Re: Prussian Blue

[JGinniver@AOL.COM]

In a message dated 13/08/02 00:09:00 GMT Daylight Time, franz.schoenhofer@chello.at writes:



> Maybe we should distinguish between use of ferrocyanides for humans and for
>
> animals. I guess, that in the case of animals the costs play a very
>
> important role, while for humans costs are of no importance. Another
>
> question, which has not really been addressed, is, whether reduction of
>
> Cs-137 concentration makes much sense in terms of dose saved. During these
>
> days, biologically grown food is of so high esteem, that I wonder, whether
>
> meat of animals treated with ferrocyanides would satisfy the customer.
>
>
> Let me recall the strategy for sheep in Cumbria: They lived in the lake
>
> district of Cumbria (really beautiful area!) and some time before
>
> slaughtering they were transported to lower pastures, which were more or
>
> less uncontaminated and so they lost their Cs-137+134 burden - and were
>
> slaughtered. (It would have been wise for them to be in the control
>
> group......)
>
>
> Do you know, how the situation of sheep is in Cumbria?



Franz,

       Firstly apologies I was still thinking in terms of the orignal discussion which centred on human exposure, although I was interested in the information you provided on work done on reducing animal uptake.  In this instance either accidental acute exposure in the workplace or acute exposure due to a "dirty bomb" incident.


You area correct when you identify the difficulties faced by upland farmers in high rainfall areas of the UK, althought the problem was not restricted to Cumbria.  It also affected a small area of Scotland and a much larger area of Snowdonia in North Wales.  The latest information that I have is for 2000, unfortunately the data for 2001 will not be published for another 6 weeks or so.


As of the end of 2000 there remained 386 farms (with approximately 230,000 sheep) where post Chernobyl restrictions exist.  These restrictions prohibit the movement, sale and slaughter of sheep which exceed the action level of 1000 Bq/kg.  This is however a significant reduction (about 96%) from the original 8900 or so farms that were originally affected.  It would seem though that the problem will contiue for many years to come as the rate of de-restriction has slowed almost to a stop with only 2 farms in 1999 and a further 2 in 2000 where the restrictions were lifted.


This and other post-chernobyl monitoring data is (I believe) available on the web.  A report is published annually by the Food Standards Agency and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency on Radioactivity in Food and the Environment (RIFE).  The copy I have to hand is RIFE-6 for 2000, with as I said earlier RIFE-7 for 2001 due out about mid to late September.


Regards ,

             Julian