SOURCE

(Dr. Quijano is a professor at the Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology in the University of the Philippines Manila, and president of Pesticide Action Network Philippines.)

The threat to Filipino health and environment from the nuclear power plant disaster in Japan is serious and should not be downplayed. This threat should be addressed with truth and precaution and not misinformation.

Government officials and the mainstream media repeatedly claim that there is no possibility that the nuclear radiation from Japan will reach the Philippines and that the radiation leak is minimal and pose no significant health risks. This is gross misrepresentation of facts.

There is already a partial meltdown and it is not farfetched that a complete meltdown will occur, if it has not already occurred by the time this article is circulated.

There is already a significant breach in the reactor core containment facilities, both immediate and secondary. There is no doubt that significant amounts of radioactivity had already been released into the open environment, exposing thousands of people within several kilometers radius.

It is highly probable that this radiation pollution will worsen in the next few days and will most likely reach the Philippines.

The claim by Philippine authorities that the radioactive cloud will not reach the Philippines because the prevailing wind direction from the nuclear plant is way towards the Central Pacific is no reassurance because wind direction can change at any moment.

Furthermore, radioactive elements are extremely persistent and will inevitably affect practically the entire planet after some time. Levels of radiation in the nuclear disaster site has already reached alarming levels, forcing the evacuation of 750 workers involved in the desperate efforts to contain the damage.

This is a clear sign that the situation is out of control. Earlier, dose rates of up to 400 millisievert per hour have been reported, more than enough to cause acute radiation sickness.

Radiation levels in Tokyo has been reported to be 10-23 times the normal levels and in Saitama, near Tokyo, the levels were reported to be 40 times normal. These levels have been erroneously proclaimed to be “safe.”

It must be emphasized that, theoretically, no level of radioactivity is “safe.” While these levels are still quite low compared to levels known to be clearly associated with various illnesses due to exposure to radiation, there is a real risk that over time, additional cases of cancer, birth defects, immune disorders, and other illnesses would occur among the population exposed to these low level radiation, especially the more susceptible population groups such as women and children.

Furthermore, it is not unlikely that the actual levels of exposure are higher than what is officially reported and given the fact that the situation is far from being controlled, more releases of radioactivity to the open environment is of high probability.

The Japanese reactor is reported to be one hundred times more powerful than the Chernobyl power plant, which exploded in 1986 and which resulted in worldwide radioactive contamination which continues until today and which will continue for many years to come.

The two stations in the Fukushima region reportedly produce the world’s largest joint amount of energy. If complete meltdown occurs in any of the Fukushima reactors, this may lead to a much worse contamination of the atmosphere than the one that was caused by the Chernobyl disaster.

The Union of Concerned Scientists have expressed serious concerns on what is happening to the Fukushima reactors.

The first is that the damage to the Unit 2 containment may be leaking gases and or liquids. Normally the reactor building is intended to act as a secondary containment and capture radiation leaking from the primary containment so that filters can remove the radioactivity before it is released to the atmosphere.

But the reactor buildings for all three reactors have been damaged by explosions and no longer provide this secondary containment. So if the primary containment is leaking, then a core meltdown could lead to a very large release of radioactivity to the environment.

The second concern is that even if the primary containment is currently intact, the Mark I containment system used in these reactors has a known vulnerability to meltdowns. Molten fuel that enters the primary containment area can melt through the wall of the primary containment—a situation called liner melt-through—which would also allow the release of large amounts of radioactivity to the environment.

The Mark I is unusually vulnerable to containment failure in the event of a core-melt accident. A recent study by Sandia National Laboratories shows that the likelihood of containment failure is nearly 42%. The most likely failure scenario involves the molten fuel burning through the reactor vessel, spilling onto the containment floor, and spreading until it contacts and breeches the steel containment-vessel wall. The Sandia report characterizes these probabilities as “quite high.”

The situation at the Fukushima plant is getting much worse. Larger radiation releases have occurred. The radiation levels around the plants have gotten so high that workers from the plants have been withdrawn. If efforts to cool the reactors are stopped or become completely ineffective, the result may be meltdowns of the fuel in all three reactors.

Another concern expressed is the reported presence of mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel constituting about 6% of the core of unit 3. MOX is a mixture of plutonium and uranium oxides. The use of MOX generally increases the consequences of severe accidents in which large amounts of radioactive gas and aerosol are released compared to the same accident in a reactor using non-MOX fuel, because MOX fuel contains greater amounts of more the highly toxic radioactive elements such as plutonium, americium and curium.

Because of this, the number of latent cancer fatalities resulting from an accident could increase substantially if there were a severe accident with core melt and containment breach.

What is happening in Japan should also serve as a clear signal to the Philippine government to junk completely the efforts to revive the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP). The probability of a similar catastrophe occuring if the BNPP is revived should not be taken for granted.

The Philippines is vulnerable to earthquakes and the BNPP is situated on the slopes of a potentially active volcano. The reopening of the BNPP would not benefit the Filipino people but instead would expose us to unnecessary risks and potentially horrendous consequences.

What needs to be done is to reverse the privatization of the power industry and build sustainable, safe and appropriate sources of energy.

At this time, a disaster preparedness program to address the potential health, environmental and socio-economic consequences of the nuclear disaster in Japan should be in place.

The government claims to have a radiological preparedness plan but an “alert zero” declaration indicates an inappropriate plan with erroneous assumptions and interpretation of facts. Rather than downplaying the seriousness of the situation and nonchalantly dismissing the risks, the government should expand its radiation monitoring, immediately mobilize resources and implement precautionary measures to prevent or at least mitigate the potential effects of radioactive contamination.

**********************Yurika’s E-mail Pu-Update******************

Herbert Scoville Jr. Peace Fellow Project Physicians for Social Responsibility

FISSILE MATERIAL DISPOSITION & CIVIL USE OF PLUTONIUM

Issue No. 4

November 26, 1996

————————————————————

CONTENTS

Main Story: TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF MOX FUEL IN LIGHT WATER REACTORS/THE REACTOR OPTION

1. How Does It Work ?  Major Differences From Conventional LWRs

2. Will MOX Option Really Eliminate Plutonium?

3. Impacts on Radioactive Waste Management?

4. The Health and Environmental Effects of the Use of MOX NEWS BRIEFS

*G7 Paris Summit Report

*Reprocessing Back in the US?

*Plutonium Inventory of the World, Update

*International MOX Assessment

*****************************************************************

Main Story: TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF MOX FUEL IN LIGHT WATER REACTORS (LWR)/ THE REACTOR OPTION

1. How Does It Work?  Major Differences From Conventional LWRs

Proponents of burning plutonium in mixed-oxide(MOX) fuel in LWRs often say that since plutonium already exists in the burned uranium fuel and is still burning, there will not be a big difference by increasing the amount of plutonium a little bit.  The fact is that great effort is put to make it “not a big difference.”

In conventional LWRs, the uranium fuel has about 3% fissile uranium-235 and the rest is non-fissile uranium-238.  When fissile uranium absorbs a neutron, it starts fissioning and releases energy, emitting several neutrons.  One neutron will likely start another fission, creating a chain reaction, but the other neutrons must be controlled so that it will not make a massive reaction which will induce an uncontrolled chain reaction. Control rods are designed to absorb the extra neutrons.  But some neutrons are also absorbed by the non-fissile uranium-238 and this decays into fissile plutonium-239.

In the beginning, the plutonium content is zero and the fissile uranium is about 3%.  The fissile uranium decreases as they burn, creating plutonium at the same time.  At the end of one reactor cycle, the content of fissile uranium is about 0.7%-0.8%,  approximately equal to the content of fissile plutonium-239 that is created.(1)

In the case of MOX fuel used in one-third of a LWR core, the plutonium content is roughly 4% from the beginning, which is approximately 5 times more than that in the end of one cycle of a uranium fuel.  This is a significant difference in terms of core nuclear physics.(2)

In a fast reactor, plutonium content of MOX fuel can be up to 50%.  In the option to burn plutonium in CANDU reactors, the MOX fuel content could be 100% core.(3)  But this has not been tested, nor is there any experience at all of burning plutonium fuel in CANDU reactors.

All light water reactors are designed to burn uranium fuel.   Thus the nuclear physics of MOX fuels must be adapted to be as similar as possible to that of uranium fuel.  The MOX fuel assemblies  should be able to be operated as uranium assemblies without any restriction to the level of power, performance or safety.

#Various Types of Fuel Assemblies Necessary To Burn MOX

In order to achieve the same performance as normal LWR, the fuel assemblies are made into various types with different plutonium  and uranium contents. Usually, MOX fuel assembly designs for pressurized water reactors use three types of plutonium contents, 1.9%, 2.3% and 3.3%.(4) For boiling water reactors, four to six different plutonium contents designs are used.(5)  Another difference is that, because of the intensity of plutonium’s thermal energy, plutonium fuel pellets cannot be of the same form as uranium fuel.  It could be in the form of a donut where the central part is void to let the heat dissipate.  But this type of a fuel pellet is likely to collapse.(6)  All these factors make the fuel production extremely complicated and difficult, compared to the one-standard uranium fuel for conventional LWRs.

#Reduced Efficacy of Control Rods

Control rods work by absorbing neutrons in the reactor core, so maintaining stable power conditions. Criticality depends on the small fraction of neutrons produced in the fission of uranium or plutonium which are generated with a delay of about ten seconds.(7)  This time difference makes it possible to control the power level by mechanically inserting additional control rods into the core.

However, the fraction of delayed-neutrons in Pu-239 is about one- third that of uranium-235, which means that the reactor is more sensitive to variations in power.(8)  In addition, plutonium has a slightly higher propensity to capture thermal neutrons than uranium.  Therefore the efficacy of control rods is somewhat reduced, and safety margins are lower.  The additional demands on control systems are largest for those plutonium fuels in which plutonium-239 content is highest, as in MOX fuel using weapon- grade plutonium.(9)  For these reasons, the MOX fuel assemblies should be placed away from the control rods.

The higher average energy of the neutron spectrum of MOX also increases the rate of radiation damage to structural materials in and around the core.   This could cause embrittlement of the reactor vessel in the end, which is another factor for safety concerns.

#Danger of Losing Control of the Reactor Is Greater with MOX

Conventional LWRs are designed to decrease the reactivity when the temperature rises. But when using Pu-239 as fuel, heating of the core from an increase in reaction rate tends to increase the reaction rate still further.  This is called the positive temperature coefficient of reactivity, meaning there is a danger of losing control of the reactor by accelerated chain reaction of fissioning.(10)

————————————————————-

(1)”Han-Genpatu Demae Shimasu,” Jinzaburo Takagi (Nanatsumori-

Shokan, 1993, p.216)

(2) Ibid. pp.216-217

(3)Draft Nonproliferation and Arms Control Assessment of Weapons- Usable Fissile Material Storage and Plutonium Disposition Alternatives (US Department of Energy, October 1, 1996, p.93)

(4)”Options for Plutonium,” by E.R. Merz(Research Center Julich) for the International Seminar on MOX Fuel (June, 1996, UK)

(5)Ibid

(6)Ibid note (1) p.218

(7)”Disposition of Separated Plutonium” Frans Berkhout, Frank von Hippel, et.al. (Science and Global Security, 1993 Vol.3, p.177)

(8)”Management and Disposition of Excess Weapons Plutonium, Reactor-Related Options (National Academy of Sciences, 1995,p.41)

(9) Ibid

(10)Ibid. p.42

================================================================

2. Will MOX Option Really Eliminate Plutonium?

Three options for the disposition of “excess” plutonium are  considered.  They are the “reactor option,” burning it as MOX fuel in reactors; “immobilization”, mixing plutonium with highly radioactive fission products and glassifying it into logs for geological disposal; and “deep borehole,” burying plutonium deep enough so that it will be unretrievable.

The proponents of the reactor option using MOX fuel often say that the immobilization and the deep borehole options will merely put the plutonium underground and will not eliminate plutonium.  They claim that the only way to eliminate plutonium is to burn it in reactors.  But this is misleading.  It can only be eliminated by repeatedly reprocessing the spent MOX fuel, and reusing the separated plutonium.  But plutonium from reprocessed MOX spent fuel is degraded in quality and cannot be used as fuel.  The scale of effort required to overcome the economics and the technological difficulties is overwhelming.

The objective of burning excess plutonium in reactors is to convert the weapons-grade plutonium into spent fuel, contaminated with other highly radioactive fission products so that it will be difficult to retrieve plutonium without reprocessing.  This is called the “spent fuel standard.”  But even if it becomes “spent fuel standard,” plutonium could be retrieved by reprocessing, and studies have shown that nuclear bombs could be made from such separated “reactor-grade” plutonium.(11)

The real amount of plutonium will decrease by half by burning it as MOX fuel in LWRs.  The MOX fuel starts with 4% plutonium and 96% uranium-238.  By the end of one fuel cycle, 2% plutonium will remain in the spent MOX fuel together with 94% uranium and 4% fission products.(12)  According to National Academy of Sciences, out of the 50 tons of “excess” weapons plutonium, a substantial amount of plutonium would remain in the spent MOX fuel, between 10 to 40 tons(13) depending on how long the fuel remains in the reactor core and the percentage of MOX the core use.

————————————————————-

(11) Draft Nonproliferation And Arms Control Assessment of Weapons-Usable Fissile Material Storage and Plutonium Disposition Alternatives (US Department of Energy, October 1, 1996, pp.34-36)

(12)Notes by Dr. Arjun Makhijani (IEER, November 20, 1996)

(13)Management and Disposition of Excess Weapons Plutonium (National Academy of Sciences, 1994, p.155)

===============================================================

3. Impacts on Radioactive Waste Management

MOX spent fuel contains more fission products than uranium spent fuel.  The important factor in managing spent fuel is the heat generation caused by the highly radioactive fission products. Since spent MOX fuel contains much more fission products, the heat generation from MOX spent fuel is twice as high as that of spent uranium fuel after 10 years and three times as high after 100 years.(14)

What this means is that less spent MOX fuel could be put in a limited repository site, leading to the necessity of more or larger repository sites.  Or, longer periods of centuries for interim storage would be necessary.   Because of the existence of more plutonium, there is a criticality concern for geologic repository, and requires separate licenses for disposal. This means additional costs and delays.  In other words, spent MOX fuel disposal will require more space, more time, and more substantial costs.

Another typical argument proponents of plutonium “recycling” raise is that the extent of uranium mining, milling, conversion, enrichment and fabrication will be reduced, and thus curb the amount of related radioactive waste as a whole.  This argument ignores the additional waste produced by fabricating MOX fuel, burning in LWRs and the effects of making spent MOX fuel disposal more difficult, not to forget the huge waste produced by reprocessing (which is unnecessary only in the case of disposition of weapons plutonium).

—————————————————————–

(14)”The MOX Industry or The Civilian Use of Plutonium,” C.

Kueppers & M. Sailer (IPPNW, 1994, p.64)

================================================================

4. The Health and Environmental Effects of the Use of MOX

#Specific Dangers of Plutonium

Plutonium does not exist in the natural environment, and is only produced in nuclear reactors.  It is known as one of the most toxic elements.  It emits high energy alpha radiation, and has harmful biological effects.

Alpha radiation has a very short range but very intense ionization power.  If exposed on the surface of the skin, the skin works as a shield and will prevent its penetration into the body, but all of its ionizing power will be focused on the small spot, causing burns and killing the skin tissue.  If inhaled into the body, the alpha particle will go in through the respiratory tract, and enter the lung.  Due to its long half-life, it will stay in the body permanently, emitting alpha radiation, and killing the surrounding tissues by strong ionization.  If plutonium is taken into the body in soluble form (e.g. plutonium nitrate) through food chain, it will enter the blood stream, and into the bones, liver and genital organs where it will be enriched.  Alpha radiation leads to reactions in the cells of living things.  It can cause damage to the nucleus and DNA of the cell, in effect causing genetic damage in descendants, particularly if germ cells are affected.(15)

#Dangers of Resuspension in the Environment

In the event of a contamination of the environment with plutonium, the whirling up and inhalation of plutonium particles, known as resuspension, plays an important role.  If there is a road traffic, building work or cleaning work at the plutonium contaminated site, plutonium can enter the body through the respiratory tract.  Generally, the more whirled up, the greater the dose intake per quantity of plutonium on the ground.  If there is fire, and plutonium becomes airborne into fine aerosol particles, plutonium contamination of the environment will extend to a far larger scale, landing on ground, contaminating a vast wider area. Plutonium remains effective over very long periods affecting the health of the people and the environment.(16)

#Accident Scenario When Burning MOX

Accidents involving overheating and meltdown are possible in any nuclear reactors.  In such accidents, not only would readily volatile noble gases, like iodine and caesium be released to the environment, but a small portion of the actinides, including plutonium and neptunium would be released.  As the activity of the actinides is substantially higher in the case of MOX, the consequences of such severe accidents become more serious.

When MOX fuels are used, the probability of having such serious accidents or trouble would increase due to the high content of plutonium in the fuel.  Even if an accident is not a serious one, it could become serious since even a small portion of the inventory of actinides released to the environment could cause significant radiological consequences.

According to a comparative analysis of possible consequences of a core meltdown accident in the German Kruemmel nuclear power plant with and without the use of MOX fuel(17):

*The radiation exposure from inhalation of radioactive materials during the passage of the radioactive cloud is higher by several dozen percent than if uranium fuel elements were exclusively used.

*Radiation exposure through the route of inhalation of remobilized long-lived actinide isotopes is more than doubled.

*The land areas to become out of use by long-term contamination increases as the resuspension pathway is a limiting factor and the greater part of the dose resulting from the pathway comes from the actinides.(18)

#Accidents at Fabrication Plants

Accidents at MOX fuel fabrication plants have occurred.  In June, 1991, the storage bunker of the MOX fuel fabrication plant in Hanau, Germany was contaminated with MOX.  It occurred after the rupture of a foil for container packaging in the course of an in-plant transportation process.  Five workers were exposed to plutonium.  This accident was the main reason the fabrication plant at Hanau was shut down.(19)

In November, 1992, a rod was broken through a handling error and MOX dust released during the mounting of MOX fuel rods to fuel assemblies in the fuel fabrication facility adjoining the MOX facility in Dessel, Belgium.(20)

In event of such accidents, if the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) recommendations for general public exposure were adhered to, only about 1 mg of plutonium may be released from a MOX facility to the environment.  As a comparison, in uranium fabrication facility, 2kg (2,000,000mg)of uranium could be released in the same radiation exposure. A 1 mg release of plutonium from a processing process can easily happen from various smaller incidents.(21)

#Worker Hazards

The National Academy of Sciences concludes that the main environment, safety and health related issues in weapons plutonium disposition that needs special attention with the addition of weapons plutonium is the occupational risk from fuel preparation. (22)

Because plutonium is more radioactive than uranium, greater safety concern is required when handling the material in whatever way.  The ICRP sets a standard for occupational exposure to radiation at 100 mSv over 5 years, with a maximum of 50 mSv in any one year.  If you interpret this in comparison for workers at an uranium fuel fabrication plant with MOX fuel fabrication plant workers, the standards for protection against inhalation are roughly two Million times stricter in plutonium processing than in uranium processing.(23)

Another factor is the gamma radiation exposure which comes from americium, which accumulates as plutonium decays into americium as time lapses.  Gamma radiation penetrates through almost anything, so it is very difficult to protect workers from this radiation.

————————————————————–

(15)”The MOX Industry or The Civilian Use of Plutonium,” C. Kueppers & M. Sailer (IPPNW,1994,pp.16-19)

(16)Ibid

(17)”The Consequences of Severe Accidents in the Kruemmel Nuclear Power Plant for the Territory of the City of Hamburg and the Effects of Disaster Control Measures (Oko Institut, April 1992)

(18)Ibid. note (15), pp.48-50

(19) Ibid note (15) p.40

(20) Ibid.

(21) Ibid.

(22)”Management and Disposition of Excess Weapons Plutonium, Reactor-Related Options”(National Academy of Sciences, 1995, p.97)

(23)Ibid. note (15) p.38

================================================================

NEWS BRIEFS

>>G7 Paris Summit Report

On October 28-31, government officials and experts of the G7 countries plus Russia, Belgium, Switzerland, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and European Commission gathered in Paris and discussed military plutonium disposition options. The delegations included nuclear fuel cycle companies such as COGEMA of France, BNFL of UK, Belgonucleaire of Belgium, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, SIEMENS of Germany, and utilities such as Tokyo Electric of Japan, and Nordostschweizerische Kraftwerke AG of Switzerland.  They concluded that both burning in reactors (MOX) and immobilization should be pursued in parallel and they are not mutually exclusive.  The proposal from Russia, Germany and France to build a pilot scale MOX fabrication plant in Russia is said to be close to fruition and welcomed by the participants including US.

However, it was stressed by the US that the new MOX fabrication facility should not be used for any other purposes except for the disposition mission and that the spent MOX fuel not be recycled.  The US maintained that it can support a large-scale Russian MOX program “only on the basis that it’s not part of a reprocessing economy in Russia.”  Russia was obviously adamant in refusing these conditions stating that they did not want to accept any position that could be seen as restricting their options in the future.

The New York Times reported on November 22 that the US DOE is ready to announce the Record of Decision to choose the reactor option.  On November 12, the Japanese press reported Japan will cooperate in the construction of a MOX fabrication plant in Russia, as the US have approved of the plan as well.(24)  The domino effect of endorsing the “reactor option” is already starting.  But as the New York Times concluded, the “decisive battle will take place years from now, in localities with electric companies that agree to accept mixed oxide fuels.”

(Sources: Nuclear Fuel 11/4/96, Nucleonics Week 11/7/96, Spent Fuel 11/4/96)

(24) Asahi Shimbun, Nov.12,1996, Denki (Electric) Shimbun, Nov.12, 1996

—————————————————————

>>Reprocessing Back in the US?

On November 12, Gregg Renkes, a staff director of the Senate Natural Resources Committee of the United States, said during a panel discussion at the American Nuclear Society Convention that a provision advocating overseas reprocessing of US waste will be included in the comprehensive nuclear waste legislation to be introduced in the 105th Congress (beginning in early 1997).  Spent nuclear fuel and high level radioactive waste are piling up at reactor sites as well as DOE weapons facilities in the US.    Renkes claimed that the waste problem US faces today is the result of an “ostrich nuclear policy,” keeping heads in the sand, ignoring that the so-called “nuclear fuel cycle back-end policy” is “broken.”

A reprocessing option was introduced as vague language in the Senate Waste Bill S1271 of 1995.  As an “Emergency Relief” measure, if a utility “has exhausted its existing on-site storage capacity,” the utility could contract with “entities qualified to provide interim storage and conditioning.”  The euphemistic term “conditioning” means “reprocessing.”  However, when S1271 was revised to S1936 in the early summer of 1996, the Emergency Relief provision was dropped.  S1936 passed the Senate on July 31, 1996.  The House version of the same bill contained no reprocessing language.  But under the threat of a Presidential veto, the Republican leadership in the House declined to push this bill through in the election year.  As a result, there is no legislation for interim storage at the moment.

