• Blog Stats

    • 85,382 hits
  • Archives

  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 164 other followers

  • Copyright notice

    This blog entry and all other text on this blog is copyrighted, you are free to read it, discuss it with friends, co-workers and anyone else who will pay attention.

    If you want to cite this blog article or quote from it in a not for profit website or blog then please feel free to do so as long as you provide a link back to this blog article.

    If as a school teacher or university teacher you wish to use content from my blog for the education of students then you may do so as long as the teaching materials produced from my blogged writings are not distributed for profit to others. Also at University level I ask that you provide a link to my blog to the students.

    If you want to quote from this blog in an academic paper published in an academic journal then please contact me before you submit your paper to enable us to discuss the matter.

    If you wish to reuse my text in a way where you will be making a profit (however small) please contact me before you do so, and we can discuss the licensing of the content.

    If you want to contact me then please do so by e-mailing me at Chalmers University of Technology, I am quite easy to find there as I am the only person with the surname “foreman” working at Chalmers. An alternative method of contacting me is to leave a comment on a blog article. If you do not know which one to comment on then just pick one at random, please include your email in the comment so I can contact you.

  • Advertisements

Cesium and cardiac effects

Dear Reader,

I am aware that some people from the antinuclear lobby have started to ask the question of “does radioactive cesium damage the heart ?”. I hold the view that in science a question which is testable is a good thing to have. I hold the view that a true scientist tests a hypothesis (fancy term for a theory) in an experiment using a research question.

To my mind the research question which these people who are opposed to nuclear power have raised up is “Does radioactive cesium damage the heart ?”. This is an interesting question but I must warn my readers that very little has been written on the subject. It has been shown in goats by M. Kaikkonen et. al. (Acta Physiologica Scandinavica, 2005, volume 183, pages 321-332) that cesium tends to concentrate in the kidneys (x 50 plasma concentration), urine (x 5 to 28 plasma concentration), salivary gland (x 11 plasma concentration), cardiac muscle (x 7 plasma concentration) and small intestine (x 6 plasma concentration). The fact that the cesium concentration in the urine / kidney is higher than it is in the plasma of the animal suggests that the goats will lose a lot of the free cesium in them via the urine and that it might be a better idea to look for kidney damage in humans who have been exposed to radioactive cesium.

I hold the view that anyone who wants to prove that radioactive cesium damages the heart needs to do the following.

1. Prove that Cs-137 (or Cs-134) in the diet of animals causes some harmful change to the heart, use two groups of animals one fed radioactive cesium and the other group fed no radioactive cesium.

2. Prove that the effect of the radioactive cesium is not due to a toxic effect exerted by normal stable cesium. I know that a sudden change in the plasma concentration of potassium will cause a heart attack in humans. Part of the lethal injection which the americans use to kill convicts is an injection of potassium chloride. So as potassium cations have an effect we can not rule out that cesium will have an effect.

3. Prove that the effects of internal exposure to radioactive cesium is more harmful to the hearts of the experimental animals than external exposure to the gamma rays from cesium-137. I am sure that at very high doses of external gamma rays that it is possible to damage the heart (or any other organ for that matter).

But lets think about point two for a moment, stable cesium has been used for some time in some alternative cancer treatments. Petr Melnikov and Lourdes Zélia Zanoni have written a review paper on the subject of the toxic effects of stable cesium. This paper had the title “Clinical Effects of Cesium Intake” and was published in Biological Trace Element Research (2010, volume 135, pages 1 to 9). The authors of the paper state that cesium salts do not cure cancer, they also do warn that large amounts of (nonradioactive) cesium salts do cause the heart to behave in an abnormal way. I would like to suggest that anyone considering treating themselves for radioactive cesium contamination should not try to flush the radioactive cesium out of them with stable cesium, instead I would suggest that you use prussian blue to greatly increase the rate at which cesium is lost from the gut.

A friend of mine used to work on cesium in farmyard animals, the work done years ago indicates that small doses of cesium in the diet do not work well as a means of flushing out the cesium from pigs. So if it fails to work on pigs then the use of stable cesium in humans is unlikely to work.


Go on, Have your say !

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: