Nuclear Radiation In Teton Valley? Mark Dietrich Of The Idaho Department Of Environmental Quality: ‘I’m not saying it’s not a big deal. It is.’ – ‘If you can avoid it, avoid it.’

An if you know about the health effects of INTERNAL emitters vs. external radiation then you better avoid as much radioactive particles as possible.

“Radiation exposure is increased by a factor of a trillion. Inhaling even the tiniest particle, that’s the danger.”

More info on that below.

Nuclear radiation in Teton Valley? (Teton Valley News, June 23, 2011):

With Boise rainfall samples measuring by far the highest concentrations of radioactive nuclides in the country, apocalyptic rumors of nuclear disaster run rampant. Higher cancer rates, lower SAT scores, genetic mutations, and birth defects are just a few of the things doomsayers expect to see in the wake of the nuclear disaster at Fukushima’s Daiichi plant. But if the nuclear scare has you dumping milk and fleeing from radioactive rain, you might want to put the dangers into perspective.

Three months after the disaster frequently referred to as the worst nuclear event since Chernobyl, Japan’s situation remains as critical as the day the 9.0-magnitude earthquake sent some reactors at the Daiichi plant into nuclear meltdown and the others into a state of emergency. Once atoms begin nuclear fission, there is no way to stop the progress of radioactive decay. Unless contained, it will continue to threaten Japan for years.

Unfortunately, the radioactivity has been difficult to contain. As TEPCO threatens to release 40 Olympic pools worth of water, estimated to contain 10,000 times the legal concentrations of radioactivity, into the Pacific, and Japan admits radioactive emissions are more than twice the amounts originallyclaimed, how worried should we be in Teton Valley?

According to government agencies, not at all. Every section of the Environmental Protection Agency’s website on the Japanese Nuclear Emergency offers a reassuring guarantee like this one:

“It is important to note that all of the radiation levels detected by RadNet monitors and sampling have been very low, are well below any level of public health concern, and continue to decrease over time.”

To some, the repetition of soothing claims sounds like a well-rehearsed song and dance. Alternative news websites, chatroom boards, blogs and local coffee shop conversations are rife with claims that U.S. government agencies are whitewashing catastrophically dangerous levels of radiation.

“The truth,” said James T. Powell, “is probably somewhere in between.” Powell, executive director of local watchdog organization, Keep Yellowstone Nuclear Free, believes the alarmists’ theories about government conspiracies and EPA cover-ups are unfounded. With six Department of Environmental Quality stations in Idaho alone and hundreds of radiation monitors stationed around the country, inspected by thousands of state and federal employees, there is simply no way the numbers could be falsified. And he doesn’t think the levels seen so far are particularly dangerous.

But he is troubled that the EPA has taken as few samples as it has. A RadNet surveillance of radiation in precipitation, drinking water, milk and air cartridges, instituted in the wake of the nuclear event, was halted in Idaho due, the EPA website claims, to “a thorough data review showing declining radiation levels in these samples.”

The problem with this explanation is that Idaho radiation levels were not declining when RadNet monitoring stopped reporting samples April 14. Boise’s first precipitation sample, collected March 22, measured I-131 (a radioactive isotope of iodine) levels at 242 pCi/l (picocuries, or units of radioactivity, per liter). That is about 80 times the legal drinking water limits, the highest levels of rainwater radiation seen in the nation at any time since the Fukushima disaster. Since I-131 has a short half-life, Idaho Department of Environmental Quality said we could expect those levels to decrease quickly.

But, five days later, I-131 had not decreased. Two more samples were taken March 27. The sample recorded on the EPA’s more accessible public site showed, in fact, a 60 percent increase, with I-131 measuring in at 390 pCi/l. A second sample, found through an in-depth search of EPA online records, yielded I-131 concentrations of 422 pCi/l. After that, no samples were recorded on the EPA site. And we can’t expect an update any time soon – RadNet monitors were shipped out of Boise Tuesday.

This is especially worrisome for Boise residents who get their city water from surface water. Unlike Teton Valley, where water comes from deep in the Snake River Aquifer, Boise city water comes from a surface source, meaning whatever is in the rain is in the water. There is no filtration system in place for radionuclides like I-131.

This is appealing fodder for alarmists looking to “expose” an “EPA cover-up.” While Powell doesn’t think the EPA has been dishonest, he does think the EPA communication with the public has been unsatisfactory.

“What the EPA is banking on is that, by the time they do routine testing a month out, the high levels will have subsided. What Keep Yellowstone Nuclear free is pushing for is acknowledgement of the high levels now.”

Mark Dietrich of IDEQ said that data from air cartridge testing indicates that those levels have, in fact, subsided. Air cartridge data showed a 93 percent decrease in I-131 content from March 24 to April 3. The dates that recorded high levels of radiation in air cartridges correspond more or less to the dates that recorded high levels in precipitation.

“What we really look at is the air cartridge and air filter levels,” said Dietrich. “Air samples are taken every day. If you plot out iodine-131 since March 11, they’ve dropped way off in the last month.” Even though we don’t have precipitation data, we can conjecture that radiation levels have dropped in rainwater as well, he said.

Dietrich cautioned, “It’s easy to take numbers out of context.” In regards to the high levels of I-131 found in precipitation, Dietrich said, “Yes, the number is high. But we didn’t see any levels high enough to warrant a public health concern.”

