Store-bought and raw milk update (6/14)
6/14 (12:25am): A milk sample with a Best By date of 6/20 was added to our Milk results. Cesium-134 was detected again at levels similar to previous measurements, but Cesium-137 levels decreased.
Also, a new raw milk sample collected on 6/8 was added to the raw milk page. We have our first non-detections of all isotopes in raw milk.
Lastly, we are in the process of revising our air results for Cesium-137. Since we have been counting samples for many days instead of only 24 hours, we decided to take a long background spectrum to check for possible contamination. A very weak gamma-ray line for Cs-137 was detected in the lab, probably due to contamination of our lead bricks from an old experiment or from radioactive cesium in the lead itself. The presence of this extra Cs-137 has been creating a systematic increase in the Cs-137 measurements we have been reporting. Now that we have measured its strength to good precision, we can subtract it off of our measurements. This is going to lead to a downward revision of our Cs-137 measurements in the coming days. We will make a note when the revision has been made and new air data have been posted.
Mark [BRAWM Team Member]
Can you comment on the uptick in Cesium 134 after no detect?
I have to be honest, it is very frustrating that you may revise your results downward for cesium 137 because I simply am not educated enough to understand how this can happen or how it is justifiable and whether your justification is really reliable. I simply do not have the knowledge to feel comfortable with the explanation. If such an error can occur then why can't the correction be in error and why can't "uncontaminated" results be obtained in a way that avoids the uncertainty of "other" sources for the cesium 137? It seems like guesswork but I accept it is what you believe is accurate - it just feels somehow unreliable.
Anyway ---
Is there any explanation or theory as to why cesium 134 would uptick but cesium 137 would not? Is it possible that cesium 134 gets bioaccumulated in the milk more efficiently and passes into the milk more efficiently than cesium 137?
Any thoughts?
The uptick in cesium 134 and uncertainty about all the results and the "new" reductions from past samples all makes me feel like I have erred in relying on the results in terms of diet choices I am making for my kids (I know you think its safe but I don't)
Also -any theory why raw milk is nondetect vs store bought milk?
I am guessing homogenization (so wider number of farms included) or even contamination of the homogenization "vats" or whatever they mix it in...
I grew up on a dairy. Homogenization means the milk is sent to a main place and mixed with other milks before distribution (we had raw and also sent some off for homogenization).
Could there be remnants of the cesium in the facilities used for homogenization? Or could the raw milk farmers be adding boron to the feed or NOT having them grass fed?
Have you interviewed the farmers who produce the raw milk to see if they have made changes that would account for the nondetect?
If for some reason raw milk is NOW less contaminated than homogenized then understanding why would help all of us and help those of us who want to drink milk make better choices.
BRAWM? Anyone home? Still hoping for some interpretation
and when can you get more strawberry results?
Hoping for answers to my above questions in previous posts.
The authorities criminalize
The authorities criminalize you for participating in the distribution or consumption of fresh, raw milk. This protects big industry, the only true purpose of modern government.
Mark- Thanks. And for any of
Mark-
Thanks.
And for any of us freaking out about this, look at the level of sensitivity the team is using to get these measurements. We are now down to levels ( in the air, at least ) that are so small that a few specks of Cs somewhere in the lab, or in the lead shielding, is enough to skew the results.
Pretty fair news all-around then...
...And, once again, we appreciate yours and BRAWM's continued diligence!
Rick Cromack.
Allen, Texas