Notices
Results 1 to 27 of 27
Like Tree2Likes
  • 2 Post By Darkhorse

Thread: Radiation in milk.

  1. #1 Radiation in milk. 
    Forum Sophomore pineapple007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    118
    With the floatsam from Japan showing up in Hawaii and stories of contaminated milk and radiation in urine in some residents of Hawaii is there a real concern for public health ?

    Hawaii Health Guide - Big Island Dairy Farmers fight radiation with Boron

    This is a letter from milk producers in Hawaii showing that they realize the radiation is in the food chain.

    Thanks
    pineapple


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,324
    The added radiation is so little as to have no effect on public safety.


    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Sophomore pineapple007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    118
    """ Milk from the large dairies in Hamakua and Hawi has shown elevated levels of radiation, from 400 to 2400 times the recognized safe levels."""
    What is a safe level ? Are you saying that 2400 times the recognized safe level is still safe ?

    Thanks
    pineapple


    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Iuvenis ducis Darkhorse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    105
    You post a link to an article that is almost 2 years old and that does not have any scientific references at all. Who measured these levels, where is the data that backs up these claims? Anyone can make up numbers and spew them out, personally I trust the FDA, since they list the science that they use. Radiation Safety (last updated 6 months ago)
    Ignorance more frequently begets confidence, than it does knowledge. [Charles Darwin]
    Physical laws are kinda like Pringles. It is hard to break just one law. [Dr. Rocket]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,324
    Here's an article that reference and used the EPA data taken at the time.

    It showed the samples having many times less radiation than is considered dangerous:
    Trace Levels of Radiation Detected in Hawaii Milk - Honolulu Civil Beat
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Sophomore pineapple007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    118
    Stories are circulating among the locals about people having radiation in their urine and contaminated food. With the floatsam from Japan showing up and higher radiation being detected in monitors on the islands is there reason to be concerned ? The monitors have reached over 100 cpm's recently. There are also reports of the EPA raising contamination limits to accommodate business.

    AK and HI

    http://www.naturalnews.com/031963_radiation_exposure.html

    t
    hanks
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,324
    Quote Originally Posted by pineapple007 View Post
    Stories are circulating among the locals about people having radiation in their urine and contaminated food. With the floatsam from Japan and higher radiation being detected in monitors on the islands is there reason to be concerned ? The monitors have reached over 100 cpm's recently.

    AK and HI
    In short no reason to be concerned. Even the alert levels are way below documented increased health risk.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    The article is total nonsense.
    Boron is the only mineral capable of accepting and ionizing radiation that never changes the innards or the nucleus of the cell. Spoken simply, boron can take radiation and release it without upsetting its own very delicate balance. Boron is used extensively in the nuclear industry. Sodium borate is regularly used for standby liquid control systems, in case of emergencies. It was used in Cheronbyl in 1986 mixed with sand to prevent further radiation leakage. It was also used in 1999 in Tokaimura, Japan, to absorb the massive amounts of radiation after an accident at a plant.
    Not even close. Boron is used to absorb neutrons which controls the nuclear chain reaction. It cannot take "radiation and release it" nor does it absorb massive amounts of radiation, or any amounts of radiation.

    Stories "circulating among locals" have no credibility. Talk to somebody who knows what they are talking about.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,773
    Trusting folks, are we all? When I was a kid, the news published daily, the current level of Strontium 90 being found in milk supplied to our area. It was supposed the Strontium 90 found it's way there having originated as fallout from atmospheric testing in Nevada. Grazing cows ingested grasses having received fallout, Strontium is chemically similar to calcium, and thus was found replacing some of the milk's calcium. Strontium 90 is a radioactive isotope, which when ingested by human beings, finds it's way into their bones, again acting similar to calcium. It has, I believe, a rather long half-life, thus keeping up it's activity in the bone structures for a good long time.

    Should we continue to worry? It can be argued either way, I suppose. jocular
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Iuvenis ducis Darkhorse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    105
    When were you a kid? Times have changed, the government is is a lot more accountable for issues now than in the 50's, 60's, and 70's. People are more concerned with their health overall, there is a massively different political situation, and public failures in the past like the Love Canal, and Three mile island.
    Ignorance more frequently begets confidence, than it does knowledge. [Charles Darwin]
    Physical laws are kinda like Pringles. It is hard to break just one law. [Dr. Rocket]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Darkhorse View Post
    When were you a kid? Times have changed, the government is is a lot more accountable for issues now than in the 50's, 60's, and 70's..
    Wow! I am no conspiracy theorist, but do you have any evidence to support that blanket assertion?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Sophomore pineapple007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    118
    Did the EPA raise the PAG's to higher levels ? EPA to raise "safe" limits | Department of Nuclear Engineering
    The milk that was found to contaminated now passes EPA guidelines.

    EPA wants to raise “SAFE” radiation levels | Malu 'Aina

    The EPA is at it again, they now want to change the “safe” limits of exposure to humans. The EPA wants to raise “Protective Action Guides” (PAG’s) to levels vastly higher than those at which they are currently set allowing for more radioactive contamination of the environment and the general public.“According to PEER (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, the new standards would drastically raise the levels of radiation allowed in food, water, air, and the general environment. PEER, a national organization of local, state, and federal employees who had access to internal EPA emails, claims that the new standards will result in a “nearly 1000-fold increase for exposure to strontium-90, a 3000 to 100,000-fold hike for exposure to iodine-131; and an almost 25,000 rise for exposure to radioactive nickel-63″ in drinking water. This information, as well as the emails themselves were published by Collapsenet on March 24.

