Posted on 04/12/2011 7:00:30 AM PDT by Scythian
(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.
It is.
Of course they use the term 300% instead of 3 times so that you might read it as 300 TIMES by accident.
This info is total BS fear mongering.
Someone noted to me in one of these threads that in his experience, setting of PELs seems driven by the available measurement technologies moreso than actual documented human/animal effects.
Aren’t these figures worthless without actual readings from the same areas from before the quake? Just because it’s in excess of EPA standards after a nuclear disaster doesn’t mean there was compliance before....
I’m saying Tepco, like any actual day-to-day power engineering operation has a way high ethical standard, beyond that you may be familiar with in daily life. It is impossible to run a power plant without such ethics.
The political power of compulsatory regulation is so GREEDY that yes, its only limits are the ability to observe and measure.
Common sense, yes!
“high ethical standard, beyond that you may be familiar with in daily life. It is impossible to run a power plant without such ethics”
WHAT????
UNBELIEVABLE.
So it appears that you think US plants can be run the same way as TEPCO plants . The outrageous conduct of that company should NEVER be allowed in the US.
It is beyond Scary that you think their behavior is acceptable after multiple CEOS have had to quit over safety scandals.
It doesn’t take long to figure out just how high the ethical standards are for TEPCO.
Those living around US Nuke plants had better hope the companies running them have better ethical standards than those at TEPCO.
Oh, that's just silly. We all know that Global Warming caused the earthquake, and we also know that Bush caused Global Warming. Ever wondered why his initials are "GW"?
So it's...
Bush's fault!
Such an emotional parabolic is characteristic of ignorance based hysteria. My sister invented a new word last night, she meant to say that something was growing “exponentially”, instead she said “excrementally”. That new word might apply to the growth of hysteria, in general to similar situations — like Katrina and the Gulf Oil Spill — and to this case here.
There are cultural differences, but still the minimal ethics needed to keep big power plant running in any culture are quite high.
Just what soetoro´s been looking for. Shut down milk production.
Excremental growth. I love it.
Tell your sister I said thanks.
Thanks. But I was thinking, should I make sure my salads and strawberries are grown indoors? Should I try to find milk from indoor, grain fed cows? Avoid the grass fed meat we currently buy? That kind of thing. I am not pverstressing, just want to do the best I can, for my child who is under 50 lbs and the one who is under 4 lbs. (2nd trimester)
b
I would like to thank the Freepers on this thread for bringing sanity and clairty to the story!
We lived in Munich when Chernobyl blew. Kids weren’t allowed out to play for a couple of weeks, nor even walk on the grass. We weren’t supposed to buy German milk for a couple of months.
You might want to keep an eye on 0bama & Moochele to see if they stop eating ice cream.
What North Americans are experiencing now compared to the community exposure around Hanford in the 40s is just plain insignificant. I would not change the way I fed or raised kids in North America based on this event.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.