Radiation Detected In Drinking Water Across The U.S.

Radiation warning symbolJeff McMahon writes for Forbes:

Radiation from Japan has been detected in drinking water in 13 more American cities, and cesium-137 has been found in American milk—in Montpelier, Vermont—for the first time since the Japan nuclear disaster began, according to data released by the Environmental Protection Agency late Friday.

Milk samples from Phoenix and Los Angeles contained iodine-131 at levels roughly equal to the maximum contaminant level permitted by EPA, the data shows. The Phoenix sample contained 3.2 picoCuries per liter of iodine-131. The Los Angeles sample contained 2.9. The EPA maximum contaminant level is 3.0, but this is a conservative standard designed to minimize exposure over a lifetime, so EPA does not consider these levels to pose a health threat.

The cesium-137 found in milk in Vermont is the first cesium detected in milk since the Fukushima-Daichi nuclear accident occurred last month. The sample contained 1.9 picoCuries per liter of cesium-137, which falls under the same 3.0 standard.

Radioactive isotopes accumulate in milk after they spread through the atmosphere, 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, where it increases risk of cancer, according to EPA.

Airborne contamination continues to cross the western states, the new data shows, and Boise has seen the highest concentrations of radioactive isotopes in rain so far…

For more information, see original article.

, , , , , ,

  • http://twitter.com/sabrebIade Sabre

    I went to look at the original article and it’s gone.
    Glitch or did he say something he wasn’t supposed to say?

  • http://twitter.com/sabrebIade Sabre

    I went to look at the original article and it’s gone.
    Glitch or did he say something he wasn’t supposed to say?

  • BananaFamine
  • BananaFamine
  • Ironaddict06

    A bit off topic-I apologize. I can not believe that there has not been more people very concerned about Japan pumping raditation into the ocean over there.

  • Ironaddict06

    A bit off topic-I apologize. I can not believe that there has not been more people very concerned about Japan pumping raditation into the ocean over there.

  • mrtastycakes

    Isn’t anyone curious why they are using curies (radioactivity) rather than rem/sievert (radiation dose)? Well, I can tell you: A picocurie is so incredibly small, there is no real way to measure it’s effect on the human body. Your own body’s radioactivity, measured in picocuries, is in the tens to hundreds of thousands.

    “the corresponding MCL for iodine-131 was calculated based on long-term chronic exposures over the course of a lifetime 70 years.” How the EPA (ethically) studied this is beyond me. That isotope of iodine has a half-life of ~8 days. For comparison, U235’s is hundreds of millions of years. They may have done it by studying residents near plants that process nuclear material. Oh, wait! Every one of the cities with a detectable Iodine-131 level has a processing facility nearby.

    Recommendation: Don’t drink rainwater. For many reasons.

    • DRLECHCTER

      mrtastycakes
      The reason they use a very small measurement rather than a larger ones for water is because there is a huge difference in the hazard. Radiation dissipates at the square of the distance, meaning if you are at even a very short distance from a radioactive particle it is potentially harmless to you as apposed to if that particle is inside you where the distance is zero.

      • DRLECHCTER

        One more thing.
        There is no safe level of these types of radiation. Unlike the bodies own radiation Radioactive iodine and cesium did not exist anywhere before nuclear testing began. So now when they say above what is normally found they are referring to the levels that are left from the atomic testing or the ongoing nuclear plant releases.

        • ddpalmer

          Here is one more thing.
          You are lying.
          First these isotopes existed in small amounts long before nuclear testing began. You may want to read about the natural reactors that formed on Earth millions of years ago.
          Second they aren’t new ‘types’ of radiation. Radiation is radiation, an alpha particle from natural radon is just like an alpha particle from man-made plutonium, well actually the alpha from radon has more kinetic energy so in that case the natural radioactivity is more hazardous.

  • mrtastycakes

    Isn’t anyone curious why they are using curies (radioactivity) rather than rem/sievert (radiation dose)? Well, I can tell you: A picocurie is so incredibly small, there is no real way to measure it’s effect on the human body. Your own body’s radioactivity, measured in picocuries, is in the tens to hundreds of thousands.

    “the corresponding MCL for iodine-131 was calculated based on long-term chronic exposures over the course of a lifetime 70 years.” How the EPA (ethically) studied this is beyond me. That isotope of iodine has a half-life of ~8 days. For comparison, U235’s is hundreds of millions of years. They may have done it by studying residents near plants that process nuclear material. Oh, wait! Every one of the cities with a detectable Iodine-131 level has a processing facility nearby.

    Recommendation: Don’t drink rainwater. For many reasons.

  • Bud Bundy

    So when do I turn into the Incredible Hulk (TM) or some other copyrighted super hero?

    Well I’d rather be a villain, but anyway.

  • Bud Bundy

    So when do I turn into the Incredible Hulk (TM) or some other copyrighted super hero?

    Well I’d rather be a villain, but anyway.

  • DRLECHCTER

    mrtastycakes
    The reason they use a very small measurement rather than a larger ones for water is because there is a huge difference in the hazard. Radiation dissipates at the square of the distance, meaning if you are at even a very short distance from a radioactive particle it is potentially harmless to you as apposed to if that particle is inside you where the distance is zero.

  • DRLECHCTER

    One more thing.
    There is no safe level of these types of radiation. Unlike the bodies own radiation Radioactive iodine and cesium did not exist anywhere before nuclear testing began. So now when they say above what is normally found they are referring to the levels that are left from the atomic testing or the ongoing nuclear plant releases.

  • DRLECHCTER

    One more thing.
    There is no safe level of these types of radiation. Unlike the bodies own radiation Radioactive iodine and cesium did not exist anywhere before nuclear testing began. So now when they say above what is normally found they are referring to the levels that are left from the atomic testing or the ongoing nuclear plant releases.

  • Daniel Palmer

    Here is one more thing.
    You are lying.
    First these isotopes existed in small amounts long before nuclear testing began. You may want to read about the natural reactors that formed on Earth millions of years ago.
    Second they aren’t new ‘types’ of radiation. Radiation is radiation, an alpha particle from natural radon is just like an alpha particle from man-made plutonium, well actually the alpha from radon has more kinetic energy so in that case the natural radioactivity is more hazardous.

21