Tech
Radioactive Strontium Found in Hilo, Hawaii Milk
Image by Getty Images North America via @daylife
[UPDATED 4/28: with information from FDA. Altered sentences in italics.]
A radioactive isotope of strontium has been detected in American milk for the first time since Japan’s nuclear disaster—in a sample from Hilo, Hawaii—the Environmental Protection Agency revealed yesterday.
“We have completed our first strontium milk sample analysis and found trace amounts of strontium-89 in a milk sample from Hilo, Hawaii,” EPA said in a statement emailed to me yesterday afternoon. “The level was approximately 27,000 times below the Derived Intervention Level set by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.”
In fact, the FDA has no Derived Intervention Level for Strontium-89. See FDA statement at the bottom of this post.
EPA posted the test result at epa.gov in a pdf.
The two man-made isotopes of strontium—Sr-89 and Sr-90—are among the most dangerous products of nuclear fission to human and animal health. Both are “bone-seekers,” chemically similar to calcium, that collect in bone and marrow, where they are known to cause cancer. They are particularly dangerous to the growing bones of fetuses and children.
EPA found 1.4 picoCuries per liter of strontium-89 in a milk sample collected in Hilo on April 4.
The FDA’s Derived Intervention Level—the standard observed for food—for a related isotope, Strontium-90, is 4,400 pCi/L. The EPA’s Maximum Contamination Level for Sr-89 in drinking water is 20 pCi/L. (For more on the difference between EPA and FDA standards, as well as more on the health implications of ingesting radionuclides, see “Why Does FDA Tolerate More Radiation Than EPA?“)
The half-life of Sr-89 is 50.5 days, and Sr-89 is sometimes used as a cancer pain treatment under the commercial name Metastron, because it collects in and destroys the fast-growing cells of bone cancer in the same way it can injure healthy bone. EPA considers Sr-90, meanwhile, “the most important radioactive isotope in the environment” because of its health impacts and a longer half-life of 29 years.
EPA has found no strontium-90 in its testing, according to the statement, and it has found neither of the strontium fission products in drinking water.
Image via Wikipedia
Where’s the strontium? has been a question pressed by nuclear watchdogs—including one of the participants in this forum, liberationangel—since the Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear disaster. And not only where, but why aren’t the hazardous man-made isotopes of strontium included in the EPA’s open data system?
EPA does not list strontium in that system, I have learned, because it does not routinely test for strontium, even during its increased testing since the Fukushima disaster.
Tests for strontium are triggered by the presence of cesium isotopes, which have been found in milk from Hilo, Montepelier VT, and Oakland and in precipitation from Boise, Richmond CA, Salt Lake City and a few other cities.
The Strontium-89 was found in April 4 Hilo samples previously found to contain cesium-134 and cesium-137, and the test results were released only yesterday because they take longer to analyze, according to EPA’s statement:
In response to the Japanese nuclear power plant release, if we identify radioactive cesium… those samples will be analyzed for strontium. Testing for strontium is a complex process that takes time.”
More cesium was found in a Hilo milk sample on April 13. All of EPA’s initial milk testing is available here.
Some bloggers and activists have accused EPA of finding and then concealing plutonium and strontium in U.S. test results. The accusations seem to stem from searches of EPA’s more complicated Envirofacts database, which EPA made available to the public only recently in response to the Fukushima disaster. The database had previously been restricted to scientists.
The quantities of strontium and plutonium listed in that database are so minute—for example, 0.0008 picoCuries per cubic meter, and, in another case, a negative number: -0.00013 pCi/m3—and they are so dwarfed by the margin of error, that EPA categorizes them as “non-detectable,” according to the EPA statement sent to me yesterday:
It is important to note that Envirofacts contains all data points, including negative numbers and numbers we consider to be non-detects, because having all the results is important for technical experts to gain a complete understanding of the situation. A data point is considered a non-detect when it is less than or equal to twice the combined standard uncertainty (which is listed on the Envirofacts tables).
Thus, numbers that appear in EnviroFacts as minute or negative quantities of strontium and plutonium may appear as “non-detectable” in public data releases. EPA reported at the end of its business day yesterday there have been no detectable strontium or plutonium readings other than the Hilo result.
Hawaiian environmental health officials have assured Hawaiians there is no risk from the radionuclides detected in milk so far:
Lynn Nakasone, administrator of the Health Department’s Environmental Health Services Division, said the strontium is not a danger.
“It’s of no health consequence,” Nakasone said. “I realize it is a different reading and new data, but I guess from our point of view, it’s not a health risk.”
via Strontium-89 from Japan found in Big Island milk – Hawaii News – Staradvertiser.com.
But some physicians, such as University of Wisconsin Professor Jeffrey Patterson, have insisted there is no safe level of exposure to radionuclides:
There is no safe level of radionuclide exposure, whether from food, water or other sources. Period…. 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.”
[Statement from FDA on Derived Intervention Level for Sr-89: "FDA does not have a published DIL for Sr-89. That is because the 1998 FDA guidance, which the 2003 FDA Compliance Policy Guide is based on, focused on those radionuclides that would be expected to be released in significant quantities as a result of different types of accidents, including nuclear power plant accidents. That does not mean that Sr-89 or any other radionuclide is "unregulated." If FDA were to find a radionuclide present in food in quantities that might render it injurious to health, FDA would take appropriate action to protect the health and safety of consumers."]
Related Posts:
Radiation Detected In Drinking Water In 13 More US Cities, Cesium-137 In Vermont Milk
A hat tip to liberationangel and mothra for prompting and informing this post.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
Members
Log in with your Forbes account
Haven't Registered Yet?
Create an account to join Forbes now
Once again, great reporting on a disturbing trend very obfuscated by the government (EPA/FDA).
They report “no detectable strontium or plutonium readings” which sounds like bureaucracy-speak for “we aren’t really looking for it”.
What I am curious to know is whether Sr 89 and SR 90 “travel” together as radiostrontium is said in your story to “travel” with radio-cesium, i.e. since there IS the relatively short half-life strontium 89 (an indicator at least that this is likley from Fukushima – which it seems the EPA/FDA are acknowledging) is it LIKELY that there is strontium 90?
AND since there is lost of radiocesium (in my opinion) in almost all the readings of what is bioaccumulating (at least at UC Berkeley and in many EPA RADNET tests and CTBTO readings) after the rain washouts, is this a sign that there MUST or is most probably radiostrontium too?
Is there any reason we would NOT see it here from those plumes? (is it too heavy etc.) or is it something that can travel as both vapor and particulate matter in the atmosphere around the globe so IF they look more carefully they will see it.
This report does not inspire much confidence in the sampling and testing sytem BUT I deeply appreciate your getting this data and responses. Hopefully the EPA will realize that transparency is REQUIRED on the strontium 89/90 issue now that at least YOU in the media has picked up this critically important and troubling story.
Does the EPA/FDA/NRC or ANYONE in government have ANY answer for WHY there are not ongoing measurements so we have baselines as well as awareness when there are spikes in the levels?
Finally, I would love to know what the congresspeople from Hawaii have to say about this (other than calming everyone down and saying its all safe). I am sure the folks in Hawaii will not be too happy about this and a responsive government is required (not “benign neglect” of the issue).
Thanks for this important reporting and hope you stay on this issue. My guess is that if it is in Hilo it is probably here in the mainland if only someone would test for it.
Historically, 1986 Lawrence Livermore Labs assumed they encountered Sr-90 on page 15-22 of their testing report after Chernobyl (under 200 ton load event 1000 miles farther to Bay Area than Fukushima):
http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/6176104-Rj7fuQ/6176104.pdf
EML Sr-90 data for prior nuclear event depositions is here:
http://www.eml.st.dhs.gov/publications/reports/eml579.pdf
NOAA’s data partially based on EML above is here:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/publications/annrpt22/MONETTI.pdf
My opinion: Fukushima is unprecedented for many reasons: ton load to duration and release. The US potential Sr-90 deposition is possible, but likely to be trace, low and chronic in duration depending on so many factors from emissions to weather and geography. Current limits and protective actions aren’t set to address low, ongoing events like Fukushima, as those thresholds are set for higher, shorter duration occurences of the past – not in sync for this situation. How could they be? It’s never happened before. Priorly unthinkable, but here it is. Personally, I agree with ECRR, CRIIRAD, PSR and NIRS on precaution principle advisories as a consumer – pending more information. The EPA, FDA, DOE, NRC, ICRP and IAEA disagree with me differently in part, not on potential risk, but on what to do about it, why and when.
In response to another comment. See in context »On a related subject:
http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/articles/environment/radioactive-environment-fish-14265.html
Strontium 90 found in Fish near Vermont Yankee last year. Other nasty stuff too at high levels. Connecticut River. Sad. Its a beautiful River too. Hope they shut down that plant (Vermont Yankee).
To get at a couple of your questions:
When not in emergency mode, EPA does conduct tests of drinking water and milk for strontium quarterly, so you might be able to derive baselines from these reports:
http://www.epa.gov/narel/radnet/erdonline.html
On the other hand you might not. As I went through them it seemed to me that a number of them are incomplete.
I’m not an expert, I just quote them, but my understanding is that strontium is particulate and so less likely to travel than, say, iodine-131, which escapes from reactors as a gas. Strontium is less volatile. Here are a couple of experts on that topic.
Mark from Berekeley’s BRAWM team:
And Kirk Sorensen from EnergyFromThorium.com:
It seems to me that Sorensen’s quote has real implications, now that we’ve seen strontium in Hawaii, for the nature of the breach at Fukushima.
Thanks for the response, Jeff, but based on all the info I am not too reassured BECAUSE it seems that the hydrogen explosions (or WHATEVER they were) were what caused the strontium to get into the atmosphere in various forms.
If it were ONLY steam, maybe this would not be such a concern, but the explosion blew debris into tha air nearly a mile high. If strontium was in that mix it could be in the air and raining down all over.
As far as “detecting” strontium and ONLY quarterly testing that is just, to me, criminal neglect or intentional negligence: they KNOW that power plants emit strontium-90 and they know how dangerous it is.
What we do NOT seem to be able to find out or verify is WHAT testing is being done for Strontium 90 (if any). If their tests take time and they AREN’T looking for it in Alaska or San Francisco or St Louis or NYC then they will not detect it. It is a travesty imho. 1.4 picocuries per liter is almost have the level for minimum contamination permitted for 1-131 in drinking water (3 pCi/L). Strontium is a persistent radionuclide with a long half life and will continue to be dangerous/radioactive for 100s of years.
Keep digging. The fact that the EPA sort of hedged on the strontium in their message to you is smoke. I think if you keep looking you will find the fire.
MAYBE the Strontium 90 is not reaching us from Fukushima but with the shoddy reporting and confusing methods they use and the lack of transparency it is impossible to know. IF they were up front and reporting properly and promptly, we could MAYBE have a LITTLE confidence (because their results could be checked against the results of others) Even North Carolina is testing for strontium!
But the SILENCE and only quarterly testing is, to me, a sure sign that there is data they do not want to reveal until no one is paying attention.
SO
we all have to keep paying attention and pushing for this data.
In response to another comment. See in context »Maybe one reason it’s only tested positive in HI milk is because the EPA is not testing water or milk at all in other states that would likely show it. For example; Even though Dutch Harbor, AK had the highest isotope count from air sampling initially & air particulate filters in Nome, AK detected strontium & plutonium, the EPA, to my knowledge, have not tested either water or milk in the state of Alaska.
Gdcatch, gdgirlbadgirl. I don’t see any evidence that EPA has tested milk in Alaska. It appears they have tested drinking water twice. in air samplings, they have found some tiny amounts of cesium.
There is a terse statement from the State of Alaska on this page: http://www.hss.state.ak.us/prepared/radiological.htm
In response to another comment. See in context »Thank you for the link!
In response to another comment. See in context »I still can’t find where it says they tested AK water,
at least not at this link:
http://www.epa.gov/japan2011/rert/radnet-sampling-data.html
Excellent job on the blog, very informative!
Try this site. This is EPA’s new open-data system:
http://www.epa.gov/japan2011/rert/radnet-sampling-data.html
In response to another comment. See in context »I’m not buying the “Its safe because of trace levels.”
The US Government has a long and documented history of lying about the effects of radioactive contamination. Read Miller’s Under the Cloud or Fradkin’s Fallout.
Miler describes how radioactive fallout was re-defined as “sunshine units” to alleviate public concern about testing in the 1940s and magazines such as US News and World Report were given “inside stories” that depicted fallout as a mild nuisance.
An article published in 1956 in US News and World Report titled, “The Facts About A-Bomb ‘Fall-Out’: Not a Word of Truth in Scare Stories Over Tests” claimed:
“Particles of strontium-90 in the air form the greatest long-range danger to humans from the A-bomb tests. Yet, after all of these tests to date, the mount of this substance in the air in the U.S. is only one one-millionth of the level that would produce harmful effects in people” (cited in Miller, page 200).
Miller writes that nuclear physicists and weapons assured public authorities and the public that no risks were posed from fallout, denying even evidence of livestock deaths. Tests checking for radioactive contamination in milk were not pursued for fear of alarming the public (page 203).
The reality, was and is, that Strontium-90 is a killer.
Studies of baby teeth have documented the impact of low-level exposure to strontium 90. http://www.radiation.org/projects/tooth_fairy.html
Why study baby teeth?
“Since their inception, nuclear power plants and bomb facilities have been emitting fission products through accidental releases and through regular allowable emissions that the government classifies as below regulatory concern.
Radioactive Strontium-90 (Sr-90) is one of these elements, and one of the deadliest. The chemical structure of Sr-90 is so similar to that of calcium that the body gets fooled and deposits Sr-90 in the bones and teeth where it remains, continually emitting cancer-causing radiation.”
“Most of the strontium in the baby teeth is transferred to the fetus by the mother during pregnancy. Because we know when and where the baby was born, and where the mother lived while carrying, we can accurately determine when and where radioactivity was absorbed from the environment….”
Definately, don’t buy it. The ICRP risk model extrapolated for chronic low dose exposure has a 2,000 fold margin of error. Almost everybody relies on it to set their limits, make their assurances and for licensing. I heard BRAWM call it the “gold standard.” However, others have been trying to incorporate the changes to risk assessment reflecting the reality of the error. It applies to our Fukushima situation because low dose, chronic exposure never rising to the set action threshold globally is the nature of it’s ongoing legacy:
In response to another comment. See in context »http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/6/12/3105/pdf
Denial and obfuscate seem to be the order of the day. Given what has occurred in Japan and the prevailing winds to our shores, the prudent response would be to increase monitoring and clarify the responsibilities for same. The response to date has been to increase the safe radiation thresholds!!! The Chernobyl disaster is being replayed for the world right in front of our eyes. Conservative mortality reports are a million deaths and still dying. Those who we should be able to look to and trust are seemingly only tools of the vested nuclear interests whose madness got us into this mess. Clearly we are facing adversity but adversity also has an upside. These force us to consider what we would otherwise would not. There are political, economic, and sustainable energy solutions and even a new concept of personal sovereignty at hand….. http://fukushima50.blogspot.com Blue Energy’s tidal power bridge solution would provide some 70,000 MW of clean low cost predictable power for Japan.
The message from all this upheaval is to grow change or perish. And that is, in the end, a good thing.
I would add too the frightening/disturbing news that the government/industry addiction to this power (nuclear power) is such that Japan just raised the “permissible” limits for children near Fukushima to those limits which were applicable in the past ONLY to radiation plant workers (adults). What was NOT safe a few eeks ago is NOW safe for children whose threshold for genetic damage and disease is perhaps 10 to 100 times as high as adults already (this – according to nuclear engineer Arne Gundersen in an interview this week on RTAmerica Television – I will find the link: here tis:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3T_bTPmDC8&feature=feedu
I trust Gundersen when he says this is a “gross miscarriage”.
Raise the contamination? No problem! Raise the permitted “safe” exposure levels! Problem solves! THAT was easy!
and the compliant Japanese children march off to their contaminated schools and drink their contaminates milk and water and play in contaminated dirt, breathe contaminated air, sleep in contaminated houses, eat contaminated fish and veggies. And become EXCELLENT experimental subjects for the NEW Dr. Mengeles of the Nuclear Industry (as we ALL are now, but the children will suiffer the most and die the most and suffer the longest).
These are crimes against all humanity and I believe what Physicist Dr. John Gofman (who worked on the Manhattan Project) said: “There ought to be Nuremberg trials…” for these crimes (and now it seems like genocide, at least in Japan, when they allow Japanese babies and innocent kids to get dosed with levels as high as those allowed for radiation workers)
THAT FACT, Jeff, is WHY the risk levels and shifting sands of the EPA and FDA MUST be watched like hawks as well as the data of ALL the ACTUAL levels of radionuclides we are all being dosed with.
We do in fact NEED this data for epidemiological studies in the future. BUT we should NOT subject chuildren to doses we KNOW from the accepted science will kill a percentage of them and sicken many many more.
see http://www.radation.org for the studies on Strontium 90 (look at articles link and read the “technical” studies and reports too).
This news just FLOORED me: children now can be dosed at levels of nuke workers “safely” as if by some evil magician waving a nuclear wand.
Cheers all. Keep the faith. The TRUTH is out there.
In response to another comment. See in context »I, like you, see a positive potential for change through this. Like a clarion call. It’s clear, current status quo on energy and environment is unacceptable and unsustainable. I don’t really see health and hapiness increasing – just unfettered consumption going nowhere fast.
In response to another comment. See in context »Yes, Jeff McMahon, but the question is, what levels of these radionuclides were present as I grew up through the 50s and early 60s? I could care less about this or that EPA guidelines since when I was a kid I don’t think there was an EPA. I already checked out old Cold War data materials that showed me that in 57 the average cesium-131 picoCuries per liter of milk was between 900 to 700 in the states running south of the Great Lakes. In my book called Radiation Protection by Jacob Shapiro, 1972, on pages 292-295, I can see that strontium levels were much higher than what is reported here, and did not peak until about 1965. Yet somehow my generation came through that – happy and healthier than generations who lived in the 19th century. In ancient Rome – long before radioactive fallout – only 3 out of 10 children lived to age 20 (like India in the 60s). I know for a fact that my mini-nuclear war generation (baby boomers) beat that. I had about 27 cousins – none died of cancer or anything else – even though many were involved in dangerous activities (a couple have cancer now – mainly from tobacco). It was a great life.
All this talk about this or that government regulation is meaningless to me. I lived through the mini-nuclear war that was called nuclear testing. In the before quoted book it shows in chart 6.16 that over 200 megatons worth of nuclear devices were tested in the atmosphere before such tests ended; a megaton range equivalent to over 10,000 Hiroshima style warheads. And we lived. If I could I’d go back to redo it all over again, if it wasn’t for the problems with pimples. We were the nuclear experiment. Life was and is still great. If you generation-X’ers want to run around chasing your own tails in fright over 8 picoCuries of cesium-131 per liter of milk, thats your drama queen business. We drank it at a level of hundreds of picoCuries, and we still enjoyed life.
What I am saying is you should outline a real perspective – don’t just compare EPA or FDA regs (that were invented by fat little bureaucrats in more recent times) to our modern fallout. For me these arguments are apples to oranges. By comparing today to the 50s and early 60s one can attain apples to apples.
“It was a great life”, the one true statement in your post. What you are resigned to accept as a level of quality, longevity and potential, of what is possible in the human life experience seems disappointingly low. Maybe those glowing green glasses of milk had a greater effect on you and the 27 cousins than you realize.
In response to another comment. See in context »You and 27 cousins (beyond two cancers) never developed cardiovascular, reporoductive function, early onset menopause, gastrointestinal, glaucoma, auto-immune deficiency (like psoriasis or arthritis), neurological, miscarriages, thyroid disorders or diabetes? Don’t answer – that’s private. My point is: It’s not just fatal and non-fatal cancer at risk. It’s currently unprecedented. This ton load from Fukushima is potentially 1,900 tons over a long duration and in addition to prior legacies under 200 tons (like Chernobyl 1986 lasting 10 days). This will be a chronic low dose internal radionuclide exposure not planned for by the EPA and FDA or elsewhere. I’m a Generation X drama queen too by stated criteria I guess, but I’m ecstatic your family was mostly spared from above and the already epidemic following:
.
In response to another comment. See in context »“There’s a huge other story that’s not being told here. Dr. Sam Epstein, professor of Occupational & Environmental Medicine at the School of Public Health, University of Illinois Medical Center, Chicago, is an internationally recognized authority on the toxic and carcinogenic effects of environmental pollutants in the air, the water and the workplace. His work shows that since the 1950s, in North America, there has been a 55% increase in cancer, when the statistics are standardized for the fact that people are living longer. Childhood cancer of the brain and nervous system – 40% increase since 1975; male colon cancer – 60% increase; breast cancer – 60% increase; brain cancer in adults – 80% increase; prostate cancer – 100% increase; testicular cancer – 100% increase; estrogen-receptor positive breast cancer -135% increase; non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and multiple myeloma – 200% increase; testicular cancer among men aged 28-35 – 300% increase. In 1950, 1 in 20 women had breast cancer. Now it’s 1 in 8.”
I’m really ecstatic to hear your news. I’m still not drinking elevated radionuclides in milk (I-131 and Cesium), so the strontium is just precluded from the mix by default. Kids today… Whatcha gonna do? I know it’s irritating – my mom agrees with you (and she even has cancer). Different times I suppose? The environmental sustainability stuff had to kick in with some generation some time, but I was hoping to kick the can on down to Generation Y or D. I just can’t anymore, but I hope you understand even if you think I’m drama too or temporarily milk challenged or whatever. Thanks for your perspective. Bless y’all
Yes, mothra, I agree with your post. I wish the Japanese nuke disaster had never happened, and I jumped up and down for joy when the graphite core nuke plant near me in Colorado was shut down long ago. Most of the stuff you mentioned I blame on the 10,000 chemicals developed every year in the USA with next to no testing. I also blame many other wonders of science and not-so-science (like GMOs,MSG and genderbenders).
I also hope that people like Jeff McMahon will continue to watch and flag Fukushima radiation here in the USA. I hope the whole nuke industry is shut down or at least made to convert to what China aims at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/rss
But before I did my own little study I was telling my children, who drink only the best organic milk to try to shift to less milk, and if possible to early dated dried milk even if not organic. But avoiding good food is more dangerous in my book than this recent amount of radiation. And actually a lot of the recent increase in cancer in the US is called by the European Union doctors a result of over testing.
We have a much higher percentage of old people now than we had in previous time periods. Many cancers are known now to be caused by virus’ and the longer you live the more transcription errors take place every time your cells divide. Children who prematurely age (so that at age 11 they appear like a 70 year old) develop most of the health problems you outlined – including cancer.
I am not saying the radiation of the 50s didn’t cause trouble. It must have. But today’s radiation in Kansas or here in Colorado, is still sounding about what I thought it should sound like when Fukushima disaster began. And why? Because thermonuclear bombs blast their fallout into and past the jet stream, where as a reactor blast fallout typically only reaches the jet stream like smoke from a forest fire does (bits and pieces). In the early 60s when China made one of its large hydrogen bomb tests we children were warned by the Federal government not to eat the winter snow. Of course we kids DID, black flakes and all. As of my last check the boys who were with me in those days are still alive and kicking. My advice: don’t avoid good organic food (and no I am not a farmer).
In response to another comment. See in context »Wow, Kartasik, what world do you inhabit? I have had so many friends and cousins die from cancer and other diseases who were babies in the 1940’s,’50’s and ’60’s which are very posibly or even probably related to nuclear contamination.
I happened to grow up in a military industrial community with a LOT of nuclear emsissions and multiple notoriously leaky nuke plants so most of those I loved who died from various cancers and other causes (and who are dying now as I speak) were exposed to MORE than just the nuclear clouds from bomb testing.
Also it is critical to understand the Petkau effect where research demonstrates that long term low level exposure is actually more harmful to cells than large dose short term incidents (and at lower overall doses) (i.e. consistent with a supralinear risk model – Wikipedia actually does a great job of putting this info in plain language more or less) . So maybe your community got “lucky” and did not get the long term low doses as I did.
I grew up on a dairy where my Dad milked our own cow twice daily (so did I occasionally) and my mom actually made butter. I also was conceived and nursed during some of the heaviest weapons testing years.
I had terrible problems as a child with health issues, infections, etc etc etc and nearly died a few times and ended up with serious thyroid issues. My brother died of prostate cancer. Three cousins died of brain and bone cancer in the 40’s. A friends of my daughter who lives near a nuke plant, a teenager, just told us he has bone cancer. Leukemia hit two friends in high school. My spouse had a miscarriage after a major leaky incident in our communty less than a mile from where I live.
I even worked in the industry and know more than many about how the harm and danger is covered up (for reasons of preventing exposure to lawsuits from those made sick).
You may have been lucky. Three close friends of mine have died this year who had terrible health problems and one was about as clean living as they come (heart and one had thyroid problems – all associated with radiation contamination).
Two close friends died of acute onset leukemia and dropped dead within a month when their immune systems collapsed (both in their thrities).
Again, I live in what writer Michael Steinberg calls a “sacrifice community” and I am no gen Xer. I have seen too many death I believe are related to what the European Committee on Radiation Risk says is man made radionculides from the past 70 years of the “Nuclear Project”.
Just because YOU and your family were lucky, is NO comfort to the percentage of people who will get sick and die from these exposures. Maybe you have good genes. Maybe you were lucky when the wind and rain hit your community and it just missed.
The NIH has a dose calculator for those who grew up during the nuclear bomb test era and you can get an approximation of your dose to I-131 by state, county and year of birth and your dairy intake (breast fed, dairy (raw milk), store bought, etc).
Maybe you were lucky. I wasn’t – and neither were my friends, family and loved ones. I battle with these issues every day and will for the rest of my life and muy kids have been affected too as has my spouse.
So PLEASE save the Polyanna lecture for others — NOT those who will be dosed with radionuclide contaminants – especially parents and innocents.
This stuff is NOT safe. It kills.
In response to another comment. See in context »Hi, Fukushima50. I am glad you could take time out of your tough work in Japan to answer me. However, my post was to Jeff McMahon because by his many postings I found him to be very credible and expert in his knowledge. I am sorry that you view all my post as a lie, except for ‘great life’. Some of the materials I used are found on the net. Some was taken from one of the books in my library.
There was a time back in the late 70s and early 80s (especially the early 80s) when a nuclear war seemed very likely. But whether it was or not, I, being at that time a testosterone driven man in his 30s (perhaps dreaming of adventure as a nuclear survivor) was part of the survivalist movement of that time period. In that capacity I did not worry about millisieverts, but I believe our old meter equipment was set for rads and rems. The radiation we worried about in milk was at levels that would kill the cow not long after giving the milk.
You know what? Knowing how governments love to tell lies, I’ll bet those old Cold War data sources were low-balling the real radiation levels in milk that I posted in my first post! But our fingers DID NOT GLOW. And my generations was one of the healthiest generations in the history of America (one of my hobbies is collecting antique American books – that’s where I get my history of the USA – not second hand sources of today). Sure it would have been nice to have not had the radiation. But then I would rather have not had the plastics, pesticides, chemical pollution, and GMO food too.
All I am saying is that how ever bad my life turned out from Cold War bomb tests, I am telling my children and grandchildren that their damage from this Japan disaster is going to be 1/100th what I suffered – which seems to be very little damage at all. I was hoping to nudge Jeff McMahon (a very capable person) to measure this present fallout to the fallout that billions grew up with in the 50s.
We all shall die, but some will die a myriad of deaths from fear before they really die.
Anyone born prior to 1971 can get an estimate of their iodine 131 exposure from US atomic bomb testing HERE:
https://ntsi131.nci.nih.gov/
Just put in a few detals about where and when you were born and they will estimate your dose (and will tell you what THEY believe is your thyroid cancer risk which i don’t buy frankly but whatever…)
Now I believe you can extrapolate from the radioiodine results that there were also substantial exposures from bomb tests to other radionuclides such as cesium, strontium etc. The biological half life of cesium is relatively short but strontium collects in the bones and teeth (and may have been less substantial when the tests went “underground” although underground tests also released atmospheric radioisotopes) and thus, while the NIH site re” thyroids and thyroid cancers is “nice” it tells only a “miniscule” part of the story (and a minsicule part which can be very destructive/mutative to the dna and cells in our organs)
If you actually had other than an anecdotal account (like me) of these effects (or lack thereof) and had solid research, Kartasik, then your words might bring some comfort. But when your firends in ther 30’s and forties are dying of cancer (as well as teens) I can’t remain silent in pointing out that you are woefully misinformed and YEAH the government nuclear industrial complex LIES. There is LOTS of money to be made or saved when they lie and of course profit/power/lucre is king, damn the peasants! If they can’t protect themselves from the poison then God (or Darwin) wants them to die (sarcasm)!
In response to another comment. See in context »Wow liberationangel, I would agree with you about this – being near or down wind of a nuke plant is deadly. I had a three friends who worked in the old Rocky Flats nuclear-bomb-trigger plant west of Denver. All of them got cancer or their kids did. Of course when that plant was shut down the inspectors found that the air ducts of that plant had piles of plutonium in them – miniature dunes of plutonium dust.
Where was my world? In Colorado and New Orleans until the 60s, and then in Oklahoma till after 65. Nuclear bomb fallout yes. Nuclear reactor next door? Yes, when I moved to Colorado – but it was 20 some miles down wind of me and it shut down about 12 years after I arrived. Or course I did not work in a nuke plant as you did.
It is true that some families or people groups have troubles like you describe – even in the 1850s. But in you case I’d have to say this sentence is key: “I happened to grow up in a military industrial community with a LOT of nuclear emsissions and multiple notoriously leaky nuke plants so most of those I loved who died from various cancers…”
I am sure you were exposed to many dangerous chemicals also. Still the facts are that what Fukushima is doing to the 48 states today is about 1/100th what the atomic tests did. So in balance I’d have to say to young folks – live your life, have children, eat good food.
First of all, as a Japanese citizen, I deeply regret what has happened to the Fukushima plant and the consequences for the international community.
I am a father of a 3 years old daughter living in Tokyo Japan. The information from the Japanese government and TEPCO are more focused on panic management and economic impact than civilian safety. Foreign media and governments have been playing an imperative role in forcing them to admit facts they try to hide. The radiation leakage continues. I sincerely request the foreign media to keep this topic on the headline, and not bury it under other scoops.
The radiation level in Tokyo was 0.07μSv/h before March 11th. Below is the measurements by our neighbor with a Geiger counter.
April 18-May2 0.2-0.25μSv/h
April 17 0.2-0.3μSv/h
Mar 25 – April16 0.3-0.35μSv/h
Mar 24 0.3-0.35μSv/h
Mar 23 0.35-0.4μSv/h
Mar 22 0.35-0.4μSv/h
Mar 21 0.35-0.4μSv/h
Mar 20 0.3-0.35μSv/h
Mar 19 0.3-0.4μSv/h
Mar 18 0.3-0.35μSv/h
Mar 17 0.4-0.7μSv/h
Mar 16 0.35-0.7μSv/h
Mar 15 0.35-1.0μSv/h
Mar 14 0.2μSv/h
Mar 13 0.13μSv/h
ICRP limit is 1 mSv/y. Converting this to hourly rate, it is 0.114μSv/h. The current measurement in Tokyo is twice as high. We also worry about the internal exposure from contaminated water and food.
Japanese government increased the radiation limit from 270 pCi/L to 8108 pCi/L after March 11th. Is the impact to human body, especially to a 3 yrs old girl, with this new limit really negligible as they say?
I want to protect my daughter.
This is for everyone on low dose risk assessments and issues, to support you in your endeavors. Governments are aware of this, they have been notified repeatedly over the years, even if the public has not:
In response to another comment. See in context »http://www.cerrie.org/pdfs/cerrie_report_e-book.pdf