[ RadSafe ] Re: Radiation deficiency remediation: KCl

[howard long]

Distance, not mass, makes the big dose reductioner from a mattress.
I don't plan on using the KCl for a mattress: not enough effect to be worth the trouble
 
Howard 

John Jacobus <crispy_bird at yahoo.com> wrote:
A mattress will not reduce the photon radiation that
much, as the energies are 1.4 MeV. All you would
loose is the beta emissions from the surface you sleep
on. The beta emissions would contribute to a shallow
dose on the side in contact with the bags.

Let me know if the additional radiation improves your
health beyond the placebo effect. Maybe it will
offset not sleeping on a mattress.

--- howard long wrote:
> KCL, (not ingested but several sacks to lie on at
> night), could raise background levels about 0.5
> rad/year. My wife didn't like the idea, especially
> since having a mattress between would reduce the
> amount to insignificance. We already get a lot of
> potassium in diet, especially in vegetables, which
> have KCl as the main intracellular salt - as do
> people. 
> 
> Howard Long
> 
> John Jacobus wrote:
> As a starting point, the total amount of potassium
> varies from 110-140 grams, depending on muscle mass.
> 
> The radioisotope, K-40, is about 0.0118% of natural
> potassium. K-40 decays by beta-minus, 89%, and
> electron capture 11% with 1.46 MeV gamma rays, and
> beta-plus 0.001%. Beta-minus maximunm energy is
> 1.314
> MeV. With a half-life of 1.26 X 10^9 years, the
> specific activity is 7.1 microCi/gm. 
> 
> As a first pass, the activity of K-40 is 92 to 117
> nanoCi of activity. 
> 
> --- "Bradshaw, Keith" 
> wrote:
> > I think we've discussed this on here before. The
> > additional dose from
> > ingestion of potassium is likely to be very small.
> 
> > It's just the dose as it
> > is "passing through". Unless you are deficient in
> > potassium to start with,
> > none of the additional potassium will be retained
> in
> > the body. Although
> > I've not calculated it, I suspect you'd make
> > yourself very sick if you
> > attempted to ingest enough KCl to raise your
> > radiation dose to these
> > "hormetic" levels. Perhaps that's why you have
> > "given up on KCL"?
> > 
> > Personal views only
> > 
> > keith.bradshaw at niras.co.uk
> > 
> > web: www.niras.co.uk
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > 
> > My 3, 40 lb sacks of KCL for water softener ($9
> > each) give only a doubling
> > of background radiation (0.030mrad/hr) on contact.
> I
> > have given KCL up as an
> > added source of radiation, although about as much
> > comes to most of us from
> > the KCL already in our bodies as usual USA coast
> > background, according to
> > Luckey's book.
> > 
> > Howard Long 
> > _______________________________________________
> 

+++++++++++++++++++
"Embarrassed, obscure and feeble sentences are generally, if not always, the result of embarrassed, obscure and feeble thought."
Hugh Blair, 1783

-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com



__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Messenger 
Show us what our next emoticon should look like. Join the fun. 
http://www.advision.webevents.yahoo.com/emoticontest