Iodine 131 found in Hawaii milk at 6 times the federally allowed level. People are getting sick.

[franzia99]

According to the EPA Hawaii milk tested at 18 pci/l and according to business insider the legal limit is 3 pci/l.

I live in Hawaii and coincidentally, everyone I work with has been getting sick this past week. I was nauseous and vomiting a few days ago and I had been drinking milk recently before that. I hardly ever get the stomach flu and hadn't had it in three years before last week. What the heck is going on here? The news organizations are telling us everything's safe.

http://www.epa.gov/radiation/rert/radnet-sampling-data.html#milk

http://www.businessinsider.com/san-francisco-rainwater-radiation-181-times-above-us-drinking-water-standard-2011-4

[Bonobo]

1. I'm going to ask my friends in Hawaii.

I am anxious to see how they are.

Welcome to DU.

[franzia99]

3. Please report back when you hear from them.

Also, I understand if you don't want to ask, but if you want to, it'd be helpful to know if they've been drinking milk or tapwater recently, or whether they've been out in the rain or have gone swimming recently. It has been raining off and on for days here.

[proud patriot]

43. Yes please

I'm in California and want all the facts I can get

[SlicerDicer-]

102. I am fine afaik? I am not drinking milk anymore though for what thats worth.

Maui Here and I do not drink the local water due to chloramines.

[franzia99]

103. Glad to hear you're doing well and taking the precautions that make you comfortable.

I haven't been drinking milk either. Sadly I've given up on Sashimi (which I love) for now since I don't know where exactly it's coming from.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FBaggins]

4. The only illness that milk can cause is psychosomatic.

Assuming you didn't leave it out overnight. :)

We're talking less than one disintegration per second here.

[femrap]

92. Hi there

Heritage Foundation Stooge!!!!!

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. What this means is that you shouldn't drink the amount of milk for a year that you would drink water

EPA has established a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 4 millirem per year for beta particle and photon radioactivity from man-made radionuclides in drinking water. The average concentration of iodine-131, which is assumed to yield 4 millirem per year, is 3 picocuries per liter (pCi/l). If other radionuclides which emit beta particles and photon radioactivity are present in addition to iodine- 131, the sum of the annual dose from all the radionuclides shall not exceed 4 millirem/year.

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/health/contaminants/radiation/pdfs/iodine.pdf

And any problem with radioactive iodine would start in the thyroid, where it's concentrated, not the gut. I think you're right - the vomiting is a coincidence. Sorry to hear about it, though.

[franzia99]

15. High levels of various types of cesium were also found by the EPA

Didn't mention that in the OP for the sake of brevity. The following levels of Cesium found were: Cesium 134 - 24 pci/l, Cesium 137 - 19 pci/l.

Also, it seems counterintuitive to me that something you injest wouldn't affect your stomach. Plus, according to the Mayo clinic the earliest symptom of radiation sickness is vomiting, followed by a latency period. http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/radiation-sickness/DS00432/DSECTION=symptoms

[muriel_volestrangler]

17. Radiation sickness is what you get at far higher exposures

As the Mayo Clinic link says, it's for "an absorbed dose of at least 1 Gy", or "Radiation sickness is damage to your body caused by a very large dose of radiation often received over a short period of time (acute)".

From here, "1 Gy air dose equivalent to 0.7 Sv tissue dose", and 0.7 Sv is 70 rem (and iodine 131 undergoes beta decay, so the weighting factor is 1). Remember the EPA maximum level from drinking water, which we are comparing the milk level to, is 4 millirem per year. These doses are nowhere near the level that causes radiation sickness.

The limit for long term radioactive iodine exposure needs to be much lower because the thyroid gland absorbs the iodine you ingest and so concentrates it, over time - the danger is thyroid cancer. This is why iodine pills are given as a prophylactic - they get the thyroid to absorb non-radioactive iodine instead.

[franzia99]

38. You're telling me that injesting radioactive milk isn't going to affect my stomach?

That doesn't make any sense. It's in your stomach emitting waves of radiation. Furthermore you don't even know how much I drank yet you're telling me this? The information you've posted doesn't even address the situation of injested radiation.

[stevenleser]

45. There is always radiation. The question is whether this is high enough to make a difference

There is no such thing as zero radiation.

[franzia99]

48. And that fact that it exceeds the federal limit of 3 pci/l of drinking water by 6 times suggests

that it's high enough.

[stevenleser]

51. No, it doesn't. n/t

[franzia99]

55. do you have any support for your statement? See the warning from France at the bottom of the page.

France is 6000 miles away from Japan while Hawaii is 3800 miles from Japan. A French NGO is warning people not to drink milk thanks to Fukushima fallout. You're telling me that it'd be safe in Hawaii but not France? What support do you have for this?

[stevenleser]

59. Here's the kind of proof that YOU need. (Not me)

My assertion, that you are somehow asking for proof of, is that what you wrote doesnt prove that the radiation is the cause of the sickness.

There is no proof required for that.

What YOU need for proof is readily available on the internet. There are tables that show exposure levels and the expected effects. I'm not going to go searching for them to prove or disprove your point. You are the one making the assertions.

[franzia99]

67. If you have no proof then don't provide false assurances of safety

That's all I'm saying.

[stevenleser]

74. You have a reading comprehension problem. I never posted any assurances either way. n/t

[franzia99]

77. Nah, my reading comprension is actually pretty good.

[stevenleser]

79. No, it isn't. When I say "No it doesnt" meaning, you havent proved something is unsafe...

it does not mean that it is safe.

That is a serious reading comprehension issue.

[Alexander]

80. You won't get far with this one. Logic is not his strong suit.

[uppityperson]

61. "A French NGO is warning people not to drink milk". Wrong. Why do you do this?

HERE is the translation of what they wrote, not "warning people to not drink milk".

"The risks are certainly very weak but if one takes account of the possible duration of contamination, of the existence of particular dietary habits and the vulnerability of some groups of populations, one is not any more in the field of the negligible risk and it seems useful to avoid behaviors at the risk: to prevent that the sensitive food constitutes, on next weeks the base of the food of the family. This measurement of good sense concerns particularly children, expectant mothers and the moms who nurse. "

[franzia99]

66. I'm sorry, but that's what it says.

You want to split hair fine, but it warns you that drinking milk is risky.

[uppityperson]

73. Correcting inaccuracies is "splitting hairs"? Drinking too much milk for INFANTS and PG women MAY

be risky is far different than "drinking milk is risky".

"A research group gave its opinion on limiting excessive intake of milk and leafy veggies" FAR different than "The EU says don't drink milk".

"I-131 found in milk and people getting sick, I was nauseated and vomiting and drank milk last week" is FAR different than understanding what I-131 does, what thyroid issue symptoms are and what norovirus does.

You want to know wtf is going on and when told anything you say "oh if you want to split hairs". Good grief.

[stevenleser]

78. You are wasting your time. That person has serious reading comprehension issues. To them...

"You haven't proved it is bad" = "It is safe"

[muriel_volestrangler]

58. Because the federal limit is for long term exposure, and is about preventing buildup in the thyroid

The link I gave said that 70 rem is the tissue dose (ie ingested) at which radiation sickness becomes a concern. That is 17500 times the amount you get from drinking water at the 3 pCi/l level for a whole year (4 millirem). So if the milk is six times that, the amount of milk you'd need to drink to get a dose of 70 rem is about 17500/6 times the yearly amount of drinking water. Say it's just one litre a day - that's about a million litres of Hawaiian milk you'd need to have drunk to get radiation sickness.

You have not got radiation sickness. However, if you drink as much milk each day as the EPA reckons a person drinks water, at the present level you'd exceed your yearly dosage after just 2 months - if the iodine 131 level stays the same. However, that doesn't mean that, after that 2 months, you are at high risk of developing thyroid cancer. It means you could be at a measurably higher risk than before. But since the risk of thyroid cancer is fairly low anyway, the extra risk to you may not be big.

If you want reassurance, I'll draw your attention (someone else already has) to what your own link says:

"The milk sampling results are far below the Food and Drug Administration's Derived Intervention Level for iodine-131 in milk. These types of findings are to be expected in the coming days and are far below levels of public health concern, including for infants and children. Iodine-131 has a very short half-life of approximately eight days, and the level detected in milk and milk products is therefore expected to drop relatively quickly."

[uppityperson]

62. "The milk sampling results are far below the Food and Drug Administration's Derived ..."

"The milk sampling results are far below the Food and Drug Administration's Derived Intervention Level for iodine-131 in milk. These types of findings are to be expected in the coming days and are far below levels of public health concern, including for infants and children. Iodine-131 has a very short half-life of approximately eight days, and the level detected in milk and milk products is therefore expected to drop relatively quickly."

I posted that bit also.

[franzia99]

65. That is SO reassuring.

That's been up there for weeks and contradicts the results they're reporting for Hawaii milk. So you'll have to excuse me if that doesn't put the issue to rest for me.

[uppityperson]

68. Glad that finding out it isn't deadly reassures you. It should. You do know that is from your link

don't you? You can't have it both ways. You post a link to prove how awful things are, then are shown what you post says opposite and now you say YOUR link in YOUR post doesn't reassure you?

Huh. Let me think this through again.

You post a topic with a link to an article that disproves what you are trying to prove. And now you get snarky that YOUR link in YOUR topic disproves what you say?

Nope, still doesn't make much sense to me.

If you don't like what YOUR link in YOUR post says, why did you even post it to try and prove your point?

[franzia99]

75. Cancer isn't deadly?

Look, I don't mean to get snarky and I'd like to engage in a thoughtful, respectful discussion on this. People have been coming into this thread though and dismissing the idea without knowing anything about the issue and that's been irritating me. I'm aware of the statement that has been appearing on the EPA website for a while now. As it seems to contradict the reported numbers and the warnings we're getting from other sources it doesn't reassure me. I think we've both stated our positions on this and let's just agree on the things we agree on and disagree on the rest. No need for us to go back and forth on this.

[uppityperson]

81. wtf? Some cancers are deadly, some aren't, but who is saying "cancer isn't deadly"?

You don't mean to get snarky, yet you are. If you don't like what YOUR link in YOUR post says, why did you even post it to try and prove your point?

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[uppityperson]

86. Ah, your link disproves what you post, it is pointed out to you, and you accuse me of being on

a "weird anger trip" rather than answering the question.

If you don't like what YOUR link in YOUR post says, why did you even post it to try and prove your point?

my my my

[franzia99]

64. Japan has said this could last months and months. Buildup matters buddy.

[muriel_volestrangler]

83. But the iodine is decaying fast

Half of it disappears every 8 days. And that includes the iodine still inside the reactors, so even if they can't stop the emission of the waste from the reactor, the iodine levels are going to decrease soon.

Yes, build-up matters; but the levels in Hawaii aren't large. It's a problem much closer to the reactors.

[franzia99]

99. Cesium 137 has a half life of 30 years. Also, the radiation hasn't stopped hitting us.

All the radiation TEPCO has dumped into the Pacific is headed our way thanks to the trade winds. Not only that, they don't have the reactor under control. A TEPCO executive was quoted in the paper saying that the Fukishima plant has released 1/10th the radiation of Chernobyl but since they don't have it under control yet, they believe it could exceed the amount released from Chernobyl. That means by their own words we can get 10 times the fallout we've already had.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/12/japan-nuclear-radiation-idUSTKE00635920110412

"The radiation leak has not stopped completely and our concern is that it could eventually exceed Chernobyl," an official from operator Tokyo Electric and Power told reporters on Tuesday.

The emission of radioactive substances from the Daiichi plant is about 10 percent of the amount that had been detected at Chernobyl, Japan's nuclear safety agency said earlier on Tuesday. (Reporting by Shinichi Saoshiro, editing by Jonathan Thatcher)

[DeadEyeDyck]

90. Do a google search on ALARA

Limits are not based on health damadge.

[Dorian Gray]

6. The stomach flu

has been making its rounds, so that's probably not related to the milk. I've had friend in NYC who were down for the count, and my mom in Florida was, as well.

But the levels in milk ARE alarming.

[franzia99]

10. I hope it's just stomach flu. At worst though, by calling attention to this, people may learn the

effects of this level of contamination, even if it turns out that people just had the stomach flu. Admittedly I don't know the effects of injesting these levels of harmful radiation.

[geckosfeet]

7. Hmm. Does Hawaii import milk from Japan? Not a lot of dairy farming

in Hawaii itself - I suspect most of their dairy is flown in from the mainland.

[Arugula Latte]

57. There are a couple of dairies on the Big Island but that is it.

The last dairies on Oahu, Maui and Kauai shut down in the past decade.

[geckosfeet]

94. I know there is a lot of ranching but I thought it was mostly beef. Could be some dairy though.

But if the contamination is getting into the dairy it will get into the beef as well.

[corpseratemedia]

8. I am NOT AT ALL discounting anything about radiation in milk..i know nothing about the poisoning

but this is anecdotal and has to do with the stomach flu my family friends and i experienced this winter...milk products are a trigger and make it much worse, its like it sets off the vomiting diarrhea frenzy..just fyi..and why that is, i have no clue either.

so, perhaps it could be either thing, maybe that horrible bug is finally making its way there..??

[franzia99]

9. true

I agree with you that it's just anecdotal. Just wanted to put this information out there though in hopes of finding out if the levels of radioactive contamination reported by the EPA could cause these symptoms. I've never had to worry about something like this before.

[CoffeeCat]

21. And your situation highlights the problem...

The problem being that the media is ABSENT with regard to meaningful information
about the radioactive materials (Cesium, Iodine-131) that have been found in milk
in several locations in the US, including Hawaii, California, Vermont.

What do these levels mean? If these levels are above EPA standards, what is being
done? Why isn't the public being addressed? What precautions should we take?

There is so much confusion--but one bit of information I have gleaned through my
research that there is a difference between being externally exposed to "radiation
levels" and INGESTING OR INHALING RADIOACTIVE ISOTOPES. So, when the media explains
that the radiation levels are low--and similar to experiencing an x-ray--they are only
addressing the EXTERNAL effects of low levels of radiation externally hitting your body.

THEY ARE NOT DISCUSSING OR EXPLAINING THE PHYSIOLOGICAL AND HEALTH RAMIFICATIONS OF
SOMEONE INHALING AND/OR INGESTING (VIA MILK OR OTHER FOODS) CESIUM OR RADIOACTIVE
IODINE-131.

The media's continued avoidance of real news on this issue--is such a disgrace and
an affront to our safety and well being. I don't pretend to have all of the answers.
I'm not a nuclear physicist. I'm just someone trying to understand, and it is disgustingly
pathetic that we have to do our own research in the midst of a nuclear disaster--about
what all of this means.

Your concern about your stomach ache is not a poor reflection on you. It's a sign that
the media is not doing its job--as you sit in an area with elevated radioactive isotopes--
with a total lack of information about what this means.

[franzia99]

22. Thanks for your thoughtful response

Yah, the lack of good information from official sources makes everything worse. Not only that, but it really looks like attempts have been made to downplay the whole thing. We saw the same thing with Chernobyl. It took many years for people to find out how much radiation they were actually exposed to and Ukraine government to this day denies responsibility for health problems that many agree were caused by the disaster. What we need is a reliable regulatory body to prevent these kinds of disasters and to be honest with us about risks.

[CoffeeCat]

25. and for the reasons you just mentioned...

...it is just good common sense to avoid drinking milk. If it has Cesium-137 in it, it
is in your best interest to avoid milk. You don't need milk to survive, anyway. There
are plenty of calcium-rich foods or supplements.

Our government does not tell the truth. Did they tell the truth to those police officers,
first responders and firefighters who were given absolute assurances that the air at
'ground zero' was safe? Did the government tell the truth when they said that Corexit
was not dangerous and that it was safe to eat the Gulf Seafood? What about the nuclear-energy
industry, in general? Do they tell the truth to the public and were they forthcoming
during Chernobyl?

We all know the answers to these questions.

At the very least, we need to be prudent and use our brains. When an entity or industry
repeatedly (at worst) lies, or (at best) gets it wrong---it is natural and normal to not
completely trust that entity or industry when it comes to life and death issues!

[Politicalboi]

35. Now see

If we get rid of the EPA end of problem. LOL! No more facts, everything is okay. Nothing to see here. Got Milk? Better stock up.
I hope it's just the flu. I live in Ca, so we may be next, or we may also have radiation here already. Just look how informed BP and our government were over the oil gusher. Oh wait!

[franzia99]

39. You know the milk industry is probably lobbying hard to keep this under wraps.I contacted local news

organizations and one got back to me saying they'd do a story on it. We'll see.

[TurningPointTime]

11. Glad I don't drink milk anymore

I stopped eating all dairy and what do ya know, no more acne! If you struggle with acne I suggest you try it.

[franzia99]

13. I've heard good arguments

in support of not drinking milk. Everyone keeps telling me it's necessary for my health though. Yah, radioactive Iodine and Cesium are just what the doctor ordered!

[bobbolink]

28. Its a good thing everything is all about ME.

We've sure bought the sales pitch of the Rugged Individualist RW.

[Codeine]

12. That's not even a vaguely dangerous amount. nt

[franzia99]

14. Could you provide a source on this?

It's 6 times the legal limit and Iodine 131 is a very dangerous substance. Not to mention the high level of Cesium that was also found in the milk (I didn't mention it in the OP, but it's in the EPA data I linked to). One of my objectives in posting this was to learn more about the health risks. If you have anything you can link to in support of your statement I'd appreciate it.

[mkultra]

30. Your own links seem to point that out

The first link says that the amounts are below level. The second link seems to have trouble with math. The graph it presents shows a base line of around 5 Becquerels per Litre but they then go on to compare rainwater with federal drinking water limits.

If the standard background is 5 and the spike is at 20, it will dissipate to background in 16 days.

The federal limit on I131 in milk is 4,600 picoCuries per liter which is 170 Becquerels.

http://www.dhmh.state.md.us/pdf/iodine%20131%20fact%20sheet.pdf

[franzia99]

44. Why is the legal limit so much higher for food than it is for drinking water?

[uppityperson]

Because people drink more water than milk or food? Or because (tinfoil time)

the food/milk industry has successfully lobbied to have their numbers higher since they don't care about killing off people?

[franzia99]

53. Even if people drink 8 glasses of water vs 1 glass of milk, 4600 vs 3 is a huge difference

Plus if you add in food consumption it's probably pretty close to what you consumer in water.

I don't think the milk lobbying idea is tinfoil hat thinking. Like you I agree that we need facts to support statements like these but there's nothing wrong with putting it out there as a possibility to be discussed before it's been proven.

I used to be a little more naive about how big biz and government operate. But then the results from the Financial Crisis Iquiry Commission came out saying how foreseeable the financial crisis was and how the financial industry was powerful enough to stave off necessary regulation because they have so much money and influence. We shouldn't just dismiss the possibility that industry will lobby for regulations that are good for them but not the public.

[uppityperson]

56. I translated some of the pdf linked in the french milk/greens topic. Will send off a note to family

who lives in rural area that grows greens and has a lot of milk, see what they've heard locally. Reading through what I could translate, am not sure if it is better safe than sorry or time to be very concerned. Difficult to tell. I can't remember their local area newspaper's name, will ask what they know, being there and having kids and all.

[mkultra]

95. probably because the limits are set by different agencies

or where set at different times. I would imagine that it would be difficult to align all the different limits.

[Brickbat]

16. Correlation is not causation.

[necso]

18. Your linked epa(!) page

states immediately above the figures given for milk: "The milk sampling results are far below the Food and Drug Administration's Derived Intervention Level for iodine-131 in milk."

I couldn't quickly find a specific figure for milk from the FDA, but this page:

http://www.fda.gov/newsevents/publichealthfocus/ucm247403.htm

has this data: "FDA has set a Derived Intervention Level (DIL) for Iodine-131 of 170 Bq/kg {ed: a kg equals roughly a liter for milk or water} in foods prepared for consumption."

(http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/iodine/standards_regulations.html states that this figure also applies to "Foods destined for general consumption and also for infant milk and drinking water." This page also uses a 4,600 pCi/kg figure, which is the closer approximation.)

becquerels x 27 (approximately) = picoCuries

170 Bq/kg x 27 = 4590 pCi/kg

So, at least from the FDA, 3 pCi/l doesn't add up (it's off by a multiplier of more than 1500).

As far as I can determine, the 3 pCi/L figure (an output standard for drinking water from Community Water Systems, apparently) comes from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("Radionuclide SDWA Rule", 40CFR141.66(d) page 13), and is based upon an additional, accumulated 4 mrem/year dosage for continuous exposure over the course of a year.

However, 4600/3 x 4 mrem/year = 6133 mrem/year is a significant figure; and a correlation between methodologies (at a minimum) seems called for.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

19. I believe people need about 400 mSv to actually show any symptom of radiation sickness

I think anything your witnessing is psychosomatic.

a) 3pci/L is still very low
b) The shelf life of the milk is about twice as long as the radionuclide's half-life.

[MineralMan]

20. Occam's Razor.

If people in your office are getting sick with those symptoms, that's a sign of a norovirus, not radiation. Think horses, not zebras, when you hear thundering hooves.

[franzia99]

23. OTOH, the consequences of ignoring the canary in the coalmine are huge though

I don't think we'd want to go with Occam's razor about something like this.

I was really hoping that people would help by providing research links, but I realize that people have other things to do. I'll just do the research myself though when I have time and report back on what I think.

[CoffeeCat]

24. Physicians for Social Responsibility VERY CONCERNED...

While our media provides little information, the Physicians of Social Responsibility issued a press release:
-----

Physicians for Social Responsibility Deeply Concerned About Reports of Increased Radioactivity in Food Supply

Washington, DC - March 23, 2011 – Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) expressed concern over recent reports that radioactivity from the ongoing Fukushima accident is present in the Japanese food supply. While all food contains radionuclides, whether from natural sources, nuclear testing or otherwise, the increased levels found in Japanese spinach and milk pose health risks to the population. PSR also expressed alarm over the level of misinformation circulating in press reports about the degree to which radiation exposure can be considered “safe.”

According to the National Academy of Sciences, there are no safe doses of radiation. Decades of research show clearly that any dose of radiation increases an individual’s risk for the development of cancer.

“There is no safe level of radionuclide exposure, whether from food, water or other sources. Period,” said Jeff Patterson, DO, immediate past president of Physicians for Social Responsibility. “Exposure to radionuclides, such as iodine-131 and cesium-137, increases the incidence of cancer. For this reason, every effort must be taken to minimize the radionuclide content in food and water.”

“Consuming food containing radionuclides is particularly dangerous. If an individual ingests or inhales a radioactive particle, it continues to irradiate the body as long as it remains radioactive and stays in the body,”said Alan H. Lockwood, MD, a member of the Board of Physicians for Social Responsibility. “The Japanese government should ban the sale of foods that contain radioactivity levels above pre-disaster levels and continue to monitor food and water broadly in the area. In addition, the FDA and EPA must enforce existing regulations and guidelines that address radionuclide content in our food supply here at home.”

more at link: http://www.psr.org/news-events/press-releases/psr-concerned-about-reports-increased-radioactivity-food-supply.html

[Snoutport]

60. Don't feel bad....my posts about nuclear get me yelled at too...

It is OK to ask questions and we can't expect a perfect question. The conversation is valuable regardless of how it started.

[ComtesseDeSpair]

26. Are you a calf?

If not, then why would you think drinking cow milk is a good idea?

[uppityperson]

33. Because some of us like to drink it either straight or in our coffee/tea.

[seabeyond]

96. why do people have to challenge others drinking milk? how stupid. if a person wants to

drink milk, booyah.

are you a calf? stupid

[Union Scribe]

104. I'd honestly never seen this before DU

I'd be reading other threads about milk and radiation, and these sorts of comments were coming out of the blue. Totally new kind of kooky to me.

[spedtr90]

27. EPA considers yearly levels rather than current?

I heard the EPA levels are gauged for yearly exposure, so they discount the high short term readings of the the last 2 weeks or so 2. In the big picture of a year, technically it's not too much. And yet it is.

[RC]

29. More scare mongering.

Was anyone even checking radiation in foods before 'Fukushima' became a household name? Most likely no.
But, if so, what were the levels before the tsunami?
Hawaii depends on tourism. Lots of people to people contact with people from all over. All it takes is one sick person determined to not waste his expensive vacation shut up in his expensive hotel room for his week or two on Hawaii.
Happens all the time. And yes I have been to Hawaii and I know people there.

[L. Coyote]

31. "People are getting sick" is a daily thing!! WHY is another question. SCARE POST

does not serve us.

Get rational!

[L0oniX]

32. Iodine 131 would be taken up by the thyroid gland.

Of course malfunctions of the thyroid gland has many variable characteristics.

[uppityperson]

34. Unrec for several reasons

Fear mongering, I-131 affects thyroid gland and won't cause nausea/vomiting even if taken "a fews days ago". Norovirus causes fast spreading n/v.

Unrec for your first post giving data contrary to what you write. "The milk sampling results are far below the Food and Drug Administration's Derived Intervention Level for iodine-131 in milk. These types of findings are to be expected in the coming days and are far below levels of public health concern, including for infants and children. Iodine-131 has a very short half-life of approximately eight days, and the level detected in milk and milk products is therefore expected to drop relatively quickly"

[franzia99]

37. consider this though

That's a blanket statement by the EPA that's appeared on there for weeks. The levels of radioactive Iodine and Cesium are exceeding the levels allowed in drinking water by many times and they're saying it's below the level of public health concern? That doesn't make any sense.

You'll probably see down the line that this was one of the early examples of how we're really being affected by the radiation coming out of Fukushima.

Furthermore, I'm new here and was hoping that the community would engage in thoughtful discussion and perhaps post links to any information they'd seen. Some have done so and I am grateful for their input. Unsupported, blanket dismissals and accusations of fear mongering are not helpful. And let me remind you that with Chernobyl it took years for governments to finally be honest about the actual levels of radiation people had been exposed to. Many independent nuclear physicists today are saying that TEPCO and world governments are downplaying the risks. You're free to not recommend this thread, that's your right. But if you're going to call me a fear mongerer please have something solid to back it up.

[uppityperson]

40. Consider this though. Correlation is not causation. Posting I-131 is high AND people are getting

sick reads (for those who don't take the time to fully research wtf is posted) that I-131 is causing people to get sick. Notice how many people rec'd this post? Betcha some read the subject line and clicked rec.

So, I unrec to counter correlation=causation fears. Even IF there were high enough I-131 in the milk you drank last week to affect your thyroid, which your link says there wasn't, it wouldn't present with the symptoms of norovirus.

You want links? Ok.

Norovirus
http://www.medicinenet.com/norovirus_infection/article.htm

Hypothyroid (if you take enough I-131 your thyroid function drops as your thyroid is damaged, can be to the point of having no thyroid function).
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/hypothyroidism/DS00353

I found and posted a link last week stating it takes several weeks to a month for your thyroid to decrease function enough for hypothyroid symptoms after being exposed to I-131. http://www.mgh.org/nuclear/FAQ.html
http://www.mythyroid.com/radioactiveiodinecancer.html

See? There is no problem with looking for answers since none of us knows everything, but I unrecced to counter the "OMG!!I-131 is HERE and we're all SICK!!"

[franzia99]

41. Yah, we know that. How about helping to determine if there's causation?

Instead of just writing this off so you can feel better.

Furthermore, nothing you've posted even addresses the situation at hand, so it's not helpful.

[uppityperson]

42. You post I-131 found in Hawaii milk at 6 times the federally allowed level. People are getting sick.

Nothing I posted addresses getting sick, nausea/vomiting? Norovirus causes nausea/vomiting. I-131 causes hypothyroidism which does NOT include nausea/vomiting. This doesn't address what you are talking about?

"I live in Hawaii and coincidentally, everyone I work with has been getting sick this past week. I was nauseous and vomiting a few days ago and I had been drinking milk recently before that."

That is copy/pasted from your OP. The subject line. The text of your message.

How is my posting about what might be causing your n/v NOT addressing what you are talking about? How is my pointing out YOUR link says "milk sampling results are far BELOW" (see below) NOT address what you are talking about?

You asked for links. I gave you links about health matters possibly correlated and uncorrelated with I-131 exposure and less than 2 minutes later you've read them, thought about them and posted nothing addresses what you are posting about? But instead simply dismiss it and insult me.

Huh. I am stumped here.

----------------------------------------------

Milk

The milk sampling results are far below the Food and Drug Administration's Derived Intervention Level for iodine-131 in milk. These types of findings are to be expected in the coming days and are far below levels of public health concern, including for infants and children. Iodine-131 has a very short half-life of approximately eight days, and the level detected in milk and milk products is therefore expected to drop relatively quickly.

[franzia99]

46. What do you think of the post at the bottom of the page where the EU warns about milk consumption?

France is about 6000 miles from Japan while Hawaii is only 3800 miles from Japan. You're telling me that France should be worried about milk consumption and Hawaii should not?

[uppityperson]

47. found it. some of it translated

The article in that post is this
http://www.euractiv.com/en/health/radiation-risks-fukushima-longer-negligible-news-503947
which links to this pdf which I am translating and copy/pasting parts of (via babelfish, want to get a better translation than I can on my own)

NB: information which appears in this text can concern other European countries. Indeed, the contamination of the air is overall identical in Germany, in Switzerland, in Belgium, in Italy, etc the results which we have for the United States on the other hand reveal appreciably higher levels of contamination (10 times approximately). It is all the more important to avoid the regular consumption of rainwater and not to consume in an excessive way the food at the risk (vegetables with sheets, milk and fresh cheese).

(clip)

These very weak activities do not induce any risk for the people who were under rain without protection. On the other hand, the use of rainwater like primary source of food is disadvised, in particular if the consumers are young children. With to note that the regulation does not regard rainwater as a drinking water. 1 Water coming from underground collectings or large river should not pose problem. It would be necessary on the other hand more closely to examine the situation of the water levels standard lakes collinaires which collect rainwater of one or more areas catchment. FOOD POTENTIALLY HAS RISK There is, a priori, two categories of food to be considered: plants with broad sheets salads type, blettes, spinaches, cabbages, sorrel… (except if they are cultivated under greenhouse obviously); milk and them fresh cheeses (in particular of goat and ewe), meat safe for the herds still in stalling. The risks are certainly very weak but if one takes account of the possible duration of contamination, of the existence of particular dietary habits and the vulnerability of some groups of populations, one is not any more in the field of the negligible risk and it seems useful to avoid behaviors at the risk: to prevent that the sensitive food constitutes, on next weeks the base of the food of the family. This measurement of good sense concerns particularly children, expectant mothers and the moms who nurse.

(clip)
" the risk related to the food or water ingestion contaminated by the radioactive fallout should remain limited. The laboratory of the CRIIRAD will evaluate as soon as possible the quantities of radioactivity deposited on the ground (dry deposits and deposits related to precipitations) in order to check the orders of magnitude awaited in food and to give, if necessary, of the adapted councils ".

(clip)
Many people asked to us whether they could continue to consume the water of their cistern (water collected on the roof of their dwelling). Taking into account the levels of contamination measured until now, the specific consumption of some water glasses does not pose problem. On the other hand, if water collected must be used as primary source of food over 15 days or 3 weeks, the received amount could reach, to even exceed the threshold from which the risk is not regarded any more as negligible, in particular if the consumers are young children. They are very low levels of risk but which it is to better avoid 8 Let us recall in addition that the ministry for health does not consider rainwater. as a drinking water and warns against the risks associated with its consumption. If you cannot avoid using the water collected on your roof for the watering of your vegetable garden, take care to sprinkle the ground and not the sheets of vegetables: absorption is important and fast on the level of the leaf aeras; slower and much less effective starting from the system racinaire of the plants.

[uppityperson]

52. more of it translated via babelfish

FOOD POTENTIALLY HAS RISK For a few days, the questions of our correspondents have related more particularly to the impact radioactive fallout on the food chain: is the food contaminated? So yes which? Does one have to avoid consuming them? Is this dangerous for the children? For an expectant mother? For a mom who nurses her child? There are two categories of food at the risk: those which are contaminated by direct deposit and those which are contaminated by transfer (milk and meat) • The importance of the contamination depends, of course of the activity deposited (by ways dry and wet) but also of the vegetative stage of the plant and surfaces of collecting available: plants with broad sheets salads type, blettes, spinaches, cabbages, sorrel… belong to the most exposed food (except if they are cultivated under greenhouse obviously). Taking into account the level of contamination of the air, coefficients of transfer of the air on the ground and the rain and of the air and the rain to the plants, the activity in iodize 131 of these plants should reach a few becquerels per kilogramme, even some tens of Bq/kg. Let us specify that the radioactive particles deposited on the leaf aeras are quickly metabolized by the plant (phenomenon of translocation) and the fact of washing the plant is not effective. Certain culinary techniques make it possible on the other hand to eliminate part of the radioactivity. • Milk and the fresh cheeses and the meat coming from herds still in stalling do not pose obviously not problem. In addition, certain herds are currently led in pastures but the essence of their food is still brought by fodder or grains. In this case, the incidence of the contaminated grass ingestion remains limited. The animals in pasturage can brouter the grass on wide surfaces and to thus introduce the radioactive products collected by cover plant. Part of the contamination is rapidemenorganes, according to the metabolic characteristics of each radionuclide. Radioactive iodine concentrate in thyroid animal but it also is fixed by the glands mammaires and is transferred with milk. One also finds it in the meat but in less concentration. • The factor of transfer of grass to milk strongly according to whether it is a question varies milk or cow's milk of goat or of ewe whose contamination can be higher of an order of magnitude than that of milk of cow. The radioactivity of cheeses depends on their manufacturing process and of the times of affinage.t eliminated but a part is fixed in theirs

Do I have to pay attention to my food? The answer to this question is an individual choice. The risks are certainly very weak but if one takes account of the possible duration of the contamination, the existence of particular dietary habits and the vulnerability of certain groups of populations (children, expectant mothers or nursing), one is not any more in the field of the negligible risk and it seems useful to avoid behaviors at the risk.

[uppityperson]

54. a bit more

The infants (0 - 2 years) are most vulnerable: the ingestion of about fifty becquerels of iodine 131 is enough to deliver at their organization an amount of 10 µSv. If the food at the risk (vegetables with sheet, milks and fresh cheeses…) contain about 1 to 10 Bq/kg, even more, it is completely possible to imagine that in 2 or 3 weeks the threshold of reference of 10 µSv/an can be exceeded. It is however easy to limit the exposures to negligible levels by taking care that these food does not constitute, throughout April, the base of the food of the family. 0n can thus prefer milk “long conservation” with fresh milk, not make excess with fresh cheeses of ewe, the blettes, salads or spinaches. These measurements of good sense particularly concern the children, the expectant mothers and the moms who nurse. NB: the value taken in reference by the CRIIRAD is the threshold of the risk “known as “negligible” is 10 µSv/an (or 0,01 mSv/an). It should not be confused with the limit of maximum amount acceptable of 1 mSv/an which is 100 times higher. Even by imagining a food centered on the food which concentrates radioactivity, the levels of exposure in France should remain definitely lower than this value. For the inhabitants of the west coast of the United States, the situation is appreciably different.

(clip)
The west coast of the United States receives 6 to 10 days before France the impact of the radioactive rejections of the power station of FUKUSHIMA DAIICHI. Within sight of the results available, one can expect, in any case over the next week, with activities in light but regular fall.

[uppityperson]

69. It is a research group, Not The EU. Wish I could unrec for another not quite truthful post.

[muriel_volestrangler]

71. That's not the EU; it's an independent non-profit organization

Looking at the figures they give, the highest I-131 level was in goat's milk - 2,1 Bq per litre (which is about 57 pCi/l, by the way - ie way above the Hawaiian cow's milk level). They say that below 10 microsieverts per year, the risk from radioactive iodine is negligible, and that 50 Bq can deliver that does, for a 2 year old. That's about 24 litres of the goat's milk. Realistically, that's about 2 months (at about one US pint per day). If the levels stay as high as they are now, for a month or more, it could be worth avoiding it. But I-131 decays quickly, so the levels are unlikely to remain at their current level - unless nuclear fission is still going on in the Japanese reactor, and I think they're satisfied that fission was stopped, at the start of the incident. It's the waste products that are generating the radioactivity now.

[uppityperson]

76. Thank you muriel, glad to see I am not the only one noticing this.

I do appreciate your input also.

[franzia99]

36. "Radiation risks from Fukushima 'no longer negligible'"

"The risks associated with iodine-131 contamination in Europe are no longer "negligible," according to CRIIRAD, a French research body on radioactivity. The NGO is advising pregnant women and infants against "risky behaviour," such as consuming fresh milk or vegetables with large leaves.

In response to thousands of inquiries from citizens concerned about fallout from the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Europe, CRIIRAD has compiled an information package on the risks of radioactive iodine-131 contamination in Europe.

The document, published on 7 April, advises against consuming rainwater and says vulnerable groups such as children and pregnant or breastfeeding women should avoid consuming vegetables with large leaves, fresh milk and creamy cheese...

...CRIIRAD says its information note is not limited to the situation in France and is applicable to other European countries, as the level of air contamination is currently the same in Belgium, Germany, Italy and Switzerland, for instance. Data for the west coast of the United States, which received the Fukushima radioactive fallout 6-10 days before France, reveals that levels of radioactive iodine-131 concentration are 8-10 times higher there, the institute says..."

http://www.euractiv.com/en/health/radiation-risks-fukushima-longer-negligible-news-503947

Copied from Robdogbucky's thread since it looks relevant here

[franzia99]

49. s

[northernlights]

89. Franzia, there are two basic ways you can get sick from radioactive iodine

Massive doses of (any of the released) radiation can cause radiation sickness. Those levels are right near the reactor, not thousands, or even hundreds, of miles away.

Significantly smaller injested doses of radioactive iodine can be taken up by the body instead of regular iodine. It collects in the thyroid gland, which uses it to make thyroid hormones (T3 and T4). Over time (decades) the radiation in the thyroid can cause thyroid disease (cancer).

They are advising not drinking milk or eating leafy vegetables due to the potential for buildup of radioactive iodine in the thyroid gland. It will not cause radiation sickness. Seriously, if levels were high enough here to cause radiation sickness, people would be dropping like flies. They're not keeling over in Tokyo, just 150 or so miles away. The levels aren't that high.

I'm sorry you're having stomach issues. If they continue, you may want to visit your doctor. You could have some sort of stomach bug (which if something is going around could explain why a number of people you know are getting sick) or there could be some food issues going on (but not radiation, which at these levels won't cause vomiting).

[Blue-Jay]

50. They should stock up on coconut milk.

[bananas]

63. People saying this is psychosomatic are violating DU rules

This could be an outbreak of food poisoning completely unrelated to Fukushima,
if so your bogus medical advice could kill people.
Maybe the melamine poisoners are taking the opportunity to dump melamine into milk,
they've dumped it into pet food and baby food before,
don't put anything past these criminals.
It could be any of a number of things.

[Paradoxical]

70. Unrrec for total dishonesty. 6 times the MCL will not make you sick.

[franzia99]

82. This isn't dishonest. It could very well be the canary in the coalmine for the U.S.

[uppityperson]

85. Except the canary is still alive and singing, disproving your whole attempt here

[Paradoxical]

87. No, your OP is a total lie. 6 times MCL will not make anyone sick.

MCL is based on chronic long-term exposure. And it's defined as the average life-span. Which is 70 years.

The amount of radiation you're currently being exposed to exceeds the MCL by 6 times. If you were exposed to such levels long term, you would be put at higher risk for associated illnesses like cancer.

But on a short-term basis, current radiation levels would not make someone ill. You can't get acute radiation sickness from such low levels.

[Dappleganger]

72. If you are sick then go to the doctor.

Seriously. Everything else here is pure speculation.

[uppityperson]

88. Best answer here. Go see a doctor rather than asking anonymous internet users for medical advice

[franzia99]

93. People have a right to know about things that may become a threat to them.

[femrap]

91. I believe what is happening in Japan

is the most IMPORTANT EVENT CURRENTLY NOT BEING COVERED BY THE MSM.

WE ARE BEING LIED TO.....

[Yo_Mama]

97. Those levels aren't going to make you sick

Try a doctor if you are still feeling ill. Maybe it is a norovirus or maybe you got food poisioning.

As for the Berkeley rainwater testing, they are distilling the water they catch on the roof of the hall in order to be able to detect small quantities of radiation. This is why they have relatively high levels detected.
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/1906

We distill the rainwater in an oven for several hours, often reducing the volume from about 5 liters to 1 liter. Teflon beakers are used in this process so that the particulates will not stick to the sides of the beaker as the water level decreases. We then place the liter of distilled rainwater in a special container called a Marinelli beaker that fits around our cylindrical high-purity germanium gamma-ray detector.

By evaporating the rainwater in this fashion, we reduce the amount of water in the sample while keeping the amount of particulates constant. We therefore have a more concentrated sample, which increases our sensitivity to detect trace amounts of gamma radiation from particles in the rainwater. The Marinelli beaker also increases our sensitivity since it is more likely for a gamma-ray emitted in the water to strike somewhere in our detector, as compared with a container that does not wrap around our detector.

I don't understand why you think the EPA would lie about the risks associated with their detected levels?

EPA MCL standards are set mostly with lifetime exposure ratings. In other words, the EPA sets standards assuming that you will consume food or liquids with those contamination levels for an entire lifetime. That is why EPA MCL standards are so low compared to those of many other nations. A temporary variation from standard at these low levels truly isn't a risk to human health.

EPA tests milk on an ongoing basis, but they have stepped up testing.

[franzia99]

98. How the heck do you know how much one time exposure will make one sick?

That's a lot of radioactive cesium and Iodine 131. You really can't just tell me that's safe.

And I wouldn't expect the government to always be immediately honest about risks. In the early stages of disasters governments often downplay risks either out of ignorance or because they want to avoid panic. See the quote below.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/13/world/asia/13japan.html?src=me&ref=world

Seiji Shiroya, a commissioner of Japan’s Nuclear Safety Commission, an independent government panel that oversees the country’s nuclear industry, said that the government had delayed issuing data on the extent of the radiation releases because of concern that the margins of error had been large in initial computer models. But he also suggested a public policy reason for having kept quiet.

“Some foreigners fled the country even when there appeared to be little risk,” he said. “If we immediately decided to label the situation as Level 7, we could have triggered a panicked reaction.”

[shockra]

100. Some articles I got from Natural News earlier.

Fukushima radiation taints US milk supplies at levels 300% higher than EPA maximums

Background and airplane radiation is an external emitter of radiation, while Fukushima-induced radiation in food and water is an internal emitter. The former, which is considered "normal" radiation, hits your body from the outside, while the latter goes directly inside your body and into your digestive tract. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the immense difference between the two, and the much more severe consequences associated with literally ingesting radiation verses having it hit your skin.

In reality, there really is no safe level of radiation. No matter how many times the EPA and others repeat the lie that radiation levels are too low to have any significant impact, the statement itself is patently false. Many experts, including Jeff Patterson, DO, former President of Physicians for Social Responsibility, have stated that radiation exposure at any level is unsafe, and they are correct.

"There is no safe level of radionuclide exposure, whether from food, water or other sources. Period," said Patterson. "Exposure to radionuclides, such as Iodine-131 and Cesium-137, increases the incidence of cancer. For this reason, every effort must be taken to minimize the radionuclide content in food and water."

http://www.naturalnews.com/032048_radiation_milk.html

Europeans warned to avoid drinking milk or eating vegetables due to high radiation levels

Despite these warnings, the real issue that few are willing to acknowledge so far is that Fukushima fallout will continue for many more months. And during this fallout, there will be a cumulative load of radiation raining down upon the grasses, fruits and vegetables that make up the global food supply. How high those levels get is anyone's guess, and those animals that feed upon those grasses -- such as cattle, goats and sheep -- will tend to further concentrate the radioactivity, producing milk and meat products that are far more radioactive than the grasses upon which they fed.

This is a very sad circumstance, of course, because it means that the corn-fed, factory-farmed cattle will probably be LESS radioactive than the open-range grass-fed cattle whose beef products are usually far better for you. Although I'm not personally someone who consumes beef, I'm a big supporter of those who choose grass-fed beef over the corn-fed factory farmed beef.

http://www.naturalnews.com/032050_radioactive_food_nuclear_radiation.html

[divvy]

101. handy radiation chart

Hi Franzia,

Radiation poisioning is a difficult topic for all of us to understand. It does not help when media reports seem to constantly change the units of measurement. The chart below has information culled from various sources.



Ionizing radiation unit conversion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionizing_radiation_units

[dkf]

105. Something is going around.

My two co workers had it and they are not milk drinkers.

[dkf]

106. Cholo's in Haleiwa closed for the day after norovirus traced back there.

Reported by KHON earlier.

I am pretty sure my co workers had this.

http://www.khon2.com/mostpopular/story/Haleiwa-restaurant-temporarily-closes-after/hbRNh1QUNU-LB-xRx8XcEg.cspx