Nothing Can Justify Raising Radiation Dose Limits in Food and Drinking Water

I was recently doing some reading on radiation dose limits in food products when I stumbled upon this alarming article that piqued my interest in this little known area of radiations.

Reading through the article, I kept thinking how normal people underestimate governments’ capability of eating their own people.

The Fukushima Case

Most of us who do not live under a rock or over a star have heard about the nuclear accident at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi plant in 2011.

In the said article, the Japanese government decided to increase the radiation exposure limits for the workers tasked with securing the site.

Under normal conditions, the workers were allowed yearly radioactive doses of up to 20mSv. During the emergency situation, the limit allowed went up to 100mSv.

When it was clear that things were getting out of hand and pressure was mounting on Japan to put the situation under control, the government saw it better to further increase the radiation dose limits for its workers to 250mSv.

This was done with the full scientific knowledge of the relationship between radiation exposure limits above 100mSv and cancer.

The Nuclear Regulatory Authority (NRA) even used this involuntary human experiment to update its charts and raise radiation exposure limits.

All the workers who were exposed to these elevated levels of radiations reportedly never had normal healthy lives afterwards.

I had to dig deep to find out how they fared on after the exercise and my fears were confirmed by the confessions from the workers in this article.

Nuclear Radiations Everywhere You Go

There are other distressing nuclear incidents such as the Chernobyl nuclear disaster and the cold war nuclear bomb tests by the Russians and the U.S. at the Atoll Bikini beach that goes to show how the interests of a few selfish individuals can make them degrade others.

With this little but deep information, it is clear to see my concern about food, governments, and nuclear radiations. Governments pretend to respect science, but only do so when the science is politically correct.

If politicians and corporate leaders have the slightest chance of throwing scientific evidence out of the window to save face, they will do so without blinking.

Before we blindly accept government declarations on sensitive health matters like radiations, we need to understand that radiations can have short term biological effects and long term effects.

We all know there is an insane increase in cancer cases in the modern world. The scientific world is still grappling with the causes and prevention of cancerous cells. One thing that is certain is that cancerous cells have very close links with radiations.

Some Basics on Radiation Dose Limits in Humans

The environment has never been free of radiations. In fact, the average radiation exposure from natural sources ranges from 1 to 10mSv per year with a global average of 2.4mSv pa.

These levels are however not significant to be harmful to humans until the humans decide to increase them through careless activities such as the ones we have seen above.

The safety levels of radiations are the main concern here. If we keep receiving these small doses every day, how long will our bodies hold before giving in? to get a glimpse of what we have to deal with on a daily basis, this radiation dose chart tells it all.

Food and Radiations

Since my main focus is in food and drinking water, the statistics here are a little bit of a concern. Radiation exposure from food and drinking water seem to be the highest contributors to the radiological doses we receive every day.

It is no surprise that exposure to seafood carries the day when it comes to radiation dose contributions into human bodies. Most of the nuclear incidents I mentioned above happened in the sea or close to the open waters of the ocean.

It is all a game of what is at stake.

For instance, Japan would not want to risk losing their traditional economic activity of fishing by announcing alarming radioactivity results in the Pacific Ocean.

The easiest thing to do would be to announce less controversial results and lobby the relevant agencies to raise the radiation dose limits in fish from the Pacific Ocean. This will of course be accompanied by data from a research they funded and controlled to fit their needs.

The limits will then be raised based on these short term scientific findings and people will continue consuming seafood. After some time, everybody around you will seem to be dying of cancer. Scientists will then do their thing and tell you that you are the problem because you don’t watch what you eat.

The above example is all hypothetical, but in this world of man eat man society, anything is possible. That is why I am against any efforts to revise any current radiation dose limits chart upwards; especially in the food industry.

Industry Call to Action

Governments and scientists can be cunning. We live in a world where we know the course of everything but the solutions can only be provided if they benefit a few people.

That is why cigarettes will continue being legal, NGOs will continue helping the disadvantaged, healthcare will continue being expensive, and as we can all see with the COVID-19 situation, vaccines will be politicized.

This article can easily be downplayed as a sensational piece. I would think twice before assuming that because we all know what happened in Galileo’s case when he was thought to be sensational by claiming the earth is round and it goes around the sun.

Also Read: Drinking Water During Meals: Why you should Ignore the Common Myth

The truth can sometimes be unprofitable. That is why governments and corporates will deploy all the machinery to suppress some truths. Unethical science can also be used to fight the truth. If we keep ignoring what is hidden in plain sight, nothing will change any time soon.

This is why any particular attempts to increase radiation dose limits for the public should not be welcomed in the food industry. We are already seeing the effects of these radiations on our health.

We do not need any further scientific evidence to prove that what we eat and drink doesn’t contribute to the cancer crisis unfolding before our eyes.

Over to you food enthusiasts.