• 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


Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
K-40
#1
K-40 is the radioactive isotope of potassium. Its the largest source of internal background radiation.  K-40 radiation in the ocean is thousands of times higher than that from fallout except in places next to nuclear disasters.  It is usually compared to fallout with the express or implied conclusion that we are needlessly, even foolishly worried about nuclear accidents and bomb fallout.

However to accurately conclude this, one must know two things; how toxic the fallout is and how toxic the background radiation is.  If for example it turns out cesium is 12000 times more toxic per becquerel than potassium, then there is an equal radiation load from each on the ocean ecosystem. If the radiation from potassium is for some reason not toxic at all at biologically relevant doses, then (mathematically) any pollution from fallout is infinitely more damaging. 

This subject is closely related to the threads on bystander effect and pacific genocide

There is very little actual testing done on the radiological toxicity of potassium.  Its not an easy test to make because it entails separating the isotope from its two sister isotopes.  But I have accumulated some interesting papers and theories surrounding this subject and will post them below.  Evidence points to the conclusion that radiation from potassium is, for whatever reason, not toxic in normal or even highly elevated levels.  On the other hand, exhaustive work from Chernobyl and elsewhere shows nuclear fallout is 5x to many thousands of times higher than given by official dosimetry.  

Busting the constant comparison made of fallout and background radiation would expose the nuke industry for adding an unnatural poison to the global ecosystem which is negatively affecting the health of nearly all life to some degree.

Thus K-40 deserves its own thread
 
Reply
#2
This study used  the natural mixture of potassium isotopes containing 0.012% 40K ; potassium from which the 4OK had been depleted by factor of 4000 by isotopic separation; and potassium enriched to 80% 40K.   That is a huge range of radioactivity, from 1/4000 to 6600x.    " We conclude that, in the bacterial systems we have studied, 40K does not make significant contribution to spontaneous mutation.."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article...4-0338.pdf

what radiation dose would that be for a human, if the K-40 was increased by a thousand times? 70,000 bq/kg. 

---------------------

With the assumption that all ionizing radioactivity is damaging, would you elect to remove your background radiation if you could? (without disturbing any electrolyte balance or anything)

There has been a number of experiments done on the effects of decreased levels of background radiation.  It appears that any change from natural results in stress...even a reduction in radioactivity.

"biological experiments conducted in underground laboratories have shown that cells cultured across both long and short periods in a low background (LB) environment compared with a standard background (SB) have shown that reducing the radiation background can have detrimental, rather than positive, effects. In long‐duration experiments, a general reduction in the oxidative resistance of cells shielded from environmental background radiation is noticed, whilst over short durations, a stress response has been observed in cells  which appears with a rapidity that is inconsistent with simple predictions based upon population dynamics and the stochastic nature of radiation damage

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5511359/

------------------------

So I conclude that standard radiation health physics does NOT accurately give the toxicity of either nuclear fallout or background radiation to which they compare it.   This is important because our "best and brightest" institutes, like Woods Hole and NOAA are spreading false information by continually making this comparison through press releases to the public!   Some microbeam studies show that even a single ionizing track through a cell cytoplasm...not hitting the DNA, causes 50 nearby cells to alter their metabolism through complex  information signals.   If normal background radiation is not harmful, and in fact a positive contribution to health, then the nuclear radiation sources that cause this bystander effect is literally incomparably more damaging to life on earth

more studies and interesting cutting edge biology in support of this to follow....

Why ionizing radiation may be a positive contribution to health is not completely known. K-40 may not be the only radiation source that confers some benefit. There is a tendency to conceptually lump all ionizing radiation into one biological effect, mainly damage to DNA. But many factors may differentiate radiation sources and result in different biological effects. Commonly distinguished by alpha, beta, gamma but also including wavelengths, dose rates and concentration variables, the subsequent decay elements, biological sensing of isotopes and more.

I found that the trail often gets into quantum biology which is just an emerging science. The papers can be very difficult to understand!

