The chanterelles are just starting to show around Puget Sound. Should they be avoided for a few seasons? Thanks for any info.
I am working on a project to assay west coast chanterelles for bioaccumulation of Cesium-137 resulting from the nuclear accident at Fukushima. I sincerely hope levels are below thresholds that would indicate hazards to human health, but currently we have no data. I am collaborating with the Oregon State University Radiation Center, which will perform the lab work, and we hope to have publishable results by the end of the year.
I would like to sample a broad latitudinal range of the west coast, and for this I ask your assistance. I need collections of chanterelles in amounts of 4 oz dry weight (about 1 lb fresh), along with about a cup of mineral soil and about 1/2 gallon of surface litter from each site where fungal samples are collected. Mineral soil should be collected from the same depth as the base of the stems. It would be great if I could get 3-5 chanterelle/soil/litter sets from each of several different sites in your region, but I know your time is valuable and I would be grateful for anything you could provide. Of course, please include site location data with each sample. Although my primary focus is on chanterelles, if you are inclined to send samples of other edible fungi (including saprobes and truffles, of course) we will happily analyze them. Perhaps you could spread the word to students, friends, and colleagues to broaden the sampling range.
Your assistance will be gratefully acknowledged in the resulting publication. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.
With utmost gratitude and best wishes,
Matt Trappe, Ph.D.
342 Richardson Hall
College of Forestry
Oregon State University
Corvallis, OR 97331
Matt Trappe, Ph.D.
342 Richardson Hall, College of Forestry
Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331
WRONG Isotope & WRONG fungi
Excellent catch, guys. A well constructed study would FOCUS upon (1) Cesium-134 in (2) high uptake fungi, in an (3) honest laboratory. The 2 year half-life for Cs-134, virtually eliminates Chernobyl and the atmospheric weapon test contributions. Cs-134 IS FUKUSHIMA. Cs-137 is a background study.
I should personally question items 1, 2 & 3 in the above referenced project. I would be MUCH more curious about the money trail, than the mushrooms or the (reported) measurements, in such a study, but that is merely In My Humble Opinion (IMHO).
Agenda based science, IMHO
I have searched high and low and been unable to see if Mr. Trappe's info was ever published.
I have some pre-Fukushima tubies from Kneeland, CA (Humboldt Co, Coast Range). I would guess at least a couple of grams worth (no soil or duff samples, as they were collected for edibility). I believe they were gathered the winter prior, to the tsunami, but perhaps 2 winters prior. Anyhow, if they are of interest for research purposes, I'd be happy to send them along. I can find out a more specific collection date, should there be interest. Also, I don't have a scale, but my best guess is 1/8 to 1/4 oz. They were dried in a food dehydrator within a day of collection and have been sitting a zip lock at room temperature since then. (firstname.lastname@example.org)
I have some pre-Fukushima tubies from Kneeland, CA (Humboldt Co, Coast Range). I would guess at least a couple of grams worth (no soil or duff samples, as they were collected for edibility). I believe they were gathered the winter prior, to the tsunami, but perhaps 2 winters prior. Anyhow, if they are of interest for research purposes, I'd be happy to send them along. I can find out a more specific collection date, should there be interest. Also, I don't have a scale, but my best guess is 1/8 to 1/4 oz. They were dried in a food dehydrator within a day of collection and have been sitting a zip lock at room temperature since then. (salmonslug_at_gmail.com)
Mark you are without shame. You know perfectly well that different chanterelles bio accumulate at VERY different rates. While you may have a inside line on lab time testing known poor bio accumulators will make you a tool and a participant in the glow boys favorite game of 'see, nothing to see here, move along'. Doing a test with a predetermined result is a game you can play BY YOURSELF. Is that really you ??? Perhaps your just planning feast, are you also inviting all contribute to the party ?
Please everyone if you bother to collect for this project AVOID sending Cantharellus cibarius, Cantharellus californicus, Cantharellus formosus and the like as they are all noted or likely poor to very poor bioaccumulators. Testing these I'd rate as a HUGE WASTE.
The ONE chanterelle that I know of that IS a noted bioaccumulator, Craterellus tubaeformis, is not the most sought after. Send THAT ONE to Mark and request that he post the results or at email the result to you. Oh, and FOUR OZ DRIED ?????? WHY when 5 grams should be enough?
Hey Mark how about some details on your test lab setup and methodology ? Come on Mark, dazzle us with some science. Do you REALLY want to find a few hot spots ? Really ?
Links to pretty pictures of chanterelles can be found here:
Red ,his name is Matt not mark and why are you so skeptical of someone wanting to test in a scientific fashion .think about what your posting you can't even get his name correct common man...I would be happy to provide sample
I am delighted that testing mushrooms are of topic. Testing bioaccumulators !!!! Here we are so far behind the curve because of the darth of ALL kinds environmental testing. It is the importance of the subject that motivates me to strongly engage.
The problems I have with Dr. Trappe's project are manifold. Here is the sand that sticks in my craw. We ALREADY KNOW some fungus (that he is asking for) has no tendency to accumulate radioisotopes from fallout. The data from the project, as described and alluded to, will absolutely show:
Insignificant to NO radiological contamination in ANY of the samples from the non and poor bioaccumulators. Testing them is covering old unproductive ground and A TOTAL WASTE, unless LOTS of negative results ARE THE OBJECTIVE.
Why collect and then test them unless a negative result is the objective ? WHAT IS THE REAL PURPOSE? WHO is funding this ANYWAY ? Who wants to PAY for lots of tests with a almost certain negative?
That type of testing reminds me of the EPA.
What will become of the good, safe abundant 'excess' material, another project perhaps?
I hope I am wrong. All that Matt has to do to enlist me (and other mycologically oriented skeptics) is refine his request to the species that ARE bioaccumulators and PERHAPS those that are POTENTIAL bioaccumulators OR convincingly explain the why and what of so much negative testing sample material.
Matt is without a doubt a great guy. It just seems fishy to me AND most of the amateur mushroom collectors. Matt it seems is known for fun and games and DOES have a community-wide credibility problem on this project. It is not just me.
But no matter what I am not sending him POUNDS of truffles. I want stuffing for a turkey not to be the stuff of turkeys.
Happy mushroom hunting everyone.
Hey I hope Matt does the business. The problem is that his study project seems, from what I gather from his post, as well thought out as most of my sentences. Really I often don't bother. Neither it seems does Matt.
Matt knows that there will be TONS of EDIBLE packets (in quantities far beyond what is required to test or even really testable), with details of where to find them, coming his way with little or no detectable fallout residues.
Until Mark, er Matt comes clean I am not buying it.
Come on Matt, I wanna believe...
Red, this isn't a April fools joke or some one talking shi* .I'm not really sure what you are saying .
I concur. Red Mercury, please give this guy a break. We have all been asking for someone to test foodstuffs - and here's someone doing it. Not for a damned second do I think this guy is looking to get some free mushrooms to saute and put on a steak.
Apologies, above post is mine - BC
I am very happy to hear someone is doing this. I wish you the best of luck in your testing and will pass on this info to people I know who gather mushrooms.
"Level of Nuclear Contamination Depends on Mushroom Type
The amount of cesium in wild mushrooms varies significantly between mushroom species. There are about 14,000 species of mushrooms in the world, most of which fall into one of the following categories: gilled, non-gilled, and puffballs and their relatives. In general, mushrooms that are gilled or have pores or pines under their caps as well as mushrooms that have stalks are more prone to accumulating radiocesium and other other radionuclides. Typically, the names of these mushrooms contain one or more of the following words or word pairs: roof, common meadow, crumble, web, inky cap, milk, tricholomas, ringstalks, sheath, mottle, pink, and brittle gills, tooth, death, waxy.
"The following tables list mushrooms that have shown a greater affinity for radioactive cesium-137 and mushrooms that appear less sensitive to cesium accumulation. The lists have been created by HealWithFood.org based on accumulated data from three sources: 1) a study conducted by the Finnish Food Safety Authority and the Finnish Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority, 2) a cesium-137 measurement campaign carried out by the German the Federal Office for Radiation Protection, and 3) a review of edible mushroom radioactivity compiled by Pavel Kalac from University of South Bohemia, Czech Republic."
Hey, that was an easy one!
Both left and right hemisphere.
UC Berkeley • College of Engineering • Contact
Campanile photo courtesy of Andrew P. Keating