Milk update 5/23
5/23 (9:40pm): Milk samples with Best By dates of 5/26 and 5/31 were added to our Milk results. We have our fifth non-detection of I-131 in milk, and Cs-134 and Cs-137 both continue to decline.
Mark [BRAWM Team Member]
Search
5/23 (9:40pm): Milk samples with Best By dates of 5/26 and 5/31 were added to our Milk results. We have our fifth non-detection of I-131 in milk, and Cs-134 and Cs-137 both continue to decline.
Mark [BRAWM Team Member]
Radiation is Cumulative
I don't understand all these comparisons: We're already being irradiated can a little more be harmful? YES! The reason is that, unlike 'a fart in a sewerage plant', the health effects of radiation exposure are CUMULATIVE. Each additional amount, no matter how small increases the mortality risk assessment for cancer. The morbidity risk assessment is even higher. Always getting sick, can't seem to get well, immune stresses? The effects of low dose, (especially long term) on health are just beginning to be understood. The fart where it is already stinking won't be noticed. The Cumulative effect of additional doses will have a definitive effect, but you won't be able to tell where it came from 10 - 15 years down the road when the effects come to fruition. Also, let's not underestimate the cumulative effects on the future unborn generations due to genomic alterations.
Avoid more exposure. If you've already been getting exposure it is even more important that you avoid additional exposure. It's Cumulative! Avoid foods suspected to be contaminated. If you're in an area where some of the larger contamination levels have been found, consider Apple Pectin formulas. Especially for your children, who are the most heavily impacted. It has been shown effective in removing heavy metals and clearing out radionuclides in people hardest hit from Chernobyl.
"The Swiss Medical Weekly published a report in 2004 confirming that apple pectin was seen to reduce the 137Cs cesium uptake in Ukrainian children after the Chernobyl nuclear reactor disaster. A study led by V.B. Nesterenko at the Belrad Institute of Radiation Safety was performed to see if orally administered apple pectin was effective in binding 137Cs in the gut for food contaminated by radiation, or if eating "clean," non-contaminated food was enough. The study was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving children from contaminated villages near the disaster area.
"Radiation levels were measured at the beginning of the study and one month later. At the end of the trial, 137Cs cesium levels in children who were given apple pectin were reduced by 62%. Children who had received "clean" food and a placebo had reduced radiation levels by only 13.9%. The results were determined to be statistically significant." Links regarding Pectin efficacy can be found here: http://www.naturalnews.com/031969_apple_pectin_radiation.html#ixzz1Ix1OL0ZH
More info can be found here:
http://www.strahlentelex.de/Yablokov%20Chernobyl%20book.pdf
Don't buy into the idea that a little more won't hurt. It will; the health effects of exposure to ionizing radiation are cumulative.
I'm guessing you live in a lean to?
And NEVER sit on a granite rock admiring a mountain view. Because, if you
live in an enclosed house full of radon or sit on a granite rock, you have
broken your rule to "Avoid more exposure".
David...since your
David...since your dispensing medical advice here, would you care to provide some credentials?
Yeah, I'm real impressed by
Yeah, I'm real impressed by the protective work done by the people with credientials during this incident so far.
Give and take advice with a big grain of iodized salt. Beats radio silence any day.
Yep, I agree! And, I sure as
Yep, I agree!
And, I sure as heck am learning a lot.
Okay here is my problem with
Okay here is my problem with your advice:
I just read a post on ENENEWS from a mom asking if radiation exposure could cause tremors and shaking in a newborn...she explained that she had been trying the apple pectin but wasn't sure if it was helping because it was possible that radiation had gotten caught in the AC. In my opinion it was probably the detox she was putting her newborn through that was causing the tremors and not the radiation in her AC. Another poster popped in to suggest she try Zeolite cookies and clay detox.
What the hell is wrong with these people? Her infant could not possibly be suffering from radiation poisoning and is suffering tremors PROBABLY caused by the detox but anon posters are STILL spewing medical advice at a woman that obviously was being irrational and putting her child at risk. Argh. Whatever. I'm done posting on these forum...too MUCH IRRESPONSIBLE MADNESS. So long and thanks for all the fish and godspeed to you friends.
If all the information that
If all the information that a stupid person can or has done damage with was taken away from us, what would be left?
Question about apple pectin
Hi David,
You mentioned "apple pectin formula" in your post. Is there a specific brand that you recommend? I just purchased Pomona's Universal Pectin at our local Whole Foods Market (www.pomonapectin). I don't know how much to give to my kids, but I was planning to add it to their meals. Any info on brand, amount to feed children, etc. would be much appreciated. Thank you.
Apple Pectin Formula
I do not make medical or brand recommendations, nor am I in a position to evaluate Pomona's pectin, however the information on pages 303-307 found in the document at the following link may be some help to you: http://www.strahlentelex.de/Yablokov%20Chernobyl%20book.pdf
It discusses Vitapect and Zosterin-Ultra which were used successfully to reduce Cesium-137 contamination in children exposed to the results of the Chernobyl catastrophe. (The publication also refers to Medetopect, (France); Yablopect,(Ukraine) to accelerate the excretion of Cs-137.)
These links may also be helpful:
http://www.zosterin.spb.ru/en/product/3.html
http://www.zosterin.spb.ru/en/product/4.html
http://www.belrad-institute.org/UK/doku.php?id=pectine_preparation
Please note - the producer states that Vitapect-2 is not recommended for children under 3.
Disclaimer: This is not an endorsement of any medical procedure, particular brand or dosage administration. Patients are encouraged to discuss this and all medications with their family physician.
Thank you Mark! I agree
Thank you Mark! I agree with Rick. This is exactly the sort of comparison I needed to wrap my head around this and to clear up any uncertainty regarding your assurances (I'm sorry I every doubted your word...there are alot of naysayers on the web). I have to say this whole thing has been life altering for me and I'm ashamed of it...hell...my girlfriend and I actually had an argument over how much milk was healthy in one day and that was when it occured to me I was being irrational and actually putting my relationship at risk. I've let alot of online fear-mongering alter my behaviour and mentality and it's good to feel a little less like a witness to armageddon. I'll keep watching the information you've posted but from here on out I'm going to let life get back to normal. Thank you for putting up with my phobias. - DanR
To DanR
Dan -- Please call me, this evening if possible (Wednesday's my anniversary; 15 years!) -- if you can text me w/ your phone number a few minutes before your call, since I generally don't accept "live" calls from unknown numbers. Call as late as you like, (972) 746-8575. I feel like we're brothers in arms, aftwr all this, and can't wait to finally "meet" you. God bless!
Rick Cromack.
Allen, Texas
rebuttal
A concise and understandable comparison by Banstra, but I think there is one fatal error with it and Pawn has pointed it out. For a nuclear physicists a comparison of one radiation to another source is relative, and this is valid within their domain of official training. But what the poster in rebuttal has pointed out, potassium is a natural element and is found in the body, while cesium is not, and therefore is alien and dangerous. True they both radiate energy--but then everything also does as per quantum thought. Let's use everyday observations for comparison: Both salt and asbestos are naturally occurring minerals, but one helps the body, while the other destroys it; this is where the comparison diverges.
This reminds me of a question...
...I askd several weeks back about cesium in the body: Apart from its threat to the body and its cells owing to its radiological properties and energetic activity, what is known about cesium's TOXICITY? (Potentially a question more for a chemist, I suppose, or a physician...)
Rick Cromack.
Allen, Texas
Hi Rick, I know this is much
Hi Rick,
I know this is much more than cesium toxicity. But, here's an interesting and comprehensive, overall approach to radiation poisoning, effects, and what to do. May be a handy source if ever the need comes up. I hope we all forget we even have it. I personally am very conservative with all this stuff, and take it with a grain of salt. No pun intended. A good, experienced naturalpathic doctor could probably fine tune for you. (P.S.: You may already have read this, as I think I may have found this source on BRAWM's forum...):
"HOW TO HELP SUPPORT THE BODY’S HEALING AFTER INTENSE RADIOACTIVE OR RADIATION EXPOSURE: The Medical, Naturopathic, Nutritional, Herbal, Commonsense External and Internal Approaches"
http://www.meditationexpert.com/RadiationDetoxDraft.pdf
Cesium is kinda scary compared to potassium
There is a lot fo research out there but I did find this and a study of cesium and pottassium from UC in 1962!
I would just say that while we have adapted to potasium 40 we have NOT evolved a means of dealing with the effects of cesium 137 and since cesium appears to have a damaging effect on cells ALREADY due to its chemical toxic qualities (whereas Potassium is an ESSENTIAL element for survival) it is NOT justified, imho, to compare the effects to each other. These studies, i think, back up my position:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/v838l1222m65r114/
This is interesting too:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/m26876kk2h854u04/
The continued release of caesium radioisotopes into the environment has led to a resurgence of interest in microbe-Cs interactions. Caesium exists almost exclusively as the monovalent cation Cs+ in the natural environment. Although Cs+ is a weak Lewis acid that exhibits a low tendency to form complexes with ligands, its chemical similarity to the biologically essential alkali cation K+ facilitates high levels of metabolism-dependent intracellular accumulation. Microbial Cs+ (K+) uptake is generally mediated by monovalent cation transport systems located on the plasma membrane. These differe widely in specificity for alkali cations and consequently microorganisms display large differences in their ability to accumulate Cs+; Cs+ appears to have an equal or greater affinity than K+ for transport in certain microorganisms. Microbial Cs+ accumulation is markedly influenced by the presence of external cations, e.g. K+, Na+, NH4 + and H+, and is generally accompanied by an approximate stoichiometric exchange for intracellular K+. However, stimulation of growth of K+-starved microbial cultures by Cs+ is limited and its has been proposed that it is not the presence of Cs+ in cells that is growth inhibitory but rather the resulting loss of K+. Increased microbial tolerance to Cs+ may result from sequestration of Cs+ in vacuoles or changes in the activity and/or specificity of transport systems mediating Cs+ uptake. The precise intracellular target(s) for Cs+-induced toxicity has yet to be clearly defined, although certain internal structures, e.g. ribosomes, become unstable in the presence of Cs+ and Cs+ is known to substitute poorly for K+ in the activation of many K+-requiring enzymes.
A cell getting hit with
A cell getting hit with radiation doesn't care whether it comes from K-40 or Ce-137. So the "foreign" to the body issue is really chemical in nature (and I can't say I know a thing about Cesium in the body from a chemical aspect)and outside the context of the conversation.
I agree. It looks like I
I agree. It looks like I made this point right after BC, if anyone wants to read it too:
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/4226#comment-8591
Mark [BRAWM Team Member]
Hi Mark...Thank you for all
Hi Mark...Thank you for all your info and clarifications, they are so appreciated.
I do have a question that you may be able to answer.
As stated above the cell does not care if whether it gets hit with radiation from a naturally occurring source, or unnaturally occurring isotope, however wouldn't the body's physiological method of eliminating that source of radiation have much to do with it's toxicity to the body? So, I guess what I am comparing it to is the already discussed comparison of how radioactive Potassium is dealt with in our bodies (evolutionary adaptation), as compared with something our bodies cannot rid itself of (Cesium???) as easily. I don't understand fully HOW our bodies deal with Cesium, just that it is not something the human body has adapted and has mechanisms for dealing with. This may increase it's toxicity and radioactive effect on our cells...No?
You are absolutely right in
You are absolutely right in that our physiology plays an important role in our exposure to radiation. In general, anything you ingest stays in your body for a certain average length of time before it is excreted. This works for many things -- chemicals, pharmaceuticals, toxins. This length of time is the biological half-life. For Cesium, this length of time is approximately 100 days. This number summarizes all the physiology of how our bodies deal with cesium -- our bodies are not used to cesium, but nevertheless we will get rid of it eventually.
So when calculating dose from, say, Cs-137, this biological half-life is taken into account. It will radiate inside your body only for that timescale; it is eventually excreted.
On the other hand, K-40 is in equilibrium in your body, meaning that it essentially has an infinite biological half-life -- any K-40 lost to excretion will soon be replaced by potassium in the food you eat and milk you drink. So it is constantly irradiating your body from within, forever.
Does that clear some things up?
Mark [BRAWM Team Member]
Potassium comment not quite accurate
Wikipedia ironically has a very good discussion on the topic of radioactive potassium and the "BED":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose
What's not accurate?
Not sure what you're referring to in particular, please elaborate. Thanks!
Mark [BRAWM Team Member]
I have never been so
I have never been so comforted knowing my body is being irradiated...ha. Yes that makes things clearer and now the biological half life makes more sense. It brings up many more questions about how our bodies deal with Cesium, though.
Thanks for taking the time to explain.
Sorry! I meant hello
Sorry! I meant hello Bandstra : / , however the appreciation goes to all of BRAWN!
