Cesium measured in Doctors Data standard metals tests
Several months ago I did a urine challenge with Doctor's Data using EDTA and DMSA. I've done this for many years, to guage mercury, lead and other toxic metals. They've added Cesium and it showed up in my urine in the mid range of their output table but I'm not sure how to interpret that exactly. I guess I'm glad it's not off the charts. I thought I'd post this since a mom from down under asked about BRAWN getting some testing done on themselves. Apparently prior to Fuku patients were not seeing Cesium show up like this. I've largely avoided dairy from California but eat a ton of local eggs and leafy greens.
133Cs correlates with 137Cs concentrations
133Cs correlates with 137Cs concentrations.
Uranium (235U) fission produces three cesium isotopes that persist in the environment: 6.09% stable 133Cs, 6.15% radioactive 137Cs, and <6.33% radioactive 135Cs. Therefore, urinary 133Cs levels could potentially represent approximately one third of actual cesium concentrations due to unmeasured 137Cs and 135Cs.
Fission yield isotopes xenon133, iodine133 and tellurium133 and barium133 (from radioactive concrete) all decay to stable cesium133.
Radiocesium uptake in plants increases at the same rate as stable 133Cs.
If a trace element urinalysis reports elevated 133Cs, then the presence of 137Cs needs to be ruled out. It is extremely unlikely that a physician has ever tested a patient for urinary levels of 137Cs.
We have waited seventy years for the experts to translate their knowledge into clinical practice. Stop wasting time debating and disavowing the presence and effects of low dose nuclear fallout in the environment and food chain. Start teaching the medical profession how to identify the presence of long lived radioisotopes in their patients.
================
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesium-133#Caesium-133
Caesium-133
Caesium-133 is the only naturally occurring and only stable isotope of caesium. It is also produced by nuclear fission in nuclear reactors. One specific quantum transition in the Caesium-133 atom is used to define the second, a unit of time.
==================
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fission_product_yield
=================
133Te:….54 min half life decays to 133I, then to 133Xe then to 133Cs
133Te:….12 min half life decays to 133I
133I:……20.8 hr half life decays to 133Xe
133Xe:…..5.2 day half life decays to 133Cs
133Ba….10.5 yr half life decays to 133Cs (from concrete)
=================
http://www.iemss.org/sites/iemss2012//proceedings/B2_0220_Savelyeva_Panc...
2012 International Congress on Environmental Modelling and Software
Managing Resources of a Limited Planet, Sixth Biennial Meeting, Leipzig, Germany
Comparison of the Chernobyl and Fukushima Nuclear Power Plants Accidents and their Consequences
Elena Savelyeva, Sergey Panchenko
Nuclear Safety Institute RAS, Moscow, Russia
Table 1. Releases to the environment of the radioactive substances due to Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear power plants accidents and their percent from the one stored in the reactors
Chernobyl [UNSCLEAR 2000….133Xe…………6500pBq
Fukushima [IRSN 2011]……….. 133Xe……….12600pBq
=======================
http://hss.energy.gov/HealthSafety/ohp/nonsecure/200214.pdf
Figures 1-5A & 5B. The correlation between concentrations of 137Cs and 133Cs in A) pearl millet and B) tomato.
Stone, E. L., and W. L. Robison. "Effect of Potassium on Uptake of 137 Cs in Food Crops Grown on Coral Soils: Annual Crops at Bikini Atoll." (2002).
Abstract
...Minute amounts of the long-lived isotopes, plutonium-239+240 ({sup 239+240}Pu) and americium-241 ({sup 241}Am), were present in soil, but were found to be inconsequential in the food chain of humans and land animals. Rather, extensive studies demonstrated that the major concern for human health was {sup 137}Cs in the terrestrial food chain (Robison et al., 1983; Robison et al., 1997). The following papers document results from several studies between 1986 and 1997 aimed at minimizing the {sup 137}Cs content of annual food crops. The existing literature on radiocesium in soils and plant uptake is largely a consequence of two events: the worldwide fallout of 1952-58, and the fallout from Chernobyl. The resulting studies have, for the most part, dealt either with soils containing some amount of silicate clays and often with appreciable K, or with the short-term development of plants in nutrient cultures.
===============
http://www.irpa.net/irpa10/cdrom/00497.pdf
Relationship between Radiocesium and Stable Cesium in Plants and Mushrooms Collected from Forest Ecosystems with Different Contamination Levels
=========
http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/lanl/00416674.pdf
LOS ALAMOS SCIENCE
GOOD NEWS ABOUT IODINE RELEASES
H. J. Kouts of Brookhaven National Laboratory has independently developed a similar hypothesis about the behavior of cesium and iodine
Information obtained during the accident at the Three Mile Island Unit 2 reactor indicates that, in the case of iodine, these assumptions should be regarded, not as a conservatism, but as an error. Measurements of both xenon-133 and iodine-131 showed that, although the core inventories of both isotopes were roughly comparable (154 million curies of xenon-133 and 64 million curies of iodine-131), the quantity of iodine that escaped to the atmosphere (13 to 18 curies) was less than that of xenon (2,4 to 13 million curies) by a factor of 105 to 106.
Doctor's Data and Genova
Doctor's Data and Genova Diagnostics Labs both use "inductively coupled plasma mass spectroscopy" to identify stable isotopes in a Trace Element Urinalysis. Stable cesium133 is reported in the test results by these labs. This is typical of competing labs. Stable Barium137 is reported by Genova Diagnostics and stable Barium138 is reported by Doctor's Data.
Stable cesium133 is a decay product of radioactive iodine133 and xenon133 from nuclear fallout. There is a relative high percentage of these elements in nuclear fallout from explosions due to their atomic weight. Stable cesium133 is also a decay product of barium133 from exploding radioactive concrete and is considered an important accumulating contaminant in the nuclear industry.
Stable cesium133 is also used as an environmental marker for radioactive cesium137 in soils, deer antler, water, and plants. Unfortunately, this known fact has not been applied to humans. As cesium137 increases in the environment, so does cesium133.
Additionally, cesium137 decays to barium137 through gamma ray emission. If you also have elevated barium137 then exposure to nuclear fallout 30 years ago needs to be ruled out. Charts for radioactive fallout in each U.S. County are available on the CDC website. Search “radiation: feasibility studies”
Therefore, elevated stable cesium133 in a Trace Element Urinalysis is a marker for nuclear fallout from exploding uranium or plutonium and corresponding components. Cesium134 is a byproduct of nuclear energy and that is a different matter.
In the past, these two labs would disavow any connection between their reported stable cesium133 and radioactive cesium137. This interpretation is incorrect. Most probably the incorrect information was passed on to these labs from a higher authority as both are CLIA (government) approved labs. As far as I can tell, this incorrect standardized statement was recently removed from the doctor/patient report by both labs. At least, I hope so. A few years ago I submitted a formal complaint to both labs on this matter. I would also like to see a correct declarative statement in the lab reports similar to my post here so that doctors and patients would be correctly educated.
Competing labs may provide cesium133 in a urinalysis but this trace element is not provided in a comprehensive test. Your physicians would need to place a special order. Therefore, 99.99% of the population has not been tested for cesium because extremely few doctors understand the importance of ordering this specific test. There is something wrong with this picture. Cesium133 reported in a Comprehensive Trace Element Urinalysis was not available until 2007 (Genova) and 2009 (Doctor’s Data). We own them our gratitude for updating theirs labs to provide this valuable service.
The best possible option for a patient to correctly identify trace elements is to obtain two tests. The first urinalysis should be performed without any challenge, i.e., do not add any EDTA, DMSA, etc. This will identify trace elements that are within the normal ranges that have been identified in corresponding peer reviewed studies and will stand up to strict scrutiny. With the second test, add the challenge substance. If the results of the second test report higher numbers, it may suggest the inability to detoxify without assistance from therapeutic agents or the need for improvement in lifestyle and diet.
Kind regards
Cesium-133 is just cesium in
Cesium-133 is just cesium in its natural form, like naturally occurring Oxygen is mainly Oxygen-16. Do you even know what the word "isotope" means?
Post your chart!
Post your chart!
Heavy Metals Test
This is a little off topic but in searching the internet I found that lawsuits have been filed against Doctor's Data for fraud. I find such charges suspect because this lab is used mainly by MD's who practice alternative medicine and therefore under attack generally.
Many years ago my non-HMO doctor had me tested for heavy metals toxicity by Doctor's Data because I had all the symptoms of mercury poisoning. The test came back positive, in the highest range, for mercury poisoning. The test in my case was absolutely not fraudulent since it was taken only to confirm a diagnosis. I was treated for mercury poisoning and my symptoms disappeared. My HMO doctor at the time snorted when I told him of my test by Doctor's Data, saying that they (establishment MD's) did not use it. If indicated I will use Doctor's Data again.
How do you get a Doctors Data
How do you get a Doctors Data test done? Do you buy a kit? Or do you send your urine to the lab?
