DAIRY PRODUCTS

Hello,
This site has proven extremely informative to the public and I thank you for the continued monitoring. My question is about current dairy products. I live on the east coast and wonder if local milk and dairy products like cheeses are safe to consume at this time? I haven't been feeding any dairy or milk to my family for a few weeks now and am wondering what the current situation is. We are all missing cheese pizza very much. Thank you for your continued efforts to keep the public informed!

As I mentioned previously,

As I mentioned previously, this all depends on your definition of "safe". Personally, I have been enjoying pizza, milk, and all kinds of dairy products for the last few months.

Tim [BRAWM Team Member]

Thank you for the replies on

Thank you for the replies on this issue. I live in Maryland so most of the milk that we purchase is either from Maryland or Virginia. I haven't been able to get the local levels that have been detected over the past weeks so that is where my concern has come from. Maybe I'm just not looking in the right places. If the levels in milk have decreased over the past weeks, does that mean that in the immediate time now that dairy products such as cheese and butter have less of a chance of accumulating radiation. Anotherwards, like Chernobyl when consuming milk was a problem, have we gotten to that point yet here in the USA? Again, thanks for all of the replies. I am simply a concerned mom and want to make sure that I keep my kids away from any foods that may at this time cause long term health problems. It's just so hard to make good choices when some people say that dairy is okay while others are saying absolutely not to consume it at this time. Thank you!!

Contacts

You could try the phone contacts here. I had to call a few people until I found ones who could help me. The asked me to sign a release, but then I was emailed the laboratory reports. NC folks couldn't have been more helpful, but I wish they had just gone ahead and posted the raw data for those of us who like to make our own decisions.

http://www.frederickcountymd.gov/documents/Health%20Department/Health%20...

http://www.vdh.state.va.us/news/Alerts/Radiation/index.htm

I checked out this link:

I checked out this link: http://www.vdh.state.va.us/news/Alerts/Radiation/index.htm

The milk sample seems to be more contaminated as of the 4/14 tests.

Quarterly Environmental Data collected by Virginia State Agencies
MILK SAMPLES:
Date Collected Sample Point Isotope Result Derived Intervention Limit (DIL)
3/31/2011 Dairy A I-131 1.6 +/- 0.26 pCi/L
Cs-137 None Detected
Sr-90 Pending

4/14/2011 Dairy B I-131 5.35 +/- .22 pCi/L
Cs-137 None Detected
Sr-90 Pending

I can't tell if these measurements are comparative to the BRAWM team's measurements. In other words, is it an "apples to apples" comparison or are they each using different measurement "units"? Can someone with less stress-fried brain cells help us out with this? Thanks...

Thanks for this!!!

Thanks for this!!!

Thank you! I will check out

Thank you! I will check out the links!!

Although we are testing in

Although we are testing in California, I'd encourage you to look at the EPA data for your area (I found some milk sampling from the Baltimore area which shows no detection). The east coast will have much less radiation in the air, rain, produce, and dairy due to its further distance from Japan. Given that we see so little here in California, it doesn't surprise me that they see even less on the east coast.

As we've said before, we're not doctors, but we have consulted with health physicists who confirm that these levels are not dangerous.

Tim [BRAWM Team Member]

Thank you! That is

Thank you! That is comforting to hear. I've been trying to keep a level head since all of this began. I continually read the updates but have been more less trying to stay educated as much as possible on the situation in Japan so I do not live in fear. Thanks again for the information! I appreciate it very much!!

Read for perspective

Tim any thoughts on the bulletin of atomic scientists are they to bias for u to consider seems they have been around a long time.

There are some basic principles to consider when the impacts of radiation exposure are evaluated. First, there is no "safe" or non–harmful level of radiation. Second, we are all exposed to radiation: background radiation emitted by natural sources, with which we evolved; and medical radiation, which may be necessary and life-saving as decided and controlled by the patient and physician.

http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/op-eds/radiation-exposure-and-the...

Jeffrey Patterson
Patterson is a professor emeritus in the Department of Family Medicine at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health. He maintains an active family practice and teaches residents in family medicine. He is the immediate past president of the Physicians for Social Responsibility and has also been active in the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War

Excellent article (by Med.School Professor/Family Medicine)

at school of Public Health.

His words are exceptionally important (excerpt from link in previous post):

There is NO "harmless" dose of radiation.

"In 2006 the National Academies' National Research Council published a comprehensive report, "Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR VII - Phase 2)" stating that radiation exposure has a linear relationship to the development of cancer. The report concluded that even low doses of ionizing radiation are likely to pose some health risks; there is no threshold of exposure below which the risk drops to zero.

"Unknown impacts. Most of what we know about the effects of radiation exposure comes from studies of the survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, from intentional medical irradiation, and from a few high-dose accidents. The Hiroshima exposure was a one-time dose largely composed of gamma rays and x-rays, because the bombs were exploded high in the air and produced very little fallout. This type of radiation exposure is very different from the releases caused by nuclear testing, the 1957 Kyshtym accident at a nuclear fuel processing plant in Russia, and the disasters at Chernobyl and Fukushima. These have produced long-lived radionuclides -- such as cesium 137, strontium 90, and plutonium 239 -- that remain in the environment for hundreds of years. To say that these radionuclides cause no harm to human health is unwarranted; we must observe populations for generations to know what the effects of these releases are. Unfortunately, minimizing or covering up the potential risks has long been a strategy of the nuclear industry and its government regulators.

"A classic example of this occurred in 1951, when the general manager of the Eastman Kodak Company called the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) to complain about high levels of radiation detected at the Kodak plant in Rochester, New York, during a snowstorm. Kodak executives were concerned that radiation could damage their film. The AEC confirmed that a nuclear test had taken place two days earlier in Nevada, and offered to send Kodak warnings before future tests, including maps predicting where the heaviest fallout would occur. Meanwhile, the AEC failed to give any warning to farmers, families with children who would drink contaminated milk, or pregnant mothers -- and instead released a statement to the Associated Press that "there is no possibility of harm to humans or animals." Other gross examples include the cover-up of the Kyshtym disaster by the US and the Soviet Union, and the failure to inform the general public of the Chernobyl crisis during the first three days that it was happening.

"The real issue. Scientific arguments regarding the effects of particular doses of radiation will and should continue. However, to make this the focus of any discussion of nuclear safety obscures the real issue, thus missing the forest for the trees. The real issue is that the use of nuclear power and nuclear weapons is forcing humankind, and indeed the whole ecosystem, to participate in a particularly cruel and totally uncontrolled experiment. Given the scientific evidence that there is no safe dose of radiation, this is an experiment that has already gone awry. Indeed, if this were a true scientific experiment, it would have been halted a long time ago.

"The real question is whether we, as a human race, can afford in good conscience to risk annihilation with our continued reliance on nuclear technology. Can we continue to despoil our environment with long-lived radioactive materials that are scattered to the wind and embedded in our precious soil, randomly exposing large populations, and foisting health impacts on unsuspecting future generations who have no choice in this matter?

"We may choose to do so. But if we do, I am quite sure that our children and grandchildren will roundly condemn us for our lack of foresight and our selfishness. As they struggle to deal with a poisonous environment and waste that must be safeguarded for thousands of years, they will certainly wonder what possessed us to do this."

We are not arguing whether

We are not arguing whether or not "there is no harmless dose of radiation". However, if you believe that your food is not safe unless it contains absolutely zero radioactive atoms, then you must be prepared to go hungry. Our point is that the amount of contamination in the milk and produce here in the US is so small that we can barely even measure it.

Tim [BRAWM Team Member]

Tim - I think the

Tim - I think the frustrating thing is that the EPA and government agencies are putting out press releases that say the radiation poses "no health risk". That just isn't a factual statement. There is some risk, and there WILL be some additional cancers, and some deaths, and sadly children are impacted to a greater degree. I guess the point that you and others are making is that "there won't be *that* many... and it's unlikely to be us." That just isn't that comforting to me.

