Jeffrey P. Bratberg, a clinical associate professor of pharmacy and a member of the Rhode Island Disaster Medical Assistance Team, discusses the public health issues arising from the earthquake and tsunami in Japan.
Bratberg, who served two tours in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina in 2005, is billed as an expert in responding to bioterrorism, pandemics and natural disasters.
He described the events in Japan as “total infrastructure devastation,” with the radiation release compounding the problems. “Officials are telling people to stay in their homes to reduce exposure to radiation from the failed nuclear power plants,” he said, “but where do you go if your house is gone because of the tsunami?”
Providence Business News asked Bratberg to share his insights into the ongoing problems, exacerbated by the continued release of highly radioactive materials by the crippled nuclear power plants, and what, if any, effects might there be here in Rhode Island as a result.
PBN: Low levels of radioactive iodine were recently detected in rainwater by the Mass. Department of Public Health. Have any similar measurements been made here in Rhode Island that have detected radioactivity? What kinds of future radioactivity might residents of New England see in rainwater or other precipitation?
BRATBERG: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency uses both fixed and mobile radiation monitors for their surveillance system, RadNet. The RadNet monitor in Providence has not detected any significant spikes in radiation.
Since the situation in Japan remains unstable at the nuclear reactors, three of which appear to have experienced at least partial meltdowns, there may be radiation emitted into the environment for weeks. Despite this, the public health threat to New England residents is zero, due to the extreme distance from Japan, dilutional effects of ocean and air currents, and time. Radioactive particles decay over time, and even if they are detected here, their radioactivity will continue to decline significantly.
Rhode Island's Market Has Changed. Developers, Builders, Investors and Sellers Must Change With It.
By Emilio DiSpirito IV License Partner | Engel & Völkers Oceanside Leader | The DiSpirito…
Learn More
PBN: In addition to radioactive iodine, some of the other radioactive elements released by the nuclear plant accident are cesium-137, strontium and even plutonium from the MOX fuel used in one of the nuclear reactors. Isn’t the problem with radiation not immediate, but long-term? Do the radioactive elements which fall to the earth and the ocean bioaccumulate, so that cows which eat grass laden with say, cesium, pass that radioactivity on in the cow’s milk?
BRATBERG: Although these other elements have longer half-lives than radioactive iodine, or take longer for their radioactivity to diminish by half (for radioactive iodine, it’s around nine days), the public health threat from radioactivity is similar to the threat from other toxins: Concentration is key.
The soil around the nuclear plant may be contaminated and emit radioactivity much longer, because the concentration of the elements is much higher there. If a tiny amount of cesium-137 landed on grass that a cow ate, it’s possible that this will get into the cow’s milk, just as when larger fish eat smaller fish, any toxins, such as mercury, will accumulate in the larger fish that humans may catch and eat. Since the amount of radioactive particles still remains so dilute and far below any amounts considered harmful to our health here in New England, this threat is almost nonexistent.
PBN: According to The New York Times, “highly contaminated water is escaping a damaged reactor at the crippled nuclear power in Japan and could soon leak into the ocean.” How does that change the complexion and complexity of the fallout?
BRATBERG: It’s almost incomprehensible to think of how much water is in the Pacific Ocean, and also difficult to think about the relatively small amount of potential radioactive contamination in relation to the dilutional effects of Earth’s largest body of water. Importantly, Japanese officials are monitoring fishing activities nearest to the nuclear plant, which are thankfully far away from the plant in normal circumstances.
PBN: From a pharmacology perspective, what type of safety measures should be in place here regarding nuclear accidents and radioactive contamination? Is there anything that Rhode Island residents should currently be worried about?
BRATBERG: FEMA’s Ready.gov has a simple, yet effective, three-step process that works in any potential emergency to reduce fear: Get a kit, make a plan, be informed. The nearest nuclear plant to Rhode Island is 40 miles away in Plymouth, Mass., far enough away that any resident does not need potassium iodide, or KI, in their emergency kit. KI is only used to prevent problems from acute, concentrated radioactive iodine exposure, and must be taken very close to when the exposure takes place.
In general, protection from most forms of radiation is best achieved through time, distance and shielding. Residents already have a distance and time for the Japan accident and even have this for the nearest plant. The best way to avoid public health problems is through being informed.
PBN: What kind of coordination currently exists in Rhode Island among academic researchers at URI and Brown and other institutions and agencies, including the R.I. Department of Health?
BRATBERG: In my experiences with the H1N1 pandemic influenza response, I think that our state health department works very closely through a variety of communication channels with researchers, clinicians, and other public health experts at URI, Brown, and other higher learning institutions in Rhode Island. The Center for Emergency Preparedness and Response at Health has their finger on the pulse of any potential and/or actual health threat, working with other experts across the state to collect, analyze, and disseminate timely and accurate information to their stakeholders.
