News
of Radiation levels in the United States being censored. No new data. April 11,
is the latest. This fits within their globalist healthcare depopulation agenda so they won't let the truth out.
Alaska and Canada are really getting high doses. All food is contaminated. They are destroying 40,000 cattle in northern Japan. My wife and I are taking iodine and other supplements to counteract the radiation. We may have to move.
Home
| About NaturalNews | Contact Us | Write for Natural News | Media Info |
Advertise with Natural News
Select
a Topic... Breast Cancer Chlorella Fluoride Heart Disease HFCS Superfoods
Spirulina
Fukushima
radiation taints US milk supplies at levels 2000 percent higher than EPA
maximums
Monday,
April 11, 2011 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer
(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-...), and in once case more than 2000
percent higher than MCL, cumulatively.
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-...). Together, this amounts to a level
2033 percent higher than federal limits
(http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/20...).
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...
http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/20...
No comments:
Post a Comment