Two Peaches in Greater Los Angeles found high in radiation

In Los Angeles, on Friday, July 8th, 2011, two peaches found at a local Santa Monica market were confirmed to have sustained radiation levels of 81 CPMs, or greater. The market's background radiation was said to be about 39 CPMs. The two peaches, thus, had significantly high radiation contamination equaling over two times site background levels.
http://www.enviroreporter.com/radiation-station-stats/

Another blogger noted that: "What makes this discovery especially significant is that the 2X background radioactivity detected in these peaches was likely significantly attenuated by their water content; when eaten the exposure rate may be significantly higher. Even worse, it is likely that the detected radioactivity is from a longer half life radionuclide; which when eaten, would irradiate a person from the inside out for potential years to come."
@Potrblog, July 10th, 2011, at 8:05 pm
http://www.enviroreporter.com/2011/03/enviroreporter-coms-radiation-stat...

Additionally, it appears the Greater Los Angeles Basin is continuing to get intermittent low level elevated radiation readings. That is, radiation levels less than 100 CPMs, but elevated relative to normal background levels for the geiger counter testing station).
http://www.enviroreporter.com/radiation-station-stats/

***

Any other areas in California coming up with similar radiation findings?

Santa Monica Market

I'm a Santa Monica resident. "Santa Monica Market" does not normally refer to a grocery store. There's is a huge market in downtown Santa Monica every Wednesday and Saturday with fresh and organic produce coming from central California, as far away as Fresno. Central Cal is the breadbasket for the U.S. Most cabbage, fruit, etc comes from there. The author didn't want the liability issues, but by calling it the "Santa Monica Market" would most likely refer to this open air version and not a Ralph's. Tons of peaches are sold here, I buy them for my kids. That being said, there's no amount of "it couldn't be the case" that is going to convince me to buy tainted produce for my kids. As reported after Chernobyl, it's not the initial fallout that poisons the people, but getting into the food chain. Just like tons of tainted beef mysteriously being sold in Japan, and the excuse is that they don't have a proper monitoring apparatus in place. Thank God for those who monitor this stuff, since the EPA hasn't posted anything since 4-13.

Once again Berkeley BRAWM bloggers-

Straight from the mouth of Michael Collins of the EnviroReporter, and tester of the two "hot" peaches:

"Michael Collins says:
July 9, 2011 at 8:15 pm

"@ Angusmerlin: The two peaches found high in radiation emissions were actually in a Santa Monica market as noted, not the Farmer’s Market. I tested the fruit in this small market had because the opportunity presented itself. None of the other fruit present were higher than the background radiation in this store. That said, those peaches were sold in who knows how many places."

http://www.enviroreporter.com/2011/03/enviroreporter-coms-radiation-stat...

Consistent with the "hot" two peaches, "hot" rain in Canada

Not in California, but consistent with the Los Angeles "hot" peach finding:

“CRMT- Kelowna BC receives High Fukushima Fallout Radioactive Rain on 07/16/11?

“Canadian Monitoring Tour has also found the same levels of radiation in the rain which fell at around 12:10 AM on Sunday July 17th 2011?

Uploaded by connectingdots1 on Jul 16, 2011
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYTWbcBe_MM&feature=player_embedded#at=69

Isn't this one the typical

Isn't this one the typical increases after the rain? One of the sticke threads deals with this. If the levels go down within a few hours we can discard any connection with Fukushima fallout.

How many times do we have to witness the discovery of natural radiation by the proud owner of a brand new Geiger counter before it becomes boring?

Rad test results for Canadian rain taken over 3 day test period

Dear Anonymous re your assertion that Canadian test findings were only the result of naturally occurring radon; and not due to Fukushima radiation fallout:

The Canadian geiger monitor user in the above article is reported to be experienced in using geiger monitors. The geiger counter was calibrated prior to the beginning of the testing period. Three different days at different locations were tested for rad results during the Canadian rain monitoring tour. On all three of the test days, radiation from from the Canadian rain generally was found to be very "hot" relative to background radiation levels. Vancouver was one of the few exceptions, where testing was found to be within normal radiation range.

