MJN Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 you doing to protect yourselves? I haven't been on in a while to just read posts, so this may have been discussed already. If so, can somebody link me up? Thanks, Molly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrothead Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 Do you have a link to your information? This is the first I've heard of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*Jen* Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 Yes, they have found some Iodine, but it's nothing to worry about. It's 5000 times less than the amount that the FDA has listed as in need of action. Iodine has a half life of 8 days, by the time that the milk is used for anything and then consumed the levels will be almost gone. http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/03/31/radiation.us/index.html?hpt=T2 From NY TIMES Radioactive materials in liquids are measured in pico-curies per liter, and the sample, taken March 25, showed a reading of 0.8 pico-curies, the agency said. Those numbers, it said, would have to be 5,000 times higher to reach the “intervention level” set by the Food and Drug Administration. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/31/us/31milk.html?_r=1&ref=us Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peela Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 I would be taking some precautions, I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergath Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 I'm not the least bit concerned. Drama means ratings, so every time some miniscule, harmless amount of radiation shows up in anything, the media is going to run to the cameras screaming about it and whipping everyone into a frenzy. Who knows if the radiation is even from Japan? We certainly have enough sources of radiation in our own country. Five thousand times less than harmful? I'm not going to worry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaissezFaire Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 Nothing. Read about the half-life of radiation. You get more radiation standing near your microwave. Just because there are traces of iodide found you do not need to panic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jean in Newcastle Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 Nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LibraryLover Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 (edited) Excellent links. Science can be complicated, I get that. I'm not a scientist. :) But not understanding the ins and outs of half- life etc., is no reason not to trust scientists who do understand how to assess risk. Why are people trying to dramatically fill the air waves 24/7 seen as infalliable, but research scientists are seen as lying to us? Who should be the one most suspect? The person who stands to make the most money, or really wants to be a TV star, or the scientist working for peanuts at some university research facility? What does that person have to gain by telling people how radiation etc is dispersed? Edited March 31, 2011 by LibraryLover Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mejane Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 Nothing. Read about the half-life of radiation. You get more radiation standing near your microwave. Just because there are traces of iodide found you do not need to panic. :iagree:It's just more media sensationalism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 Excellent links. Science can be complicated, I get that. But not understanding the ins and outs of half- life, iodine etc., is no reason not to trust scientists who do understand how to access risk. Why do people so trust suspect 'journalism' ? Why are people trying to dramatically fill the air waves 24/7 seen as in falliable, but research scientists are seen as lying to us? The person who stands to make money, or be a star on TV should be the one questioned; not the scientist working for peanuts at some university research facility. What does that person have to gain by telling people how radiation etc is dispersed? :iagree: Not only that, but there are fewer journalists than ever doing the real work of journalism. Newspapers are taking a serious hit. So, they rely on AP reports, they skimp on page editors. I find mistakes in my local paper on a *daily* basis. During the coverage of the earthquake in Japan a CNN reporter was giving some information about tsunamis that seemed to be a matter of him thinking out loud and was *completely wrong.* Even *I* knew that it was wrong, and I'm not a scientist of any kind. Journalists on tv are often chosen by how they look, how they sound, how they come across. At one time tv journalists served time in the trenches traveling, gaining knowledge. Now they wonder aloud on air where Tokyo is in relation to Sendai. Now they think Ewa Beach is going to be the place the Tsunami hits Hawaii because that's where the tsunami warning center is. So, no, people should not trust journalists over scientists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hen Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 I am in Ca, and this morning it was on the radio that it was found in milk here, too. I am doing nothing. The half life is 8 days, the amount of radiation found is not supposed to be harmful, and each day it will be less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LibraryLover Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 But not that we would never question any particular someone. (I felt I shoud say that. lol) :iagree: Not only that, but there are fewer journalists than ever doing the real work of journalism. Newspapers are taking a serious hit. So, they rely on AP reports, they skimp on page editors. I find mistakes in my local paper on a *daily* basis. During the coverage of the earthquake in Japan a CNN reporter was giving some information about tsunamis that seemed to be a matter of him thinking out loud and was *completely wrong.* Even *I* knew that it was wrong, and I'm not a scientist of any kind. Journalists on tv are often chosen by how they look, how they sound, how they come across. At one time tv journalists served time in the trenches traveling, gaining knowledge. Now they wonder aloud on air where Tokyo is in relation to Sendai. Now they think Ewa Beach is going to be the place the Tsunami hits Hawaii because that's where the tsunami warning center is. So, no, people should not trust journalists over scientists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colleen Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 So now they've found traces of radiation in milk in Washington state, what are you doing to protect yourselves? Hi, Molly.:) As others have said, the radiation found to date is miniscule in comparison to that which you're likely exposed in other areas of life. We tend to forget that something as commonplace in our lives as a microwave does expose us to radiation. Our cooperative, Organic Valley, is staying abreast of the situation and will respond accordingly if and when radiation levels are of concern. We and a number of our fellow farmers include kelp in our cows' diet; kelp has high levels of iodine, which can lower the incidence of radioactive poisoning. Let me know if you have further questions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hen Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 Hi, Molly.:) As others have said, the radiation found to date is miniscule in comparison to that which you're likely exposed in other areas of life. We tend to forget that something as commonplace in our lives as a microwave does expose us to radiation. Our cooperative, Organic Valley, is staying abreast of the situation and will respond accordingly if and when radiation levels are of concern. We and a number of our fellow farmers include kelp in our cows' diet; kelp has high levels of iodine, which can lower the incidence of radioactive poisoning. Let me know if you have further questions. Colleen, wow, thank you- I did not know about the kelp. We've just started buying both raw (in small amounts cus it's expensive here in OC) and organic milk..it's just been a few months for us- I did not know about the kelp, that is good to know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpidarkomama Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 Yes, they have found some Iodine, but it's nothing to worry about. It's 5000 times less than the amount that the FDA has listed as in need of action. :iagree: Yep. May it remain so! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpidarkomama Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 Why are people trying to dramatically fill the air waves 24/7 seen as infalliable, but research scientists are seen as lying to us? :iagree: This drives my scientist-husband CRAZY! As if scientists are part of some kind of conspiracy, funded by the government, to keep information away from "the people." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colleen Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 Colleen, wow, thank you- I did not know about the kelp. We've just started buying both raw (in small amounts cus it's expensive here in OC) and organic milk..it's just been a few months for us- I did not know about the kelp, that is good to know. Yes, kelp has an array of nutritional benefits.:) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colleen Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 The thing I wonder is do they normally test for radiation in milk? It's not part of the standard testing that takes place on milk samples. There's typically more testing (every few months, I believe) of milk samples from dairies that are in proximity to nuclear power plants. If not, how do they know the radiation just wasn't always naturally (or normally) there? It's a different kind of radiation (isotope...?) than that which would normally be found or naturally occur. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MomLovesClassics Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 My thoughts on this are a bit different. Non-organic/non-free range cattle are sheltered, and given water from pipes. It seems odd that ANY radiation would have been detected in the milk. Organic free range have open access to grass, air, ponds therefore I would not be surprised to find levels of radiation detected. The news first said no radiation could possibly make it across the ocean, but it did, then they say no way will it get in our food and it has. No amount of radiation is safe. We are told a host of things such as GMO's, hormone fed beef, high amounts of antibiotic fed meat is safe. I have a difficult time believing unnatural radiation in milk is safe. The dairy industry does not want to suffer, so of course it will be told in the media levels are safe for human consumption. It is rumored that the safe limits have been changed, or will be changed. I am not sure what to believe. For the time being, we are cutting way back on dairy, better safe than sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trish Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 I read they are raising the "safe" levels in Europe so there is nothing to worry about. Also, that radiation in the rainwater in CA and MA is not a big deal because people don't drink rainwater. Not a problem, not a problem! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kalanamak Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 Nothing. Me and Jean, doing nothing side by side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peela Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 My thoughts on this are a bit different. Non-organic/non-free range cattle are sheltered, and given water from pipes. It seems odd that ANY radiation would have been detected in the milk. Organic free range have open access to grass, air, ponds therefore I would not be surprised to find levels of radiation detected. The news first said no radiation could possibly make it across the ocean, but it did, then they say no way will it get in our food and it has. No amount of radiation is safe. We are told a host of things such as GMO's, hormone fed beef, high amounts of antibiotic fed meat is safe. I have a difficult time believing unnatural radiation in milk is safe. The dairy industry does not want to suffer, so of course it will be told in the media levels are safe for human consumption. It is rumored that the safe limits have been changed, or will be changed. I am not sure what to believe. For the time being, we are cutting way back on dairy, better safe than sorry. :iagree:I am wondering why people are so trusting of the "authorities" when those same "authorities" do so many things not in everyone's benefit, but only benefit political agendas. I would be doing independent research, myself. Its not so much the current levels that would disturb me- although I would be taking kelp too- its the changing story. It is still possible that there be a far worse situation at Fukushima than there already is. The situation has not been resolved at all. That is what would concern me if I were in the pathway of radiation. Also- what do they consider a safe level and why do they consider that level to be safe and a higher level to be unsafe? Is it because there can be an obvious link to disease concluded at a higher level, and that link cannot be conclusively drawn at a lower level? I would not trust government "safe" levels any more than I would trust them with my health in other areas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MomLovesClassics Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 :iagree:I am wondering why people are so trusting of the "authorities" when those same "authorities" do so many things not in everyone's benefit, but only benefit political agendas. I would be doing independent research, myself. Its not so much the current levels that would disturb me- although I would be taking kelp too- its the changing story. It is still possible that there be a far worse situation at Fukushima than there already is. The situation has not been resolved at all. That is what would concern me if I were in the pathway of radiation. Also- what do they consider a safe level and why do they consider that level to be safe and a higher level to be unsafe? Is it because there can be an obvious link to disease concluded at a higher level, and that link cannot be conclusively drawn at a lower level? I would not trust government "safe" levels any more than I would trust them with my health in other areas. No Kelp capsules available at the local health food store, sold out online too. Kelp powder for seasoning food is available. I have those same questions you mentioned, but I am not finding adequate answers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EKS Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 Nothing, unless you spend your life in a lead lined vault. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trish Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 I suspect this recent news about a "blue flashing light" over one of the reactors is not good news, but then, I think the true nature of the disaster has been underplayed from the beginning. Should've got the Chernobyl Cement Tomb Treatment early on. Blue Flashing Light Over Fukushima Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pdalley Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 Excellent links. Science can be complicated, I get that. I'm not a scientist. :) But not understanding the ins and outs of half- life etc., is no reason not to trust scientists who do understand how to assess risk. Why are people trying to dramatically fill the air waves 24/7 seen as infalliable, but research scientists are seen as lying to us? Who should be the one most suspect? The person who stands to make the most money, or really wants to be a TV star, or the scientist working for peanuts at some university research facility? What does that person have to gain by telling people how radiation etc is dispersed? :iagree: Why is the media more trustworthy? At this point - no matter what news channel it is - if they tell me its raining I'm going to look outside before believing them. I'm not worried about this at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melissa in Australia Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 Here is the latest http://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/-/world/9124045/leak-found-in-reactor-pit-as-japan-pm-tours-disaster-zone/ I am a little concerned they are offering to pay people up to $5000 per shift to run in and work on the reactor and then run out. Why can't they use robots? http://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/-/world/9123885/highly-radiactive-water-leaks-into-pacific/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melissa in Australia Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 I read they are raising the "safe" levels in Europe so there is nothing to worry about. Also, that radiation in the rainwater in CA and MA is not a big deal because people don't drink rainwater. Not a problem, not a problem! :svengo: I am glad I live in the southern Hemisphere all my and my neighbours drinking water is collected off our roofs from the rain. Lots of Australians drink rainwater. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peela Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 I read they are raising the "safe" levels in Europe so there is nothing to worry about. Also, that radiation in the rainwater in CA and MA is not a big deal because people don't drink rainwater. Not a problem, not a problem! Are you kidding me? Raising the "safe" levels? That means what was previously unsafe is now considered safe- because why- someone decided to say so, so that people don't panic? Thats just nuts! How does it make it safe? And radiation in the rainwater is ok because people don't drink rainwater (do all the farms have town water in the states?). Except every. other. living. creature. does drink rainwater...but that doesn't matter. I dont get it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LidiyaDawn Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 :iagree:I am wondering why people are so trusting of the "authorities" when those same "authorities" do so many things not in everyone's benefit, but only benefit political agendas. I would be doing independent research, myself. Because "independent research" is difficult to do when you have little to no knowledge of the subject matter -- it sounds weird when worded that way, but do you know what I mean? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrothead Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 :iagree:I am wondering why people are so trusting of the "authorities" when those same "authorities" do so many things not in everyone's benefit, but only benefit political agendas. I would be doing independent research, myself. Its not so much the current levels that would disturb me- although I would be taking kelp too- its the changing story. It is still possible that there be a far worse situation at Fukushima than there already is. The situation has not been resolved at all. That is what would concern me if I were in the pathway of radiation. Also- what do they consider a safe level and why do they consider that level to be safe and a higher level to be unsafe? Is it because there can be an obvious link to disease concluded at a higher level, and that link cannot be conclusively drawn at a lower level? I would not trust government "safe" levels any more than I would trust them with my health in other areas. I'm so with you. Especially the bolded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmoira Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 I'm so with you. Especially the bolded. This doesn't deal specifically with radiation in liquids, but have you seen this chart? http://xkcd.com/radiation/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrothead Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 This doesn't deal specifically with radiation in liquids, but have you seen this chart? http://xkcd.com/radiation/ No, that was the first time I'd seen that chart. But really my comments were geared more toward the general rather than the specific. The words, "We are from the government. We're here to help," frighten me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jean in Newcastle Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 This doesn't deal specifically with radiation in liquids, but have you seen this chart? http://xkcd.com/radiation/ This chart is very helpful. BTW - I do take selenium to support my thyroid (I'm hypothyroid). I've done a bit of research and selenium is something they give cancer patients to offset the effects of radiation. I think it's still experimental though and I would not take any more than what is recommended on the bottle. Since selenium is often deficient in farm soil it is not a bad nutrient to supplement anyway, esp. if you do have thyroid problems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LibraryLover Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 Yep. I have a scientist dh as well. I can well imagine the conversations. :iagree: This drives my scientist-husband CRAZY! As if scientists are part of some kind of conspiracy, funded by the government, to keep information away from "the people." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melissa in Australia Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 This doesn't deal specifically with radiation in liquids, but have you seen this chart? http://xkcd.com/radiation/ I looked at the chart, very interesting, but the chart claims that mobile phones don't cause cancer. The top brain surgeons in Australia claim that mobile phones actually do cause tumors. I think this may cause people to doubt the credibility of the whole chart. There was a radio station in Australia with lots of antennas on top. Every single woman that worked in that building got breast cancer. I think 4-5 of them died from breast cancer before people began to connect it to the building. There was an investigation, and it was found that everything was perfectly safe, no limits were exceeded, but the fact remains that everyone got breast cancer. My point is, technology has advanced so much, so quickly that we( humans) cannot necessarily judge how much of something a human can take. How do we know that in 20 years time there will be lots of evidence that mobile phones do cause cancer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melissa in Australia Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 (edited) :iagree: This drives my scientist-husband CRAZY! As if scientists are part of some kind of conspiracy, funded by the government, to keep information away from "the people." And why wouldn't they be?? Companies like Monsanto employ scientists all the time to "find" things that prove the benefit of their products and boost their sales, it is common knowledge. Just look at the whole genetic engineering thing. The Chemical companies and mining companies do to. Why would we expect the government to be any better? Edited April 3, 2011 by melissaL spelling Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmoira Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 I looked at the chart, very interesting, but the chart claims that mobile phones don't cause cancer. The top brain surgeons in Australia claim that mobile phones actually do cause tumors. I think this may cause people to doubt the credibility of the whole chart. I'm not familiar with their research. There is some research suffering that cell phones may increase the risk of developing tumors, but very little that they may cause cancer. Here is a good overview of the research: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/cellphones Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jean in Newcastle Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 I get the impression that some of you think that we answered wrongly - that we're supposed to do SOMETHING about the radiation. But I'm not sure what you want us to do. The stores here are out of iodine/kelp supplements and I'm not inclined to mess any more with my thyroid since my levels are good and I want to keep them that way. I do take selenium, as I mentioned earlier and that might provide some benefit. I actually don't drink or use milk as dh is allergic to milk but the kids and I do use cheese. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LibraryLover Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 (edited) . Edited April 3, 2011 by LibraryLover Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peela Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 Because "independent research" is difficult to do when you have little to no knowledge of the subject matter -- it sounds weird when worded that way, but do you know what I mean? Yes, I know what you mean. It is difficult. But its not a bad time to do some wide reading from the internet. YOu dont have to come to definitely conlcusions one way or the other, but you can inform yourself of vaiorus perspectives. I can understand if you are getting blasted with the media about it over there that you could get a little cynical about it all- after all, the levels seem innocuous enough. And, as Jean says- what can you do anyway? (I wouldn't be drinking the milk. The lower you eat on the food chain the better. Kelp wont hurt, if you can get it. If it gets bad- stay inside- but its not that bad.) But...even if there is nothing you can do about it right now, I think it pays not to go to sleep about it- not to get complacent about it (without needing to be unnecessarily dramatic, either). Things could change very fast. And Melissa, yes, I agree with you. There is so much more they don't know, than know, about this stuff, and i have seen the mobile phone research too. My dad is a scientist- he's also a fallible human being. Science only knows what it knows, and it doesn't know a lot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peela Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 Here is a relevant article that just came into my inbox: informationclearinghouse.info/article27802.htm And here is a quote from it: "....the EPA is considering drastically raising the amount of allowable radiation in food, water and the environment. As Michael Kane writes: In the wake of the continuing nuclear tragedy in Japan, the United States government is still moving quickly to increase the amounts of radiation the population can “safely†absorb by raising the safe zone for exposure to levels designed to protect the government and nuclear industry more than human life. It’s all about cutting costs now as the infinite-growth paradigm sputters and moves towards extinction. As has been demonstrated by government conduct in the Gulf of Mexico in the wake of Deepwater Horizon and in Japan, life has taken a back seat to cost-cutting and public relations posturing. The game plan now appears to be to protect government and the nuclear industry from “excessive costsâ€â€¦ at any cost." (Washington's Blog) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trish Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 (edited) Here's a link to the EU raising the "safe" levels of radiation in response to this accident. EU Raises Safe Levels of Radiation in Food by 20-Fold Meanwhile Japan is dumping 3 million gallons of radioactive water into the ocean. They say this dumping should "not affect the safety of the seafood." Heck, I'm still avoiding tuna and shrimp based on the Gulf Oil Spill disaster. Japan Tries To Trace Radioactive Seawater And no, I don't think the government has an interest in being completely honest about this. I think they're more interested in averting panic, and less interested in cancer rates a decade or two from now. EDIT: Update this morning on CNN: Radiation Millions of Times Over Limit Rushing Into Seawater I guess the EPA had better rush through their "higher" limits on safety. Of course this will dissipate into the ocean and be "no problem" to eat the seafood. But, I'm liking my backyard garden better and better with each passing day. Edited April 5, 2011 by Trish Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trish Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 U.C. Berkeley reporting tap water in S.F. 18,000 times the "safe" limit for radiation. Hmm. Sounds like those levels need to be raised, then! FYI I think a reverse osmosis filter *can* filter out radioactive particles, but I haven't researched it enough to say much more than that. Tap Water in San Francisco Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SailorMom Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 In regards to kelp supplements - darned if you do, darned if you don't.... Looks like we get to pick radiation or arsenic.:tongue_smilie: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070406140955.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hen Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 as far as the kelp, I wanted to ask Colleen about the source of the kelp they are giving to the cows. Seems like kelp here on the Ca coast would then be absorbing radioactive particles from Japan- so, are the milk farmers getting the kelp from a safe source? Just wondering... I am sure they are, but it would be nice to know... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MomLovesClassics Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 Ok, everyone can call me crazy and that is fine. But I want people to be aware they are not being told the WHOLE truth. It is difficult to make decisions when all you have is bits and pieces of information to go on. The limits of radiation for food products are set for ONE TIME consumption. This means ONE GLASS of milk in your lifetime not one glass a day. The limit for milk is "4700 picocurries" of iodine-131 or 33000 picocurries of cesium-137 so until the amount is that high do not expect the media or the government to inform you that it is not safe to consume milk. Please notice these amounts are so much higher than water. There is an article floating around about an agency recommending children and pregnant women in FRANCE avoiding milk, soft cheese, leafy greens, and mushrooms. Do not expect to get any warnings from the government until it is already too late. I shudder to think what the limits are for other food items, and the air we breath. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4wildberrys Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 I'm not the least bit concerned. Drama means ratings, so every time some miniscule, harmless amount of radiation shows up in anything, the media is going to run to the cameras screaming about it and whipping everyone into a frenzy. Who knows if the radiation is even from Japan? We certainly have enough sources of radiation in our own country. Five thousand times less than harmful? I'm not going to worry. :iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Natalija Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 Mom Loves the Classics and Peela.... I'm with you! Totally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MommyInTraining Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 Anyone concerned about hot particles that have been found in Seattle? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.