• Thank you for visiting the Cafe Rad Lab Forum
  • We present & discuss radiation health, science & news
  • To keep you informed about vital nuke information.
Hello There, Guest! Login Register

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
JP 2017 Food Tests
3 April report by SimplyInfo.org 2017 Food & Radiation Report http://www.fukuleaks.org/web/?p=16204


Among the foods brought into the lab these kinds of foods were found to be contaminated:

Shiitake mushrooms: Fukushima, Nagano
Bamboo shoots: Fukushima, Ibaraki
Persimmon, mandarin orange, yuzu: Fukushima
Mugwort: Fukushima
Horsetail herb: Fukushima
Bamboo charcoal: Fukushima
Lotus root: Ibaraki
Apricots & loquat: Fukushima
Soil, sand and environmental debris: Fukushima
Honey: Fukushima
Potato: Fukushima
Fish: Fukushima
Mulberry leaves: fukushima

While most of the foods did not have high levels, the reports give a good idea of what items are potentially contaminated in the food supply in Japan, focused on Tohoku and Honshu.

MHLW Fiscal 2016 Food Testing

US FDA Total Diet Study

Iwaki Citizen Lab 2016 Reports
Iwaki Citizen Lab Website
FDA Alaska fish testing 2016
US fish haul statistics
Iodine 131

Iodine 131 biological half life
Iodine 131 in Foods; Residue Reviews Volume 13, 1966, Page 33

Iodine Chemistry And Applications, page 607; 2015
Iodine 129
Iodine 129 role in thyroid damage in Turkey

Iodine 129 biological half life
Cesium 134

Cesium 137

Cesium 137 biological half life
Cesium 137 Intake From Foods In Hong Kong 1992
Strontium 90 and Cesium 137 In Indian Tea; 1983

Surveillance of Strontium-90 in Foods after the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Accident; 2015
Strontium 90 Biological Activity
U.S. Department of Energy. Amchitka Island, Alaska, Biological Monitoring Report, 2011 Sampling Results. September 2013.

US FDA Food Intervention Levels

SimplyInfo.org Reports on “Black Stuff” fused fuel materials
SimplyInfo.org Reports on “Glass Spheres” fused fuel materials

SimplyInfo.org Reports on Naraha and decontamination

SimplyInfo.org Reports on Decontamination
just pm me if needed.
(04-15-2017, 05:09 AM)piajensen Wrote: 3 April report by SimplyInfo.org 2017 Food & Radiation Report http://www.fukuleaks.org/web/?p=16204

"Intervention levels are only the point where a government will pull food off the market, it is not a promise of complete safety." - from article

I think this is an important note regarding food contamination.  It took me a while to fully understand this concept, but once I figured it out I realized just how deep the 'doo-doo' goes.

I'll try to keep it simple.   Wink

Testing of food with a Rad Detector, like the one in the photo from the article, can alert you IF the food is contaminated above background levels with a type of radiation, such as gamma, that can pass through tissue. That's a good thing as far as testing is concerned.

However, if the fish has ingested alpha particles, which are the worst to ingest, then the hand held detector is probably not going to see it.   (alpha won't pass through paper)

Also, to further worsen the situation, food could still contain smaller than background amounts of radioactive contamination.   (hot particles, over time will accumulate)

The only way to fully determine if food, such as a fish, contains any contamination is to dehydrate it, so to speak, and run it through a scintillator . Of course, then all that's left is powder.   I'm not sure how edible that is?

IMO:  What that really means is, ...we must stop radiation from contaminating our food and water at all cost, else we are doomed over time.   If your brain does not get this concept, then the 'denial' factor in your head is overriding common sense.

You are correct about the testing - to fully understand the results, the methodology must be explained and if the methodology is other than drying & pulverizing the sample and using a scintillator, then the results will not have much meaning.

Peter Daley of the Food Lab in NZ has a lab and conducts testing using the correct methodology, for free. http://sccc.org.au/pages/The-Food-Lab.ht...ernational - he requests that samples be prepared before sending.

When I read the first radiation test report from Alaska, I was moved to comment because their sample size was far too small to reach the conclusions they offered:

Size Matters

“Small sample sizes will reduce the power of a study; however, large sample sizes in each group will practically assure statistical significance between the two groups.” jorthod.maneyjournals.org/content/30/2/99.full
“...all else being equal, large sized sample leads to increased precision in estimates of various properties of the population.” 

"Consequential research requires an understanding of the statistics that drive sample size decisions." http://www.qualtrics.com/blog/determining-sample-size/ 

Considerations for assessing scientific research studies
What are the inherent limitations of this type of study? 
Does the research design fit the stated purpose of the study? 
Has the author omitted from the Background section important points that could affect the study design or interpretation of the results?

Peer review 
Could the study be interpreted to conclude something else? 
Are there any methodological flaws in the study that should be considered when making conclusions? 
How does this work fit with the body of research on the subject? 
Randomness in Selection and Assignment 
Sample Size 

Not everyone has had the opportunity to learn how to conduct research that results in consequential data and conclusions. But, with a little information in hand, almost anyone can spot poorly conducted research. This is important especially when research results being presented have wide ranging impacts, especially when it comes to foods eaten by large numbers of people from all over the world. 

Research of food derived from the world’s oceans must be comprehensive, must provide history to establish a sense of “normal” conditions and baseline attributes of the specimens presented in the research. Without these attributes, a report on seafood, by the Alaska Department of Environment and Conservation and the Food and Drug Administration (DEC/FDA), for example, is nothing more than a small slice of the whole picture. Such a report lacking a large specimen selection, use of a small number of collected specimens, and which is not conducted over a long time frame is not deep enough to be considered consequential and as such ought not be professed to be conclusive about the subject being studied. News outlets showcasing such a study are pushing a poorly designed, inconsequential report. 

The recent DEC/FDA study, found here: http://dec.alaska.gov/eh/Radiation/Docs/Radiation
%20Not%20Detected%20in%20Fish%20Charts%2006-27-2014v2.pdf lacks sufficient data. Only three radionuclides were selected for discovery and analysis. One of those isotopes, I-131, is short-lived and would not likely be found in samples taken. See radionuclides expected to have emitted from Fukushima here: http://www.countercurrents.org/hamer160511.htm and here http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/1425/2...5-2013.pdf and here http://rt.com/op- edge/chernobyl-fukushima-crisis-catastrophe-715/. 

There are not many other aspects that can be discussed about the scope, methodology, and import of the DEC/FDA study because the study itself lacks sufficient information to analyze. 

Size matters - research studies on seafood requires long time lines, larger sample pools, a larger selection of different specimens, and background information provided by other research to provide comparative and historic data. 

See Alaska invertebrates list: http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adf...ertebrates 
See Alaska Fish list: 
just pm me if needed.

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  WHOI NOAA Fish Tests piajensen 0 1,756 05-17-2017, 08:01 AM
Last Post: piajensen

Forum Jump:

Browsing: 1 Guest(s)