Radio-protective Substances

The substances listed below have shown radio-protection in test animals to one degree or another. Some are toxic at useful levels. Some have demonstrated radio-protection during trials in which animals have been subjected to radiation exposures in the lethal range. Radio-protection in these cases being seen in the extended life span of the protected animals compared to unprotected animals. The extent of life extension of the protected animals being limited to periods of days extra suffering time as they progressed to inevitable death.

The benefit of many radio-protectives at chronic low dose exposure to ionising radiation is, in my personal opinion, untested. While there is scientific agreement that some substances are useful in themselves, the extended use of high doses of some vitamins may be harmful. Fat soluble vitamins such as Vitamin E, A and others present issues of overdose which require medical advice. The pros and cons of long term mega dose Vitamin C is medically controversial. The list of radio-protectives here is not a suggested use list. It is a list compiled to raise questions and cause thought about the pros and cons of using radio-protectives as self administered regimes of treatment in situations of environmental contamination by radio nuclides typically released by nuclear industry.

It is surely far better to have access to clean food and water. In the absence of that, clean dietary augmentation ddddd seem a safer alternative in my lay opinion than self administered tablets of any radio-protective agent.

In fact, the timing of administration of some chemical radio-protectives was shown to be critical in early trials. L-cystiene being a case in point. The rational basis for taking a substance prior to or after exposure makes sense in relation to radiation exposure experienced on a nuclear battlefield. When would one take such a substance in the case of contaminated living space, where exposure is constant?

Nitric Oxide is an important radical used by the body in maintaining health and in fighting disease. At what dose levels of anti-oxidant uptake does the action of Nitric Oxide as deployed by the body become compromised?

Being complex and multiple, biological systems and the processes within them produce apparently paradoxical results. A case in point is caffeine.

These are things I think about. I am not suggesting any course of action by any person. The information is merely background to think about. Seeking medical advise may produce a wide range of suggestions from different doctors in regard to the best course of action in any specific situation. Mayo Clinic information regarding overdose risks of Vitamin E.

Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2000;899:44-60.
Radioprotection by antioxidants.
Weiss JF, Landauer MR.

Office of International Health Programs, U.S. Department of Energy, EH-63/270CC, Germantown, Maryland 20874, USA.

The role of reactive oxygen species in ionizing radiation injury and the potential of antioxidants to reduce these deleterious effects have been studied in animal models for more than 50 years. This review focuses on the radioprotective efficacy and the toxicity in mice of phosphorothioates such as WR-2721 and WR-151327, other thiols, and examples of radioprotective antioxidants from other classes of agents. Naturally occurring antioxidants, such as vitamin E and selenium, are less effective radioprotectors than synthetic thiols but may provide a longer window of protection against lethality and other effects of low dose, low-dose rate exposures. Many natural antioxidants have antimutagenic properties that need further examination with respect to long-term radiation effects. Modulation of endogenous antioxidants, such as superoxide dismutase, may be useful in specific radiotherapy protocols. Other drugs, such as nimodipine, propranolol, and methylxanthines, have antioxidant properties in addition to their primary pharmacological activity and may have utility as radioprotectors when administered alone or in combination with phosphorothioates.

[PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1992;23(4):841-5.
Radioprotection by vitamin E: injectable vitamin E administered alone or with WR-3689 enhances survival of irradiated mice.
Srinivasan V, Weiss JF.

Radiation Biochemistry Department, Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute, Bethesda, MD 20889-5145.

Radioprotection by injectable vitamin E (alpha-tocopherol) was investigated in mice exposed to 60Co radiation (0.2 Gy/min). Vitamin E injected subcutaneously either 1 hr before or within 15 min after irradiation significantly increased 30-day postirradiation survival in CD2F1 male mice. A dose reduction factor (DRF) of 1.11 (95% confidence interval [1.08, 1.14]) was observed for vitamin E at a dose of 100 IU/kg body weight administered within 15 min after irradiation. Combination studies with the phosphorothioate WR-3689 (S-2([3-methylaminopropyl]amino)ethylphosphorothioic acid) were undertaken to determine whether radioprotection by WR-3689 could be enhanced by vitamin E. Mice were given WR-3689 (150-225 mg/kg, intraperitoneally) 30 min before irradiation and were given vitamin E (100 IU/kg) either 1 hr before or within 15 min after irradiation. Survival was significantly increased in mice given vitamin E and WR-3689 before irradiation as compared to mice given WR-3689 alone: the DRF for WR-3689 (150 mg) was 1.35 [1.32, 1.38]; for WR-3689 combined with vitamin E (100 IU), the DRF was 1.49 [1.45, 1.53].

[PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE],d.aGc full text pdf download link for the following:

The Radioprotective Effect of Vitamins C, E and
Vitamin E + Glutathione on the Small Intestine
and the Thyroid Gland in Rats Irradiated with X-

Turk J Med Sci 30 (2000) 417-425 @ TÜB‹TAK
Cemil SERTM. Salih ÇEL‹K1
Zülküf AKDA⁄1
M. Ayd›n KETAN‹2
Yusuf NERG‹Z3

Final paragraph :
“Many different mechanisms have been proposed to
explain the protective effects of antioxidants on cells. The question of why the antioxidant agents we used had the
limited protective effect they did in the present study can
perhaps be better answered when these protection
mechanisms are understood more thoroughly.” The full paper is available at the above link.

Mutat Res. 1993 Feb;301(2):143-7.
Radioprotective effect of vitamins C and E.
el-Nahas SM, Mattar FE, Mohamed AA.

Cell Biology, National Research Centre, Dokki, Cairo, Egypt.

Albino rats were treated with aqueous vitamin C solution and vitamin E solution dissolved in olive oil at two concentrations, 100 and 300 mg/kg/day, for 6 months. Some of the animals were then subjected to whole-body irradiation. Chromosomal aberrations and mitotic activity in non-irradiated and irradiated groups were recorded. Both vitamins were found to be non-mutagenic. Vitamin C exerted a radioprotective effect but vitamin E was not radioprotective and it suppressed the radioprotection otherwise produced by olive oil.

[PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE] end quote.

The long term use of Vitamin C in high doses has been associated with increased disease.

Evaluation of high-dose vitamin E as a radioprotective agent.

R A Rostock,
J A Stryker and
A B Abt


Sixty male Spraque Dawley rats were randomly divided into six equal groups and given 0, 1500 rads (15 Gy), and 2000 rads (20 GY) whole thoracic irradiation from a cobalt-60 source via an anterior portal. Thirty animals received a 2.5% vitamin E diet for two weeks prior to irradiation and, in addition, each was given a single intraperitoneal injection of water-soluble alpha T (150 mg) four hours prior to irradiation. Serum vitamin E levels were 646 +/- 76 microgram/ml for vitamin E groups and 6.0 +/- 2.4 microgram/ml for controls. Comparison of the 180-day survival curves and histologic studies performed on the lungs and hearts of the surviving animals showed no statistically significant differences between the vitamin E and control group. end quote.

There are many papers which describe the radio-protective effects of Vitamins. The results are not uniform.

Indian J Exp Biol. 1996 Apr;34(4):291-7.
Radioprotective and antioxidant action of caffeine: mechanistic considerations.
Devasagayam TP, Kesavan PC.

Biosciences Group, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Bombay, India.

Caffeine, a major constituent of coffee and other beverages has significant abilities to scavenge highly reactive free radicals and excited states of oxygen and to protect crucial biological molecules against these species. This is one of the possible reasons why caffeine acts as a radioprotector against oxygen-dependent (‘oxic’) pathway of radiation damage and as an antimutagen/anticarcinogen under certain conditions. The possible physicochemical and molecular mechanisms of caffeine action are briefly reviewed in the light of the recent findings.

[PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE] end quote.

Letters to “Nature”
Nature 181, 344 – 345 (01 February 1958); doi:10.1038/181344b0

Radioprotective Properties of Cystamine, Cysteamine and Cysteine when tested with Chick Fibroblasts in vitro


Norsk Hydros Institute for Cancer Research, The Norwegian Radium Hospital, Oslo. Oct. 21.

IT is well known that a number of SH-containing compounds afford a certain amount of radioprotection to many organisms1,2. However, little information is available about the effects on cells in vitro. The present report deals with a series of experiments on the effects of cystamine, cysteamine and cysteine when added to cultures of chick fibroblasts shortly before irradiation.

Radiat Res. 1968 Nov;36(2):217-24.
Possible explanation for the metabolic radioprotective effect of cysteine on Escherichia coli B.
Kovács P, Kari C, Nagy Z, Hernádi F.

Department of Pharmacology, University Medical School, Debrecen, Hungary.

The growth of logarithmic-phase cultures of E. coli B cells on glucose-mineral medium was partially inhibited by 0.2 mM L-cysteine-HCl. Twenty other amino acids failed to show a similar inhibiting effect even at a concentration of 10 mM. After incubation of the log-phase culture in the presence of 2.0 mM cysteine for 30 minutes (inhibition about 70 %) the cells were centrifuged, resuspended, and diluted 200-fold in cysteine-free phosphate buffer. These cells exhibited increased resistance to the effect of X-rays as measured by the number of colony-forming units (DRF = 2.1). Both the growth-inhibiting and the radioprotective effects of cysteine could be diminished by the presence of 0.5 mg of casein hydrolyzate per milliliter during the 30-minute preirradiation culture period. This “anti-cysteine” effect was caused mainly by L-leucine, L-isoleucine, L-valine, and L-threonine from among the amino acids of casein hydrolyzate. It is suggested that cysteine inhibits the biosynthesis of some amino acids, thereby blocking protein synthesis, which may result in increased radioresistance. end quote.

There is a long list of such papers, some report the radioprotective effects of a range of substances.

The action of many substances may indeed be radioprotective, however the processes by which this protection is achieved may involve interference with other essential biological processes.

Toxicity is an issue with some, substances, whether natural or synthetic, in situations of long term use and in cases of doses above the recommended daily uptake amount.

It is interesting to think about how and why what was military research aimed at providing troops with battlefield radio-protection (aimed at increasing fighting time after nuclear attack) seems to have produced a new breed of traditional medicine in which potentially toxic amounts of biologically active substances are seen to be “natural remedies” as a counter to long term environmental radiation contamination. I wonder how sufferers of Gulf War Syndrome would have fared if radio-protective substances, such as high dose vitamin E, had been included in the anti-chemical warfare injections these troops received. Would they suffer more or less than they do? I have no idea. The idea of “broad spectrum” Magic bullet is a bit hard to swallow though.

While “anti-oxidants” are seen as a cure all for radiation exposure in natural medicine, it must be remembered that mammals breath and metabolize oxygen and have an inbuilt defense system against the radical Oxygen species. It must be borne in mind that the companion substances formed by Hydrogen radicals act together with the Oxygen radicals once generated. The classic formula for radical generation by radiation is: H2O (water in the target cell) + ionizing radiation = H2O2 (hydrogen peroxide (after a complex range of rapid H and O radical reactions with cell contents. A host of damaging chemicals being formed.).

The body’s defense against this includes the use of Nitric Oxide as a highly reactive scavenger of H and O radicals. Even though, and in fact, because it itself is a highly reactive oxygen radical.

Very few papers relating to radio protection feature discussion on the impact of the substances in question upon the body’s own anti-radical defenses. Further, some papers demonstrate the radio-protection of two substances, one being natural and relatively easy to obtain at the shops, the other being synthetic, highly controlled and originally at least, only available to specialists, usually military medical researchers.

Only the available natural substance makes it, obviously, into popular use. The battlefield radiation protective as the point of origin for “natural medicine”, with half the active ingredients missing.

Industry claims an optimistic resolution of the problem in making the natural substance available in various forms along with various claims. The downsides of these substances in use are rarely discussed.

One down side is the expenditure of household funds on such supplements, where in fact purchase of food to ensure maximum natural nutrition and radioprotection by displacement (rather than by radical scavenging) seems to me to be the better way to go, but that’s just my opinion.

The methods, if one can afford both, are complementary in fact. Where wealth allows both the use of a good and clean diet and supplements, there is not such a depth of dilemma. In many areas affected by radiological contamination however, economic disruption produces poverty which imposes a cruel choice. For instances, in a cesium contaminated environment, such as exists in parts of Ukraine and Belarus and Japan, a diet deprived of trusted, clean, dietary sources of potassium renders people very vulnerable to radio cesium where it contaminates the food supply. Before spending on anti-oxidant supplements, I would spend on clean, even imported, potatoes and bananas.

It is within the context of the cesium / potassium relationship (as defined by the dietary displacement technique of radio-protection) that nuclear industry has and does attempt to justify the presence of radio cesium in the food supply. This is a very twisted PR technique. For cesium, stable or radioactive, is not a nutrient. It is a toxic chemical. Whereas, potassium is needed for life. This is true even though a small fraction, a very small fraction, of all potassium consists of unstable isotopes potassium.

The fact is both cesium and potassium occupy the same bodily tissues, all life on earth has Equilibrium dose level of potassium in those tissues. Why add another, cesium dose? Eating a banana is beneficial because it supplies nutrients essential to life. Eating a banana or other potassium rich food enables greater discrimination against cesium absorption and for potassium absorption at the gut wall. The less radio cesium absorbed, the less the need to consider chemical radio-protection by way of tablets.

Again the industry says well, cesium is no worse than potassium and again I say, yes it is. If one removed all potassium from the planet and replaced it with radio-cesium as nuclear industry is some way toward achieving, all mammalian life on the planet would die. From lack of potassium. From the effects of radio-cesium.

And this explains the regime the United States has attempted use to make Bikini Island safe. By the intensive use of potassium fertilizer in an attempt to prevent the uptake of radio cesium by plants. As plants are quite non selective, the attempts to render the island food crops safe have to date failed though.

No amount of chemical radio protection renders the food grown on Bikini Island safe to eat. Taking a hand full of tablets prior to eating a few Bikini coconuts will not substantially protect against the radio cesium in the coconuts or tomatoes grown on Bikini in test plots. Even the IAEA has declared the test crops unsafe.

Is there a way to grow food in a contaminated environment which allows the crop to be isolated from the contamination present?

Any such technique would perhaps involve the use of physical barrier and unconventional agricultural methods.

One type of physical barrier might be the glass house. One type of agricultural method might be hydroponics, using imported and clean water and other materials.

Such installations might be very small, small enough to be used in a Ukrainian or Japanese apartment and sufficient to supply individuals with dietary supplementation by way important plant species.

It is no accident that rich source of dietary potassium, the mushroom, was one food item most hazardous to eat in the wake of the Chernobyl disaster. Having an affinity with potassium, the species has an affinity to cesium. The mushrooms were and probably, in parts, still are too contaminated to eat. Even the Soviet government warned against the eating of mushrooms in those days.

Where a person has access to clean dietary sources of all nutrients, including those nutrients for which a radioactive analogue exists in the local food supply, radioprotection is achieved by enhancing the discrimination against the analogue and for the real nutrient at the gut wall. This applies particularly to strontium and cesium. The potassium and calcium deficient person will absorb more radio strontium and more radio cesium than the well nourished person, who has filled their daily calcium and potassium needs from clean sources. While the use of powdered milk and calcium tablets is safe, the routine use of potassium tablets is not, for overdosing produces profound health effects, and these effects of overdosing are certain.

When there are grounds for not trusting food, how does a person most easily gain a sense of control?

Boosting calcium uptake may be relatively hard. Boosting potassium uptake may be difficult unless a person is able to source clean food of the right type or grow their own.

Once nutritional needs have been met, expenditure on other radioprotectives can be considered. The most vulnerable are those who have not met their daily nutritional needs.

All the above is my opinion. The purpose of the above article is an aid for myself, as I ponder what I would do if I lived in a radiation contaminated area. These are tragic and very difficult things to contemplate.

In the aftermath of Chernobyl, there was a belated concern about contaminated dairy products, especially milk. However, as far as I am aware, there was no mention of the need to maintain the consumption of clean dietary or supplemental calcium to fill the individual daily requirement. Filling this nutritional need is primary defense against the uptake of radioactive strontium.

When the USSR advised against the consumption of mushrooms, due to heavy radio cesium contamination, no attempt was made, as far as I know, to supply alternate, uncontaminated sources of dietary potassium.

In Japan there remains, largely, an official denial that there is any wrong in these regards as result of widespread contamination from nuclear industry since March 2011.

No amount of research institute approved radio protective substance use can replace the need to supply strategic nutrients such as potassium and strontium from clean dietary sources in radiation contaminated areas.

Trying to walk the shoes of people living in radiation contaminated areas and living with a contaminated food chain, I imagine that my sense of control and sense of participation in my physical and social environment would be very, very fragile. I really have no grasp of what I would do to successfully meet my needs. Nor would I know what impacts would assail my health as I lived in that place as I grew old, having started off very young there.


During the Atomic Test Era, during which nuclear weapons were detonated both in the atmosphere and underground, the weapons industry and governments operated sophisticated studies of those fission fallout substances which were identified as being “biologically significant”. The importance of minimizing the uptake of these substances in food was recognised very early on. Hamilton for example informed the Manhattan Project in 1942 that a counter to radio-strontium from fallout which entered the food chain could be countered at the gut by a diet which had been boosted in calcium content. Comar and others, including Libby et al took this concept further during the 1950s.

In fact, in a 1954 report entitled “Report on Project Gabriel”. the AEC reported on the superior radio-protection provided by the “American Diet” compared to the “Soviet Diet”. (Comar reported on the superiority of the English Diet”.) The Western diet (excluding traditional Indigenous diets present in the USA) was seen as superior to the Soviet diet due to the presence of large amounts of bovine dairy as a source of calcium in the Western diet. (At the start of the atomic test era, the world calcium supply was uncontaminated). The bulk of the population of the USSR in contrast had a less concentrated source of calcium in the diet. The common use of goat’s milk in the USSR was seen as inferior to bovine milk. The absence of lactose in goat’s and the poorer discrimination against strontium at the gut and udder of the goat meant that the Soviet population were more liable to suffer a higher radio strontium from nuclear fallout than Westerners consuming the defined “Western” or “English” Diet. Discussions on these factors came to a concentrated in 1962. In that year a major conference was held into the mechanisms of transport from environment to the human tissue for strontium and calcium. The proceedings of this conference were published as : “The transfer of calcium and strontium across biological membranes: proceedings of a conference held at Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, May 13-16, 1962” U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. Cornell University.
Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, May 13-16, 1962, edited by R.H. Wasserman.

In those days the primacy of the individual radio chemicals which comprised the biologically significant components of fallout, those chemicals which persisted in the foodchain, were widely known. Even if the AEC talked the role of some radio isotopes up (in order to project possible harms into the future eg Strontium 90) and talked some down (in order to facilitate and induce in the public the (false) perception that there was no “immediate harm” posed by fallout.)

Since March 2011 authorities in Japan and elsewhere have admitted radiation doses from the reactor accident do exist. However, these doses are likened to medical CT scans in nature, which they are not. CT scanners emit exclusively photon radiation. CT scanners can be switched off.

The radiations of concern in the food chain are emitted by radioactive substances in the food. As such, in reality the methods of radioprotection known since, actually, 1940 (Secretion of radio-strontium in milk of two cows following intravenous administration. Authors ERF, L. A.; PECHER, C. Journal Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine 1940 Vol. 45 No. 3 pp. 762-764
ISSN 0037-9727 Record Number 19410400115)

Various techniques based upon notions of false equivalence have been used in Japan in order to minimize the public perception of risk. For example, eating food contaminated with radioactive substances is, according to powerful members of the nuclear elite, no different to eating a banana. I have attempted to put right the situation regarding potassium and cesium (the biologically significant substances concerned in this instance).

Lastly the early date from which the fact of contamination of dairy milk (in general – bovine or goat) by radioactive strontium was known to the Biological Sciences world wide from 1940. (Adelaide University recieved a copy of Erf and Pecher 1940)

The tragic continued use of contaminated milk and other foods in the aftermath of Chernobyl was actually a callous act. For it was not based upon ignorance. Likewise, the official response to the reality of contaminated food in Japan was callous.

The biological uptake of radioactive strontium can be targeted by the crude method of boosting the “friendly diet”, and depositing radio-strontium upon a relatively calcium dilute enemy.

Displacement, as the protective technique is known, lies at the basis of the use of potassium-Iodine tablets in post nuclear disaster situations. The same technique can be used on a continuing basis in the case of dietary calcium and potassium requirements. It is not beyond the capability of Japan to issue powdered milk or calcium tablets to vulnerable populations, or to ensure a clean dietary source of potassium is available. In the face of a contaminated food supply, people in Japan, like people in areas contaminated by Chernobyl, have turned to “traditional” radiation protective substances, even as perhaps, their strontium and cesium burdens continue to increase due to lack of clean food.

The origins of radio protections dates back a very long time. In 1942 Compton ordered participants in the Manhattan Project’s “Met Lab” Health division to investigate protections for troops and civilians against nuclear attack. Hamilton, the relevant contractor, proposed the calcium boosted diet in that context. He made no report of his participation, as an adviser,to Erf and Pecher in the 1940, and later, radio strontium experiments with mice, rats, cows and humans. (Pecher 1942, posthumous, Foreword).

The relative ease with which the USSR could have provided clean calcium to populations affected by the immediate aftermath highlights the tragedy of the people who were children at the time of the disaster.

The plight of the children affected by the Fukushima disaster remains a moral morass and blight of starker combined magnitude, for Japan proposes it’s political elite are responsive to the people. If the Japanese people are unaware of the actual dangers of nuclear industry and the biological protective measures available, such a fact merely highlights the decades of non-education and mythology that the Japanese authorities have peddled over 5 decades pursuant to the interests of the nuclear village.

In the Cold War, the USSR was more vulnerable to fallout because it’s population gained a far greater proportion of its daily calcium needs from vegetables. As demonstrated by Erf and Pecher in 1940 however, the bovine udder filters roughly 90 % of stronium out of the milk. The cow eats 100% of the strontium presennt on and in the grass. It secretes 10% in its milk. Vegetables, on the other hand, have very little discrimination. And it is time that word re entered the radio protective lexicon. Clean calcium and clean potassium – devoid of fission fallout analogues – are achievable in both the former Soviet Republics and Japan.

“The most common dashi soup stocks for miso soup are made of niboshi (dried baby sardines), kombu (dried kelp), katsuobushi (think of dried and smoked bonito, aka skipjack tuna), or hoshi-shiitake (dried shiitake). The kombu can also be used in combination with katsuobushi or hoshi-shiitake. The kelp and/or shiitake dashi serve as a vegetarian soup stock.” Wikipedia.

“Canopy-Forming Kelps as California’s Coastal Dosimeter: 131I from Damaged Japanese Reactor Measured in Macrocystis pyrifera”

Given the probable state of significant portions of Japanese seaweed and kelp, given the recorded and documented state of a major portion of Japanese coastal fish stocks, I do not consider Miso soup to be a valid Japanese traditional radio-protective. But that’s just my opinion.

There is a paradox inherent in displacement as a radio protective method. Where radio contamination is such that milk becomes a hazard, then any dietary source of calcium originating from the same contaminated area will be even more of a hazard. Pecher never imagined nor did he live to see, the abuses authorities put his findings through.

Further, the nuclear industry maintains that reactors are not like bombs at all. And that people who equate reactor accidents to bombs are seriously mistaken. How is then that radio protective techniques originated as predictors of harms to enemy and as protective regimes for friendly troops and populations can be applied, without modification, to areas contaminated by nuclear reactors?

These techniques originated in fact prior to the invention of the nuclear weapon and prior to the construction of the first nuclear reactor. The technique originate in biology, not nuclear science. TEPCO is not qualified to comment on the Japanese diet nor on the desirability of the condiments its reactors have added to the Japanese food supply.

There comes a point where social action becomes a radio protective. The role industry plays in that depends upon how it acknowledges reality of ordinary people and how much truth it tells.

As it is there is a gulf of divergence between the reality suffered by ordinary people and the reality of the situation as portrayed by nuclear industry. Driven as it is out of self interest. The self interest of industry is legal/perpetual. The individual is infinite and subject to imposed risk which was not agreed to prior to the events. In fact, the industry for 50 years has stated to the Japanese people that the events of March 2011 at the Fukushima reactors and the consequences which have accreted since, could not and would not occur. Anyone who acted from the knowledge that the converse was true or could be true has been subject to social and professional sanction. These sanctions remain to be lifted. They remain an imposition on freedom of thought, investigation and action in Japan.

Thinking in the terms used above about the issues is inspired by the information and reporting contained in the paper “Half-Lives and Healthy Bodies: Discourses on ‘Contaminated’ Foods and Healing in Post-Chernobyl Ukraine.” Food and Foodways 10(1-2): 27-53, by Sarah D. Phillips Associate Professor of Anthropology, Indiana University.
The paper is available at the link toward bottom of page at
or at the direct link

One Response to “Radio-protective Substances”

  1. CaptD Says:

    The more you know, the less you’ll GL☢W…

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: