## Wednesday, January 6, 2016

### Radiation Bioaccumulation in Sea Life - Defining the Concentration Factor, and Scary Results

Where am I going with this post?   Simple, to find a way to easily estimate bio-accumulation of radiation in plants and animals.

Actually, I start with 13 Bq/M3 and end up with 10.7 Bq/kG in porpoises.
So the rule of thumb is that it almost an equal quantity for higher echelon animals

For plants, the conversion is "about half"

And of course, the Bq/kG is for the whole animal, whereas rads congregate in specific organs, etc. 10.7 in the whole animal could be 50 Bq/kG in the heart….a proven danger level.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Usually radiation in water is measured in Bq/Meter Cubed, or Bq/L

The meter cubed number is 1000 times larger than the L based unit, because there are 1000 Liters per Meter Cubed.

Scientists use a "concentration factor" to express how various animals /plants on the food chain bioaccumulate various toxins.

CF=Concentration Factor= Bq/kg Wet Weight divided by Bq/Liter of Seawater

Manipulating this equation (multiply both sides by Bq/L) gives

Bq/kG Wet Weight = CF * Bq/L
or
Bq/kG Wet Weight = CF *Bq/M3 (Meter Cubed)/ 1000

from the Charts Below, a good rule of thumb is to take wet weight and divide by 5 for fish, divide by 8 for plants to get dry weight.

Usually it is Dry Weight Bq/kG reported in flora and fauna because you can't measure the radiation until you remove the water first.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our Most Important Formulas Then Become

Bq/kG Dry Weight = CF * Bq/L * 5 (Animals)
Bq/kG Dry Weight = CF * Bq/L * 8 (Plants)

or
Bq/kG Dry Weight = CF * Bq/M3 (Meter Cubed)* 5 (Animals) /1000
Bq/kG Dry Weight = CF * Bq/M3 (Meter Cubed)* 8 (Plants)    /1000

the CF Concentration Factor is what we need to get from scientific studies, per the below, its around 10 for krill, around 165 for porpoises
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sample Calculation, using CS-137 at 13 Bq/M3 per Kenny Boy Buessler in 2015

Porpoise
165 * 13 *5 /1000 = 10.7 Bq/kG

stock here---now you folks can easily deal with bioaccumulation issues.

This study from 2003 shows significant Concentration Factors even when in a "dilute solution" of CS-137

The contents of (137)Cs in the different organisms were generally low (<1 Bq kg(-1) wet weight), but a marked bioaccumulation was apparent: The concentration of (137)Cs was about 10-fold higher in the harbour porpoise Phocoena phocoena, representing the upper level of the food web, than in the amphipod Themisto sp., representing the lower level of the food web. The Concentration Factors (CF=Bq kg(-1) wet weight/Bq l(-1) seawater) increased from 10+/-3 for a mixed sample of krill and amphipods to 165+/-5 for harbour porpoises.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12527234

Plenty of studies of bioaccumulation

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16154620

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10507144

Here is one source on conversion of wet weight to dry weight

Here is one from Amchitka and Kiska

Here is a 2011 summer report from DOE on Amchitka

https://app.box.com/s/rt4g13nxvqyljfqxmdxt

They set off 3 bombs on Amchitka (after open air testing was stopped)

----------------------------------------
Per oldster, selenium in diet can reduce retained mercury in fishes

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es202565g?src=recsys&journalCode=esthag&
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Goddard sure is getting a lot of exposure. Its not helping the anti nuke cause. With his well done videos and seemingly good science, Goddard 'debunks' Caldicott and Busby and Mangano. The LNT model is not good, the science not inclusive. Its very convincing to look at charts like that. But for example, the bystander effect can kill 50 times as many cells as those which received an actual radiation track exposure. Its very complex. Busby reveals another effect, the 'Secondary Photoelectron Effect Theory'.

There is genomic instability which is not seen in dose response graphs. Goddard's well done videos show us what we are up against. Linear thinking, linear logic, wrong logic….

CodeShutdown
yes stock.  I have been meaning to follow up in two ways. Somewhere there is a mother trove of bioaccumulation data, a large paper. Secondly, there is a paper from Buesseler et al that shows bioaccumulation measurements for plankton. It appears much less than I expected. The problem is that even with the bioaccumulation, it isnt enough to account for the massive die off which is being seen. We've discussed that the dead stuff falls to the bottom leaving an apparently cleaner water and less contaminated plankton that take their place. But the total path must be very complicated. I used the analogy that you cant shoot somebody and expect the damage to remain isolated to the bullet wound…even though the tissues far away would remain clinically free from damage. Bioaccumulation is one factor, but the form of the fallout is another. A large percent is in the form of alloyed nano particles, giving point source radiation and heavy metals in a form that can lodge deep in lung and body tissue. Im sure there are other factors never considered. Water has a way of forming information loaded super molecules surrounding everything. One cant isolate a biomolecule or any molecule from the water around it which is forming a kind of liquid crystal with changes in the hydrogen bond angle. Such a thing is theorized to underlie homeopathic remedies. Science is not smart enough to understand homeopathy but it works.