Just one correction

The EPA doesn't say "no health risk". They say things like:

"thousands of times below any conservative level of concern"
"well below any level of public health concern"
"far below levels of concern"

Which doesn't state that there is "zero risk". But, as Tim
pointed out, the risk is so low, you shouldn't be "concerned".

And as Tim also pointed out, if you want "zero risk" or "zero
exposure", you should be prepared to go very hungry, thirsty and
avoid any activity where you will be exposed to air. Seems kind
of......limiting.....

We are not saying, "there

We are not saying, "there won't be that many." We are saying there is so little risk that no one is likely to get cancer. Is there an increased risk? According to most accepted dose models, yes. But no matter which model you want to use, the net number of people affected is much less than even one single person.

Tim [BRAWM Team Member]

I for one take comfort in

I for one take comfort in your words Tim. Thank you. These are scary times and you guys are fielding questions from a lot of freaked out lay-people who are looking to the experts for answers. I go in and out of this obsessive fear as the days go on and we get no reassuring news from Japan. One side of my psyche is rational and accepts the likelihood that we'll probably all be ok. The other side of my psyche is a bit insane with worry, trying to research my way into a sense of calm when in actuality I'm driving myself nuts and probably creating the stress hormones which really will make me sick. Then there's the angry part of me who would like to wring the collective neck of mankind for overpopulating this earth with energy hogging mindless consumers and the greed motivated machine that feeds on them. But I try to talk myself down when I get that far out there. I have a couple of corny platitudes that help, the serenity prayer being one. Another is a Helen Keller quote I will share with you: "Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it. Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing." But mostly I keep coming back to the one thought that keeps me from fleeing the West Coast and that is that I chose this area for it beauty and the free spirit of it's people, I fought long and hard and traveled a long way to stake my claim here, I'll be damned if I let some stupid little glowing sparkly bits of mostly imagination chase me from my home. That said I’ll still hang on every result BRAWM members post because I am one of those creative free spirits that make up the Bay Area and my soul will always crave answers. It’s a blessing and a curse. Keep up the good work and thank you!

Maryland area post

I am in your area - in Northern VA. I feel like there is a TOTAL blackout of info in this area too!! NO ONE is talking about it here. At least not to me and I have mentioned it just to see if anyone "takes the bait" - nothing. I have not been able to find any info on our local milk, food here either. Maybe we can update here if we find out any info of measurements in the MD/DC/VA area?? This is just ridiculous that we don't have timely accurate measurements.

I will check out some of the

I will check out some of the links provided in this forum as well as try again with the EPA and local health department. From what I see in the grocery store, most of the milk comes from dairies in PA, VA, and MD so I will dig a little deeper to try and get some answers. Who knows, maybe it's good news that we have heard nothing. Maybe that means that nothing has been detected? Look forward to your findings as well! If I could just find out if our milk samples were okay then I would feel better about re-introducing milk, butter and cheese back into my home. Powdered milk isn't so great in mac and cheese.

I am also in Maryland, and

I am also in Maryland, and have been reading this forum from the time the accident occured. I have been concerned about dairy as well, and have been purchasing Horizon milk in single pouches that have been packaged before the accident. I also bought dry cow and goat milk right after it happened. I have been buying cheese that has been aged, as well as produce from the Southern hemisphere. I have an 8-year-old and a 20-month-old, and I have been careful about what they consume. Unfortunately, I can't control everything they eat (at friends' houses for example).
I would also be very grateful if you posted your findings.

Check your state Health Department

You could look at the testing data from your state health department to see the results of local milk testing. From my NC data, the last milk that tested positive was from April 14. Most positive results were from the end of March, early April. Some areas of the state had no positive milk tests. Our milk was being tested several times per week. Now it is done about once per week. You really need to know where the milk you drink is being produced, and then check health department results for dairies in that area.

BRAWM can add credibility

BRAWM can add credibility here, but my understanding is that food contamination is negligible relative to airborne inhalation.

My understanding from the

My understanding from the Chernobyl studies on childhood cancer is that most of the uptake of radioactive iodine was from the food supply and not other pathways. Cesium which sticks around longer seems to be more a hot spot issue (in the sense that if you're playing in a dusty Cesium laden area that could be a VERY significant pathway).