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.
I’ll betcha the EPA has changed the acceptable levels since the earthquake in March. Just sayin’
I’ll betcha the EPA has changed the acceptable levels since the earthquake in March. Just sayin’ — can we trust them one iota?
OK. On the upside, we will be all glowing in the dark. There are far less chances that we will be run over at night by passing vehicles. LOL.
Bush’s fault.
“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.”
Notice what this does not state. It does not state that the Fukushima Daiichia accident is the source of the elevated radiation levels. It simply assumes a cause and effect. That is not science it is fear mongering.
Without knowing other possible sources or former readings or the criteria for measuring one can not just say “we’re all gonna die because of nuclear power.”
My basic question is, what can we do? Probably little to nothing. If there is nothing we can do and milk is contaminated. That would mean, so is everything else.
“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.”
We are in agreement that the radiation poses more of a risk than what we are being told, but the “Physicians for Social Responsibility” sounds like a liberal group.
I don’t know who to trust.
I don’t believe anything the EPA says; they destroyed their own credibility years ago.
Happened on Obama’s watch.
Obama’s fault.
Funny that you should say that. I posted a thread about this on April 6:
Since we cannot trust our government nor the EPA, we will either continue to drink milk & eat food & die soon if they are telling the truth, or we will stop eating & drinking & die anyway! Doesn’t really look like we have much of a choice here.
Radiation at ANY level is unsafe? Ridiculous. And this so-called “Doctor” heads a commie lib organization to boot.
If any level is unsafe, then people should NEVER expose themselves to sunlight, clothed or unclothed. This article is filled with alarmist crap. Background radiation exists all over this world, and in all of our soils.
TIN FOIL HAT ALERT!
That being said, the escalation to level 7 indicates the severity of the damage. The reluctance of TEPCO to state this is a function of asian face saving. It is not good, and elements of the food chain that needs to be closely monitored IS over in the oceans off Japan.
Remember Freepers the EPA wants us all to be fearful, so that we may be controlled. I would not trust what they say when relayed by paranoid schiz’s who spend their days smoking dope and hanging out at the co-op. IF we see measurable amounts of cesium, plutonium in the US-— THEN we’ve got something to worry about.
This was a massive all-natural Earthquake and tsunami.
From ZAMG - Austrian Weather Service
as it relates to radiation hitting the US
http://www.zamg.ac.at/docs/aktuell/Japan2011-03-22_1500_E.pdf
And what, I wonder, were all these levels a month after Chernobyl?
A synopsis:
…” In the phase of March 12 to 13, the Fukushima emissions were mostly transported to the Pacific, eventually hitting the CTBTO station in Sacramento/California. In the phase March 14 to 15, on the other hand, most of the emissions were transported inland, hitting the CTBTO station in Takasaki, Japan. Based on simulated dilution factors and measurements, we were able to have a first rough source estimate.
Regarding Iodine-131, the picture is relatively homogeneous. A source term of 1017 Bq per day would explain the measurements in Takasaki as well as Sacramento. The total 4-day emission of 4 1017 Bq is on the order of 20% of the total emissions of Iodine-131 that occurred during the Chernobyl accident. Regarding Cesium-137, the situation is a bit different. In the cloud eventually propagating to the United States, the ratio of Iodine-131 to Cesium-137 was about 30. This is similar to the Chernobyl accident. In Takasaki, however, this ratio was four. This would indicate a much larger Cesium-137 release in the second two-day period after the accident. Taking this together, the source terms would be about 3 1015 Bq during the first two days, and 3 1016 during the second two-day period. In sum, this could amount to about 50% of the Chernobyl source term of Cesium-137.”
What can one do to protect kids, or what is the best way to minimize their exposure? I have kids both born and unborn and I am concerned about them, as the little ones are more susceptible to injury from radiation.
>> Notice what this does not state. It does not state that the Fukushima Daiichia accident is the source of the elevated radiation levels. It simply assumes a cause and effect. <<
Worse than assumes it, it deviously infers it.
And you’re absolutely right. The highest radioactivity is in Philadelphia, which gets its rain slightly from land transpiration, partly from Canadian sources (”Noreaster”), partly from the Atlantic Ocean (”Noreaster”), and largely from the Gulf of Mex (”Souwester”). There ain’t much Pacific moisture making it over the Sierra Nevadas, across the Great Basin and across the Rocky Mountains.
>> Notice what this does not state. It does not state that the Fukushima Daiichia accident is the source of the elevated radiation levels. It simply assumes a cause and effect. <<
Worse than assumes it, it deviously infers it.
And you’re absolutely right. The highest radioactivity is in Philadelphia, which gets its rain slightly from land transpiration, partly from Canadian sources (”Noreaster”), partly from the Atlantic Ocean (”Noreaster”), and largely from the Gulf of Mex (”Souwester”). There ain’t much Pacific moisture making it over the Sierra Nevadas, across the Great Basin and across the Rocky Mountains.
>> Notice what this does not state. It does not state that the Fukushima Daiichia accident is the source of the elevated radiation levels. It simply assumes a cause and effect. <<
Worse than assumes it, it deviously infers it.
And you’re absolutely right. The highest radioactivity is in Philadelphia, which gets its rain slightly from land transpiration, partly from Canadian sources (”Noreaster”), partly from the Atlantic Ocean (”Noreaster”), and largely from the Gulf of Mex (”Souwester”). There ain’t much Pacific moisture making it over the Sierra Nevadas, across the Great Basin and across the Rocky Mountains.
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.