokane, Wash. detected 0.8 pCi/L of iodine-131, which is more than 5,000 times lower than the Derived Intervention Level set by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration."
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/d0cf6618525a9efb85257359003fb69d/8aca5fe3d1d30ebc852578630074eaff!OpenDocument
As for your concern about Cs-134, and Cs-137, the EPA has a
drinking water limit of 200 pCi/L (which they estimate would
give a person a 4mrem exposure per yet). The FDA has a DIL
of 1200 Bq/kg or L (approx. 33,000 pCi/L). Links to both EPA
and FDA info below.
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/health/contaminants/radiation/pdfs/cesium.pdf
http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/FoodContaminantsAdulteration/Chemical...
Again, I'm not saying anything about any of these levels being
"safe". But, you did mention the EPA numbers. So, just wanted
to give you some other data points.
The 70 year thing is really
The 70 year thing is really just a way of numerically saying 'continuously consume', if you drink milk every day it is a relevant limit. Who knows how long anyone is going to live? But drinking this milk makes it more likely to be shorter than 70 years for some.
Los Angeles milk #s (updated)
Posted 4/20/11 (collected on 4/13/2011) - 4 pCi/L (0.148 Bq/L) -- unfortunate CalTech isn't monitoring for SoCal residents like UCB team is.
Most recent results were posted 4/16
The EPA posted results milk results on 4/16.
http://www.epa.gov/japan2011/rert/radnet-sampling-data.html#milk
No, those results did NOT
No, those results did NOT test for I-131 or CS-137 (which are the two most relevant things to be looking for in milk right now). And there were only about 3 milk samples taken in the entire country. That's pathetic and inadequate.
I do find the blank sections strange
I have no idea why they wouldn't test for at least I-131. But,
the only logical reason for posting a blank field for an isotope
(given that they have "Non-detect" for Ba-140 and Co-60) is that
they didn't test for it. Which is strange.
Looks like they JUST posted
Looks like they JUST posted some results a few minutes ago. Hmm... maybe they were reading this forum ;)
Looks like the "social media" has influence :-)
Just for the record, they EPA data page does have the following comment
just above each section:
"EPA tests air, milk, precipitation and drinking water samples to determine radiation levels across the United States. In the data reports below, "ND" or "Non-detect" indicates that the radionuclide in question was not detected in EPA's analysis. If a cell is blank, further analysis is pending"
I guess they completed the analysis.
all of the cells i see are
all of the cells i see are filled either with data, or "non-detect." I don't see any blank cells. What concerns me is that 2 months have gone by since the last milk sample was collected by the EPA.
for those of you trying to use providone iodine solution on a patch, talk to your doctor. i don't think that's the same as potassium iodide, which is what you need to protect yourself from i-131.
for those of you claiming that 3pci/L doesn't matter because it's only if you consume for 70 years, consider this...some of the samples referenced in this forum are WAY over 3pci/L. And some of us DO drink milk every day, and would drink it for 70 years (if we can live that long). And with cesium, we're talking about a 30 year half-life of something that continues to collect in veggies, the soil, animals, and us. So if the milk in april was 10x the EPA limit or more in some cases, what makes you think it's going to go down? Fuku is still bubbling with contamination, and they have nowhere to put the water. They just tried to cut back on the cooling water by 1 ton, and the temps went up 7 degrees celsius.
This is going to continue for the forseable future. I think the citizenry deserves some current milk samples from around the country. I do appreciate what Cal is doing though. Thank you!