Recent map showing the spread of cesium-137. Note the increased concentration over the United States.
Oldspeak:” The U.S. and Canada are currently blanketed in Radioactive Cesium-137 (which has a half-life of 30 YEARS), yet it’s never mentioned in the media. It’s been detected in milk (and by extension, the entire food supply) and rainwater nationwide. The essential fact that’s hardly being reported in the press is that when you eat radioactive food, the threat to your health increases exponentially. That’s because internal radiation is far more deadly to your body than external radiation. The most repressive dictatorship in the world North Korea, is presently reporting on the danger of the radiation threat, but the supposed bastion of free speech and information the U.S. minimizes and attempts to ignore the radiation threat. Why? Could it be that acknowledging the threat could undermine the Obama administrations’ push to increase the use of nuclear power here in the U.S.? “
By Kurt Nimmo @ Infowars:
The hereditary communist dictatorship in North Korea reports on the spread of radiation from the Fukushima nuclear plant, but it has all but fallen off the corporate media radar screen here. Monitoring stations across North Korea from April 11 to 17 detected iodine-131 and cesium-137 in the air above Wonsan in the southeast and Chongjin in the southeast, according to the country’s state-run media.
Cesium-137 has been detected in drinking water and milk here in the United States. Cesium and Tellurium were found in Boise, Las Vegas, Nome and Dutch Harbor, Honolulu, Kauai and Oahu, Anaheim, Riverside, San Francisco, and San Bernardino, Jacksonville and Orlando, Salt Lake City, Guam, and Saipan while Uranium-234, with a half-life of 245,500 years has been found in Hawaii, California, and Washington.
The EPA ha radiation monitoring sites situated artound the country.
Radioactive isotopes spread through the atmosphere accumulate in milk after they fall to earth in rain or dust and settle on vegetation, where they are ingested by grazing cattle. Iodine-131 is known to accumulate in the thyroid gland, where it can cause cancer and other thyroid diseases. Cesium-137 accumulates in the body’s soft tissues and bone marrow where it increases risk of cancer.
While the North Koreans warn about the spread of radiation, the corporate media in the West is downplaying and basically ignoring the threat. On the one hand, the EPA tells us cesium-137 is appearing in milk and water around the country, while on the other telling us not to worry.
The EPA said in March that “while they were above the historical and background norm, the levels weren’t considered harmful to human health.”
The agency sounds the alarm about radioactivity in cigarette smoke while minimizing the risk from an out of control nuclear plant that continues to spew radioactivity.
Something is seriously amiss when the most repressive dictatorship in the world reports on the danger of radioactivity while a supposedly free media and government agencies in the U.S. downplay the threat.
The Cesium Deception: Why The Mainstream Media Is Mostly Reporting Iodine Levels, Not Radioactive Cesium
By Mike Adams @ Natural News:
Virtually all the numbers you’re seeing about the radioactivity coming out of Fukushima are based on iodine-131 which only has a half-life of 8 days, not the far more dangerous cesium-137 which has a half-life of 30 years. So while the mainstream media reports that “radiation levels are falling rapidly” from the 7.5 million times reading taken a few days ago, what they’re not telling you is that the cesium-137 radioactivity will take 30 years just to fall by 50 percent.
It’s the great global cover-up in all this: What happens to all the radioactive cesium being dumped into the ocean right now? It doesn’t just burn itself out in a few months like iodine-131. This stuff sticks around for centuries.
As part of the cover story, the FDA now says it will test “all imported food products coming from Japan” (http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/20…). This claim is, of course, ridiculous on its face. Even without this Fukushima emergency in the works, the FDA only tests a tiny fraction of all the food imported into the USA. This agency has no existing infrastructure under which it could test ALL the food being imported from Japan. The very idea is ludicrous.
As this ABC News story reveals, the FDA says it’s “really stretched” just to inspect a mere two percent of imported food: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/radiat…
The FDA likes radiation!
Even if the FDA could magically test all the food being imported from Japan, what allowable level of radiation would the FDA claim was “safe” in those foods anyway? Remember, this is the agency that has long supported the mass irradiation of the U.S. food supply as a way to kill e.coli and salmonella.
For all we know, FDA bureaucrats equate radiation with safety and might actually declare radioactive seafood from Japan to be safer than non-radioactive food because, they would say, the radiation “kills salmonella.”
Why eating radioactive food is FAR more dangerous than nuclear fallout
The other element in all this that’s hardly being reported in the press is that when you eat radioactive food, the threat to your health increases exponentially. That’s becauseinternal radiation is far more deadly to your body than external radiation. It all comes down to the law of the inverse square of the distance between you and the radiation source.
A speck of radioactive dust that’s one meter away from you, for example, is twice as dangerous as that same speck four meters away. But if you eat that radioactive speck (because it’s part of a fish you’re consuming, for example), then suddenly it’s inside your body. So now it might only be a millimeter away from your internal tissues, meaning you’ve decreased the distance between you and the radiation source by one thousand times. Because if the law of the inverse square of the distance, you have now magnified the radiation intensity byone million times (because one million is the square of one thousand).
So a speck of radiation that might have been a “low level” if it were floating around in the air around you can suddenly become fatal if you consume it. And that’s what people are now facing with Japan’s seafood. Yet everybody is being told that it’s all perfectly safe, no problem, no worried, don’t even think about it.
Where does the radiation go in your body?
We’re all being lied to about the “safety” of radioactive food, you see. And there’s more to it than what has been discussed here, actually: If a fish takes in radioactive cesium and it gets distributed throughout the body of that fish in the way that potassium would normally get distributed (because cesium follows nearly the same biological pathways as potassium), then the radioactive cesium has become part of the fish flesh.
When you eat that fish, your body breaks down the fish tissues, then reabsorbs the cesium into your own body, distributing the cesium into your own muscle tissues where potassium would normally go. You are what you eat, after all. And if you eat radioactive cesium, then you quickly become a walking radioactive dirty bomb from the inside.
If it’s invisible, it must be safe
They don’t tell you that on CNN, folks. I’m willing to bet their “info babe” news models don’t even have a clue about the laws of physics in the first place. So while they’re all telling you that eating irradiated seafood from Japan is perfectly safe, the truth is that it could very well be quite deadly if you’re eating fish that contain high levels of cesium.
So you might wonder, then, are fish being detected with cesium in their tissues? You bet they are! You’ll find the details in these news stories: http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/co…and http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/busi…
The extremely high levels of radiation even have the local fishermen freaked out. “I can’t go out to fish because of the radiation,” one Japanese fisherman told ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/radiat…).
But don’t worry, we’re told. It’s all safe to eat. The FDA is in charge, after all.
And remember what governments always say about radiation and chemicals: If it’s invisible, it MUST be safe!
Radiation Detected in Milk, Air and Water – Is America Safe?
By Mike Ludwig @ Truthout:
Radioactive material from the troubled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Japan has fallen in rain on major cities across the United States, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The agency has also detected radioactive materials in milk, air and drinking water. The EPA and other government agencies continue to insist that they expected to see some level of radiation on US soil after the Daiichi disaster, and the current radiation levels are not a cause of public health concern. Truthout has identified gaps in the government’s data, however, and nuclear watchdogs are concerned that public officials are not telling Americans the whole story.
Consider Boise, Idaho, where the amount of radioactive iodine-131 in rainwater jumped from 242 picocuries per liter (pCi/L) on March 22 to 390 pCi/L on March 27, according to the EPA . Iodine-131 levels found in rainwater sampled from about a dozen other cities range from 8 to 125 pCi/L.
The Boise figures seem high when compared to the Maximum Containment Level (MCL) for drinking water, which the Safe Drinking Water Act sets at 3 pCi/L for iodine-131 in water consumed by people over many years. Fortunately for Boise, iodine-131 decays in about eight days, and the most recent tests on drinking water in Boise found iodine-131 levels at 0.2 pCi/L. But some questions remain unanswered.
“The rainwater appears to be contaminated, and that rainwater falls on rangelands and agricultural fields, but we’re not getting any data on agricultural crops and little data on milk,” said Dan Hirsch of the nuclear watchdog group Committee to Bridge the Gap .
Hirsch told Truthout that he is not sure if radiation is posing a threat to public health because the government is not doing enough testing, and agencies are putting “spin” on the data they do release.
Radiation tests on milk have come up positive in several US cities, but Boise is not on the list of cities where milk is tested. Milk in Little Rock, Arkansas, had 8.9 pCi/L of iodine-131 on March 30. Milk in Phoenix, Arizona contained, in at 3.2 pCi/L that same week, and milk in Los Angeles, California, had a similar reading of 2.9 pCi/L. These results were posted about a week after the samples were taken.
The most startling numbers come from Hilo, Hawaii, which is much closer to Japan than mainland states. Milk sampled from Hilo on April 4 was contaminated with 18 pCi/L of iodine-131, 24 pCi/L of cesium-134 and 19 pCi/L of cesium-137.
These figures appear gloomy when compared with the drinking water MCL of 3 pCi/L for iodine-131, but the government agencies claim that the contamination is far below levels of public health concern. That’s because there is no MCL for milk, according to Hirsch. Instead, government agencies rely on Derived Intervention Levels (DIL) set by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The DIL for iodine-131 in food products like milk is set at 170 becquerels per kilogram, an amount that is 1,500 times higher than the drinking water MCL.
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 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 at 2005 report by the National Academy of Sciences .
Patty Lovera, the assistant director of watchdog group Food and Water Watch, said that government agencies need to do more testing for radiation in domestic products and food imported from Japan before making blanket statements dismissing the possibility of a threat to public health. She said there is a “very concerted effort to reassure people,” and criticized public officials for making analogies between radiation found in food and water and radiation from x-rays and cat scans.
“It’s like comparing apples to oranges,” Lovera said.
Under normal circumstances, the FDA only inspects 2 percent of imported seafood and tests about 1 percent, said Lovera, who is calling on the FDA to be more specific about how it is ramping up efforts to inspect food imports from Japan. The FDA has already barred milk and vegetables from the region where the Daiichi plant is located, but Lovera said the FDA should follow in other country’s footsteps and temporarily bar seafood imports from Japan as well.
Like Hirsch, Lovera wants government agencies to be more upfront about the possible risks of radiation, even at the levels reported by the EPA, so individuals of different ages and health statuses can make the right dietary choices.
“That sophisticated of a conversation isn’t happening,” Lovera said. “Instead, it’s ‘don’t worry, don’t worry we’ll tell you when there’s an emergency’ … but with an increased understanding of low-level exposure, there should be more information out there so individuals can make choices.”
While Lovera is concerned that agencies like the FDA don’t have the resources to provide enough information, Hirsch sees a potential conflict of interest. He is concerned that the US government may be downplaying the dangers of radiation from the Daiichi plant to avoid undermining support for new nuclear projects in the US. He pointed out that the Obama administration has affirmed its commitment to building more nuclear reactors in the US and has urged Congress to approve $54 billion in subsidized loans for new reactors.
“This is kind of a run-through for what would happen if a similar disaster occurred in the US,” said Hirsch, who lectures on nuclear policy at the University of California, Santa Cruz. “It seems to me that the agencies are getting an F.”