Were the high rad test results purely radon test artifact? It is doubtful that radon artifact contaminated test results, since the testing occurred over a three day period of rain; and, not just for a single first day of rain.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYTWbcBe_MM&feature=player_embedded#at=69

***

So, it still appears to stand that the Canadian "hot" rainfall is consistent with the two "hot" peaches in Los Angeles.

In the video you can see the

In the video you can see the rain is still ongoing, where is the follow up video a few hours later, if the user is so experienced?

And according to the description, "Canadian Monitoring Tour has also found the same levels of radiation in the rain which fell at around 12:10 AM on Sunday July 17th 2011". Another test which found high radiation levels just after the rain?

Fukushima jet flow patterns

Re the above "hot" rain in Canada article, you may ask, "What does this have to do with California, especially Southern California? Well, to answer this question, here is a link to a weather forecasting station that frequently updates Japan Jet Stream Air Flow Patterns over Northern America. Handy. Very handy. If you read a report such as the above 'connectingdots' report of "hot" rain in Canada (or where ever), you now have access to analyze the Japan jet stream air flow patterns re the reported "hot" rain. You possess at your finger tips on the internet at least some idea as to where that "hot" jet stream from Fukushima is flowing. Yes, definitely handy. Very handy. By the way, when I checked the flow patterns yesterday (July the 17th, 2011), at one point the Japan jet stream was going over Southern California. So, guess what about the radiation flow from Fukushima...

Yes, indeed, this is consistent with two "hot" peaches showing up in Los Angeles.

http://www.weatherimages.org/data/imag192.html

One last thought...

I had one last thought about the peaches. Since a geiger counter is not effective for picking up radiation inside a sample of food, is it possible the peaches were radioactive from the pesticides and fertilizer ?

According to Tree Hugger, see link below, peaches are the number one absorber and contaminated fruit when it comes to pesticides.

Quote from Tree Hugger:
Peaches top the list of most pesticide-ridden fruits, with some combination of up to 53 pesticides found on all the peaches in the study...yikes. With their relatively thin skin, peeling and washing can only do so much, so this one tops the list of fruits to definitely buy organic whenever possible.

http://www.treehugger.com/galleries/2009/04/12-fruits-with-the-most-pest...

It could be the outer layers had a thick layer of radioactive pesticide residue ? I don't know how radioactive pesticides might be but if 53 types are used I am sure it can not be good, and would take some research to find out which of the 53 pesticides might be radioactive.

Negative. Pesticide is not

Negative. Pesticide is not radioactive.

Fertilizer can have naturally occuring isotopes, notably K-40, but also some thorium and uranium.

Some more thoughts on the Two Peaches

Good Afternoon BRAWM bloggers and BRAWM team,

Some more thoughts on the Two Peaches

"Michael Collins [from the live EnviroReporter.com Radiation Station] says:
July 9, 2011 at 8:15 pm

"@ Angusmerlin: The two peaches found high in radiation emissions were actually in a Santa Monica market as noted, not the Farmer’s Market. I tested the fruit in this small market had because the opportunity presented itself. None of the other fruit present were higher than the background radiation in this store. That said, those peaches were sold in who knows how many places."

http://www.enviroreporter.com/2011/03/enviroreporter-coms-radiation-stat...

***

With the above comment in mind, I thought and then I thought some more....

