• Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic

AZOMITE rock dust; Is this stuff radioactive?!!! YUP, its hot alright.

 
Edward Shook
Posts: 2
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Hi Everyone,
If anyone else has a geiger counter/scintilation meter, would you please confirm the Alpha emmissions of azomite rock dust? With a geiger counter that detects alpha particles, you will get an undeniable reading off the stuff that exceeds background radiation levels. Even without a geiger, you can dump some rock dust on a photgraphic plate, wait twenty four hours and develop it. Radio-active hot-spots will show themselves on the photo paper as black dots. We registered a 68cpm off of azomite, while the background radiation was steady at 23cpm.

As far as I can deduce, this contamination (uranium, radium and ?..) is not from fallout/rainout, but is a naturally occurring deposit within the ground, at the location they are mining. To be standing around in a wharehouse full of AZOMITE bags is no big deal, no worries. BUT, if you breathe the dust, as we ALL do, or eat food grown with it, then we will incorporate these DNA destroyers into our body. Essentialy, you are subject to non-stop radiation exposure in direct proximity to ones cells for the rest of your life. Alpha emitters are easily blocks by a couple of inches of air. But once inside your body, the damage is unavoidable, unrelenting.
Reality isn't always pretty. I'm not trying to cause panic. But seriously, switch to glacial rock dust, just to be safe.

What do all of you think?
 
John Polk
steward
Posts: 8019
Location: Currently in Lake Stevens, WA. Home in Spokane
286
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Azomite is a volcanic rock. Some of the world's richest agricultural regions are down stream from erupted volcanoes.
It is the spew from an erupted volcano, and as such, will contain virtually every mineral & element from the earth's core.

Personally, I don't fear eating foods from an Azomite amended soil. Perhaps it could enter root crops, but at such extremely low levels that it would probably be less harmful than the air we breath. Foods grown with it have been shown to be much more nutrient rich than foods grown without all of the essential elements.

Azomite and glacial rock dust are each used as mineral amendments for soils that are deficient in minerals. Either one could be a waste of money if your soil has the minerals it needs. A complete soil test will show which minerals need replenishing. It would generally be cheaper to just apply the minerals that are needed, than applying an A to Z blanket containing most everything.

The mineral content of the two products are quite different. Look for the one that matches your needs the best:

Azomite analysis
Gaia Green
Gaia Green is about 30% cheaper ($12/50#) than Azomite ($16/44#)

The bottom line is a good soil test to see what, if anything is needed, and buy accordingly.

EDITED 30 Oct. '13 to update Gaia Green's link. I haven't yet found a link to their analysis.
 
Mila Victoria
Posts: 1
  • Likes 1
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
No, AZOMITE is not radioactive. The company's updated website FAQ page contains a recent Gross Alpha/Beta Case Narrative (ALS Laboratories) that shows that the alpha radiation values present in AZOMITE are lower than those from a sample taken from the ALS parking lot. { http://www.azomite.com/faq.html }

AZOMITE is not radioactive and does not have the capacity to emit alpha particles, which can harm humans or animals. How's that for panic relief?
 
Pamela Melcher
Posts: 299
Location: Portland, Oregon Maritime, temperate, zone 7-8.
  • Likes 1
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I tested Azomite with an Inspector Alert Geiger counter tonight. The average in a 30 minute test was 89.5 CPM. The background was 33 CPM. 100 CPM is the feeh ahtert

I was very disappointed.
 
Mateo Chester
Posts: 148
Location: Zone 4b
4
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Found this: http://www.gaiagreen.com. Is this a different site than you were referring to, John? Just wondering... That would be a bummer because their Glacial Rock Dust is a great product.. Does the alumina content of the Azomite seem really high to anyone else? Anyone know anything about alumina-silicates reacting negatively with fulvic acids? Basalt rock dust is also something to consider. Pamela, any chance you could test Gaia's Glacial Rock Dust? Thanks in advance.
 
John Polk
steward
Posts: 8019
Location: Currently in Lake Stevens, WA. Home in Spokane
286
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Yes! That's them. My previous sources had quit carrying their product(s), all of my old links were getting "Page not found" errors, and several Google searches turned up nothing.

They must have 'restructured' somehow. Glad to see that they are still up and running.

 
Mateo Chester
Posts: 148
Location: Zone 4b
4
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
John,

These might be of interest to you. The latter sources from the former.

http://concentratesnw.com

http://www.kisorganics.com

adios
 
John Polk
steward
Posts: 8019
Location: Currently in Lake Stevens, WA. Home in Spokane
286
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Yes. I am quite familiar with ConcentratesNW. About the best prices I have seen locally.
Good selection also. They do not sell through the internet, only from their store.
They used to list Gaia's Green in two forms. Now it is just "Glacial rock dust".

 
Mateo Chester
Posts: 148
Location: Zone 4b
4
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Do you think it's from a different glacial source or are most commercial glacial rock dusts typically from the same location? Thanks. ps- I figured you knew what was up with concentrates, but I posted anyways in case someone else was curious Thanks for your insight.
 
John Polk
steward
Posts: 8019
Location: Currently in Lake Stevens, WA. Home in Spokane
286
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I would imagine that glacial rock dust would vary greatly depending on where it was mined from.
As the base rocks of the mountain change from region to region, so will the mineral proportions they contain.


 
Mateo Chester
Posts: 148
Location: Zone 4b
4
  • Likes 1
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
John Polk wrote:I would imagine that glacial rock dust would vary greatly depending on where it was mined from.
As the base rocks of the mountain change from region to region, so will the mineral proportions they contain.




Well, I was curious as to whether the glacial rock dust supplied by Concentrates was still Gaia's or another brand and if so, what the mineral composition consisted of. So, I went ahead and gave them a call, and was informed by their staff that their glacial rock dust is in fact still that from Gaia Green and thus, 100 percent of the same identical mineral composition. They weren't sure why the "Gaia Green" portion of the labeling was dropped, but were going to look into it.

Hope this helps. Take care.

EDIT: punctuation :)
 
Pamela Melcher
Posts: 299
Location: Portland, Oregon Maritime, temperate, zone 7-8.
  • Likes 1
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Concentrates is a good group. I live in Portland, Oregon where they are located, and have learned a lot from them. They have very high quality products and a very helpful and knowledgeable staff. I cannot say enough good things about Concentrates.
 
Jonathan 'yukkuri' Kame
Posts: 488
Location: Foothills north of L.A., zone 9ish mediterranean
3
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
My geiger counter is calibrated for gamma from cesium for when we travel to Japan, not sure if this will be helpful or not? Anyway, if I find myself near a bag of rock dust, I'll check it out. Wonder if the potassium in Azomite might be causing the beta radiation? No way around that. Potash is hot as well.

Decomposed granite around here (socal foothills) is moderately radioactive, and gives off radon. Ambient readings here are usually higher than many areas of Tokyo post-fukushima. As far as I know, uranium does not bioaccumulate like cesium, strontium, iodine, etc., but it's still very toxic.
 
Cory Lynn
Posts: 1
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Hello. I found this forum thread when I was searching for rock dust and Azomite. We tested our Azomite with a calibrated Soeks geiger counter which detects gamma radiation. We found an average of 0.15 microSieverts per hour with a 15 minute test. Our back ground radiation in Daytona Beach is usually around 0.09 - 0.11 micro Sieverts per hour outside. The background radiation level goes up during cold front rain storms. At the end of 2011 our background readings were 0.06 micro Seiverts per hour.

I did note that the Azomite web page had radiation test results for only Alpha and Beta radiation, but not gamma.
 
Seth Wetmore
Posts: 158
Location: Some where in the universe in space and time.
1
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Are we being serious?
This sounds as if people are effectively accepting adding radiation to what they are doing.
If adding rock dust is possibly dangerous, why not just avoid a danger and aim at alternative sollutions.
Incorperating giger counters and such measures is a wise decision for extream survival meathods, such as neuclear fall out. Although if you have to use one to make your garden plot safe, or to minimize a hazard that you can not avoid then maybe leaving that zone is a better alternative.
Most of the posts referred to people who use or have used giger counters. These people also may even own one. Have they gone through the training needed to determine accurate results, and if so what particle physics course did they take because I would look to firing the professor. The dangers of radio active particles as well as the surrounding environment that may be affected by radio active particles are still being investigated. Ask Carl sagen Ohh sorry he is dead. Ask Richard Fienman ohh sorry he is dead also. Ask Openhiemer Ohh he also is dead. The idea that any individual knows more than pannels of scientists is silly, yet pannels of scientists came up with silly devices like the atomic bomb, the hydrogen bomb, the nueclear power plant, DDT, agent orange, every poison known to man, and most of the bad things in the world by pure accident while they were looking to solve other problems. <- not everything I write is perfectly true, but you get the point.
So if getting rock dust is hazardous or even if you think there is a possibility of emient danger RUN FROM IT!
I hope people are being serious.
 
Rufus Laggren
Posts: 479
Location: Chicago/San Francisco
8
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Anybody know an information source for background radiation by geographic region? Maybe even by city?
 
Pamela Melcher
Posts: 299
Location: Portland, Oregon Maritime, temperate, zone 7-8.
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I have a good Geiger counter and network with others who have good Geiger counters in Portland, Oregon, and we have discovered that the background varies greatly within this small geographic area. It varies by the day, and by the time of day. I am really glad I have a Geiger counter.

Be safe. Be well.
 
pete samson
Posts: 20
Location: central european territories
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
As far as I know,
'background' radiation didn't exist over a hundred years ago, and happened as a result of hundreds of above, and below-ground, 'tests', vented soon after the explosion.

It increases over-all systemic stress.
 
Pamela Melcher
Posts: 299
Location: Portland, Oregon Maritime, temperate, zone 7-8.
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Background radiation comes partly from the remaining residues of nuclear explosions, and is higher then it used to be.

But it also comes from gamma rays from the sun and radioactivity in the rocks, such as granite, and radon, which comes from radioactive minerals in the earth that were deposited there by nature.
 
John Polk
steward
Posts: 8019
Location: Currently in Lake Stevens, WA. Home in Spokane
286
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
But it also comes from gamma rays from the sun and radioactivity in the rocks, such as granite, and radon, which comes from radioactive minerals in the earth that were deposited there by nature.


Correct. Background radiation was here millions of years before life began on this planet.
Life, as we know it, would probably never have happened without it.

The Manhattan Project certainly stepped it up a notch, but it would have (eventually) happened anyways.


 
Gilbert Fritz
Posts: 1205
Location: Denver, CO
16
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Hello John,

Why would it eventually have happened anyway? Or do you mean somebody would have built atomic weapons anyway?
 
Rufus Laggren
Posts: 479
Location: Chicago/San Francisco
8
  • Likes 1
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Here's an answer to a question "... what if no radiation at all...". It includes several ideas that may be relavent here.

-----------

"The short answer to your question is that no research has been done on the effects of a total absence of radiation. The reason is because it is impossible to do this research. There isn’t a spot anywhere on Earth (or nearby) without background radiation. It comes from natural uranium and thorium (and their decay products) in the Earth’s crust, from a naturally radioactive form of potassium (which we all need to survive), from cosmic radiation, and many other sources. Humans and all life on the planet have evolved in a naturally radioactive environment. The level of radiation in our environment has been very slowly decreasing as the Earth ages and the natural radioactive elements in the Earth’s crust slowly decay away. So the radiation we are exposed to today is somewhat less than it was when our very distant ancestors left the oceans and crawled out on dry land.

While it is impossible to totally remove background radiation, it is possible to look at the effects of a much lower background than we all normally experience. This has been done in laboratories far underground to shield the experiments from cosmic radiation. These kinds of experiments have been done with bacteria and other organisms, and they almost always show that organisms don’t fare very well in a greatly reduced radiation background. This is what I would expect, since we have evolved in higher radiation backgrounds, and we are presumably adapted to that environment.

Brant Ulsh, PhD, CHP"

--------------

This is the url of the asnwer page:
http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q10453.html

This is the url for a page covering the general topic of background radiation:
http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/cat10.html

I have not researched the origen or support for this site. The language appears as one might expect from trained scientists.

This wikipedia page lists some accepted measures of background radiation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation


Rufus
 
Johnny Niamert
Posts: 268
Location: Colo
3
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Natural uranium and radium deposits in rock can contaminate well-water. Sometimes well-water can be pretty hot, depending on the path. There's 28 communities in Colorado alone with public domestic water that exceeds minimum standards.




Making suns on Earth is one hell of a way to boil water.
I will say that, though.
 
Afghani Nurmat
Posts: 24
Location: southern germany
4
  • Likes 1
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I know this might be an old thread, but I stumbled across it anyway and just had to reply.

@Seth Wetmore
I indeed saw not everything you wrote was perfectly true and yes i got your point, too. But:
you can`t run from that level of radiation we are talking about; you just can`t and what`s more there is no reason to do so.
the dead you were enumerating would be likely to be dead by now; radiation or not. and yes radiation CAN be a dangerous thing; it is said that in Los Alamos they had a piece of plutonium as a doorstop and everyone (of the scientists of course) could walk in there and be fascinated by its enourmous density and by the fact that it constantly produced heat. you could actually take it in your hands. that is, no doubt, dangerous. they didn`t know what they were doing (obviously, we could say now) and it is true that many of them died much earlier than they should have because of that. but comparing this to the level of radiation in azomite dust or in granite rock is like comparing an avalanche to a snowflake.

I totally agree that nukes are bad. but if you start being afraid of radiation itself you will become paranoid. just like many guys do with germs, although a great part of their bodyweight is germs. people tend to be afraid of the unknown/invisible. you can`t see it but its there and it CAN potentially do harm. its out of our control so we start freaking out.

the best way to deal with this imho is to inform yourself from reputable sources only and just relax a little. don`t buy a geiger counter unless you really know what you are doing with it. there are different kinds of radiation that CAN cause different damages, different kinds of counters for them and different kinds of making their counts accessible for the user. also you have to be able to deal with the gathered data. this is VERY complicated if it should make any sense. it is not just about comparing numbers.
in general there is no danger in natural radiation. in fact background radiation is a good thing. we possibly would not exist without it and lack something without it (which will never happen, so that`s good, right?) it did not originate from nuclear tests. their effect on it is only marginal.


here is a little video that might help with visualization:



this shows a cloud chamber and it visualizes the decays that happen all around us, the background radiation. every streak you see represents a whole "decay chain" (i.e. one particle decays, radiation takes place and motivates other particles around it to decay) and therefore many, many particles. the short streaks for example are very likely to be alpha-decays from radon, which is by far the most important source of background radiation.


if you put azomite dust on your field or compost or nothing; in any case there will be natural radiation and it does not hurt you. almost no one HAS to use a geiger counter to make their garden save.
there are only very few exceptions (for instance in nigeria there is evidence for a kind of a natural nuclear reactor. but it is long burnt out; and in some other regions there are also deposits of radioactive ores; you would probably know if that was the case in your area and even that is in most cases not exactly dangerous).
a hot water source CAN derive from radioactivity; it is in general more likely it has other reasons.
it is also true that incorporating radioactive particles should in general be avoided. nevertheless we and all living things do it all the time without harm (see radiocarbon dating; C14 originates from the solar wind hitting earths atmosphere and is therefore continuously produced and in an (relatively constant) equilibrium between genesis and decay).

what i mean to say and i seem to have difficulties finding the right words:
it is very very important to differentiate here (and elsewhere). radiation is a complex concept involving quite different phenomena with different reach and it comes in a HUGE scale from harmless background radiation to the one of enriched uranium in a reactor and the like. the dangers it brings are of different nature. none of them exists in natural radiation (in most places). also the different forms of radiation and radioactive materials need to be looked at separately.

I hope i could calm a few people down.
in case i opened more questions feel free to ask. i think i have an above average knowledge of this topic and would be pleased to contribute to these fora eventually.

take care,
afghani
 
Charles Barnard
Posts: 1
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
John Polk wrote:
Azomite and glacial rock dust are each used as mineral amendments for soils that are deficient in minerals. Either one could be a waste of money if your soil has the minerals it needs. A complete soil test will show which minerals need replenishing. It would generally be cheaper to just apply the minerals that are needed, than applying an A to Z blanket containing most everything.

The mineral content of the two products are quite different. Look for the one that matches your needs the best:


Except that the main reason for adding such additives is to ensure trace mineral availability--something which, to my knowledge anyway--hasn't been determined for the vast majority (if any) plants.

Dealing with many naturally sourced minerals for this purpose, you will find mixtures far cheaper than concentrated pure compounds. And concentrating things is often a route to accidental overuse while presenting something of a safety hazard.

I suggest avoiding ingesting either of these additives--but due to particle size rather than any radiation danger. If you handle it in large amounts or frequently then wearing a particulate filter will protect you from both the dust (and any Alpha/Beta) by keeping it outside your body. Your skin stops both alpha and beta particles quite well. The amount gamma radiation is insignificant without ingestion and even if ingested, it would take quite a bit to raise your overall radiation level significantly. I suspect that the use rates for these additives would not provide enough increased radioactive material to make any increase in the plant's radioactive profile.

The radiation you ought to worry about is UV from the sun, which is far more likely to be injurous
 
Kirk Schonfeldt
Posts: 32
Location: South-central Iowa
2
bee bike chicken forest garden fungi trees
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
But you shouldn't worry about UV unless you're fair-skinned in the tropics or consume lots of rancid vegetable oil (polyunsaturated fats). Traditional mono-unsaturated (fish, nuts, olive oil, lard) and saturated fats (coconut, palm, animal fats) resist oxidation when exposed to UV radiation. You should worry more about worrying. Stress is the silent killer.
 
  • Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
Boost this thread!