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

Natural News ^

[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.

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..

Sources for this story include:

http://blogs.forbes.com/jeffmcmahon...

[longtermmemmory]

If they are not reporting any level you can pretty much bet the EPA is hiding something.

[Natural Born 54]

I am not promoting this as truth, just food for thought. I stumbled on it while trying to get a handle on the situation:

Secret Weapons Program Inside Fukushima Nuclear Plant?

Source: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24275

As far as trying to figure out the seriousness of the fallout hitting N. America, I’ve collected some sources I’ll share (notably none are from the US gov’t.):

http://www.irsn.fr/FR/popup/Pages/irsn-meteo-france_30mars.aspx

http://www.radiationnetwork.com/

http://www.woweather.com/weather/news/fukushima?LANG=us&VAR=niludmanc133&HH=46&LOOP=1 (three types of fallout - check N. American Hemisphere and run the looping programs)

http://www.youtube.com/user/dutchsinse#g/u (look for his radiation monitoring videos - there’s one that has a source I missed saving; IIRC a university in Maryland)

Finally, here’s a question that I’ve been pondering: Why would Japan have a nuke facility of such size and outdated design with a cooling pool containing an obscene number of spent rods on an upper floor right on the coast of the island in the middle of a very active earthquake zone? It does not seem to me to be something a rational, advanced technology society would condone. Neither does it seem to be a sensible location for a nuclear weapons program. So why? Anyone have any suggestions?

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

Back about 1963, there was a political cartoon in the newspaper about two little girls teasing a boy with what boys are made of.

All I remember is the last line about “(a long list of radioactive parts) ....strontium 90, that is what boys are made of!”

We survived the fallout of the 1950s and 1960s. The world will survive the earthquake and power plant destruction in Japan.

[catnipman]

“It does not state that the Fukushima Daiichia accident is the source of the elevated radiation levels. It simply assumes a cause and effect.”

Yeah, you’re right. Extremely unlikely increased radioactive Iodine came from Fukushima. Much more likely from a local source like radioactively contaminated crop dusters.

[RummyChick]

AGAIN...have you missed all the ETHICAL scandals surrounding TEPCO and it’s management???

[RummyChick]

thanks for posting that article.

I do believe they were working on weapons.

I do believe the US knew

I speculate that this entered into the equation when Obama tried to blackmail them into shutting down plants before the US would help since Obama has a kindred spirit with China.

[Mila]

That Twilight Zone episode gave me nightmares! It was quite a shock when he took off his cap. LOL!

[CharlesWayneCT]

Now, the world is going to pay for their corrupt climate.

Yes, it was very bad of them to take money under the table from that evil historic earthquake, and then let it just happen and generate a once-in-a-lifetime tsunami. They should have reported that to the authorities.

[RummyChick]

Did you miss the part about the safety issues right before the earthquake hit...

or perhaps you missed how all of this could have been dealt with in the first few hours and they refused to do it.

It is remarkable that people like you pretend that years and years and years of a corrupt climate and engineers that did not have enough knowledge as admitted by TEPCO had no bearing on this incident.

[Buckeye McFrog]

I still have memories of my mom serving me hideous reconstituted Carnation Instant Milk after a Chinese open air N-bomb test. She had heard about the Iodine 131 getting into milk and would not serve us fresh milk for quite some time.

My guess is the levels from an above ground weapons test were many times higher than this Japan leak.

[Buckeye McFrog]

If they are not reporting any level you can pretty much bet the EPA is hiding something.

The Truth is Out There, Scully....

Sad but they’ve done it to themselves through decades of repetitive lying.

[aruanan]

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.

Sure, if you buy the linear no-threshold argument. The funny thing is that there is nothing that can be used to demonstrate its validity but plenty that can be used to demonstrate the opposite: There is a range of exposure to ionizing radiation within which the impact will be beneficial to health and longevity. This has already been demonstrated in inhabitants in the regions around Chernobyl, in inhabitants of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in inhabitants of higher versus lower regions of natural background radiation in the U.S. and other places, in healthcare and other workers with occupational exposure to ionizing radiation.

