child ate nasturtiums
Question for a BRAWM member-
OK, so I was finally less worried and was managing to let my kids lead normal lives without fretting too much about their diets because your calm approach to all of this had calmed me down but now....
We live in Berkeley and my 9 year old on was at a friend's house. They apparently were outside and ate a bunch of nasturtiums (a less uptight parent was supervising and probably thought it was lovely and natural). I am kind of equating this to eating grass in terms of possible exposure to cesium. I see from your charts that grass has more cesium here in Berkeley than pretty much anything else a child could eat! It seems iodine is mercifully not an issue anymore, but the cesium-yikes. He's only 9! I have read too many websites where people are ranting about the dangers and I'm trying not to worry. Also, I can't do anything about it, it was a one time deal. He was basically just sucking out the nectar and ate a few petals. The recent rains (that have been free of isotopes) maybe washed some of the cesium away? I'm trying to protect my kids and I did not see this coming! Now I'm really worrying.
Am I getting carried away here? Thank you so much for your work!
bump
bump
bump
bump
bump
bump
OP here-one more thing
Just submitted last post without proofreading...I see I put "there" when I should have put "their" so dear condescending posters, save yourself the post saying I'm uneducated and illiterate. I'm a CAL graduate and usually use words appropriately. My kids were talking to me while I was writing so I was distracted. Yes I'm defensive, wonder why.
please don't worry
I was a neurotic mother when my boys were young, so I get it.
Life on the west coast will not be the same during our lifetimes, nor during the lives of our children or grandchildren, just as it has not been, nor will be the same for people in Europe after Chernobyl.
Those of us who are paying attention have lost some of our innocence, certainly our ignorance, and there will always be a haunting, lingering question about the safety of our environment.
That said, your child has probably breathed in many more ceseum particles than she has ingested orally, since this whole debacle has started. At some point, we must relax a little bit.
I grew up in CA during 50's and 60's and ate seafood from the SF Bay that was probably loaded with radiation. My mother was blissfully unaware as we wolfed down crab from Fisherman's Wharf. We were also exposed to plenty of DDT during that time. Everyone used it. They sprayed it in the streets as kids were playing. Not radioactive, but OMG! We also ate can after can of mercury laden tuna - and even had our teeth filled with it. On top of that, most municipal water is fluoridated. Not mine, thankfully and we don't use fluoride toothpaste, but I sure did growing up.
Point is, we are living in a tremendously toxic world - poisoned by those who feed on greed. Yet we are still here. It may be that humanity is hanging on by a thread, but we are still here...for now. We should still be fighting for a better world. We still need to switch to clean energy and stand up for the planet, but we need to do it with a clear head.
What to do to mitigate radiation? Feed your children healthy food and give them their vitamins (my mother made us eat handfuls every day). If you're really worried, give them chlorella to eat. It will detox lots of nasties and it's very nutritious. Double goodness! After Chernobyl, kids were given zeolite cookies to eat, because they were exposed to high amounts of radiation. However, I don't think a few petals or nectar will cause any harm.
I have read all the data about small amounts of chronic radiation being harmful, as well as the difference between external and internal emitters. It's very alarming, but do try to relax a little. It's not healthy to stay in stress mode for so long. Fearful thought patterns are just as damaging as any radioactive isotope, of not more.
Admittedly, I'm also rather obsessed about not eating post-Fuku food, but at some point the pre-Fuku food will run out and we will eat what is available, yes?
In the big picture, we will all live the lives we are supposed to live - long or otherwise. Hopefully, we can love and learn and laugh at this cosmic joke we call life.
Give your little one a hug for me.
"In the big picture, we will
"In the big picture, we will all live the lives we are supposed to live - long or otherwise."
But whether you stay in the USA or flee to the South, your destiny is entirely changed, from one little, simple action.
Therefore, your comment doesn't seem sensible when any little action can effect so many results.
"What to do to mitigate
"What to do to mitigate radiation? Feed your children healthy food and give them their vitamins (my mother made us eat handfuls every day). If you're really worried, give them chlorella to eat. It will detox lots of nasties and it's very nutritious. Double goodness! After Chernobyl, kids were given zeolite cookies to eat, because they were exposed to high amounts of radiation."
Another health advice by the always reliable anonymous.
Detox is a myth, by the way.
