Latest Report (5/5/11) From Calif. Dept of Public Health

Submitted by Anonymous on Sat, 2011-05-07 23:32

Consolidated Radiation Monitoring Report 5-5-11:
http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/Documents/CDPH-RHB-RadReport-2011-05-05.pdf

Preliminary Analysis Report 5-5-11 (PDF):
http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/Documents/CDPH-RHB-PreLabAnalysis-2011-0...

Eureka 4/15/11 No Detection
4/17/11 No Detection
4/20/11 No Detection
Humboldt Bay 4/15/11 No Detection
4/17/11 No Detection
4/19/11 No Detection
Richmond 4/15/11 No Detection
4/17/11 No Detection
4/19/11 No Detection
4/21/11 No Detection
Livermore 4/13/11 No Detection
4/15/11 No Detection
4/18/11 No Detection
4/20/11 No Detection
San Luis Obispo 4/15/11 No Detection
4/17/11 No Detection
4/19/11 No Detection
Avila Beach 4/15/11 No Detection
4/17/11 No Detection
4/19/11 No Detection
Los Angeles 4/8/11 No Detection
4/15/11 No Detection
4/18/11 No Detection
4/20/11 No Detection
San Clemente 4/15/11 No Detection
4/18/11 No Detection
4/20/11 No Detection
San Diego 4/15/11 No Detection
4/18/11 No Detection

Milk: The milk sample collected April 18, 2011 had no detection of Iodine-131.

Notes: CDPH has air sampling stations in nine locations in California. Samples collected from these stations are
analyzed for radioactive elements including Barium-140, Cerium-141, Cerium-144, Cesium-134, Cesium-137, Iodine-
131, Iodine-132, Ruthenium-103, Ruthenium-106, Tellurium-132, and Zirconium-95.

‹ To the BRAWM team. The Norwegian Institute for Air Research (NILU) ›

It's in our soil cesium is

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 2011-05-08 08:45.

It's in our soil cesium is deposited via rainfall.these preliminary reports do look good how many milk samples were tested any idea?

Oops one milk sample are u

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 2011-05-08 08:47.

Oops one milk sample are u freaking kidding me lol.jokes on us if that reasures u god bless ya.

Wasn't looking to be reasurred

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 2011-05-08 10:36.

I posted the info as just another data source to be taken into
consideration along with all the other data sources.

If you are only looking for bad news, god help ya....

Yes

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 2011-05-08 11:13.

Unfortunately in this situation it's the bad news that relevant to my health so I look for it...Ty for data it's good to see the preliminary data for air is back normal.

The only valid news is balanced news

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 2011-05-08 18:25.

Bad news is only relevant to your health if it's accurate news.
Hence the need to investigate a number information sources to
get a balanced view. Otherwise, a person can either:

1. Assume that there's nothing to worry about. And then not take
appropriate actions to protect their health. *IF* such actions
are actually necessary.

or

2. Assume that the situation is completely out of control and
that radiation as thick as London fog is enveloping the US. And
then alter their life unnecessarily. Possibly ruining their future
as well as their loved ones futures (career, school, etc).

At least *some* of the web sites posted on this forum have painted
a very bleak picture and I'm sure will have some folks considering
some very drastic actions. But, in many cases, that bleak picture
was only serving an agenda. And some bleak pictures are based out
of ignorance.

I thought the EPA increased

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 2011-05-08 14:44.

I thought the EPA increased the allowable radioacitve particles so now when things are measured all looks fine and dandy when in reality it is very elevated.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 2011-05-09 12:14.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but even though the EPA may have considered raising acceptable limits (did they in fact do that?), whatever the acceptable limits are when they say "none detected" that means "none detected". "None detected" does not mean "below acceptable limits"

I want to see much more thorough testing and it pisses me off that were aren't getting it, but let's be accurate.

I agree

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 2011-05-09 15:46.

I posted the EPA and FDA revision dates to show that neither agency has
raised the limit *in response to this incident*. As I'm sure some would
believe based on some posts. But, you are right. The agency limits are
not relevant if nothing has been detected. However, "none detected"
does not mean nothing is there :-) The CDPH equipment isn't as sensitive
as the BRAWM team's equipment (BRAWM equipment has a lower MDA level). So,
the BRAWM team continues to detect isotopes long after the CDPH equipment
can't. Is there a term for an amount less than "miniscule"? :-)

EPA Limits For Drinking Water Set In 2000

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 2011-05-08 18:46.

The EPA limits for radionuclides in water were set last in 2000.
The FDA set revised limits in 1998.

They have their reasons for the revised limits. Everyone can read
those reasons and decide to believe it or not. The conspiracy folks
will believe they did it so "when things are measured all looks fine
and dandy when in reality it is very elevated". Which may or may not
be accurate. But, there are other *possible* reasons for the revision.

1. Better knowlege of radiation and its impact on health.
2. Overly aggressive restrictions adopted earlier.
3. Total wrecklessness/incompetence.
4. EPA/FDA being in bed with the nuclear power industry.
5. Throwing in the towel as radionuclides are so pervasive in our
environment that setting an actual "safe" limit is no longer possible.

I'm sure there are other possible reasons. But, you should educate yourself
on the subject before jumping straight to believing any agency is simply
trying to cover things up. Don't get me wrong. They may be. But, at least
look at it from all angles.