From Bill: BRAWM can you folks give me an estimate of total Bqs we get internally?
Also -
It appears that the gamma and beta and alpha exposures are all quite different for different radionuclides.
1.Can you give an estimate of each "power" in terms of alpha, beta and gamma radiation for the main radionuclides are radioactive elements that are INSIDE us naturally and from Fukushima?:
In particular:
a.iodine 131
b.cesium 137
c.cesium 134
d.potassium 40
e.strontium 90
2. Also - is there K40 in Potassium iodide tablets and why doesn't this harm the thyroid (or is the K40 in homeostasis so it only increases the iodine but not the K40?)
I am still trying to get a sense of how the dangers of each of these things differs AND how their energies differs in terms of risk and
3. Finally: can anyone address what may be a synergistic effect of cesium 137 and how it works chemically in the body (as a toxin) vs. potassium 40 which is part of an essential nutrient --- because it seems that IF the cesium itself is damaging cells that its toxicity may be compounded by the radiation it emits as it decays whereas the Potassium 40 may be much LESS harmful because of potassium's positive impact on cells, tissue etc.
Thanks as always,
Bill
PS I am still trying to wrap my head around the idea that K40 provides, apparently, something like 20 mrems a year internally yet is not generally perceived as a serious radiotoxin vs. radioiodine and radiocesium and radiostrontium. The only way this makes sense is of health physicists recognize that these man made radionuclides are somehow more harmful due to their chemical properties when combined with their emissions of gamma, beta or alpha particles.
4. Does this make sense? If so - how is it explained for each of these radionuclides?


Breakdown of total background dose
Internal Dose from Potassium-40
UNSCEAR 2000 Report Vol. I, Annex B: Exposures from natural radiation sources:Breakdown of Total Background Dose
Here's a summary of the total breakdown of background exposure from UNSCEAR 2000 Report Vol. I, Annex B: Exposures from natural radiation sources, primarily Table 31: Average worldwide exposure to natural radiation sources:
Mark [BRAWM Team Member]
Fission product dose conversion factors
(microSieverts/Bq)
(microSieverts/Bq)
Breakdown of ingested dose from Uranium and Thorium series
Breakdown of Dose from Ingested Natural Uranium and Thorium Series
Here's a summary of the data from the UNSCEAR 2000 Report Vol. I, Annex B: Exposures from natural radiation sources, Table 18: Annual intake and effective dose from ingestion of uranium and thorium series radionuclides for adults:
Mark [BRAWM Team Member]
Decay data
Hi Bill, thanks for looking into this further. I'm going to provide some data right now and look into those articles in the coming days...
For now, I have collected some information on the natural radioactivities found inside the human body. Like I mentioned earlier, K-40 was only one of the sources of natural exposure. It turns out that Carbon-14 (famous for radiocarbon dating) also has a very high activity in the body, comparable to K-40. However, it has a much less energetic beta particle, so it does not do as much damage. There are other naturally-occurring isotopes found in the human body just because they are also found in pretty much everything (rocks, the soil, the water, the air). I'll go into those further down.
Decay Data for Isotopes that are in equilibrium in your body
Decay Data for Fission Product Isotopes
796 keV (85%)
(and subsequent
Y-90 decay)
2280 keV (100%)
Mark [BRAWM Team Member]
Whew! Thanks! That is a lot to digest but VERY much appreciated
I need to take a little time to really study this and would perhaps ask if you (Mark) could MAYBE give a little simpler response to the specific questions I asked in my original post.
However - give me some time to study this and maybe I can narrow my questions. It is REALLY hard to wrap my mind around some of these concepts and the technical meanings etc.
The fact that there is still so much uncertainty about what all these effects are internally underscores the critical importance of your continued work to establish the food chain pathways and levels. Thank you so much for that!
This is an excellent help and I cannot really articulate how much I appreciate it and how valuable the entire BRAWM's team's contribution is and will be for the future.
K-40 dose
Apologies for the data dump, Bill. Here's a little more about what I am trying to demonstrate.
One thing I wanted to point out was the dose from K-40. The UN report lists the average as 170 microSieverts, making up 7% of the total. So it's a big component, but it is even dwarfed by Radon exposure. Though it gives us a big dose, it is not considered a radiotoxin simply because it cannot be avoided. Yes, it would even be in potassium iodide pills.
Also, the 2,400 microSievert average background exposure varies a great deal across the earth -- these are shown in that report in Figure XV. Exposures can range from less than 500 microSieverts to over 7,000 microSieverts. Even with those variations, no increase in cancer rates has ever been attributed to variations in background dose.
By comparison, the total committed dose from drinking one liter of milk with 0.2 Bq/L of Cs-137 every day for 3 months is:
(0.2 Bq/L) * (1 L/day) * (3 months) * (30 days/month) * (0.0185 microSieverts/Bq) = 0.33 microSieverts
So the potential doses we are talking about are tiny — and definitely less than the variation in natural backgrounds.
Mark [BRAWM Team Member]
So Mark, Can we reduce the
So Mark,
Can we reduce the Banana Equivalent Radiation Dosage (BERD) by a regimen of K-39 prophylaxis?
Industrial isotope separation of K-39 and K-41 from K-40 should be quite simple.
Use of stable potassium isotopes in vitamins, beverages, livestock suppliments and fertilizers, would displace much of the K-40.
The K-40 can be consigned to industrial usages, where the external ionization will be of much less significance.
Please read response here
Please read response here
Two papers on the subject
Here are two papers on how to modeling/estimating the amount that remains internally and risk from iodine and cesium (and uranium). They give dose coefficients for the different radioactive substances.
http://www.nirs.org/reactorwatch/accidents/ecrrriskmodelandradiationfrom...
http://euradcom.org/publications/iodinedosecalc15042011.pdf
Here is the scientific(NIH)paper re: dna damage high vs low dose
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC154297/?tool=pmcentrez
Abstract
DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) are generally accepted to be the most biologically significant lesion by which ionizing radiation causes cancer and hereditary disease. However, no information on the induction and processing of DSBs after physiologically relevant radiation doses is available. Many of the methods used to measure DSB repair inadvertently introduce this form of damage as part of the methodology, and hence are limited in their sensitivity. Here we present evidence that foci of ?-H2AX (a phosphorylated histone), detected by immunofluorescence, are quantitatively the same as DSBs and are capable of quantifying the repair of individual DSBs. This finding allows the investigation of DSB repair after radiation doses as low as 1 mGy, an improvement by several orders of magnitude over current methods. Surprisingly, DSBs induced in cultures of nondividing primary human fibroblasts by very low radiation doses (?1 mGy) remain unrepaired for many days, in strong contrast to efficient DSB repair that is observed at higher doses. However, the level of DSBs in irradiated cultures decreases to that of unirradiated cell cultures if the cells are allowed to proliferate after irradiation, and we present evidence that this effect may be caused by an elimination of the cells carrying unrepaired DSBs. The results presented are in contrast to current models of risk assessment that assume that cellular responses are equally efficient at low and high doses, and provide the opportunity to employ ?-H2AX foci formation as a direct biomarker for human exposure to low quantities of ionizing radiation.
More at link above
According to this article HIGHER gamma is less dangerous
because it passes through the body and is not absorbed internally.
I wondered if the same would be true of beta so that the LOWER levels of radiocesium might be more harmful than the potassium 40.
Here are the quotes which are discussed here on a physics forum:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=480200&page=32
"The most biological damaging forms of gamma radiation occur in the gamma ray window, between 3 and 10 MeV, with higher energy gamma rays being less harmful because the body is relatively transparent to them.
"Why is the range from 3 to 10 million electron volts so damaging to human cells? The higher the energy the more penetrating the gamma. 3-10 MeV just happen to have the right energy range to be penetrating, but not so penetrating that they pass through. In other words, they will penetrate and produce secondary radiation via the photoelectric and Compton effects, and even pair prodcution.
------
"When gamma radiation breaks DNA molecules, a cell may be able to repair the damaged genetic material, within limits. However, a study of Rothkamm and Lobrich has shown that this repair process works well after high-dose exposure but is much slower in the case of a low-dose exposure."
The discussion is based on this wiki artivle on gamma radiation and health effects:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_ray#Radioactive_decay_.28gamma_decay.29
Again - mioght this not explain why potassium 40 is NOT as potentially as harmful as radiocesium even though it has higher gamma and beta energy?
But the dose from natural
But the dose from natural Potassium-40 concentrations in the body are also considered low dose, isn't it?
And why are you mixing an article on the effects of different gamma energy ranges with the idea of low and high dose?
Anyway, I don't know much about this, but it seems the energy ranges of Cesium-137 and Potassium-40 are both outside the 3-10 MeV range.
One BRAWM team member said the energy from potassium was higher
and therefore more dangerous. I was trying to get clarity on this based on the research I had looked at saying that high doses may be less harmful because they are not absorbed but pass through tissue and cells. I really am also trying to clarify the MeV vs KeV values for the potassium (K40) and radiocesium detected and determine whether or not they are in this range.
Finally I am trying to find out if the beta and alpha in radiocesium and K40 also conforms to the same principal as gamma (that there is a "more dangerous" range) or not - and determine if BRAWM can tell us what these ranges are.
This is really appliable to those who have posted about the amounts detected in the food chain and threads posted today on potatoes and nasturtiums.
BRAWM essentially had said that higher gamma ray energies were more harmful from Potassium K40 than radiocesium and the research I found seems to contradict that conclusion.
Trying to get clarity, that is all.
But both Cesium-137 and
But both Cesium-137 and Potassium-40 are mainly beta emitters, why are you talking about gamma energy?
BRAWM specifically discussed their Gamma emissions
in a recent thread. I will try to find it.
her's the thread on gamma, cesium and potassium
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/4226
It is a ways down. I could not figure out how to post that post seperately
Here is Mark's (BRAWM/Bandstra) quote (from url above)
"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."
Mark (BRAWM team)
What I am trying to figure out, again, is whether the gamma from radiocesium might be in the more dangerous range than Potassium even though Potassium has a higher gamma "energy". Same thing with the beta rays - may they might NOT be as absorbed at higher doses by surrounding cells and tissues and therefore do less harm (and perhaps explaining in part both the Petkau effect AND the hormesis theories - i.e cells can self-repair with higher short term doses/exposures but do not self repair at lower long term or chronic doses/exposures).
These are complicated issues I am hoping for some refelction on by BRAWM and others and hoping for some leads in answering them or avenues to explore or studies such as I have cited.
I should clarify a couple of
While excellent and
While excellent and impressive is this response, it is curious that, in it all, it avoids Bill's specific and ongoing question/concern.
Thanks so much for the detailed lecture
I am still hoping that the specific questions I asked can be addressed BUT the explanation of the gamma vs beta and alpha significance is VERY helpful (although fo9r this layperson still complex).
I think that a straightforward brief response on my original questions might help clarify it better for my limited grasp.
I guess too that a quick perspective on the alpha, beta and gamma of the specific radionuclides we are primarily discussing (i.e. iodine, potassium and cesium and maybe strontium, if you have any data on what its "energy" internally is - even with no proof that Fukushima dosed us with strontium 90) is what I am looking for as well as any info on pre and post Fukushima amounts in the environment and in our bodies.
IF, for example, the levels of potassium K40 remain the same due to homeostasis, what about the others which you have detected and what would be the comparative "energy" of the rays of strontium IF they were there along with the cesium etc .
Thanks so much for taking the time to explain this as there did seem to be some contradiction.
Finally for this post can you comment on the question of whether the ranges for gamma fall within the range which make them more likley to cause harm?
It is a great relief to have someone patiently respond to these questions.
Thank you for this
Thank you for this incredibly informative post!
I'm not sure but it seems
I'm not sure but it seems like you got the concept of energy range messed up with the concepts of high/low dose.
Anyway, in the case of Potassium-40 or Cesium-137 the gamma energies don't fall in the 3-10 MeV range that according to the sources you provided are more harmful. (Also, I just realized that the sources you provided are posts from a forum)
In short:
1) If low doses are more harmful, the low dose we receive from the constant amount of Potassium-40 in our bodies would also generate the Petkau effect.
2) If the gamma energy range between 3-10 MeV is the key, both Cesium-137 and Potassium-40 seem to be excluded.
My questions are for BRAWM, but I am hoping for explication
Maybe there is a hormesis effect from Potassium and a Petkau effect from Cesium.
anyway, getting a clarification of the issues of low dose, high dose and energy ranges etc for the gamma, alpha and beta rays from radiocesium and K40 is part of what I am asking about. I am hopinmg to get a BRAWM response, though, and not an anonymous one as Mark and I have already covered some of this in other threads - I just am still not totally clear on some of the underlying rationale nor am I sure that BRAWM is familiar with the studies I have referenced. After the scientists at BRAWM take a look hopefully they can address some of these issues in more depth for us all.
I would add that this is a s subject (natural potassium vs radiocesium risks) that the internet is almost totally silent about. It may be that BRAWM is right and the only real concern is really the cumulative or synergistic impact of these various exposures and doses and MAYBE the cesium risk really is too low to be bothered with being concerned about. I just do not believe the science etablishes that with any degree of certainty yet and actually BRAWM's position may be incorrect on this one issue of risk from the cesium vs potassium --- but probably only further research utilizing the BRAWM food chain data will provide answers we do not yet have definitively or even, perhaps, remotely.
I have been alarmed by the radiocesium data, in part, because some authoritative sources suggest that Strontium 90 is often or usually found when radiocesium is detected and also because we KNOW that the radiocesium is widespread and in our food now. Getting a good scientific handle on the radiocesium risks and its comparative risks is VERY important to me for my kids' sake (and mine and my family an friends). But understanding the nitty gritty details is difficult for a layperson like me and the research is even more difficult as theories are conflicting, data is changing, results are inconsistent at times with current risk models and there are so many other variables.
I want facts, scientific facts, and BRAWM input on what these facts mean.
How far do radiocesium gamma and beta rays go and how much gets absorbed and what about potassium too? How much have we got in us and how much are we likley to get in us from Fukushima compared to before Fukushima? There may be no easy answers but the questions lead to new areas of inquiry and investigation.
One more NIH study showing low doses as bad as high doses
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11734643
They challenge what they call the "dogma" of smaller risk at lower doses with evidence that low alpha doses have as much risk as higher doses of damaging dna resulting in carcinogenesis (cancer causing dna structural breakage leading to mutations)
Again, one thing I've learned from these studies is that the chemical action also influences how much damage there is. My point, again, is that Potassium 40 may well NOT be anywhere near as damaging to the dna in our bodies as radiocesium --- the data seems to show that there is LOTS of uncertainty simply due to lack of sufficient data on how these radionuclides affect the cells and dna where they accumulate in the body.
I guess I am trying to get BRAWM to reconsider the dogma that Potassium 40 is just as or more harmful than cesium 134 and 137 in terms of carcinogenesis and other healthy effects such as cardiovascular damage etc. There is insufficient evidence, at least according to these studies, to draw that conclusion.
It is a complex issue but the answers are not yet quite clear and there may VERY WELL BE human evolutionary adaptations for potassium 40 which do NOT exist for radiocesium. Cesium is toxic on its own. Potassium is essential for survival. But the human body may very well have adapted to Potassium's radiation and overall effect in the cells whereas the radiocesium may be MUCH more damaging than anyone has yet suspected or proven.
That is why I am very glad you have actual data on what is in the food chain. Now we need to start seeing (testing for) what is in US!
I would also be curious as
I would also be curious as to any info BRAWM has on this. Even though I have not read these reports (which I would like to do but don't have time right now), it seems that cesium's toxicity could be due to the fact that we have no evolutionary adaptive methods to deal with it. Just an armchair theory, and would love BRAWM to comment.
I know its a 3 day weekend but hope answers come
sometime