Milk and strawberries update (6/21)
6/21 (6:40pm): A milk sample with a Best By date of 6/27 was added to our Milk results. Cesium-134 and Cs-137 were both detected just above our MDA, though both continue to show a downward trend.
Also, a new strawberry sample from 6/9 was tested, yielding our first non-detections of both Cs-134 and Cs-137 in strawberries.
Mark [BRAWM Team Member]
Why do you say "downward trend" when there is Cesium 137 uptick?
It is a bit frustrating when an uptick "confirms" a downward "trend".
Certainly the results for milk are much lower than a montu or so ago BUT cesium 137 is an INCREASE from your last tests.
Maybe I do not understand the term "trend" which means the overall trend is "down" from the peak BUT, again, an uptick MIGHT mean bioaccumulations increasing in the cows and their milk. I have read some reports that even when amounts of radionuclides are undetectable in plants often animal which eat those plants show bioaccumulation of up to a thousand times the levels which have been detected previously.
IF there is no cesium 137 in the grass but the cows which eat the grass show up and down levels of radiocesium - how isw this a "trend"?
Based on past experience here with BRAWM predictions or characterizations have not always been entirely accurate in the sense that it SEEMS that you expect a linear decline in milk which mirrors the decline in soil and grass- just as you expected NO radionuclides to be detected here by mid April. Two months later we STILL see fairly high levels in milk but none in the grass - hence bioaccumulation seems to be occurring. If there is an uptick might there not be MORE upticks?
Finally - as far as STRAWBERRIES thank you much. I suspect there may be another uptick in the future based on the milk tests BUT also the fact that none was detectable at your test level makes me much more secure about letting my kids eat the strawberries in the fridge (altho I KNOW they MIGHT have detectable levels if I could get them tested)
The half life of cesium 137 means it will travel and persist for decades or longer in the food chain at various levels which you may or may not be able to detect at BRAWM. Knowing WHICH places it will be in its highest levels is important. Right now it is highest in soil and milk and maybe in strawberries it will be undetectable from now on (or maybe not).
Thanks for getting thiese tests done. I am still not at ease about it but at least the cesium 137 uotick from the last test was not that much.
My kids have eaten a few strawberries from California and waiting for me to tell them whether the rest tested positive for contamination. I am glad you can't detect it --- but AI fear your assertion that there is a "trend" is not really swcientifically justified as the levels may rise and fall still in various places and these levels may vary widely from very concerning levels to minimally concerning levels. Just because yoiu can't detect it does NOT mean there is NOTHING harmful there - it only means you can't detect it.
But in any case thanks for posting this. Information and data is good, even if spoonfed with suger to minimize its bitter wormwoody taste (Headline: Fukushima radiation PERSISTS in California milk)
Hi Bill, you're welcome. I
Hi Bill, you're welcome.
I think we're emphasizing different things when each of us look at the data. What I see in the last measurement of Cs-137 is that its "error bars" overlap with the previous measurement, meaning it is not significantly different. I try to look at the last several points together and determine if there is a significant trend or not, and for both Cs-137 and Cs-134 the trend is downward. The trend is not linear, but probably more like an exponential decay.
Mark [BRAWM Team Member]
Thank you - this makes sense to me. Glad I asked.
I was not factoring in the error bars overlap (as I should have been) BUT I am still concerned that the trend seems to be a levelling off and not a real decline.
I imagine that "clean" rains will continue to dilute the amounts in the food chain with the possible exception of bioaccumulators like cows which can concentrate higher doses in their milk from much smaller amounts due to eating a lot of stuff with minute amounts.
I read somewhere that elk had high levels, for example, of radioiodine after Chernobyl in Canada even though there was none detectable in their grazing sources. I have no idea if such bioacumulation as high as one thousand times occurs or not (as some reports have asserted) --- but even the milk is declining enough to give some reassurances.
Not yet as much as I would like, but at least a little less awful.
Thanks for the work and KEEP SAMPLING!!!
one batch from one source isn't enought for people to really feel secure that it is representative of the wider food chain.
