Kansas 700% Higher
Here is a PDF File of what kansas has found.
http://www.kdheks.gov/radiation/download/2011_ERS_Report.pdf
700 % higher than highest levels reported by this place UC Berkley.
Search
Here is a PDF File of what kansas has found.
http://www.kdheks.gov/radiation/download/2011_ERS_Report.pdf
700 % higher than highest levels reported by this place UC Berkley.
What about contamination in
What about contamination in the milking process?
I recently learned that a cows teats are coated with an iodine teat dip solution just before the milking cups are attached. An iodine solution is universally used in the US milk industry for sanitary purposes.
From what I have seen contamination is very easy and likely to occur.
Maybe I-131 is getting in through the solution? Maybe iodine products such as Betadine need to be checked for radioactivity?? Just where do they get their iodine form and is it checked?
LONG GONE!!
The I-131 from Fukushima is LONG GONE. It has a relatively short half-life of just 8 days. So Fukushima I-131 was essentially all gone last summer.
1518 pCi/L must be a typo
This report was just brought up on another thread recently, and I noticed something that I hadn't when I looked at this report months ago. The one measurement referred to by the OP (1518 ± 55 pCi/L for Iodine-131 in milk) is exactly the same as the column to the left of it, which gives an activity of 1518 ± 55 pCi/L for Potassium-40 in milk. That activity is consistent with their other measurements of K-40 in milk, and with our own, which all amount to ~50 decays per second per liter (i.e., Bq/L).
The other measurement of I-131 from that dairy was 3.0 ± 1.0 pCi/L from nearly a month before. It is extremely unlikely that the activity for I-131 could be that large on that date (4/18/2011) from a dairy that measured only 3.0 ± 1.0 pCi/L a few weeks before when the fallout was at its greatest. It is also nearly impossible for milk in the U.S. to have had an I-131 activity concentration that high given the small amounts of I-131 in our rainfall.
So given all that information, besides the small likelihood that two measurements (and their error bars!) would be exactly the same, I think that number is a typo. I really doubt that the milk could have been "700% higher" than our highest results.
Mark [BRAWM Team Member]
Some of the samples
Some of the samples contaminated with Cesium-137 before March? Around 200 PCi/Kg.
Yes, and why not? Kansas saw
Yes, and why not? Kansas saw rainouts from NTS and global testing just like nearly everywhere else. Also, this testing is done to monitor a NPP, so finding some of this stuff shouldn't shock you.
You know what strikes me as odd is that the pasture sample where they found the high levels came back negative for Cs-137 on the June test. Maybe it got washed of the grass in a clean rain, or maybe the cows ate all of the contaminated grass.
Resolution limit
Yes, and why not? Kansas saw rainouts from NTS and global testing just like nearly everywhere else. Also, this testing is done to monitor a NPP, so finding some of this stuff shouldn't shock you.
You know what strikes me as odd is that the pasture sample where they found the high levels came back negative for Cs-137 on the June test. Maybe it got washed of the grass in a clean rain, or maybe the cows ate all of the contaminated grass.
================================================
NOPE - readings that come and go like that are indicative that they are at the limit of their detection resolution.
Additionally, your contention that these readings are from NTS is BS. These readings are way too high to be from NTS which stopped atmospheric testing in 1962 with the signing of the Partial Test Ban.
There hasn't been any incidents at Wolf Creek that could account for a release, so that explanation is garbage too.
Most likely we are seeing statistical noise.
I sense some hostility. Not
I sense some hostility. Not necessary.
There are many detections of Cs-137 in the full on report for Wolf Creek, which I downloaded and read. The poster before me mentioned that they had detected Cs-137 prior to 3/11 (see page 22), which means that it was not from Fukushima. By no means did I think that the pasture grass reading was from NTS, because it is quite high. What I was saying is that the pre 3/11 detections of Cs-137 are no surprise.
