radiation NOT leveling off...see chart on link
UCB explain why you are saying radiation is leveling off when clearly that is NOT the case....has our government asked you to say this??
Japan nuclear iodine radiation in San Francisco raw milk detected at 2600% EPA drinking water limits and in store bought milk 1045% above EPA limits by the latest University of Berkeley radiation tests. The UCB also claimed that all radiation levels in the milk were starting to level off while the data shows a sharp increase in cesium radiation in their milk samples after their statement.
The latest UCB radiation test show two raw milk samples collected before pasteurization and homogenization contained 2.9 Bq/L and 1.49 Bq/L of radioactive iodine.
http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2011/04/23/japan-nuclear-iodine-radiati...
ALL Good Things Come 2 an End?
Hello, I know you guys got other things to do and to be honest I thought you'd probably get pressured into fading back into obscurity,or in this case they couldn't pull down the website for obvious reasons. Noting the huge difference between being unresponsive to ridiculous questions or those answered before repeatedly and serious issues that aren't responded to because of some "other"influence or reasons is sadly & duly noted & was expected and even had people in Vegas taking bets about how long before it became clear that your truthful findings & responses were "shut down". Hey it's understandable & before it became clear that this event would continue to release material that will accumulate in elevated levels for far too long for anyone to really escape ingesting amounts that will be significant enough to impact public health significantly-the work you did was/is greatly appreciated by many. It's obvious that the field of specialty your team chose would not benefit from having your findings contradict the Govt. & Industry's expensive "nukes are safer than peanut butter" propaganda campaign,etc. for very long since so much effort is being placed on the media to gag them & bitch-slap anyone who says Fukushima without a smile & pleasant word or two no more than twice a week if they're lucky. Maybe that won't matter if the EPA Radnet site data for AZ's real-time public map data showing the last two days is missing after noticing one of the only 2 civilian radiation monitoring networks from the Black Cat Systems web page map shows a beta count of 620(?) as of this morning. Could be an anomaly??-Hope so- Anyway I'm glad you guys lasted as long as you did and am grateful just the same,take care & Good Luck
Oh, for crying out loud...
Jeez, people, CHILL.
[1] Most of the BRAWM team members are busy with / at a previously scheduled conference this week. We were given a heads-up about this days ago.
[2] BRAWM does not exist in a vacuum, and neither do its personnel. They are performing and reporting on the results of these tests while continuing to address their normal responsibilities, like running a nuclear engineering department, going to school and performing research. They are very likely sacrificing their "free time" for this, and for us, and they've continued to be pretty consistent in posting results for air and rainwater / precipitation monitoring, even with their many other commitments.
[3] As radionuclides have continued to decline, BRAWM has been obliged to increase both sample sizes AND study times in order to continue to be able to provide accurate readings as the numbers approach zero. This continued fidelity to exacting scientific research and measurements stands in stark contrast to, say, EPA, which just gives up and reports "ND" whenever possible instead of increasing sample sizes and investigation timeframes.
[4] All this paranoid conspiracy ranting is just tedious. The BRAWM team has repeatedly stated that there has been NO influence on them, external OR internal, and that they are committed to "seeing this through". They're being stretched, is all, as anyone who has ever actually been through and dealt with ANY crisis situation can empathize with. There are many many questions being asked scores or times every day in the Forums. Some of them are so bizarre and non-germane to BRAWM's mission that they simply do not bear answering. Others are simply repetitious. They have a finite amount of time, people and attention, and BRAWM has so far proven pretty discerning in terms of figuring out which questions require answering, and which can be addressed elsewhere, or by other Forum contributors. Just because YOUR question hasn't been answered to YOUR satisfaction in a timeframe YOU find reasonable and appropriate, is evidence of nothing save your own impatience and selfishness (and I'm saying this as someone who has also felt that way on occasion, so it's not like I'm blameless, here).
In short: Get over yourself, stop pestering, and CALM DOWN. The world is not ending today. It may yet... But not today.
And I say ALL this realizing that this reflects a real evolution in MY thinking, too. If I can do it, you can, too. It was only a few weeks ago I thought the sky was falling, too. BRAWM / UCBNE helped talk me off the
ledge. I would ask you to remember that.
And, no, I haven't been bought off, co-opted or had my toenails ripped off, either. I just have some perspective, now. This is a tragedy. This is going to have some health implications. This is an ongoing concern. All these things are true. Much more than that, at this point is really just estimation, guesswork, speculation and conjecture, even for BRAWM. Perhaps ESPECIALLY for BRAWM, because they understand the "known unknowns" AND the potential "unknown unknowns" better than all of us put together, I'll wager.