1. While Fukushima ground radiation may have been very low in some California areas, other geographical locations (depending upon the direction of the contaminating Fukushima jet stream flows), may have been relatively more heavily impacted by resulting radioactive fallout. There were times, in fact there were a number of times, when I tracked the NILU radiation weather forecasts that San Francisco/Berkeley areas appeared more minimally impacted, compared to Los Angeles and surrounding areas. Yes, I know NILU was based on worst case scenarios. But, also keep in mind that TEPCO hugely underestimated initial Fukushima nuclear fallout, which proved to be actually 2X worse than first reported. I did not track the Central Coast farm belt. Should have, but didn't. Consider that resulting ground contamination will be cumulative over time. Even while air radioactive pollution may not have been significantly high over the California West Coast, it would seem over time-- over extended periods of time especially-- radiation fallout could add up, accumulating at the ground level. And, the rains shall fall. Fallout is said to still be spewing from nuclear reactors at Fukushima, to a lesser extent, but still escaping. Why is the above important? While San Francisco/Berkeley farm produce may not have been significantly impacted by Fukushima radiation fallout, perhaps other areas in the State of California have been hit more substantially, cumulatively over time-- due to the direction of Fukushima current air flow. And, two "hot" peaches show up in Los Angeles.

2. Mr. Collins reports that numerous pieces of fruit were checked at the little market in Santa Monica. Consider that of all the fruit tested, only two pieces came up radioactively "hot". While spot checking with the handy dandy "Inspector" monitor, only two pieces of that fruit sustained high levels of radiation-- detected @ 2X background levels. Only two peaches. It speaks volumes that only two pieces of the fruit came up contaminated. Why didn't any of the other pieces of fruit tested by the spot checking also come up "hot", if artificially positive radiation results had occurred due to the testing methods used? Would not some of the rest of the fruit also have come up with "artificially" elevated positive readings? The fruit was all located in a small market, and spot tested about the same time. Yet, nothing else showed up high, nothing at all.
Just two "hot" peaches show up in Los Angeles.

3. There are referenced Bionerd Youtube videos on this thread that seem to indicate that the problem with using geiger counters to detect radiation in food sources is not that the geiger monitors over identify "hot" food/produce, but rather that geiger counters (unless extremely expensive state of the art equipment), tend to way under identify radioactivity in food. That is, geiger counters that you or I may be able to afford, are unlikely to identify radioactive food at all. If it is true that portable geiger counters tend to result in false negatives in identifying radiation in food, the fact that Michael Collins' Inspector Monitor found any radiation at all in two peaches in Los Angeles is pretty significant. Contamination may actually have been worse than the Inspector CPM readings indicated in the two Los Angeles peaches tested.

http://www.youtube.com/user/bionerd23#p/u/4/Silk2g8fS8Y

http://www.youtube.com/user/bionerd23#p/u/3/krWa4M8i2bk

4. And, yes, I also wish that the two peaches had been bought and tested over, let's say, two ten minute periods of time, similar to air testing methods used at the EnviroReporter's Radiation Station. But, you all need to remember that Mr. Collins is volunteering his time to test this produce out in the first place. A job that our own government should be doing for us, but is not! I applaud the EnviroReporter folks for all they have done for those of us in the Greater Los Angeles area. To my knowledge, no one else out there has been willing to come forth to check and post Los Angeles air quality and farm produce. It is a lot of work and energy. Thank you, Michael Collins, for your public service.

***

Further research needed? Most definitely. The EnviroReporter findings are a first alert that possible radiation problems may exist for some of our food sources. Bottom line, our government needs to take over the responsibility for "spot" checking California farm produce for possible Fukushima radiation contamination. But, will the government do it? In light of the fact that the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) has just recently stopped posting gross beta air radiation findings, governmental food testing/public reporting of results found currently appears to be extremely unlikely.

So again, thank you, EnviroReporter and Michael Collins for letting us know about two "hot" peaches in Los Angeles.

Above comment is from the original poster of this thread-

Angusmerlin

Hey Angus- Just a thought. A

Hey Angus-

Just a thought. A lot of fruit comes from the PNW.

Can you say Hanford?

Google "Hanford Marco Kaltofen". Man, they found some mulberry bushes that had fruit that was downright hazardous near the edge of the Hanford reservation.

Another thing to think about.

