On this issue, one point never seems to come up for mention.  I learnt it in the 1970s from the (then) national publicity officer for NMAA, here in Australia. At the time radioactivity was being detected in breastmilk on the Atherton Tableland (north Queensland) after the French nuclear tests in the Pacific.
    Why is breastmilk tested?  Well, think what the alternative would be, if levels of chemicals in *body fat* are to be ascertained.  How much simpler to take some samples of breastmilk - than to take a biopsy from fatty tissue!  Much less intrusive!  This rationale doesn't get a mention, and so the community starts wondering if breastmilk is a bit "sus" (suspicious) because it is breastmilk that is always being tested for pollutants, and level are then quoted.
    Over the years, the statements on the bottoms of reports - that breastmilk's advantages far outweigh any potential disadvantages from the pollutants - have frequently been left off when newspapers cut for space.  Also, how many readers finish a newspaper report to the very end, anyway?  So, the scare bit gets through to the public, and the bit at the end doesn't register.
    Regards,
           Virginia
           Virginia Thorley   [log in to unmask]
  

             ***********************************************
The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(TM)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html