Measurement of radiation from potassium chloride (KCl)

Ever since writing a comment on a thread about how radioactive bananas are, I have been curious about how difficult it would be to detect the radioactivity of potassium chloride (KCl) with a Geiger counter. It turns out that it is very easy. So I thought some people out there might be interested in how I determined how radioactive it is and what kind of radiation it emits.

All potassium has a naturally-occurring radioactive isotope, Potassium-40 (K-40). It is a primordial isotope, meaning that it was formed a few billion years ago through the various stellar processes that created most other isotopes. Since it has a 1.277 billion year half-life, it is long-lived enough to survive to the present day, but there is only one K-40 nucleus out of every 8,500 potassium nuclei (most potassium is K-39 (93%) and K-41 (7%)). Even though K-40 is so rare, this is balanced out by the high abundance of potassium in the world — potassium is found in high amounts in minerals, soil, and organisms. In fact, K-40 gives us an estimated 7% of our total background radiation dose.

Potassium chloride is available at most grocery stores as a salt substitute for people who need to decrease their intake of sodium. It is very cheap — I was able to purchase a 300 gram canister of KCl for $5 at a supermarket. I was previously familiar with its radioactivity, since I have used it in the past to "boost" the K-40 gamma-ray line in germanium detectors to aid in calibration. But I have never tried to measure it with a handheld detector.

For these measurements, I used our lab's survey counter, a Ludlum Model 2241-3 with a Model 44-9 pancake probe sensitive to alphas, betas, and gammas. For the setup, I mounted the probe as shown in the pictures below and did not move it. For a background, I measured an empty glass dish. The glass dish was able to slide underneath the probe, with about 5 mm of clearance.

Next, I placed about 200 grams of KCl in the glass dish (see photo below). According to my calculations, a 200 gram canister should have an activity of 3,200 decays per second (Becquerels) due to K-40. Most of these decays will not be detectable, due to various factors including energy and geometry. But this means that there can potentially be a large increase in counts.

Indeed, the KCl caused the detector's clicking to increase noticeably, as shown here:

 

Sample Counts Statistical uncertainty Count Rate (CPM) Above Background (CPM)
Background   332 18.2 33.2±1.8
KCl 4993 70.7 499.3±7.1 466.1±7.3

Next I set about figuring out what kind of radiation was coming from the potassium chloride. The three kinds of radiation are shielded in different ways. If radiation is primarily alpha particles, a sheet of paper should stop them. So I tried it:

 

Sample Counts Statistical uncertainty Count Rate (CPM) Above Background (CPM) Percent of unobstructed sample
Background   332 18.2 33.2±1.8
KCl (unobstructed) 4993 70.7 499.3±7.1 466.1±7.3 100%
Piece of paper (0.1 mm) 4733 68.8 473.3±6.9 440.1±7.1 94.4±2.1%

Since the radiation is not attenuated very much (94% passes through), we can conclude that the radiation is not primarily alpha particles.

If radiation is primarily beta particles, then different thicknesses of metal sheets should lead to more and more attenuation. Also, thin sheets of metal will not attenuate gamma-rays very much. Here are my data for some aluminum foil and copper sheets:

 

Sample Counts Statistical uncertainty Count Rate (CPM) Above Background (CPM) Percent of unobstructed sample Would block most betas below this energy
Background   332 18.2 33.2±1.8
KCl (unobstructed) 4993 70.7 499.3±7.1 466.1±7.3 100%
8 layers alum. foil (0.4 mm) 3097 55.7 309.7±5.6 276.5±5.9 59.3±1.5% 160 keV
1 copper sheet (0.3 mm)   692 26.3 69.2±2.6   36.0±3.2   7.7±0.7% 350 keV
2 copper sheets (0.6 mm)   463 21.5 46.3±2.2   13.1±2.8   2.8±0.6% 700 keV

The last column is a rough approximation of the energy losses of beta particles passing through that thickness of metal. We can easily see that these data are consistent with a source that emits primarily beta radiation, where the betas have an energy in the hundreds of keV. This description exactly matches the decay data for Potassium-40 (K-40): it emits no alphas, 11% of decays emit high-energy gamma-rays that would be hard to detect with the pancake probe, and 89% of decays lead to a beta particle (endpoint 1311 keV, mean energy 560 keV).

Incidentally, potassium iodide should also be radioactive, though only about 45% as radioactive as potassium chloride by weight.

Mark [BRAWM Team Member]

 

Background Test KCl measurement
Paper obstruction Copper sheet obstruction

Potassium Chloride K40 Detection With Geiger Counter

I've been working on this for the past week using a LND 7313 pancake geiger-muller tube fed to an electronic totalizing counter (BK1823A). Instead of measuring the raw crystals poured into a petri dish, as in your example, I have been dissolving lab grade KCl in distilled water and then depositing the KCl onto the bottom of a petri dish via evaporation. I am also using much smaller amounts, namely 0.01 to 0.5 grams. I have found that the GM tube detects about 14.51% of all radioactive events that occur with the given geometry of the tube placed directly above a 62mm petri dish that is 13mm deep (distance to depostied KCl), noting that the activity of KCl is 990 counts per minute per gram. The data I have so far show a 95% confidence interval for the slope (proportionality constant) is 6.89 +/- 1.29 or said another way, the 95% confidence interval of the proportionality constant of detection of K40 decay events via my ludlum pancake tube is 12.2% to 17.9% with the given detection geometry. More data will narrow this interval. I have found that depositing much more than about 2 grams in my 62mm petri dishes leads to marked non-linearity between detected counts and known activity of the KCl deposit which I attribute to self-shielding as the KCl depth in the petri dish increases.

How about salt substitute?

Please see http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/forum/218/potassium-chloride-getting-lots-mo...
Since you have the right setup, I, and possibly others, would be very interested in seeing a direct comparison between your lab grade KCl and salt substitute purchased recently - in fact, the more samples, the better! This would be a very useful and appreciated effort - appreciated by me, at least.

Professor Farnsworth

Excess potassium is not

Excess potassium is not stored in the body, but rather is excreted within a few hours. This is due to homeostasis. Therefore, any excess radiation exposure from consuming bananas or other sources of potassium only lasts for a few hours.

This differs significantly from the radioactive isotopes in fallout that many try to compare to K40. These are often not only stored in the body, but also stored unevenly in the body, accumulating in various regions (depending on the isotope in question).

When pro-nuclear arguments try to use the 'banana-equivalent dose,' they fail to take into account this dramatic discrepancy. BRAWM, have you addressed this flaw with the BED to your reading public?

K-40 exposure

The drawbacks to the so-called "Banana Equivalent Dose" have been discussed elsewhere on this forum (e.g., here), and we have chosen not to use it as our primary dose comparison. You are right that 40K remains in equilibrium in the body, and therefore the net dose from the 40K in a banana is essentially zero.

At the same time, the original post was meant to show that we are constantly exposed to background radiation from natural sources such as 40K. In fact, our bodies contain about 140 grams of potassium at any given time — a bit more than the amount of potassium I measured in the original post — so our bodies are radioactive. The total activity due to the 40K in our bodies is about 4,300 Bq. So even though the excess exposure from eating a banana may be negligible, there is a large amount of 40K in our bodies constantly, which gives us a significant portion of our total background dose.

Mark [BRAWM Team Member]

Sure, but since we don't have

Sure, but since we don't have any way to know what our health and longevity might be like without the effects of that constant K-40 (e.g., if the potassium we ate didn't contain any K-40, could cancer and heart disease be much lower, could our natural lifespan be 300 years? Well, unless we have a population just like us that have had only K-40-free potassium, it's pretty hard to know).

So, the fact that we have this constant bodily dose of K-40 isn't very informative about what 4300 Bq of it amounts to in terms of health detriment. It certainly doesn't indicate that it is harmless to us - only unavoidable.

K-40 doesn't do that much damage

Technically, you're right that we will never be able to observe someone without K-40 in their bodies. But health physicists can calculate how much damage K-40 does to our bodies, and the answer is essentially zero. Exposure from K-40 is about 0.17 millisieverts per year on average, or about 7% of the average person's total natural background dose of 2.4 mSv/year (Source: UNSCEAR 2008 Report, Annex B, paragraph 95). Given this total background dose rate (K-40 plus everything else), this means less than a 1% increase in the likelihood of cancer over someone's lifetime due to radiation exposure from all natural sources — compare this to the actual cancer rate of about 40%.

Another piece of evidence that the health effects from natural background radiation is essentially zero is that there are communities around the world where people live with ten times the average natural background dose but nobody has ever been able to find a significant increase in cancers among these people. Here's an example:

Nair, et al. Population study in the high natural background radiation area in Kerala, India.

The only contributor to radioactive background that is worth worrying about and mitigating is radon gas, which makes up more than 50% of the average person's background exposure. I wouldn't worry about K-40.

Mark [BRAWM Team Member]

Excess potassium is not

Excess potassium is not stored in the body, but rather is excreted within a few hours. This is due to homeostasis. Therefore, any excess radiation exposure from consuming bananas or other sources of potassium only lasts for a few hours.

This differs significantly from the radioactive isotopes in fallout that many try to compare to K40. These are often not only stored in the body, but also stored unevenly in the body, accumulating in various regions (depending on the isotope in question).

When pro-nuclear arguments try to use the 'banana-equivalent dose,' they fail to take into account this dramatic discrepancy. BRAWM, have you addressed this flaw with the BED to your reading public?

apologies for the double

apologies for the double post.

Thanks, Mark!!

Thanks for continuing to provide information that allows us to make apples to apples comparisons with what we are seeing from Fukushima. It's much more intuitive than the airline flight example.

THANKS! Very cool info but...

I do still wonder how this copmp[ares to, say, beta from radiocesium in terms of its impact on cells, dna, etc.

Since potassium itself is a beneficial and essential in the body and cesium is toxic to the body, wouldn't there be potential for synergy which makes the radiocesium much more harmful than K40?

Why or why not?

It's truly amazing what our

It's truly amazing what our bodies have evolved to adapt to. Nature is really something, given enough time. I just wouldn't compare bananas to particulate plutonium too quickly, myself, as some have.

bioadaption to potassium decay

I'd like to see doctorates on this one. There is I am sure much to learn.