Radioactive Strontium Found in Hilo, Hawaii Milk

[FBaggins]

A radioactive isotope of strontium has been detected in American milk for the first time since Japan’s nuclear disaster—in a sample from Hilo, Hawaii—the Environmental Protection Agency revealed yesterday. “We have completed our first strontium milk sample analysis and found trace amounts of strontium-89 in a milk sample from Hilo, Hawaii. The level was approximately 27,000 times below the Derived Intervention Level set by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration,” EPA said in a statement emailed to me yesterday afternoon. EPA posted the test result at epa.gov in a pdf.

EPA found 1.4 picoCuries per liter of strontium-89 in a milk sample collected in Hilo on April 4. Although the EPA tests milk, the FDA regulates it, and the FDA’s Derived Intervention Level—the standard observed for food—is 4,400 pCi/L for strontium-90. I’m working to confirm whether FDA has a separate DIL for Sr-89.

The EPA’s Maximum Contamination Level for Sr-89 in drinking water is 20 pCi/L. (For more on the difference between EPA and FDA standards, see “Why Does FDA Tolerate More Radiation Than EPA?“)


http://blogs.forbes.com/jeffmcmahon/2011/04/27/radioactive-strontium-found-in-hilo-hawaii-milk/

Cue the long line of "bone seeker!" and "no safe levels!" rants.

[kristopher]

1. Are you familiar with the way a POPs treaty is being obstructed?

If you knew how much you sound like an apologist for the chemical industries that obstruct international action on POPs you would never make another post like that again.

[FBaggins]

2. Sorry... did you have some new spam you were looking for an excuse to post?

:rofl:

[flamingdem]

3. What we've got here is an isotope birfer

if you know what I mean

[FBaggins]

4. Very good.

Yes... the nuts who are convinced that plutonium and strontium are raining down all around us despite ALL scientific evidence are very much like "birfers".

A better analogy, however, is the creation "science" myths or those who refuse to accept and manmade role in climate change.

[flamingdem]

5. You and your buddies refuse to accept the health damage created by low level radiation nt

[FBaggins]

6. As do all the scientists in the field.

Which is why the comparison to the creationists is so apt.

[flamingdem]

8. There are scientists on both sides of the debate and plenty of proof for LLR damage

I am ending any arguments with you, it's a waste of time and I there is no point in repeating the same discussions

[FBaggins]

9. Not really.

No more so than there are "scientists" on both sides of the creation myth.

LLR has no credibility in the scientific community. Heck... they have trouble keeping a wikipedia page up.

[AtheistCrusader]

12. You just reiterated the precise creationist line.

"There are scientists on both sides of the debate"

Now, which side is supported by peer-reviewed scientific method-based research?

The absolutist 'no safe level' contingent is basically making a case for living on an inert rock, encased in enormous amounts of lead, in deep space between galaxies.

[AtheistCrusader]

11. So does my body.

[Angry Dragon]

7. ..........

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

[RC]

10. The line forms over there on the right.

"Cue the long line of "bone seeker!" and "no safe levels!" rants."

Yeah, that right. And don't breath too deep. If ya can't see it, you can't know what you're breathin'.