    I dont know. Its strange.
    pineapple
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,773
    Quote Originally Posted by Darkhorse View Post
    When were you a kid? Times have changed, the government is is a lot more accountable for issues now than in the 50's, 60's, and 70's. People are more concerned with their health overall, there is a massively different political situation, and public failures in the past like the Love Canal, and Three mile island.
    Perhaps, but how does one assess "government accountability" to explain why virtually 100% of living human beings today have detectable levels of hormone-mimicking synthetic chemicals in their fat tissues? jocular
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by pineapple007 View Post
    Did the EPA raise the PAG's to higher levels ?
    What makes you think they did? Do you have an actual credible source for this?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Iuvenis ducis Darkhorse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    105
    Quote Originally Posted by Darkhorse View Post
    When were you a kid? Times have changed, the government is is a lot more accountable for issues now than in the 50's, 60's, and 70's. People are more concerned with their health overall, there is a massively different political situation, and public failures in the past like the Love Canal, and Three mile island.
    Quote Originally Posted by pineapple007 View Post
    Did the EPA raise the PAG's to higher levels ? EPA to raise "safe" limits | Department of Nuclear Engineering The milk that was found to contaminated now passes EPA guidelines.EPA wants to raise “SAFE” radiation levels | Malu 'AinaThe EPA is at it again, they now want to change the “safe” limits of exposure to humans. The EPA wants to raise “Protective Action Guides” (PAG’s) to levels vastly higher than those at which they are currently set allowing for more radioactive contamination of the environment and the general public.“According to PEER (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, the new standards would drastically raise the levels of radiation allowed in food, water, air, and the general environment. PEER, a national organization of local, state, and federal employees who had access to internal EPA emails, claims that the new standards will result in a “nearly 1000-fold increase for exposure to strontium-90, a 3000 to 100,000-fold hike for exposure to iodine-131; and an almost 25,000 rise for exposure to radioactive nickel-63″ in drinking water. This information, as well as the emails themselves were published by Collapsenet on March 24.I dont know. Its strange.pineapple
    Do you have an actual source for this? Both these links have no sources for the claims. Anyone can say anything, it doesn't make it true.
    Ignorance more frequently begets confidence, than it does knowledge. [Charles Darwin]
    Physical laws are kinda like Pringles. It is hard to break just one law. [Dr. Rocket]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Iuvenis ducis Darkhorse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    105
    Quote Originally Posted by Darkhorse View Post
    When were you a kid? Times have changed, the government is is a lot more accountable for issues now than in the 50's, 60's, and 70's. People are more concerned with their health overall, there is a massively different political situation, and public failures in the past like the Love Canal, and Three mile island.
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Darkhorse View Post
    When were you a kid? Times have changed, the government is is a lot more accountable for issues now than in the 50's, 60's, and 70's. People are more concerned with their health overall, there is a massively different political situation, and public failures in the past like the Love Canal, and Three mile island.
    Perhaps, but how does one assess "government accountability" to explain why virtually 100% of living human beings today have detectable levels of hormone-mimicking synthetic chemicals in their fat tissues? jocular
    Because we like cheap crap made in a 3rd world country with no pollution controls or guidelines about what they put in their products? Stuff from China is cheap for a reason. Don't blame the government for our desire for cheaper goods.
    Last edited by Darkhorse; February 3rd, 2013 at 11:18 PM. Reason: Changed your to our, since this is a general thing
    Ignorance more frequently begets confidence, than it does knowledge. [Charles Darwin]
    Physical laws are kinda like Pringles. It is hard to break just one law. [Dr. Rocket]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Iuvenis ducis Darkhorse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    105
    Quote Originally Posted by Darkhorse View Post
    When were you a kid? Times have changed, the government is is a lot more accountable for issues now than in the 50's, 60's, and 70's. People are more concerned with their health overall, there is a massively different political situation, and public failures in the past like the Love Canal, and Three mile island.
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Darkhorse View Post
    When were you a kid? Times have changed, the government is is a lot more accountable for issues now than in the 50's, 60's, and 70's..
    Wow! I am no conspiracy theorist, but do you have any evidence to support that blanket assertion?
    It is an apocryphal statement, however I do think I can find data to back it up. I base it on my perceived view that there are more court cases against the government than previously, that people are better networked that previously (via the Internet), that we have greater freedom to demonstrate than before, and that environmental guild lines have increased since the 70's (when the EPA was created).It is not perfect, but I do believe it is better. Now I just have to find the stats to back it up. :-)
    Ignorance more frequently begets confidence, than it does knowledge. [Charles Darwin]
    Physical laws are kinda like Pringles. It is hard to break just one law. [Dr. Rocket]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Sophomore pineapple007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by pineapple007 View Post
    Did the EPA raise the PAG's to higher levels ?
    What makes you think they did? Do you have an actual credible source for this?
    Not really, but kind off.

    There is the letter from the milk producers to their stock holders claiming they are dealing with radiation problems in the milk.
    Hawaii Health Guide - Big Island Dairy Farmers fight radiation with Boron

    There is the PEERS suit claiming danger.
    PEER - SUIT TO AIR INTERNAL EPA PROTESTS ON RADIATION EXPOSURE PLAN

    There are plenty of articles making claims of higher limits.
    EPA to raise limits for radiation exposure while Canada turns off fallout detectors

    An article describing uranium in the locals urine.
    Report: Hawaii doctors finding uranium in people’s urine — Residents demand action (VIDEO)

    There are the radiation monitors that have spiked recently to alert levels. These monitors update and measure cpm's.
    AK and HI

    The floatsam from Japan is now showing up on the shores of Hawaii.
    Fukushima Radiation Moving Across Pacific Ocean
    Fukushima Threatens U.S. Coast n' Catch

    mahalo

    pineapple
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Darkhorse View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Darkhorse View Post
    When were you a kid? Times have changed, the government is is a lot more accountable for issues now than in the 50's, 60's, and 70's. People are more concerned with their health overall, there is a massively different political situation, and public failures in the past like the Love Canal, and Three mile island.
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Darkhorse View Post
    When were you a kid? Times have changed, the government is is a lot more accountable for issues now than in the 50's, 60's, and 70's..
    Wow! I am no conspiracy theorist, but do you have any evidence to support that blanket assertion?
    It is an apocryphal statement, however I do think I can find data to back it up. I base it on my perceived view that there are more court cases against the government than previously, that people are better networked that previously (via the Internet), that we have greater freedom to demonstrate than before, and that environmental guild lines have increased since the 70's (when the EPA was created).It is not perfect, but I do believe it is better. Now I just have to find the stats to back it up. :-)
    With respect to fallout from nuclear tests, there is the test ban treaty. So at least in that regard, governments are more accountable.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,324
    Accountability is good. Accountability to pseudo scientific hysteria isn't.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    Quote Originally Posted by Darkhorse View Post
    Because we like cheap crap made in a 3rd world country with no pollution controls or guidelines about what they put in their products? Stuff from China is cheap for a reason. Don't blame the government for our desire for cheaper goods.
    I think "the third world" is a relic term, and I'm pretty sure it was never meant to describe China (politically or financially). The cost of Chinese products is more likely due to low wages in a much less materially wealthy country, though the lack of regulations could conceivably play a part. Just wanted to clear that up.
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,324
    Quote Originally Posted by pineapple007 View Post
    Not really, but kind off.

    stuff....
    None of which are tied to science or objectivity. This is a good example of the pseudo-scientific hysteria for which government's sadly have to deal with. There's no solid science that suggest the accident has had, or will have, any negative health effects outside of a very tiny part of Japan.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by pineapple007 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by pineapple007 View Post
    Did the EPA raise the PAG's to higher levels ?
    What makes you think they did? Do you have an actual credible source for this?
    Not really, but kind off.

    There is the letter from the milk producers to their stock holders claiming they are dealing with radiation problems in the milk.
    Hawaii Health Guide - Big Island Dairy Farmers fight radiation with Boron
    Dairy farmers. There's a good place to get radiation health information. These are the nitwits who think boron absorbs radiation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Iuvenis ducis Darkhorse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    105
    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Darkhorse View Post
    Because we like cheap crap made in a 3rd world country with no pollution controls or guidelines about what they put in their products? Stuff from China is cheap for a reason. Don't blame the government for our desire for cheaper goods.
    I think "the third world" is a relic term, and I'm pretty sure it was never meant to describe China (politically or financially). The cost of Chinese products is more likely due to low wages in a much less materially wealthy country, though the lack of regulations could conceivably play a part. Just wanted to clear that up.
    Ya my bad, I stand corrected. :-) I tend to think of third world countries as ones without basic protection for their inhabitants or the environment. This is completely a non-standard use of the term.

    China is very much an industrialized nation, however their regulations for industry still leave much to be desired. Manufacturing cities make the pollution of places like Shanghai and Beijing look like child's play. Ensuring your waste is handled appropriately costs money.

    There is a desire to clean things up and it is changing, however when something is making money people have a tendency to resist change. When the company owners have heavy ties to the government, there is even more resistance to change. It will change just slower than most people want.
    Ignorance more frequently begets confidence, than it does knowledge. [Charles Darwin]
    Physical laws are kinda like Pringles. It is hard to break just one law. [Dr. Rocket]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Iuvenis ducis Darkhorse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    105
    Quote Originally Posted by pineapple007 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by pineapple007 View Post
    Did the EPA raise the PAG's to higher levels ?
    What makes you think they did? Do you have an actual credible source for this?
    Not really, but kind off.

    There is the letter from the milk producers to their stock holders claiming they are dealing with radiation problems in the milk.
    Hawaii Health Guide - Big Island Dairy Farmers fight radiation with Boron
    Not a reliable source, where is the science backing this up.

    This is a request to get meeting minutes, emails and draft documents from the EPA regarding radiation safety levels. This is not a suit claiming danger. They wanted to access this under Freedom of Information and the EPA stated that they could not meet the deadlines they requested due to the amount of material involved. The EPA never stated they would sue PEER like the website suggests, nor did they refuse the documents. This a request to get the documents quicker.

    There are plenty of articles making claims of higher limits.
    EPA to raise limits for radiation exposure while Canada turns off fallout detectors
    I love the statement "Quack science is alive and well as the government". This on a site proclaiming and advertising a multitude of quack cures.

