Local 11:00 news (KING) reporting radiation found in milk in Seattle.

[gateley]

The milk came from Spokane, they assume it 'came down' on the feed and was passed on that way.

But no worries, waaaaaaaay under the levels of concerned as determined by the FDA.

[Hannah Bell]

1. I'm not seeing that report as you report it. At 11:15 pm today (30th) i see this:

http://www.king5.com/news/Sec-of-Health-assures-public-WA-milk-is-safe-after-radiation--118965269.html

by ELISA HAHN / KING 5 News
Bio | Email
KING5.com
Posted on March 30, 2011 at 11:15 PM

SEATTLE -- The Secretary of the Washington State Department of Health is assuring the public that our milk is safe, after very low levels of radiation were detected in a sample of milk in Spokane.

It is unclear where the March 25th sample came from, a grocery store, a processing plant, or a dairy. But health experts are quick to bottle up any alarm. The level of radioactive Iodine-131 was 5 thousand times below the levels of concern set by the FDA.



I see nothing about a report of milk sampled "in seattle". so i'll wait for further verification.

[laconicsax]

2. "five thousand times below the levels of concern"

The sky is falling!

[Bluebear]

5. Arrogant as usual

/ignore

[Bobbie Jo]

11. Pot/Kettle, etc....

[gateley]

4. Nope - same story. I meant to say Seattle news station - please note I mentioned

the milk was in Spokane. So no need to wait for further verification, especially since I didn't say "stamped in Seattle". Do you find fault with the rest of my report, too? Sheesh.

[Hannah Bell]

7. not to be tedious, but "radiation found in milk in Seattle" can only be interpreted

two ways: seattle milk had radiation or a test was done in seattle that found radiation in milk.

neither are in the story, which said: "very low levels of radiation were detected in a sample of milk in Spokane."

seattle doesn't figure in the story at all.

i can't be expected to guess what you meant to say. i commented on what you *did* say.

[gateley]

10. I made a mistake in my haste to post while I was watching the news -- what

was in my head is not what I typed. Are you implying I posted that intentionally? Did I lie?

Seattle figures in MY telling because I'M in Seattle and was watching local Seattle news. I don't expect you to understand my concern as you're convinced that this is all no problem-o, but I feel differently and was alarmed when I saw it.

But you know? Think of me what you want. I know my intention was not to mislead and you can imply and correct me all you want. I really don't care.

[Hannah Bell]

20. i made no personal remarks whatsoever, nor did i imply that you were being intentionally

misleading.

what is your problem?

[CountAllVotes]

3. there was a whole bunch of "discussions" going on ealier

And it was over this story here (found in LBN).

>>WASHINGTON (AP) -- Very low levels of radiation turned up in a sample of milk from Washington state, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration said Wednesday, but federal officials assured consumers not to worry.

The FDA said such findings were to be expected in the coming days because of the nuclear crisis in Japan, and that the levels were expected to drop relatively quickly.

Japan's Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power complex began leaking radiation after it was damaged by a devastating earthquake and tsunami earlier this month.

Results from a March 25 milk sample taken from Spokane, Wash., showed levels of radioactive Iodine-131 that were still 5,000 times below levels of concern set by the FDA, including levels set for infants and children.

"Radiation is all around us in our daily lives, and these findings are a miniscule amount compared to what people experience every day," said Patricia Hansen, senior scientist.at the FDA. "A person would be exposed to low levels of radiation on a round-trip cross-country flight, watching television, and even from construction materials."

EPA said it was increasing the level of nationwide monitoring of milk, precipitation and drinking water.

More here:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_JAPAN_EARTHQUAKE_US_MILK?SITE=KMOV&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

[upi402]

6. Here's the safe threshold of radiation...

zero

The only amount that's safe is zero. Can't hide from it, none of it, but I don't think rolling the dice with that torturous end is smart. Minimizing exposure is wise.
Not drinking milk now, not worried a bit either.

And btw: canned salmon is wild salmon. Farmed salmon turns to gel when canned. fwiw

[TheMadMonk]

8. You. got a problem there. The world is full of natural sources of radiation.

The "safe" amount is the level below which there is no statistically discernable effect. The regulated safe amounts are several orders of magnitude smaller still.

This is 1/5000th those regulated amounts. Or about 1/50,000,000th of the level where any effect can be detected in a large population.

[gateley]

13. Although the numbers are reassuring, the "regulation" doesn't calm me much.

There's a threshold we can't pass - which is why patients receiving radiation therapy reach a maximum limit at which point they can receive no more. It's cumulative.

So, in addition to all the natural sources, added to our "unnatural" sources (TVs, phones, etc.) I don't want additional amounts in my food and water.

It certainly can't do any good, and I don't believe it's totally innocuous.

[TheMadMonk]

27. Yes there are lifetime limits. Howver, the level of exposure necessary...

...to reach those absolute limits is extreme.

At the levels being reached here, even 10k times normal, no one is getting, or at all likely to receive more than a very small fraction of that limit.

Like you, I believe in minimalisation. Nor that 100% innocuous. Nothing is. (Can I interest you in supporting the ban on di-hydrogen monoxide?)

The set regulatory limits are more than sufficient to make normal emissions, and even significantly elevated emergency emmissions as innocuous as needs be.

[gateley]

29. You're probably right, but I just don't see the wisdom in messing with something

where we have to hope it will just be minimally harmful. I'm just against nuclear energy so I don't think there's anything that can change my opinion, rational or not. :7

[TheMadMonk]

31. There's no "hope" involved.

Statistically the risk to the general population (even in an emergency like this one) is so low that it is utterly swamped by natural variation. Sucks to be you if a reactor does blow up in your ear, but the reality is, any circumstances likely to subject a person to a dose large enough to be truly worrisome are also likely to be so extreme that immediate physical trauma would be a near certain killer in its own right.

Even at the worst exposure levels likely, it is a far riskier proposal to go into a collapsed coal mine after trapped men, than to work on the reactors.

[upi402]

15. Nope, you got a bit of a reading problem there

from my post;
"Can't hide from it, none of it,"

Shows awareness of background radiation. You may want to be aware of your demonstrated ability to overlook the obvious and adjust accordingly.


and -"Regulated"..? by who?
The criminals look into their crimes and determine no crimes were comitted.

No 'Nuke-Away!, no nukes.
Sorry.

[gateley]

12. I couldn't agree more. nt

[laconicsax]

14. That's factually incorrect.

You're exposed to radiation every day. Even concrete gives off tiny amounts of radiation--at a higher level than what was detected in the sample of milk.

[upi402]

17. "Can't hide from it, none of it," ...from my post

A tip of the hat to the obvious for people with blindspot issues. You may want to have that looked at.

[laconicsax]

21. You can't have it both ways.

That is, insisting that no amount of radiation exposure is safe while acknowledging that background radiation is safe.

[upi402]

26. Saying it exist is NOT saying it is safe. Wow...

No harm no foul but,,,, really guy. Check yourself. You make huge leaps. Have fun and cut loose here with each other - no worries. But in matters with grave consequences for life itself - seek consult and wait a beat. It is a discernible pattern (even by a reckless goof like me).

[laconicsax]

30. And we're back to your factually incorrect statement:

"Here's the safe threshold of radiation...zero. The only amount that's safe is zero."

The human body continually emits radiation from the decay of Carbon-14 and Potassium-40 isotopes. Every living thing on Earth is radioactive to a small degree for the same reason. To say that "the only amount of radiation that's safe is zero" is factually and demonstrably incorrect.

If you want to argue that the carbon and postassium naturally found all living things emits an unsafe level of radiation, go right ahead. I'm sure someone who's scientifically illiterate will take you seriously.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RegieRocker]

18. Do you drink concrete?

[laconicsax]

25. No but I eat plant matter.

Plant matter, having radioactive isotopes such as carbon-14.

You are more radioactive from carbon-14 alone than that milk in Spokane: It tested at 5000 times less than the level of concern of 170 Bq/kg (.034 Bq/kg), and the average adult has enough C₁₄ to emit far more then .034 Bq/kg (and C₁₄ only makes up half of the body's natural radioactivity). The "level of concern" itself is set far below the max safety level so that action can be taken before people are at risk.

Playing Chicken Little over such a benign amount of radiation only means that no one will take you seriously when the radiation gets to a concern level. Honestly, acting as though seawater around the nuclear plant in Japan being several thousand times above a safe level is just as worrisome as a milk sample being less radioactive than the average adult makes a mockery of the situation in Japan.

[seabeyond]

9. good to hear they are keeping tabs on it and informing public. good to hear still WAY below

harmful.

[bvar22]

16. Its ONLY a little MORE radiation added to the pile.

Nothing to worry about.
They were just venting a little steam.
I know "science".
Nuclear Reactors are perfectly safe.

[RegieRocker]

19. I heard you can get piles from radiation!

[louslobbs]

24. And from sitting for long periods of time on radiating concrete, ouch

[RegieRocker]

28. Lol