For the past hundred years
For the past hundred years the great technical engineering schools, the research laboratories, and the massive corporations have dominated the civilized earth. In alliance with governments, the media, the universities, and with the general approval of religion, they have been the main instruments for ruining our air, water, and soil, and severely damaging all our basic life systems, all under the illusion that this was good, natural progress.
What troubles me about rhe milk and air results is this:
First. BRAWM had suggested that by mid may they expected to see no detections (after initially saying they expected to see no detections after mid April)
Obviously the food chain results demonstrate that there is ongoing chronic eposure throughout the food chain BECAUSE Cesium 137 is dispersed throughout the atmosphere and deposited by rain and air on everything.
Good news is that studies show that taking potassium supplements will speed the removal of the cesium from the body BUT while it is there at these chronic low rates it has a biological half life generally of 70 days (which is for ONE dose so if we get continuous doses from milk, strawberries etc then we have chronic internal exposure).
NOW there is no debate that NO DOSE is safe from potential risk of harm. 1/2 to 1/4 a Becquerel per liter or kilogram means we are accumulating these radionuclides in our bodies where they are distributed fairly evenly until excreted an MAY affect fetuses and cause dna damage.
Not withstanding the assertions by BRAWM that these are equivalent to external doses like flying cross country, my concern is that the chemical activity of radiocesium in our organs will mutate dna and cells and cause potential cancers due to the Petkau effect.
I would add that while the amounts have been reduced a little (by 50-75%) of cesium 137, the damn radiocesium is PERSISTING and not dropping off to undetectable levels.
I need to vent. As Rick notes re: the lies and coverup of the THREE meltdowns now acknowledged in Japan, this entire matter is outrageous. Yet in the US we stil mimize it, marginalize the voices of protest, demean and denigrate those who say that the risks are serious, and generally continue wioth business as usual.
I am VERY grateful to BRAWM for doing these tests and keeping this forum available. But I am very troubled by the fact that the results, while better than a month ago, are not rasing red flags about th persistence of ongoing contamination and ongoing harm or risk of harm to all of us, especially fetuses and children.
I ALMOST bought milk yesterday for the first time but had to balk. I would LOVE some strawbery shortcake. And I know too that the meat, grain, corn, soy, beans, grapes, etc will ALL be accumulating cesium 137 from Fukushima for some time to come and next years crops will be potentially still at measurable levels.
Since NO level is without risk, when MILLIONS and tens of millions are exposed chronically (as is clear from the air and milk results) how many will ultimately become ill, get cancer and even die? No one knows. No one is really even looking very carefulkly at this and CERTAINLY very few voices are being raised and taken seriously enough to hold the industry globally accountable.
It is criminal.
Bill and also Rick, I feel
Bill and also Rick, I feel for you deeply. It is not in the perceived self-interest of multinational corporations, or the government and the media that serve them, that we stop and become aware of our anguish with the way things are. This de facto censorship or taboo is quite an accomplishment since none of us, in our hearts, is free of sorrow for the suffering of other beings. None of us is indifferent to the dangers that threaten our planet, or unburdened by fear for the generations to come. Yet it is not easy to give credence to this anguish in a culture that still enjoins us to "keep smiling" and "go shopping.
A couple comments
Hi Bill, I just wanted to make a couple comments here:
My estimate for non-detections by mid-May was only for air samples, and it was based on the data up to 5/6. You are right that we detected Cs-134 and Cs-137 in our latest sample (5/10-5/14), and we will not know for a few days whether either isotope is in the sample collected from 5/15-5/23. We are also taking longer and longer samples and so our limit is going down.
Also, I think it is important to keep in mind that the added radiation dose to our bodies is a tiny fraction of natural exposures. For example, while we measure around 0.2 Bq/L of Cs-137 in milk, we have also measured 49 Bq/L of Potassium-40 in milk, and this is naturally there.