...Anyway. Just my opinion. Now let's leave BRAWM alone as far as this nonsense goes and let them continue to do the good work they've BEEN doing. Sound reasonable?
Rick.
Just like I figured...Answers from "Experts"
This forum-as I suspected,is now valuable only to the "muted" professionals as a source of entertainment for them.I've seen more posts responded to by yourself & "anonymous" parties and even if you mean well I gotta say that to myself or other people extremely worried & pissed off who are trying to hear their concerns addressed by someone with "credentials" and even if you're quoting something they'd either previously stated or you'd jumped on your keyboard & left an essay that included their thoughts on the subject-I didn't notice a degree or title attached to your name and there's so much of that shit in this forum that it's hard to find their response if they had. You say for me to "get over myself"-Really guy-you should step back & take a close look at everything you've posted since the Fukushima Clusterfuk became relevant before telling someone else to get over themselves??!! I had to unfortunately since I had to wade through it with all the other unsolicited & unqualified responses during the process of getting answers.Yeah,there was one useful tidbit in your jab at me in that I hadn't known about until their volunteer personal assistant informed me in the above response to my post.LOL, Ok, that being said I'll let you in on a couple things I hadn't planned on setting out here. The first thing being I too had been "on that ledge"-only "my"ledge was a 240grainJHP that was a twitch of my index finger away after being awake for days & not eating much except canned foods & purified bottled water occasionally because whether asleep pr awake all I could picture was my wife & grown kids dying from the crap-whether from 10 Grays exposure in a short time,or from cancer 2,5,10 years down the line from so-called low dose exposure. Basically the EPA & Govt. response to the ongoing issue has squashed any fantasy I'd had about their honor,duty or obligations to protect my family and this was(?)one of,if hot THE only honest source of credible info before "something" happened & you inherited the forum. The only other sources I've seen that didn't take vacations or sabbaticals,etc. are sites that combine credible sources & data(incl.UCB)and European "projections" and assumptions and put misleading twists combined with actual scientists who have been screaming "murder"all along including before 3/11!!The site I'm speaking of is lucaswhitefieldhixon.com(?)and it was actually not all that bad at first-since it did have some mention of positive or at least hopeful items & links before turning into what I hope is 90% B.S.!!! My one mistake I made regarding my post that you responded to(LMAO)was attempting to draw out nuclear physicist's from their assumed silence by quoting something that caught my eye in a blog remarking that they'd joined the rest of their colleagues following orders to STFU,lol!!But you came out swinging & patronizing them as usual!!LMAO!!*They haven't responded even to the stupid shit that you surprisingly missed when somebody tries to yank their chain and I bet they laugh at dumb shit with the same intensity they respond to legitimate questions they are posed with and would gladly without insult respond to better attempts than mine to draw them into a discussion or debate if I had claimed fault with their findings & challenged their intelligence. I hope they,not you,LOL-take a look at lucaswhitfieldouchebag.com etc. etc. & put that nonsense to rest since it cites UCB data for its Doomsayer alert message BS. I do appreciate what these guys did so far & said so-although I'm in no danger of getting my lip caught in their zipper like "some people" and I still hope nobody thinks the issue & impact on the USA is lessened because of the Royal Wedding,new MiddleEastern wars,$5gal.gas or the news that All My Children & One Life to Live are being cancelled taking precedence over all else!!LMAO!! -I better get away from this PC now without even asking the stupid question I intended to about whether or not the releases or noble gases-Xenon,etc. could have an impact on 10-80 meter HF radio propagation the same way the current ionizing solar radiation from the active solar cycle is making DX communications possible & if there is or could possibly be an HF or even higher frequency band opening or tropospheric ducting effect to Japan & Asian locations?Good Night 73 from Capone-ville
Dude... Seriously, now. What the Hell?
...Some people just won't be satisfied / happy until they're convinced the world is ending. Doesn't matter what ANYONE tells them... BRAWM, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization, nobody. Pot-bangers like Alex Higgins and Arnie Gunderson and energynews, who are constantly ringing the apocalypse bell, are absolutely right, and everyone else is just absolutely wrong. Doesn't matter what their credentials are... EVERYBODY'S either an idiot, on the take, or simply invested in the end of civilization. End of story... if you're not whipping people into a panicked frenzy, you're either a lemming, a jackboot or a tool. No answer but "The End of the World is nigh" will do.
Suit yourself. Hey, you might even be right. In that event, I sure hope you enjoy that " told you so" you've been working on.
I'm done trying to talk rationally with you Armageddon Club members. You only see what you WANT to see... which is ALL BAD, ALL THE TIME.
For the record, you're not the only one with a wife and kids, or the only person who's worried -- anxious, nervous, scared -- about our Government's cavalier "handling" of this crisis. I'm pretty damned mad, myself, and I've done what I can to drum up public outrage over this dbacle. Know what? No one's listening. No one cares, and the more time that's gone by and the more informed I've become about the situation, the more I've come to realize: NO ONE knows how this is going to turn out, what the health implications will be. For certain, there WILL be consequences. But I can't up and move to Sub-Saharan Africa. Nor do I have a bunker I and my family can conveniently retre
at to for the next thirty years.
I have to LIVE in this world, whatever it is. There may well be some real hardship, some genuine heartbreak, ahead, for many of us. One thing I am certain of, though: the cesium-laced rain is falling on the rich and poor, the powerful and the powerles, the just and the unjust, alike. Whatever the outcome is, it's going to be pretty much the same for Prince William, or Charlie Sheen, or President Obama, and THEIR families, as it will be for me and mine. We all eat, drink and breathe, at the end the day.
One day the true legacy of Fukushima will come clear. Until then, it's ALL estimation, guesswork and conjecture.
In the meantime, life goes on. Doesn't it?
Anyway. Sorry to have upset you. And, you know, you're right: I'm NO expert. But look his unprecedented disaster, and all the variables, and all the unknowns, and tell me, tuthfully: Who IS an "expert" on this?
Try to have a restful night. We may disagree, but I'm certain you need it... and deserve it.
Rick.
agreed Rick! I am truly glad
agreed Rick! I am truly glad you have been able to calm down since this all started. I haven't...and it's awful.
Thanks (and to the other "Annymous", too)...
...and, you're right: It HAS been awful. I've been through deaths of parents and grandparents, the loss of a child, and some pretty serious medical issues, also two quite serious car accidents, as well as active-duty military service during wartime. This is, without question, THE most stressful, sleep-depriving, trauma-inspiring time of my entire life. And I can't help but think: A lot of that anxiety has been COMPLETELY preventable... and I DON'T mean simply by virtue of not building nuclear facilities near fault lines or coastlines, or for that matter, by refusing to adopt nuclear power altogether. The shabby, inconsistent, inexplicably casual manner in which all sorts pf gpvernmental, industrial and scientific cpncerns have behaved over the last several weeks has been inconcionable at best..monstrous, at worst. And there will be consequences.
Sometime soon I'm going to post something... Sort of a "reality check". I hope you'll read and consider it.
RICK.C
I look forward to this,
I look forward to this, Rick! I've always found your posts to be helpful and informative.
yay rick!
yay rick!
Response to misleading claims about our milk results
I just wanted to make sure someone from the team answered this.
First, the chart on that website is indeed very wrong. The levels in milk are leveling off. That website claims that we made the post before the leveling-off occurred; I would simply point out that the data is plotted by the "Best By Date" and not the calendar date. Our log entry on 4/19 even says that we updated our milk samples to one with a "Best By date of 5/2."
Secondly, regarding the EPA limit for I-131: The milk measurements are above the drinking water standards as claimed. However, one must keep in mind that the EPA limits are calculated from a yearly dose limit of 4 millirem assuming one is drinking 2 liters of tap water each day for an entire year, and it is set at 3 pCi/L or 0.11 Bq/L. However, milk is not normally consumed at such a rate, and the FDA, which actually has jurisdiction over milk, reflects this in its activity concentration limits. As some have brought to our attention on this forum, the FDA's limits for milk are much higher -- their Derived Intervention Level for I-131 is 4,700 pCi/L, or 174 Bq/L. Even the highest activity of I-131 we measured (2.9 Bq/L in raw milk) is 60 times lower than the FDA limit.
Lastly, we are not hiding anything and have no reason to hide anything. We are just trying to make these measurements and put them into context.
Mark [BRAWM Team Member]
I am confused. The FDA limit
I am confused. The FDA limit for I-131 in milk is 1,567 times higher than the EPA limit. The EPA rate is based on the consumption of 2 liters per day and the FDA assumes a lower consumption. Does that mean the FDA assumes people are only consuming 1.2 ml of milk per day? Or is there some other consideration?
Drinking 2 liters of milk per day is not so uncommon particularly for children and pregnant women. I have done it at times myself.
Also it looks like these numbers assume no other exposure.
Not to get testy,but DIL permits 2 cancer deaths per 4000 people
For a really informative expose of this I highly recommend this article from Frobes Magazine website:
http://blogs.forbes.com/jeffmcmahon/2011/04/14/why-does-fda-tolerate-mor...
excerpt:
Why Does FDA Tolerate More Radiation Than EPA?
Apr. 14 2011 - 5:11 am | 7,352 views | 0 recommendations | 114 comments
By JEFF MCMAHON
Image via Wikipedia
UPDATED 4/19 with long-awaited comment from FDA, at bottom.
Since the Environmental Protection Agency began detecting radiation in rainwater and milk at levels above its maximum contaminant level, government officials have been downplaying the importance of EPA’s maximum contaminant level.
They would much prefer us to speak in terms of the Food and Drug Administration’s “Derived Intervention Level.”
The two levels could hardly be more different:
•EPA does not allow drinking water to contain more than 3 picoCuries per liter of radioactive istotopes like iodine-131 and cesium-137.
•FDA allows up to 4,700 picoCuries of iodine-131 in a liter of milk and up to 33,000 picoCuries of cesium-137.
more at url...
NOW the real issue here is really whether even the EPA standards are too high to be safe because ANY exposure is presumed to increase risk of harm and radiation bioaccumulates. Take a look at the wikipedia info (honestit is worthwhile) at the Petkau effect and supralinear risk models which predict that VERY low prolonged doses are more hazardous than large short doses (like a nuclear blast).
The annual FDA dose for drinking water of 700 pCi/L is based on 3 pCi/l a day maximimum level of contamination consumption (roughly two liters a day).
Anyway, there are some great comments on that article (hit the see all comments button) and an update from the FDA/EPA which admits that the DIL levels are NOT really applicable here and that those levels are based on a prediction of 2 cancer deaths per 10,000 (and hence 4 cancers per 10,000 or 1 cancer per 2500 persons contaminated)
I HOPE the BRAWM team is aware of these facts when they reassure us.
Using the linear no threshold risk model (which predicts FEWER cancers and deaths than the Petkau effect or supralinear risk models would predict) we can STILL expect to see additional cancers, mutations, birth defcts, disease, cancer and infant mortality from ANY excess radionculide contamination.
Which is why I find the assurances so hollow.
Thast and the fact that these assurances are how we have allowed the nuclear industry, government and military to KEEP dosing us with bioaccumulators for the past seven decades because it will "only" kill so many of us and, of course, we NEED nuclear power and business NEEDS the profits and people NEED to have ALL that consumable expense of electricity.
Sigh
"However, milk is not
"However, milk is not normally consumed at such a rate,"
MY one year old drinks almost a liter of milk per day, he drinks almost zero water.
Why does the EPA use a yearly rate, why not something more practical like daily, monthly, or per serving?
EPA vs. FDA Limits
To respond on a later poster, yes. This has been discussed several
times on this forum alread. But, here it is again.
The EPA is looking at 3 pCi/L for iodine-131 in drinking water ***over
a 70 year period***. The EPA ***does not*** set limits for food. That
is the domain of the FDA.
The FDA is looking at 4700 pCi/L for Iodine-131 ***over a one year
period***. The 4700 pCi/L amount is intended for relatively short term
exposure. *If* the food supply is going to be contaminated beyond one
year, the FDA states:
"If there is concern that food will continue to be significantly contaminated beyond the first year, the long-term circumstances need to be evaluated to determine whether the recommended DILs would be appropriate or if other guidance is more applicable"
They also have age specific limits in the document.
http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/FoodContaminantsAdulteration/Chemical...
It appears that they don't believe the contamination will exist beyond
one year. And from the data we are seeing (both govt and BRAWM), the
levels are leveling off, declining or not detectable at this point. Calif.
analysis can't even detect anything in the milk anymore. The BRAWN team
is still seeing isotopes because they have more sensitive equipment that
have lower "minimum detectable activity" levels.
I wouldn't really trust that
I wouldn't really trust that site. The science posted there has already been debunked.
And, his story about plutonium has charts in Bq/km3. I don't know of a monitor capable in measuring a cubic kilometer of air. Kind of seems bogus.
Sigh. Haven't we been
Sigh.
Haven't we been through this like 1000 times by this point.
Sigh
Thank You
And at the risk of getting my head bitten off, I would like to point out that most pediatricians now recommend that a child under the age of 2 only consume 16 - 24 oz of whole milk a day. Too much milk (cow's) consumption in a baby/toddler can actually lead to iron deficiency (again, per my peds and others). I'm no expert, but I would ASSUME they are calculating their expected consumption on what is considered healthy in a daily diet, not what typical American families are allowing their children to consume. Just because they recommend certain portions of food groups does not mean that is what is actually being fed to our children. Therefore, it would be difficult to come up with a "average" milk consumption amount for a toddler. I know some moms who allow their children to consume milk as their sole liquid intake (and they will literally go through 4 gallons a week for a family with 3 kids, all under the age of 4) and some who do not allow their children to drink cow's milk at all. So I would imagine it would be difficult to try to rationalize the daily intake of a toddler/child. Again, JMHO.