Thanks! If it is easy, I want to have my children tested (although I am scared to know the result.)
Doctors Data will not work
Doctors Data will not work with individuals, you would have to have your MD prescribe the test. I would not recommend this test though as a screen for radioactive isotopes, because this is a heavy metals screen, not a radioactivity screen. The reported cesium level would be for any/all cesium isotopes detected. Therefore, the cesium detected could very well be the stable cesium isotope, Cs133. If you want to check your children's urine, I would recommend that you order an analysis for radioactive materials in urine from a laboratory certified in radiobioassay and radiochemical analysis, such as TestAmerica or The Gel Group. I have not worked with either, but they both offer this service and I believe they will both work directly with individuals.
I am not the OP, but the responder to this thread, and as I said in a prior post, my husband & I both had Doctor's Data heavy metals screenings ordered by our MD in the second-half of last year, as part of a general health screen. Both of our results indicated cesium detection in the lower midrange. We were not unduly alarmed though, because we understood this detection would include the stable (non-radioactive) Cs133.
A few months back I corresponded re: this issue (cesium detections in urine) with the independent nuclear consultancy firm, Isotopics. Below is an excerpt of their reply (credit to Joyce Sloof and Joost Woittiez):
"About cesium
Cesium is the most alkaline of the alkali metals. Its position in the Periodic Table is directly below potassium. It is not a heavy metal. Cesium does not have the chemical toxic characteristics of heavy metals; it behaves like potassium in the biosphere. Naturally occurring cesium is exclusively Cs-133, a stable (non-radioactive) isotope. Cs-134 is an activation product from nuclear reactors. Cs-137 is an U-235 fission product. Both artificial radioactive isotopes are present in the environment due to nuclear accidents. Cs-134 and Cs-137 are toxic for humans when they have entered the body because of their radioactivity (radiotoxicity), not because of their mass or chemical characteristics (chemical toxicity). The daily intake of Cs (=Cs-133) with food and water is 20-50 microgram. It is the task of the kidney to balance the amount of sodium and potassium (K) in the human body by excreting varying, but carefully controlled amounts into the urine; this is called homeostasis. The kidney does not know how to distinguish between K and Cs. It is therefore perfectly natural to lose Cs with K in urine. Normal human urinary excretion rates of cesium vary between 8 and 20 micrograms per day. The idea that Fukushima Cs-137 or Cs-134 would be a cause of increased urinary cesium excretion is absolutely totally wrong (my note - referring to my southern California exposure levels based upon my soils contamination levels, which Isotopics also reviewed). When only 1% of the minimal daily intake (200 ng) would be radioactive cesium, it would correspond to 0.6 million Bq of Cs-137 or 9.6 million Bq of Cs-134. Such a Fukushima scenario is out of the question for US citizens. Their possible maximal intake is more in the order of a few dozen Bq or 10(-4) to 10(-3) ng per day. Such levels are 1-10 million times lower than the normal daily cesium (Cs-133) intake and will not influence the urinary excretion at all. An accurate analysis of cesium (Cs-133) in human clinical specimen (blood, serum, urine) can only be achieved by instrumental neutron activation analysis and inductively coupled plasma sector field mass spectrometry. All other techniques lack the sensitivity and/or the accuracy to produce reliable results. The mass of Cs-137 and Cs-134 in human clinical specimen cannot be determined by these techniques; their radioactivity however could be determined in urine by germanium gamma-ray spectrometry and in the entire body by whole body counting. As the maximal post-Fukushima activity of Cs-134+Cs-137 in urine for US citizens will be in the order of 1 mBq per milliliter, a chemical separation procedure before spectrometry will be necessary. The activity of both radionuclides cannot be determined in blood."
I want to note that this discussion was about exposures relative to my area's terrestrial contamination from fall-out, not addressing any significant additional exposure from other avenues, say, contaminated seafood.
MM
Alpha Anchovies on Cesium Salad...
Thanks for your info. If the doctor (below) said they were not detecting any cesium levels in Doctors Data pre-Fuku, doesn't that mean that a measurable amount of cesium has since been added to a patient's diet? Either someone has been sprinkling cesium chloride on his food, or (radio)cesium has been ingested via food, water or air - true?
I don't know, maybe. Seems
I don't know, maybe. Seems unlikely that there were no cesium detections pre-Fuku, since the cesiums detected in this specific heavy metals test include stable cesiums which you would expect to be excreted in urine. However, I'm no doctor. I'm no scientist either, and I have not personally reviewed multiple Doctors Data reports pre- and post-Fukushima. The way to definitely find out would be to have a urine screen for radioisotopes, not for heavy metals.
I spoke with GEL Laboratory's Director of Radio-Biological Services this morning, and they do work with individuals and will perform the gamma (or other) screens to identify internal radiation contamination via urine sampling. Recommendation is to have the gamma screen and look specifically for the Cs134 marker. If this is elevated, then perhaps have additional Pu, U and maybe Sr90 assays. The reason you'd check for the Cs134 first is to confirm that what you're finding is attributable to Fukushima and not some earlier/other event/radiological exposure. Cost is approximately $120, value is priceless. I would suggest that concerned individuals take advantage of this additional way to gather data and to please share the results.
If my family decides to have the tests done, we will be sure to share the resulting data, as we have shared the prior data that we've obtained pertaining to Fuku-attributed contamination.
Knowledge is power.
MM
Thanks
MM,
I'm the OP and really appreciate what you've laid out re the whole issue of Cs137 detection and how it can properly be assayed. I'm going to contact GEL myself and investigate testing for myself and my 3 YO daughter. My main question will be how well they can interpret the results (in terms of what's normal or what constitutes increased cancer risk etc.) I have not been doing too much on the detox front mostly just avoiding local dairy, eggs and red meat. (But Modifilan and zeolite supposedly work well and I certainly could do those.) I will post what I learn from GEL.
And a point of clarification: my doctor mentioned in passing that Doctors Data had not been seeing notable levels of Cesium pre-Fuku, but he is not an expert on the issue and I did not contact Doctors Data myself to verify his understanding. The only fact I can confirm is that Doctors Data did not previously report on Cesium levels but apparently the urine results may be effectively meaningless.
CF
MM, I'm the OP and really
MM,
I'm the OP and really appreciate what you've laid out re the whole issue of Cs137 detection and how it can properly be assayed. I'm going to contact GEL myself and investigate testing for myself and my 3 YO daughter. My main question will be how well they can interpret the results (in terms of what's normal or what constitutes increased cancer risk etc.) I have not been doing too much on the detox front mostly just avoiding local dairy, eggs and red meat. (But Modifilan and zeolite supposedly work well and I certainly could do those.) I will post what I learn from GEL.
And a point of clarification: my doctor mentioned in passing that Doctors Data had not been seeing notable levels of Cesium pre-Fuku, but he is not an expert on the issue and I did not contact Doctors Data myself to verify his understanding. The only fact I can confirm is that Doctors Data did not previously report on Cesium levels but apparently the urine results may be effectively meaningless.
CF
That answers a lot of my questions. Thanks!
I'm the (Dad) living down under (South Pacific) who requested the BRAWM byproduct tests yesterday. Your test results confirm to a large extent that bio-accumulation of Cesium is indeed taking place in humans right now.
I'd still like to see what BRAWM has to say about this.
Thanks for posting.
Caesar Salad or Caesium Salad...
I was the one who suggested trying a flame test on the potassium chloride supplement in this possibly related thread:
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/forum/218/potassium-chloride-getting-lots-mo...
If Fuku has introduced a huge volume of caesium into the environment, and carbon-based life forms can't distinguish it from life-essential potassium, we (uhh, the survivors) had better get used to it. Oh, well - Paul Ehrlich thinks there are way too many humans already...
NoGlow
Same here.
My husband and I both had the same metals screening (pre and post-provocative) with Doctors Data in July and September of 2011 with the same results that you report- cesium detected in the midrange. Unfortunately, Doctors Data does not identify the specific isotope, so no way to determine whether it was stable or ionizing cesium.
When I called Doctors Data to ask about the results and obtaining a specific isotope analysis, they were not accommodating. Did they tell you that pre-March, 2011 they were not seeing the cesium detections?
We live in southern California and hard to say where our exposure would have come from since we were consuming almost exclusively pre-Fukushima produced foods at that time. No dairy. No eggs. RO plus carbon filtered water - exclusively.
Stable cesium? Radioactive cesium internalized via inhalation and very minor levels of ingestion?
Thanks for sharing your
Thanks for sharing your experience. My doctor told me that Doctors Data had not been detecting Cesium pre-Fukushima. Unfortunately as I said I don't really have a way to contextualize the level of Cesium detected in my test. I'm in Berkeley and see a pretty knowledgeable doc in Marin. If you want to continue to post any info you learn I'll do the same..
How close are you to the
How close are you to the nuclear hell-hole known as San Onofre?
About 95 miles.
About 95 miles.