http://www.sott.net

Wed, 20 Apr 2011 10:45 CDT
Print

Alexander Higgins
blog.alexanderhiggins.com

Levels Of Radioactive Iodine In Phoenix Arizona Milk Samples At Levels Up To 1600% Above EPA Drinking Water Limit.

Japan nuclear radiation in Phoenix, Arizona milk samples show radioactive Iodine contamination levels up to 1600% above EPA drinking water limits. To make matters worse those contamination levels of radiation do not even include Caesium or other radioactive isotopes which were not even reported in the Arizona tests.

An anonymous tip points me to Phoenix Arizona Japan Nuclear Radiation tests for radioactive Iodine-131 has been detected in milks samples at levels up to 1600% above federal EPA drinking water standards. These are the highest known levels of nuclear fallout in tests to date for Iodine radiation in any milk samples.

Tip: much higher than the major news have reported.

From the PDF of the Phoenix Arizona Milk Tests for Japan Nuclear Radiation:

The Arizona Department of Agriculture and the Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency routinely monitor Arizona milk supplies. Following the nuclear incident in Japan, trace amounts of Iodine 131 have been found in different samples. 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. Please note that all findings at this point are far below the FDA Derived Intervention Level of 4,600 pCi/L. 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. State officials will continue to test and closely monitor for radiation levels.

Milk Samples from the Phoenix Area

Collected Iodine-131/pCi/L % Of EPA Drinking Water Limit Error range Lower Limit of Detection
3/21/2011
3/23/2011
3/25/2011
3/25/2011
3/29/2011
3/30/2011
3/31/2011
4/01/2011
4/01/2011
4/01/2011
4/05/2011
1.8
7.1
12
2.6
LLD
48.0
8.9
19.0
44.0
22.0
9.1
n/a
236%
400%
86%
n/a
1600%
296%
633%
1466%
733%
303%
+/-0.21
+/-0.36
+/-0.50
+/-0.21
n/a
+/1.4
+/-0.39
+/-2.4
+/-2.5
+/-2.1
+/- 0.43
0.66
0.66
0.66
0.48
0.66
0.48
0.48
5.3
4.0
5.0
0.64

Note: U.S. Derived Intervention Level is 4,600 pCi/L for milk. LLD is Lower Limit of Detection

Note the government is still pushing the “levels of radiation” are safe misnomer by quoting the FDA limits of 4,600 pCi/L for milk. However, as I have previously noted, as has Forbes and many experts, the FDA limit is set to allow cancer in 1 in 2,200 peopleand FATALITIES FROM CANCER IN 1 OUT OF 4,400 people where the EPA drinking water limit allows for cancer fatalities for 1 in 1 million people. I have also pointed out that Iodine has a half-life of 100 days inside the body. Since we are talking about milk that is the half-life we should be discussing here, not the 8 day half-life outside of the body.

[…]

FDA tolerates a higher mortality rate.

In Hawaii, where milk from Hilo contained the highest levels seen so far, Environmental Health administrator Lynn Nakasone suggested the EPA’s standard is irrelevant to milk contamination.

“It’s like drinking two liters of water for 70 years to get (the EPA’s) limit,” Nakasone told the Honolulu Star-Advertiser. “So if you extrapolated to milk, you’d have to drink two liters of milk for 70 years to get that limit.”

Nakasone prefers the FDA’s standard. But here’s what Nakasone isn’t telling Hawaiians:

    • The EPA’s level is calculated so that in a population of one million people, the radiation will result in no more than one additional cancer fatality.
  • The FDA standard, on the other hand, accepts two extra cancer fatalities in a population of 10,000.

Why does the FDA tolerate more radiation, and more mortality, than the EPA? I posed a question Wednesday morning to FDA spokesman Siobhan Delancey, who said:

Let me check with my experts and get back to you, okay?”

[…]

In other words, the FDA’s DIL is set at the point at which a single liter of milk is so radioactive, you should take protective action.

The EPA’s MCL Goal, by contrast, is “the level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health.”

[…]

To arrive at that level of tolerance, FDA has to accept a higher mortality rate. But why would it?

I suspect it has something to do with the cost/benefit analysis that some regulatory agencies are required to conduct when they set standards.

EPA’s mandate is to protect public health while avoiding a “significant economic impact” to industry. If EPA finds high levels of radionuclides in a municipal drinking water system, the water can be cleaned relatively cheaply. Depending on the specific contaminant, the water can be treated with reverse osmosis, activated carbon, ion exchange, or better: all three.

If FDA finds high levels of radionuclides in milk, that milk can’t go to market. That cow can’t be implemented with a treatment system. And that dairy farmer faces a significant economic impact.

So the FDA observes a much more tolerant standard, and the impact is transferred to those theoretical two people in 10,000.

Source: Forbes

As Truth Out reports:

DILs provide agencies like the FDA with guidelines – not mandates – as to when the government should take action to keep food contaminated by radioactive material out of the hands of consumers. A DIL “does not define a safe or unsafe level of exposure, but instead a level at which protective measures would be recommended to ensure that no one receives a significant dose,” according to the FDA web site.

“[DILs are] a guidance as to when an emergency action should be taken to intervene, but these are in no way to be considered safe levels,” Hirsch said.

Hirsch said that DILs are “very inflated” and meant for emergency situations like the detonation of a dirty bomb or a nuclear meltdown. DILs help officials with “triage” during an emergency.

Hirsch and other nuclear critics agree that there is no safe level of exposure to radiation, and even small doses can cause cancer, a position that is backed up by a 2005 report by the National Academy of Sciences.

Source: Truth Out

Another point to mention here is while I have previously reported levels of radiation in Hawaii milk to be 2033% above the EPA federal drinking water limit those levels were from the combined radioactive contamination of Iodine and two Caesium isotopes combined. Yes, just like wine, alcohol and vodka all contribute to blood alcohol content levels radionuclides are also combined toward the EPA limit of 4 millirems per year in drinking water.

With the Phoenix Arizona milk samples, however, we simply have levels of Iodine along being reported at up 1600% above the EPA drinking water limit. Caesium and other radioactive isotopes were not reported. We usually do see the levels of each caesium isotope to be somewhere near the levels of Iodine contamination in milk meaning in reality we are most likely looking at actual radioactivity in the Phoenix milk samples somewhere in the neighborhood of 5000% above the EPA federal drinking water limit.

If these levels are in milk alone, think about what is in the cow and the produce coming from the area. Collecting all of these different sources of radiation will add up.

Update: 5:18 PM EST April, 20th 2011

Energy news tips us off to new UCB Milk samples showing the highest levels of Cesium radiation yet in San Francisco Milk at over 13 pCi/l.

Ironically, Energy news points how UCB describes the latest milk samples:

“The store-bought milk levels of I-131, Cs-134, and Cs-137 are showing definite signs of leveling off.”

.