Bumping up for a hoped for response from BRAWM
Thx
Bill- You are concerned
Bill-
You are concerned mostly about the radiation from the Cs, correct? If you add the the Cs-134 and Cs-137 levels together, you get their combined activity...which is trending down.
I will add that, sadly, all of us were exposed to this stuff pre-FK and just never even gave it a second thought. There's been cesium around for a long while :(.
Good news, most of us have been OK in spite of that.
I am concerned about ALL the Fukushima radionuclides
But the only ones BRAWM now seems to be able to detect with their equipment are the radiocesium. BUT 134 has a much shorter half life than 137 and I expect that to diminish as the 137 perists.
I am also concerned about the hot particles and strontium 90 etc which neither BRAWM nor anyone else is either testing for or able to give answers on or willing to give answers on.
Cesium 137 is a radioactive contaminant with a relatively long biological half life and ADDITIONAL loads from Fukushima to whatever our beloved nuke industry has produced in the past and added to our internal organs needs to be monitored and evaluated with epidemiological studies.
I want to know where it is and underdtand how it travels in the food chain. I have kids. I want to know how MUCH of this stuff is in the food and when you get undetects or low detects of 134 and see UPTICKS in Cesium 137 this is not a good sign to me AT ALL, especially when you "avergae it out" with something that is going down. (The same damn epidemiological study trick is used to "average out" infant deaths near nuclear power plants by making a circle around the plant instead of measuring the downwind plumes and actually measuring doses --- look what happened NW of Fukushima where the country's most beautiful city now Iitate needs to be evacuated NOW because they drew a stupid circle instead of watching where the wind was blowing and thereby imperiling the lives and health of many many thousands who did not leave fast enough).
I HAVE been concerned about cesium and all of the emissions and effluents from our insane nuclear industry pre-Fukushima and have been following these issues for many years. I gave it lots of second thoughts and worked with those researching these issues and did my own research (I have a doctorate - but not in physics)as well as worked fairly closely with those who are concerned, nrc hearings, and even worked on an environmental subcommittee member's staff in Congress dealing with nuclear plant oversight ---
The stuff has the potential to kill us by disease, cancer and mutation of our dna damaging or even annihilating future generations of my own progeny and all the rest of us.
So I want facts. Details. Explanations. Documentation of results.
I want to know from BRAWM why they say radiocesium is TRENDING down when there is an UPTICK in Cesium 137 - a radionuclide with a half life of nearly 30 years and a total radioactive life of 300 years! It will be buried with us if we consume it! And our kids too.
AND it is used by some reports to be an indicator that there is also Strontium 90 which STAYS in the teeth and bones and gets in our blood and bone marrow FOR LIFE because it is a calcium analog. Cesium may pass out of the body sooner or later but strontium may not (and hot particles may simply burn out like dead stars ion our lungs and colons wreaking havoc as well as damaging ovaries and testes.
Please don't patronize me on these issues.
I'd like a response from BRAWM. An explanation. Maybe it will be reasonable and agree with your thoughts and maybe not (to me).
But I worry for ALL future generations and DOWNPLAYING the risk is wrong and denying people the full info is, to me, criminal - especially when we can take steps to protect ourselves IF we get accurate and comprehensive info.
I do NOT expect BRAWM to do this all - but they have offered to respond and explain and I believe they need to explain why they call an upward tick of one radionuclide as a downward trend.
and HOW do they explain cesium 134 going down and 137 rising IF the half life of 137 is much longer than 134. It seems inconsistent to me.
Mark and team- Thank you for
Mark and team-
Thank you for your diligence.
I know that the there is a lot fear here at times, and ignorance too. You have all been very professional throughout, and that is to your credit.
Interested to see how the alpha testing turns out.
BC
Thank you!
Thank you so BRAWN team! You are very much appreciated! Like the OP said above, thank you so much for your diligence and continuing your work through all the negative posts and attacks. There are many of us that are truly in your debt.
Mandi
I agree with BC's post
Thank you Mark and BRAWM Team!
It's very encouraging to see that the radionuclide levels in milk continue to decline and a big cheer for our first non-detect for strawberries!
Yay! I love to see testing
Yay! I love to see testing updates (whatever the outcome found. It's all interesting.) Thanks BRAWM.