• 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
Alaska Seafood Tests
#1
I wrote to Robert F Gerlach, VMD to ask about the specific page for the results noted in an article claiming no radiation was found in Alaska seafood. He replied.... (below are the PDFs on methodology used for testing).


Hello,
We have listed the information on our main web page https://dec.alaska.gov/eh/vet/FMP.html  under the tab “What have we found? –Results-“.
The analytical  methodology used for testing follows FDA protocol (first document) the determination of radionuclide content performed at the FDA Manchester Lab is outlined in the second attachment.  The results of the analysis of the fish collected in Alaska are posted on the state web page.
Thank you for your email,
Bob
 
Robert F Gerlach, VMD
Alaska State Veterinarian
 
Biosecurity: Keeping Alaskan Livestock Healthy
and Food Safe
 
5251 Dr. MLK Jr. Ave.
Anchorage, AK 99507
phone: 907-375-8214
fax:        907-929-7335

For quick reference on radionuclides: alpha beta gamma: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radionuclide


.pdf   FDA food testing Protocol cp04019.pdf (Size: 181.82 KB / Downloads: 222)
.pdf   FDA protocol (2).pdf (Size: 346.72 KB / Downloads: 481)
Pia
just pm me if needed.
 
Reply
#2
(12-01-2015, 01:33 PM)piajensen Wrote: I wrote to Robert F Gerlach, VMD to ask about the specific page for the results noted in an article claiming no radiation was found in Alaska seafood. He replied.... (below are the PDFs on methodology used for testing).


Hello,
We have listed the information on our main web page https://dec.alaska.gov/eh/vet/FMP.html  under the tab “What have we found? –Results-“.
The analytical  methodology used for testing follows FDA protocol (first document) the determination of radionuclide content performed at the FDA Manchester Lab is outlined in the second attachment.  The results of the analysis of the fish collected in Alaska are posted on the state web page.
Thank you for your email,
Bob
 
Robert F Gerlach, VMD
Alaska State Veterinarian
 
Biosecurity: Keeping Alaskan Livestock Healthy
and Food Safe
 
5251 Dr. MLK Jr. Ave.
Anchorage, AK 99507
phone: 907-375-8214
fax:        907-929-7335


So Bob with Alaska State Veterinarian says the results of the analysis of the fish collected in Alaska are posted on the state web page. After digging around finally found it on Alaska Environment Health Food and Safety Sanitation Program – In the News.
http://dec.alaska.gov/eh/Radiation/index.html

Results – All Sample Results are Non-Detect (ND) for Fukushima Related Radiation
http://dec.alaska.gov/eh/Radiation/Docs/November%2016%202015%20Radiation%20Not%20Detected%20in%20Fish%20Charts.pdf

Bullshit! I don't believe it [Image: icon_sad.gif]
http://enenews.com/report-worst-hes-ever-seen-says-alaska-boat-captain-salmon-just-arent-showing-up-many-have-lesions-or-worms-and-parasites-crabs-more-easily-damaged-a-lot-of-dead-catch

https://www.superstation95.com/index.php/world/493
The government and the nuclear power industry claim we have nothing to worry about. When you see the photos, you may want decide for yourself if they're telling the truth.

According to the Local Environmental Observers (LEO) Network in Hydaburg, Alaska, they have found strange growths in the flesh or meat of salmon. "We were fishing for Cohos (silver salmon) at the mouth of the Hydaburg River with line and reel." said Brian Holter, Jr. who said that eight fish were filled up inside with strange growths that were either white or pink in color. "On the outside the fish looked fine. The growths looked kind of like individual little salmon eggs, and about the same size. their people were seeing the same kind of growths in their fish as well."
 
Reply
#3
They are testing a few fish, for cesium, which they won't find in abundance in the fish. They are not testing for the tritium killing aquatic life, too expensive and difficult. They don't often test for strontium and they avoid looking in bone where it accumulates. If they don't want to find radiation, they won't. Take a small flashlight into a darkened auditorium and tell me if you saw the ELEphant in the room.
"The map is not the territory that it is a map of ... the word is not the thing being referred to."
 
Reply
#4
Quote:Horse:
If they don't want to find radiation, they won't.


Exactly. The last time they said no worries about AK fish and I checked their methodology, it was obvious they don't want to find the true impacts. They are, I am sure, attempting to keep people from panicking. My take is that this will eventually backfire on them because they are not fulfilling their mandates to protect the environment and human health. 

My previous response to their inadequate system: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7PbzAz...sp=sharing - also attached as PDF.

.pdf   give us a chance part 3.pdf (Size: 1.47 MB / Downloads: 184)
Pia
just pm me if needed.
 
Reply
#5
(12-02-2015, 07:15 AM)piajensen Wrote:
Quote:"Exactly. The last time they said no worries about AK fish and I checked their methodology, it was obvious they don't want to find the true impacts. They are, I am sure, attempting to keep people from panicking. My take is that this will eventually backfire on them because they are not fulfilling their mandates to protect the environment and human health. 

"My previous response to their inadequate system: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7PbzAz...sp=sharing - also attached as PDF."

I'd be interested to know the duration of sample analysis. From experience (HPGe detector), non-detects are received when samples are run too quickly for peak resolution. We'd typically need 12 or more hrs to resolve down to our 0.3 Bq/kg detection limit. For the Alaska cesium data, at a 2 Bq/kg DL, I'd expect they'd need at least 3 hrs to resolve peaks. Removing the sample prior could give false negatives.
 
Reply
#6
Sure haven't heard or read about any tuna testing lately.

Those fish have been able to make the round trip to Japan and back several times now.
...or have they?
 
Reply
#7
erp - The second doc, FDA protocol (2).pdf, in original post doesn't describe the procedure in a way that I can find an answer to your question - perhaps you might wish to contact Gerlach to ask forspecific details? His email is: bob.gerlach@alaska.gov
Pia
just pm me if needed.
 
Reply
#8
(12-03-2015, 05:44 AM)piajensen Wrote: erp - The second doc, FDA protocol (2).pdf,  in original post doesn't describe the procedure in a way that I can find an answer to your question - perhaps you might wish to contact Gerlach to ask forspecific details? His email is: bob.gerlach@alaska.gov

The protocol pdf really doesn't have much useful information does it Undecided  I read it trying to find calibration standards and detection limits, but realized many pages in that it was last updated in 2010. Not quite a thorough methods section for the seafood analysis! I may email about sample analysis (and duration) but honestly with the FDA safety limit at 1200 Bq/kg Cs, it feels like an exercise in futility. Anyone remember the shift at EPA from their 3 pCurie/L safety limit for I-131 (aka ~0.1 Bq/kg per my back of the envelope calc) to the ludicrously high FDA standard of 100 Bq/kg? I believe beta limits were increased across the board to 100 Bq/kg and gamma to 1200 Bq/kg. Also does anyone have thoughts on the Bandazhevsky paper "Radioactive Cesium and Heart", where he found Cs levels of 40 Bq/kg to cause irreparable damage to the heart? It doesn't take many weeks of eating 1200 Bq/kg foods for, say, a 10 kg toddler to reach these levels in heart tissue. I've never seen this disconnect addressed before, just talk about bananas, airplanes, and sleeping next to K-40 emitting people being the real hazard Rolleyes
 
Reply
#9
yeppers, I found the descriptive section on protocol/methodology filled with mostly technical directions, which could really be a separate document called technical guidance. either they don't understand how to present methodology that provides fully detailed practices, or they do and don't care. 

thinking that with IEER having submitted strong defense against changing the radiation protection model to hormesis, the clear connection between low dose exposures and health impacts is recognized as the final truth - a nothing more to be said card laid down, kinda deal and that the argument of how much of a dose is safe is buried once and for all. Plenty of evidence exists and there really is no more argument to be had. 

the raising of rad limits, water and otherwise, is a shameful act on the part of agency officials. There is no acceptable level, especially when we are faced with ongoing emissions and resulting bio-accumulation and bio-magnification.
Pia
just pm me if needed.
 
Reply
#10
(12-04-2015, 06:47 AM)piajensen Wrote: thinking that with IEER having submitted strong defense against changing the radiation protection model to hormesis, the clear connection between low dose exposures and health impacts is recognized as the final truth - a nothing more to be said card laid down, kinda deal and that the argument of how much of a dose is safe is buried once and for all. Plenty of evidence exists and there really is no more argument to be had. 

the raising of rad limits, water and otherwise, is a shameful act on the part of agency officials. There is no acceptable level, especially when we are faced with ongoing emissions and resulting bio-ac cumulation and bio-magnification.

I vaguely remember from a few years back (when I looked into the IEER reports) that the 2003 standards were stronger, or more strongly worded, than subsequent reports like 2006. Looking into it today, and trying to download a report, I see this message from IEER.org: "These reports are not currently available online. If you would like a copy, please contact IEER." Dated 5/2012. So IAEA and NRC and their hormesis justifications have the main online presence.

Maybe the National Academy of Science's BEIR VII report is reasonable? It's $60 online so I haven't read it yet (http://ieer.org/resource/testimony/beir-...rotection/)

I must say how nice it is to see a website of people who really know their stuff and follow the issue carefully. Enenews has been good as well, but the comments are almost impenetrable...
 
Reply
#11
(12-04-2015, 02:43 PM)erp Wrote: Maybe the National Academy of Science's BEIR VII report is reasonable? It's $60 online so I haven't read it yet (http://ieer.org/resource/testimony/beir-...rotection/)

Hi erp, I was able to download free, the beir vii phase 2 pdf from the posted site as a guest, only required a valid email addy.  I could upload the pdf into my dropbox for download, if you'd like.
"The map is not the territory that it is a map of ... the word is not the thing being referred to."
 
Reply
#12
(12-03-2015, 01:57 AM)erp Wrote: From experience (HPGe detector), non-detects are received when samples are run too quickly for peak resolution. We'd typically need 12 or more hrs to resolve down to our 0.3 Bq/kg detection limit. For the Alaska cesium data, at a 2 Bq/kg DL, I'd expect they'd need at least 3 hrs to resolve peaks. Removing the sample prior could give false negatives. 

Erp

What kind of HPGe system do you have?  What about your shielding well?

Good to meet you

LWH
"All models are flawed, some are useful."
George E. P. Box
 
Reply
#13
Majia reveals the lies - Pacific Ocean Contaminated by Fukushima's Ongoing Emissions but Alaskan Fish Reported Free of Contamination majiasblog.blogspot.com.au/2015/12/pacific-ocean-contaminated-by.html
Pia
just pm me if needed.
 
Reply
  


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Russia Rad Sea Tests piajensen 0 1,698 11-02-2015, 05:47 AM
Last Post: piajensen

Forum Jump:


Browsing: 1 Guest(s)