[ RadSafe ] News Report Are there any publications on enhancement of uranium content in water due to run off from farms where phosphatic fertilizers are used

[parthasarathy k s]

Dear Dr. Barbara Hamrick,

The foot note attached to your message drew my attention. Hence  this response. You may recall that I requested the list for information on uranium in hair. Many responded. Actual data were precious little. My attempt was to get the trend, if any, leading to greater concentration in hair, if uranium concentration in water is high. I got some valuable information from Finland where over 100 microgram of uranium per litre of drinking water is not uncommon.

I have six publications on uranium in water in various parts of India. Maximum concentration was 50 microgram per litre. I have also additionally data from eight sites where Indian nuclear power stations are operating. None of the values were any thing remarkable

I have a pointed query. Is there any measurement indicating enhanced uranium concentration  in water due to run off from agricultural fields and farms where phosphatic fertilizers are used? I recall Merril Eisenbud referring to a public outcry in California about high uranium concentration in peaches. Public attributed the presence of uranium  to a uranium enrichment plant as the peaches had higher concentration of fluorine as well. Later a lawyer  found out that peaches in farms where phosphatic fertilizers were used had much higher concentration of uranium than those grown in uncultivated farms.

Regards




________________________________
From: "blhamrick at aol.com" <blhamrick at aol.com>
To: Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV; radsafe at radlab.nl
Sent: Wednesday, 15 April, 2009 6:08:26
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] News Report

And, I won't comment about the plutonium at all, but would like to point out that "250 times...background" is a meaningless and unnoteworthy measurement.? Landfills across the country find iodine patient waste at 250 times background all the time.? In a typical area of California that's only about 2.5 mR/hr, and easy to exceed if you're measuring a nuclear medicine patient's waste at near contact.

Barbara L. Hamrick

P.S.? To Phil Egidi - I am still here, and I wanted to try to find the information I had on uranium in hair analyses, but alas, that was almost 10 years ago, and I haven't been able to dig up the report I made at one of the CRCPD meetings.? Suffice it to say, the contacts I had with the laboratories were not confidence-inducing.? They had poor statistics (and, they originally claimed to have analyzed "thousands" of samples, but when I got the data, it was actually about 220 nationwide, with most coming from the two coasts, and a smattering from the middle of the country).? They had?no?data on possible exposure, so nothing to translate from hair uptake to potential past intake.? In short, the reported uranium in hair was a number, without any meaningful implications.