Milk update (10/18/2011)
10/18 (3:25pm): Milk sampling is continuing with weekly to biweekly samples. One new store-bought milk sample has been posted with a Best By date of 10/10. Low levels of both Cs-134 and Cs-137 are still present.
Mark [BRAWM Team Member]
...and exceed legal
...and exceed legal maximums, isn't that right?
What is being done about this? Doesn't this warrant a recall?
Legal maximums go higher;
Legal maximums go higher; ergo, the radioactive cesium detected is comfortably below legal limits.
How so? It seems to be over
How so? It seems to be over the EPA’s Maximum Contaminant Level of 3.0 pCi/l with just the caesium by itself, assuming there isn't any other radionuclides in it (very unlikely, but even with that most conservative assumption).
Please note - EPA MCL for
Please note - EPA MCL for cesium isotopes is 200 pci/l.
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/health/contaminants/radiation/pdfs/cesium.pdf
See also FDA -
http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/FoodContaminantsAdulteration/Chemical...
EPA drinking water limits
Here are some more details to add to the above poster's information. The EPA drinking water limits can be a bit confusing because they are defined in terms of dose — i.e., the concentration of the radionuclide that would give a person a dose of 4 millirem from a year of consumption. Therefore the concentration (in picoCuries per liter or Becquerels per liter) changes depending on the nuclide.
Here is a current document giving the EPA limits for drinking water for various radionuclides: Derived Concentrations (pCi/l) of Beta and Photon Emitters in Drinking Water For Cs-134 and Cs-137, these are the limits:
Our measurements in milk have never exceeded these amounts, and current levels are far below these limits. Also, these limits are conservative for drinking water; for milk they will be extremely conservative because of the lower rate of consumption of milk relative to water. They assume water is consumed at an average of 2 liters per day. This rate is equivalent to 3.7 gallons per week, which is much more milk than the average person consumes.
Mark [BRAWM Team Member]
Milk Consumption
My brother drinks 1 gallon of milk each and every day and has for most of his life. I drink 1 gallon of water every day, eat a couple of pounds of cheese/week (the average person consuming 30 lbs/y), and really fat people will consume a gallon of ice cream per night and mostly every night. Lets not forget the butter. Oh yes; yogurt, whipping cream, cream cheese, cottage cheese, whey, buttermilk, eggnog and milk products like powdered milk in baked goods, candy, pasta, animal feed, even pharmaceuticals and beauty products, shampoos, and other milk products including milk by-products contained within other products. Skim milk powder is sold to animal feed manufacturers. Almost 70% of veal feeds (by weight) are milk products. Ghee (clarified milk fat) in sweetmeat, toffee, sweet paste.
Lets not forget the special case of bottle fed babies' consumption/kg of body weight, as they are much more at risk and the fact that all of the acceptable levels are derived from external exposure from Hiroshima data and do NOT consider internal exposure or the special case of women (5 times more sensitive) or babies (7 times more sensitive), and continually deny the effects of low dose long term exposure.
A billion pounds of whey (from butter) are used for other products like utensils through reactive extrusion by combining proteins with starch. During this process, it’s possible to create a biodegradable plastic product that can be mixed with polyethylene and molded into utensils, add casein from the milk and you get cups.
According to USDA the US produces 189,320,000,000 pounds of milk/year (2009). That leaves the possibility of a lot of contaminated milk going into all sorts of things. All too often posts are too simplistic here to represent the real world. You post: "This rate is equivalent to 3.7 gallons per week, which is much more milk than the average person consumes." I'm suggesting to you that the 'average person' does indeed consume a much larger amount of milk than that which you state, even if we never drink any milk directly, because it's in so many other products.
I suppose the acceptable levels are still within Your acceptable limits for the rest of Us because you have no idea where the milk goes and until now had no idea how much is produced in the US. I further suppose that as a member of the nuclear industry (nuclear business, commerce, management, trade, traffic or whatever form of the nuclear industry you prefer to call yourselves - after all I now call the garbage man the waste collector) you have to 'tow the line' with respect to NRC, EPA and IAEA pronouncements and try to assuage peoples fears and concerns about radioactive isotope production and releases so that the people don't shut all portions of your industry down.
