«  
  »

Nuclear Expert: “I should make clear that if the EPA safe drinking water level doesn’t apply to rainwater, nothing does” (VIDEO)

Published: April 5th, 2012 at 9:41 am ET
By
Email Article Email Article
54 comments


Title: USA-Radioactive Materials
Source: China Central Television (CCTV)
Date: April 3, 2012

[...] Daniel Hirsch, nuclear expert: “(The iodine-131,) which is a radioactive material that tends to concentrate in the thyroid gland and cause thyroid cancer, is produced in copious quantities from a nuclear accident [...] At levels as high as 100 times the EPA safe drinking water level, now I should make clear that if the EPA safe drinking water level doesn’t apply to rainwater, nothing does.” [...]

Watch the report here

China Central Television or Chinese Central Television, commonly abbreviated as CCTV, is the predominant state television broadcaster in mainland China. CCTV has a network of 22 channels broadcasting different programmes and is accessible to more than one billion viewers. -Wikipedia

See also:

Published: April 5th, 2012 at 9:41 am ET
By
Email Article Email Article
54 comments

Related Posts

  1. Don’t drink the rainwater says State of Virginia (VIDEO) March 31, 2011
  2. Nuclear Expert: Radiation plume has now hit Hawaii — In a year it’ll probably reach U.S. West Coast (VIDEO) April 8, 2012
  3. Nuclear Engineer: “You’re done, that’s it” if seal leaks at Unit No. 4 — “You can never pump enough water in to establish a level again in spent fuel pool” (VIDEO) June 27, 2012
  4. Off by 27 times? UC Berkeley study authors claim EPA’s limit for iodine-131 in drinking water is 81 pCi/liter — Actually only 3 pCi/liter September 22, 2011
  5. TV: Uranium used to make atomic bombs dumped in landfill with no cover near major U.S. city — Experts: Waste “is becoming more radioactive” — EPA: It’s safe, leave it there (VIDEO) January 18, 2013
April 5th, 2012 | Category: Audio/Video Clips, US/Canada
«  
  »

54 comments to Nuclear Expert: “I should make clear that if the EPA safe drinking water level doesn’t apply to rainwater, nothing does” (VIDEO)

  • AFTERSHOCK AFTERSHOCK
    April 5, 2012 at 10:16 am

    Given all the depressing revelations we're getting in these reports, I was reluctant to add to everyone's anxiety by advising (that if you haven't done so), you should get hold of a good water filter system. You should also stock-up on replacement filters. I have an under-counter reverse osmosis system. I've got a load of replacement filters for this RO system. In the event of lost water pressure, I also put together a three-stage gravity fed system.

    Know that consumer grade water purification systems are not capable of completely filtering-out all water borne radioactive nucleotides from your water. But they will filter out many of the mineral contaminants that are bound with radioactive toxins.

    This advisory is made to the reader, in anticipation of a run (and subsequent price increase) on these systems. Finally, I have no commercial interests or affiliation with water filter companies.


    Report Comment

    • Whoopie Whoopie
      April 5, 2012 at 10:21 am

      Well goodness AS, you did not have to add that last line! :) We know YOU. Thanks for the good advice. While I'm here, ALL PLEASE READ THIS IN FORUM. I posted my FB Link at F3Watchdogs too. WE MUST MOVE TODAY!! I hope anyway. :( http://enenews.com/forum-general-discussion-thread-nuclear-issues-apr-2-9-2012/comment-page-2#comment-229736


      Report Comment

    • stock stock@hawaii.rr.com
      April 5, 2012 at 4:44 pm

      AS—-can you email details on your gravity fed system?


      Report Comment

      • AFTERSHOCK AFTERSHOCK
        April 5, 2012 at 5:37 pm

        Any type of table-top unit will work. Right now, I'm using three PUR units. in series.

        I'm thinking of building a set of five-gallon stainless steel units, which each hold a pre-measured layer of bentonite, zeolite and carbon filter media. Like the PUR units that I'm currently using, these would be also be placed in series. The first stage unit would be cleaned, refilled and moved to the third stage in round-bobbin fashion.

        Problem is, unused (new) 5-gallon S/S containers are extremely expensive. The bulk filter media isn't. So, I'm mulling over the allocation of funds…


        Report Comment

        • HoTaters HoTaters
          April 5, 2012 at 11:39 pm

          Aftershock, I think you're on to something suggesting adding zeolite and/or clay after filtration. I'm starting to do this at home (adding clay/zeolite to water purchased from a commercial multi-stage filtration unit).

          As for commercial filtration units, one has to make sure they are maintained and cleaned regularly. Then of course there is the issue of whether or not they're properly maintained & cleaned, & whether or not they're in good working order. But cheaper than my trying to buy all this equipment by myself!


          Report Comment

    • Alaskan Alaskan
      April 5, 2012 at 11:07 pm

      Thanks AFTERSHOCK, i went the same path as you with the reverse osmosis system and a Berkey water filtration system . (fluoride filters)


      Report Comment

    • HoTaters HoTaters
      April 5, 2012 at 11:16 pm

      RO by itself will not do it, either.


      Report Comment

      • HoTaters HoTaters
        April 5, 2012 at 11:31 pm

        http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2011/04/07/how-to-remove-radioactive-iodine-131-from-drinking-water/

        Iodine-131, a beta emitter, is typically present in water as a dissolved gas, and reverse osmosis is known to be ineffective at capturing gases.

        http://www.purewaterclub.com/catalog/ro-remove-radiation.html

        "Radiation Removal from Water
        Q: Can your Water Filter System remove Radiation from my tap water? How can they do that?
        A: Our reverse osmosis membrane can separate most radioactive metal, organic, compounds substances. Also, the mixed-bed DI (de-ionized) filter will exchange radioactive ions with non-radioactive ions.
        Q: How great is the percentage of radition removed?
        A: For most radioactive substances, it is 95~98% by the Reverse Osmosis Membrane, and almost 99% by the DI filter. "

        Post-carbon filtration will remove more. You have to go after the Uranium and alpha emitters, too.

        Here's another good discussion re: radon and removing alpha emitters like uranium:

        http://healthvermont.gov/enviro/rad/alpha.aspx

        There is no "one size fits all" method for removing radioactive isotopes from water. Several forms of filtration and treatment are needed to get virtually all of the isotopes removed. Part of the issue is the isotopes exist as sub-micron particles. Distillation will address getting the Cesium 137.

        Have been purchasing my water from a commercial water treatment machine. See GreenMedInfo.com, Natural News, Marc Sircus OMD, and…


        Report Comment

        • HoTaters HoTaters
          April 5, 2012 at 11:33 pm

          Ion exchange filters are good at capturing some of the isotopes. I think they're often referred to as ion exchange resins (the part that does the filtering).

          Am unable to find the link on water treatment info. here. The archives in the Forum area have some very good posts on water treatment. You'll have to dig for that info. but it should be there.


          Report Comment

          • SnorkY2K
            April 6, 2012 at 12:19 am

            For our faciltiy near Chicago, I used Ecowater for fixed tank ion exchange filters (DI columns) and Calco in Hanover Park, Illions. I also helped Calco develop a straw that would filter out nuclear, biological, and chemical toxins. They actually used iodine charged quartenary resin as part of the bio section to kill about anything. Another third was to remove any iodine. So, that may be perfect. They may sell them for non-military use. But, I am not sure.


            Report Comment

        • HoTaters HoTaters
          April 5, 2012 at 11:35 pm

          Sorry, that was Marc Sircus OMD and others for more info.


          Report Comment

        • Bobby1
          April 6, 2012 at 11:50 am

          My undersink RO system typically removes 97% of particles from the water. I was drinking from up until the beginning of November, and it was fine up to the point when apparently rainfall through a cloud of iodine gas contaminated the tap water, and my thyroid went bonkers. DI or a combination RO/DI system is necessary to remove this dissolved gas. The carbon filters eliminate some of it, but not nearly enough. And the krypton is going to challenge any DI system too.


          Report Comment

    • SnorkY2K
      April 6, 2012 at 12:11 am

      Personally, I am a fan of undersink RO. Although, in the case of iodine 131 I would pair it with a dual column DI system that you can purchase from industrial suppliers. In the case of a power failure, you can bypass the RO and run strait through the DI column. Many small test labs and clinics have small DI systems for reagent grade water so the equipment is not rare. You also may be able to rent a "polishing" tank from your local water filter store which is essentially a mixed bed DI system. Dual and mixed beds not only remove iodine but they remove ionics such as cesium, radium, and the transuranics.
      dual column DI function without the power as long as water is flowing through them. Quality checks are usually made with a dip pen but you would probably add a geiger counter unless you have access to doped quartz.


      Report Comment

  • Whoopie Whoopie
    April 5, 2012 at 11:53 am

    Taking a Break. Keep up the great work Enenews and Members.
    Outnow just posted this – "460 tons of nuclear waste is sitting in the crippled reactors. If not handled properly, and science has no answers or solutions at present, the entire world economy could be dragged down because Tokyo…" read it in full: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/outnow/fukushima-radiation-pacific-ocean_n_1399843_146025005.html


    Report Comment

  • Sickputer
    April 5, 2012 at 1:14 pm

    At the very least rainwater catchments should be considered drinking water and tested as such:

    http://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/hawaiirain/guidelines.html

    30,000 to 60,000 families use rainwater in Hawaii.

    In total for the USA there are over a quarter million rainwater cisterns in use: http://www.greenhomebuilding.com/articles/conservewater.htm

    Far more use of cisterns in Latin America and third world countries. The EPA has tunnel vision for their own benefit…they know how most fallout radiation enters the terrain. By rain and snow.


    Report Comment

    • AFTERSHOCK AFTERSHOCK
      April 5, 2012 at 1:26 pm

      Good post Sickputer. Sad thing is, all sources of water are derived – at one time or another – from rain fall. The key word being 'time'. Those of us who get their water from open-air reservoirs are just as likely to be exposed to radiological toxins as those who collect rain water. And those who receive their water from underground sources (wells and aquifers) are only putting-off the inevitable. We are so screwed…


      Report Comment

  • Heart of the Rose Heart of the Rose
    April 5, 2012 at 2:04 pm

    I'm not sure.. those involved in aerial spraying are into mitigation.


    Report Comment

  • Heart of the Rose Heart of the Rose
    April 5, 2012 at 2:04 pm

    Their type seldom are…


    Report Comment

  • Heart of the Rose Heart of the Rose
    April 5, 2012 at 2:40 pm

    Updates closer to real time can be found at her channel..


    Report Comment

  • Heart of the Rose Heart of the Rose
    April 5, 2012 at 2:55 pm

    Chemical clouds..technomusing..
    Radioactive trade goods..incoming.
    Japan to aid internet businesses market disaster-related merchandise to international buyers
    http://enformable.com/2012/04/japan-to-aid-internet-businesses-market-disaster-related-merchandise-to-international-buyers/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Enformable+%28Enformable%29


    Report Comment

  • sonnen.blum.239 sonnen.blum.239
    April 5, 2012 at 3:27 pm

    I do believe that any filtration is better than none and I use a R/O system after 4 stage filters and softening. I've live with a measure of cesium during the 50's and 60's as well as a ton og xray and gamma, but I think environmentally we are at or are past the tipping point for background radiation beginning to radically change out world.

    BTW, I think Busby is a little screwey, don't you? I don't think he should be attacked for sure, and a lot of what he says is accurate, but he has an agenda to run as well. I know the my local buddy Potrblog in St. Louis has been criticised as well as beinbg a nut case. And in fact, my own family tries to downplay my neurosis regarding radiation. But it is not radiophobia when the plants, trees, birds, and animals begin to change before our very eyes.

    Awareness and action ought be our watchword. Thank you enenews for validating and disseminating good info. Armed with a meter, go forth and find the truth for ourselves!! Kudos to you who have the ability and courage to speak out.


    Report Comment

  • MadMama MadMama
    April 5, 2012 at 7:33 pm

    Not wanting to sound too nit-picky here, but I think it's important to point out what seems to be a misquote in the enenews headline for this story. The headline reads, "I should make clear that IF the EPA safe drinking water level doesn't apply to rain water, nothing does." However, I listened to the recording several times and am not catching the "IF."

    Seems insignificant, but accuracy is everything, particularly with such explosive subject matter. Adding the "IF," slightly changes the meaning to imply that the EPA safe drinking water level is somehow irrelevant if it is not applied to rainwater. Hirsch's actual statement does not include this implied judgment, and rather seems to be a straightforward clarification that the EPA does not apply the safe drinking water standard to rainwater.

    The radiation contamination of our planet is enough of a nightmare without any level of even unintentional exaggeration.

    A reminder to everyone in California – finish gathering signatures and get those petitions in for the CA Nuclear Initiative – they must be mailed in by this Saturday, April 7.


    Report Comment

    • HoTaters HoTaters
      April 6, 2012 at 12:09 am

      "It should be clear (if) the EPA safe drinkingg water level … " is what I heard. The "if" is barely audible. I'm assuming it's the manner in which the gentleman speaks which makes it unclear whether or not he said "if." But if you look at the logical construction of the sentence it's pretty clear he means "if". His statement just doesn't make sense w/o an "if" in it. My opinion, anyway.


      Report Comment

  • xdrfox
    April 5, 2012 at 10:34 pm

    $10 says it won't make the evening news !

    It's in the rain, therefore it is in everything and accumulating !!


    Report Comment

«  
  »