Published: April 28th, 2011 at 7:27 pm ET
|
UC Berkeley Milk Sampling Results, University of California, Berkeley Department of Nuclear Engineering:
Collected on April 20: I132 @ 5.874 Becquerels per liter (Converts to 158.8 pCi/l).
The UC Berkeley results log notes: [...] Similar to the recent water results the I-132 result is due to background interference and low statistics in that energy region.
Published: April 28th, 2011 at 7:27 pm ET
|
sending...
How does one read these charts to get to the picocuries. E.G. how does this formula work?
5.874 Bq/l (or 158.8 pCi/l)
158.8 picocuries is high!
That should be a concern!
Report Comment
27.03 picocuries = 1 bequerel
1.04 liters = 1 kilogram
Report Comment
The guidelines Strahlentelex put out in Germany after Chernobyl were 5bq kg/l or less for pg women, babies, children and not more than 20bq kg/l for adults.
Report Comment
excluding some unlucky adopted kids we are talking about san francisco.
Report Comment
A better question would be why does enenews even convert to picocuries in the first place, when the data itself is presented in becquerels? Because the value in pCi is bigger, and thus scarier. I’m as freaked out as anyone about this–I used to think was a real news site, but lol how wrong I was. Play on fearmongers, and drive up those page hits.
Report Comment
I like this site, still believe proper panic is needed.
Of-course you can go back to FOX or something like then where you get the truth lololol.
Report Comment
I appreciate the conversions, and multiple metrics, because I read many different news sources from many countries in order to get a rounded view. Once you start reading a lot, you will grow to appreciate these conversions.
Report Comment
The pCi/l measure is converted from Bq/Kg because the limits and standards posted by agencies for liquid measure are also in pCi/l and most of the public doesn’t transparently know the conversion formula. It’s a helpful conversion that removes that extra step burden when people seek information about their exposure and regional data here.
There is a difference between “precaution principle” and “fear-monger.” There is a difference between your informed consent and uninformed assumed consent by others on your behalf. The difference is what information is provided to you. You can’t consent to something you don’t know about.
Report Comment
I spoke today at length to someone who handles radiation emergencies for my state. He said that no discussion of cummulative dose / exposure has occurred and the state will NOT take any action unless levels reach USDA levels for intervention (for milk and meat) and EPA levels for air (e.g., set at 1000 beta).
The lack of any discussion about cummulative exposure effects is DISTURBING
Last week I spoke to someone who did lab work on milk during the nuclear testing era and the highs for Iondine-131 then was 100 picocuries a liter.
People from my state are eligible for downwinder settlement money so what are the implications for our current levels of Iodine in milk?
Report Comment
Advisories:
CRIIRAD:
France (with implied West Coast rain out as US hit “8-10 times harder”) advisory:
http://www.criirad.org/actualites/dossier2011/japon/risks_in_France_v4.pdf
NIRS:
http://www.nirs.org/fukushima/radcombined.htm
Food issues – know your pathways:
http://www.healwithfood.org/articles/foods-radioactive-contamination-risk.php
*Special link to mushroom guide below too.
Check food chain level data example to see how it manifests according to deposition events (precipitation et al) regionally:
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/UCBAirSampling
A naturopath gives study based supplement considerations here (check your contraindications with your health service first) :
http://drmpatterson.vpweb.com/Newsletter-Archive.html
An informative article and discussion regarding these issues is here and in comments:
http://blogs.forbes.com/jeffmcmahon/2011/04/14/why-does-fda-tolerate-more-radiation-than-epa/?utm_source=alertsnewcomment&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20110425
Advocate testing municipally in your area from PUC water to the EPA, Governor’s office of emergency planning to academic facilities etc. I agree it should be open data and reported regularly like the weather from taxpayer assets, but it isn’t yet.
Report Comment
I-131. Is that all they can test for? There are many other nasty things coming out. I guess they figure: out of sight out of mind?
Report Comment
CRIIRAD’s open data from taxpayer assets is here – we have to keep asking:
http://petitions.criirad.org/?For-a-total-transparency-on-the
Report Comment
Even the headline is about I-132, not 131, then there’s the chart right here on this page that gives FOUR different nuclides, and finally if you click on the link you’d see a FIFTH isotope was also tested for. You need to lay off the radioactive milk.
Report Comment
majia,
Robert Cohen at notmilk-dot-comm says (documents) that
milk particularly concentrates whatever chemistry the cow is
subjected to. Growth hormones for dairy cows, artificially boosted
for profitability, are passed on through the milk, and then further
concentrated in cheeses and ice creams.
Dioxins were found in alarming levels in a famous hippie activist
ice cream brand. Cohen told them so in advance.
Your kids Do NOT need cow dairy, nor any dairy, in a rich society
loaded with fresh produce and legumes and etc.
Frontier, nomadic, marginal societies need a dairy animal for
food security. That may well be where we are headed tech-wise.
But for now, your kids don’t need this corporate mass-produced,
unhygienic, hormone-packed, bovine product of a stinky nasty
place.
The strontium-90 was one of the first publicly-discussed nuke
poisons from our wonderful history. Cows concentrate it, bones
are diseased, the milk becomes unusable….
Report Comment
Tricky Dick
3 other test are there too !
2 week between last test !
Report Comment
Note that it was Raw Milk tested.
My predictions are that the PTB will not let this opportunity to pass to further criminalize raw milk, when in fact RAW MILK from small private farms are the only solution.
The Raw goat milk that I drink daily is from goats fed Bentonite clay in their water to detox them. The astounding nutrient values of raw goat milk also offer protection against some radioactive elements.
Why do some people prefer waiting for confirmation of the worst case scenario regarding contaminated food, soil, air & rain? Does anyone really suppose that the health authorities will suddenly be truthful?
There is much that can be done to protect yourself, detoxify food, animals, yourself.
http://www.natural-health-home-remedies.com/radiation.html
You can get a nutrient comparison on raw goat milk here;
http://www.natural-health-home-remedies.com/goat.html
Stay healthy by ignoring what officials tell you.
Report Comment
USDA
CPG Sec. 560.750 Radionuclides in Imported Foods – Levels of Concern
I.Derived Intervention Levels (DILs) for Each Radionuclide Group for Food in Domestic Commerce and Food Offered for Import a,b
Radionuclide Group
DIL
(Bq/kg)
Strontium-90
160
Iodine-131
170
Cesium-134 + Cesium-137
1200
Plutonium-238 + Plutonium-239 + Americium-241
2
Ruthenium-103 + Ruthenium-106c
( C3 / 6800 ) + ( C6 / 450 ) < 1
Report Comment
Folks, I-132 has a half life of 2.3 hours. If there is I-132 in the milk, it did not come from Fukushima. The level reported is a hair above the minimum detectable amount, which is consistent with the idea that this is a spurious result.
Report Comment
you mean the only result with I-132 is the one that has lower levels of the other radioactive components, yes probably that row should read no I-132 and the probably higher levels of Cs-137…
Report Comment
So fresh it lasted long enough for testing it’s presents ? Local emitter ?
Report Comment
I mean that it is highly unlikely that there is I-132 from any source in the milk. But as you say, Cs-137 has been on the rise…that’s the one to watch because it stays in you forever, basically. I-131 is at least gone in a few months.
Report Comment
80 days or so to dissipate I-131 from the day it ceases. Every depostion event (precipitation) and new pathway measure restarts the consumption exposure clock. Rolling currently.
The FDA and USDA levels are too high for the nature of chronic low dose internal exposure. The ICRP risk models they’re based on have phenomenal error rates at low levels – especially for high risk groups. Therefore, unacceptable for the current situation.
Report Comment