Milk, food, produce results the same for all of California?
I've suffered from a bit of radiation paranoia lately, and have been extremely comforted by the transparency and comforting ratings and discussions found on this site. Thank you so much.
My only concern is that measurements taken in Berkeley / the entire Bay Area may not apply to the rest of California. I'm a 20-something woman planning on having children in the not-so-distant future, so I'm concerned about the amount of radiation I may be consuming without knowing it, especially since I haven't been keeping up with Fukushima levels until recently.
Would it be safe to assume that milk, dairy products, fruit, and vegetable samples would have similar levels of radiation in Southern California as in Northern California? If not, how much higher would Southern Californian dosages be in comparison? Would there be any measures I could take to reduce my exposure?
I'd appreciate a staff/team member's comment, if possible. It's not directly pertinent to the data, but affects how I can apply BRAWM's results to my own life. Thank you so much in advance.
Milk Results Elsewhere in CA
Here's a link to the milk results at Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo collected on 6/14/11. Cesium 134 and 137 detected.
http://cdph.ca.gov/programs/Documents/CDPH-RHB-RadReport-2011-06-21.pdf
Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo Milk Results
This is from the link posted by the OP
Cesium-134: 2.37 pCi/L or 0.09 Bq/L (BRAWM latest 0.06±0.01 Bq/L)
Cesium-137: 2.95 pCi/L or 0.11 Bq/L (BRAWM latest 0.12±0.02 Bq/L)
The BRAWM team's latest results are very close to Cal Poly's.
I don't understand the following statement from the Calif. Dept. of Public health in that report:
"The Cesium-134 concentration in the milk sample is 1,960 times less than standard of the US FDA (4,645 pCi/liter of milk). The resultant dose is approximately 0.002 millirem per week. The Cesium-137 concentration in the milk sample is 1,575 times less than standard of the US FDA (4,645 pCi/liter of milk). The resultant dose is approximately 0.001 millirem per week"
The FDA Derived Intervention Level (DIL) for the CS-134 + Cs-137 in milk is 33,000 pCi/L. Not 4645 pCi/L. 4645 pCi/L is the DIL for I-131. So, either I'm not understanding the DIL's correctly or they mistakenly used the wrong DIL. I saw the same type of statement in their May 16 report. Where they detected I-131 @ 4.14 pCi/L, Cs-134 @ 4.55 pCi/L and Cs-137 @ 5.11 pCi/L for a milk sample collected on 5/2. If the DIL is 33000 pCi/L, then their current Cs-134 measurement is 13924 times less, and the Cs-137 measurement is 11186 times less. The other point to note is that the levels are down by almost half from their 5/2 sample.
FDA Derived Intervention Level (DIL)
This article helps explain
Why does FDA tolerate more radiation than EPA?
http://blogs.forbes.com/jeffmcmahon/2011/04/14/why-does-fda-tolerate-mor...
I wasn't comparing EPA and FDA limits
The FDA limit stated by the Calif. Dept. of Public Health is for iodine-131 (roughly 4700 pCi/L). The FDA limit for cesium-134 and cesium-137 is 33,000 pCi/L. You can see this in the "FDA Derived Intervention Level (DIL)" link I provided in my previous post as well as the one below. My question was why is the CDPH using what appears to be the wrong FDA limit for the cesiums?
Just FYI:
The EPA doesn't set limits for food/milk. The FDA does. As far as human consumption items, the EPA only sets limits for water.
The EPA limit for water is 3 pCi/L. That limit was established based on 70 years of water consumption. As the article you gave the link for states.
The FDA sets limits for food and milk. Those limits are based on 1 year of consumption. If contamination is expected to exist beyond one year, they have to re-assess the situation. That is covered in the following comments in the FDA DIL justification doc:
"The DILs are for radionuclides expected to deliver the major portion of the radiation dose from ingestion during the first year following an accidental episode of radiological food contamination. If there is concern that food will continue to be significantly contaminated beyond the first year, the long-term circumstances need to be evaluated to determine whether the recommended DILs would be appropriate or if other guidance is more applicable"
FDA DIL Justification Document
Good information, good link,
Good information, good link, and good question. Thanks.
Depends on rainfall in late March/early April
Note: For example, this article: Patterns of chernobyl fallout in relation to local weather conditions Sören Mattssona and Raine Vesanena Department of Radiation Physics, University of Göteborg, Sahlgren Hospital, S-413 45 Göteborg, Sweden Received 21 November 1987; accepted 10 May 1988. Available online 24 June 2003. Abstract The deposition of a number of radionuclides from the Chernobyl accident has been measured in Göteborg in western Sweden. Only about 1% of the dominating radionuclides 134,137Cs, 131I and 103,106Ru which finally reached the ground was deposited in dry from, mainly during the period April 27–May 8, 1986. The rest, 99%, was deposited during one single period of rain on May 8, 1986. For the aforementioned radionuclides the activity concentration in the rainwater decreased by a factor of about 50 from beginning to end of this 12 hour rain period showing the most pronounced decrease during the first 2 hours. Compared with the period of dry deposition, the relative amounts of 141,144Ce, 95Zr and 140Ba deposited during the rain on may 8 were low.
It seems to stand the test of reason
It seems to stand the test of reason that the radionuclides deposited
from Fukushima were not deposited upon land, they were deposited into the
Pacific Sea upon moving seawater along with wreckage which was drawn out to
sea from the Tsunami. This was in addition to direct injections of highly
radioactive water that was dumped from Fukushima directly into the sea.
All of that contaminated wreckage along with the vast amounts of
radioactive seawater have been and are heading directly to the
US West Coast. Every wind current and Pacific Sea current indicates
that is true.
While the radionuclides move here, they are constantly being fed into
the natural water cycle.
Your following quote illustrates why this is important and ongoing:
"(1) The amount of fallout in the soil will depend strongly on how much rain the area received in late March and early April, when the air concentrations were at their highest. Said in another way, "wet deposition" (rain) is much more important than "dry deposition" (particles settling out of the air)."
Given these radionuclides are now mixed into the water cycle, 'Wet
Deposition' is still happening- there is just 'little to no
monitoring' going on. The monitoring that is happening is fairly
insufficient as we need full Gamma, Beta as well as Alpha testing
to get a full picture. We also need additional ranges of testing.
'Lichens' (at high altitudes for example), possess unique filtering
ability which could be useful:
http://www.concord.org/~btinker/gaiamatters/investigations/lichens/radia...
The manner in which the EPA went about testing (air canister/air filter
testing) for Plutonium was about the best way to test for Plutonium, if the
goal was 'not' to detect Plutonium. Other methods of testing, such as Soil
samples from under raingutter downspouts as well as lichens at higher
altitudes are likely to easily reveal radionuclides with decay rates as far
reaching as Plutonium.
Can you expand on "we were fortunate (in some sense)"?
Were you referring to being fortunate *only* because it provided the opportunity to get good measurements? Or was there some additional benefit to the large amount of rainfall at that time?
"In Berkeley, we were fortunate (in some sense) to have a large amount of rainfall in late March and early April, so we were able to make many measurements"
Yes, we were fortunate to
Yes, we were fortunate to have the opportunity to make many measurements. "In some sense" meant that the whole disaster is unfortunate — nobody wants to have to measure radioactive fallout.
I didn't mean this at the time, but any rain is good for our area, since we probably won't have much more until autumn.
Mark [BRAWM Team Member]
I would disagree. I think
I would disagree. I think it's better to not have rain than to have contaminated rain. We're looking at extra cancers for sure because of the rain.
Thanks, Mark
I was actually thinking you meant the following (adding the second sentence to your comment below in bold):
"In Berkeley, we were fortunate (in some sense) to have a large amount of rainfall in late March and early April, so we were able to make many measurements. But, unfortunate in that the rain is depositing more fallout in the soil"
So, it was a double edged sword.
Mark - Thank you for your
Mark - Thank you for your thoughtful response, and to the OP, great question.
I did some work last week on what the surface deposition may have been in the highest fallout area that I could find data for via the EPA Radnet. That's Boise, ID, which got a pretty nasty load of rain.
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/4630
If you look it over, I figured surface deposition to be less that 100bq/m2 from rainout in Boise. Huge parts of Europe got their butts kicked with depositions of 2,000 to 10,000 bq/m2 of Cs-137, and those folks are at least mostly OK.
I myself would favor California produce over Northwest products at this point, but as BRAWM has pointed out again and again, all levels seen thus far have been quite low. As so many here have mentioned, it would be very nice if one of the gov agencies would act like this is a concern, but they aren't going to, so it's do the best you can at the guessing game. You are going to get some of this junk, but you can probably reduce it 50-75% without living in a cave.
You may also think about time-frame of production. I bought a ton (OK, not a ton, but a bunch) of beans, knowing that most of them come from ID, but that the ones at the store are last year's beans. They last for years, and we will eat them all gone and miss the worst of that. Also, cheese. I picked up a bunch of pre-FK cheese, and when that is gone, I'll go to the aged cheddars, and when that is gone, I'll go to fresh cheese again. It is true that this will be a years long issue, but looking at the decline in levels across the board, I would say in a couple years most of the crap will be pretty diluted (ie, mixed into the dirt, washed away, not as available).
It can drive you a little crazy. I guess moderation is key...I know that when we go out to eat, all bets are off.
Good luck!
Actually, from March 17 -
Actually, from March 17 - mid April Boise got very little rain relatively (less than Los Angeles). They had less than 2 inches of rain during that whole period. You can look up percipitation amounts by date here:
http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KBOI/2011/4/12/DailyHistory....
Given that, I'm not sure why Boise had such high readings...
It would have been good if there had been more thorough testing done in places like Portland and Seattle.
Boise sits at the base of the Rocky Mountains
If you start at Eugene Oregon and you make a 'Beeline' headed straight
East-the Boise National Forest is the first high altitude mountain range
which you run into. Boise sits at the base of this mountain range and
receives it's water in the form of runoff into aquifers etc:
http://www.idwr.idaho.gov/WaterInformation/Projects/espam/
For this reason it makes sense that Boise would receive elevated levels of
concentration- as well as other locations with matching topography.
As the Hydrologic (water) cycle brings in moisture it evaporates over the
ocean, condensates in the upper atmosphere where it is stored as 'clouds
and ice' until it either 'rains down' on it's way inland or comes down in
the form of snow and ice when it hits high altitude mountain ranges.
Fukushima Fallout is mixing with this 'Natural Weather Pattern'.
http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Water/images/water_cycle_usgs_big.jpg
This is why we will CONTINUE to see radiation coming in with the water
cycle, as not only did the vast amounts of radioactive water from the Spent
Fuel Pools etc get dumped into the Pacific Current, (which is headed
straight East to the US West Coast
http://news.cnet.com/i/bto/20080604/Gyremap.jpg ), but in addition, the
plumes from the Nuclear Reactor explosions in Fukushima rained down on all
of the wreckage dragged out to sea by the Tsunami as well as the Sea
itself. All of that wreckage and seawater is radioactive and much of it
will be washing up on our N. California seashores, Oregon, Washington,
British Columbia and on up into Alaska. It will be widely distributed
throughout the water cycle and other unanticipated means (birds landing in
it and bringing it inland etc.)
The Pacific currents will move the radioactive wreckage back past Hawaii
again on the way back. Hawaiians are already dealing with it:
http://hawaiihealthguide.com/healthtalk/display.htm?id=915&hhsid=9ea42c3...
All the while the radioactive isotopes will be in the water cycle- every
geographical location which is fed moisture through the 'Pacific Vapor
Canopy' will receive it.
I have to say that I don't understand how a situation that is SO obvious
and SO pertinent has managed to get past some of the brightest young minds
(not to mention their Professors) at UCB Nuclear Engineering. I've yet to
see this issue of radioactive wreckage and radioactive seawater ( = water
cycle), yet addressed on this forum.
(Perhaps BRAWM is wrestling with how to fit the ocean into a 'commercial airliner'?)
However, it has not escaped my attention, that many on this forum have
expended MUCH energy pushing the idea that 'Volcanic rocks on our seashores
are pumping out tons of Radon'. (May as well rename the BRAWM Team the
'Radon Awareness League' for that effort.)
There seems to be an effort to avoid this 'unanticipated criticality' of
Fukushima altogether, while at the same time running a pre-emptive
'smokescreen' in order to have an excuse 'at the ready' when we start
seeing radioactivity spike on our shores as more of this 'water-cycle-
distributed' Fukushima radiation.
As true as it may be that radon emanates from igneous/volcanic rock, Radon
from igneous/volcanic rock has never been 'on the radar' in terms of a
public health issue, expressed very well in the following:
http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/ASK/radon.html
That effort seems to be a smokescreen to protect the NRC and the rest of
the Pro Nuclear Lobby from being held accountable for this disaster of
their own design.
From the Pro Nuclear Lobby, we will likely hear claims of:
The volcanic rocks have always been radioactive! This isn't new!
How can you possibly prove the radiation is from Fukushima? You can't!
You don't have testing of the entire West Coast Seashore from prior the
Fukushima event do you?
Oh well- too bad! (for you)
It's not just the amount of
It's not just the amount of rain. Basically, rainout occurs when rainstorm meets fallout cloud, as I understand it. So Boise had some bad luck there it looks like.
But it may have rained acts and dogs in LA that same day, and if there was no fallout plume, that rainwater would be clean...
I get that, but the rain in
I get that, but the rain in Boise was just extremely light relative to so many other places. On March 20th in Santa Monica (wouldn't March 20th have been a bad day for stuff coming from Japan?), we had THREE inches of rain in one day. That's more than Boise had in an entire month.
What's frustrating is that no one is testing soil or food down here, so we have no way of knowing how much was deposited.
I believe that even within a
I believe that even within a small geographical area, results will vary, possibly dramatically. It's true in Japan, and I have heard no reason thus far to believe that it isn't true anywhere else in the world.
bump
bump
I've mostly been keeping up
I've mostly been keeping up with Southern Californian air radiation levels through the EPA and similar sites monitoring background radiation, but the EPA has ceased testing of milk, precipitation, and drinking water for most of the country. I'm just wondering if, given that most products from California come from similar farming regions, the data I find here can be reliably applied to my own life.