[ RadSafe ] Re: Feds puzzled ....Cs-137, K-40 data -ratios and uptake in biomass
stewart farber
radproject at sbcglobal.net
Thu Jul 19 11:47:46 CDT 2007
George,
Thanks for your thoughts and earlier posting to a review paper on Cs-137
behavior in the environment, but there are some
missstatements/misunderstandings in your comment about the interaction of
stable Cs in soil and uptake of Cs-137.
You write:
">It should read Higher stable Cs, LOWER Cs-137 uptake.
> True, it is a simple ratio, as is the ratio of K and Cs is a simple
> ratio."
The above comment about my post is erroneous. My comment about HIGHER
stable Cs in soil leading to HIGHER Cs-137 in biomass is accurate, and quite
easily explained given the mechanisms at play. I mentioned in my prior post
that the behavior of Cs-137 vs. stable Cs in soil was counterintuitive.
It is opposite what would pertain in thinking about carrier solutions of a
rad isotope like Cs-137 and the effect of higher levels of stable carrier
Cs, as far as Cs-137 activity which might be taken up in hydroponic
experiments. I tried to explain this mechanism for soil, in passing, in my
earlier posts on Cs-137 fallout from bomb tests or nuclear plant releases
and uptake to biomass.
Again, the key factor is that soil particles have ion exchange sites that
can bind Cs. If there is MORE stable Cs in the soil at the time of the
fresh fallout being deposited, these exchange sites on soil particles are
already filled up. Then when carrier free Cs-137 is deposited from air to
soil, this Cs-137 is NOT [or less] bound to the soil particles, as would
otherwise be the case. Fresh fallout Cs-137 then is present in the
interstitial water space between soil particles, and the newly deposited
Cs-137 is MORE available for uptake through plant roots.
Thus higher stable Cs in soil, in almost all cases, leads to higher Cs-137
uptake from soil to plant for fresh fallout which is coming down as carrier
free Cs-137. Rather interesting.
I don't have the references at hand to this effect, but did as I recall cite
them in my paper presented to the 1991 HPS Annual Meeting titled:
"Nationwide Survey of Cs-137 in Woodash, Results of Nationwide Survey" or
"Woodburners and Organic Farmers -Is it Time to Kiss Your Ash Goodbye?"
BTW, when I did get a relatively overwhelming level of inquiry during 1990
and 1991 to the preceding technical paper, from newspapers and magazines
across the US and Canada I was able to assure readers that the very elevated
levels of Cs-137 in biomass from weapon's test fallout [up to 20,000
picoCuries per kg of ash, with later measurements as high as 25,000
picoCuries in ash from hardwood burning in Northern Florida] did not require
users of ash as a soil amendment [both on a single user domestic situation,
or large organic food coops] to kiss their ash goodbye, despite some
nuclear/hospital facilities being required to handle waste streams with this
level of Cs-137 as radwaste. Rather ironic.
Stewart Farber, MS Public Health
Consulting Scientist
Farber Technical Services
1285 Wood Ave.
Bridgeport, CT 06604
[203] 441-8433 [office]
[203] 522-2817 [cell]
email: radproject at sbcglobal.net
radproject at aol.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Geo>K0FF" <GEOelectronics at netscape.com>
To: "stewart farber" <radproject at sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 10:16 AM
Subject: Re: Feds puzzled ....Cs-137, K-40 data -ratios and uptake in
biomass
> Isn't this contradicting itself?
>
> It should read Higher stable Cs, LOWER Cs-137 uptake.
> True, it is a simple ratio, as is the ratio of K and Cs is a simple ratio.
>
> George Dowell
>
>
>
> Cs-137 uptake is suppressed by stable Cs in soil. Higher stable Cs,
> higher
>> Cs-137 uptake for a given type of soil.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "stewart farber" <radproject at sbcglobal.net>
> To: "Geo>K0FF" <GEOelectronics at netscape.com>; "Earley, Jack N"
> <Jack_N_Earley at RL.gov>
> Cc: <radsafe at radlab.nl>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 10:17 AM
> Subject: Re: Feds puzzled ....Cs-137, K-40 data -ratios and uptake in
> biomass
>
>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> The statement by George Dowell below, about uptake to plants regarding
>> Cs-137 vs. K-40 in soil in the first paragraph below is not correct.
>>
>> Plants do not take up Cs-137 in some constant ratio of K-40/Cs-137.
>>
>> Cs-137 uptake is suppressed by stable K levels in soil. Higher K, lower
>> Cs uptake.
>>
>> Cs-137 uptake is suppressed by stable Cs in soil. Higher stable Cs,
>> higher Cs-137 uptake for a given type of soil. Stable Cs in soil binds to
>> soil Cs binding sites on soil particles. Fill those sites, and nuclear
>> bomb test fallout and nuclear plant released carrier free Cs-137 is more
>> readily available for uptake from soil to plant.
>>
>> Cs-137 uptake varies widely with type of soil: sand, high humus/organics,
>> clay -- ordered from high to low uptake.
>>
>> Cs-137 interestingly in air can also be taken into plants like trees or
>> any other biomass directly from the air!! Plants need K to live, and have
>> evolved very neat mechanisms to take in nutrients from the air. Since Cs
>> and K are chemical cogeners [being the same family in the periodic table]
>> plants are fooled into trying to take in [ie: "suck"] Cs-137 from the air
>> when they really are seeking and need K to grow. This mechanism of Cs-137
>> uptake from air was clearly demonstrated in Chernobyl followup studies,
>> but the mechanism about K uptake from air had been well documented in the
>> scientific literature before Chernobyl.
>>
>> Generalized weapon's test fallout areal deposition levels from one
>> location to another around the US does not explain the variations in
>> Cs-137 I measured in woodash, or had reported to me from labs qualified
>> to make gamma spec measurements of Cs-137. The areal deposition of Cs-137
>> in the western US from all fallout including Russian open air testing of
>> nuclear bombs and transport of US open air testing which circled the
>> globe many, many times, is perhaps one third to one half that seen in the
>> eastern US.
>>
>> However, my data shows Cs-137 levels in the few samples of Cs in woodash
>> reported to me from California, that are 100 times lower than in Florida.
>> Northern Florida Cs-137 was measured at 25,000 picoCuries per kg of ash
>> while the deposition there is perhaps one-half to one-third that of the
>> Northeastern US which showed Cs-137 of up to 20,000 picoCuries per kg of
>> ash, with most samples in the Northeast between 8,000 and 15,000
>> picoCuries per kg of ash. The very low Cs-137 in California is almost
>> certainly due to the very high stable K in California soil, along with
>> low stable Cs in soils in the west according to the literature. So
>> roughly equivalent areal Cs-137 deposition in California or Florida can
>> result in Cs-137 in biomass that is 100 fold different depending on local
>> soil chemistry!! Relevant and very neat.
>>
>> As I pointed out in my note to the HPS Newsletter in 1990, my initial
>> measurements of Cs-137 in woodash from New England showed Cs-137 at
>> 15,000 picoCuries per kg in an ash sample from my vacation home in
>> Warren, Vermont, 100 miles north of Vermont Yankee nuclear power station.
>>
>> At the same time, hardwood ash samples from mature hardwoods cut near
>> Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power station and burned in a local person's
>> woodstove were measured at 1,500 picoCuries per kg of ash --even though
>> the areal deposition of weapons test fallout was essentially the same
>> close to my former home in Warren, VT vs the sample location from
>> Vernon, VT near the only nuclear plant in Vermont, 100 miles to the
>> south.
>>
>> Did Vermont Yankee reduce Cs-137 in the environment by a factor of 10
>> around Vernon? :-) This is what the data indicates if one is making
>> simplistic, and unscientific claims like those of the Tooth Fairy
>> Project. It could be argued that Vermont Yankee takes in huge amounts of
>> air and the intake air filters at the plant and the exhaust air filters
>> before filtered offgas from the plant remove Cs-137 from ambient air
>> leading to Cs-137 in wood ash samples nearby being 10 times lower than in
>> a "Background" area 100 miles away totally out of the influence of
>> releases from the nuclear plant!!
>>
>> See how much fun you can have distorting a few measurements of
>> radioactivity in some environmental media taken near and far from a
>> nuclear plant.
>>
>> All we can say for sure based on the limited data at hand, is that the
>> operation of Vermont Yankee NPS from 1972 forward to the present has
>> released such absolutely trivial amounts of Cs-137 [and even much, much
>> lower trivial amounts of Sr-90 given the very large increase in
>> Cs-137/Sr-90 ratios in nuclear plant waste streams from the fission ratio
>> of Cs-137/Sr-90 -this is another issue that is interesting, but beyond
>> the scope of this comment] that levels of Cs-137 in biomass [trees] cut
>> around a specific nuclear station show Cs-137 at levels 10 times lower
>> than a location out of the plant's influence located 100 miles to the
>> north. As Henry Gibson's character used to say [I'm showing my age] on
>> the 60s comedy show Laugh In: "Veeeeeeery Interesting"
>>
>> Stewart Farber, MS Public Health
>> Consulting Scientist
>> Farber Technical Services
>> 1285 Wood Ave.
>> Bridgeport, CT 06604
>> [203] 441-8433 [office]
>> [203] 522-2817 [cell]
>> email: radproject at sbcglobal.net
>>
>> ==================================
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Geo>K0FF" <GEOelectronics at netscape.com>
>> To: "stewart farber" <radproject at sbcglobal.net>; "Earley, Jack N"
>> <Jack_N_Earley at RL.gov>
>> Cc: <radsafe at radlab.nl>
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 12:18 PM
>> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Feds puzzled by gamma radiation higher
>> thannormalnearwildfire -Cs-137, K-40 data
>>
>>
>>> Cs has a high degree of similarity to potassium, chemically, as shown on
>>> the periodic table of elements. Therefore if it is in abundance in the
>>> soil, the plant will treat it as it would potassium, with the uptake in
>>> the same
>>> ratio as K/Cs in the soil.
>>>
>>> Stewart's Cs-137 in woodash report numbers make sense, since the
>>> prevailing winds in Nevada (NTS) are from the west.
>>>
>>> An interesting report on the uptake mechanisms of soil Cs into plants
>>> can be found here:
>>> http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/tansleyreviews/nph113.pdf
>>>
>>> *Specificity* in the human body similarly directs the uptake sites of
>>> certain similar chemicals and isotopes.
>>> Radium is a calcium mimic for example, and radioiodines are thyroid
>>> specific because they are, well....iodine.
>>> Na-22 and H3 are readily absorbed as well and should be handled with
>>> that in mind.
>>>
>>> George DowellNLNLNew London Nucleonics Lab56791 Rivere Au Sel Pl.New
>>> London, MO 63459GEOelectronics at Netscape.com573-221-3418
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "stewart farber" <radproject at sbcglobal.net>
>>> To: "Earley, Jack N" <Jack_N_Earley at RL.gov>
>>> Cc: <radsafe at radlab.nl>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 11:09 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Feds puzzled by gamma radiation higher
>>> thannormalnearwildfire -Cs-137, K-40 data
>>>
>>>
>>>> Issues are very complex about what effects Cs-137 in biomass per unit
>>>> deposition in soil.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
More information about the RadSafe
mailing list