Where is your proof that
Where is your proof that detoxing is a myth?
You might try it ...it may just make you nicer.
OP here
Hi-
I'm the OP and I just want to assure you all that I would never seek medical advice on this forum. I too was horrified by the mom giving her baby apple pectin, I was disturbed by the people sticking their children's fingers in iodine. My point to the arrogant posters out there who feel compelled to slam others is that I am not irrational. In fact I am trying to keep my cool and have fought my urges to keep my kids under lock and key. I have been teased by friends for my food concerns and I GET IT...the BRAWM team is not concerned about the levels here. But you know what? Every now and then I need help or reassurance and forgive me, but the wonderful people on this forum out of kindness usually want to help. The BRAWM team has not once, NOT ONCE given anyone grief about needing advice, and I'm sure they have thought some of it was silly. They have been nothing short of amazing in the way they have gone out of there way to handle each post seriously EVEN when it has been from a nervous mother or an anxious farmer.
Try being a little more forgiving, you may have a nicer life. Should you ever have children (or maybe you do have them and you are just an amazing human being who never worries and is completely rational at all times) maybe you'll understand that my question (for BRAWM members) was not meant to waste anyone's time.
You know, I've read many posts that I thought were kind of over the top or silly, and some of them have exasperated me, but I would never respond to them and say that because I would not belittle someone for being frightened. Have some compassion (and here is where I resist the urge to call you a $@#*bag...oops, I guess I did). Anyway, I'd still be delighted to hear from a BRAWM member, although I hope they are enjoying the holiday weekend. They deserve it. We all do!
Nasturtiums
If it helps, I'd be surprised if your child ate very many nasturtiums at once(even if they are a gourmand!) While tasty, they probably would not hold a lot of interest as a snack food for long in one sitting.
As to the various responses: It can be difficult for anyone to accept that there are newly-arrived threats that are beyond their control. Even if the threats are unlikely to be of significance. Humans like certainty, especially when it comes to children, and there is a lack of it in these circumstances. We should all be as patient as possible with our responses.
I *suspect* some internal
I *suspect* some internal emitter exposure to supercharge the body's ability to cope with industrial stressors, and view "radioactive contamination" as a post-industrial evolutionary process necessary for an increasingly sophisticated Planet Earth. FWIW, I am not worried.
I share your concern,
it is really confusing, though, to know how to respond as the research is all over the place.
BRAWM's position is that the amounts are tiny compared to existing internal doses from other sources, such as potassium. However, there is research that suggests taking potassium actually will help you eliminate cesium (potassium is essential for the body, cesium is a toxin (radioactive or not), and cesium sort of mimics potasium so potassium supplements wil help speed elimination of the cesium.
However, BRAWM has stated that potassium's natural K40 radiation is actually more dangerous than the radiation from radiocesium because K40's energy is higher. I have posted a thread trying to get clarity on this issue.
The bottom line for me is that even the EPA says that it is practically impossible to avoid radiocesium altogether and that it is in virtually everything (and was before Fukushima due to nuclear testing, leaks/emissions from nuke plants etc.) already. It is clearly being found throughout the food chain, including milk, and fresh produce - but again in pretty tiny amounts. I just don't believe there is a way to avoid it so the amount of nasturtiums eaten is probably inconsequential relative to the increased amounts already seen in other foods, in dirt, in the air and water etc for the past few months.
But clearly some foods have more radiocesium than others (see the thread on potatoes vs. spinach and apples).
I am trying hard to determine whether potassium is actually helpful in eliminating cesium (which I believe studies have shown) and whether or not potassium is "safer" in the body or not.
My sugestion is that you look at "radio-protective" foods such as turmeric, blueberries (I use frozen which are presumably safe from last year), tomoatoe sauce (again made before Fukushima) and foods from the southern hemisphere (NOT from Hawaii, for example) like tropical fruits and grapes/produce from Chile, etc. The radiation causes free radicals that damage cells and dna and we may not know for many years whether the amounts from Fukushima cause significant harm. Some damage will not be seen for generations, possibly.
But frankly whether a few mouthfuls of nasturtiums is potentially harmful or not to your kids is impossible to know and depends in large part on the rest of their diets - how many other foods with contamination from Fukushima and how much "safer" foods and foods with radioprotective effect.