Dietrich explained, as rainwater dissipates into soil and rivers, the amount showing up in surface-fed water systems is miniscule.

“The drinking water has been largely unaffected. The radioactive content in Idaho is well below the legal limit,” Powell agreed.

Even in Boise, where drinking water comes from rainfall and snowmelt, the highest level was reported at .2 pCi/l. A Boise resident who drank a liter of water on March 28 got about as much radiation as if he/she had eaten a handful of Brazil nuts. We receive radiation from all kinds of sources: rocks, sun, food, outer space. The amount of radiation that could have been ingested from drinking Boise’s water is small compared to the amount of radiation we absorb every day from natural sources.

Keri Huston, a source water specialist from the nonprofit Idaho Rural Water Association said she doesn’t think there’s reason to be concerned about irradiated rain, which was measured in far lower concentrations at our nearest RadNet monitor in Idaho Falls. Of far greater concern, she said, are the fertilizers and chemicals in fields, which threaten to taint rural water.

Dietrich said agriculture and livestock won’t be affected much either. Though he said cesium, which has a much longer half life than radioiodine, “definitely got deposited in the soil,” the quantities are so low that while “you might be able to detect it here and there, you’re not going to see enough to make a difference.”

But, though the data collected so far might not give reason for alarm, Powell said we shouldn’t become complacent.

“You still have exposed fuel and burn-off that’s not being contained,” said Powell. “These levels we’ve seen are okay and safe for a short period of time. But if they keep up after a few months, I might begin to worry.” KYNF, one of the organizations that pressed the EPA to make RadNet data accessible to the public, would like to see updated sample results on the RadNet site and an improved monitoring network in general.

“I’m not saying it’s not a big deal,” said Dietrich. “It is. I don’t know that there’s any radiation level that’s good for you – If you can avoid it, avoid it. But we’re not seeing levels that warrant changing your habits.”

For now, Dietrich recommends, “Let your kids drink milk.” Check for routine radiation updates at or email

There are no safe levels of radiation:

AIOM (Italian Association of Medical Oncology) President Carmelo Iacono: ‘Nuclear Radiation Is The Most Carcinogenic Thing That Exists’

IAEA Admits: There Is No Such Thing As ‘Safe’ Levels Of Radiation

Prof. Chris Busby: ‘There’s No Doubt Fukushima Dwarfs Chernobyl’ – ‘There Has Been A Massive Cover-Up And That Cover-Up Is Still Going On (The Negative Health Effects Of Low-Dose Radiation From Fukushima!!!)

Fairewinds’ Founder Maggie Gundersen Interviews Environmental Scientist Marco Kaltofen: Radiation In Food Is Going To Be A Nationwide Problem In The US!

‘Fukushima: Gross Miscarriage Of Radiation Science’ – Childrens Cancer Risk From Radiation Is 10 To 100 Times Higher For The Same Exposure To Adults

Physicians For Social Responsibility Press Conference (04/26/2011): Chernobyl, Fukushima And Nuclear Power – Disturbing Facts!

Dr. Helen Caldicott On The Japan Nuclear Disaster – The Truth MSM Won’t Tell You! (Video)

Dr. Steven Wing And Chief Nuclear Engineer Arnie Gundersen Discuss Global Radiation Exposure and Consequences: There Is No Safe Dose of Radiation

UC Santa Cruz Nuclear Expert Daniel Hirsch: ‘Every Amount of Radiation Exposure Increases Your Risk of Cancer.’ ‘There Is No Safe Level of Radiation.’

Dr. Helen Caldicott: How Nuclear Apologists Mislead The World Over Radiation

Dr. Brian Moench: There Is No ‘Safe’ Exposure To Radiation

Dr. Peter Karamoskos: Don’t Be Fooled By A Never-Ending Cabal Of Paid Industry Scientific ”Consultants’ – Radiation Is Bad And Causes Cancer

Are There Safe Levels of Radiation? How Much Radiation Is Safe? (Must-read!!!!!)

Radiation exposure is increased by a factor of a trillion. Inhaling even the tiniest particle, that’s the danger.

Yo: So making comparisons with X-rays and CT scans has no meaning. Because you can breathe in radioactive material.

Hirose: That’s right. When it enters your body, there’s no telling where it will go. The biggest danger is women, especially pregnant women, and little children. Now they’re talking about iodine and cesium, but that’s only part of it, they’re not using the proper detection instruments. What they call monitoring means only measuring the amount of radiation in the air. Their instruments don’t eat. What they measure has no connection with the amount of radioactive material.

Dr. Helen Caldicott (Co-founder of Physicians for Social Responsibility):

The Propaganda From The Government And The Nuclear Industry About Low-Level Radiation Is Absolute Rubbish:

You’ve bought the propaganda from the nuclear industry. They say it’s low-level radiation. That’s absolute rubbish. If you inhale a millionth of a gram of plutonium, the surrounding cells receive a very, very high dose. Most die within that area, because it’s an alpha emitter. The cells on the periphery remain viable. They mutate, and the regulatory genes are damaged. Years later, that person develops cancer. Now, that’s true for radioactive iodine, that goes to the thyroid; cesium-137, that goes to the brain and muscles; strontium-90 goes to bone, causing bone cancer and leukemia. It’s imperative that you understand internal emitters and radiation, and it’s not low level to the cells that are exposed. Radiobiology is imperative to understand these days.”


Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.