[ RadSafe ] Fwd: Canadians - Radioactive ranchers?

Chris Alston achris1999 at gmail.com
Sun Jun 19 08:35:51 CDT 2016


It's notable too that the female citizen who's featured in the article
doesn't believe that her reduced renal function is likeliest to be a normal
result of aging.  I'm guessing that she's "heard" that uranium can be
nephrotoxic, so believes that the U in her water is the probable culprit.

In fact, the kidneys slow down, with age, just like pretty much every other
bodily function (including the immune system).  Say the typical glomerular
filtration rate (GFR) of a healthy young adult is 100 mL/min.  Starting at
about age 50, we lose nominally 1 mL/min.  So, if one lives to 100 y, it's
the natural history of aging that one would be likely to be running on the
equivalent of only one kidney; which is fine.  Being overweight, and
perhaps pre-diabetic or diabetic, and consuming the unnaturally large
amounts of protein that we do, does not help (IMHO).

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mattias Lantz <Mattias.Lantz at physics.uu.se>
Date: Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 8:11 AM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Canadians - Radioactive ranchers? Elements found
downwind of intensive fracking.
To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
The strontium should be in the stable form, not radioactive isotopes as
they are fission products. Uranium, sure, anything along the decay chains
of uranium and thorium is likely. But the radiation scare works as usual: A
bunch of chemicals found in the drinking water, including uranium -> go buy
a Geiger counter!
On 06/15/2016 01:17 PM, Roger Helbig wrote:

> http://thetyee.ca/News/2016/06/11/Radioactive-Elements-Downwind-Fracking/
> This is a news article instead of the Nuclear News source.  I expect
> that this is NORM that may have come up from the ground due to
> fracking, but also that the hype added by Nuclear News is not really
> true.  Do any of you Canadians on the list know anything about the
> testing laboratory
> ​.​
> The special test, analyzed at the London Health Sciences Centre in
> Ontario, showed that the ranchers had ''high'' levels of uranium and
> strontium above the lab's ''reference range'' in their urine, probably
> due to exposure from soil, water or air.
> I also wonder if the ground in this area of Alberta already has high
> levels of Uranium, etc.

More information about the RadSafe mailing list