I would not worry too much as there really is not much likelihood that the nasturtiums would add significantly to the exposure already happening to all of us. Of course EVERY increase is potentially risky BUT by making an effort to find and eat foods with much less likelihood of Fukushima contamination. I tend to believe too that the potassium is not more harmful than cesium and eating bananas and other foods packed with potassium might help eliminate the more harmful cesium. But I can't really be certain, which is frustrating.
In any case cesium on its own is toxic and potassium is an essential nutrient, so any way to avoid and eliminate cesium from the body is probably the smartest move.
I feel for you. I have been really troubled over whether to restore milk to our diets and whether eating from my local organic farm is really a good idea and still tend to avoid the milk and fresh produce completely despite the fact that I feel I may be depriving myself of foods that are good for us which may offset the harm or risk of eating such foods. Sometimes I wonder if it is worry about it is worse than the harm from the foods, but then again, I also feel as if eating the food may be causing harm ALONG with the worry so MAYBE it is best just to eat as safe as possible. Really pisses me off that I have to worry about this so my ultimate bottom line is:
NO NUKES ARE safe and they should ALL be shut down permanently.
I am inclined to agree...
Bill, I am at this point inclined to agree, point by point, statement by statement, and observation by observation, with EVERY SINGLE THING you just said, there. You summarize perfectly the doubts, worries and diemmas I and, I'm sure, many many others are currently enduring. I could not have phrased my own thoughts, feelings and misgivings better. Mad props, and ditto, and seconded.
I look forward to any responses that may be forthcoming from BRAWM / UCBNE!
Rick Cromack.
Allen, Texas
Thanks Rick, and a question...
you were in the Navy right?
Did the navy never vent their radiation out in air or water, even by accident? Or is that classified? I was told once that it was a possibility. Any ideas?
Yes
That's right, I served aboard nuclear-powered submarines throughout the '90s, primarily "boomers", though I also did temporary duty aboard fast-attack boats such as LOS ANGELES-Class vessels, and also did a short stint aboard the USS NIMITZ, a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. Though I need to make clear: Although I have some VERY minimal technical knowledge regarding design, normal functioning, and EXTREMELY short-term emergency procedures of the VERY miniaturized nuclear reactors found on U.S. submarines (twenty years ago), I am IN NO WAY anything even REMOTELY like an "expert". Although I had a technical rating, Sonar Technician, and earned (as all long-term "bubbleheads" do) qualification in Submarine Warfare -- wearing "dolphins" means you have been nominally trained in virtually all aspects of modern submarine operation, combat, maintenance, and casualty management -- my experience is NOT to be confused with that of. ACTUAL"nucs" like BRAWM's Dr. Chivers, who actually graduated the Navy's Nuclear Power School (then sited at NTC Orlando, Florida) and whose full-time job was working on the Navy's modern reactor systems. As I've said many times before, including to Dr. Chivers, I know JUST enough to be dangerous -- mainly to my own mental health.
Now, with that caveat, let me say this: I am not personally aware of ANY incidents involving the U.S. Submarine Force, during the period 1980 to, say, 2001, that required or resulted in the emergency "dumping" of radioactive coolant into the open sea. I can also state with some degree of confidence that such evolutions were in NO way encouraged by the modern "nuclear Navy" and that such reckless disregard for environmental consequences would not be allowed anywhere NEAR SOP (standard operating procedures). I actually consider such allegations the next thing to blasphemy.
HOWEVER -- obviously, I can't speak for the Navy prior to my own period of service (though I feel pretty confident in that 1980 date I mentioned above -- nor can I vouch for safety standards, operational protocols, or even technological and logistical capabilities of earlier nuc submarine designs, say, prior the LOS ANGELES Class (say, 1977 or thereabouts). For certain the earliest U.S. Navy nuclear-powered submarines were far less efficient and capable ships, and the manufacturers and crews of the time (1950s to mid-1970s) were literally making up the rules as they went. It would not surprise me to learn that the NAUTILUS Class of boats, in particular, employed some rather unlovely tactics and embraced all manner of horrifying at-sea habits belonging to a far less complicated and conventionally powered time. Flushing out the bilge and befouling the nearby sea with human and animal wastes, as well as all sorts of refuse-dump nastiness, is a "tradition" as old as maritime travel itself, but there's a big difference between dumping what's in the jakes, and what's in a reactor core.
As I said in another recent thread, however -- we DID lose two nuc boats, the THRESHER and the SCORPION, and I know of a handful of reactor casualties over half a century that, conceivably, MIGHT have resulted in some manner of discharge -- but I've never actually heard that such was the case. I can say this, though: the Soviets lost SEVERAL boats, including, most famously, the Kursk, and I have heard some real horror stories here and there about what all our former enemies and now-occasional semi-allies did in the Arctic. I have heard tales of wholesale evacuation of entire coolant systems and even of fully fueled reactors being jettisoned in the Arctic Circle latitudes. Of course, I can't speak for how this presumed contamination might compare with the effluent runoff of the highest-proximity coolant, not to mention ACTUAL CORE MATERIAL, from THREE fully fueled reactors, PLUS spent fuel pools, practically ad infinitum... Or how the continual release of such material into the ocean curents at lower latitudes, with far more accessible waters at wildly different temperatures, densities, and salinity from the relatively insular Arctic waters, might differ from ANYTHING EVER SEEN BEFORE.
I'll try to find some answers.
Rick Cromack.
Allen, Texas
Some initial numbers
I'm typing this on my phone right now, so I don't have all that much opportunity to go into citations and such at the moment, but here's what I'm finding out:
- Per http://www1.american.edu/ted/arctic.htm, between 1946 and 1982, the USSR is estimated to have disposed of 2.5 million curies of radioactive waste, contaminated materials and even fully loaded reactor cores in the Arctic Ocean, much of it theoretically "sunk" at depths below 500 feet below the surface (where it is generally assumed that wholesale contamination of the upper sea, that contains much of the ocean's wildlife including what eventually appears on our dining room tables, will be a far less likely outcome).
- According to http://investmentwatchblog.com/estimating-radioactive-contamination-from..., the reactors of Units 1-4 ALONE at Fukushima Dai'ichi may contain an estimated 1,245 kg of cesium. With activity of 88 curies per gram, that works out to 99,440,000 curies of potential radiological activity, or just under FORTY TIMES the estimated activity of nearly 4 decades of secret dumping by the former Soviet Union. Bear in mind also that ALL of Fukushima's possible waterborne contamination has occurred at or near the surface -- a far cry from the theoretically "safe" depths purportedly employed by the Russians when sinking actual barrels or other heavy machinery. (The above, first link, however, postulated that the Soviet Union may have been in the habit of opening holes in their "refuse " to facilitate rapid sinking.)
- The Arctic Ocean, including all affiliated bays and lesser seas, is less than 10% the area of the more or less contiguous Pacific Ocean. (Wikipedia)
- There is, of course, a CERTAINTY that a sizeable fraction of Fuluahima's cesium release was and continues to be airborne in nature. There is no reliable current estimation as to how much of those reactors' potential cesium load may have ended up in the ocean. To a certain extent, that 99.44 million-curie figure represents a true "worst-case" scenario. However, it ALSO fails to account for the numerous Spent Fuel Pools on-site. (Were those to be included, that 99,440,000 figure would become a truly apocalyptic 209,000,000 CURIES -- 83.6 TIMES the Soviet Cold War figure. However, clearly, not ALL that amount -- representative of Reactors 1, 2, 3, as well as the "first 4" Spent Fuel Pools -- has, or is likely to be, released into the open sea.
- To date, despite the huge numbers of fish and other ocean products harvested by humans to feed an ever-growing global population, NOT ONE case of verifiable radiation poisoning originating in the food supply / chain has EVET occurred. And this is with the vast Norwegian, Canadian and Russian fishing fleets and industries bordering on or directly engaging the Arctic Ocean.
- So -- it sounds like it could be bad, very bad. On the other hand -- let's assume (very much a worst-case scenario at this point, becoming more and more likely as this event drags on) that a total 250,000 cubic meters of radioactive water, hugely contaminated, has so far managed to escape the plant and is now in the open sea. (Although this figute dwarfs TEPCO's current estimates, I personally find it far more realistic, not to mention likely, given the extraordinarily high measurements that have been recently disclosed from a 300-km stretch of Japan's coastal waters.) That volume -- a quarter of a million tons -- represents an area less than 2% that occupied by Boeing's Everett, Washington facility, that itself covers a mere 98.3 acres... to a depth of 33.5 meters, or about 100 feet. A sizeable volume, to be sure, but literally a "drop in the bucket" against the massive, 622,000,000,000 cubic-meyer volume of the Pacific Ocean (
Let's try this again
...Continuing (sorry, damn phone)
...So, that 250,000 cubic-meter volume ends up being something like
.00004% of the Pacific Ocean's total volume.
[Siiigh] This is making my head hurt, especially because I'm out-of-pocket at the moment and am forced to use my crappy little phone keyboard. Bottom line: It looks pretty damn bad, and it would be GREAT if the folks who actually, you know, studied and researched and were versed in this crap were, you know, speaking. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that many of them are inclined to at the moment.
Anyone else got anything to contribute? I'm sick of typing.
Rick Cromack.
Allen, Texas
Interesting, Rick
I spent some time in Groton Connecticut (which I would guess you did as well) and knew one submariner who said that there WAS a "possibility" of releases of radioiodine into the water but NOT from coolant. It seemed as if in this very casual conversation we were discussing emissions or effluents from the fuel cycle that needed to be vented or released (gaseous) just as with commercial nuclear reactors (that is my recollection - it was a LONG time ago) but NOT from the closed cooling system. I told the guy I was worried about emissions in the local waters from the submarines etc. AND commercial nuclear plants
I mean, subs do not have spent fuel pools on board and must generate some gaseous materials which need to be removed, right? Do they get vented or emitted or released in effluents?
I broached this subject with another submariner (lots of them in Groton at the time) who implied, just like you, that even to suggest it was blasphemous. But then again the Navy prides itself on its safety. Maybe they're systems are way superior to commercial plants but STILL the technologies can't be that different to mean their is no venting, would it? I just assumed that all such fuel cycles had to remove some of the gases produced and that leaks happen either intentionally (as with commercial nukes) or accidentally.
enenews down
looks like http://enenews.com/ is down. they have been very good keeping people notified of updates. I would not be surprised if they are being DOS
Nasturiums
Well, first of all I would like to establish my "worried mommy credentials." I am pretty much one of the biggest, obsessively worried "Jewish mothers" on the planet. So, I "get it."
Here is how I would look at this: First of all, recent rains have probably washed the dust off, as you noted.
Second, your child ate only a small amount
Third, while the radiation in grass shows up in milk, you have to remember that cows eat a LOT of grass to produce milk--so any levels in milk are basically a concentration of a small field
Fourth, living in Berkeley, you can actually rely upon the data of the BRAWM team as being geographically relevant to you (as opposed to many of us who live farther away). And their recent data is reassuring.
Child may be contaminated
Child may be contaminated now. Don't eat child.
Hilarious. I'll bet you
Hilarious. I'll bet you don't have kids.
Yeah, I know having kids is
Yeah, I know having kids is one of the situations in which is socially acceptable to be irrational. I don't think you would take the best decisions if you decide to act irrationally.
The members of BRAWM have said dozens of times that the levels detected are not harmful. The FDA has set safety limits after including ingestion of food with much higher levels of contaminants for a whole year in their calculations.
Your kid only ate a small amount of a wild plant which in the worst worst case would have really low levels of cesium and for what you say it only happened once.
You do the math.
mmmm cesium, isn't that
mmmm cesium, isn't that really something that the grass your child may eat has cesium? people making fun of you for having a concern are fools. They truly believe that a little cesium is ok for a kid, maybe even think its good for them. bunch of brainwashed consumer fools. Get some charcoal capsules from the health store and give it to your child. It can help absorb and then pass some of the cesium.
No need to be arrogant in
No need to be arrogant in your replies. I am also guessing you don't have children, because your response to a sincerely upset and worried parent is awful. Let BRAWM respond, or someone who can show a bit of compassion.
Just like GLP and ENENEWS
Just like GLP and ENENEWS this forum has become a playground for trolls that like to manipulate and encourage irrational behaviour. Remember, these are trolls that pushed a poster to the point of writing that he was going to shoot himself and his family...I was on ENEnews a few weeks back and read a post from a mom who was convinced that her infant was suffering convulsions from the radiation trapped in her cars AC and went on to ask how effective the apple pectin detox really was (clearly the apple pectin caused diarreah and dehydration which led to the convulsions) These trolls have no regard for human life clearly. PLEASE don't seek medical advice here...
Are you trying to post this
Are you trying to post this comment in every thread?