[ RadSafe ] Sr-90 in Maple Syrup, Ra-226 in mineral waters, Cs-137 in woodash, etc. was: Re: Re. Tritium found near VT Yankee (panic time!)

Wed Sep 21 13:01:40 CDT 2011

The more I think about it, the less convincing the idea that Sr90 via
the sperm pathway is as a potential issue.  Consider:

(1) The specific activity of Sr90 is 1.5E2 curies per gram, or about
6e12 Bq/g.  I assume that no one believes that a gram of Sr90 attaches
to the DNA in a given sperm, and so it is more useful to look at it on a
per atom basis.  A gram of Sr90 it 1/90=1.1E-2 moles, or about 7E21
atoms per gram. This means that the specific activity of Sr90 on a per
atom basis is about 8E-10 Bq/atom.  (Please feel free to check my math,
or indeed my logic: I long ago realized that, as I am not God, it is
entirely possible for me to make mistakes, or even be wrong).  In any
event, if you are only looking at a few atoms of Sr90, you are going to
be waiting a long time (on average) before you see a decay.  (I realize
that Bq/atom may not be a valid way of looking at it, as the statistics
concerning radioactivity may start to fall apart when you get to that
small a population, the way electronics becomes shaky when dealing with
only a few electrons.)  converting from decays per second to decays per
hour, you have about 3E-6 decays per hour per atom of Sr90.

(2) I don't know how many Sr90 atoms adhere to the DNA of a mouse sperm.
It clearly is dependent on the number of Sr90 atoms available in the
male mouse, and I can even see an argument that the VERY rapidly
reproducing DNA in sperm production would consume Sr90 disproportionate
to the DNA of other organs (though I have no idea about the competition
of bone and DNA for the Sr90 atoms.  If the adherence to sperm DNA is
high compared to bone, this presents a novel possibility for treatment
of internal Sr90 contamination, at least in men.)  Even assuming the
mouse is super saturated with Sr90, the very large number of sperm
produced has to mean that there just aren't that many Sr90 atoms to go
around for each one.  I have problems visualizing more than a couple
thousand Sr90 atoms per sperm, but let's be conservative and say a
million, or 1E6.  This means there would be about 3 decays per hour.  

(3) I also don't know the rate of cell division in a mouse embryo, and
while that is more likely to be on the internet than the number of Sr90
atoms per sperm, I am not going to try to find it.  But I suspect it is
rather rapid, as you have to go from a single cell to a baby mouse in
not many days.  If you start with a million Sr90 atoms in the initial
cell, at the first cell division each cell will have 500,000 atoms.  As
cell division continues the number of sr90 atoms per cell decreases
(assuming there is no new source of Sr90), until about the 20th division
you are down to about one atom of Sr90 per cell.  I don't know how long
that takes, but it can't be too long, given how many cells are needed to
build a mouse.      

(4) Of the cells in a mouse embryo, most of them are not destine to be
it heart (though I concede that early on it is possible that a
disproportionate number of cells are involve in making the heart, as the
heart starts beating early in the development of the organism).  

I realize that the quantitative part falls apart due to a lack of good
data, but I think the logic is sound.  I just don't see how enough Sr90
can be transported via a single sperm to have a realistic chance of
damaging enough heart cells to kill a mouse embryo.  I would tend to
give the benefit of the doubt to the researchers, if it were not for the
telling data point that Chris Busby cited it, and he has an established
track record of citing dodgy studies. 

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Brennan, Mike
(DOH)
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 2:27 PM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Sr-90 in Maple Syrup, Ra-226 in mineral
waters,Cs-137 in woodash,etc. was: Re: Re. Tritium found near VT Yankee
(panic time!)

Interesting (I only have access to the abstracts).  I assume the
researchers collected some mouse ejaculate (Oh, the life of a grad
student!) for analysis, to demonstrate that Sr90 actually transferred
between the male and female.