So heres just another study in support of the beneficial effect of natural levels of k-40
The significance of the radioactive isotope potassium-40 for the normal development of the animal organism
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8148982

And we could start here for theories on the primordial requirement of radiation for the genesis of life with this little ditty...a theory that perhaps the asymmetric influence of the weak nuclear force is responsible for the abundance of left polarized bio molecules

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/wa...ve.664056/

All life is made of L-amino acids (and chiral sugars in the backbone of the DNA). http://theastronomist.fieldofscience.com...etric.html

only one of the 4 fundemental forces is asymmetric, that is the weak nuclear force

The weakforce influences chemical reactions because during beta decay, spin polarized electrons produce a an abundance of left-circularly polarized gamma-rays which, if present during the synthesis of biomolecules would tend to create an enantiomeric excess of left handed molecules -
 
Reply
#3
(02-02-2018, 06:14 PM)Code Wrote: And we could start here for theories on the primordial requirement of radiation for the genesis of life with this little ditty...a theory that perhaps the asymmetric influence of the weak nuclear force is responsible for the abundance of left polarized bio molecules

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/wa...ve.664056/

All life is made of L-amino acids (and chiral sugars in the backbone of the DNA).  http://theastronomist.fieldofscience.com...etric.html

only one of the 4 fundemental forces  is asymmetric, that is the weak nuclear force

The weakforce influences chemical reactions because during beta decay, spin polarized electrons produce a an abundance of left-circularly polarized gamma-rays which, if present during the synthesis of biomolecules would tend to create an enantiomeric excess of left handed molecules -

I'm not so worried about the K-40 as I am about the radio-cesium and radio-strontium.  Our bodies have adapted in the presence of potassium and the radio-potassium abundant in nature.  Not so for the cesium and strontium and their radioactive isotopes.  They were not abundant in the environment until man started creating more by splitting the uranium atom.  Heavy metals don't belong in the body whether radioactive or not.  

I had heard about the abundance of left polarized bio molecules but science didn't have an answer for how it got that way when I was in school.  The research you quote is fascinating.
"The map is not the territory that it is a map of ... the word is not the thing being referred to."
 
Reply
#4
(03-13-2018, 06:11 AM)Horse Wrote: I'm not so worried about the K-40 as I am about the radio-cesium and radio-strontium.  Our bodies have adapted in the presence of potassium and the radio-potassium abundant in nature.  Not so for the cesium and strontium and their radioactive isotopes.  They were not abundant in the environment until man started creating more by splitting the uranium atom.  Heavy metals don't belong in the body whether radioactive or not.  

I had heard about the abundance of left polarized bio molecules but science didn't have an answer for how it got that way when I was in school.  The research you quote is fascinating.

Not to forget that more than 1200 radioisotopes were - and I assume some of those 1200+ are still being - released by Fukushima - if there are not sufficient studies on the most commonly known isotopes for certain "authoritative" sources to be certain about the effects of exposures to man-made radionuclides, then, certainly there is little known about the the bulk of isotopes Fukushima is polluting earth with.
Pia
just pm me if needed.
 
Reply
#5
I want to be clear about why I started the K-40 thread.  Scientists and press releases are always comparing nuclear fallout to K-40!  You can see this everywhere.  It gives an impression that fallout is not a problem, because after all, theres a lot more radiation from potassium.  Most scientists believe this and now most citizens believe it.  See Woods Hole slogan 'our radioactive ocean' 

The other radionuclides are certainly part of the toxicity of fallout...an important part of the study, but ascribing the danger of fallout to these minor contributors to the radiation quantity misses the point.  The point is that the comparison of radiation danger of fallout to background is a flawed concept.  It will take a lot of convincing for scientists to change their minds about this.  Yet its key to establishing the real danger of the nuclear industry.  Make no mistake; nuclear science has thus far won the debate, and much of this hinges around the comparison of radiation sources.

-----------------------------

Regarding the many hundreds of radionuclides from Fukushima; cesium and strontium were identified as the radionuclides of greatest long term concern from Chernobyl. Iodine was the short term concern.  Certainly the amount of radiation from Fukushima is dominated by Cs137.  Iodine131 was about 10x higher than cesium, and xenon was very high also. Strontium is perhaps 1/40 that of cesium, but the ratio seems to be growing.  Fukushima fallout is a very complicated scenario.  

There was a recent paper saying microparticles have been discovered, changing the view on the release dynamics. But actually this was written about early on. As much as 80% of the fallout was in the form of nanometer alloys.  The fallout wasnt from volatile gas, but a maelstrom of explosive particles that includes the walls of the containment, concrete, zirconium cladding and fuel.  How this effects the accuracy of measurement and the biological effect is never discussed, and in fact, not known. 

Nevertheless, based on radiation readings, the comparison is made; there is 1000 x more radiation exposure from natural sources. The implication is hard to argue.  Pinning danger to the other radionuclides or heavy metal toxicity or the different feelings about the dangers of different isotopes doesnt help this argument.

-----------------------------

K-40 and the  comparison of different radiation sources  is a very interesting study because at the foundation is the mechanism of toxicity.  It is perhaps surprising that science is only now starting to understand why low level radiation causes harm.  There is an assumption that random DNA breaks from hits of radiation tracks to the cell nucleous is the cause, but this was found to be incorrect.  Ionization itself is not an answer either.  It may come as a surprise that the mechanisms underlying the effects of low-dose ionizing radiation  exposure (10-100 mGy) remain unknown.  This fact is important because the assumptions that many scientists base their appraisal of radiation and fallout danger on are just that; assumptions, and as it turns out, wrong ones.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5723693/

It is becoming clear that low level fallout danger is more predominantly due to shifts in metabolism orchestrated by complex signaling processes, and not direct DNA damage.  DNA damage and repair malfunction is then a consequence of this metabolic impact.  Some 7 times as much DNA damage is from this chain of effects vs radiation hits.  Furthermore, the disease induction is not primarily from DNA damage, but repair functions, complex multi cell signalling functions and metabolic changes.  This subject is intimately related to the threads on Pacific genocide and the bystander effect.

Each cell may have 10,000 to 1,000,000 spontaneous DNA lesions per day, mostly one side of the double stranded DNA, or single strand breaks.  That is approximately 1,000 DNA breaks in every cell each hour.  Double strand breaks are maybe 1% of this (from memory, dont quote that!) and amount to 10 to 50 double strand breaks per cell in each cell cycle. This is all natural and mainly not from radiation. Consider that you have some 35 trillion cells and you can see that we have billions and billions of DNA breaks going on.  Compare that to your largest source of internal ionizing radiation (potassium) which is something like 5000 becquerels or disintegration tracks per day.  Obviously, only a very small amount of DNA damage is coming from radiation. Now you look at cesium and the other 1200 fallout elements, and you have a fraction of the radiation exposure and DNA damage from fallout compared to potassium.

This is why I say that radiation measurement is misleading.  Mangano shows increased birth defects in California due to Fukushima that science says should not occur because the radiation level is very low, and anyway dominated by K-40.

---------------------

We can see why scientists believe Fukushima is of no concern; not only is the radiation a very small amount compared to natural sources like potassium, but the DNA damage is  minuscule compared to non radioactive natural causes.

They have made advances toward understanding it;...high vs low intensity ionization tracks, closely clustered DNA damage, repair functions, cell cycle importance (mainly phase G2, just before mitosis).  One might say what difference does technical detail make, since epidemiology will show results. Proof is in the pudding.   But this is not so. Mainstream science has thrown out a good deal of damning epidemiology because it didnt fit their model.  And when comparing radiation dose from fallout to background, which is always done, its important to realize they dont have an epidemiological result from background!  This works to the nuclear cartel advantage; areas with high background radiation dont seem worse than areas with low radiation, and fallout is less than that.

------------------------

So in conclusion,  the constant comparison of radiation exposure (and implied danger) of fallout to background, primarily k-40 is a false and misleading failure of science.  To bend any scientific opinion requires a focus on the pertinent facts and papers.   Simply stated, they compare fallout to k-40 without knowing how toxic k-40 actually is, and having only a sketchy or incorrect understanding of why the fallout is dangerous.  Ask a scientist where the tests are showing k-40 danger and they will come up with the ones I posted above.  No danger even elevated hundreds of times.  Conversely, Bandazhevsky et al have shown that toxicity of Cs137 is much worse than assumed.  This invalidates the linear no threshold ICRP dose model and also invalidates the comparison of fallout to background. It also highlights the misleading nature of radiation measurement!

I have many links to papers in support of the above, but It will take some time to gather them up
 
Reply
#6
Agreed Code.  K-40, banana dose, are just the latest in the process of trying to normalize people's opinions of radiation, because they are not directly comparable to the risks people should be concerned about, like cesium for example.  They are political tools, not scientific ones.  

On a separate note, I have had the pleasure of meeting Dr. Bandazhevsky at his hospital in Ivankiev, he is an incredible man.  He showed me the data they are collecting and I was blown away.  

   

   

   

   
"All models are flawed, some are useful."
George E. P. Box
 
Reply
#7
   

   

   
"All models are flawed, some are useful."
George E. P. Box
 
Reply
  


Forum Jump:


Browsing: 2 Guest(s)