Average milk consumption
You stated:
"I'm suggesting to you that the 'average person' does indeed consume a much larger amount of milk than that which you state, even if we never drink any milk directly, because it's in so many other products."
Yes, it is true that milk is in many other products. However, the number you gave for total milk production in the U.S. is the total for all milk — not just milk that people drink — and if we use that number we can get the average exposure for the other possible routes of intake of milk. The average rate of milk consumption is still much less than the average rate of water consumption, which was the original point. I'll show this here.
The statistics for milk production in the US are available from the National Agricultural Statistics Service (also available in Wolfram Alpha). That's where the 190 billion pounds per year figure comes from. However, the USDA states that:
...about one-third of the milk is actually processed into fluid milk and cream products... The remaining milk—almost two-thirds of the milk supply—is used to produce a wide array of manufactured dairy products. Almost half of the milk supply is used to turn out about 9 billion pounds of cheese each year.
(Source: USDA website; there is even a breakdown of milk usage by type of dairy product on p. 51 of this document.)
Distributing the US total milk production equally among ~300 million people yields a milk consumption rate of 1.3 gallons per week, of which one-third (about 0.4 gallons per week) would be actual liquid milk or cream while the remainder is cheese or other milk products.
Regardless, the point was that since the EPA limits from drinking water are derived assuming that the average person consumes 2 liters of water per day (3.7 gallons per week) these same limits when applied to milk would be even more conservative.
Regarding this comment:
I further suppose that as a member of the nuclear industry... you have to 'tow the line' with respect to NRC, EPA and IAEA pronouncements and try to assuage peoples fears and concerns about radioactive isotope production and releases so that the people don't shut all portions of your industry down.
We are academics, and we are not told what to say and what not to say. We are not trying to defend "the industry" but are trying to educate ourselves and others about the amounts of radioisotopes from Japan that actually ended up on the West Coast. On our website, we have posted all of our data and how we calculate dose from the data. From doing our own measurements and research, we have agreed with the conclusions of the EPA and other organizations — that the risk from radionuclides from Fukushima in the U.S. has been negligible.
Mark [BRAWM Team Member]
If the ANPRM indicates that
If the ANPRM indicates that 700 pCi/L is the 4 mrem/year equivalent and the upper limit of what is considered acceptable to ingest, if cesium in milk were the only form of contamination one received from Fukushima (can I just say that would be outright impossible in the united states), a fully grown adult male better not consume more than 2.5 liters of the stuff. How much more vulnerable were babies than fully grown adult males, again?
Sorry, I meant 3.5. 3.5
Sorry, I meant 3.5. 3.5 liters per year as the upper limit for a fully grown male. That includes milk, cheese, ice cream, yogurt, coffee creamer, cakes, cookies, and so on.
Wow. That seems pretty
Wow. That seems pretty unconscionable. Many heavy milk drinkers are young children.
Units are different
http://www.epa.gov/japan011/rert/radnet-sampling-data.html has the levels the EPA has seen. The units are different from the website from Cal.
Low levels
A paragraph at the originating web page is below. Note the last line, my emphasis added:
In order to make a valid comparison between all milk samples, we decided to correct all milk samples to represent the activity at their time of bottling -- this is 18 days before the "best by" date. This revision does not change the Cs-134 or Cs-137 numbers since they have long radioactive half-lives. The I-131 activity increases by factors of 2 to 5 because of its 8 day half-life. Please note that though all I-131 activities have increased due to this revision, the levels are still very low -- one would have to consume at least 1,900 liters of milk to receive the same radiation dose as a cross-country airplane trip.
Gee, I had no idea that
Gee, I had no idea that airplane trips deposited cesium in your gut and muscle tissue. Can you give me a source for that?
The comparison is on deposited ENERGY
The comparison is on deposited ENERGY
It's the ENERGY that does the damage.
I think it's been
I think it's been established that the cosmic radiation from airplane flights is external, and that means it's over as soon as you've landed. Carrying it around in your gut and muscle for a very long time seems very different.
I think what you've done is compared airplane flights to standing next to milk cartons for a while. That's not quite the same, is it?
Not correct at all!!!
I think what you've done is compared airplane flights to standing next to milk cartons for a while. That's not quite the same, is it?
--------------------------------------------------
NO - the calculation is how much energy is deposited insidde by milk that is INSIDE you; that gives you the milk dose.
