The Mystery of Inherent Radiation in Plants: A Search for Answers

[Odeon2000]

<mentor: moved to Biology>
How did you find PF?: While searching to find the amount of radiation in plants.

I am searching to find research on the amount of inherent radiation in plants.
If plants have inherent radiation, obviously digesting plants with radiation is not a prudent thing to do.
I am wondering if anyone has published any research.
I thought this forum would be a valid place to start my search.

Thank in advance for any constructive response.

 

[russ_watters]

Welcome to PF!

The Biology forum would be a good place to post such a question. Also, you should look into the concept of "background radiation", exposures from common tasks (an x-ray, a plane ride), and government limits to learn more about the issue and help focus your question.

 

[gleem]

The main dose from naturally occurring radioisotopes comes from Potassium 40 resulting in a yearly dose of about 0.15 mSv/year about 5% of your yearly natural background (unavoidable) dose. An equivalent dose comes from the Uranium and Thorium decay series resulting in an annual dose of 0.12 mSv. A much smaller amount comes from Carbon 14 about 0.12 uSv/year.

As far as avoiding these isotopes it is impossible to avoid Potassium and Carbon. As for Uranium and Thorium foods from areas of high concentrations of these elements might be avoided if you knew where they were grown.

Of much more concern IMO are heavy/toxic metals as Lead, Cadmium, Mercury and Arsenic. There are foods from areas that have excess amounts of these metals in the soil or water. The FDA sets the limits of the concentration of these elements. Tuna generally have high levels of mercury. while cocoa and rice may have high levels of other heavy metals.

Generally one has to depend on the FDA or USDA to alert consumers of excessive amounts of these materials.

Additionally, prepared foods seem to be problematic for the presence of possibly toxic compounds.

 

[jim mcnamara]

@gleem gave you a great answer.

Here is a concrete example - arsenic in rice
Cotton producers in some areas of the US South used arsenic based bug killers to control boll weevils. Over time arsenic levels in the soil built up. When growers switched to rice production much later, they did not know about the arsenic problem. It was eventually detected in the rice they grew, and some fields were taken out of production. I think the problem has abated.

It will never go away completely. Pretty much anywhere rice is grown.
Because trace amounts of arsenic are found soils in many places in the world:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5502079/

Rice concentrates what it encounters in soil water and irrigation. Ground water (well water) has trace amounts of arsenic.

 

[Ikhnaton]

I recall reading somewhere that radioactive Polonium (Po) is present in tobacco leaves (& in cigarette smoke), which I presume must come from inorganic fertilizer, and might therefore be present in minuscule amounts in other plant parts that we consume.

 

[berkeman]

I recall reading somewhere

Welcome to PF. We do not allow "I read somewhere" -- please provide a link if you can. Thank you.

 

[Ikhnaton]

Welcome to PF. We do not allow "I read somewhere" -- please provide a link if you can. Thank you.

Thank you for your illuminating correction in Welcome. One would've thought that readers on here would've been quite more than capable of googling to follow-up on suggestions made in response to their queries for themselves. As I don't do others' homework for them on principle, I shall resign from PF forthwith. Again many thanks.

 

[berkeman]

One would've thought that readers on here would've been quite more than capable of googling to follow-up on suggestions made in response to their queries for themselves.

As I don't do others' homework for them on principle

Your statement is self-contradictory. I hope you see that 4thw/.

We maintain a high signal-to-noise ratio here, so we expect posters to help us help them. Expecting us to guess what you are asking, guess what your peer-reviewed (acceptable at PF) sources are, and guess what research you have done on your question is pretty unreasonable.

Please use the useful replies above and do some research and post your sources, and we will help you 4thw/.

 

[Odeon2000]

First, thank you for welcoming me to this forum.

Second, let me thank all for these great responses!

Third, I am not getting the responses I had thought I would get and it may be because of the way I worded my query.

Please allow me to reword my query as a hypothesis, therefore:

"If I assume that the consumption of radioactive food is not good, I am wondering if anyone in this forum is cognizant of any published research on the amount of inherent radiation in plants."

Since It would seem to me that this would be important, I thought this forum would be a valid place to start my quest for more information.

It should be intuitively obvious that I must know if my assumption is correct/incorrect first. Then, if possible, I would like if you could point me in the direction of the referenced research.

It follows that if my assumption is correct AND this forum is NOT cognizant of any published research on the amount of inherent radiation in plants.

I present a second hypothesis as follows:

"IF there is a correlation between carbon dating plants and radiation, then the amount of inherent radiation in plants can be measured."

To my simple mind, understanding the amount of inherent radiation in plants is important. It could be even more important than understanding the amount of oxalate in plants. (A significant thing for me to say since I produce kidney stones and and there is inconsistent research on this topic.)

I thank you in advance for the responses I hope to receive.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Relax and have a banana.

 

[jim mcnamara]

This where the banana comment came from:
https://xkcd.com/radiation/

Please read it. Very, very, very low radiation is everywhere on Earth. We use this comic as a common denominator for helping non-science people understand, and it seems to be pretty good for that.

Living things evolved mechanisms like DNA repair which copes with low level radiation. This particular ability has been around for a long time. At least ever since living cells have had DNA in a nucleus or in the ring shaped DNA in bacteria.

If you read the comic you now have a pretty good idea about radiation and living things

 

[Vanadium 50]

I had not seen that =- very nice.

 

[Odeon2000]

Thanks for the response WRT bananas. My question is - where did you get that nugget of information.

I ask " I am wondering if anyone has published any research. "

thanks

 

[jim mcnamara]

What are we talking about? Food safety? Work Environment safety?
There are lots.

Time to learn:
Open your browser and go to Google Scholar (it is a separate entity)
Type in some key words like "radiation exposure from [whatever]" (be extremely specific)

You are going to get a large selection of papers and some textbooks. Here is a complete screen shot

 

[jim mcnamara]

I may have misread your post. Check the tiny print at the bottom of the comic page. There is a list of references for starters...

 

[Odeon2000]

What are we talking about? Food safety? Work Environment safety?
There are lots.

Time to learn:
Open your browser and go to Google Scholar (it is a separate entity)
Type in some key words like "radiation exposure from [whatever]" (be extremely specific)

You are going to get a large selection of papers and some textbooks. Here is a complete screen shotView attachment 278918

WRT your comment "What are we talking about? Food safety? Work Environment safety?
There are lots."
please note that my topic is "Inherent radiation in plants"

But I must thank you!

Using your suggestion, WRT Google Scholar, I will compare current papers such as "Estimates of Radiation Doses and Cancer Risk from Food Intake in Korea" to see how their formula: "The annual committed effective dose (CED) (mSv/yr) from ingestion of the three radionuclides was calculated using the following formula:" to understand the consistency with other authors.

I might be wrong, but I think avoiding radiation in any dosage is a smart thing to do. I am retired so I can study this.

Thanks to your previous reference as well!

Thank you again!

Thanks to all respondents.

 

[jim mcnamara]

Avoiding is great. The problem is that there is no place AFAIK that has zero radiation.

 

[gleem]

I am retired so I can study this.

This suggests that you are over 65. If that is so, since the effects of radiation exposure take decades to occur and the fact that mature organisms, old things, are more resistant to radiation effects you may be a little late in worrying about the minuscule amounts of radioactive elements in foods. Your unavoidable environmental dose is on average 3 mSv/yr which is huge compared to the yearly dose from all food sources. Being older expect more medical care and therefore radiological procedures which will swamp a dose from any food source. The radiation dose from one CT scan will be greater than any radiation from food consumed for the rest of your life.

The radiation effects (if any) of all the dose you have received to date since your birth should have begun to occur. It is a little late to be as concerned as you appear to be.

 

[Odeon2000]

I would think that the common perception that a banana has more radiation than any other plant must have it's "roots" in some basic and popular research? So far, I am wrong and nothing has changed, the perception continues.

Another analogy is common thinking, shared by my urologist, is that drinking lemonade helps reduce the production of kidney stones. I cannot find the root of this statement. As I have previously stated, I produce (calcium oxalate) kidney stones. I've had this problem for years. I have done several sessions of shock wave lithotripsy and completed laser lithotripsy which put me in 100% pain, 24hrs a day for 8 days, yet effectively removed my kidney stones, which are currently reappearing. In my research of the dietetic restrictions for calcium oxalate kidney stones (which includes: Harvard Medical School, Cleveland Clinic, University of Pittsburg, etc), I've found that there are huge inconsistency from the major research centers and, they have changed over time. Dietitians cannot provide me with a diet low in calcium oxalate. I've talked to all my doctors, they point me to my nephrologist who says: "Forget the research and eat lots of calcium!" So this will be my forth nephrologist. In my research, I found an older gentleman who, using references that are different than mine, came to the same conclusion as myself (see the "EDITORIAL COMMENT" section of the attached paper published in a peer reviewed journal. Nothing has changed, the ignorance continues,

Yes I am a retired system engineer, but I still love to learn. Thank you for your concern, but I am not doing this for myself.

 

[Odeon2000]

Avoiding is great. The problem is that there is no place AFAIK that has zero radiation.

I agree that avoiding is great! I think that avoiding/reducing radiation where ever we can would be a good thing. WRT food intake, I don't know what to avoid. I guess I am the only one who wants to know exactly what to avoid or in which plants should I reduce my intake. To reduce my ignorance is my greater quest :)

 

[Vanadium 50]

Have you thought this through? Are you planning on giving up carrots and potatoes (3400 pCi/kg each) and subsist on a diet of Cap'n Crunch cereal and Twinkies?

 

[Odeon2000]

Vanadium,

Please tell me where you got the pCi for carrots and potatoes ?

Thx

 

[gleem]

A 70 kg human has on average 116,200 pCi of K⁴⁰ in their bodies at all times and always will unless you can obtain isotopically pure K³⁹ to replace it with. No use worrying about it.

 

[Odeon2000]

Thank you

 

[Keith_McClary]

Some "top 10" lists:
https://www.google.com/search?channel=fs&client=ubuntu&q=radioactive+content+food

 

[Vanadium 50]

Please tell me where you got the pCi for carrots and potatoes ?

Google.

 

[Vanadium 50]

unless you can obtain isotopically pure K39 to replace it with.

Or K-41. If you're going to isotopically enrich, you should be able to pick and choose. I find K-39 kind of bland, More zing in 41. It really brings out the flavor in the unpaired proton.

 

[hmmm27]

Are there any plants (or common natural processes) that actually select for radioactive isotopes ?

 

[Keith_McClary]

select for radioactive isotopes

Evaporation and condensation can select for isotopes.
There does not seem to be any way to select for isotopes based on their radioactivity:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope_separation#Separation_techniques

 

[hmmm27]

Evaporation and condensation can select for isotopes.
There does not seem to be any way to select for isotopes based on their radioactivity:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope_separation#Separation_techniques

Apparently in Japan they're using sunflowers to yank caesium and strontium out of the soil : the plant "thinks" that they're potassium and calcium. But I was wondering more along the lines of choosing say $^{14}$C over $^{12}$C .

(In that respect I suppose radioactivity is non-sequitur to the question : just curious).