    Not a reliable source, where is the science backing this up.

    There are the radiation monitors that have spiked recently to alert levels. These monitors update and measure cpm's.
    AK and HI
    Ahhh the attack of the large numbers. The thing to recognize here is that large numbers mean nothing unless you know the scale of the numbers.
    Lets put this in perspective. 1 Bq (Becquerel) is one radiation decay a second. The site you reference states that normal background radiation levels are 5-60cpm. So you are looking at up to 60 Bq as background radiation and an alert level of 100 Bq.

    On March 21, 2011 the radiation levels measured in Hawaii were recorded as .000215 pCi/m3. .000215 pCi/m3 is equal to 0.000007955 Bq/m3 or 0.0004773 cpm. Rates increased but are still incredibly small.

    The floatsam from Japan is now showing up on the shores of Hawaii.
    Fukushima Radiation Moving Across Pacific Ocean
    Fukushima Threatens U.S. Coast n' Catch
    Again the attack of the large numbers. WHOI estimates there was 1.9 petabecquerels of radioactive water. Sea water is typically 1-2 Bq per meter3 . The Pacific Ocean is 622 million Kilometers3 in volume or 6.22E+17 meters3. That means that the ocean currently has anywhere from 622 petabecquerels to 1244 petabecquerels of radiation normally.

    It is a matter of scale, the numbers look alarming however when you put them in the context of the regular numbers they are really small.
    Lynx_Fox and John Galt like this.
    Ignorance more frequently begets confidence, than it does knowledge. [Charles Darwin]
    Physical laws are kinda like Pringles. It is hard to break just one law. [Dr. Rocket]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    We get a lot of alarmist literature about both possibly toxic chemicals and radioactive substances. For anything like that you must ask two questions.

    1. What is the dose measured?
    2. What minimum dose will cause harm?

    I remember the time Greenpeace raised alarm about dioxin in human milk. I checked up. The measured level was 100 parts per quadrillion, which is an amazing accomplishment by analytical chemistry. The EPA reported that the minimum likely to cause harm was 20 parts per billion. So the 'alarming statistic' reported by Greenpeace was 200,000 times too small to cause harm.

    The same applies to radioactive materials. Dose is normally measured in millisieverts. The average dose per year world wide is less than 3 millisieverts. But human tolerance is much higher, and there is a place in Iran where locals receive a dose about 100 times higher, with no obvious ill effects.

    The amount of radiation coming from Fukushima in Japan tends to be measured in microsieverts (not millisieverts) per year. In other words, the extra received is frequently 1000 times less than natural background radiation, when our tolerance may be 100 times more.

    Research on Hiroshima survivors showed that those who received less than 100 millisieverts in a single hit (not spread over a year) lived as long, and had cancer rates, no worse than people elsewhere in Japan who were not exposed.

    So basically, it is very, very unlikely that the extra radiation from Fukushima will do any measurable harm to people in Japan, much less across the Pacific Ocean.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Sophomore pineapple007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    118
    So it seems that the reason people were freaking out about milk on the Big Island is that the EPA regulates water and uses milk in some areas to get a picture of the environment. The FDA regulates food, including milk. The EPA came out with findings that milk was over the EPA limits and the FDA says that the radiation is within their FDA guidelines. So while most people will not be affected some will be unlucky enough to be affected with an increase of radiation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. can we prepare Milk artificially?
    By precious in forum Biology
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: December 9th, 2011, 01:59 PM
  2. Warm milk and cold milk
    By Heinsbergrelatz in forum Chemistry
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: March 23rd, 2010, 06:05 PM
  3. Fruitloops in my milk
    By astrogirl15 in forum Physics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: November 24th, 2008, 02:48 PM
  4. Human Breast milk
    By verzen in forum Biology
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: October 10th, 2008, 01:41 PM
  5. Do you like milk?
    By Ryon in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: September 9th, 2008, 04:17 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •