Thread: Radiation in food supply

A while back I joined this forum and a few others to get information about radiation in milk. What I found out was that government agencies are in charge of specific areas. EPA oversees water and land but uses milk as an indicator. The FDA is in charge of food including milk. The overlapping of milk became a concern because of the level of radiation difference between the two agencies. Now it is being reported that children are being harmed by the radiation in California and the entire west coast.

ABC San Diego: Alarming report of Fukushima fallout harming U.S. infants (VIDEO)

Many sea mammals have been washing up on the shores of the west coast. Fish tested in the Pacific show higher levels of radiation.
“Radiation epidemic� killing So. California sea lions? Gov’t experts now checking animals for contamination from Fukushima Daiichi | Department of Nuclear Engineering

It could be that the radiation suppresses the immune system.then leukemia and other blood diseases caused by radiation make the body vulnerable for fungal and virological diseases. idk...4 sure

This story is being repeated word for word all over.

What study?
By whom?
Published in what credible journal?

I think it's likely BS.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by pineapple007

ABC San Diego: Alarming report of Fukushima fallout harming U.S. infants (VIDEO)

I haven't watched (and won't) the video but the headline/title is either a lie of an example of stunning ignorance.

The only reason that we can measure radioactivity from Fukushima reached California (and other places) is because we can measure ridiculously low levels (because it is radioactive). The levels reaching the USA are far to low to pose any threat to health.

A recent report from the World Health Organisation concluded that the radiation from the accident would cause no measurable increase in the cancer rate for the general population of Fukushima. So the tiny amount that spread around the world is even less likely to have any effect.

These people are probably worried about radiation from granite benchtops in kitchens as well.

Originally Posted by adelady

These people are probably worried about radiation from granite benchtops in kitchens as well.

Well, they aren't completely radiation free:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/24/ga...anted=all&_r=0

snopes.com: Granite Countertops and Radon

"Radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer (smoking is the first)..."

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Originally Posted by adelady

These people are probably worried about radiation from granite benchtops in kitchens as well.

Well, they aren't completely radiation free:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/24/ga...anted=all&_r=0

snopes.com: Granite Countertops and Radon

"Radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer (smoking is the first)..."

Im pretty sure thats the point adelady was making. lol

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Im pretty sure thats the point adelady was making. lol

Oh.
I inferred sarcasm/mocking in her reply.

But I could been mistaken.
Written communication is often crap at conveying subtlety.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by pineapple007

ABC San Diego: Alarming report of Fukushima fallout harming U.S. infants (VIDEO)

I haven't watched (and won't) the video but the headline/title is either a lie of an example of stunning ignorance.

The only reason that we can measure radioactivity from Fukushima reached California (and other places) is because we can measure ridiculously low levels (because it is radioactive). The levels reaching the USA are far to low to pose any threat to health.

A recent report from the World Health Organisation concluded that the radiation from the accident would cause no measurable increase in the cancer rate
for the general population of Fukushima. So the tiny amount that spread around the world is even less likely to have any effect.

But is this report stating the truth? WHO has as much obligation to prevent dissemination of fear as it does to advise of real health threats, does it not? And given, just hypothetically, that the WHO report was not entirely truthful regarding health threat, what steps could be taken to help those folks living in Fukushima AFTER the harm has been done?

Unless Fukushima was a far less serious occurrence than Chernobyl, (which in my estimation in was NOT), then all those folks who suffered serious health affects from Chernobyl could surely be used as a illustrative example of "leaders leading the blind". jocular

Unless Fukushima was a far less serious occurrence than Chernobyl, (which in my estimation in was NOT),

It's all about pure luck .... and the wind.

If one or more of those plants had gone completely out of control and the wind direction was across Japan towards the Chinese mainland then we'd have been in much more trouble than from Chernobyl.

Chernobyl did go completely off unlike Fukushima. The only thing that really saved thousands of lives was the courage of those pilots flying right across the top of that thing to suppress the fire. It wasn't just courage, it was knowingly, literally sacrificing their own lives for the benefit of other people, and it wasn't just them, there were others inside the plant.

There's a deeply horrible photo essay somewhere about the consequences of Chernobyl, particularly for children. I haven't saved it and I'm not in the mood just now to look for it.

Originally Posted by jocular

But is this report stating the truth?

I don't know.

WHO has as much obligation to prevent dissemination of fear as it does to advise of real health threats, does it not?

Does it? What do you base that on?

Unless Fukushima was a far less serious occurrence than Chernobyl, (which in my estimation in was NOT)

Really? How many people died in the Chernobyl accident and became ill from the after effects? On the other hand, what are the numbers for Fukushima (clue: zero and zero).

, then all those folks who suffered serious health affects from Chernobyl could surely be used as a illustrative example of "leaders leading the blind".

How so. We knew that there was massive dispersion of radioactive material at Chernobyl due to the core being on fire. We know people died in the accident. We know people became ill afterwards.

At Fukushima all the reactors were shut down and the fuel contained, no one was killed, there is no evidence there will be long term health effects.

I see almost nothing to compare the two cases. Oh yes, they both involved nuclear reactors and ... um ... that's it.