Thread: Are there any relations between mineral status and exposure of nuclear radioactivity ?

I am clinical nutritionist and have analyzed body mineral status by nail or hair sample since June 2011 just three months after huge shake attacked. As I expected Iodine, Uramium and Cesium status getting higher than before. This is entire tragedy. I found some trend of some mineral status that lower Chromium, Cobalt, Molybdenum and vanadium and higher Copper with high Uranium status especially in under 10 years children. I have tried to search any article or papers which written about these phenomenon but I could not find. Of course no one has proceeded like this a tragic experiment since before in even HIROSIMA and might be in Chernobyl. Any one has information about there are any relations between mineral deficiency such as Chromium, Cobalt, Molybdenum and vanadium and higher Copper and nuclear radioactive.

I'm thinking your talking about the shake in japan on this. Where a tsunami damaged a nuclear power plant.

I'm just speculating here, but iodine tablets are usually consumed in order to prevent radiation poisoning, these can be cheap tablets that contain contaminants like the elements you described. Though not sure about your actual question.

Maybe you should rephrase your question.

Originally Posted by yhog

I am clinical nutritionist and have analyzed body mineral status by nail or hair sample since June 2011 just three months after huge shake attacked.

This raises lots of questions...

Where are the people from whom you have taken these samples? Are they in Japan? Tohoku?

What are your controls (e.g. did you take samples before the event? have you taken samples from places unaffected?)

How are you doing your analysis? What levels and what increase in levels are you finding?

What are the error margins in the measurement?

Any more details? Have you published this research?

Where are the people from whom you have taken these samples? Are they in Japan? Tohoku?

>Yes, all 563 people lives in Japan, but not only Tohoku such as Fukushima most of them from near big city as Tokyo. They are interested to proceed own mineral status level especially Iodine, Cesium and Uranium even most of these mineral are total element.

What are your controls (e.g. did you take samples before the event? have you taken samples from places unaffected?)

>No, most of them did not take control sample before 311. Cause the purpose of this analysis is for identify any correlation between before and after 311. As you knew, speaking about "Unaffected area", the influences of Fukushima nuclear radioactive had already spread over most Japan through by not only air also by food and water contaminations.How are you doing your analysis?

What levels and what increase in levels are you finding?

>I already found these phenomenon of lower and higher mineral status tread might not coincidence. Certain mineral status of most sample of this 563 people are specific lower and higher in certain mineral.
@Lower trend mineral:Chromium, Cobalt, Molybdenum, Vanadium
@Higher trend mineral:Copper, Iodine, Iron
Uranium level was higher in sample since this January, especially high Uranium found in under 10years children more than adult.

What are the error margins in the measurement?

>All these people sent sample with personal information such like life style, nutritional status, occupation, Hobby for make sure there are any factors influence against mineral analysis. All sample send to commercial laboratory where in Germany for analysis.Any more details?

Have you published this research?

>No, not yet and I do not think about publish this now.

Originally Posted by yhog

>No, most of them did not take control sample before 311. Cause the purpose of this analysis is for identify any correlation between before and after 311.

How can you say anything about "before" and "after" if you don't have sample from "before"?

As you knew, speaking about "Unaffected area", the influences of Fukushima nuclear radioactive had already spread over most Japan through by not only air also by food and water contaminations.

Although, over most of Japan the amount of radiation is insignificant.

How are you doing your analysis?
What levels and what increase in levels are you finding?

>I already found these phenomenon of lower and higher mineral status tread might not coincidence. Certain mineral status of most sample of this 563 people are specific lower and higher in certain mineral.
@Lower trend mineral:Chromium, Cobalt, Molybdenum, Vanadium
@Higher trend mineral:Copper, Iodine, Iron
Uranium level was higher in sample since this January, especially high Uranium found in under 10years children more than adult.

When you say "higher" and "lower", what are you comparing this to? Higher than what? Lower that what?

>All these people sent sample with personal information such like life style, nutritional status, occupation, Hobby for make sure there are any factors influence against mineral analysis. All sample send to commercial laboratory where in Germany for analysis.

What tissue samples are you using? What is the relevance of these tissue types to the elements you are looking at?
What specific levels are you seeing?
How are you measuring the levels? (i.e. what techniques/instruments are you using)
What are the error bounds associated with these measurements?
What are the variations between individuals?

It all sounds very vague and meaningless to me, I'm afraid.

There are two key facts to be revealed in cases like this.

1. What is the increase in concentration?
2. How much increase is needed before any harm can be measured?

I strongly suspect that the increases you are measuring are still much too low to be of importance. However, I would be interested in any data you have to prove me wrong.

Have you concidered a reason for those elements to be present?

Like:
- Iodine pill poisoning.
- Radiated body more likely to hold these elements.
- The elements are digested more easily.
- Instead they are somehow much more common, possibly due to side products of dying radioactive isotopes.

Hmm, more idea's?