Preschool sandbox with LOTS of dust
I just read a post that inhalation was a major route of entry. This is very concerning considering I have two young sons who play everyday at school in a large sand filled playground where a huge amount of dust is created. Does that statement apply to this scenario? This breaks my heart that I cringe everytime my boys go out to play and dig.
Hey guys...I'm the original
Hey guys...I'm the original poster. I think great points were made and I appreciate all of your answers. Considering we are talking about our most precious treasures, I like to be on the safe side and just have the soil tested. Please if anyone has info on soil testing in CA please post it. I know lots if us mommies are interested.
There are two companies my
There are two companies my husband uses for his business periodically that I believe can test our sand. However, I won't have their info until monday. I will post it then. They are in the Central CA area. I haven't contacted them yet, but they test soil on a routine basis. Anyone else have any info?
Ask BRAWM, maybe they'll do it
maybe?
Hmmm...haha I am sure they
Hmmm...haha
I am sure they are flooded with samples. However, I would pay them with $$ and pizza : )
Cesium 137 is blanketing US with up to 20 PicoCuries per Sq Foot
I posted the links in another thread posted by Rick, but the wet and dry deposits of cesium as MEASURED by the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization cumulatively to date amount to more than 270 PicoCuries per square meter which is about 20Picoicuries per square foot.
You can look at the graphs here and NOTICE they are based on CTBTO OBSERVATIONS (monitoring posts):
http://db.eurad.uni-koeln.de/index_e.html?/prognose/radio.html
They measure in becquerals per square meter so to get to PicoCuries you multiply the number of Becquerels by 27.
They report up to 10 Becquerels of dry deposits of cesium 137 per square meter which is 270 PicoCuries per square meter.
It is still accumulating, it seems, and is radioactive for 300 years.
So EVERY SQUARE FOOT of the majority of the United states has been blanketed with approximately 20 picoCuries OF Cesium 137 whioch will remain radioactive for 300+ years (not to mention the iodine 131 [and possibly strontium 90] that travels with it in the plumes which will be radioactive for three months or so).
DEFINITELY want the sand and dirt tested asap. USE the data at CTBTO and ther link to porve it needs to be done pronto.
I really wondered why everyone is feeling ill. We are all breathing it all day long.
Bill, you are
Bill, you are scaremongering.
Natural Uranium, Thorium and Radium in the soil make up around 100 Bq/kg. That's 2,700 pCi per KILOGRAM of natural material that you are normally exposed to. 10 times the amount you stated, naturally.
If that doesn't sway you: naturally there are 10,000 Bq/m3 of Radon in soil. 270,000 pCi/m3, 1,000 times your stated amount.
Kicking up dust is probably not going to get you anymore ingested Cesium anyway as we stll have roughly 3-4x the amount from Fukushima left over from Chernobyl.
Source:
http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/natural.htm
"Unsafe at ANY dose" Helen Caldecott, MD (Pediatrician) NYTimes
Unsafe at any Dose
Helen Caldicott l NYTimes 30 April, 2011
SIX weeks ago, when I first heard about the reactor damage at the Fukushima Daiichi plant in Japan, I knew the prognosis: If any of the containment vessels or fuel pools exploded, it would mean millions of new cases ofcancer in the Northern Hemisphere.
Many advocates of nuclear power would deny this. During the 25th anniversary last week of the Chernobyl disaster, some commentators asserted that few people died in the aftermath, and that there have been relatively few genetic abnormalities in survivors’ offspring. It’s an easy leap from there to arguments about the safety of nuclear energy compared to alternatives like coal, and optimistic predictions about the health of the people living near Fukushima.
But this is dangerously ill informed and short-sighted; if anyone knows better, it’s doctors like me. There’s great debate about the number of fatalities following Chernobyl; the International Atomic Energy Agency has predicted that there will be only about 4,000 deaths from cancer, but a 2009 report published by the New York Academy of Sciences says that almost one million people have already perished from cancer and other diseases. The high doses of radiation caused so many miscarriages that we will never know the number of genetically damaged fetuses that did not come to term. (And both Belarus and Ukraine have group homes full of deformed children.)
Nuclear accidents never cease. We’re decades if not generations away from seeing the full effects of the radioactive emissions from Chernobyl.
As we know from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it takes years to get cancer.Leukemia takes only 5 to 10 years to emerge, but solid cancers take 15 to 60. Furthermore, most radiation-induced mutations are recessive; it can take many generations for two recessive genes to combine to form a child with a particular disease, like my specialty, cystic fibrosis. We can’t possibly imagine how many cancers and other diseases will be caused in the far future by the radioactive isotopes emitted by Chernobyl and Fukushima.
Doctors understand these dangers. We work hard to try to save the life of a child dying of leukemia. We work hard to try to save the life of a woman dying of metastatic breast cancer. And yet the medical dictum says that for incurable diseases, the only recourse is prevention. There’s no group better prepared than doctors to stand up to the physicists of the nuclear industry.
Still, physicists talk convincingly about “permissible doses” of radiation. They consistently ignore internal emitters — radioactive elements from nuclear power plants or weapons tests that are ingested or inhaled into the body, giving very high doses to small volumes of cells. They focus instead on generally less harmful external radiation from sources outside the body, whether from isotopes emitted from nuclear power plants, medical X-rays, cosmic radiation or background radiation that is naturally present in our environment.
However, doctors know that there is no such thing as a safe dose of radiation, and that radiation is cumulative. The mutations caused in cells by this radiation are generally deleterious. We all carry several hundred genes for disease: cystic fibrosis, diabetes, phenylketonuria, muscular dystrophy. There are now more than 2,600 genetic diseases on record, any one of which may be caused by a radiation-induced mutation, and many of which we’re bound to see more of, because we are artificially increasing background levels of radiation.
For many years now, physicists employed by the nuclear industry have been outperforming doctors, at least in politics and the news media. Since the Manhattan Project in the 1940s, physicists have had easy access to Congress. They had harnessed the energy inside the center of the sun, and later physicists, whether lobbying for nuclear weapons or nuclear energy, had the same power. They walk into Congress and Congress virtually prostrates itself. Their technological advancements are there for all to see; the harm will become apparent only decades later.
Helen Caldicott, a founder of Physicians for Social Responsibility, is the author of “Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer.”
Reprinted by permission of the author.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/opinion/01caldicott.html?_r=1
Posted by Bill
Helen Caldicott is a
Helen Caldicott is a cheerleader for misinformation:
My request to Helen Caldicott was a simple one: I asked her to give me sources for the claims she had made about the effects of radiation. Helen had made a number of startling statements during a television debate, and I wanted to know whether or not they were correct. Scientific claims are only as good as their sources.
Here are three examples of the questions I asked, and the answers she gave me.
At first I asked for general sources for her claims. She sent me nine documents: press releases, newspapers articles and an advertisement. Only one of them was linked to a scientific publication: the BEIR VII report published by the National Academy of Sciences. She urged me to read it. I did so and discovered that, far from supporting her claims, it starkly contradicts them. For example, it says:
• The risk of radiation-induced mutations in sperm and eggs, resulting in heritable disease "is sufficiently small that it has not been detected in humans, even in thoroughly studied irradiated populations such as those of Hiroshima and Nagasaki".
• Regarding transmissible genetic damage from the exposure of future parents, such as "spontaneous abortions, congenital malformations, neonatal mortality, still births and the sex ratio of offspring … there is no consistent evidence of an association of any such outcomes with exposure to environmental sources of radiation."
• "On balance, the existing evidence does not support the conclusion that rates of childhood leukaemia have increased as a result of radiation exposures from the Chernobyl accident".
I began to wonder whether Helen has actually read this report, or was hoping that, at 423 pages, it would scare me away. The PDF costs $46.
She claimed that "Turkish food is extremely radioactive." The source she gave me (on page 292) said nothing of the sort. Instead it states the following: "TURKEY. Some 45,000 tons of tea was contaminated with Chernobyl radioactivity in 1986–1987, and more than a third of the 1986 harvest could not be used." That says nothing about Turkish food today.
She claimed that isotopes of krypton, xenon and argon "can mutate the genes in the eggs and sperm and cause genetic disease". When I asked her for a source, she told me, "This is also described in my book." In fact her book says (p55): "There have never been any epidemiological studies performed on the effects of exposure to the noble gases xenon and krypton." This flatly contradicts her own claim.
When I pressed her for better sources, her publishers wrote to me and said she did not have time to find them. Now she has had time – time enough to write an article for the Guardian attacking me – but still hasn't supported the claims I questioned.
Instead, she compounds the damage. First she invents a quote, which she attributes to me. She says: "It is inaccurate and misleading to use the term 'acceptable levels of external radiation' … as Monbiot has done." I have never used this term, and never would.
Then she appears to suggest that iodine-131 can "continuously irradiate small volumes of cells … over many years". As it has a half life of eight days, this seems unlikely. Again, a source would help to clear the matter up..
Then she makes a remarkable allegation: as a result of a conspiracy hatched with the International Atomic Energy Agency, since 1959 the World Health Organisation has "made no more statements on health and radioactivity". This is completely false, as even the quickest search would have shown her.
For example, the WHO currently runs an Ionizing Radiation Programme and a Radiation and Environmental Health Programme, both of which assess the impacts of radiation on health. It has set up an International Research Advisory Committee "to identify gaps and under-discovered areas on health effects from low-dose exposures to ionizing radiation". In 2006 it published a 167-page report titled Health Effects of the Chernobyl Accident.
As for the alleged conspiracy, this is a story that has been circulating among anti-nuclear campaigners for many years, becoming ever more lurid. It is, as far as I can tell, baseless. It arises from a wild inflation of what looks like a standard information-sharing agreement between two UN agencies. This is what happens when we fail to be as sceptical about the ideas we like as we are about the ideas we don't.
Incidentally, Helen has still not provided a shred of evidence for her claim that the recent report by another UN agency – the UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation – into the Chernobyl disaster is "a total cover-up". Twice I have asked her to substantiate this allegation; twice she has replied with accusations about the WHO. Is she aware that these are different agencies?
But perhaps most alarming is her continued reliance on the report by Alexey Yablokov, Vassily Nesterenko and Alexey Nesterenko, which claims that 980,000 people died as a result of Chernobyl. As its critics have pointed out, this figure cannot possibly be correct, as it arises from the extraordinary assumption that all increased deaths since 1986 from a host of diseases – including many which have no known connection with radiation – were caused by Chernobyl. The report has not been peer-reviewed and the academy which published it has distanced itself from it.
Continuing to use such a severely flawed document for your central claims about the health impacts of radiation hardly inspires confidence.
All this, while the disaster at Fukushima continues to unfold, might sound trivial. But I think these points are worth making, for several reasons. I believe that journalists should not stand by while misinformation is spread. If there is any value in journalism, it lies in trying to winnow fact from fiction, and helping people to form a more accurate view of the world.
Please see the comment
Please see the comment below.
The questions Monibot raises are fair game in determining Caldicott's validity. Blind trust in her BELIEF without hard, verifiable data amounts to zealotry.
You paint any person who might advocate the use of nuclear power as perpetuating the myth that nuclear is safe, but to dismiss any possibility of that being true you have already accepted that there can be no discussion and that the extreme view held by the ECRR, Busby, Caldicott et. al must be the proper dogma.
A sceptical mind would already see that the results of this cohort doesn't stand up to scrutiny an that any attempt to discredit their findings are met with typical frothing and twitching by their followers.
Be sceptical of all of the data, not just that with which you disagree.
Helen Caldicott's response to Monbiot
As I suspected, anonymous, your post is a repost of George Monbiot. While Dr. Caldicott has not responded point by point (as far as i could find so far) to Monbiot's claims in his pro-nuclear industry (cheerleading) attack on her, she did provide the following in response their multiple exchanges.
Monbiots and Caldicott's articles were both posted in the Guardian newspaper.
How nuclear apologists mislead the world over radiation
George Monbiot and others at best misinform and at worst distort evidence of the dangers of atomic energy
Helen Caldicott
guardian.co.uk, Monday 11 April 2011 12.10 BST Article history
A girl is screened in Iitate, about 40km from the damaged Fukushima nuclear plant, where high levels of radiation have been detected. Photograph: Takumi Harada/AP
Soon after the Fukushima accident last month, I stated publicly that a nuclear event of this size and catastrophic potential could present a medical problem of very large dimensions. Events have proven this observation to be true despite the nuclear industry's campaign about the "minimal" health effects of so-called low-level radiation. That billions of its dollars are at stake if the Fukushima event causes the "nuclear renaissance" to slow down appears to be evident from the industry's attacks on its critics, even in the face of an unresolved and escalating disaster at the reactor complex at Fukushima.
Proponents of nuclear power – including George Monbiot, who has had a mysterious road-to-Damascus conversion to its supposedly benign effects – accuse me and others who call attention to the potential serious medical consequences of the accident of "cherry-picking" data and overstating the health effects of radiation from the radioactive fuel in the destroyed reactors and their cooling pools. Yet by reassuring the public that things aren't too bad, Monbiot and others at best misinform, and at worst misrepresent or distort, the scientific evidence of the harmful effects of radiation exposure – and they play a predictable shoot-the-messenger game in the process.
To wit:
1) Mr Monbiot, who is a journalist not a scientist, appears unaware of the difference between external and internal radiation
Let me educate him.
The former is what populations were exposed to when the atomic bombs were detonated over Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945; their profound and on-going medical effects are well documented. [1]
Internal radiation, on the other hand, emanates from radioactive elements which enter the body by inhalation, ingestion, or skin absorption. Hazardous radionuclides such as iodine-131, caesium 137, and other isotopes currently being released in the sea and air around Fukushima bio-concentrate at each step of various food chains (for example into algae, crustaceans, small fish, bigger fish, then humans; or soil, grass, cow's meat and milk, then humans). [2] After they enter the body, these elements – called internal emitters – migrate to specific organs such as the thyroid, liver, bone, and brain, where they continuously irradiate small volumes of cells with high doses of alpha, beta and/or gamma radiation, and over many years, can induce uncontrolled cell replication – that is, cancer. Further, many of the nuclides remain radioactive in the environment for generations, and ultimately will cause increased incidences of cancer and genetic diseases over time.
The grave effects of internal emitters are of the most profound concern at Fukushima. It is inaccurate and misleading to use the term "acceptable levels of external radiation" in assessing internal radiation exposures. To do so, as Monbiot has done, is to propagate inaccuracies and to mislead the public worldwide (not to mention other journalists) who are seeking the truth about radiation's hazards.
2) Nuclear industry proponents often assert that low doses of radiation (eg below 100mSV) produce no ill effects and are therefore safe. But , as the US National Academy of Sciences BEIR VII report has concluded, no dose of radiation is safe, however small, including background radiation; exposure is cumulative and adds to an individual's risk of developing cancer.
3) Now let's turn to Chernobyl. Various seemingly reputable groups have issued differing reports on the morbidity and mortalities resulting from the 1986 radiation catastrophe. The World Health Organisation (WHO) in 2005 issued a report attributing only 43 human deaths directly to the Chernobyl disaster and estimating an additional 4,000 fatal cancers. In contrast, the 2009 report, "Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment", published by the New York Academy of Sciences, comes to a very different conclusion. The three scientist authors – Alexey V Yablokov, Vassily B. Nesterenko, and Alexey V Nesterenko – provide in its pages a translated synthesis and compilation of hundreds of scientific articles on the effects of the Chernobyl disaster that have appeared in Slavic language publications over the past 20 years. They estimate the number of deaths attributable to the Chernobyl meltdown at about 980,000.
Monbiot dismisses the report as worthless, but to do so – to ignore and denigrate an entire body of literature, collectively hundreds of studies that provide evidence of large and significant impacts on human health and the environment – is arrogant and irresponsible. Scientists can and should argue over such things, for example, as confidence intervals around individual estimates (which signal the reliability of estimates), but to consign out of hand the entire report into a metaphorical dustbin is shameful.
Further, as Prof Dimitro Godzinsky, of the Ukranian National Academy of Sciences, states in his introduction to the report: "Against this background of such persuasive data some defenders of atomic energy look specious as they deny the obvious negative effects of radiation upon populations. In fact, their reactions include almost complete refusal to fund medical and biological studies, even liquidating government bodies that were in charge of the 'affairs of Chernobyl'. Under pressure from the nuclear lobby, officials have also diverted scientific personnel away from studying the problems caused by Chernobyl."
4) Monbiot expresses surprise that a UN-affiliated body such as WHOmight be under the influence of the nuclear power industry, causing its reporting on nuclear power matters to be biased. And yet that is precisely the case.
In the early days of nuclear power, WHO issued forthright statements on radiation risks such as its 1956 warning: "Genetic heritage is the most precious property for human beings. It determines the lives of our progeny, health and harmonious development of future generations. As experts, we affirm that the health of future generations is threatened by increasing development of the atomic industry and sources of radiation … We also believe that new mutations that occur in humans are harmful to them and their offspring."
After 1959, WHO made no more statements on health and radioactivity. What happened? On 28 May 1959, at the 12th World Health Assembly, WHO drew up an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); clause 12.40 of this agreement says: "Whenever either organisation [the WHO or the IAEA] proposes to initiate a programme or activity on a subject in which the other organisation has or may have a substantial interest, the first party shall consult the other with a view to adjusting the matter by mutual agreement." In other words, the WHO grants the right of prior approval over any research it might undertake or report on to the IAEA – a group that many people, including journalists, think is a neutral watchdog, but which is, in fact, an advocate for the nuclear power industry. The IAEA's founding papers state: "The agency shall seek to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity through the world."
Monbiot appears ignorant about the WHO's subjugation to the IAEA, yet this is widely known within the scientific radiation community. But it is clearly not the only matter on which he is ignorant after his apparent three-day perusal of the vast body of scientific information on radiation and radioactivity. As we have seen, he and other nuclear industry apologists sow confusion about radiation risks, and, in my view, in much the same way that the tobacco industry did in previous decades about the risks of smoking. Despite their claims, it is they, not the "anti-nuclear movement" who are "misleading the world about the impacts of radiation on human health."
• Helen Caldicott is president of the Helen Caldicott Foundation for a Nuclear-Free Planet and the author of Nuclear Power is Not the Answer
[1] See, for example, WJ Schull, Effects of Atomic Radiation: A Half-Century of Studies from Hiroshima and Nagasaki (New York: Wiley-Lis, 1995) and DE Thompson, K Mabuchi, E Ron, M Soda, M Tokunaga, S Ochikubo, S Sugimoto, T Ikeda, M Terasaki, S Izumi et al. "Cancer incidence in atomic bomb survivors, Part I: Solid tumors, 1958-1987" in Radiat Res 137:S17-S67 (1994).
[2] This process is called bioaccumulation and comes in two subtypes as well, bioconcentration and biomagnification. For more information see: J.U. Clark and V.A. McFarland, Assessing Bioaccumulation in Aquatic Organisms Exposed to Contaminated Sediments, Miscellaneous Paper D-91-2 (1991), Environmental Laboratory, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS and H.A. Vanderplog, D.C. Parzyck, W.H. Wilcox, J.R. Kercher, and S.V. Kaye, Bioaccumulation Factors for Radionuclides in Freshwater Biota, ORNL-5002 (1975), Environmental Sciences Division Publication, Number 783, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN.
It hardly inspires confidence that this is an anonymous post
Whereas the NYTimes finds her credible enough to allow her to post an op ed.
Do you have a link for what appears to be an obvious copy of someone else's work (I am guessing George Monbiot who has become a nuclear shill).
The nuclear industry spends a LOT of resources attacking the credibility of people like Dr. Helen Caldecott, Dr. Ernest Sternglass (a physicist) and the Radiation and Public Health Project as well as reports by the NY Academy of Sciences and the European Committee on Radiation Risk. So a canned attack on her credibility on this forum is, I guess, to be expected.
That said, without links to the source of these claims it is impossible to give them any credibility at all. At least with some links one can check the sources. However, I do agree that it is critical that even folks I supprt and agree with give their sources and IF the sources of info are given in Dr. Caldecott's book already, at least she has done this. Other claims if not addressed, I agree, should be well sourced if one makes such claims.
Bottom line is that credentialled scientists and doctors (and Dr. Caldecott is exceptionally well credentialled - wiki her) BELIEVE based on the epidemiological evidence that they have studied and reported that long term low level exposure to internal emitters is far more serious than the mainstream of doctors and scientists and indutry and government would have us believe. There are differences of opinion and risk assessments which vary from factors of hundreds or even thousands from internal emissions when these radionuclides are ingested and absorbed by internal organs, bones, blood, teeth, etc..
We MUST get all the data to make informed decisions and LISTEN to all the opinions from experts on all sides to determine their credibility and whther they have conflicts of interest (industry/government) or are acting in the public interest (such as ythe ECRR and Radiation and Public Health Project and NY Academy of Sciences).
I put my trust in those who do NOT have vested interests in promoting nuclear power. But I too also want to see all the data and have it explained in wasy we can all understand it. Simply saying: it's safe or "no worries, mate, there's radiation EVERYWHERE" is not enough for me when it comes to the health of innocents.
"We MUST get all the data to
"We MUST get all the data to make informed decisions and LISTEN to all the opinions from experts on all sides to determine their credibility and whther they have conflicts of interest (industry/government) or are acting in the public interest (such as ythe ECRR and Radiation and Public Health Project and NY Academy of Sciences).
I put my trust in those who do NOT have vested interests in promoting nuclear power. But I too also want to see all the data and have it explained in wasy we can all understand it. Simply saying: it's safe or "no worries, mate, there's radiation EVERYWHERE" is not enough for me when it comes to the health of innocents."
You are a raging hypocrite if you can state that you MUST get all the data but exclude those who would have a bias towards using nuclear energy.
I'm saying nothing about my own stance, and yes, that article was by Monibot, but the points he brings up can not be ignored if by your admission:
"...to all the opinions from experts on all sides to determine their credibility and whther they have conflicts of interest..."
Helen has spent her entire life raging against the nuclear industry for her own political gain, and not for the public good as you would have us believe. That is a conflict of interest.
Funny thing, labelling...
It is funny too that at the link it is clear that the amount of man made radionuclides DOUBLES our esposure (look at the first chart totals)
It is a cold comfort (actually not a comfort at all) that we are already being exposed to a higher risk and that people who WANT to try to take some protective measures for their kids and who post the data are accused of overstaing the risk, scare-mongering, and ridiculed or denigrated.
Look, the fact is that these rsadionculides are cumulative. The Cesium from Chernobyl and power plant emissions is in the environment --- but the NEW expoisures are right there at the TOP of the soil and entering the food chain right now. EVER square foot is not necessarily contaminated because the "blanket" depends on wind, rain, terrain, environment (trees vs. open ground), covered areas, and many other factors SO testing YOIR dirt and sand and kids' playgrounds is a GOOD idea for peace of mind OR to take remediative pr preventive action.
ONLY well informed individuals armed with data can hopefully get anyone to listen (including media). NO ONE wants to hear or know that their children are being exposed, but IF they find out there is POTENTIAL exposure and there are steps that can be taken, they MUST do this to protect their children.
A Nuclear expert RESIGNED from the government in Japan today because he found it unconscionable that the Japanese government was sending children into contaminated schoolyards.
IF our schoolyards are contaminated with MORE radiation (additional to all the other sources) which is right on the surface of the schoolyards and playgrounds and sandboxes RIGHT NOW, then it is the RESPONSIBLE thing to do to get your children's environment tested.
That is not scaremongering. THAT is common sense.
Hopefully the areas will NOT be contaminated and MAYBE the areas can be cleaned up safely. But KNOWING is better than negligently allowing your children to be exposed to something that MIGHT kill them or harm them in the near future or in the long term.
Finally, the real issue here is in part the question of risks involved with long term exposure to low levels of man made radionuclides, especialy to children. The radionuclides from past events IS in fact distributed through the environment, but it is NOT sitting right on top of the soil and sand right now as this contamination probably is according to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty monitoring reports.
Call it what you will, my position is that you are better off safe than sorry and when it comes to your kids it is the responsible thing to do to discuss it, learn about it, share what we know, and act if it is appropriate to test what we can to protect our children. THEY cannot protect themselves.
Now, I'm not trying to start
Now, I'm not trying to start a fight regarding everything you said above, Bill, but I did want to point out one very incorrect fact. Man-made radionuclides do not double our exposure. In fact, the website posted by the previous poster explicitly said that the large, man-made dose is only if you received medical treatments (especially CT scans), not from weapons testing or power plant emissions. A more detailed breakdown is given in this figure here, showing that man-made isotopes account for less than 1% of our exposure (unless you have received a PET scan).
Tim [BRAWM Team Member]
Two clarifications: 1. That
Two clarifications:
1. That figure is averaged over people that did and didn't have medical exposures, so if you didn't get any nuclear medical treatments, I guess it would be more than 1%, not less.
2. The majority of medical exposures are X-rays and CT, not radionuclides. This includes fun things like dentist visits.
Tim
I was referring to the data from the chart in the link
Here it is (altho format is different, this is extracted):
NCRP -- published in 2006
Rounded total from natural source: (mrems)310
Rounded total from artificial Sources
(Medical, industrial, etc) (mrems) 310
Total 620
I did revisit that and see the statement that the "artificial sources" include medical and industrial and are NOT all radionuclides but what I meant was "man made" (artificial) radiation.
So I do stand corrected and apologize (I saw the term artificial and assumed radionculides).
HOWEVER, I guess that this brings up another issue and that is the reliability of the figures, especially since a LOT of the reporting from nuclear facilities is self reporting.
In any case, I would refer to the article by Helen Caldecott today in the NYTimes I posted at the beginning of this thread "Unsafe at any dose"
I have studied this issue for many years. There was a book posted some time back that said natural (overall) background radiation was, in the 1950's about 100mrem. Under Federal guidelines EVERY NUCLEAR plant operating in the United States is actually PERMITTED to release on its neghbors outside the gates UP TO 100 mrems per plant.
Again, the issue of internal emitters like radioiodine and cesium and strontium is REALLY the issue. Radon may cause lung cancers but these others cause myriad other cancers and these ongoing nuclear contaminations have resulted in an epidemic of many diseases, cancer and uncountable deaths. Medical procesdures and treatment involve (relatively) informed consent. (See Jeff McMahons Forbes Magazine online article on radiation and informed consent this past week)
Again, too, I stand corrected on what the link says BUT I stand by my assertion that the ADDED radioiodine, cesium and possibly strontium 90 in playgrounds and sandboxes and food and milk is potentially very dangerous. Whether it adds ONE percent or 5 percent or ten percent of ones individual added dose, it is STILL an added unsafe dose which we need to protect our children (and our loved ones) from.
Knowledge is the key. Data helps provide that knowledge and for that I appreciate what you are all doing immensely. If we disagree on the risks and policy on nuclear power, that is okay --- because you are doing the testing and allowing the debate to take place here with academics and scientists helping clarify things (and correcting errors like mine) and responding to a VERY concerned and often worried public.
That is worth its weight in gold. Thank you
Thank you Bill...I
Thank you Bill...I completely agree with you and we need to protect children as best we can because they are more vulnerable to this and unable to protect themselves. This is new fallout...on the top layers of the soil, not washed down by years of rainfall.
In Chernobyl the Cesium was
In Chernobyl the Cesium was estimated to descend at a rate of 1-3 cm/yr into the soil.
After 25 years, the Cesium there, and here, should be evenly distributed from zero to 25-75 centimeters of soil depth. So when the ground is disturbed, the Cesium will be released back into the air.
But, there is also probably more in there from weapons tests, up to 100x more, in fact.
Bill, you may be well
Bill, you may be well intentioned, but your argument stretches the truth.
By far the biggest source of radiation humans encounter is Radon. It makes up about 1/3rd of our yearly exposure. In California, you are constantly in an atmosphere of 2-5 Bq/m3 of air. It pools in closed spaces and is the second leading cause (16%) of lung cancer.
As for the statement that manmade nuclides double our exposure, the link I cited says thusly:
"Human Produced
Humans have used radioactivity for one hundred years, and through its use, added to the natural inventories. The amounts are small compared to the natural amounts discussed above, and due to the shorter half-lives of many of the nuclides, have seen a marked decrease since the halting of above ground testing of nuclear weapons."
People should feel free to take whatever precautions they see fit, but don't mislead them with exaggerated claims of harm.
Ok point well taken....so
Ok point well taken....so all that said....WHERE DO WE GET SOIL TESTED???
Bill, when u put it that
Bill, when u put it that way......it's like why bother having the soil tested if the entire US is blanketed in it. There is no safe beach, playground, or sand box. So I can either lock my kids inside or just accept the fact they ARE going to get exposed.
Does anyone know a reputable
Does anyone know a reputable we can contact to test soil/water/sand?
Thanks!
reputable company that is...
reputable company that is...
I am wondering the same
I am wondering the same thing. I have told my kids not to play in the dirt and sand for right now. Their schools both have large dusty sand areas. I am sure sand is testable and for the safety of our children and peace of mind it seems necessary. We may have ours independently tested and if we do I will post results.
Thank you....I would love to
Thank you....I would love to see the results. I wish I could tell my children to not to play in the sand area but unfortunately it makes up most of their play area. Short of taking them out of school or sending them to school with a mask,there is not a whole lot I can do. So if anyone has info on exposure from inhaling dirt or dust I would love your input.
There is only a small amount
There is only a small amount of radioactivity on the ground. Most of the dose you get during the year comes from radon, which comes from the decay of uranium found in the dirt and in the concrete. Breathing in the dust from playgrounds will add a negligible amount to your yearly dose. In fact, radon dose increases due to staying inside.
ha ha ha
ha ha ha
Even after radioactive
Even after radioactive fallout? If the isotopes bind to dust/siol particles wouldn't this be cause for concern? I understand there may be a relatively small amount, but when we are talking about inhalation of dust and exposure on a daily basis??? When my kids play in the sand their whole body gets dusty and dirty, they dig in it with their faces close to the ground. Then they wipe their face with those dirty hands over and over. Normally I am not concerned too much about dirt, but I am now. Just watch kids play in sand. I need more info to calm this concern.
I'm sorry but what does bump
I'm sorry but what does bump mean.....I thought this was s legitimate concern considering soil test samples but maybe I'm overthinking things.
This IS a serious subject and you are not overthinking it
IF the radioactive rains deposited radionuclides in the play areas they should be tested.
When my kids were small I brought sand from the beach near where we live home for a sandbox and my son dug in that sand for hours and played off and on for a few years. My son developed ear infections and other metabolic problems and only when our doctor said it was likely that the beach where we went was contaminated with radioeffluents from a nearby nuke plant (effleutn pipes less than a mile away) did I put two and two together and realize that between the beach and the sand I'd brought for him to play in he was getting much larger doses than he should have been. I live with that guilt every day.
The problem is that people denigrate such concerns and the people who raise them get labelled with all sorts of "crazy".
But the reality is that the topsoil tests by BRAWM show that cesium and iodine have been deposited in the soil from the plumes. The CTBTO (Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization" shows detectable depositions of both wet and dry cesium and radioiodine across the United States in poretty high levels. The cesium will remain there unless it is washed out by clean rains (which may be happening now) so they may be safe or safer than a few weeks ago.
But it is a legitimate concern which will probably be naysayed by many here and I expect the BRAWM team to allay your concerns. Despite this, the ONLY way to know for sure is to have the sand and dirt tested.
It really really is important to be assured that your children are completely safe from any exposures from the Fukushima releases. It is impossible really to avoid it all, but it is not impossible to take some precautionary measures. It is worth it for the peace of mind, especially if you are concerned, to get someone to test it.
I really will never forgive myself for allowing my kids to swim in radioactive waters and play in radioactive sand. I KNEW better but I was in denial (psychic numbing, as Helen Caldicott calls it) and it WAS a beautiful beach with beautiful sand.
And I MISS going there with my kids.
We are seeing that same
We are seeing that same denial now by those who refuse departing from the Northern Hemisphere while their bodies fill with radionuclides and subsequently tumor cakes.
Got a couch or two in the southern hemisphere?
for me and my kids and a job and money for travel? I'd love to go to Australia or Chile or Argentina.
Call me.
Thank you Bill. I am not
Thank you Bill. I am not the original poster but the other one with the same concern. In this case, with children, it is always better to be safe than sorry. Here in CA we have not had much substantial rains to wash any of the isotopes out, so I believe sand areas may have detectable amounts in them. The only way to know is to test for it and I think we will be doing this. As for the schools...this is disturbing because almost every school up to middle school has sand areas and the small children would be most affected. Someone should be testing them, or warning the schools to close them off until they are tested. Just my opinion, however I am sure most moms would agree. Again, thanks for sharing.
You have to be assertive and a pain in the ass
testing is relatively simple. Borrow a geiger counter and check the levels and bring a sample to someone who can test it. Find out the cost and if it is prohibitively expensive get the school and parents to chip in. Make a little stink about it armed with the BRAWM data (radiation is IN the soil and NO LEVEL IS TOO SMALL TO BE CONSIDERED HAZARDOUS or Risky).
The cesium was measured as being deposited across the northern hemisphere. other radionuclides may be with it (strontium is the most likely then maybe plutonium and americium as the most harmful potentially).
Look at the French link I posted for produce etc. It made it to France and is in food there as in milk and spinach here.
USE that data and protect your kids with it. Talk to the principal and other parents with a printout of SOLID data and say --- I just want it TESTED ASAP! Is THAT too much to ask for peace of mind?
I have been an activist for a long time and you HAVE to ruffle feathers and raise some sand to get action. If you have the $$$ and can do it yourself or can gather friends/parents/school folks to do it, DO IT.
Find a place, a university physics department who will test it. Mail it to them if necessary. Pay them if you can. Call your local Congressperson or state reps if you get stonewalled.
It is NOT rocket science to get a physicist to test something or to get a bureaucracy to be bugged enough to want to shut you up by getting the testing done.
Your child's health (and those of others) are at stake.
LET ME TELL YOU A STORY:
A VERY WONDERFUL power plant operator GENEROUSLY contributed TONS of sand and gravel from their plant grounds for a little league field in their town. Good neighbors. HUGEly helpful to the tax base (a key element along with jobs and service provider economy). Thing is ALL the soil that the kids played on FOR YEARS was contaminated with radionculide deposits from inside the nuke plant grounds. TRUE STORY. The nuke plant operators had to take it all out and replaced it. There is a major cancer cluster there but NO ONE can afford to sue the most powerful industry in the world or PROVE THEIR cancer was caused by THAT radionculide from THAT nuclear power plant (hell, maybe you got the cancer due to Chernobyl or Chinese nuke tests or 50's radionculide leftovers or your grandpa's cigars or teflon or plastic milk bottles).
So it is a cautionary tale. You can't see it smell it or taste it and you can only detect it with an expert who knows how and has the right equipment to test it.
Am I overreacting?
I do not care. Kids lives and health are at risk.
I agree with you Bill.
I agree with you Bill. Thank you so much for sharing that story. We live near a nuclear power plant and I am officially switching beaches to the one upstream from it! I didn't realize that they still dumped waste into the ocean. Downstream from ours is a major fishing industry and local beach where hundreds swim and play. Ugh. Very disturbing to say the least. Our children are the future and unfortunately will inherit this mess. I don't like to think about that.
Anyway, thanks again.
When traces were discovered
When traces were discovered in milk, I brought a good article from enviroreporter concerning risks. I made copies and passed them out and seriously everyone thought I was crazy. There are several pregnant moms who just shrugged their shoulders. So I know if I go down to the school and demand testing on the sand they are going to laugh in my face. I've read about this attitude over and over on this forum but it is still shocking. Seriously, I'm the only person I know who is it all concerned about any of this.
Keeping your kids safe--odd mom out!
Hi,
I feel such compassion for you moms of young children who are being laughed at by other moms for raising these concerns. I have surely been there!!!
Years ago, I found peeling leaded paint at my daughter's school and, despite my test results, and the fact that almost every doctor in town sent their children to this private school, I was the ONLY one concerned, and had to fight the battle all by myself. It was VERY uncomfortable, a feeling that I see many of you share.
Nowadays, of course, leaded paint may get more attention (but not necessarily). But I can vouch how strong you need to be to weather the deafening silence from other parents as you try and raise concerns. And, most of us do not enjoy being dismissed as a bit "odd," if you get my drift!
Now, once again I find myself on the "oddball list," as my relatives ignore the emails I have sent them about the dangers of Fukushima. But, I have gotten used to it! I now think to myself that I need to satisfy myself that I have done the best job that I can do, and find peace in that. The reactions of others is not something I have any control over.
So, I hope that you can find peace in that idea---and, of course, you can find support right here!
Gee, I almost feel that I should end this entry with, "And may the force be with you!" But, you know what I mean!
Well, I don't think your
Well, I don't think your crazy : ) I have two young children and I would do anything to keep them safe from this. Since we are not getting information from other sources than those that we have to investigate on our own, I think it is in each individual's own hands as to how they are going to protect their family. I have a degree in biology and I know that this is not minor when it comes to children. I am not panicked, however I will do whatever it takes to protect them as best I can. If I don't, then I will feel horrible if down the line they develop something that relates back to this fallout. There is only so much you can do, but just doing the best you can is something. I think many parents are unaware of the dangers and are trusting the news to inform them of safety issues. Maybe some don't want to hear it because it requires a major lifestyle change. Others shrug you off because that is they way they deal with this information...some people are just "everything is fine" people.
I will have our sand tested at home and then probably present any results to my children's school. In the meantime I may voice a concern for it to both their schools...only as a concern. At the very least you could voice a concern to them...and then decide if it is worth it to finish the year out there. ??? I don't know, it is an unusual and hard situation for anyone to wrap their head around. Good luck.
Mom 5 thank u for ur
Mom 5 thank u for ur response.....it is encouraging to know their are other moms concerned as I am. I live in southern CA and not sure where to get soil testing done at. But I think it is great idea have my own soil tested, and then based on those precede with testing on the school sand. There are just a few weeks of school left....so I think I will bite my nails thru the rest of year.....taking them out of school would hurt them psychologically. I'm trying to keep this somewhat under my hat while teaching them at the same time. It's a fine line. The other day my kindergartner had to think a word that starts with n for his homework.....and he said "Mommy, how about nuclear!".
Bumping a thread is just a
Bumping a thread is just a way to keep it on the first page in an online forum.
It means there is no answer yet, but people are waiting for a response.
I'm a mom of three, and I am
I'm a mom of three, and I am also astounded at how nobody seems to care about this situation. When it was pouring here, and the school still made our kids go out on recess, I was so stressed out and upset. Still am, when it rains. I don't understand why I'm the only one who seems concerned. It's funny, I was reading this forum last night and came across a post about how OR and WA are going to slow down on the testing, and just as I read it, it came on the news. I thought to myself... Wow, they haven't even been talking about ANY of the radiation since early March. And here they are saying that OR and WA are going to slow down on the testing. Most people watching are probably thinking: What radiation??? What are they talking about?? We're still getting radiation??? At least that's how I pictured people reacting after seeing that news story. I mean, how can the news go from never talking about it, to a casual mention, as if it has been reported all along? Anyway, just chiming in. It's frustrating when we want to keep our kids safe, and the schools aren't even considering these things. I don't get it. But I guess I'm not surprised. I hope you'll post the results.
I will post the results if
I will post the results if the companies I am contacting can do the tests. I am not sure how long the turn-around time is....so keep checking back.