(Sources: Nuclear Fuel 7/15/96, Nucleonics Week 11/14/96, “US High-level Waste Management Policy and the Reprocessing Option” by Gregg Renkes, “Long Battle Over Yucca Site May Be Coming to a Close,” Government & Commerce, November 18, 1995)

>>Plutonium Inventory of the World, Update

At the Reprocessing Working Group meeting held on October 4-5, in Washington, DC, Dr. Frans Berkhout of the University of Sussex in England gave the latest figures on world plutonium inventory.  It will be announced in the new version of the “World Inventory of Plutonium and Highly Enriched Uranium 1992″(25) scheduled to be published in January 1997.

According to Dr. Berkhout, the military stockpile is 250 tons, whereas the civilian plutonium is 990 tons as of end of 1995.  Of the civilian plutonium, 800 tons is in spent fuel, 141 tons separated and stockpiled, and 49 tons recycled.  Of the 49 tons recycled, 21 tons is in fast reactors and 28 tons in light water reactors in the MOX programs.

(25)”Plutonium and Highly Enriched Uranium 1996: World Inventories, Capabilities and Policies,” Oxford University Press/Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, 1997

————————————————————

>>International MOX Assessment

An International MOX Assessment (“A Comprehensive Social Impact Assessment of MOX Use in Light Water Reactors”) is being conducted by experts around the world headed and sponsored by Citizens’ Nuclear Information Center in Tokyo.  In lack of a comprehensive in-depth assessment focused on MOX use in LWRs, the project is intended to be the first such independent, comprehensive study on MOX.  The experts include J. Takagi (Japan), M. Schneider(France), I. Hokimoto (Japan), M. Sailer (Germany) and F. Barnaby(UK).  The interim report was published

on October 26, 1996 in Kyoto, Japan.  The report is available from CNIC (Tel:81-3-5330-9520, Fax:81-3-5330-9530, E-mail:cnic-jp@po.iijnet.or.jp).

*****************************************************************

Thanks to Kathryn Schultz of Center for Defense Information, the Pu-Updates are available on CDI’s Home Page on the Web at <http://www.cdi.org> under Fissile Materials in the Issues section.

****************************************************************

For information or comments, subscription, or for previous issues, please contact Yurika Ayukawa at 202-898-0150 Ext.226, fax 202-898-0172, or e-mail <yayukawa@igc.apc.org>.

Iodine and Iodide

Iodine is a very controversial substance, as well as Iodide. Both are very similar except that Iodine is the oxidized form of Iodide. It is taught in medical school, through the media, and in society that you will cause major problems in people if you start to give them Iodine and Iodide. The reverse is actually the truth. The problems that these substances supposedly cause are actually caused by the LACK of them! The body needs it in its basic foundation for proper health. Without it you can have so many different types of problems that is is hard to list them.

Up to 95% of people that are tested are deficient in Iodine. Why is this? This is because of the fact that we have depleted our soils of very vital nutrients, not limited to just Iodine. When the soil does not have nutrition, your crops do not have nutrition. Traditional farming practices that use the “old methods” include something called crop rotation, which helps keep the soil healthy. Some cultures even added things to the soil to make it even more nutrient rich. Although some smaller farmers still do this, our industrialized agricultural system does not. They have literally destroyed most of our soil by over farming and not practicing the older transitions.

The thyroid gland can be heavily influenced by Iodine and Iodide. It is sometimes referred to as the “shield” gland, because of its role in the body’s defenses. All of your blood circulates through the thyroid every 17 minutes, and there is a reason for it to do so. Only when your thyroid has proper amounts of Iodine and Iodide can it literally act as a shield for the body. This is because any parasites, viruses, or bacteria like material that continually passed through the thyroid will slowly become weakened each time. This allows your body to be able to ward off enemies more effectively.

The thyroid is a gland in the throat that produces about 1 teaspoon of thyroid hormone in an entire year. That limited amount of thyroid hormone has to drive your metabolic rate for the entire body. Lack of this hormone due to the thyroid not functioning properly can start to make you get cold, tired, gain weight, loose hair, gain aches, contract hypothyroidism, chronic fatigue, cancer, autoimmune diseases, fibromyalgia, adrenal problems, etc. The list goes on and on.

Iodine and Iodide are detoxifying agents. One reason is because of their competitive inhibition with the halogen elements of the periodic table. These include Chloride, Chlorine, Fluoride, Flourine, Bromide and Bromine. Your cells prefer Iodine and Iodide, but when you have more of another halogen your body will push out the other ones. Because of the lack of Iodine within our foods, and the use of chlorine, bromide and fluoride in our foods there is a crying need for Iodine in the united states and in other countries as well. Iodine and Iodide are both heavy metal detoxing agents, will kill yeast and candida in the body, and can help flush radiation out of the body.

If you are deficient in Iodine and Iodide and begin to take it in through diet and supplementation, than you may encounter detox symptoms. You most likely WILL experience something at some point, but not everyone will. This can happen as halogens other than iodine/iodide go into the blood to be excreted, when you have a yeast or candida “die-off” and your body is trying to get rid of the aftermath, and can happen if heavy metals get pulled into your bloodstream for excretion. A whole list of symptoms of detox can include hair loss, twitching, mood changes, irregularity, pains, brain fog, metal tastes in the mouth, dizziness, tiredness, vision changes, and more.

It is important to get both Iodine and Iodide in your foods and supplementation if possible. This is because certain tissues within the body will bind one or the other, but not both. Breast, stomach and and prostate tissues tend to bind Iodine; while thyroid, various glands and skin tissues bind Iodide. Ever cell uses either Iodide or Iodine, while the various glands typically have the highest concentrations.

My personal experience is with Iodoral, starting the turn of last year “2010”. I started taking half of a pill (6.25mg) of Iodoral every day. For the first week I felt absolutely awesome. I had so much energy and motivation that I felt like I could do anything. After the first week I had a detox, and I was knocked down with brain fog, dizziness, and just feeling not so great. About a week or so later I felt normal again, and my skin started to itch in the few spots where I have eczema. That itching became worse and worse until the 4th week where it stopped itching and completely went away. Usually it only goes away in the summer.

I was shocked! I then had a few weeks of feeling decent and then hit another detox for a week or so. I had the same symptoms as the first time, and generally felt not that great. After I felt normal again my eczema very slowly came back. I started taking 1 pill (12.5mg) and had another detox. After that I stayed with 1 pill for a few months. After a few months I tried adding another half pill and started having detoxes again. I stayed at 1 pill and every once in awhile went up to 1.5 pills until I felt strange and then backed down to 1 again. I took Iodoral for at least the first ½ of the year, every day. I then slowly backed off of it and have been taking 1 pill every few days. Now that things may be changing, I started taking it again. I also have some Lugol’s solution so I have been trying that.

The best choices for Iodine/Iodide are the Iodoral, the “Lugol’s” solutions and Iodizyme-HP. Iodoral and Iodizyme-HP are in pill form and Lugol’s is water with Iodide and Iodine. Both work very well, and they work well because A.) they contain both elements, and B.) because there is more Iodide than Iodine. Studies have shown that it is most beneficial to have 1.5 times the Iodide thanodine.

Some things Iodine/Iodide help with:

Lowering acid in the body

Balancing PH

Helps get rid of cysts, nodules, fibrosis of glands

Increases IQ in children that have a diet sufficient with iodine

Treatment for ADHD and like syndromes, Atherosclerosis, Cancer, Diabetes, Hemorriods, Headaches, Infections, Liver diseases, Infections, hepatitis, goiter and more

Hormone production across the board

Is Alkalinizing, Antibacterial, Anticancer, Antiparasitic, Antiviral and a Mucolytic Agent

A few “Proper” links for Iodine/Iodide information

www.Iodine4health.com

www.drbrownstein.com

Yahoo Group “Iodine”

Love to everyone!