However I do take exception to your saying that the pasture measurements can be chalked up to statistical noise. If you'd download and read the report, you'd see that the quantities of I-131 and Cs-137 found in the pasture grass were 2072pCi/kg +/-72 and 503pCi/kg +/-29 respectively (found on page 27). Then if you'd kindly look at page 31, you'd be able to see that the MDL for I-131 is 45pCi/kg for I-131 and 80pCi/kg for Cs-137. Also reference page 25 which shows a 4/18 milk sample with an I-131 activity of 1518 pCi/L. That isn't noise.
Read the paper.
The levels seen in the report on page 27 are much higher than the MDLs listed on page 31.
In the interest of protecting
In the interest of protecting the consumer, this milk was way above the DIL and should have never been consumed. This single episode highlights the flaws in consumer protection and should be looked at carefully. Thank you BRAWM for the fast posting of test results and maintaining this forum.
WRONG!
Also reference page 25 which shows a 4/18 milk sample with an I-131 activity of 1518 pCi/L. That isn't noise.
==============================
When you have I-131 activity "disappearing" - then it is noise.
It means that they didn't take enough care in the shielding around their detectors, and the other techniques that the BRAWM team has discussed in explaining their methodology.
As BRAWM member Mark has explained, there's more to these measurements than just putting some gathered material near a detector.
The team in Kansas didn't do the careful methodology that BRAWM did, and their results have the hallmark of that lack of resolution.
In that case, one can easily get swings in the measured radioactivity; and there's nothing to be made of it, since it is basically due to the inferior detection methods.
I am sure that I don't need
I am sure that I don't need to mention that I-131 has an 8 day half life. And that the hot milk sample is from 4/22, with the next sample not taken till 6/22. That's close to eight half lives between the samples , and even if one had kept a sample of the original milk from 4/22 the levels would have decayed down very close to the limits of detection. But as the case is here, this milk sample was actually taken on 6/22, and so not only would the I-131 have had that time to decay away but also to become less available to grazing cows as it was washed down by clean rains.
Go ahead, tell me I am wrong, and please use all caps so I can understand just how pitifully stupid I am.
Methodology and Cs-137
BC, I think you have made some very good observations about these data.
To the other poster: I think the methodology of the tests is sound. In fact, the folks at KDHE should have a lot of experience making environmental radioactivity measurements, since it is their job and they issue annual reports on levels of radioactivity around the power plant. Also, some of the measurements have two values, with one in parentheses. As I read it, this indicates that the sample was divided in half and two independent labs analyzed it.
There are similar Cs-137 levels in the other KDHE annual reports I have looked at (up to 300–400 pCi/kg, or 11–15 Bq/kg). This is higher than what we have seen, but it is not unusual. Cs-137 was deposited all over the continental US from weapons tests at both the Nevada Test Site (NTS) and from global atmospheric weapons testing. In general, most of the Cs-137 in the US is from the latter source. A good paper to read about the deposition of Cs-137 from weapons testing is Simon, Bouville, & Beck, "The geographic distribution of radionuclide deposition across the continental US from atmospheric nuclear testing," Journal of Env. Rad., 2004. In particular, the Midwest generally received more Cs-137 than the Bay Area.
The only Cs-137 that they note is from Fukushima is the pasture sample that is being discussed. One sample from 4/2 has both I-131 and Cs-137 present, while the next sample from 6/20 has neither. This is consistent with what we saw in Bay Area grass — I-131 quickly decays away, but the Cs-134 and Cs-137 that were deposited on the grass also decrease, indicating a gradual erosion of the particles off of the grass. So I don't think that the disappearance of I-131 and Cs-137 is noise.
Mark [BRAWM Team Member]
Thank You For Your Input
Thank you, Mark, for your input on this topic. Thank you, BC, for your incisive analysis. Always appreciated!
Posted by: Gardening Gal
Hot Milk
The I-131 @ 1518 pCi/L is disturbing. To keep it in perspective, in the summer of 1962 all the milk in Utah was pulled from the shelves with I-131 @ 2000 pCi/L as the result of a test called Sedan.