That quote, which I believe is from an article on enenews, is probably based on the following data points from our milk sample data:
Best by
Cs-134 activity
Cs-137 activity
08/22/2011
0.047±0.010
0.052±0.013
09/29/2011
0.080±0.010
0.101±0.013
If we combine the uncertainties in these measurements appropriately, then there was an increase of Cs-134 by a factor of 1.7±0.4 and an increase in Cs-137 by a factor of 1.9±0.5. If you combine the two activities, the increase is a factor of 1.8±0.3. So these factors are near 2 ("nearly double") — but with the error included, from a statistical point of view we cannot rule out 1.
Aside from the statistics, I don't think that one single milk measurement represents a significant increase or any sort of trend. However, we're continuing to measure milk to track what happens to the levels as time goes by.
Mark [BRAWM Team Member]
Submitted by BC (not verified) on Sun, 2011-10-16 20:10.
Mark-
I do think that maybe you should just be known as BANDSTRA, all caps. It gives you a real Hollywood feel :). You should get a black T-shirt with the letters in white on the front.
Okay, that's all fun, but let's talk about the cesium levels in the milk. For all of you out there new to the subject, cesium levels in milk are more or less proportionate to cesium levels in the feed of the milk cows. Cows eat pasture grass, and they eat hay. Hay could be a week or a year old. So obviously, much of the hay that saw rain with fallout in March/April is being fed to dairy cows right now and will be for the next year or so.
Take-away is that even if we do see a small increase in Cs levels in milk it does not necessarily mean that we have experienced additional fallout. Also, there is the margin-of-error that Mark as already addressed.
And I will add that I agree that a small uptick does not make trend.
Thanks to you and the team members for continuing your efforts.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 2011-10-16 22:59.
Yes, as usual, thank you so much to the BRAWM team and particularly Mark! And for the reasons outlined above, I believe it is essential to continue to monitor milk. We have a citizen testing initiative here in Canada and will do our best to get some recent milk sampled, as govt tests have been concluded here as well.
Might be true, but not a trend
Mark- I do think that maybe
Mark-
I do think that maybe you should just be known as BANDSTRA, all caps. It gives you a real Hollywood feel :). You should get a black T-shirt with the letters in white on the front.
Okay, that's all fun, but let's talk about the cesium levels in the milk. For all of you out there new to the subject, cesium levels in milk are more or less proportionate to cesium levels in the feed of the milk cows. Cows eat pasture grass, and they eat hay. Hay could be a week or a year old. So obviously, much of the hay that saw rain with fallout in March/April is being fed to dairy cows right now and will be for the next year or so.
Take-away is that even if we do see a small increase in Cs levels in milk it does not necessarily mean that we have experienced additional fallout. Also, there is the margin-of-error that Mark as already addressed.
And I will add that I agree that a small uptick does not make trend.
Thanks to you and the team members for continuing your efforts.
Yes, as usual, thank you so
Yes, as usual, thank you so much to the BRAWM team and particularly Mark! And for the reasons outlined above, I believe it is essential to continue to monitor milk. We have a citizen testing initiative here in Canada and will do our best to get some recent milk sampled, as govt tests have been concluded here as well.