It is a shame that the control group was injected with a salt solution,
rather than the same solution as the experimental group, but with stable
strontium.  This would have controlled for the possibility that the
effects were due to chemical rather than radiological factors.  It also
would have been interesting if the males had been given different body
burdens, so it could be determined if there was a relationship between
dose and outcome (if any of these were done in the experiment, great!
But as it was not mentioned in the abstract, I assume it was not).  

It also would be interesting for someone to calculate how many atoms of
Sr90 were on average attached to each chromosome, what the likelihood of
a decay.  

The more I think about it, the more important it is to determine how
many atoms of Sr90 adhere to the genetic material in a sperm, as each
developing mouse only has the load from one sperm (unless someone
contends that the other sperm somehow also contribute their Sr90, which
is something that would require some proof).  If one knows how many
atoms of Sr90 are present at fertilization, and the rate of decay (a
given and constant for the length of time of interest) and the rate of
cell division (exponential for some period of time, rapid thereafter),
one could calculate the number of decays per fetus per period of time,
and see if that is reasonable when compared to the observed results.  

It all depends on demonstrating that Sr90 actually adheres to the sperm,
and quantifying the amount.  It is a shame the cited studies didn't
appear to do that.  

It also would be interesting to know the mechanism by which the Sr90
cause damage that caused "... develoipement defects mainly heart".  I
would have expected the Sr90 delivered by sperm to become randomly
distributed throughout the body (with only a small percentage of the
cells having even one atom of Sr90 in them.  

" effects here at 1mSv or less."  To what?  I don't know that dose is a
meaningful concept when talking about something like this.  It might be,
but it doesn't feel like it is.  At the very least, it isn't comparable
to dose to something like a fully developed organism.  I agree that the
effects of radiation exposure would be greater to a developing organism,
I am just not sure that dose is a useful way of quantifying it.      

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Busby, Chris
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2011 1:40 AM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
List; The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics)
MailingList
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Sr-90 in Maple Syrup, Ra-226 in mineral
waters,Cs-137 in woodash,etc. was: Re: Re. Tritium found near VT Yankee
(panic time!)

Luning K G, Frolen H, Nelson A, Roennbaeck C, (1963) Genetic Effects of
Strontium-90 injected into male mice. Nature, 197:304-5.

Experiment involved injecting Sr90 or Cs 137 same dose into male mice,
mating them withing 1 hr and following the mothers to see infant deaths.

No effect from Cs137, big effect from Sr90. Experiment followed up by 

Smirnova E I, Lyaginska A M, (1969) Heart Development of Sr-90 Injured
Rats, in Y. I. Moskalev and Y. I. Izd (eds.), Radioaktiv Izotopy
Organizs (Moscow: Medizina), 348.

Same effect but autopsy of fetus showed develoipement defects mainly
heart.
Sr binds to the phosphate backbone replacing Ca which stabilises it.

Many other Sr papers showing anomalous genotoxic effects e.g.:
Stokke T, Oftedal P, Pappas A, (1968) Effects of Small Doses of
Radioactive Strontium on the Rat Bone Marrow, Acta Radiologica, 7:
321-9.

effects here at 1mSv or less.

Cheers
Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu on behalf of Brennan, Mike
(DOH)
Sent: Thu 9/15/2011 11:15 PM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Sr-90 in Maple Syrup, Ra-226 in mineral
waters,Cs-137 in woodash,etc.  was: Re:  Re. Tritium found near VT
Yankee 		 (panic time!)

Indeed?  Is the Sr90 incorporated into the genes, or the DNA
scaffolding?  Or one of the methyl groups that cause epigenetic changes?
In short, WHY is Sr90 strongly bound to DNA?  

Do you have any thoughts on the relative damage from the radiation from
Sr90 and K40, considering that K40 has over three times the energy?  

I am not saying that K40 is dangerous, as even if it were there is
nothing that can be done about it.  I do, however, doubt your assertion
that Sr90 is a particularly powerful genotoxin, mostly because you have
so damaged your credibility in the past.

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Busby, Chris
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 9:22 AM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
List; radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Sr-90 in Maple Syrup, Ra-226 in mineral
waters,Cs-137 in woodash,etc. was: Re: Re. Tritium found near VT Yankee
(panic time!)

If you were a chemist, you would know that Sr90 binds strongly to DNA
whereas K40 does not. There is ample evidence in the literature that
Sr90 has powerful genotoxic effects compared with Cs137, and its effects
have been ascribed (in the literature) to this behaviour.
Grin
Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu on behalf of Michael E. Kitto
Sent: Thu 9/15/2011 1:20 PM
To: radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu
Subject: [ RadSafe ]  Sr-90 in Maple Syrup, Ra-226 in mineral waters,
Cs-137 in woodash, etc.  was: Re:  Re. Tritium found near VT Yankee
(panic time!)

I know this is not news to many readers here, but Sr-90 is still
measurable
in milk (at least by my lab), and the Sr-90 is not from Fukushima.
Maybe
we should ban milk consumption by children  <grin>;  after all they are
drinking hundreds of gallons during childhood.  And just think of how
much
K-40 (1300 pCi/L) that the milk contains !! <grin again>.   One of my
goals
before retirement is to show, based on 50 yrs of environmental
measurement,
the absurdity of claims, such as with the Tooth Fairy Project.  I'd
reveal
how, but I don't want to play my hand openly here.

If I recall, in addition to the wood ash, dried solid waste sludge is
scattered on fields also.  I've analyzed some, it is nasty from all
angles.

Lastly, if VT politicians read some of the annual environmental
surveillance reports coming out of states (DOH or DEP) across the US,
they'd realize H-3 is detectable (our MDL is <100 pCi/L) nearly
everywhere,
and its not from VT Yankee.  There are huge sources/emitters of
environmental H-3, and they are commercial companies (e.g.,
self-luminous
exit signs) not NPPs.

 My personal viewpoints.
 Michael Kitto, PhD
 Nuclear Chemistry Laboratory, NYS DOH

>-- Sr-90 in commercial VT maple syrup due to bomb testing,
>-- or Ra-226 in commercial VT bottled waters due to God & the Big Bang
>-- or Cs-137 due to bomb testing [ present in 10,000 or so cubic meters
of
>ash from small VT wood burning power plants] at levels up to 9,000 or
so
>pCi/kg ash [300+  Bq/kg ash] being spread on home gardens and on large
>commercial organic farming co-op farms in Northeastern Vermont, on the
>table, as it were,  for honest evaluation.
>
>It's totally amusing [on a certain level] that stores like Whole Foods
or
>other Organic food product retailers are almost consistently strongly
>anti-nuclear power, and against food irradiation but are selling
Organic
>produce being fertilized with wood ash with elevated levels of Cs-137
from
>nuclear test fallout. Organic food and organic product sales is now a
$27
>billion a year market in the US. How much radioactive wood ash is used
as
>fertilizer in organic farming to replenish depleted potassium, and how
>would many consumers like to know woodash spread on the fields where
their
>crops are grown contain elevated levels of Cs-137 [and Sr-90]? I doubt
>Organic food consumers would be terribly thrilled with knowing this
fact.
>
>How fast would VT agencies or politicians be to criticize a trivial
level
>of H-3 in river water with essentially zero dose implications, or in a
>trivial amount of groundwater flowing into the CT river,  if  applying
the
>same standards to commercial products in their State were put under the
>same microscope? It would be fascinating to witness politicians and
>certain State agencies scramble to minimize the significance of the
above
>sources of nuclear test and natural radiation exposure from their
>commercial products if the public knew what they were consuming.
>
>Stewart Farber, MS Public Health
>
>Farber Medical Solutions, LLC
>Bridgeport, CT 06604
>SAFarber at optonline.net
>203-441-8433
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments may contain
confidential or sensitive information which is, or may be, legally
privileged or otherwise protected by law from further disclosure. It is
intended only for the addressee. If you received this in error or from
someone who was not authorized to send it to you, please do not
distribute, copy or use it or any attachments. Please notify the sender
immediately by reply e-mail and delete this from your system. Thank you
for your cooperation. 

_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list