Questions about Be-7

[I am posting this on request from Seattle Mom after the message got stuck in our filters. Still working on why that would be happening. -Mark]

Hello Mark and all the dedicated BRAWM Team members,

Thank you again for your efforts in testing for fallout from Fukushima. I know there are a lot of appreciative people following this forum, even if they don't verbally express their appreciation. :-)

I have been learning a lot reading your (and others') postings here about radiation detection from Fukushima fallout, as well as reading whatever I can on the subject online. Because I am a mother and wish to protect my family from such health risks as much as possible, I am trying to become as informed on the subject as possible.

From what I am learning, testing for radioactivity is indeed quite difficult work, isolating isotopes, calculating for errors, preventing contamination of the samples and testing equipment, issues of decay, etc, etc. So I have a new-found appreciation for the efforts you are making. It must been challenging, but highly fascinating work, as it seems there is always something new to learn, no?

And who knows? Perhaps what you are learning today and teaching others through this forum will someday be of service to alleviating the suffering, psychological and physical, of the poor victims of Fukushima in the future?

Of course, the more one learns about a subject, the more questions one has. So, please bear with me, as I hope you'll be able to help answer some questions I have about the Be7 (radioberyllium) which you have been finding in your testing.

I know that Be7 has a half life of 53 or 54 days (which in comparison to some of the other hundred/thousand/million year half-life radioisotopes found in nuclear fallout doesn't seem like such a "big deal"), but please hear me out, as I think we might do ourselves a disservice to just ignore its presence and only concentrate on the presence of the others.

The reason I am interested in learning more about the presence of Be7 from your test findings stems from my learning that, like Strontium-90, it also concentrates in the bones. Accordingly, since any exposure to radioactivity, no matter how small, (i.e. even the 540 days of a 54 day half-life), does have potential health risks, I want learn how to limit my family's exposure to it.

I noticed that you have tested for its presence in the following samples:
1. Topsoil (from both Berkeley and San Diego
2. Grass (from Berkeley)
3. Hay/Alfalfa mix (from samples from July 15 from Nevada)- which at 41.7±4.2, had one of the highest levels of Be7 found to date in any test samples - somewhat disturbing...
4. Mushrooms (from Berkeley)
5. Rainwater
6. Air

Is there a reason it is not being tested for in the other food samples? Just curious to know if this is because it isn't detectable, or if your group's instruments are not set up to test for it in food? Or if you decided to just concentrate on the longer-lived isotopes, given limited resources, etc.?

I also noticed that your footnotes in your Food Chain testing state that Be7 is naturally occurring due to "its being produced by cosmic rays interacting with the atmosphere."

However, I learned in reading a study by Indian scientists of Be7 in rainwater, done way back in 1957, entitled: "Annual Deposition of Cosmic Ray produced Be7 at Equatorial Latitudes" (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1958.tb01990.x/pdf) that Be7 in fact could also be produced in nuclear explosions.

The scientists stated: "The possibility of Be7 being produced in nuclear explosions cannot be ruled out."

The study goes on to point out the challenges and extensive efforts undertaken to isolate naturally occurring Be7 from possible particles from nuclear fallout from previous nuclear weapons detonations or Cold War above-ground nuclear weapons testing. (It is interesting to note that these scientists believed that cosmic Be7 would not be found in dust particles, but only in solution, and conversely, they believed fallout containing Be7 if any should only be found in the dust particles. But you probably already knew this?)

They detail some of the steps they took to isolate any fallout Be7 from the rainwater by filtering it first. Interesting stuff...you can read more about this in the above referenced link to the study.

Anyway, is this the kind of thing you are doing in your testing too? I.e. trying to isolate naturally cosmic Be7 vs. man-made due to nuclear fallout? It would be interesting to compare what procedures they undertook in their research over 50 years ago to yours. I'm sure the instrumentation and procedures have improved quite a bit since then... :-)

Regarding the actual test results for Be7 you have been getting, I seem to see a correlation between a spike in ALL levels of radioisotopes around April 19 or 20, including spikes in Be7 in several test samples (including air, rainwater) at the same time.

As such, it is hard to believe these spikes were a coincidence, and that the Be7 only spiked on the 19th and 20th due to a coincidental extra cosmic activity at the same time we had increased fallout from Fukushima...(Keep in mind I also appreciate the fact that it is impossible for BRAWM to test for all the numerous other radioisotopes typically found in nuclear fallout, so this spike in Be7 and cesium, etc., most likely represents only the tip of the nuclear fallout iceberg we received during that time, and which due to long half-lives, would likely be in our environment still, even if not being tested or showing up in the handful of samples tested by BRAWM.)

Looking at some specific examples of the BRAWM test results:

It was disturbing to see one of the highest results for Be7 so far in your most recent testing sample, the first and only one you have done so far for Hay/Alfalfa mix from Nevada.

41.7±4.2
[MDA=5.1]
(3.5e+04)

Why do you think this is such a high number for Be7, so much higher than most of the other samples? Is this higher number due to volume of the sample size? Did we have some sudden cosmic activity that caused this? Or could this Be7 in the hay/alfalfa be instead from Fukushima? (with a 53 or 54 day half life, the only way such high measurable levels from Fukushima would be detectible would be that our exposure to fallout is ongoing, yes?

Or could this be from the ongoing "planned" releases of "acceptable levels" of radioactive steam from nuclear power plants in Nevada near where the hay and alfalfa was harvested?

Speaking as a mother, if these recent levels are due to man-made causes, any way you look at it, I find such levels unacceptable, since the cows eating this hay are being contaminated, which means our milk and meat are being contaminated. :-(

Even if this is considered "low" or an "acceptable level" by the EPA/FDA/etc., the point is that this and the other radioisotopes will bio-accumulate, that is, build up over time in the food chain and our ongoing exposure to our bodies, even at "acceptable levels" cannot ultimately be a good thing.

I'd prefer not being exposed to any radiation in my food, water and environment, especially the extra gift that keeps on giving of unnecessary man-made radiation, thank you. ;-P

Looking at the grass sample results:

The first grass sample tested back on April 6 showed a result for Be7 as:

14.74±1.47
[MDA=2.23]
(1.0e+05)

The lowest detection was on May 18:

3.59±0.36
[MDA=0.56]
(4.1e+05)

The most recent detection was a bit higher, on June 3:

6.79±0.68
[MDA=0.76]
(2.2e+05)

So, the levels were higher in April, when most of the highest fallout from Fukushima occurred. If in fact, the Be7 was only from naturally occurring cosmic sources, then why did the levels drop off over time in correlation with the drop in levels of fallout from Fukushima?

(The exception would be this new hay sample, which, because we do not have any previous test results to work from, it is hard to say if this current test sample's level is "normal," for hay from Nevada, or "high" or "low"...Unless someone else like the EPA already tests for this on a regular basis and would have those numbers available for us to review?)

Anyway, wouldn't the levels of Be7 found in the other test samples, if naturally occurring, be pretty consistent over time, with some possible fluctuations due to cosmic activity?

But for your other samples, the spikes in Be7 all seemed to occur around April 19 or 20th when the Fukushima fallout also spiked...then the levels from all (including Be7) mostly drop off from there.

Rainwater samples:

In looking at your rainwater samples, the Be7 levels spiked about the same time as they did in other samples, on April 19:

4.14±0.70
[MDA=2.57]
(3.9e+05)

Then, slowly decreasing to an almost Non-detect by June 28:

0.085±0.009
[MDA=0.024]
(1.9e+07)

In the air, Be7 spiked on April 18:

6.6e-07
[MDA=7.0e-08]
(1.7e+05)

(Though it has had higher levels on 5/6:

7.5e-07
[MDA=1.7e-08]
(1.5e+05)

and May 15:

8.1e-07
[MDA=8.4e-09]
(1.4e+05)

and on the most recent test date of 6/24:

8.4e-07
[MDA=7.7e-09]
(1.3e+05)

Any ideas on why it was still high on June 24? Could this be because the reactors are still spewing radiation into the air and it is somehow making its way over here on the Jet Stream (even if in lower levels than after the explosions)?

My other questions are:

1. How does your testing methodology and instrumentation help you know this Be7 is naturally occurring, (i.e. strictly from cosmic rays), rather than from Fukushima fallout, or from a combination of the two?

2. What was the average range that Be7 is typically found in our air, top soil, rainwater, grass, hay from Nevada, etc. on any given day PRIOR to Fukushima's explosions?

In other words, why was the April 6 detection of Be7 in your topsoil sample (14.74±1.47) and the April 3 grass sample (68.3±6.8) so much higher than the June 3 {6.79±0.68 and 5.6±0.6, respectively) detections, if in fact the April 6 was NOT due (at least in part) to fallout from Fukushima? If it was only naturally occurring, cosmic BE7 in your samples, shouldn't the levels in June be similar to April's detection?

Otherwise, to see the levels drop off just like the levels of cesium, etc. did, would make one tempted to conclude that the Be7, too, is from the Fukushima fallout, (i.e. the fallout coming to the U.S. has lessened since the major explosions in March, so whatever is left of Be7 from the fallout will naturally decrease due to the 54 day half-life).

Any explanations for the curious lay folk like me? ;-)

Regarding the potential health effects of Be7 exposure:

I read another interesting study (ca. 1947) about the metabolism of Be7 in rats ( http://www.jbc.org/content/177/2/975.full.pdf) which showed that Be7 tended to accumulate in the bones (much like we've been reading about Strontium-90: http://leakspinner.wordpress.com/2011/05/09/high-levels-of-radioactive-s...). It also had a toxic effect on the liver, kidneys and bones in high enough amounts.

Although the half-life of Be7 is much shorter than Strontium-90, I would imagine that any radioactive substance sitting in ones bones or internal organs like the liver and kidneys, or in the blood, for any length of time would not be a good thing.

So, I wonder we really should be writing off Be7 as not being of concern (as well as continue to assume it is entirely occurring from natural, cosmic sources)?

The more I learn about the immense (not to mention costly $$$) challenges of testing for radioactivity in our environment, I am starting to equate the challenges of not being able to detect EVERY radioisotope in fallout from Fukushima here in the U.S. (due to having only limited ability, time, resources, etc.) to the EPA's inability to test for the presence of a majority of the potentially toxic chemicals and substances used in industry today. :-(

So, this begs the question: Even if we knew about 100% of the radioactivity we were being exposed to in our daily lives, either by fallout in our environment and food and water, or say, by the practice of using recycled radioactive waste in metals used in consumer products (I suggest a Google search to learn more about this highly disturbing practice), is there anything we can do, either individually or as a group to help limit or ameliorate the effects of this exposure?

And if we cannot fully even understand or prevent the harmful effects of radiation to humans and animals and the environment, or know how to even deal with the long-term waste storage problem or even afford it, should any person or nation, on this planet really be legally allowed to play with such deadly fire, so to speak?

I think this issue is ultimately a moral and ethical one, as Einstein concluded long ago. Just because we have the brains to tinker with Nature at a sub atomic level, doesn't mean we should have the right to do so, if the consequences of mistakes, accidents, and long-term waste issues, are so deadly to humans and all life on our planet.

Ok, you may not be able to answer that last question, but your reply to the others regarding Be7 and your testing procedures would be greatly appreciated. :-)

Thanks again!

Seattle Mom