California's Prop 65 and radionuclides
In 1986, California voters initiated and approved a law called the "Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986" (commonly referred to as "prop 65"; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_65_%281986%29). A list of chemicals which require warnings is part of this law (http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/prop65_list/Newlist.html) I'm no expert on this, just a California consumer, so check out the details for yourself.
Covered in that list is the general "radionuclides", and also "Iodine-131" has its own individual entry.
If, say, milk were known to contain I-131 and/or Cs-137, would that not require (in products sold in California) the mandatory
WARNING: This product contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm.
If not, why not?
Radionuclides the one thing
Radionuclides the one thing known by the state of California not to cause cancer.
This is a great point, and I
This is a great point, and I think this brings to light a problem with California's Prop 65. I see that warning everywhere I go, and as a result most people simply ignore this sign. If we were to be accurate, this warning would have to be on everything. For instance, as Mark discussed previously, milk always has radionuclides in it, at much higher levels than the measured Cs-137 and I-131. You're right; the milk should have that warning on it, and even after all the fallout from Fukushima is gone, the milk should still have that warning.
If you'll allow me to be just a little tongue-in-cheek, I would advocate the following -- WARNING: This universe contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm.
Tim [BRAWM Team Member]
Warning on everything? Everything causes cancer?
Tim, you fell overboard on your comment that everything needs the Prop 65 warning label implying everything causes cancer. We can make extensive lists of non-carcinogenic agents. Substances that no one anywhere has ever been able to show to be carcinogenic. Shall we start with pure water?
I believe what you are experiencing is the multitude of cheap manufacturing processes which include carcinogenic substances. The Delaney Clause prohibits the inclusion of such agents, but the law is poorly enforced.
California Prop 65 has been extremely beneficial to us here in Florida. Recently we were replacing the household water faucets and found that warning label helpful due to the level of lead contained in the brass underlying the chrome in that product. The lead ladened faucets were returned and replaced with more expensive models made by the same manufacturer without the level of lead that caused the requirement for the warning statement.
Industries heavily invested in production that creates/causes/uses cancer causing agents are perpetrating the idea that 'everything causes cancer' in order to be able to continue their production. Their disinformation campaigns work best on the educated because we will memorize it and pass it on from the pulpits of our positions of authority.
You are in a position of 'authoritative information dissemination' and therin need to be more careful about what you broadcast. I'm sure you do not want to inadvertently become part of a disinformation campaign like 'everything causes cancer'.
I'm sorry; I guess I was not
I'm sorry; I guess I was not clear enough. I did not say "everything causes cancer". I said that everything would need a Prop 65 warning, because everything you eat has something radioactive in it, which according to Prop 65 is a "cancer-causing chemical".
Shall we start with pure water? No one drinks 100% pure water (in fact, it's probably not very healthy for you if you did...). All water has K-40, U-238, and Th-232 in it. You can get reports from your utility company telling you how much. Even filtering it can't remove all the isotopes in it.
How about air? Even if you went to the most pristine, unspoiled place on earth, you would be breathing in Rn-220 and Rn-222. This is the number one contribution to our background radiation exposure.
It all depends on how hard you look for it. I'm glad that some people have been able to use the warning to lessen their exposure to toxic chemicals like lead, but what if I told you I could find a few atoms of lead in your home? With enough money, I guarantee I could find it -- it's a natural byproduct of the radon that accumulates in the air. Now, is that small amount of lead a health risk? I don't think so, but according to Prop 65 your house would need a warning on it, too.
I hope I'm being clear -- I'm not advocating that we should produce and use truly hazardous products because "everything causes cancer". I'm saying that if you look hard enough at anything, you will find something that's on Prop 65's list.
Tim [BRAWM Team Member]
I have a question for Tim or
I have a question for Tim or some other smart person : )
So, with this in mind...and the knowledge that we are constantly breathing in, consuming, and coming into contact with radioisotopes, what makes the "hot particle" so particularly of interest and dangerous? Is it because they get lodged or decay in a different way? I may have missed something in the other threads, so please excuse me if this has already been explained.
This issue is now my biggest concern for my family, and especially my children who were happily playing outside in the schoolyards (with all the other children) during the month of April and May. And continue to do so now that it is summer. I am so confused how to protect my children...if I need to.
Taking it too literally
I think you are taking Tim's comments to literally. But, it is an interesting discussion.
To your starting point of pure water, even that would have to be clarified. Because, if you simply take "pure" water from any natural source, it will contain radionuclides. Uraniaum and radon most likely. So, unless it's VERY filtered water, it will contain something. I don't even know if it's possible to remove *all* radionuclides from water via filtering.
Can you toss out a few more products that you believe are 100% free of cancer causing agents? I'd like to discuss this more to see if we actually find anything.
These warnings are listed as
These warnings are listed as a legal 'out' to help protect companies from paying damages should an employee or the general public come to harm.
As pointed out, they rarely provide any useful information, nor are they displayed in a way that would allow anyone to protect themselves.
The warnings on common chemicals often found also in the kitchen are absurd. No one cooks in a lab coat, gloves, and goggles.
The warnings on MSDS sheets for investigational substances are particularly annoying, since no one knows what their effect on a living organism will be. They haven't been well studied. Sort of like corexit/oil mixes. Or low level radiation contamination at the DNA level over multiple generations.
I personally see nothing funny about their current use at all.
Thanks, Tim. Whenever I
Thanks, Tim. Whenever I start to feel stressed about what has happened you and the other BRAWM team members always manage to reassure me and bring me back to reality! Appreciate your straight talking! Thanks.
Everything needs Prop65 label? Everything causes cancer?
Tim, you fell overboard on your comment that everything needs the Prop 65 warning label implying everything causes cancer. We can make extensive lists of non-carcinogenic agents. Substances that no one anywhere has ever been able to show to be carcinogenic. Shall we start with pure water?
I believe what you are experiencing is the multitude of cheap manufacturing processes which include carcinogenic substances. The Delaney Clause prohibits the inclusion of such agents, but the law is poorly enforced.
California Prop 65 has been extremely beneficial to us here in Florida. Recently we were replacing the household water faucets and found that warning label helpful due to the level of lead contained in the brass underlying the chrome in that product. The lead ladened faucets were returned and replaced with more expensive models made by the same manufacturer without the level of lead that caused the requirement for the warning statement.
Industries heavily invested in production that creates/causes/uses cancer causing agents are perpetrating the idea that 'everything causes cancer' in order to be able to continue their production. Their disinformation campaigns work best on the educated because we will memorize it and pass it on from the pulpits of our positions of authority.
You are in a position of 'authoritative information dissemination' and therin need to be more careful about what you broadcast. I'm sure you do not want to inadvertently become part of a disinformation campaign like 'everything causes cancer'.
(Sorry, I seem to have broken in line with my post above.)