For the airplane flight, it's a calculation of energy that originates outside of you; but ends up depositing energy INSIDE you. It actually takes a bigger radiation source outside of you to give as much internal energy deposition as would an interior source.
For example, a comparison is made that having a small radioisotope source in you gives you as much radiation dose as a dental X-ray. However, if you took that same source and held it next to your cheek with a bite-wing X-ray film clenched in your teeth - you are not going to get an X-ray image; the source is too weak.
It takes a larger external source to give you the same internal deposition; but your dentist's X-ray machine IS that larger external source.
Well, let's imagine that
Well, let's imagine that each radioactive decay is a tiny little BB going through your tissues, possible hitting something and doing damage. In the airplane, the rate of hits is high, but the time of exposure is short. In the internal radiation scenario (ie, cesium in milk), the rate of exposure is low, but the time of exposure is long. They all add up. Every tiny "little BB" could nail a cell just right, and if said cell behaves badly, you get a ticket to the the afterlife, which hopefully does not have any form of hip-hop or reality TV.
Back to my point - all radiation adds up - and that cumlative dose comes down to this ---- rate of exposure X time of exposure. There are also rate coefficients and such to help understand how different materials effect different parts of the body. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
One caveat - I believe this to only apply "neatly" to solouble (and thus excretable) materials. A nasty little metal turd in your lung is a whole different, as all damage is extremely localized and the materials are very radioactive.
Actually....
I think it's been established that the cosmic radiation from airplane flights is external, and that means it's over as soon as you've landed. Carrying it around in your gut and muscle for a very long time seems very different.
==================================================
Actually, medical studies have shown that the biological effect is rate dependent.
There is actually a LARGER biological effect if you receive the dose all in a short time, vis-a-vis carrying it around with you.
Suppose you were going to drink a liter of alcohol.
One way is you drink that 1 liter of alcohol over the course of an hour or so ( like the airline flight ).
The other is we outfit you with a little pump that will take that same liter and pump it into you over the course of some very long time ( you define how long ).
Which will have the greater biological effect?
Obviously, if you drink the alcohol over a short time; you get a larger biological effect than if you extend the time.
Mind you that we are NOT talking same rates; we are talking same TOTAL amount;
just like a radiation dose.
When you drink the milk and walk around a while with it; the dose reported is for the the complete time you've been walking around with that milk in you.
There is also the issue of
There is also the issue of localization.
The same amount of energy that distributed across the body would create no damage, concentrated in a tiny point, will kill.
Dose is per unit mass
The same amount of energy that distributed across the body would create no damage, concentrated in a tiny point, will kill.
================================
That's taken care of in the definition of dose. Dose is energy absorbed per unit mass. So when someone quotes a dose ( in rads or the SI unit Gray ) it will be energy per unit mass.
There's also the "dose equivalent", which takes into account that some radiation does more biological damage per unit dose. Alphas do more damage per unit dose than gammas.
That is taken care of in calculation of "dose equivalent" which is quoted in units of "rems" or the SI unit of "Sieverts".
Copy that. Sadly, the level
Copy that.
Sadly, the level of science education in this country has generated an entire generation (or two) of people who cannot understand this. I love the argument that radiation from K-40 or Be-7 or whatever else is in our food, everyday, is harmless because it's natural, but any level of manmade radiation will smite you like the hand of God because our bodies, you see, they evolved to handle "natural" radiation...
Jeez...
Correct!
Yes - that does show the manifest ignorance about radiation.
Most of the radionuclides we have been discussing here are beta emitters; which means the radiation they emit are high energy eletrons.
Do these scientifically illiterate types "think" (term used loosely) that there are "natural" electrons and "man made" electrons. No - an electron is an electron is an electron.
The only difference is the energy. A man-made beta can have an energy greater or lower than some natural beta emitter. Besides, the "dose" takes care of that because it is based on the amount of absorbed energy - we tally more for the high energy electron.
What do the scientifically illerate types think happens when Man makes the same radioisotope as Mother Nature; like Tritium. How would a cell in the body know that the electron was from a man-made Tritium atom or a natural Tritium atom.
The cell can't know.
Natural radiation is every bit as harmful as man-made radiation. We have evolved with radiation damage repair mechanisms, just like we have an immune system to protect us from natural pathogens. That repair mechanism works just a well on man-made radiation damage as it does on natural radiation damage. Again, for the same reason; the cell has no way of telling who made that beta radiation electron, man or Mother Nature.
Wrong: All beta radiation is not the same
The difference in the source of radiation has to do with where it is deposited in the body and in what concentrations. Different sources have particular 'affinities' for specific organs. That is, different organ systems differentially absorb and store different isotopes and in differing concentrations. Radioisotopes with an affinity for the brain remain in greater concentration in more active areas of your brain. Where a beta emitter is attracted and deposited makes a very large difference in the level of damage to your health... You're not a health professional, are you?
Answer this question.
Answer this question.
Suppose someone ingests some Tritium.
Is there a difference in damage depending on whether that Tritium was made via the action of cosmic rays on nitrogen in the atmosphere; or whether that Tritium was made by neutron irradiation of boron control material in a reactor?
Is there a difference in either magnitude or type of damage done between Tritium created by Mother Nature and Tritium created by Man?
Please defend your work in response.
Evidently you missed the whole point
Evidently you missed the whole point.
You need some remedial education in the effects of radiation.
Yes - certain radioisotopes are drawn to certain organs, where the radiation is emitted. However, given that; if a certain organ is being irradiated by beta radiation, i.e. electrons; it doesn't matter whether those electrons were born in the tissue or were transported into the tissue from outside.
Contrary to your foolish contention; all electrons are the same. The only difference is the energy. If someone has a 100 keV electron in their brain; it matters NOT whether that 100 keV electron came from a radioisotope that seeks brain tissue or whether that 100 keV electron came from outside.
A 100 keV electron is a 100 keV electron is a 100 keV electron.
All that really matters is the dose - how much energy and of what type is deposited in the tissues. The primordial source of the radiation is of no consequence; only where the energy got deposited because it is the energy that does the damage.
Ignorant anti-nukes like to say that there is "natural" radiation and "man-made" radiation, and somehow the latter is more sinister. The tissues can't tell who made that electron; they just know this electron deposited so much energy in the tissue. Or they draw an artificial distinction between a 100 keV electron born of a internal radioisotope, and one that got there by some other means.
Looking at "sources" is not instructive.
It's not the source of the radiation that counts, but where the energy ends up. You essentially weasel-worded that conclusion in your first sentence. The main determinant of the damage is where and how much energy got deposited in what tissue. Whether that electron was born in the tissue via a radioisotope that was attracted there, or transported in, is not an issue.
I'm not a health professional; I happen to know MORE about radiation transport, dose, and radiation damage than is taught in any medical school.
Demented Reality Anti-Nuke Sock Puppet Forum Bully
Several forum participants have asked the OP to identify himself. He has finally begun to do just that: He says "I'm not a health professional; I happen to know MORE about radiation transport, dose, and radiation damage than is taught in any medical school" Wow, what an illustrious career he must be having since he knows more about "radiation damage than is taught in any medical school." With that sort of self-professing I'm sure that absolutely no one is even the slightest bit interested in what he professes. More than is taught in any medical school, indeed! What a bloated ego.
Now if he would just attend a Psychiatric School he might be able to find out more about his dementia. Or, at least he might be gone for a while. Then he'd know more about Psychology than is taught in any Psychology School.
Merely pointing out...
Merely pointing out that a "medical professional" is not an authoritative source with regard to radiation and the damage it causes.
A person can have a medical degree and be a "medical professional" and not be a qualified source of information on radiation and the damage it can cause.
Even a radiologist is trained in the use of radiation as a diagnostic tool, has limited insight into the damage due to radiation.
A Professor of Physics, like myself; who has the necessary qualifications in radiation transport has much better credentials in discussing this subject than would the cited "medical professional".
professor of physics
Where do you teach?
I'm retired
I'm retired; but I used to teach at the University of Michigan, and MIT.
people like you
people like you should die.
Thank You
Thank You.
Spoken like a true anti-nuke.
When I hear such statements from the self-righteous ignorant anti-nukes; then I KNOW that I'm on the correct path and doing the right thing.
Illustrious Retired MIT Physics Professor
Ok, if you, our local 'dimented reality anti-nuke forum bully', are in fact, the above (and know more than any nuclear medicine school teaches, not withstanding), prove it and identify yourself so that we can all be properly amazed.
Otherwise our guesses can be confirmed that you're just a ...... I'll let someone else fill in the blank. Keep in mind that we will confirm.
Sorry - but NO!
I don't care to give my identity. I don't have anything to prove.
I don't want people to believe me because I'm a Professor. I didn't come on this board and say "I'm a Professor - therefore believe what I say".
NO - I back up what I say with authoritative references that anyone can check out. You don't have to believe me because of who I am. You can check out what I say in the factual references I give.
I only told you my profession because you asked; and now you want more.
Sorry, but NO. Like I said, everything I say I back up with factual references.
Even if I give you my name, how do you know I'm really that person. You'll probably just say, "Oh, you're NOT Professor Samuel C.C. Ting..."
NO - the real reason for believing me are the references I provide.
For example, the fact that fallout from nuclear tests is small compared to what Mother Nature exposes us to is detailed in the University of Michigan website that I cite. If you don't believe that website because you don't know my name; then you are a fool.
Charlatan...Sock Puppet
char·la·tan (shärl-tn)
n.
A person who makes elaborate, fraudulent, and often voluble claims to skill or knowledge; a quack or fraud.
Hahahhha ahahaahh ahhaaahh... Retired M.I.T. Physics Professor!..... Hahahhaah... oh yea, and Univ of Michigan... as what, adult education teacher's assistant on work study?...Did you even complete an undergraduate course of study?
Leave it to the BRAWM Members, sock puppet. BRAWM forum members really have been awarded Phd's and really are University Professors and really know what they are talking about; unlike you.
Charade you are..... Hahah ahahaa... Shall I quote you? "I'm not a health professional; I happen to know MORE about radiation transport, dose, and radiation damage than is taught in any medical school." ... Hahahahaa... Someone with actual credentials would never make such a ludicrous statement.
Typical envy of an uneducated attitude..."I don't want people to believe me because I'm a Professor. I didn't come on this board and say "I'm a Professor - therefore believe what I say"... Hahahahh hahah... yes you did, "I'm retired; but I used to teach at the University of Michigan, and MIT."... Hahahaah ahaha
"I don't care to give my identity. I don't have anything to prove."... hahaa... other than supporting the nuclear power industry at any cost.
I always knew it. You forum bully sock puppets are all the same. Paid by the industry to put forth their view. Failing that, you become rude to the forum participants continually insulting and calling people names in order to drive away any opposing view and ultimately shut down the information exchange. And now you're trying to pretend like you have some authoritative background.
Called your bluff and you just confirmed your lies. Caught ya red handed... Who looks foolish now, sock puppet? Now what you are is known by all.
Haha ahahh Hahahahahaha.... They need to buy a better sock puppet.... You're a failure.
Sorry to take everyone's time up responding to sock puppets, but our "Mr. Demented Reality Anti-Nuke" (his phrase), really needed to be called out for the charlatan insulting forum bully he is.
David
Liars and damned liars
It is clearly disingenuous for David to claim that his adversary has been trading on his / her title or employer's reputation. The professor had been anonymous in name, title, and employer until David demanded to know this information. It was only upon David's demand that the title and employer's name were released. For David to now claim the professor had been trading on his / her title smacks of rank hyposcrisy.
Additionally, those that oppose nuclear power are always saying that those who support nuclear power must be paid shills for the nuclear industry. When in fact, the majority of the general population supports nuclear power, the vast majority of scientists and engineers support nuclear power, and 99% of physicists and astrophysicists, in particular, support nuclear power. Therefore, David's conclusion that the professor must be a paid shill has no support in the facts.
The facts are not on David's side. Even the casual reader can readily conclude that it is David who is the liar here.
Just as I thought
Typical self-righteous anti-nuke. You can delude yourself that I am some sort of "sock puppet". The anti-nukes do that all the time.
Evidently, you don't have the mental horsepower to understand that I back up my posts with cites to legitimate scholarly sources. It doesn't matter who I am - the authenticity of my claims is guaranteed by the sources I cite.
Believe your own delusions, anti-nuke; that's why you'll never be better educated.
I have posted a comment twice
I have posted a comment twice and it appeared to successfully submit both times but I cannot see it appear. What's going on?
pro-complete truth
(sorry if this message appears twice, I submitted it and could not find my submission)
This conversation appears to have degenerated into a series of personal attacks due to high-strung emotions, and I am a different poster, but to get it back on track, let's go back to whether the issue is:
- Is man-made versus natural radiation a fundamental distinction?
or whether the issue is:
- Is the airplane analogy a valid analogy? Or, the "banana equivalent dose"?
In the case of the former question, of course there is no fundamental distinction *in itself* between whether a radioactive isotope is man-made or natural. My body doesn't care what process exposed it, for example, to a certain level of tritium in my drinking water, the effect would be the same. Let's agree on that.
In the case of the latter, there is much to consider.
For example, when there is no cesium present, K-40 is maintained at a constant rate in the body. You eat more potassium, your kidneys quickly remove it again, you're back to your normal baseline within hours of banana-consumption. Potassium is only ~.01% K-40 (radioactive). K-40 is a weak beta emitter.
Add cesium to the picture now.
Plants and animal bodies interpret cesium as potassium. When you are uptaking cesium, you are uptaking 100% radioactivity, not .01% radioactivity as with potassium. With me so far?
Cesium is also a stronger emitter, and emits both beta and gamma.
And since your body thinks that that cesium is just regular old potassium, it takes it in and replaces potassium with it. Your body's effort to sustain homeostasis of potassium does not use its radioactivity, just quantity. So now you are no longer maintaining the same level of radioactivity. You are increasing both the amount and the strength of radioactivity in your body. There may also be other disadvantages to what amounts to depleting your body of potassium and replacing that depletion with cesium.
So, here we can see that it makes very little sense to try to compare cesium consumption to K-40 consumption. Apples and oranges.
Another concern I have is that a poster made the statement that the longer duration of a dose of ionizing radiation - the same amount of ionizing radiation but over a longer rather than shorter time - is known to DECREASE the risk of health damage. However, there are several studies that show the opposite to be the case. It's important not to state controversial opinion as fact.
There are several more issues to raise that clarify the distinction between internal exposure to radioactivity from fallout to external exposure to cosmic radiation, chest x-ray, or even internal exposure from bananas and the like, but this should get the conversation started back on track.
pro-complete truth
This conversation appears to have degenerated into a series of personal attacks due to high-strung emotions, but to get it back on track, let's go back to whether the issue is:
- Is man-made versus natural radiation a fundamental distinction?
or whether the issue is:
- Is the airplane analogy a valid analogy? Or, the "banana equivalent dose"?
In the case of the former question, of course there is no fundamental distinction *in itself* between whether a radioactive isotope is man-made or natural. My body doesn't care what process exposed it, for example, to a certain level of tritium in my drinking water, the effect would be the same. Let's agree on that.
In the case of the latter, there is much to consider.
For example, when there is no cesium present, K-40 is maintained at a constant rate in the body. You eat more potassium, your kidneys quickly remove it again, you're back to your normal baseline within hours of banana-consumption. Potassium is only ~.01% K-40 (radioactive). K-40 is a weak beta emitter.
Add cesium to the picture now.
Plants and animal bodies interpret cesium as potassium. When you are uptaking cesium, you are uptaking 100% radioactivity, not .01% radioactivity as with potassium. With me so far?
Cesium is also a stronger emitter, and emits both beta and gamma.
And since your body thinks that that cesium is just regular old potassium, it takes it in and replaces potassium with it. Your body's effort to sustain homeostasis of potassium does not use its radioactivity, just quantity. So now you are no longer maintaining the same level of radioactivity. You are increasing both the amount and the strength of radioactivity in your body. There may also be other disadvantages to what amounts to depleting your body of potassium and replacing that depletion with cesium.
So, here we can see that it makes very little sense to try to compare cesium consumption to K-40 consumption. Apples and oranges.
Another concern I have is that a poster made the statement that the longer duration of a dose of ionizing radiation - the same amount of ionizing radiation but over a longer rather than shorter time - is known to DECREASE the risk of health damage. However, there are several studies that show the opposite to be the case. It's important not to state controversial opinion as fact.
There are several more issues to raise that clarify the distinction between internal exposure to radioactivity from fallout to external exposure to cosmic radiation, chest x-ray, or even internal exposure from bananas and the like, but this should get the conversation started back on track.