Please share far and wide!

Search This Blog

Friday, September 25, 2015

Potassium K-40 One of the Least Harmful Radio-Isotopes and Bacterial Growth

Just a quick article here.   I will expand on it, but I didn't want to lose this link to the study. 

They did a quick study at WIPP, I think it was only 2 days.     They wanted to grow bacteria in a low radiation place and use that to try to "throw out" LNT Linear No Threshold radiation limits so the nuclear cartel can be even sloppier than they are now.

A reader asked me for my take, so I jotted this up quickly

No conclusion, their experimental setup is questionable.   I mean why not run the background radiation cultures in "background radiation" rather than try to  create a K40 background radiation using salts.    Just weird, the only benefit is being in the same location....and then to put the radiated test and the nonradiated in the SAME CABINET?

Why the lousy climate control on the incubator box...the low rad chamber swung from 20RH to 60RH, thats a hella swing for a climate controlled box.    The radiated chamber held much better tolerance at 30 to 50RH.

Then when they measured the low rad area with a test device, they decided to ignore the device and instead use a model that showed 20 times less radiation, excuse me?

They draw conclusions that both type of bacteria were heavily effected by rad or no rad, and then for the radiation sensitive bacteria they say our variation was so great that we really can't say anything with any certainty.

I really can't understand the gene testing portion and it is not written clearly.

Plus they were doing this at WIPP, in the underground, and they could only visit the test site quickly twice a day, their total test was 2 days long.   So this must have been after the plutonium explosion in WIPP, a questionable place to do bio-testing

Then they want to questionable and not replicated test on special bacteria to be used as a basis for throwing out radiation standards on humans and gifting us  with lots more radiation.   I would like to see the test repeated at 2 universities that get no funding for any nuclear related program.     And the "control" should be at a normal background radiation, not a contrived one using K40.

The link above is the complete study, and it is for free.   I may pose a question or two to the authors.

CodeShutdown added some references for related topics

One is free to imagine any possibility when unencumbered by educational stricture. The labels and thematic constructs sometimes seem goofy. Hormesis as adaptive response? Kind of limiting no? Nuclear decay as inevitably damaging? We know that free radicals are important in biology. This has a lot to do with high and low "linear energy transfer"
So in my mind, its not a question of figuring out IF some radiation is integral to biological function, but what interesting functions it may have. More discoveries will be made! Unfortunately the details dont yield to simplification.
Possible mechanisms of necessity of 40K
natural concentration for the normal development of the animal organism
Uranium salts (!) restore stunted growth in rats in a low radiation environment
Suggested is a new conception about participation of natural environmental radiation in stimulation development of cells. According this conception atomic radiation, in low doses, transfer DNA in excited state with formation polaritons, with long time give coherent radiation similar to mitogenic rays
discovered by A. G. Gurwitsch. Paper by Kuzin et al
30Gy stimulated plant growth journalCode=irab20
More evidence of positive secondary biogenic radiation

And here are the references in hyper link form

  • 1. Boveris A, Chance B. 1973. The mitochondrial generation of hydrogen peroxide. General properties and the effect of hyperbaric oxygen. Biochem J 134:707–716.
  • 2. Chen H, Xu G, Zhao Y, Tian B, Lu H, Yu X, Xu Z, Ying N, Hu S, Hua Y. 2008. A novel OxyR sensor and regulator of hydrogen peroxide stress with one cysteine residue in Deinococcus radiodurans. PLoS One 3(2):e1602. [CrossRef]
  • 3. Cnossen I, Sanz-Forcada J, Favata F, Witasse O, Zegers T, Arnold NF. 2007. Habitat of early life: Solar X-ray and UV radiation at Earth's surface 4–3.5 billion years ago. J Geophys Res 112:1–10.
  • 4. Elmore E, Lao XY, Kapadia R, Giedzinski E, Limoli C, Redpath JL. 2008. Low doses of very low-dose-rate low-LET radiation suppress radiation-induced neoplastic transformation in vitro and induce an adaptive response. Radiat Res 169:311–318. [CrossRef], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®]
  • 5. Fratini E, Carbone C, Capece D, Esposito G, Simone G, Tacocchini MA, Tomasi M, Belli M, Satta L. 2015. Low-radiation environment affects the development of protection mechanisms in V79 cells. Radiat Environ Biophys 54:183–194. [] [CrossRef]
  • 6. Ghiassi-nejad M, Mortazavi SMJ, Cameron JR, Niroomand-rad A, Karam PA. 2002. Very high background radiation areas of Ramsar, Iran: Preliminary biological studies. Health Phys 82:87–93. [CrossRef], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®]
  • 7. Ghosal D, Omelchenko MV, Gaidamakova EK, Matrosova VY, Vasilenko A, Venkateswaran A, Zhai M, Kostandarithes HM, Brim H, Makarova KS, . 2005. How radiation kills cells: Survival of Deinococcus radiodurans and Shewanella oneidensis under oxidative stress. FEMS Microbiol Rev 29:361–375. [CrossRef], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®]
  • 8. Hua Y, Narumi I, Gao G, Tian B, Satoh K, Kitayama S, Shen B. 2003. PprI: A general switch responsible for extreme radioresistance of Deinococcus radiodurans. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 306:354–360. [CrossRef]
  • 9. International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). 2007. Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. New York: Elsevier.
  • 10. Jiang Y, Dong LQ, Li N, Wu G, Gao H. 2014. Protection from oxidative stress relies mainly on depression of OxyR-dependent KatB and Dps in Shewanella oneidensis. J Bacteriol 196:445–458. [CrossRef]
  • 11. Kawanishi M, Okuyama K, Shiraishi K, Matsuda Y, Taniguchi R, Shiomi N, Yonezawa M. Yagi T. 2012. Growth retardation of paramecium and mouse cells by shielding them from background radiation. J Radiat Res 53:404–410. [CrossRef]
  • 12. Mohanty AK, Sengupta D, Das SK, Saha SK, Van KV. 2004. Natural radioactivity and radiation exposure in the high background area at Chhatrapur beach placer deposit of Orissa, India. J Environ Radioact 75:15–33. [CrossRef], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®]
  • 13. Nies DH. 2003. Efflux-mediated heavy metal resistance in prokaryotes. FEMS Microbiol Rev 27:313–339. [CrossRef], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®]
  • 14. Okazaki R, Ootsuyama A, Norimura T. 2007. TP53 and TP53-related genes associated with protection from apoptosis in the radioadaptive response. Radiat Res 167:51–57. [CrossRef]
  • 15. Pfaffl MW, Horgan GW, Dempfle L. 2002. Relative expression software tool REST© for group-wise comparison and statistical analysis of relative expression results in real-time PCR. Nucleic Acids Res 30:1–10. [CrossRef]
  • 16. Planel H, Soleilhavoup JP, Tixador R, Richoilley G, Conter A, Crouter F, Caraterp C. Gaubin Y. 1987. Influence on cell proliferation of background radiation or exposure to very low, chronic gamma radiation. Health Phys 52:571–578. [CrossRef]
  • 17. Qiu X, Sundin G, Chai B, Tiedje JM. 2004. Survival of Shewanella oneidensis MR-1 after UV radiation exposure. Appl Environ Microbiol 70:6435–6443 [CrossRef]
  • 18. Qiu X, Sundin GW, Wu L, Zhou J, Tiedje JM. 2005. Comparative analysis of differentially expressed genes in Shewanella oneidensis MR-1 following exposure to UVC, UVB and UVA radiation. J Bacteriol 187:3556–3564. [CrossRef]
  • 19. Qiu X, Tiedje JM, Sundin GW. 2005b. Genome-wide examination of the natural solar radiation response in Shewanella oneidensis MR-1. Photochem Photobiol 81:1559–1568. [CrossRef]
  • 20. Qiu X, Daly MJ, Vasilenko A, Omelchenko MV, Gaidamakova EK, Wu L, Zhou J, Sundin GW, Tiedje JM. 2006. Transcriptome analysis applied to survival of Shewanella oneidensis MR-1 exposed to ionizing radiation. J Bacteriol 188:1199–1204. [CrossRef]
  • 21. Satta L, Agusti-Tocco G, Ceccarelli R, Esposito A, Fiore M, Paggi P, Poggesi I, Ricordy R, Scarsella G, Cundari E. 1995. Low environmental radiation background impairs biological defence of the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae to chemical radiomimetic agents. Mutat Res 347:129–133. [CrossRef]
  • 22. Satta L, Antonelli F, Belli M, Sapora O, Simone G, Sorrentino E, Tabocchin MA, Amicarelli F, Ara C, Ceru MP, . 2002. Influence of a low background radiation environment on biochemical and biological responses in V79 cells. Radiat Environ Biophys 41: 217–224.
  • 23. Smith GB, Grof Y, Navarrette A. Guilmette RA. 2011. Exploring biological effects of low level radiation from the other side of background. Health Phys. 100:263–265. [CrossRef]
  • 24. Tubiana M. 2005. Dose-effect relationship and estimation of the carcinogenic effects of low doses of ionizing radiation: The joint report of the Académie des Sciences Paris and of the Académie Nationale de Médecine. Int J Radiat Oncol 63:317–319. [CrossRef], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®]
  • 25. United States Department of Energy (DOE). 2008. A History of the United States Department of Energy (DOE) Low Dose Radiation Research Program: 1998-2008.
  • 26. Wang L, Xu G, Chen H, Zhao Y, Xu N, Tian B, Hua Y. 2008. DrRRA: A novel response regulator essential for the extreme radioresistance of Deinococcus radiodurans. Mol Microbiol 67:1211–1222. [CrossRef]
  • 27. Zhang L, Yang Q, Luo X, Fang C, Zhang Q, Tang Y. 2007. Knockout of crtB or ctrI gene blocks the carotenoid biosynthetic pathway in Deinococcus radiodurans R1 and influences its resistance to oxidative DNA-damaging agents due to change of free radicals scavenging ability. Arch Microbiol 188:411–419. [CrossRef]
  • 28. Zimmer C. 2009. On the origin of life on Earth. Science 323:198–199. [CrossRef]

Now the Medical Industry is Pushing Radioactive Lead as Medical Treatment

stock here: Doesn't this seem a bit on the medieval side?

Just because we can, doesn't mean we should.   Lead itself is horrible for humans, then make it an Alpha radiation emitter. 

I think their mantra and legal requirement to "do no harm" is not being met.

They pimp this out as "little damage to adjacent tissues because it is an Alpha emitter"
But they fail to point out that both of its daughter products are strong Beta emitters, which require special shielding during production and  operation....but no problem with putting it inside someones body.    Sheesh, the mind boggles.
- See more at:

Now the Medical Industry is Pushing Radioactive Lead as Medical Treatment

stock here: Doesn't this seem a bit on the medieval side?

Just because we can, doesn't mean we should.   Lead itself is horrible for humans, then make it an Alpha radiation emitter. 

I think their mantra and legal requirement to "do no harm" is not being met.

They pimp this out as "little damage to adjacent tissues because it is an Alpha emitter"
But they fail to point out that both of its daughter products are strong Beta emitters, which require special shielding during production and  operation....but no problem with putting it inside someones body.    Sheesh, the mind boggles.
- See more at:


  1. Whoa there cowboy, are you saying there are some isotopes that are "not dangerous"?

    1. you obviously don't read what I right, and I doubt you ever will.

      You are a pro nuke shrill and that is that.

  2. course codeshutdown says ben fulford is ok too. ben fulford is a known spook and is connectingdots2. anyone can cherry pick results. people with years of hands on experience like helen caldicott in dealing withkids affected by cancer are restricted by educational stricture right code? so this guy is restricted by educational stricure eh code?

    right code? k40 is prt of cell biology but that is why 95 percent of all dna in chromosones is trash and has no function also laying to rest the value of a lot of genome research eugenics and so called genetic biologic therapy originated by fraudulent pceu companies. cystic fibrosis was once a familial disease but because of excess rads in envronment it exists from ionizing radiation mutqtionw. they cannot even viably use ionizing rads to mutate seeds to produce better hybrids the folly of human stupidty and the evil monkeys preoccupation with nuclear. that k40 is in our bodies makes for an additive effect that makes any exposure to otjer isotopes more toxic. So some radiation salts may spur some plant some weird plant pathology for a short time. that is not growth. it is a death throw.Hormesis
    Radiation hormesis is a wingnut hypothesis that low doses of external ionizing radiation,within the region of and just above background levels are beneficial to life.
    No one even knows what natural backgound levels are anymore. Background levels are growing and have changed significantly in the world since 1945.
    Background levels have grown 6 times since the mid fifties as doc has pointed out.

    Radiation hormesis conmen and women claim that there are magical unknown reserve mechanisms in the biochemistry and immune system of our bodies that are

  3. are stimulated by radiation and repair damage caused by the glut of manmade radiosiotope pollution and ionizing radiation exposure in that persons lifetime defying billions years of evolution.

    The world is now covered with manmade radiosotopes and that never existed in billions of years of evolution.
    They throw out a crackpot con that has been banned by the fda because it killed so many people who bought radioactive snake oil. Radiothor radium therapy. All the radiation therapys that supposedly treat cancer. Its all nonsense.
    The biochemical mechanisms , metabolic systems, and enzyme systems that exist in our bodies have always had to do so in the presence of K40. Because there is K40 in our bodies that has changed over billions of years of evolution and the cells exposed to it have to . 95 % of our dna is garbage and has no genetic value probably from K40. The toxic window for added radionucleides is more narrow than we can imagine becuase more radionucleides in our body have an additive effect Hormesis is pure bunk and propaganda just as the fluoridation lie and tetraethylead lead in gasoline lies were.

    Life is very tenuous, fragile, and precious. There is probably less life in the universe than we imagine if you think about more clearly and critically and do not jump to magic thinking or terribly biased conclusions that fit a money making or military scheme that is dishonest and criminal.

    I have stood next to a barrel of refined Uranium 238 which contains 0.7% U235. Does it make a difference when the U235 concentration is 2%. Of course it does. It makes the difference between absobring enough concentrated U235 into your skin and lungs to gaurentee cancer sooner or later . U235 is such a strong alpha emitter even being only 2 percent or even 1 percent of a uranium batch is lethal.

    There has never been an incidence of sponateous adaption ro acute radiation poisoning or chronic radiation poisoning in any persons lifetime. Claiming quantum mechanics and homeopathy means there is radiation hormesis just makes the whole thing that more outlandish.

    They make outlandish claims that unknown biomedical mechanisms in our bodies are sufficiently effective when stimulated as to not only cancel the detrimental effects of ionizing radiation but also inhibit disease not related to radiation exposure.
    Most everyone here knows what radiation therapy does to people.
    Manmade Ionizing radiation is destroying the atomic and molecular fabric of our world. It is the gift that keeps on giving

  4. and code repeatedly apologizes for misleading statements yet still comes up with gems like"that all tinnitus is caused by calcification in the inner ear" when it is well known that tinnitus is a major sign of poisoning or damage to nerves and tissue in the ear

  5. Mahalo!

    I followed the discussion on EneNews concerning 40K.
    It was a little difficult to follow at times, yet am thankful for CodeShutdown's outside-the-box thinking concerning ICRP's seemingly inability to explain how Cs137 could possibly be only twice as risky as 40K. That doesn't make sense to me either.
    You are a brave person, imho, to bring up such a discussion on ENEnews. Yet you seem to be correct, in that pro-nukular types might be confounded by it too!

    I have a candidate for CodeShutdown's Theme Song: (by the Odds)
    Yup, you guessed it ... Eat My Brain (Nooo, not mine)! :lol -->

    Has anyone ever had a cancer attributed to potassium-40? Is it even possible to attribute, or are "risks" only derived?

    I thank all people involved in discussion that did not involve ad-homenims, as it has helped me (and likely others, too!) in understanding what seems to be yet another aspect of the "Banana-Equivalent Dose" Lie!

    My palate is wetted for more concerning bioluminesence, the half-cell potentials of the Alkali metals, and more!

    As for the real and genuine risk of bananas (other that fission-product uptake within) are to the wonderful people that are exploited daily in the growth and harvest of such fruit. :( Those risks are likely, and very sadly, well defined.

    I hate the fucking system, because sociopathic/psychopathic greedy fucks in the system seems to love fucking good people. WTF are we going to do to help them?

    No wonder former coworkers from Central America hated the fruit stickers i would pepper my station with. Sadly, i had no clue then what they were angry about. Good guys! Salt of the Earth types, each and every one.

    I thank you stock.


Insightful and Relevant if Irreverent Comments