The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

Strontium, the Bogeyman exists, a Wicked One Two Punch

Friday, December 27, 2013


There are bogeymen that we do not speak of, but let us speak of them now.

Indeed, Strontium is truly the Bogeyman.      The “hit energy” is .546MeV Beta, which if that is not bad enough, the daughter radionuclide of that reaction is Yttrium Y90 with a short half life of 2.5 days….so you get a quick and predictable secondary blast of Beta but this time at a much higher energy at 2.2 MeV.   This is THE HIGHEST FORCE punch of any of the common radionuclides.   Think Mohammed Ali.

Ouch, so first you get sucker punched by the Zombie Bogeyman, then in your weakened state, your get a point blank massive blow from a MMA fighter.

Strontium goes right into the bone and stays there, and of course the blood is produced in the bones, and then you get leukemia, which is terrible and deadly, often very quickly.   Bone marrow also produces essential element of the lymph system which is what fights sickness and disease.

1963 was the peak levels of atmospheric pollution from nuclear testing.

Kids tested high in strontium in their teeth (think tooth fairy and that workman’s comp nightmare, LOL) in those days.   There were also a lot of respiratory realted ailments, and nuclear fallout does cause that.

I was born in 1963.   I almost died twice from respiratory ailments, in my first 2 years.    Nuclear almost got me.   Now it’s time to Kill Nuke.

You can protect against Strontium by loading with calcium (think Tums) but it must be done within 24 hours, and sooner is better.  The liars will never fess up within 24 hours.

The below link shows how to protect against certain radionuclides.

And the Fukushima “water treatment” only takes out the cesium, not the strontium, that is why “they” try very hard to avoid talking about the bogeyman under the bed, Strontium.    The Fukushima treated water is thus highly concentrated in strontium.

In fact, as of Feb 2013 TEPCO has not done any removal of Strontium, although the infamous ALPS system which can remove some strontium is supposed to be working in March 2013.   After that, TEPCO wants to dump the still somewhat radioactive water right into the ocean, because they “don’t have room for more tanks”.

Besides the massive radiation from the initial dispersal exlosions and nuclear fires, and the subsequent continuous groudwater pollution, a further “dump” from nuclear boy, will mean many fish, shells, and coral will have a large concentration of strontium, and the half life is right around 30 years, just like cesium.  The gift that keeps on giving.

Here is a scientific paper on Strontium specifically related to Fukushima.

Here are some handy charts for Energy Levels and types of emissions (alpha, beta, or gamma)
Interesting that the energy levels are different from the ones stated in the biogeosciences scientific document above.

To remove radioactive cesium from the water, TEPCO introduced the Simplified Active Water Retrieve and Recovery System (SARRY) in August 2011. Fourteen four-meter-tall cylinders stand inside a SARRY building. Filters inside the cylinders remove radioactive cesium, making the radiation dose 10,000 times lower.

 On the west side of the plant’s grounds, another system dubbed ALPS (Advanced Liquid Processing System) was being constructed. As this can remove 62 of 63 kinds of radioactive materials released from the plant, TEPCO decided to build ALPS to deal with materials that SARRY cannot handle, such as strontium. The one material ALPS cannot remove is tritium.    Tritium is basically radioactive water and nothing can filter it out.   Fortunately Tritium is a weak Beta emitter at 18.6 keV, but the half life is fairly long at around 12 years.   All nuclear plants produce and emit tritium.


December 30, 2013 - Posted by | Uncategorized


  1. Reblogged this on nuclearwindsatomiclies and commented:
    The boogey man is real and is coming for us all.. strontium- nuclear nightmare.

    Comment by nuclearwindsatomiclies | December 31, 2013 | Reply

  2. It seems implausible to me. If the Strontium binds to the hydroxyapatite matrix it’s extracellular. The chance that the second decay would hit the same cell nucleus is quite small.
    Potassium is intracellular, I would predict that the danger from Sr90 is rather less than that from K40

    Comment by Graeme | April 18, 2014 | Reply

    • You would be wrong. strontium-90 (Sr-90) and cesium-137 (Cs-137) are more dangerous than K40. The body’s homeostatic mechanisms regulate K40 (when it’s from normal dietary sources, such as bananas) K40 is dangerous when entering the body as result of nuclear fission. Strontium 90 is probably the most dangerouus fission by-product of all, as it is not excreted, collects in bone, and has along half-life.

      Comment by Christina MacPherson | April 18, 2014 | Reply

      • I don’t think you’re a scientist It doesn’t make sense. What homeostatic mechanisms are able K40 from K39 or K41?
        Can you provide a reference?

        Comment by Graeme | April 18, 2014

      • So as I understand it you’re saying that the K40 from nuclear fission is more dangerous than K40 from banana?
        You might also benefit from reading the product information of Strontium Ranelate. It says Strontium is excreted from the body with a half-life of 60 hours.
        You need to change your opinion to accommodate the facts you can’t change the facts to accommodate your opinion.

        Comment by Graeme | April 18, 2014

  3. @ Graeme “nuclear fission is more dangerous” .. you got that bit right concerning chernobyl and fukushima etc .. K40 from a nuclear accident comes with “added extras ” imo
    reference Chernobyl Childrens International findings in Belarus, Ukraine and Russia.. Especially Belarus
    K40 is a bit of a red herring debate here..
    You seem a technical sort.. So why do they set limits for Strontium 90 in mushrooms from that region? 750 bq/Kg (in Germany) .. Less than the limits for Cesium at 1000 bq/kg?

    Comment by arclight2011part2 | April 19, 2014 | Reply

  4. I have no idea why they set the limits where they have. Limits are often set orders of magnitude lower than the known toxic dose and so they should be, whether it’s Strontium 90 or Arsenic or Carbon Monoxide.
    The idea that Sr90 is more toxic than other isotopes is very plausible, but just because it’s plausible doesn’t make it so. All I have offered is a counter argument as to why it might not be so toxic. The scientific thing to do is experiment and see what you get. A well controlled experiment would add immeasurably to your argument. The original criticism stands
    is an example, the K+ is overwhelmingly inside the cell, and the Ca++ outside the cell. Another devil’s advocate argument I might make is the possibility of comparing Ca48 which emits two electrons at the same time, with Sr90, which emits two electrons in a relatively short period of time.
    According to Wikipedia, K40 by itself produces 4.4 kBq in the human body, so if I eat 100gm of 750bq/Kg mushrooms and the Sr90 is 20% absorbed, I add 15Bq to my body, so it would be very useful to know how much more toxic it is.
    As an aside I doubt that fission of Uranium can cause K40, If it produced a nucleus with 40 nucleons, it would probably be S40, which would decay to Cl40, then Ar40 and stop there.

    Comment by Graeme | April 20, 2014 | Reply

    • “I have no idea why they set the limits where they have.”
      Statistical analysis as oppsed to releasing and using the studies held by the military imo
      “Limits are often set orders of magnitude lower than the known toxic dose ”
      the words toxic and dose are seperate, toxic effects are measured by epidemiological and medical analysis and dose is measured by statistical analysis largely with little released epidemiological studies that were actually done
      ” but just because it’s plausible doesn’t make it so”
      ermm.. we need independent studies like yablakov`s extensive research that western health physisits will accept ..
      “All I have offered is a counter argument as to why it might not be so toxic”
      are you refering to epidemiological studies or statisitical analysis of the toxic effects of the metals component or the radiological effects of beta etc energies?
      “The scientific thing to do is experiment and see what you get. A well controlled experiment would add immeasurably to your argument.”
      I would prefer independent studies that i can trust.. for example of nuclear industry and usa military dis info see “no meltdowns and no releases from daichi” and “the dose reduces as you move away from the damaged reactors” see here for BS
      thxs for the link i will need a bit of time to respond to that..
      this is an interesting conversation .. i will give you time also to respond to your statements and the video etc. talk soon

      Comment by arclight2011part2 | April 20, 2014 | Reply

  5. Potassium and Magnesium are the intracellular cations, Sodium and Calcium are extracellular cations.

    Calcium & Strontium deposit in bone between the cells as hydroxylapatite Ca10(PO4)6(OH)2 or SrCa9(PO4)6(OH)2. The compression strength is due to the hydroxylapatite, the tensile strength due to collagen and other proteins.
    Here is a picture of a typical bone.

    About 80% of bone is compact bone indicated by the outer part of the diagram. It is only about 5% cellular. The cells embedded within the bone are osteoblasts or osteoclasts. Any Sr90 nucleus which decayed in this part of the bone has about 1/100 chance of hitting the same cell twice and that cell would be an osteoblast or osteoclast. There is essentially no chance of it hitting the same bone marrow cell twice.
    About 20% of the bone is cancellous and somewhat nearer to the bone marrow, but still embedded in spicules of hydroxylapatite much larger than the cells. A two phase nuclear decay here would have maybe 1/100 of hitting the same osteoblast or osteoclast & < 1/10000 of hitting the same bone marrow cell.
    If you doubt this, print a copy of this picture of bone: –

    Stick a pin into it (to represent a random radioactive decay) and calculate the chance that the 2nd decay, will go in exactly the same way as the first. (The black dots are the cells)
    Also bear in mind that Sr90 (but not Y90) is almost a pure beta-emitter and a beta particle (ie an electron) is unlikely to get farther than one spicule of hydroxylapatite.
    I will have a closer look at Yablokov's study, but I understand that his study was funded by Greenpeace and he is a member of that organisation. A friend of mine also says that I should do a random sample of his references and I would get a great deal of insight from this but I haven't had the time to do this yet.

    Comment by Graeme | April 22, 2014 | Reply

    • Hi Graeme
      Thanks for your interesting reply..
      You seem to have looked into this area concerning the double strike theory.. Obviously Dr Chris Busby would be best able to answer this question. However, I will put a posit to you ..
      The beta strike indeed would have a low penetrion depth depending on the isotope of course. when considering the single beta bearing particle and the dense outer hard cell, you seem to be making a good point. But what happens if there are other particles present in the body that give gamma energies and xray energies.. could the single beta particle get a second “hit” from these other enrgies from cesium 134 and cesium 137 particles as well as other isotopes? Indeed gamma passes readily through the body as seen here..

      I am obviously talking about the ground shine in places such as fukushima and chernobyl

      the stick a pin in theory is sound in a laboratory experiment backed up by statistical analysis..

      on the strontium 90 issue there could be more than one particle and young children and infants have much softer hydroxylapatite, would this not possibly have a greater effect?
      A much greater penetration?

      Mushrooms from romania had 750 bq/kg (Codex Alimentarius limit) were refused at the border in Germany.. If strontium 90 was no problem, why would they refuse entry if the limits were not broken? Basically there is no consensus to limits and damage.. as you well know as the Belgium scientists were unhappy about the UNSCEAR 2013 meeting that kept existing standards..

      As to Yablakovs collection of information and Bandachevsky`s (wrong spelling ) studies which show good evidence of radiological damage.. In fact Allison Katz from the independent WHO has done some analysis of part of the ignored 33,000 epidemiological studies and actually found that significant increases in various disease.. The new york academy of science rates this work as a valid scientific research.. This book is not peer reviewed but Allison actually analysed the mortality info and 40 percent were peer reviewed whilst the chernobyl forum book only had 18 percent peer reviewed material.. in the 2 sections of the book she reveiwed.. She makes an interesting comment about statements attacking the book only 2 days after the meltdowns (denied for months by the nuclear community) around 45 mins in to this mp3 interview on nuclear hotseat (the web site was hacked but the episode was mirrored 😉 ) I hope that this will help inform your investigations into Yablakovs/Shermans excellent Book.. this is avery iteresting interview btw .. lol

      download the audioacrobat file as Libbes links are blocked by the trojan and have wrecked the site good and proper..
      A quick question here..
      after the vast expansion on cyber warriors in the pentagon in march 2012 (and just before i lost 2 windows computers in a week – newbies practising) to 35 thousand, who in their right minds would do an attack on an anti nuke site .. 🙂 there are no independent hackers left imo.. between the prism system and the Tempora system (no figures for the amount of cyber warriors there i am afraid but the 5 eyes is even bigger than the PRISM version .. Thats why i moved to ireland 😦

      has your “friend” done such analysis of Yablakovs book? It would be better to take a single part and analyse it as Allsion Katz did imo//

      thanks for the response..
      regards sean

      Comment by arclight2011part2 | April 22, 2014 | Reply

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: