Dangerous Myths About Radiation, Diet and Health
by Lorna Salzman
Most of what we read on the internet about health is dubious, speculative and based on anecdotal evidence, not clinical studies. Yet how does one persuade those who distrust government and traditional medicine to consult credible scientific and medical research bodies? A first step is to check out the sources given by an author; often an author will simply use his own studies as sources for his article. Rely on peer reviewed journals. Check the author's background, university and technical degrees and institutional affiliations to make sure these are not inventions of the author, which they often are.
Since the Fukushima nuclear accident, all kinds of foods and herbs are being promoted as protection against radiation, but these foods are completely useless with regard to whole-body radiation and ingestion of fission products like iodine. Gamma is whole body and once you have gotten the exposure, nothing can be done. Your cells have absorbed the gamma rays, period. If they hit the DNA, there could be adverse consequences. If they miss the DNA and go right through the cell, you are lucky. This is usually the case with medical Xrays. Repeated or prolong exposure increases the risk proportionately; there is no dose that doesn't produce some effects in the population, statistically. You just don't know who will be affected or when. There is evidence that DNA can repair itself (obviously our ancestral cells evolved with ultra violet rays and other kinds of radiation) but this probably depends on lots of other factors.
Beta emitters like cesium 137 and strontium 90 are dangerous due to their half life of about 30 years and their deposition on soil and crops that are consumed by animals and humans, especially strontium 90 in milk, which then goes to the bones and teeth. Cesium goes into muscles and organs.
Alpha emitters: plutonium. Alpha particles cannot penetrate intact skin or tissues. That's why you can hold solid plutonium in your hand (unless you have skin cuts). But if plutonium is in the form of fine particles and there is an explosion (as with meltdowns of nuclear fuel or spent fuel, nuclear weapons or bombs), the particles go into the atmosphere and can be inhaled into your lungs or gonads. And that's where they stay, forever, irradiating the tissue around them. This is probably happening now with the mixed oxide of uranium and plutonium fuel from one of the Japanese reactors. And when the particles fall on the ground they remain there and can be picked up in dust or soil which can then be disturbed and redistributed.
There is absolutely no clinical evidence showing that radioactive particles can be flushed from the body. There is a dangerous treatment called chelation, which involves injecting some serious chemicals into the body with the hope that they will bind with radioactive particles. Whether or how much this has succeeded I don't know; you need to consult the medical literature. In any case it is a desperate measure with its own risks.
If there truly were such a thing as detoxifying radioactivity, it would already be in use widely and regularly. The fact is that the only thing that can "de-toxify" radioactivity is TIME: the radioactive elements decay according to their half life. Iodine 131 has an 8 day half life so it gives off intense radiation as soon as it is produced. That is why it is of immediate concern in an accident. For example, if a finite amount of iodine is emitted in an accident, and the emission stops within a day, then in 8 days, half of it will have decayed. In 8 more days, half of that remainder will decay. In 8 more days, half of that remainder will decay, and so forth. Generally for nuclear waste storage and "isolation", they aim for ten to twenty half lives for any given element. This includes plutonium 239, which has a half life of 24,400 years. So it has to be isolated from the biosphere for at least 240,000 years, or 480,000 years. There are lots of authoritative sources available on radiation doses and exposure. Take the time to do the research. Or consult Dr. John Gofman's book, Radiation and Health.
One other point on another topic. In this country the NRC and others have responded to concerns about reactors in regions subject to earthquakes or tsunamis. However, the real risk, which is common to all reactors, is a Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA). And there are many possible events besides earthquakes that could initiate a LOCA such as sabotage or terrorism, or even routine flooding and hurricanes which we are now experiencing.
And by the way, the NRC chair stated that existing operating reactors were designed to withstand earthquakes of a magnitude "usual" for the region in which they are located. But so were the Japanese reactors. Design-basis earthquakes are not the only kind possible; Japan just discovered this. The impact of the recent earthquake there subjected the reactors to stresses 1.5 times what the reactor was designed to cope with. It is of course only a question of money: how much do utilities want to spend for those extra safety features? As little as possible.