Super-Bugs are a real threat

Filed in: Article.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) continues to publish new data showing that several samples of water and milk supplies from the US UU They are testing increasingly high radioactive elements such as iodine 131, cesium 134 and cesium 137, all of which are being emitted by the nuclear rain of Fukushima Daiichia. As of April 10, 2011, 23 US water supplies UU They tested positive for radioactive iodine 131 and, what is worse, the milk samples from at least three EE locations. UU They tested positive for iodine 131 at levels above the maximum containment levels of the EPA (MCL).

When it comes to water supplies, it's important to keep in mind that EPA is only testing radioactive iodine 131. There are no readings or data available on cesium, uranium or plutonium, all of which are continuously emitted from Fukushima. , as far as we know, even though all these elements are much more lethal than iodine-131. Even so, the following water supplies have so far tested positive for Iodine-131, with the dates they were collected in parentheses to the right:

Los Angeles, California – 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 (03/31/11)
Niagara Falls, NY – 0.14 pCi / l (03/31/11)
Denver, Colo. – 0.17 pCi / l (03/31/11)
Detroit, Michigan. – 0.28 pCi / l (03/31/11)
East Liverpool, Oh. – 0.42 pCi / l (03/30/11)
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 (03/28/11)
Waretown, NJ – 0.38 pCi / l (3/28/11)
Cincinnati, Oh. – 0.13 pCi / l (03/28/11)
Pittsburgh, Penn. – 0.36 pCi / l (03/28/11)
Oak Ridge (371), Tenn. – 0.63 pCi / l (28/3/11)
Chattanooga, Tenn. – 1.6 pCi / l (03/28/11)
Boise, Id. – 0.2 pCi / l (03/28/11)
Richland, Wash. – 0.23 pCi / l (03/28/11)

Again, these figures do not include the other radioactive elements that are being propagated by Fukushima, so it is not known what the actual cumulative radiation levels were in these samples. The figures were also taken two weeks ago and were only recently reported. If current samples were taken in even more cities, and if the tests carried out included many other radioactive elements besides Iodine-131, the actual levels of contamination are likely to be terribly higher.

Read Also  12 incredible ways to use olive oil that nobody has told you about

The EPA still insists that everything is fine, although an increasing amount of water supplies in the United States is becoming positive even for the radioactive elements that the agency is testing, and these levels appear to be increasing as a direct result of the situation. at the Fukushima plant, which continues to get worse without an end in sight.

However, water can be the least of our problems. The new EPA data released on Sunday show that at least three different milk samples, all from different parts of the US. UU., They have tested positive for radioactive iodine 131 at levels that exceed the maximum safety thresholds of the EPA, which are currently set at 3.0 pico Curies per liter (pCi / l).

In Phoenix, Arizona, a sample of milk taken on March 28, 2011, tested at 3.2 pCi / l. In Little Rock, Arkansas, a milk sample taken on March 30, 2011, analyzed at 8.9 pCi / l, which is almost three times the EPA limit. And in Hilo, Hawaii, a sample of milk collected on April 4, 2011, analyzed at 18 pCi / l, a level six times higher than the maximum safety threshold of the EPA. The same Hawaii sample was also analyzed at 19 pCi / l for Cesium-137, which has a half-life of 30 years, and a striking 24 pCi / L for Cesium-134, which has a half-life of just over two years.

Why is this contamination of milk important? Milk, of course, typically represents the general condition of the food chain because cows consume grass and are exposed to the same elements as food crops and water supply. In other words, when cow's milk begins to test positive for high levels of radioactive elements, this is indicative of radioactive contamination of the entire food supply.

And even with milk samples, the EPA says it should not worry, since its threshold of 3.0 pCi / l is supposedly 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 continue to melt, as conditions at the plant have not improved since the earthquake and tsunami, but many of the radioactive elements that have already been released in previous weeks have a long life half. and they have spread throughout the world.

The other problem with the EPA's empty guarantees that radiation levels are too low to have a negative impact on humans is the fact that the agency does not even have a precise idea of ​​the actual aggregate exposure to radiation from all sources (water, food, air, etc.). rain, etc.). When you combine perpetual exposure from multiple sources with only the numbers that have already been disclosed, there is a very real threat of serious harm as a result of the exposure.

Read Also  About treatment is taking a harmful toll

EPA and other government agencies are constantly comparing Fukushima radiation with background and plane radiation in an attempt to minimize the severity of exposure, although these are two completely different types of radiation exposure.

There is no safe level of nuclear rain radiation

The background and plane radiation is an external emitter of radiation, while the radiation induced by Fukushima in food and water is an internal emitter. The first, which is considered "normal" radiation, hits your body from the outside, while the latter goes directly into your body and into your digestive tract. It does not take a space scientist to see the immense difference between the two, and the much more serious consequences associated with the literal ingestion of the verses of radiation they have on your skin.

Actually, there really is not a safe level of radiation. It does not matter how many times the EPA and other people repeat that the radiation levels are too low to have a significant impact. Many experts, including Jeff Patterson, DO, former President of Physicians for Social Responsibility, have stated that exposure to radiation at any level is not safe.

"There is no safe level of exposure to radionuclides, 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, which is why everything possible should be done to minimize the radionuclide content in food and Water ".

And now that the radioactive levels in some areas have actually exceeded the EPA's maximums, Patterson's statement is even more chilling. So, while the mainstream media continues its almost total blackout in Fukushima, the situation is becoming more serious than it has ever been. Time will tell how serious the long-term effects of this disaster will be, but one thing is for sure: the Fukushima radiation can not and should not be taken lightly.


Comments are closed here.

You May Also Like:
Natural ways to prevent and reverse autoimmune diseases
It has innumerable immune cells in every corner of your body that constantly work to stay healthy by identifying, packaging and eliminating harmful substances

Are you addicted to your phone?
Staying connected is paramount in today's digital society, but is our immeasurable obsession with our smartphones affecting our internal health? In the last 10

10 easy ways to fall asleep anywhere in 5 minutes or less
Throwing, flipping and desperately counting sheep … insomnia is totally torturous and any form of sleep pressure is never fun. If left unchecked, it

The scientifically proven method to make you happy!
It is usually taught or transmitted to us through our parents and families, and is as common and unrecognized as the kitchen sink. This

Raw cocoa vs. cocoa: What is the difference?
Cocoa and cocoa are the same … they are also very different! We do not want to confuse you, but we do want you

Chocolate can be good for you, in the right dose!
In recent years some interesting scientific studies have emerged about chocolate. There is also a lot of confusion about chocolate: what type of food

How constipation can get fat
Did you know that slow bowel movements can hinder weight loss? Yes, you heard correctly. Not going to the bathroom regularly for a number

How to find safe drinking water for your family
Is your lawn perfectly groomed but only contains inedible plants? Why not transform your patio into an edible garden? Imagine that you would never

7 reasons to eat Superfoods daily!
From raw cocoa to goji berries, superfoods have a big boost when it comes to improving their health and energy levels. We can not

The truth about milk
Mark McAfee owns Organic Pastures Dairy Co. in Fresno, California. McAfee explains that "raw" milk is milk in its natural state, since it comes

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *