collapse

Author Topic: Why Does FDA Tolerate More Radiation Than EPA?  (Read 2463 times)

Offline thorfourwinds

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4227
  • Gold 364
    • EARTH AID CONCERT
Why Does FDA Tolerate More Radiation Than EPA?
« on: June 13, 2012, 07:24:37 pm »


One Year Ago
Radiation Cover-up
in Full Mode


Greetings Dear Reader:

EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson, in testimony before a Senate committee yesterday:

Quote
EPA has not seen and does not expect to see radiation in our air or water reaching harmful levels in the United States. While radiation levels are slightly elevated in some places, they are significantly below harmful levels.


From FDA’s Radiation Safety FAQ:

At this time, there is no public health threat in the U.S. related to radiation exposure. FDA, together with other agencies, is carefully monitoring any possibility for distribution of radiation to the United States.

At this time, theoretical models do not indicate that significant amounts of radiation will reach the U.S. coast or affect U.S. fishing waters.


Why Does FDA Tolerate More Radiation Than EPA?

Since the Environmental Protection Agency began detecting radiation in rainwater and milk at levels above its maximum contaminant level, government officials have been downplaying the importance of EPA’s maximum contaminant level.

They would much prefer us to speak in terms of the Food and Drug Administration’s “Derived Intervention Level.”

The two levels could hardly be more different:
   •   EPA does not allow drinking water to contain more than 3 picoCuries per liter of radioactive istotopes like iodine-131 and cesium-137.
   •   
   •   FDA allows up to 4,700 picoCuries of iodine-131 in a liter of milk and up to 33,000 picoCuries of cesium-137.
   •   
Officials from both agencies—as well as many state governments—explain the difference in terms of time:

EPA assumes long-term exposure over 70 years.

FDA assumes you’re encountering the radiation all at once.

But time isn’t the only difference between these two standards:

FDA tolerates a higher mortality rate.

In Hawaii, where milk from Hilo contained the highest levels seen so far, Environmental Health Administrator Lynn Nakasone suggested the EPA’s standard is irrelevant to milk contamination.

“It’s like drinking two liters of water for 70 years to get (the EPA’s) limit,” Nakasone told the Honolulu Star-Advertiser. “So if you extrapolated to milk, you’d have to drink two liters of milk for 70 years to get that limit.”

Nakasone prefers the FDA’s standard. But here’s what Nakasone isn’t telling Hawaiians:

   •   The EPA’s level is calculated so that in a population of one million people, the radiation will result in no more than one additional cancer fatality.
   •   The FDA standard, on the other hand, accepts two extra cancer fatalities in a population of 10,000.
   •   
Why does the FDA tolerate more radiation, and more mortality, than the EPA?

The question was posed to FDA spokesman Siobhan Delancey, who said:

"Let me check with my experts and get back to you, okay?”

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...

FDA has set Derived Intervention Levels for foods prepared for consumption. These levels do 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.

Some of the assumptions made by the FDA, as cited from the link above, in setting the radiation guidelines.

The LOCs in CPG 7119.14 were derived from the Preventative PAGs established in the 1982 FDA guidance document and were based on the following assumptions:

1) the entire intake of food would be contaminated,

2) Iodine-131 would be a major source of radiation dose for only 60 days following the accident,

and 3) Cesium-134 + Cesium-137 could be a major source of radiation dose for up to one year.


The LOCs provided such a large margin of safety that derivation of LOCs for other radionuclides, judged to be of less health significance, was considered unnecessary. The LOCs in CPG 7119.14, established in 1986, are given in Table 1.

To reiterate, the the FDA says Caesium-134 which has a 1 year half-life will be a significant source of radiation for one year.

However, the guidelines also assume that Caesium 137 which has a 30-year half-life will only be a significant source of radiation for 1 year.

WTF?

The FDA guidelines also assume that radiation doses from other radionuclides, such as uranium, strontium and plutonium will not provide significant doses.

Does that explain why the feds are only testing for iodine and no other sources of radiation in the drinking water?

Another comment points us to updated UCB milk samples, which now have had a major revision raising the previously reported levels of iodine by a factor of 2 to 6. This is followed by a comment pointing out the level of radiation in an infant adjusted dose is 10 liters, which is 2.6 gallons.




7 June 2011

Not Just Cancer: “How Low Doses Of Radiation Can Cause Heart Disease And Stroke”

11 June 2011
Fukushima is already at or above Chernobyl levels and it continues to release significant amounts of radiation, says former U.S. Energy Dept. official

12 June 2011[/color]

[url=http://enenews.com/strontium-found-in-groundwater-for-first-time-240-times-above-max-limit]Strontium found in Japan groundwater for first time — 240 times above maxmium limit


Quote
Radioactive contamination from the stricken nuclear power facility Fukushima has worsened, the operators Tepco warned Sunday, with probes of groundwater turning up traces of strontium that were 240 times above the allowable maximum limit.


This headline and story is rather interesting.

12 June 2011

6,000 Bq/kg of Cesium-137 found in mushrooms from Bulgaria — EU-wide food safety alert issued

Quote
A ton of mushrooms containing ten times the safe level of a radioactive metal has been seized and destroyed by health chiefs.

The Bulgarian consignment of dried wild mushrooms is thought to have been irradiated by caesium 137 from the Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine 25 years ago.

It was found by a UK Border Agency team looking for illegal immigrants and impounded before it reached the shops.

The Bulgarian consignment of dried wild mushrooms is thought to have been irradiated by caesium 137 from the Chernobyl disaster.

Levels of radiation are measured in becquerels. The EU sets a maximum limit for caesium 137 in food of 600 becquerels per kilogram – double the level in Japan.

But the amount of radioactivity found in the mushrooms destined for British families was more than 6,000 becquerels.



Peace Love Light
tfw
Liberty & Equality or Revolution
« Last Edit: October 04, 2012, 06:05:57 pm by thorfourwinds »
EARTH AID is dedicated to the creation of an interactive multimedia worldwide event to raise awareness about the challenges and solutions of nuclear energy.

Offline zorgon

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21309
  • Gold 903
Re: Why Does FDA Tolerate More Radiation Than EPA?
« Reply #1 on: June 17, 2012, 02:00:17 pm »
Why Does FDA Tolerate More Radiation Than EPA?

Because it seems the FDA had no problems with radiation :P

Shocking 1950's Commercial!

This is a celebrity cold cream product. They sprayed radioactive dust on the actress   :o

I bet they told her it was perfectly safe..

[youtube]Wwb5UeWmSd0[/youtube]
« Last Edit: June 17, 2012, 02:02:33 pm by zorgon »

Offline Amaterasu

  • The Roundtable
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6713
  • Gold 276
  • Information Will Free Us
    • T.A.P. - You're It
Re: Why Does FDA Tolerate More Radiation Than EPA?
« Reply #2 on: June 17, 2012, 02:58:09 pm »
I wonder if it's possible to find out what happened to Her...
"If the universe is made of mostly Dark Energy...can We use it to run Our cars?"

"If You want peace, take the profit out of war."

 


Wal-Mart.com USA, LLC
affiliate_link
Free Click Tracking
Wal-Mart.com USA, LLC

* Recent Posts

Re: kits to feed your family for a year by Shasta56
[March 17, 2024, 12:40:48 pm]


Re: kits to feed your family for a year by space otter
[March 16, 2024, 08:45:27 pm]


Re: kits to feed your family for a year by Shasta56
[March 16, 2024, 07:24:38 pm]


Re: kits to feed your family for a year by space otter
[March 16, 2024, 10:41:21 am]


Re: Full Interview - Lance Corporal Jonathan Weygandt (1997) by RUSSO
[March 12, 2024, 07:22:56 pm]


Re: Full Interview - Lance Corporal Jonathan Weygandt (1997) by RUSSO
[March 09, 2024, 03:25:56 am]


Re: Full Interview - Lance Corporal Jonathan Weygandt (1997) by RUSSO
[March 09, 2024, 02:33:38 am]


Re: Music You Love by RUSSO
[March 09, 2024, 01:10:22 am]


Re: The Man Who Built UFOs For The CIA (Not Bob Lazar!) by RUSSO
[March 09, 2024, 12:14:14 am]


Re: Full Interview - Lance Corporal Jonathan Weygandt (1997) by RUSSO
[March 09, 2024, 12:08:46 am]


Re: A peculiar stone in DeForest by Canine
[March 03, 2024, 11:54:22 am]


Re: The Man Who Built UFOs For The CIA (Not Bob Lazar!) by kevin
[March 03, 2024, 11:30:06 am]


Re: The Man Who Built UFOs For The CIA (Not Bob Lazar!) by kevin
[March 03, 2024, 11:21:15 am]


Re: The Man Who Built UFOs For The CIA (Not Bob Lazar!) by kevin
[March 03, 2024, 11:16:05 am]


Re: Music You Love by RUSSO
[March 02, 2024, 07:58:09 pm]


Re: Full Interview - Lance Corporal Jonathan Weygandt (1997) by RUSSO
[March 02, 2024, 07:50:59 pm]


Re: The Man Who Built UFOs For The CIA (Not Bob Lazar!) by RUSSO
[March 02, 2024, 07:43:03 pm]


Re: The Man Who Built UFOs For The CIA (Not Bob Lazar!) by RUSSO
[March 02, 2024, 07:41:30 pm]


Re: The Man Who Built UFOs For The CIA (Not Bob Lazar!) by kevin
[March 01, 2024, 11:54:23 am]


Re: The Man Who Built UFOs For The CIA (Not Bob Lazar!) by kevin
[March 01, 2024, 11:34:15 am]