CodeShutdown
A study from some east European country where they do a lot of investigation into this kind of thing showed bio-information transfer on magnetic fields. Disease and or repair bio signals can be transferred from one organism to another via magnetic fields. One cant isolate, as is our propensity, one thing from another in the vast web of life on earths biosphere. Poison one part of the earth and the whole thing will be affected in ways known and not known. Its the unknown ways that egocentric man has a hard time accepting. Your way around it is epidemiology. But cause and effect is the difficulty there. If science cant see the connection, they will throw out cause and effect. I'm afraid man is in over his head with global poisoning of our little planet. Hubris and greed and small mindedness is the wall which I think will obscure the truth well into the destruction of the ecosphere, perhaps sealing our fate. On the other hand, there is a tendency for anti nukers to throw up their hands and say everything is poisoned to the ELE degree. I believe that if nuclear was ended here and now, the biosphere could self remediate to some degree and life go on…albeit an earth permanently wounded
-----------------------------------------------------------------

CodeShutdown
stock
The models suggests that in 30 years, Cesium 137 levels in the whales will exceed the Canadian guideline of 1,000 becquerels per kilogram for consumption of seafood by humans — 10 times the Japanese guideline.

Steady State Bioaccumulation Model: “Concentrations of 137Cs predicted in the male killer whale were approximately three orders of magnitude higher relative to its major prey, Chinook salmon, and > 13,000 times higher compared to phytoplankton.”

Authors: Prof. Frank Gobas, Simon Fraser Univ.; Prof. Juan Alava, SFU

CodeShutdown
stock, one of the better papers for release estimate and effect on human and animal

paper estimates at least 220,000,000 kg of sea life will die.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
stock here: what is amazing is how much is actually known, compared to the low quality lies that are apparently good enough to sway not only the masses, but some otherwise "smart" people.

Heart of the Rose
Ever wonder what's with the IAEA supposed kindly interest in toxic algae blooms?
http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/TE-1729_web.pdf

Guest article: selective biomagnification of metals and radionuclides in marine food chains.
Pg 2.

1. Thanks again Stock. A few tidbits, perhaps relevant. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00349252 Think it was Jebus the other day on ENE linked to this. "Temperature effects on accumulation and retention of radionuclides in the sea star, Asterias forbesi: implications for contaminated northern waters"

Also, perhaps not as relevant in sea water, but some studies show that an organism that has sufficient key minerals, magnesium and selenium are examples, can more easily discard some heavy metals - perhaps some or even many artificial radioactive materials?? "Dietary Selenium Reduces Retention of Methyl Mercury in Freshwater Fish" from http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es202565g?src=recsys&journalCode=esthag
And this: "Marine fish are usually about 100 times lower in cesium-137 than are freshwater fish because potassium, which is more abundant in seawater, blocks uptake of cesium by marine organisms."

Also the monumental Chernobyl Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and Environment found great variation within same species in the same area. In other words, there are unknowns, and 'serendipities.'

1. Indeed, isn't it nice of those animals and plants to be filtering the radiation out of the ocean so that Kenny Boy can't find much. How altruistic.

2. So when are you going to pick up that Nobel Prize again? Try RESRAD. There is a reason Busby is on the outs. Youll figure it out why.

1. Shutting down nuke will be enough glory for me, no Nobel prize needed. Sociopaths really like those, I don't need it.

2. Youll never shutdown what is right for the planet. Even all nuclear accidents source term and bioaccumulation pales in comparison to natural radiation which contains a tremendous amount of radon. You need better analysis. This work you put out is of the quality similar to a million chickens dosed at wipp. Look I know you mean well, yet its the blind leading the blind. Your work, sadly, is without merit and not ready for prime time. You just cant oversimplify your way to a false conclusion. The back of the envelope approach is not good enough. Overconservatisms that propagate huge individual uncertainties lead to unreasonable and unrealistic results. Improve your methods or be saddled with knowing you're doing it wrong.

3. Actually Loose Kuke, seeing that no one else in the world has ever done an easy to work with bioaccumulation model, I think what I have created here is elegant and beautiful in it's applicability and simplicity.

Sure it can be refined. I had one thought to integrate the "cleaning effect" on the ocean water by the life forms. Not exactly sure how I would do this, would need decent estimates of different types of life forms, their CF, and then time would have to be worked into it, since the source term is an ongoing input into the system.

Maybe Ill apply for that Nobel prize after I complete that. LOL

3. Thank You Sir, Good Report As You May Know, I Had Colon Surgery This Year, Thyroid Surgery When I Was 10... Bioaccumulation I Understand Fully. The Severity Of Our Situation.... Right Down To The Electron Having Worked With Cathode-Ray Tube.. I'm Very Familiar With Ionizing Radiation We Are In Trouble. A Technologist All My Life ...
The Fix IT Of Crappy Engineering.......Sadly.. It Is Not The Last One .....
Take Care All

1. Yep, half of the USA dose is now from "medical treatment" how sick is that?

Insightful and Relevant if Irreverent Comments