Dangerous radioactivity rapidly destroyed

[kowalskil]

Bacteria destroy radioactivity

A recent claim: radioactivity can be reduced by bacteria. See this link:

http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/402vysotskii.html

Radioactive Cs-137 is mostly responsible for meltdowns of spent reactor fuel. This discovery, if confirmed, will lead to many useful practical applications, both civilian and military.

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
.

[Ulenspiegel]

Bacteria destroy radioactivity

A recent claim: radioactivity can be reduced by bacteria. See this link:

http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/402vysotskii.html

Radioactive Cs-137 is mostly responsible for meltdowns of spent reactor fuel. This discovery, if confirmed, will lead to many useful practical applications, both civilian and military.

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
.

If you want to change the nucleus of an atom, i.e. to convert one element into another, you need more than compounds which only affect the electron shell of this atom.
Artificial nuclear transmutation works, however, with high energy particles which are not found in non-radioactive cells. The claim is very likely nonsense.

[Fuchs]

The only good that bacteria can achieve in regard to radiation is afaik to make the radioactive isotopes more easily disposable or to integrate them into certain molecules that so a human body would not accumulate/integrate the radioactive isotope.

[KenWats]

I read the abstract, but I'm not familiar enough with the units of radioactive decay to figure out what they're measuring the increase of with the bacteria. I've seen curies, rads, and sieverts used before in various applications, but nothing with the abbreviation Bk (Bq, bequerel?) and a google search lead me to the Burger King homepage. I guess that's what an undergrad engineering degree with 2 semesters of physics buys you these days (and 15 years of knowledge decay). Figuring out what they measured the increase of (and how large the increase was compared to their measurement error) would be my first step in deciding whether this was something I personally will keep an eye on or not.

[Ulenspiegel]

I read the abstract, but I'm not familiar enough with the units of radioactive decay to figure out what they're measuring the increase of with the bacteria. I've seen curies, rads, and sieverts used before in various applications, but nothing with the abbreviation Bk (Bq, bequerel?) and a google search lead me to the Burger King homepage. I guess that's what an undergrad engineering degree with 2 semesters of physics buys you these days (and 15 years of knowledge decay). Figuring out what they measured the increase of (and how large the increase was compared to their measurement error) would be my first step in deciding whether this was something I personally will keep an eye on or not.

Bacterial cells, even in relative low concentrations, do NOT form a solution, but a suspension with much higher concentration on the bottom of the flask, this can easily be demonstrated with UV spectroscopy.
Therefore, the described "control experiment" is completely useless and misleading as cells which bind/incorporate caesium were not used. Or in other words, sedimentation of the ceasium containing cells is a likely source for the "destruction" of radioactivity.

[Marc]

It's nonsense, let's stop this thread.

[davidbfpo]

Moderator's Notice

Thread locked after a review.