• Thank you for visiting the Cafe Rad Lab Forum
  • We present & discuss radiation health, science & news
  • To keep you informed about vital nuke information.
Hello There, Guest! Login Register


Cesium Dose Response
#1
Code "...that there is a safest dose of radioactivity which is the normal level. "

dose of cesium*


"... the healthiest level of radioactivity is not zero. "

Depending on the source of the radiation; in your graph, cesium.

As ICRP produces a linear model, might you otherwise introduce the graph with the variable measures for differing sources? Something about plutonium?

The graph includes data for various isotopes or particles* such as what was evidenced at Fukushima. Any risk, mortality or other established properties of those variables are included in the data.

Sounds like K40 has the "healthiest" data.
 
Reply
#2
(07-22-2019, 09:33 PM)HHD Wrote: Code "...that there is a safest dose of radioactivity which is the normal level. "

dose of cesium*


"...  the healthiest level of radioactivity is not zero. "

Depending on the source of the radiation; in your graph, cesium.

As ICRP produces a linear model, might you otherwise introduce the graph with the variable measures for differing sources? Something about plutonium?

The graph includes data for various isotopes or particles* such as what was evidenced at Fukushima. Any risk, mortality other established properties of those variables are included in the data.

Sounds like K40 has the "healthiest" data.

Im not sure I follow or if the graph was not clear.    The radioactivity to the left of 100 bq/kg is "natural radioactivity"  and the level of about 100 bq/kg is a fixed constant...it is the natural background inside your body coming from potassium and carbon14.   It is impossible to have less radioactivity than that except by special means of reduction.  The addition of cesium starts there, at 100 bq/kg.    So in this graph, the healthiest level is at the full natural level of internal radionuclides and zero cesium.

This does not include other types of natural background like radon and cosmic rays.  While I find zero evidence in scientific papers of potassium radiotoxicity at normal and even highly elevated levels, there is evidence for radon and cosmic ray radiotoxicity.    Yet, there are studies of high natural background areas with high radon that do not show increased sickness and mortality.   A few indicate there might be,  and some don't, while others show even higher health...so its a wash.

On the other hand, tests of reduced radioactivity almost invariably show markers of reduced health or reduced development of healthy features like DNA repair..which is required for repairing the damage done from breathing air. 

So its a pretty robust conclusion that the natural amount of radioactivity from natural background is the healthiest one.

The shape of the dose response due to cesium is the really key feature in this graph.   The toxic effect of radiation obviously goes to zero at the background dose, about 100 bq/kg for those internal radionuclides of potassium and carbon. It most definitely does not point to the zero radiation level, which is actually further to the left of zero radiation in the graph due to the other background sources like radon. 

The officials would have us believe in a completely different response than shown in this graph.  They say there is damage at normal levels and extrapolate that 60 million people have been killed by it, a figure ironically the same as that determined by the ECRR to have occurred from bomb tests.  Their conclusion however is not based on evidence, and goes against the available evidence.  

This data comes from Bandazhevsky and is for cesium, but it is a good indicator of nuclear fallout in general. i.e. the other fallout radionuclides.   The victims were exposed to nuclear fallout from Chernobyl and the bomb tests, and so they had the other fallout radionuclides in their bodies also.   So it wasnt like they were dosed only with cesium.   still, cesium was considered one of the radionuclides with the largest effect, and is for that reason, a good benchmark material to measure and consider in nuke accidents. 

This graphic is the core of the anti nuclear argument.   There is robust evidence and a very telling response curve that shows the toxicity is from fallout, not background radiation, that the dose response is not linear, that there is a 'threshold'  if you want to call it that, which is the natural radioactivity, and that represents a safe dose.  You could call it the safest dose,   much like oxygen is toxic and creates DNA damage, but the safest dose is definitely breathing!  This graph also shows how incredibly toxic cesium is.  That toxicity, and Bandazhevsky's excellent work is not considered by the so called authorities and experts.    This is a crime of humanity
we are healthy with background radiation but unhealthy with the same dose from fallout
 
Reply
#3
This is a key graphic.   It disproves the ICRP dose model, the linear, no threshold model, and shows how toxic manmade radiation is.  It invalidates the background to fallout comparison, always made by the mainstream.

   
we are healthy with background radiation but unhealthy with the same dose from fallout
 
Reply
#4
Cesium health effects are not the same as the absent data for plutonium et al. Measuring only "radiation" linearly, yes. As you have pointed out, there are many other facets within the physiological effects of heavy metals and fallout other than "Radiation". Any baseline for radiation exposure or any other risks possibly attributable to Fukushima, using one source (cesium) and assuming the common factor of "radiation" being present also in the numerous fallout particles and other sources of radiation, as proof that the health consequences for Fukushima should be measured for any given dose from any source as "cesium", is missing the data for any other expected health effects other than external radiation dose exposure for particulates existing within the biosphere (other than cesium). Any data for the other isotope specific health effects expected after Tepco* contamination, exposure routes, internal exposures, risk, mortality, bio accumulation and shelf-life then get filed in a closet somewhere, while it's any bodies guess what will ever become as a result of Fukushima et al.

It's like comparing bananas to fallout. These scientists have disregarded the presence of every other isotope on the planet, placing k40 or cesium in a tidy, round, shielded canister, where they are closely guarded with sacred rituals, wherein they chant "You will save us from our sins. There is no other source."

Ok, I'll probably delete that.
 
Reply
#5
HHD,  your point is well taken.   There are complex ICRP coefficients and methods to determine risk from all those unmentioned radionuclides you talk about.  But how valid are they?   According to the ECRR, not very valid.

Is there a lot of other fallout from Fukushima?   There WAS...a LOT more, but that is decayed away.  Cesium is measurable and a good candidate for measuring and determining concern....Strontium is another, and of increasing concern....

Nano particles....another big part of the picture.  A picture not well painted for us by the mainstream
we are healthy with background radiation but unhealthy with the same dose from fallout
 
Reply
#6
"still, cesium was considered one of the radionuclides with the largest effect, and is for that reason, a good benchmark material to measure and consider in nuke accidents."

Largest "health" effect? Or largest dose of radiation? Still, it only measures external radiation dose health effects of cesium and I allege, perhaps external radiation dose from cesium may have differing health effects than an alternate source placed linearly external from the subject. And that's just radiation. We ain't talking internal dose specific.

Strontium, meet Bone.

Oh, I see you two have met...

Where'd Tritium disappear to? You heard from Americinium? Never can pronounce that name right.

Take care. Gotta go send Brain a message that ya'll ain't been here. Don't wanna stress out the boss. Later.

"So in this graph, the healthiest level is at the full natural level of internal radionuclides and zero cesium."

Measured Internal radiation dose of k40 and carbon, combined, used as a health risk baseline for an external dose of "cesium" , which is then referenced a a safe internal dose of plutonium or any other isotope or particulate of nuclear fallout, including the health attributes or risk of k40 or carbon14 for any internal dose, not limited to "radiological health consequences" of K40 and carbon14, but also any other effects that may be attributed to K40 or carbon14; Including data that the consequence of zero internal dose of K40, including its radiological properties, is certain mortality.

This is not so for any anthropogenic substance.
 
Reply
#7
HHD,  Im not totally following your point.  But I wholeheartedly wish to, so please bear with me.

It is a fact that man will know a lot more in the future than he does now (assuming we survive) , and this growth rate of knowledge proves without a doubt that there is a great deal we dont know at present.  That certainly includes the total of  effects of the myriad of pre and post atomic era radiation sources at various combinations, levels, forms, etc.  If you are suggesting we dont know, and therefor cannot presume to present these various assumptions now held by either side of the nuclear argument as unassailable fact, then I would agree totally.

The best I can hope to do is strain to grasp the works of my chosen experts in this field...knowing that indeed there are uncertainties.   But I think there is a better ability to weigh the uncertainties, the more familiar one is with the field. Im talking about the experts, not me.   We can always be blindsided....the unknown and unimagined unknowns.  From what I read of Yuri Bandazhevsky, I like his work, it appears rigorous and well rounded in biology ...he is a specialist in anatomic pathology.  He doesnt state it outright but I can see his holistic thinking.   So I read that he puts this emphasis on cesium and strontium.   I can only parrot this, while reserving quite a bit for the unknown unknowns, some of which I think you are alluding to.  

" the main danger to health comes from radionuclides Cs-137 and Sr-90 entering the body through food. The contribution of these two radionuclides to internal doses reaches 70 to 80% . Exposure to radioactive agents has led to a doubling of mortality rates over the past 20 years. During the period 1990-1999 alone, the mortality rate increased by 32.7% (from 10. 7 to 14.2 per thousand); 40.2% in men and 24.3% in women.This trend in mortality is especially pronounced in districts experiencing high levels of contamination by Cs-137 and Sr-90."

Non-cancerous Medical Conditions in Areas of Belarus Contaminated by Radioactivity from the 1986 Chernobyl Nuclear Accident Prof. Yury Bandazhevsky Dr. Galina Bandazhevskaya 

Inasmuch as the Cesium and Strontium are accompanied by other fallout products, which expose the population at various time windows and exposure routes,  I would say, as you seem to be saying, that their effect cant be ignored.  But If the fallout is similar between these catastrophic nuke accidents, one can use the Cesium as a proxy for the whole slew of fallout poisons....would you sort of agree with that?.  One may not measure it directly, but the effect of obscure radionuclides will be rolled into the effect of the proxy or marker radionuclide. 

Regarding that graph.  The cesium is internal.   Partly a justification for leaving out the external natural background in my effort.  At least we are comparing internal to internal radiation, and there is no ambiguity about the radiation levels.

Im struggling with this sentence " Measured Internal radiation dose of k40 and carbon, combined, used as a health risk baseline for an external dose of "cesium" , which is then referenced a a safe internal dose of plutonium or any other isotope or particulate of nuclear fallout, including the health attributes or risk of k40 or carbon14 for any internal dose, not limited to "radiological health consequences" of K40 and carbon14, but also any other effects that may be attributed to K40 or carbon14; Including data that the consequence of zero internal dose of K40, including its radiological properties, is certain mortality."

I could perhaps mention that zero potassium would certainly be deadly, but the full effect of zero k-40, the radioactive isotope of potassium is not certain.  I suspect at least in the short term, not a great deal of impact from reducing k-40 to zero would be seen.  Removing K-40 from potassium is no small task and consequently only a few studies have been made.  While the radioactive aspect of potassium no doubt played a roll in the evolution of life, perhaps even the creation of life,  the effect is now probably something along the lines of 'subtle'.  So I dont equate K-40 to an essential element, like oxygen or nutrients.  I am saying that it appears not to be radiotoxic,  at normal, and apparently even highly elevated levels, based on those few tests I keep mentioning.  Its a fixed, normal level, so philosophically its not a change inducing thing.  Would we be healthier without it?   I dont think so.   LIfe itself is mortal

thanks
we are healthy with background radiation but unhealthy with the same dose from fallout
 
Reply
#8
I am placing my responses to comments in the Calamity of Radiation > Background radiation vs fallout thread here. For what its worth

code; Im not sure I follow or if the graph was not clear.    The radioactivity to the left of 100 bq/kg is "natural radioactivity"  and the level of about 100 bq/kg is a fixed constant...it is the natural background inside your body coming from potassium and carbon14.   It is impossible to have less radioactivity than that except by special means of reduction.  The addition of cesium starts there, at 100 bq/kg.    So in this graph, the healthiest level is at the full natural level of internal radionuclides and zero cesium.

This does not include other types of natural background like radon and cosmic rays.  While I find zero evidence in scientific papers of potassium radiotoxicity at normal and even highly elevated levels, there is evidence for radon and cosmic ray radiotoxicity.    Yet, there are studies of high natural background areas with high radon that do not show increased sickness and mortality.   A few indicate there might be,  and some don't, while others show even higher health...so its a wash.

On the other hand, tests of reduced radioactivity almost invariably show markers of reduced health or reduced development of healthy features like DNA repair..which is required for repairing the damage done from breathing air. 

So its a pretty robust conclusion that the natural amount of radioactivity from natural background is the healthiest one.

The shape of the dose response due to cesium is the really key feature in this graph.   The toxic effect of radiation obviously goes to zero at the background dose, about 100 bq/kg for those internal radionuclides of potassium and carbon. It most definitely does not point to the zero radiation level, which is actually further to the left of zero radiation in the graph due to the other background sources like radon. 

The officials would have us believe in a completely different response than shown in this graph.  They say there is damage at normal levels and extrapolate that 60 million people have been killed by it, a figure ironically the same as that determined by the ECRR to have occurred from bomb tests.  Their conclusion however is not based on evidence, and goes against the available evidence.  

This data comes from Bandazhevsky and is for cesium, but it is a good indicator of nuclear fallout in general. i.e. the other fallout radionuclides.   The victims were exposed to nuclear fallout from Chernobyl and the bomb tests, and so they had the other fallout radionuclides in their bodies also.   So it wasnt like they were dosed only with cesium.   still, cesium was considered one of the radionuclides with the largest effect, and is for that reason, a good benchmark material to measure and consider in nuke accidents. 

This graphic is the core of the anti nuclear argument.   There is robust evidence and a very telling response curve that shows the toxicity is from fallout, not background radiation, that the dose response is not linear, that there is a 'threshold'  if you want to call it that, which is the natural radioactivity, and that represents a safe dose.  You could call it the safest dose,   much like oxygen is toxic and creates DNA damage, but the safest dose is definitely breathing!  This graph also shows how incredibly toxic cesium is.  That toxicity, and Bandazhevsky's excellent work is not considered by the so called authorities and experts.    This is a crime of humanity

HHD,  your point is well taken.   There are complex ICRP coefficients and methods to determine risk from all those unmentioned radionuclides you talk about.  But how valid are they?   According to the ECRR, not very valid.

Is there a lot of other fallout from Fukushima?   There WAS...a LOT more, but that is decayed away.  Cesium is measurable and a good candidate for measuring and determining concern....Strontium is another, and of increasing concern....

Nano particles....another big part of the picture.  A picture not well painted for us by the mainstream


we are healthy with background radiation but unhealthy with the same dose from fallout

HHD,  Im not totally following your point.  But I wholeheartedly wish to, so please bear with me.

It is a fact that man will know a lot more in the future than he does now (assuming we survive) , and this growth rate of knowledge proves without a doubt that there is a great deal we dont know at present.  That certainly includes the total of  effects of the myriad of pre and post atomic era radiation sources at various combinations, levels, forms, etc.  If you are suggesting we dont know, and therefor cannot presume to present these various assumptions now held by either side of the nuclear argument as unassailable fact, then I would agree totally.

The best I can hope to do is strain to grasp the works of my chosen experts in this field...knowing that indeed there are uncertainties.   But I think there is a better ability to weigh the uncertainties, the more familiar one is with the field. Im talking about the experts, not me.   We can always be blindsided....the unknown and unimagined unknowns.  From what I read of Yuri Bandazhevsky, I like his work, it appears rigorous and well rounded in biology ...he is a specialist in anatomic pathology.  He doesnt state it outright but I can see his holistic thinking.   So I read that he puts this emphasis on cesium and strontium.   I can only parrot this, while reserving quite a bit for the unknown unknowns, some of which I think you are alluding to.  

From Bandazhevsky;
" the main danger to health comes from radionuclides Cs-137 and Sr-90 entering the body through food. The contribution of these two radionuclides to internal doses reaches 70 to 80% . Exposure to radioactive agents has led to a doubling of mortality rates over the past 20 years. During the period 1990-1999 alone, the mortality rate increased by 32.7% (from 10. 7 to 14.2 per thousand); 40.2% in men and 24.3% in women.This trend in mortality is especially pronounced in districts experiencing high levels of contamination by Cs-137 and Sr-90."

Non-cancerous Medical Conditions in Areas of Belarus Contaminated by Radioactivity from the 1986 Chernobyl Nuclear Accident Prof. Yury Bandazhevsky Dr. Galina Bandazhevskaya 

Inasmuch as the Cesium and Strontium are accompanied by other fallout products, which expose the population at various time windows and exposure routes,  I would say, as you seem to be saying, that their effect cant be ignored.  But If the fallout is similar between these catastrophic nuke accidents, one can use the Cesium as a proxy for the whole slew of fallout poisons....would you sort of agree with that?.  One may not measure it directly, but the effect of obscure radionuclides will be rolled into the effect of the proxy or marker radionuclide. 

Regarding that graph.  The cesium is internal.   Partly a justification for leaving out the external natural background in my effort.  At least we are comparing internal to internal radiation, and there is no ambiguity about the radiation levels.

Im struggling with this sentence " Measured Internal radiation dose of k40 and carbon, combined, used as a health risk baseline for an external dose of "cesium" , which is then referenced a a safe internal dose of plutonium or any other isotope or particulate of nuclear fallout, including the health attributes or risk of k40 or carbon14 for any internal dose, not limited to "radiological health consequences" of K40 and carbon14, but also any other effects that may be attributed to K40 or carbon14; Including data that the consequence of zero internal dose of K40, including its radiological properties, is certain mortality."

I could perhaps mention that zero potassium would certainly be deadly, but the full effect of zero k-40, the radioactive isotope of potassium is not certain.  I suspect at least in the short term, not a great deal of impact from reducing k-40 to zero would be seen.  Removing K-40 from potassium is no small task and consequently only a few studies have been made.  While the radioactive aspect of potassium no doubt played a roll in the evolution of life, perhaps even the creation of life,  the effect is now probably something along the lines of 'subtle'.  So I dont equate K-40 to an essential element, like oxygen or nutrients.  I am saying that it appears not to be radiotoxic,  at normal, and apparently even highly elevated levels, based on those few tests I keep mentioning.  Its a fixed, normal level, so philosophically its not a change inducing thing.  Would we be healthier without it?   I dont think so.   LIfe itself is mortal

thanks
we are healthy with background radiation but unhealthy with the same dose from fallout
 
Reply
#9
Made a few additions and replaced 'external' with 'internal'...

Measured Internal radiation dose of k40 and carbon, combined, used as a health risk baseline for an internal dose of "cesium" , which is then referenced as an internal dose of plutonium or any other isotope or particulate of nuclear fallout, when measuring health effects/consequences of said particulates after having dispersed into the biosphere and the food chain, including replacing actual attributes with attributes of other substances, such as K40, including and not limited to, the health attributes or risk of k40 or carbon14 for any internal dose, not limited to "radiological health consequences" of K40 and carbon14, but also any other effects that may be attributed to K40 or carbon14; Including data that the consequence of zero internal dose of K40, including its radiological properties, is certain mortality.

Plutonium contamination internal dose risk data is not even included in the measurements to weigh the consequences of [the] plutonium introduced to our planet in 2011 with this method.
It's cesium radiological modeling determining the outcome of all fallout particulate harm expected. How is that possible!?

It also assumes "radiation" is the only property of fallout. If they think radiation levels are the sole marker for an isotopes chosen path of destruction in the body, then they should well have trained those lil buggers to stay in their cages by now. Using this method, lead would show no harm on the graph because it measures only expected radiation dose within the parameters of the model. It does not measure "lead" only "radioactivity of lead". Sunshine scores worse, but they are having difficulty internalizing it without it mutating into D before they can catch the critter on film.

The move here with some of the content made it wonky for me to reply. BBL
 
Reply
#10
"It's cesium radiological modeling determining the outcome of all fallout particulate harm expected. How is that possible!?"

The studies on Cesium come from Chernobyl victims.  The victims were exposed to all the fallout products from Chernobyl, but only one indicative substance needs to be measured.  An analogy;  Imagine that pollution from coal plants has 200 different toxins, and also soot.  The soot always accompanies the toxins in the same ratio.   All you need to do is measure the amount of black soot, and correlate this with the health damage, and you would not need to measure the 200 toxins in polluted environments, only the soot.  The soot is a proxy, an indicative marker. 

But it could be that the cesium and strontium are indeed responsible for most of the health impact.  This is something we dont know.

If Fukushima fallout was the exact same as Chernobyl, again one could measure only one feature of the fallout, say a radionuclide, or the mass or volume, and comparing to the studies of Chernobyl victims, you could estimate the fallout harm.   But Fukushima fallout is at least somewhat different.  The microparticles might change the biological impact considerably.  Nevertheless, cesium might still be a good candidate to measure in order to estimate radiation risk.  There are accidents where cesium would not be an appropriate marker.  

But that graph,  with that dose curve is good and its indicative of fallout danger.  One reason is that a lot of the damage from nuke fallout is a systemic impact...an impact on the metabolism,  the bystander effect, the immune system, the endocrine system.  This kind of over all effect of fallout has allowed Chris Busby to make these ballpark estimates that are serving well.  For example that fallout is about 600 or 1000 times worse than they say it is.    Yuri bandazhevsky went far in understanding these radiation impacts on the systemic and at the cellular level
we are healthy with background radiation but unhealthy with the same dose from fallout
 
Reply
#11
"While the radioactive aspect of potassium no doubt played a roll in the evolution of life, perhaps even the creation of life, the effect is now probably something along the lines of 'subtle'"

Re subtle effect of [k40]
I would like to see the results of any study of the effects of the radio signature pathway of K40 and and any receptors or activators and the resulting chemical, biological and electrical signatures. Yessiree bob, ah would. Then let nuclear apologists tell us we iz bananas if we think there is more to nuclear contamination than "radiation"!
 
Reply
#12
that graph is very powerful.  That graph alone would put an end to the  nuclear industry and end most of the debates.  The only missing thing is the acceptance of Bandazhevsky's data by the scientists who hold the keys to the legality of the whole business.

There is no need to find hidden radioactivity or radionuclides, no need to elucidate the mechanisms, No need to get into plutonium and MOX and tritium. Of course investigating and elucidating details  is always good and in fact Bandazhevsky went very far in elucidating the mechanisms, the biological response at cellular, sub cellular and systemic levels. 

The graph puts an end to the constant comparison of background to fallout, it shows how incredibly toxic the manmade radiation is, astronomically more than admitted.  It ends the debate on the dose response curve, and kills the ICRP model.
The details also end the nonsense that radiation just randomly gives you cancer or if not you are unaffected. It ends the safe or no safe dose debate.  Destroys the Woods Hole Oceanographic assertions about Fukushima danger, and their motto and the WHOI graphic comparing doses.  It shows how deceptive geiger counter readings are.    

IF the anti nuke people would get behind that research and all of its implications, it would be very powerful indeed
we are healthy with background radiation but unhealthy with the same dose from fallout
 
Reply
#13
I am a huge fan of Bandazhevsky. Would love to see an entire thread or forum for his work and personal struggles. Alongside the concerned scientists working on Fukushima et al. The honest ones.

Elucidating details of the mechanisms of various fallout exposures is necessary to prevail in the recovery of standards set for population[sic] dose allowances, such as ICRP recommendations. The subjects are not limited to the radiological effects of any given source and should not be limited to the study of radiological health effects. To assume that radiation was the only instigator of effect is to say that all sources have the same mechanism, therefore they all share the same chemical signature limited to "radiation". This has not been shown, that I am yet aware of. It also alludes to a complete understanding of fallout exposure and a theory of "radiation" overriding all mechanisms in the universe. There are other effects, absent radiological data, including, as the nuclear industry admits, psychological and thereby physical changes within the population, resulting from fallout exposure. A bad example, perhaps, but indicative of a variable not included in the X-ray comparisons used to measure populations exposed to fallout, rather than all emperical data that cherry picking renders inconsequential. Does strontium accumulate in bone rather than muscle, strictly due to the radiological dose, or are there other chemical, electrical, heavy metal signatures attributable to strontium? If radiation dose is "separated" from strontium (hard to do, as you point out), does the signature change? Does it still follow the bone pathway? If so, how does calcium follow the same pathway, without a radiological signature? Or is K40 the mechanism which drives all exchanges, even up to calcium channels?K40, absent the other potassium elements, does not exhibit the same health effects as the three elements combined to make potassium and K40 is not "radiation". Radiation is only one attribute of the element.

Liquid coffee. Liquid milk. They share a liquid character, but they are not, in fact, the same. Nor does the body interact with either matter the same. Milk is not coffee. K40, as in potassium, is not fallout and never will be. Fallout, conversely, is not k40 and never has been. Never. Not once. I don't see bananas and sunshine bubbling out of Fukushima. Never will, no matter how hard the industry pressures the public to believe that is what will be taking place there, forever.

Every element for itself- especially when it comes to the seriousness of fallout contamination.
 
Reply
#14
https://www.courthousenews.com/nuclear-power-4/

For the investors in the new buyout decomissioners...

Nuclear Power 
July 9, 2019BRIEF
WASHINGTON — The United States owes $112 million to Georgia Power Co., plus $31.2 million to Alabama Power Co., for failing to accept and dispose of their spent nuclear fuel, the Court of Federal Claims in a ruling of partial summary judgement.

Membership required.
 
Reply
#15
Hi guys. I owe Horse an answer to a question he posed a while back. This discussion touching on K 40 seems a good place to answer.

        (puts down chainsaw, starts typing)

     In a previous discussion about K 40, I suggested, based on my experience, using wood ash (rich in potassium) in my work as an arborist, that potassium is not only *not* harmful to biology, but is actually beneficial. As code points out, that fact would be another nail in the nuclear coffin.
    The sale of wood ash is a big business world wide. For centuries gardeners & farmers have applied wood ash to their crops because they observed that it helps plants…resist disease!
     The question Horse asked me was "How do you use wood ash in your work?"
   Two ways so far.
    First, I used it to cure a fungal disease in Coast Live Oak. One of my trees had a perennial canker. Its a fungal infection that causes the bark to die. The area affected was shaped like any ellipse a foot long and about three inches wide. Looks like a mechanical injury, complete with an attempt to
 re-cover the wood with bark. In the spring the tree tries to lay down reaction would, a roll of callus tissue that becomes bark and covers the wound. Its a seasonal progression; by the end of summer that effort fails, and the affected area gets larger. Over time, the effort loses ground, the wound gets larger and eventually the tree dies.
   According to UC Davis, the go to authority in California plant pathology, there is no cure for this fungal disease, chemical (poison) or otherwise.
    What I did was mixed up some wood ash with water, forming a stiff paste, and covered the wound with that. Within a year, the wound completely closed and did not reappear. Been 10 years now. That section of trunk and bark appears completely normal.
   This is huge. Remember, consensus science says there are no cures for this type of fungal infection.
   The second way I use K 40 is not ash, but smoke.
For the last 20 years, oak trees have been under attack by a non native bark boring beetle. Was imported in firewood from Northern Mexico. This beetle is unique among all the bark beetles, in that it attacks healthy young trees, not just stressed & mature trees as all the other beetles do.
    Death is rapid, large areas are affected. And there is no cure. The fact sheet from the US Forest Service states there is no cure. But in obedience to their paperwork, in the field labeled "chemical control" they listed imidacloprid. A very toxic neonicotoid.
    I don't work with poisons, they rarely work, but the suppliers are quite happy to sell you poison. There was a guy in town that would do a soil drench or trunk injection of imidacloprid…at $400 per tree!
There are folks who will do that, and when I tell my clients there is no hope for their oak tree, they clutch at straws and call those people. I have never seen that work. Never. Once the beetle is in a tree, death is  certain.
    My small valley is greatly affected. About a dozen 40 acre parcels, oaks lining the stream. Everybody has lost Oaks. From a minimum of 30 %, all the way up to 90%.
    Except me. Why is that?
    I have learned from the local Indians how to manage oak woodland at the landscape level, in order to protect trees from SoCal fires.
So, for the past 20 years, I have spent the rainy season cutting, stacking and burning brush. (How I got my massive dose of fuku rads in 2011. In essence, I was boiling the rainwater right in my face, breathing in the fumes. Sickened me; murdered my wife).
    As an apparent result of this practice, I lost no oak trees to the exotic bark beetle.
       
      Here is my hypothesis on why that worked to protect my oak trees:
    Trees have an immune system. Its not like ours. Its called SAR. That's not search and rescue, its systemic acquired response. I'm thinking the K 40 in the smoke stimulated the immune system of the trees to resist the gold spotted Oak borer.
     The larval stage of the insect is what does all the damage, and it is underneath the bark. I *do not* think the smoke is penetrating 2 inches of solid bark to choke out the insect.

     Here's my proof of concept:
    After 17 years, my neighbors lost a huge percentage of their Oak trees. I lost none.
    Then I stopped burning for 3 years. One year to grieve for my wife, another year to fight off a derivative dose of fuku radiation- hot particles in spirulina. Measured 3x background. Then instant coffee at 2x background. So I didn't burn much brush for 3 years. As a result I have lost three trees to bark beetle. ( Lost 4 to drought)  A handful of other oaks have some beetle in them, but they have not died yet.
    
     I'll be resuming burning next winter, and for me, consuming as much K 40 as I can.
   Cheers y'all !


Attached Files Image(s)
   
don't stir up the hot particles
 
Reply
#16
(07-24-2019, 02:41 PM)HHD Wrote: https://www.courthousenews.com/nuclear-power-4/

For the investors in the new buyout decomissioners...

Nuclear Power 
July 9, 2019BRIEF
WASHINGTON — The United States owes $112 million to Georgia Power Co., plus $31.2 million to Alabama Power Co., for failing to accept and dispose of their spent nuclear fuel, the Court of Federal Claims in a ruling of partial summary judgement.

Membership required.

The United States owes 140 million? Should read  the PSTPP ;   the Perpetually Screwed Tax Paying Public

Where is the Rule of Law that protects the public from being sued for not disposing of nuclear waste?

Yep, its a big club.  We arent in it but we fund it
we are healthy with background radiation but unhealthy with the same dose from fallout
 
Reply
#17
Thanks for responding, D Kitty, this is a good place as any.

N = Nitrogen - Energizes vegetative growth,
P = Phosphorus - Produces expansive roots, flowers, fruits and viable seeds.
K = Potassium - (or potash) Promotes resistance to disease and temperature stress.

Your thinking then is burning releases K, leaves absorbing the nutrient in the smoke? K and it's normal constituent of K-40 is increasing resistance to worms and drought. Shows how vital to life Potassium is.

Burning probably the best way to treat a grove. We can't burn brush in the city, but the wood ash paste is doable. You were using wood ash as a mulch too as I recollect?
"The map is not the territory that it is a map of ... the word is not the thing being referred to."
 
Reply
#18
http://technologypals.com.au/wp-content/...nation.pdf

The coffee may not be hot.
 
Reply
#19
(07-24-2019, 08:39 PM)HHD Wrote: http://technologypals.com.au/wp-content/...nation.pdf

The coffee may not be hot.

HHD, I think you're hinting that the smoke should be tested for radioactivity. A big concern now is that burning wood will release other elements besides the Potassium that a tree absorbed in its lifetime. I can move this wood ash interlude somewhere else to keep Cesium dose response on-topic if you'd like. To the practical aspects of radioactive contamination; all the good things we need for life now come with some bad things deadly to life.
"The map is not the territory that it is a map of ... the word is not the thing being referred to."
 
Reply
#20
Not necessarily. Sorry for my lack of clarity.

"Hot" coffee isn't always "hot".

from technologypals.com.au :

"Geiger Counters are not sensitive enough to detect the very small amounts of radioactive contamination in food or liquids that can cause health issues. Unless the food or liquid is considerably contaminated, or has fallout on the surface, your Geiger Counter won’t show anything above your normal background level.
As a general rule if your Geiger Counter picks up radioactivity significantly above your background level in food or drink, it is unsafe to eat or drink. That being said, dried food items tested with sensitive Geiger Counters can show higher than background radiation levels. This is because the dehydration process concentrates the small amount of natural radioactive Potassium K40, that is found in all food. If it was just an elevated K40 detection, it would be OK to eat.
We have been through this process here with foods like English Brewers Yeast, Cocoa Powder, coffee, and some other dried powdered foods that have high K40 content. People here in Australia using the Inspector or Inspector EXP Geiger Counters to test these foods, were getting much higher that normal background detections."

" I can move this wood ash interlude somewhere else to keep Cesium dose response on-topic if you'd like. "
Or you could move it to Codes Geiger zombies of the last world thread...
 
Reply
  


Forum Jump:


Browsing: 1 Guest(s)