Holy Moses! Underground

Holy Moses! Underground plumes of water radiation threatening the Columbia River. Seems like when mankind creates what God has not, all hell breaks loose! Think I'll pass on the mulberry fruit, BC.

Angus- Yeah, it's pretty bad

Angus-

Yeah, it's pretty bad up that way.

My point was that there are all kinds of potential for "legacy" radioactive contamination that also needs to be accounted for. Now it's too late to get a real handle on the levels of cesium or strontium from pre FK, but no doubt there was some present, especially in the soil.

Bear in mind that radioactive crud is just as bad whether it was dumped 30 years or 3 months ago, but that there is a way to determine whether or not it is a "fresh" deposition...Cs-134.

Also,I found an interesting paper on Sr-90 and the levels of it in the USA's food chain - I think some inferences about Cesium can be made.

.http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp159-c6.pdf

Likely a scam

What prevented the "reporter" from buying the peaches? Sounds like bull to me.

Just curious if you bothered

Just curious if you bothered to go to this guys website (Enviroreporter), to investigate his history re: issues like this?
Rather than attack and call names because you don't have enough info, take the time to investigate, then post some facts, or pose an honest question to get further info.

The Two Radiated Peaches

The Two Radiated Peaches were found in "a" local market in Santa Monica

I, Angusmerlin, am the OP of this thread. Two important points of information need to once again be stated and stressed:

1. The two radiated peaches were spot checked at "a" local market in the city of Santa Monica. They were not, and I repeat, they were not found at "the Santa Monica Farmer's Market"! Michael Collins of the live EnviroReporter.com's Radiation Station, the person who originally found the two radiated peaches, stated this very clearly to me.

2. When I inquired, Michael stated that he did not know where the two peaches had been grown.

http://www.enviroreporter.com/2011/03/enviroreporter-coms-radiation-stat...

***

I wish I had more information to give you, but I don't. Sorry!

Dear Mark

Dear Mark,

Thank you for looking into these questions. As always you seem to have the patience and answers for all of us.

Can you please comment on the two videos posted by Bionerd on Youtube. I gave the links here in this thread.

I would like to know your opinion about the geiger counter being used as an instrument to measure food samples.

According to the youtbe poster, it seems by her experiments that it is very unlikely to get an accurate reading unless you have a counter with a huge crystal, an instrument that costs between $5,000 to $10,000 dollars.

Even a $500 dollar model will not be able to register and accurate reading, and it is not because of the "low levels" or timed reading as you mentioned, and because her counter finds a reading on a sample to be about 3,000 CPM with an expensive counter, and with a smaller instrument, the readings reflect virtually nothing.

I am interested in hearing what your opinion is on these two videos.

Those are great videos. I

Those are great videos. I think she really explains well the sorts of considerations and calculations one needs to make when detecting radiation.

Geiger-Mueller counters are very blunt instruments. They are really only supposed to be used to get general readings from the environment and to check for hot spots in a lab. Every rad lab has something of the sort in order to make routine surveys. It is impossible to use one to search for trace radioactive isotopes in a sample. They are also very inefficient at detecting gamma rays alone.

Geiger-Mueller counters are just gas-filled chambers under high voltage, and they are very good at detecting "directly ionizing" radiation. GM tubes are very good at detecting beta particles and pretty good at detecting alpha particles. As she points out, gamma rays are "indirectly ionizing," meaning that they need to interact in material before there is any ionization to measure. Since the tube is filled with gas, that is not much material for the gamma rays to interact in, and so its "efficiency" is very small for them.

The situation is almost reversed for scintillator crystals. The crystals (typically sodium iodide or cesium iodide) are very dense, so the gammas have lots of matter to interact in. Their interactions create tiny pulses of light inside the crystal, which are detected by special electronics. Scintillators cannot really be used to detect alphas and betas because they need to be shielded by passive material so that they don't dissolve in the air.

BRAWM uses germanium detectors, which are very similar to scintillators except for (1) they have much better resolution, which means very narrow spectral lines, (2) germanium requires liquid nitrogen as a coolant, and (3) germanium is even more expensive.

The reason that one really needs to do gamma spectroscopy is because beta particles do not have spectral lines. When a trace quantity of something is present, it is very hard to tell if there is a tiny extra blob of beta particles over the naturally-occurring blob of beta particles. With gammas, the natural isotopes and trace isotopes all emit sharp lines, which poke up in the spectrum. Those make it much easier to tell whether something is present, and if so how much.

Mark [BRAWM Team Member]

Thanks from the peanut

Thanks from the peanut gallery for the further geiger counter information.
And, thanks to "Anonymous" for posting the two videos!

The two

There is absolutely no way

There is absolutely no way that fallout from Fukushima could possibly be detected with a handheld radiation meter here in the US. The quantities have been far, far too small for this to be the case. BC noted this same thing below.

Those peach readings might not actually be statistically significant. They are not quoted with statistical uncertainties, and it is possible that they were taken in a very brief period of time, perhaps less than one minute (this was done in a grocery store, and I wouldn't want to stand around doing this). If the period of time was too short and the actual counts measured were too small, then the statistical uncertainty could overwhelm even this seemingly large difference.

As I have said on this forum before, data are meaningless without uncertainties. Uncertainties tell us how significant the data are. For data that are measured by counting discrete objects (e.g., detector clicks), it is especially important to include uncertainties in the analysis. This is very easy to do. If N counts are measured in T minutes, then the count rate should be reported as:
      N/T ± SquareRoot(N)/T counts per minute.

Another possible explanation is that the "background" and "source" samples might not have been taken in exactly the same configuration, which can make a huge difference, especially for a handheld detector.

By the way, those interested in Geiger counter measurements could look at my post about measuring the radioactivity of potassium chloride:
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/4742

Mark [BRAWM Team Member]

Dear Mark and Angusmerlin:

Hello !
Wow, Mark you said it so well, a smooth flow of words, rich with information, delicious like a fine swiss milk chocolate bar, I do appreciate it ! Yum ! It was my first question for you, mostly I have been reading and commenting but not asking direct questions. Merci beacoup.

I knew Bionerd was onto something there. She is really deep into her work, studies and hobbies. I don't have a youtube account but someone should ask her to join these blogs and participate ! I think she knows a lot and could enjoy the discussions.

So I hope people stop trusting a geiger counters, for measuring food samples. It could be very hazardous indeed to think it is all safe when it might be very hot.

What does the Berkeley team eat for dinner ? Not really, but if I knew too much as I am starting to find out, I would be so paranoid about eating stuff. In fact I already am, and have restrained from a lot, but it is hard we have to eat, breath, and live now don't we ?

Anyway just a thank you to you Mark and to Angusmerlin who delighted me with his/her post as well.

My pleasure, Anonymous. I'm

My pleasure, Anonymous. I'm glad you enjoyed savoring Two "hot" Peaches.

As always, Mark, your

As always, Mark, your thoughts are very much appreciated.
Thank you for sticking in there with us!

Mark- Just for giggles, I

Mark-

Just for giggles, I whipped out my "little toot" Monitor 4 today. I must stress how useless this thing is for the levels likely seen here. Also, I want to emphasize that as you have already mentioned, sample time is critical, and a quick sample could lead one to believe that a sample is radioactive when it is NOT (or v/v). The "hits" can come fast and furious and then disappear. I have had 35 counts in a minute for a sample that averaged out to twenty counts per minute over a five minute time frame.

I was lucky enough to harvest a very nice batch of local Northern NV cherries today. I put the monitor right on to of a pile of them and got 86 counts over 5 minutes. Later, I used the same method on a sample of local hay and got 89 counts in the same time frame. The average background count here is 16-22 CPM per my monitor and many counts over the past 2 months. So the hay, and the cherries, are not above background per my test. I hate to say it, but it is likely that both have an extremely minute amount of contamination. But I sure couldn't see it with the junk equip I have.

I had another thought today - the team made a post on milk and how the K-40 therein has an activity of ~50 bq/l. I know that liquid can dampen activity, but I have been toying with the idea of putting my CPM counter over a sample of powdered milk. It'll probably do....nothing.

Bottom line - people testing with junk equip can see what they want to see. I respect the enviroreporter people, but please, buy the peaches and let's test them for real. Show me some lab data indicating Cs-134, and I am a believer that this is from FK.

Thanks again to the team.

BC

Enjoy the cherries

I would agree with Angusmerlin — your monitor is not "junk," it's just not useful to detect the trace levels in the environment from Fukushima. I just discussed this in a comment above.

Please by all means test powdered milk or whatever else you want. Your counter is made to find obvious levels of radiation, and there always could be some natural radiation that happens to be higher in some particular sample (e.g., potassium chloride). You know how to take the data and calculate the uncertainties.

Mark [BRAWM Team Member]

I should also add that your

I should also add that your device could be very important in other circumstances. For example, if you had been just outside the evacuation zone of Fukushima, it would have been an invaluable tool for monitoring your environmental levels and avoiding obvious hot spots from fallout. As it is, it has shown you that your levels have not changed throughout this crisis.

Mark [BRAWM Team Member]

Further thoughts on the Two Peaches

Good Evening, BC.

Re your comment: "Bottom line - people testing with junk equip can see what they want to see. I respect the enviroreporter people, but please, buy the peaches and let's test them for real."

The EnviroReporter Radiation Station folks, I believe, use an "Inspector Alert" Monitor (which uses the larger and more sensitive 2" detector tube for monitoring radiation). The "Inspector Alert" lists for over $750 on the internet.

Additionally, the "RadiationNetwork" national monitoring system also incorporates "Inspector" monitoring stations into its national reporting network.

Definitely not junk equipment, the "Inspector".

***

Yes, I also wish that we knew exactly how long the two peaches had been tested. Yet, we are not told exactly how long testing was conducted.
Only that on July the 8th at: "4:00 pm INTERIOR spot reading in Santa Monica market with approximate background of 39 CPM – Two peaches sustained 81 CPM and above or over two times background (208% of site background)."

Yes, it would have provided invaluable information, if the peaches had been tested over a longer, specified period of time in order to establish better certainty of radiation levels. Yet, the elevated radiation levels that were detected by the EnviroReportor people may in fact be a first alert for all of us. At this time, we simply don't know for sure.

Perhaps we should look at the two peaches' elevated radiation findings as initial research-like red flags that further serious testing of California produce needs to be conducted. Unfortunately, at the same time that the two radiated peaches issue arises, not only is California produce not being systematically tested, but the EPA decides to stop posting air beta testing!

How very, very discouraging. And, yes, a lot of people are upset.

More Testing...

"Perhaps we should look at the two peaches' elevated radiation findings as initial research-like red flags that further serious testing of California produce needs to be conducted."

Well stated!

I also believe the 'Inspector' is fine for this sort of detection. ...and Michale Collins the operator knows how to use it. Perhaps a video cam should be taken along next time.

His videos on testing hepa filters and masks from airplanes clearly shows that he knows how to take a reading.

Angus- I of course agree

Angus-

I of course agree that more testing is needed.

I really wish that the enviroreporter people would have bought the peaches and done a couple ten minute counts at a minimum. I don't think there is anything there to see, myself, (or that you could see it with their gear - I know their "Inspector" is a little better than the junk I use, but it's still pretty wimpy) but if a damned peach is double background, then it is way contaminated.

Again, I doubt it, but there's one way to know, right?

http://www.eurofinsus.com/Services/Radioactivity_Testing.html

Santa Monica peaches

In order for produce to be sold at the Santa Monica farmers market, it must be grown in southern California. No imports, no Mexican, no trucked in from further than a relatively local drive (usually 3 hrs. or less).

I'm not a scientist, so I cannot read and interpret the raw data, but I trust enenews.com for their nuclear coverage.

There is no info on the farm that grew the peaches, its location, what other farms are in the area and what they produce, the variety of peach, how many peaches were tested to come up with these two... but it's not hopeful. I'm in So Cal, have shopped at that farmers market. Now I must add all stone fruit to my growing list of what I will not eat, which includes sushi, Pacific-sourced fish, all dairy not aged more than (at this point) 4 months - pre-Fukushima.

How did this happen? When Reactor #3 at Fukushima exploded, it shot spent fuel rods containing plutonium into the upper atmosphere, where it nanoized as dust and started spreading. Rain and snow carried this dust to earth, where it has shown up in our food, water, and possibly as a causitive factor in spikes in infant mortality in the Pacific Northwest, British Columbia and Philadelphia. This is just the early bad news; much, much more to come.

Holistic healing tips and the latest nuclear news are available at Nuclear Hotseat: http://www.facebook.com/#!/groups/213015685408945?ap=1 There's a weekly podcast w/an activist slant and for now, this page lists additional links. Stay informed, stay safe, get active.

1) Small amounts of

1) Small amounts of plutonium will NOT be detected by a geiger counter. I know that is hard to understand, but it is true. If indeed the geiger counter was picking up on something, it's very likely to be cesium. I doubt that as well.

2) Reactor #3. I am not sure what happened there, but I have watched the video over and over and there is no way that it "blew plutonium" into the upper atmosphere by sheer force of explosion.

How many potential ways could Plutonium have been released?

"there is no way that it "blew plutonium" into the upper atmosphere by sheer force of explosion."

Is there someone who can actually explain every single potential way which Plutonium may have been released? Is there only 'one way' it could have escaped?

I haven't seen much information by way of method of Plutonium release- just lack of testing for Plutonium and much 'anonymous' opinion that everyone is 'safe'.

Declarations of what is impossible abound, (which I believe was the descriptor applied to this potential event up to March 10th), just 'no testing' to see if it's 'possible' or not.

The peaches may be even hotter than you think....

I am not a scientist.
But apparently you CAN NOT use a geiger counter to measure radiation in food unless you have a very very expensive instrument with a huge scintillating crystal. Your readings will be false positive. Please watch these two videos on you tube. I am not a subscriber or related to the you tube person who I think lives in Germany, but I think she has without a doubt proven the results of trying to measure food with a geiger counter, and gives a basic warning to those people who are trying to do this to test for radiation in the food.

http://www.youtube.com/user/bionerd23#p/u/4/Silk2g8fS8Y

http://www.youtube.com/user/bionerd23#p/u/3/krWa4M8i2bk

I am curious what the Berkley team has to say about this and these video experiments done on camera.
Don't you agree with with the videos ?

*Correction to above comment

Sorry I meant the reading will be a false negative.
Your food test may only pick up a tiny tiny fraction of the actual radiation in the food. Therefore you may think your food is okay to eat when in fact it may be very very hot, like 200 cpm as in her video.

I so appreciate all the

I so appreciate all the comments in this thread and this forum, and the intelligent and helpful contributions.
BUT, here we are again. Conflicting info. Not knowing what to believe. Trying desperately to discern what is best. Fending for ourselves.

for: conflicting info.

Yes we are fending for ourselves.
It is very sad.

But try to find real hard facts....did you watch the videos ? I feel the tests done are proof you can not trust the geiger counter when measuring food. Unless you have a very large scintillating crystal, like the ones used in the customs offices and in the large ports for checking radiation in shipping items. These instruments cost thousands of dollars.

Yes I did view the videos -

Yes I did view the videos - thank you so much for posting them. I qualify my "fending for ourselves" statement that in general, we're all scrambling to make sense of what happened, what the consequences are, what the latest findings mean. And then sometimes to backtrack (like you can undo eating certain foods, right?)
A good example is this "2 peaches" situation. Good people like you do some research and post the videos, to help with further understanding.
That's my point. We're all fending for ourselves because we're not getting "official information" and what we do get, we flat out don't trust or we're skeptical at best - with good reason.
So much confusion and contradiction. We're on our own to figure this out.

Things are very serious

The contamination is quite severe and every day releases are adding to further accumulation in soil, food and water and will be for quite some time I donn’t believe that the real extend of this ever has sank in…….

To put things in to perspective
81 cpm equal 2.997 Bq
The absoped body dose of 2.997 Bq
is 0.32967 microSieverts

The EPA limit is 10microSieverts per year or 0.01mSv/year (milliSieverts)
if you eat all year only 30 of this peaches and nothing else you will have reached this yearly limit

And dont forget to add a sprinkle of alpha particles which are not gamma emitters and therefor could not have been detected. Alpha emitters are the most dangerous when ingested out of all other radioisotops and cose the most biological damage

ONLY relocation to the S.Hemisphere will protect you health, like it or not, we all know it, all else wont work in the long run

(Enenews comment.)

(Enenews comment.)

This is not a real issue. A

This is not a real issue. A peach is organic matter... decaying organic matter. It's going to give off more radiation than the background radiation level, ALWAYS. Also, who the hell uses CPMs in an article? Get some integrity, use real measurements. This is exactly the kind of crap I've come to expect from berks.

Dude...the anonymous

Dude...the anonymous dude..like wtf? I didn't know that decaying matter changes the decay rates for radionuclides...wow...did you get yer degree from Cap'n Cracker Jack?

Right? It's 'almost' as if there is disinformation being spread.

Right? It's 'almost' as if there is disinformation being spread.

Some will say anything to get to the next 60 seconds of distraction.

Fortunately it's obvious that it's all Public Relations and 'Court Case Preparation' at this point.

Hot PEACHES ?

"...which when eaten, would irradiate a person from the inside out for potential years to come." -Potrblog July 10th, 2011, at 8:05 pm

Might should get a confirmation on this. someone? anyone?

Aren't a lot of Peaches shipped in from Washington State?

S.C. and Georgia peaches ripe in ...May

Well I sure ain't no farmer !!

S.C. and Georgia peaches ripe in ...

Ripe peaches could arrive as soon as May 1.
http://chronicle.augusta.com/news/metro/2011-03-22/local-strawberries-pe...

Who knew, simi trucks didn't run enpty back to Ca.

spot tested at a regular market

comment:
The peaches were not purchased at the Farmers Market in Santa Monica, they were spot tested at a regular market. (the name was not disclosed). Checkout http://www.enviroreporter.com for additional testing results. ...
http://enenews.com/peaches-in-los-angeles-area-found-with-radiation-at-m...

4:00 pm INTERIOR spot reading in Santa Monica market with approximate background of 39 CPM – Two peaches sustained 81 CPM and above or over two times background (208% of site background).
http://www.enviroreporter.com/radiation-station-stats/

Just Peachy in California

The title of this article at the following link is "Where are most peaches grown?"

snip

'There are more that 1,100 growers in the Central San Joaquin Valley that combined, produce about 60 percent of U.S. fresh peaches.'

http://www.iheartpeaches.com/2009/07/where-are-most-peaches-grown/

More at same excellent 'Peach' site, on topic of white peaches:

'June Peach Varieties

Peach orchards in June are full of activity. ... All California peaches are still hand picked, carefully inspected and packed by hand. Keep an eye out for these varieties that are just beginning to come off the trees at your local market.'

Sounds very likely to be local peaches!

The OP: I did inquire as to

The OP: I did inquire as to where the two radiated peaches were grown. The source was not known, though guessed to possibly be California. In the end, we are left wondering.

Since I live in Los Angeles, I really, really wish we knew more!

PEACHES

To cool in Wash. wpould be Ca. or Mexico ?
To soon to be from the south, S.C. Georgia !
Have to be in the water being feed to the friuts !
Check vegies too !