K-40 is present everywhere -- in the soil, in concrete, in our foods, in our bodies. It emits much more energetic beta particles than does Cs-137 (endpoint of 1311 keV versus 514 keV), and much more energetic gamma-rays (1460 keV versus 662 keV). As a result, the dose conversion factor for ingestion of K-40 is three times that of Cs-137 -- it is actually much more dangerous to the body. So if we just look at milk, one's radiation dose from K-40 is this much higher than the dose from Cs-137:
(50 Bq/L) / (0.2 Bq/L) * 3 = 750 times
Now let's be a bit more honest and include the 70-day biological half-life of Cs-137, and the ~1 day that the K-40 from the milk would stay in your body before excretion. Potassium is already in equilibrium with your body, unlike Cesium, which is why it doesn't stay. So including the biological half-life of Cs-137, the more honest comparison between the two doses is that the dose for K-40 is:
(50 Bq/L) / (0.2 Bq/L) * 3 * (1 day / 70 days) = 11 times more than Cs-137
If we want to include the fact that milk with Cs-137 will only be drunk for a few months (let's say 3), then the ratio between one's lifetime exposure to K-40 and Cs-137 -- only from drinking milk -- is:
(50 Bq/L) / (0.2 Bq/L) * 3 * (1 day / 70 days) * (50 years) * (12 months/year) / (3 months) = 2,100 times higher
The problem with this analysis is that we're neglecting all the other ways that K-40 would irradiate your body. Using
wikipedia'sthe ICRP's figure of160140 grams of potassium in the human body, then there are about7,3004,300 decays of K-40 per second throughout one's body, for one's entire lifetime. If you ingest one liter of milk, then your body will only have 0.2 decays per second of Cs-137 inside of it, for about 70 days.So let's say someone drinks a liter of milk; the ratio of K-40 dose to Cs-137 dose over those 70 days is:
(7300 decays per second) / (0.2 decays per second) * 3 = 110,000(4300 decays per second) / (0.2 decays per second) * 3 = 64,500
Let's say we drink one liter of milk per day for three months. If we compare the constant internal dose from K-40 [ed: over one's lifetime] to the dose from drinking milk with Cs-137 for three months, we get this approximate ratio:
(7300 decays per second) / ( (0.2 decays per second per liter) * (90 liters)) ) * 3 * (50 years)/(70 days) = 320,000(4300 decays per second) / ( (0.2 decays per second per liter) * (90 liters)) ) * 3 * (50 years)/(70 days) = 187,000
Adding on the dose for K-40 from the potassium in other foods and external sources such as the soil, your total exposure to K-40 grows even more. And that's just for one source of natural radioactivity -- although K-40 is a biggie, there are many others.
So when we in BRAWM say that we aren't concerned about health impacts of the fallout, we really mean it. The health risks are truly minuscule here in the U.S. We are all exposed to so much more in natural background. We are not downplaying anything -- the risk is really that small.
Mark [BRAWM Team Member]
Calculation of K-40 activity
Just following up on this with some more details.
I found a reference for the quantity of potassium in a human. The ICRP 1975 "reference man" contains 140 grams of potassium (this can be found in many places on the internet, such as this indirect reference).
Given that quantity, we can calculate the number of decays per second (=Becquerels) of K-40 in the body of "reference man." The other information we need is the atomic weight of potassium (39.0983 grams/mol), the natural abundance of the K-40 isotope relative to the other isotopes of potassium (0.0117%), the half-life of K-40 (1.277 billion years), and Avogadro's constant (6.022*10^(23) atoms/mol):
(140 g) * (0.0117%) / (39.0983 g/mol) * (Avogadro's constant) / (1.277e9 years/ln(2))
= 4,342 counts per second (Becquerels)
You can do this calculation yourself in Wolfram alpha by clicking here:
(140 g)*(0.0117%)/(39.0983 g/mol)*(Avogadro's constant)/(1.277e9 years/ln(2)) in Becquerel
So it looks like I made a mistake somewhere earlier when I estimated 7,300 counts per second, but it was close. I am going to edit the previous post with this more accurate calculation.
Mark [BRAWM Team Member]
Thank you Mark for such a
Thank you Mark for such a thoughtful response. My concern is that human beings and other animals on this planet have had millenia to adapt to naturally occuring radiation and presumably our bodies are better equipped to handle certain isotopes that have been occuring naturally for millions of years. This isn't the case for those man made radioactive isotopes that we have had absolutely no time (in evolutionary terms) to adapt to. What is your view on this?
Uranium-235 and Uranium-238
Uranium-235 and Uranium-238 are naturally occurring isotopes also, it doesn't seem like we have developed immunity.
Hi Angela, I think that
Hi Angela, I think that argument is true when you're talking about chemistry, not radiation. Chemically speaking, our bodies are clearly adapted to handle certain elements -- C, N, O, H mostly, and smaller amounts of Fe, Mn, K, Na. When you introduce an atom like Cesium into the body, it messes up the chemical reactions that are taking place and causes harm. This is chemical toxicity.
One of the cornerstones of modern physics is that all photons (e.g., gamma-rays) are exactly like each other, and all electrons are exactly like each other -- the only difference is their energy. So once a gamma-ray or beta particle (electron) is ejected by a decayed nucleus -- whatever the nucleus -- it is indistinguishable from any other element apart from its energy. So the energy matters, not the nucleus. And I think it is very unlikely that our bodies would have adapted to handle to the intense 1311 keV endpoint beta particle spectrum of K-40 without also being able to handle trace amounts of the 514 keV endpoint beta particle spectrum of Cs-137. The electrons are indistinguishable, and in this case the Cs-137 electrons are even lower in energy.
Does this make sense?
Mark [BRAWM Team Member]
Mark - Interesting analysis.But don't chemical activites vary?
I mean, the gist of my issue as echoed by others here (and maybe this is the debate we really should be enlarging so I am grateful for your response which gave me some leads to follow) is that radioactive potassium (K40) behaves DIFFERENTLY in the body than radiocesium.
I found this very interesting article addressing this point while trying to figure out how to respond.
Now, I guess the real question I have now is ARE YOU SAYING THAT CESIUM 137 BEHAVES THE SAME AS POTASSIUM (k40) IN THE BODY?
Here's the article which kind of addresses this criticism by some of us and your analysis would probably help:
Bananas are radioactive—But they aren't a good way to explain radiation exposure
Maggie Koerth-Baker at 9:27 AM Friday, Aug 27, 2010
Just look at that radioactive banana. There's nothing special about it or where it was grown. All bananas are radioactive, because all bananas contain the radioactive isotope Potassium-40. In fact, a lot of things you might not suspect of being radioactive are, including Brazil nuts, and your own body. And this fact is sometimes used to downplay the impact of exposure to radiation via medical treatments or accidental intake.
A post by nexusheli on the Submitterator turned me on to the idea of the Banana Equivalent Dose—a way of putting radiation exposure into context by comparing intake from, say, local milk just after the near-disaster at Three Mile Island, to intake from a normal, workaday banana. Wikipedia explains the point of this exercise:
The banana equivalent dose is the radiation exposure received by eating a single banana. Radiation leaks from nuclear plants are often measured in extraordinarily small units (the picocurie, a millionth of a millionth of a curie, is typical). By comparing the exposure from these events to a banana equivalent dose, a more realistic assessment of the actual risk can sometimes be obtained.
This isn't just about pro-nuclear propaganda. "Picocurie" is one of those words that really doesn't mean anything to lay people. Confusing units of measurement, when combined with the word "nuclear" can, understandably, freak people out. And, depending on the situation, there isn't always cause for said freak out. Having a way of explaining what picocurie means, in the context of everyday, normal, safe exposures, really is a useful tool for putting radioactivity into a context the public can understand.
But, the Banana Equivalent Dose probably isn't the best way to do that.
The problem is that this system implies that all radioisotopes are created equal—That there's no difference between 520 picocuries of Potassium-40 and a similar intake of, say, radioactive iodine. And that simply isn't true. I contacted Geoff Meggitt—a retired health physicist, and former editor of the Journal of Radiological Protection—to find out more.
Meggitt worked for the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and its later commercial offshoots for 25 years. He says there's an enormous variation in the risks associated with swallowing the same amount of different radioactive materials—and even some difference between the same dose, of the same material, but in different chemical forms.
It all depends on two factors:
1)The physical characteristics of the radioactivity—i.e, What's its half-life? Is the radiation emitted alpha, beta or gamma?
2) The way the the radioactivity travels around and is taken up by the body—i.e., How much is absorbed by the blood stream? What tissues does this specific isotope tend to accumulate in?
The Potassium-40 in bananas is a particularly poor model isotope to use, Meggitt says, because the potassium content of our bodies seems to be under homeostatic control. When you eat a banana, your body's level of Potassium-40 doesn't increase. You just get rid of some excess Potassium-40. The net dose of a banana is zero.
And that's the difference between a useful educational tool and propaganda. (And I say this as somebody who is emphatically not against nuclear energy.) Bananas aren't really going to give anyone "a more realistic assessment of actual risk", they're just going to further distort the picture.
Geoff Meggitt has written a book about the history of radiation and protection. It's called Taming the Rays, and is available on Lulu.com.
You're right, Bill, and
You're right, Bill, and that's why we have never made any "banana equivalent dose" comparisons. However, I think Mark did a good job of accounting for the different way these two chemicals act in the body. This is why he said cesium has a 70 day half life, while potassium only a 1 day half life (this is, as the article mentioned, because we're always getting rid of some potassium). Mark showed that even with this very low uptake in the body, potassium still contributes a much higher dose.
Also, regardless of how long it stays in your body, the fact remains that K-40 is all around and inside you. Even though you're always losing excess K-40, you're also constantly ingesting it! If you're worried about "the Petkau effect", then it would apply to the potassium that's always inside you, as well. None of this requires us to eat unusually large amounts of bananas.
Tim [BRAWM Team Member]
Tim, seems like I read
Tim, seems like I read somewhere that the natural potassium in the foods we eat is way different than the radiated potassium from fallout. That radiated potassium is ionized and a killer; while natural food potassium isn't ionized and is healthy to the human body. And, that comparing the dangers of the one (ionized potassium) to the safety of the other (non-ionized potassium) is like comparing apples to arsenic....
What say you?
And, Tim, we all love you BRAWM guys. Thanks! I rally mean that.
No radioactive potassium in fallout
Thanks, angusmerlin. There shouldn't be any radioactive potassium in the fallout, since potassium is not one of the elements produced during nuclear fission. Also, there are no other radioactive isotopes of potassium besides K-40 that have a half-life longer than a day anyway.
Are you sure what you read was talking about potassium? Could you link to that source?
Mark [BRAWM Team Member]
Bananas? To be, or not to be ionized? That is the question.
I should have said that we should not compare getting the non-ionized potassium from bananas to being exposed to the ionized radiation of fallout. Thanks for calling me on that, Mark. I stand corrected. Boy, the learning curve of the BRAWM site is dizzying. My brain at BRAWM hurts... but, in a good way.
A couple of sources re: not comparing bananas, which are non-ionized, to radioactive fallout, which is ionized:
http://lieuxabandonnes.blogspot.com/2011/03/why-we-cant-compare-bananas-...
http://lieuxabandonnes.blogspot.com/2011/04/radiation-101-electromagneti...
That blog is wrong
Mark - I am not necessarily
Mark - I am not necessarily disputing anyting you say, but I think it's not really a great idea to rely on Wikipedia as if it were fact. Wikipedia is an open and insecure media where practically anyone can edit and update and post. There are a lot of factual errors on Wikipedia! It would be better to rely on verifiable research papers
Thanks for the caveat -- I
Thanks for the caveat -- I was actually relying on my own knowledge and experience, and using Wikipedia as a convenient, easily accessible source. In this case I know that the information is more or less correct. In general if I read Wikipedia I check the sources. But it is just really convenient, and a good -- but not perfect -- site at least for initial research.
What I was going for is that it doesn't take too much work (i.e., finding a well-informed Wikipedia article) to refute that information.
Mark [BRAWM Team Member]
Interesting debate
Yes, potassium is a radioactive element, identified by the chemical symbol K. Yet, this radioactive element is vital for our good health. It is an element that is essential for the body's growth and maintenance. Potassium is also necessary in order to maintain normal water transport between the cells and body fluids. It also plays an essential role in the response of nerves to stimulation and in the contraction of muscles.
Under normal circumstances it is by far the most abundant naturally occurring radioactive element within the human body. The average adult male contains about 140 g of K; the level varies with body weight and muscle mass. We ingest about 2.5 g per day of K from our food and excrete about the same amount.
http://rerowland.com/K40.html
Now as for cesium 137
When uranium-235 undergoes fission, the average of the fragment mass is about 118, but very few fragments near that average are found. It is much more probable to break up into unequal fragments, and the most probable fragment masses are around mass 95 and 137. Most of these fission fragments are highly unstable (radioactive), and some of them such as cesium-137 and strontium-90 are extremely dangerous when released to the environment.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/fisfrag.html
Mark- Very nice, thank
Mark-
Very nice, thank you.
Obviously, the received doses from different isotopes add up, yes? So if we have, say Ce-137 at .2Bq/L, Ce-134 at .2Bq/L, and I-131 at .3Bq/L , we have total activity of .7Bq/L, yes? And then there are the differences in energy levels to be considered as well. Do I have this right?
Also, there must be other isotopes that are found in conjunction with the Ce-134/137 and I-131. Can you comment any on the ratios we would expect for say the amount of Ce-137 versus Sr-90 (ie, if we find a given deposition of Ce-137 can we infer how much Sr-90 should be present?)And also, what other isotopes are liable to be found in this type of situation?
Another question - we have seen Ce deposition maps for Japan and some of them are very ugly. Is there even enough here to measure using the flyover techniques they used in Japan? IIRC, the lowest threshold they used over the was 150000 Bq/M2, I don't suspect levels at all close to that here...
Again, thank you. This service has keep me from going completely nuts.
BC
To Mark (of BRAWM)
Mark, my friend, I thank you, for the time, consideration, and obvious effort you put into that thoughtful, concise, and very very revealing explanation of the comparitive risks and considerations regarding cesium contamination, and also shedding light on your team's repeated assurances and justifying your comparisons with standard exposures and dosages found in our daily lives.
Not to speak for anyone else, but this is EXACTLY the sort of "remedial" education on the subject I've been sorely lacking, and desperately needing, to put your findings into context and ease my mind. So, again: THANK YOU.
Rick Cromack.
Allen, Texas
Thank you Rick, for this
Thank you Rick, for this comment and your many others. You and so many other folks are really helping us figure out how to best communicate our data, and I think we all are learning something.
Mark [BRAWM Team Member]
So
Bioaccumulation results in concentration in plants, mushrooms and animals and can increase a thousand-fold as compared with concentrations in soil and water. The factors of accumulation and transition vary considerably by season even for the same species, making it difficult to discern dangerous levels of radionuclides in plants and animals that appear to be safe to eat. Unfortunately one cannot see, smell or taste radioactive isotopes and, in general, they cannot be cleaned up.
http://sfbayview.com/2011/chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-25-y...
really to early to make final judgments I believe.
While u claim risks are small I think to 307,006,550 people(- Jul 2009
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division)I hope u are right but I prefer my milk with no cesium .any how how about more grass tests since this is the only test that matters in terms of food chain contamination.also
At the NRC’s request, the National Academy of Sciences is currently engaged in a state-of-the-art update to the earlier study. The new study will examine cancer rates in communities around operating and decommissioned nuclear power plants, as well as nuclear fuel cycle facilities./ i am interested to see results from this study.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/bio-effects-ra...
Ok. I'm impressed
This is the type of comparison everyone needs. People have a difficult
time relating cross country flights with ingested/inhaled radiation.
But, this is the TRUE apples to apples comparison that everyone needed
to put things in perspective.
Mark, This is the one of
Mark,
This is the one of the clearest comparisons I've seen of natural vs man-made nucleotide exposures I've read to date. Thank you.
I think it would make a compelling addition to the milk graphs (e.g. a line going across showing the Bq/L you would have received last year from drinking "clean" milk compared to drinking this years "dirty" milk.
Thanks!
Thanks, I'll discuss with
Thanks, I'll discuss with the other team members about how to best present the K-40 comparison. As we have been learning, it is difficult to communicate about radioactive dose, and a good comparison is the key. So I hope those calculations are helpful.
Mark [BRAWM Team Member]
To Bill: Way to be
To Bill:
Way to be hysterical and take things out of context.
BRAWM said that they expected to reach their MDA around mid-April, but with new methods increased (or decreased) their detection thresholds and have better MDAs that can see smaller amounts.
That, in no way, invalidates their prior claim.
Bill, if I was the admin of this site, which good for you I'm not, I would have banned you long ago. You continually piss and moan about positive findings and blow them significantly out of proportion. You instill fear in people with your rants and do very, very little to advance the discourse, especially when your tirads have been answered ad nauseum.
Please try to stay on a scientific topic and not drag politics, fear, or a ranting attitude to these proceedings. If you have something constructive to add, please feel free, but spare us the rest.
Way to spend a whole post
Way to spend a whole post with a few paragraphs unconstructively targeting Bill. Thumbs up~
Agreed...VERY UNHELPFUL.
Agreed...VERY UNHELPFUL. Bill has brought a lot of valuable info to the discussion. No need to target individual posters because you disagree with their view.