2014-06-12

tell #FDA to test food for radiation! #Fukushima #Strontium

6.11: mis.aq.cook#naturalnews
/health ranger's radioactivity testing:
.  Mike Adams, the Health Ranger,
talked of testing radiation levels in food,
but nothing came of it (not even for seaweed).
12: web:
however, this was written March 10, 2014:
DirectorFukushima Fallout Awareness Network
. three years since the beginning of the
ongoing Fukushima Daiichi nuclear meltdowns:
It’s also been one year since
Fukushima Fallout Awareness Network
or FFAN filed a Citizen Petition with the
US Food and Drug Administration
to lower the current allowable levels of
Cesium 134 and 137
in food, nutritional supplements and pharmaceuticals.
The International Physicians for the
Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) in Germany
wrote a report requesting a nearly identical
decrease in radiation allowed in food as FFAN’s petition,
so clearly an international movement
is forming on this critical issue.
The USFDA has responded that they need more time
to consider FFAN’s Citizen petition,
but one year is long enough won’t you agree?
The situation is urgent and we need your help
while the comment period is still open
or FDA may reject the petition entirely.
Comment to FDA at 1.usa.gov/17COR8W
-- what are you going to do if you find it in everything?
but tests will show which seafood companies
are staying farthest from the damage zones .

. also, isn't it true that Strontium
is more of a health threat than Cesium?
NICHOLAS WRIGHT JANUARY 16, 2014:
OK, so I’ve followed a pretty solid research trail
 that tells me that Cesium is not a great problem
 in the marine environment for 4 basic reasons:
1. Cs is readily adsorbed onto silt particles
in turbid environments,
and becomes non-bioavailable through this mechanism.
 Aqueous Cs is also absorbed out of solution by phytoplankton,
forming another pathway for sequestration.
2. Cs has relatively low bioaccumulation factors (BCFs)
- about 100 for fish.
3. Cs has a comparable whole body biological half life
 to Po210 and K40 (approximately 50-100 days),
making them directly comparable in terms of the danger
 that ingesting these isotopes represents.
This is the basis for many of the studies done suggesting that
 ingestion of fish with elevated levels of Cs is safe because
 the radioactive dose from Cs is an order of magnitude
 lower than from naturally occuring Po210 in seawater.
. OK.  So far, so good.
Now what about Strontium.
Not so good.
1. Sr does not adsorb on to silt particles.
Instead remains hydroscopic and forms
a weak ionic bond with silt particles,
meaning it remains bioavailable over time.
2. Sr has very high BCR (50,000 for fish).
3. Sr has an estimated whole body biological half life of 50 years.
. Sr remains resident in the human body for
over 400 times longer than Po210
and 200 times longer than Cs37.
. Longer biological half life is NOT included as a weighted factor
when converting Grays to Sieverts, thus meaning that
any measurement of Sr one sees
Sieverts is potentially misleading,
to the extent of 3 or more orders of magnitude.
Food for thought…
. Has anyone noticed how TEPCO have refused to release
Sr monitoring results? And how Sr is strangely missing
from most of the studies that have been put out
claiming that effects of Fukushima will be localised only?
KIM MARTINI FEBRUARY 6, 2014:
TEPCO has been releasing the combined levels
of all radioactive substances, including strontium,
that emit beta rays, at the crippled nuclear plant.
But strontium levels exceeded the  all-beta readings
 in some instances,
leading the utility to decide they were "wrong"
and to withhold them from public releases,
TEPCO officials said Jan. 8.