485?1255548736
Current Events . . . User Group
Fukushima radiation taints US milk supplies at levels 300% higher than ...
About This Group:

This is a place where we can discuss current events - what happens around the world and is reported in the news. Healthy debates and discussions regarding issues we feel strongly about will be allowed; however, personal attacks will not be tolerated, nor will threads and/or comments that are argumentative, combative, or offensive. You *must* post a link to your source, or indicate if you heard it on TV, read a magazine/newspaper article, and indicate what radio/TV station, magazine/newspaper or your thread will be deleted. Remember, this is "Current Events", not "Current Arguments".

Founded by HelpinUtah on October 14, 2009
32 members
Font Size:
A
A
A
Background:
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank Blank

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

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


4/11/11

(NaturalNews) The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) continues to release new data showing that various milk and water supply samples from across the US are testing increasingly high for radioactive elements such as Iodine-131, Cesium-134, and Cesium-137, all of which are being emitted from the ongoing Fukushima Daiichia nuclear fallout. As of April 10, 2011, 23 US water supplies have tested positive for radioactive Iodine-131 (http://opendata.socrata.com/w/4ig7-...), and worst of all, milk samples from at least three US locations have tested positive for Iodine-131 at levels exceeding EPA maximum containment levels (MCL) (http://opendata.socrata.com/w/pkfj-...).

As far as the water supplies are concerned, it is important to note that the EPA is only testing for radioactive Iodine-131. There are no readings or data available for cesium, uranium, or plutonium -- all of which are being continuously emitted from Fukushima, as far as we know -- even though these elements are all much more deadly than Iodine-131. Even so, the following water supplies have thus far tested positive for Iodine-131, with the dates they were collected in parenthesis to the right:

Los Angeles, Calif. - 0.39 pCi/l (4/4/11)
Philadelphia (Baxter), Penn. - 0.46 pCi/l (4/4/11)
Philadelphia (Belmont), Penn. - 1.3 pCi/l (4/4/11)
Philadelphia (Queen), Penn. - 2.2 pCi/l (4/4/11)
Muscle Shoals, Al. - 0.16 pCi/l (3/31/11)
Niagara Falls, NY - 0.14 pCi/l (3/31/11)
Denver, Colo. - 0.17 pCi/l (3/31/11)
Detroit, Mich. - 0.28 pCi/l (3/31/11)
East Liverpool, Oh. - 0.42 pCi/l (3/30/11)
Trenton, NJ - 0.38 pCi/l (3/29/11)
Painesville, Oh. - 0.43 pCi/l (3/29/11)
Columbia, Penn. - 0.20 pCi/l (3/29/11)
Oak Ridge (4442), Tenn. - 0.28 pCi/l (3/29/11)
Oak Ridge (772), Tenn. - 0.20 pCi/l (3/29/11)
Oak Ridge (360), Tenn. - 0.18 pCi/l (3/29/11)
Helena, Mont. - 0.18 pCi/l (3/28/11)
Waretown, NJ - 0.38 pCi/l (3/28/11)
Cincinnati, Oh. - 0.13 pCi/l (3/28/11)
Pittsburgh, Penn. - 0.36 pCi/l (3/28/11)
Oak Ridge (371), Tenn. - 0.63 pCi/l (3/28/11)
Chattanooga, Tenn. - 1.6 pCi/l (3/28/11)
Boise, Id. - 0.2 pCi/l (3/28/11)
Richland, Wash. - 0.23 pCi/l (3/28/11)

Again, these figures do not include the other radioactive elements being spread by Fukushima, so there is no telling what the actual cumulative radiation levels really were in these samples. The figures were also taken two weeks ago, and were only just recently reported. If current samples were taken at even more cities, and if the tests conducted included the many other radioactive elements besides Iodine-131, actual contamination levels would likely be frighteningly higher.

But in typical government fashion, the EPA still insists that everything is just fine, even though an increasing amount of US water supplies are turning up positive for even just the radioactive elements for which the agency is testing -- and these levels seem to be increasing as a direct result of the situation at the Fukushima plant, which continues to worsen with no end in sight (http://www.naturalnews.com/032035_F...).

Water may be the least of our problems, however. New EPA data just released on Sunday shows that at least three different milk samples -- all from different parts of the US -- have tested positive for radioactive Iodine-131 at levels that exceed the EPA maximum thresholds for safety, which is currently set at 3.0 pico Curies per Liter (pCi/l).

In Phoenix, Ariz., a milk sample taken on March 28, 2011, tested at 3.2 pCi/l. In Little Rock, Ark., a milk sample taken on March 30, 2011, tested at 8.9 pCi/l, which is almost three times the EPA limit. And in Hilo, Hawaii, a milk sample collected on April 4, 2011, tested at 18 pCi/l, a level six times the EPA maximum safety threshold. The same Hawaii sample also tested at 19 pCi/l for Cesium-137, which has a half life of 30 years (http://www.naturalnews.com/031992_r...), and a shocking 24 pCi/l for Cesium-134, which has a half life of just over two years (http://opendata.socrata.com/w/pkfj-...).

Why is this milk contamination significant? Milk, of course, typically represents the overall condition of the food chain because cows consume grass and are exposed to the same elements as food crops and water supplies. In other words, when cows' milk starts testing positive for high levels of radioactive elements, this is indicative of radioactive contamination of the entire food supply.

And even with the milk samples, the EPA insanely says not to worry as its 3.0 pCi/l threshold is allegedly only for long-term exposure. But the sad fact of the matter is that the Fukushima situation is already a long-term situation. Not only does it appear that the Fukushima reactor cores are continuing to melt, since conditions at the plant have not gotten any better since the earthquake and tsunami, but many of the radioactive elements that have already been released in previous weeks have long half lives, and have spread halfway around the world.

The other problem with the EPA's empty reassurances that radiation levels are too low to have a negative impact on humans is the fact that the agency does not even have an accurate grasp on the actual aggregate exposure to radiation from all sources (water, food, air, rain, etc.). When you combine perpetual exposure from multiple sources with just the figures that have already been released, there is a very real threat of serious harm as a result of exposure.

The EPA and other government agencies are constantly comparing Fukushima radiation to background and airplane radiation in an attempt to minimize the severity of exposure, even though these are two completely different kinds of radiation exposure.


No safe level of radiation from nuclear fallout
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."

And now that radioactive levels in some areas have actually exceeded EPA maximums, Patterson's statement is even more chilling. So while the mainstream media continues its near-total blackout on Fukushima, the situation is actually becoming more severe than it has ever been. Time will tell how severe the long-term effects of this disaster will be, but one thing is for sure -- Fukushima radiation cannot and should not be taken lightly..



Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/032048_radiation_milk.html#ixzz1JKxyqZpB
Related Discussions
10 Comments
Blank
285927_tn?1380802356
I want to know why we Americans are not being told by our wonderful news sources the facts regarding the radioactive fallout and I want to know why we are not out raising hell over this ongoing disaster! We have been getting radiation from day one that this happened and altho there is not much can be done about it, we should have been informed all along! I guess they are worried we will quit buying the milk? You betcha!
Blank
377493_tn?1356505749
Part of this whole issue that hasn't been mentioned much either...radioactive water has now spilled into the Pacific Ocean.  I guess it's a relatively small amount when you consider the size of the ocean, but stilll....this cannot be good.  

I am switching my son to soy milk for now.  I know, small amounts, but I am not risking his health.  Even small amounts have to be a negative in that tiny little body.  Honestly, I am so scared for the Japanese people, but I am also get very frightened for the rest of us.  I am beginning to think this disaster is going to reach much further then orginally anticipated.  And I am very frustrated by the seeming lack of information coming out.
Blank
1035252_tn?1371343440
OK - what do I do as a mom? my daughter drinks several cups of milk at night, and my son is on formula. What the hell am I supposed to do? not give it to them? keep an eye on it? It's just so confusing and it makes me so ANGRY that the EPA isn't more clear in their message.
Blank
285927_tn?1380802356
I heard on the news again this evening that human risk is not an issue. So, who is lying I wonder? This article or our local media? Its a sad day when we feel we cannot depend on our government for truth. In politics or anything else evidently. Ashelen, my heart goes out to you young ones having babies cause what an awful worry to have to deal with. It has been my experience tho if you want to know the truth about what is going on here, read the papers in another country, like the UK, before they have a chance of a global coverup.
Blank
1035252_tn?1371343440
It puts a rock in the pit of my stomach, you know? My babies need this stuff and yet I might be setting them up for cancer...it's awful. I've been searching and searching and even the foreign media is saying we should be safe - luckily we live in a city where even the chain companies get their milk locally (part of the rules for opening a grocery store in this city - you have to get a certain percentage of your produce/farm supply locally), it's just the formula I'm worried about. But then I think that the formula companies have several different processing factories around the country - I read in one article that most likely the milk going into the formula being shipped into my area was done regionally, instead of being centrally processed and shipped all over...does that make sense?

I sure hope that's the case...it's all so scary.
Blank
535822_tn?1389452880
todays news from NaturalNews.com seeing as other news agencies even Fox are ignoring it....Europeans are warned by their Government to avoid drinking milk and  vegetables .and cheese, , due to the high radiation risk this comes from the french radiation research authority CRIIRAD   http://www.euractiv.com/en/health/r...).
Blank
285927_tn?1380802356
I saw that! Sort of tells the tale now doesnt it! Ticks me right off it does!
Blank
Recent Activity
163305_tn?1333672171
Blank
orphanedhawk https://www.youtube.com/wat... Comment
6 hrs ago
480448_tn?1397235344
Blank
specialmom, and nursegirl6572 commented on specialmom's status
14 hrs ago
973741_tn?1342346373
Blank
specialmom Good Friday. Preparing fo... Comment
15 hrs ago
MedHelp Health Answers