Poor Jeff Patterson, DO, former President (sic) of Physicians for Social Responsibility, is letting his ideology get in the way of science.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Finally, here’s a question that I’ve been pondering: Why would Japan have a nuke facility of such size(1) and outdated design(2) with a cooling pool containing an obscene number(3) of spent rods on an upper floor(4) right on the coast of the island(5) in the middle of a very active earthquake zone?(6) It does not seem to me to be something a rational, advanced technology society would condone. Neither does it seem to be a sensible location for a nuclear weapons program. So why? Anyone have any suggestions?

That's a large question. I've annotated it in-place. Here are my suggestions:

1. If by size you mean "number of reactors", it's a lot cheaper to run multiple reactors at one site, they share a lot of common elements and power grid connections.
2. Reactors are very expensive, so once they are operational, they tend to be run for a long time, because it's cost-effective, and it saves the large cost of shutdown. Still, these reactors were being looked at for termination or upgrades to continue operation (I beleive that is why they said #4 was emptied).
3. Each pool had the expected number of rods, not an "obscene" number. It appears the cooling process for spent rods involves a period in the initial pool that is about twice the replacement time, so they always have two sets of rods in the pool -- then they have lost enough radioactivity that they can be transported to the big pool, where they sit until they are inert enough to be dry-casked. #4 had more rods, because they had removed the operational set of assemblies in order to do an inspection -- I don't know why they didn't wait for a normal turnover so they could move a set of assemblies out of the pool, but the total rods at #4 were about the same as the #3 and #2, just all in the pool.
4. The "upper floor" is a canard. The pool is actually inset into the reactor operational floor, as is the reactor itself. The building is constructed on TOP of the reactor encasement. The pool top is in line with the reactor top, to facilitate fast transfer of rods from the reactor to the pool (which is a radioactive event that they want to accomplish quickly).
5. First, most everything in Japan is either on a coast, or in a mountain. Second, most reactors are built near large bodies of water for cooling. Third, if they were miles inland, they still would have been flooded by the tsunami.
6. Most of Japan is near a major fault line. They have nuclear reactors scattered throughout their country, so all of them are near one fault line or another. THeir choice is either to build them to withstand faults, or not build them at all.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Did you miss the part about the safety issues right before the earthquake hit...

There were inspection issues, not safety issues:

On March 2, 2011, just days before the start of the current earthquake catastrophe, Japan's nuclear regulators lobbed accusations of mass negligence against Tepco. It alleged that Tepco had failed to inspect 33 pieces of equipment at the Fukushima-Daiichi plant, one of the sites of the current catastrophe, including central cooling system elements in the six reactors, and spent fuel pools that hadn't been inspected according to regulations.

They become safety issues if, when the aftermath is studied, it turns out that a piece of equipment for which an inspection was skipped broke because of a defect that would have been detected by the inspections.

Note that they had 19 inspections missing at their #2 plant, and it had no difficulties. And at this time, there is no evidence presented that the problems at #1 are directly related to equipment that would have been found defective had it been inspected.

My state requires car safety inspections. Sometimes people wait too long, and they will get tickets for failure to have safety inspections. However, most of their cars are perfectly safe, they just don't have the papers to prove it. Of more importance, most of the items inspected are things that fail "hard", like lights; you can get a car safety inspection, and two days later your headlight is burned out. The inspection does little to make you "safer", unless you completely ignore all maintenance on your car and drive around with red warning lights.

or perhaps you missed how all of this could have been dealt with in the first few hours and they refused to do it.

Even the negative article you linked doesn't make that assertion. It alleges that they could have reacted quicker, quotes some outsiders suggesting the slow reaction was because they wanted to save the plant, and says they "considered" pumping water in earlier.

But it doesn't offer any proof as to why they didn't pump water in earlier; it says the engineers claim they waited until it was "right" to do so for plantwide security, and doesn't say that any engineers RECOMMENDED starting earlier. Saying they "considered" is to say it was on a list of things they could do; we consider and reject ideas all the time, for many reasons, often because they simply are NOT the best ideas.

Of course, it is easy to look back at the consequences, and see how certain rejected ideas might have worked better than what was done. But in this case, we have no evidence presented that it would have even been POSSIBLE to start injecting water earlier than they did. It could well be that the best course of action was to put all their resources toward getting the pumps running again, only to fail because of things they hadn't realised about failures they hadn't anticipated.

It is remarkable that people like you pretend that years and years and years of a corrupt climate and engineers that did not have enough knowledge as admitted by TEPCO had no bearing on this incident.

I don't "pretend" anything. I don't even mean to "assert" anything, or "protest", or "conclude". I will go so far as to say that the posted article does not provide evidence that the current problems at the reactor are related to any of the previous scandals, or that the engineers at the plant had inadequate knowledge to handle the disaster. If evidence is provided, it won't "shock" me, nor will it require me to change my opinion, since my OPINION is that we don't know yet, not that it isn't true.

Often an argument that a conclusion is jumping the gun is confused with an argument against a conclusion. I have a history of "not jumping the gun" on many different topics here at FR. That means I'm sometimes behind the curve because sometimes people guess right, and sometimes it turns out that things are proven eventually.

Anyway, the biggest problem at the site SEEMS to be the spent fuel in the reactor 4 pool; (and yes, I'm using non-conclusive terms here, this is best-guess-work) the major radiation leaks seems to come from exposed rods due to a lowered water level in that pool. But that pool was completely UNRELATED to the issue of the three working reactors and whether they waited too long to inject water. #4 wasn't even running, and had no reactor fuel. They weren't expecting a hydrogen explosion there because they didn't release hydrogen from the reactor because the reactor was not fueled.

So, from where I sit, it appears that the biggest source of radioactivity, and the largest problem from the site, had nothing to do with their decision on when to inject seawater into reactor 1, 2, or 3.

[CharlesWayneCT]

A minor quibble about math (since in fact the article actually claims that one measurement was almost 6 times the limit, I'm not sure if anything is particularly factual or not.

Anyway, if they were trying to be cute, and take their "3 times the limit" that they quoted at one point in their article and make it sound worse by making it "hundreds" of percent, they messed up.

Because, 3 times as much is not the same as "300% higher". 300% higher is 3 times HIGHER. 300% higher is actually 4 times higher.

Suppose the base was 100. Then 300% higher would be 300 HIGHER than 100, or 400. 400 is 4 times 100.

[CharlesWayneCT]

A minor quibble about math (since in fact the article actually claims that one measurement was almost 6 times the limit, I'm not sure if anything is particularly factual or not.

Anyway, if they were trying to be cute, and take their "3 times the limit" that they quoted at one point in their article and make it sound worse by making it "hundreds" of percent, they messed up.

Because, 3 times as much is not the same as "300% higher". 300% higher is 3 times HIGHER. 300% higher is actually 4 times as much.

Suppose the base was 100. Then 300% higher would be 300 HIGHER than 100, or 400. 400 is 4 times 100.

[Natural Born 54]

Thanks for your answers, particularly the one regarding the placement of the pool to facilitate xfer of the rods. As for all the other answers, yes, I can see that they are sensible. However, it is still hard to believe that the Japanese government allowed this particular facility to operate the way it was and where it was. Money of course is the bottom line as per usual and safety is a often a lower priority.

Since you seem to be knowledgeable about things nuclear, would you mind explaining a bit about what the danger really is IF by chance that plant was being used covertly to generate weapons grade plutonium? I’ve seen “a thousand times more deadly” used to describe it, but I personally have insufficient knowledge to know if that is a wild overstatement of the danger or not.

[HeartlandOfAmerica]

(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.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/032048_radiation_milk.html#ixzz1JKjtOLLJ

Notice the non-sequitir here? Increasingly high for Iodine, Cesium134 and Cesium 137 and they're all being emitted by Fukushima. Therefore they MUST be what is causing the problem.

Fukushima emitting Iodine, Cesium + Contaminants in water/milk = Iodine, Cesium <> Fukushima is contaminating water/milk. Could be other things in the environment. Two unconnected premises that are connected by a very fine logical split hair. His name is Smith + He's walking = All men named Smith are walking.

They don't say that it IS the same, but it is CERTAINLY infered and all other assumptions in the article follow from this first illogical premise.

Weasel words at their best.

[HamiltonJay]

Nearly everything about this situation has been fear mongering from day one.

This entire article is nothing but more of the same.

[kevkrom]

Triage milk ping!