Radiation in Our Food

After watching this presentation at symposium about the consequences of Fukushima, I am given yet another reason to worry about the food that I am putting in my body. Cindy Folkers, a specialist in radiation and health, outlines the dangers of the radiation from Fukushima (and radiation in general) as well as current shortcomings in monitoring and what she and Beyond Nuclear are trying to do about it.

To fully understand what she is saying, it is important to touch on some concepts first because she is speaking to a crowd who already knows about and understands negative consequences of radioisotopes or radionuclides, as well as the effects of biomagnification.

An Atom

A radioisotope is just one of our stable elements with extra neutrons and an unstable nucleus. This causes the atom to emit different kinds of rays or particles. Some of these radioisotopes are actually useful. The one I think of most commonly is 14C that is used to date fossils with organic matter up to 50,000 years old. Its half life is predictable which allows us to see how much it has decayed and determine its age that way. It does emit beta rays but since it is usually in such a small quantity, it isn’t harmful to humans.

The radioisotopes that Cindy is worried about, however, are around in large quantities and are potentially very dangerous for us. Her focus is on Caesium 134 and 137 (134Cs and 137Cs) because they are currently the only ones that are being monitored. She gives some technical reasons for why this is. For example, it is easier to measure the gamma rays that it emits, but I am more interested in the political reasons she gives.

Biomagnification is aptly illustrated by this graphic. What initially starts as small amounts of 134Cs for example, in a fish as it breathes contaminated water, becomes more concentrated as it moves up the food chain. A seal comes along and eats a bunch of the fish, then a polar bear comes along and eats a few seals, and each time more 134Cs is inside the organism. While we may not eat a polar bear, we eat fish and other animals that subsist off of these fish populations so that by the time it gets to us, we would also be receiving these increased levels of radiation.

With these concepts in mind, Folkers points out the importance of surveillance and prevention and the lack thereof in US policy. It was shown during the fallout and after effects of the Chernobyl disaster that 50Bq (becquerels) was enough to cause serious health problems in children. What makes this number shocking is that the US and Canada currently (or at least at the time of her presentation) permit food with 1200Bq/kg and 1000Bq/kg respectively to be imported and sold. Japan? 100Bq/kg. I was unable to find reliable up to date numbers which is unfortunate but it also speaks to other points in her presentation.

• there is a lack of public information about radiation levels
• the data that is published is usually collected by the invested corporation (sound familiar?¹)
• there is a lack of funding for the monitoring of radiation levels
• only Caesium is monitored, there are many other harmful radioisotopes being emitted
• no amount of Caesium (or any other radioisotope for that matter) is 100% safe
• unlike 14C, elements like 134Cs are not found naturally in our bodies
• there are campaigns to convince consumers that some levels of radiation are okay
• who is supposed to take responsibility for this public health concern?

Folkers first step to addressing some of these issues is to petition the FDA to lower the acceptable limit to 5Bq/kg. While there is still the chance that even this small amount can bioaccumulate in our bodies, it is a start. Beyond that, research needs to be funded and conducted, and this information made public so that individuals can make decisions themselves. She also brings up the issue of why the FDA is even trying to convince us that small levels of radiation are safe in the first place. This is because if there were widespread fear stemming from this knowledge, there could be serious consequences for the food industry. It is a rhetorical question but it still makes me ask: since when does the economy come before the health of the citizens?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
¹ This is of course similar to our discussion of Merchants of Doubt and the parallels with the tobacco industry hiring their own scientists to make "experts" say whatever the industry wanted them to say. When research results are unfavorable to whoever is paying to have the research conducted, it is heavily edited, skewed, or thrown out altogether. I would see no reason for this case to be any different.