Aren't we talking about heavy metals generally, especially lead (Pb)?
Here is the problem with lead exposure.. It causes all kinds of health problems, even in low amounts. So much so that reducing its presence in the environment brings substantial health benefits, which can be shown statistically. Ive been repeatedly told by scientists (toxicologists, several of whom I know) that "there is no safe level of lead".
Any toxicant that causes reactive oxygen species uses up a critical resource in the body, glutathione. The presence or lack of glutathione is very important, especially as we age. Its quite binary, at an instant in time exposure to a toxicant can either be quenched or not quenched. The presence of glutathione makes all the difference. If the free radical is not quenched the cell has to kill itself or there will be DNA damage. The cells can divide a finite number of times.. So your cells being exposed to toxic chemicals is additive over your life span, they all add up to do the same things. So they should be considered to be the same legally. the way we measure exposure levels is wrong, they should be additive.
Also, when a woman is pregnant, as cells are differentiating, the levels of ROS have to be very low, for her baby's cells to properly differentiate. The developing fetus is very sensitive to reactive oxygen species generating toxicants.
Because of glutathione. This has been shown by feeding mothers additional n-acetyl-cysteine which modulates (reduces or eliminates) the toxic effects of many different toxicants - Their chemistry is completely different, but all cause pro oxidant effects on the body - and because of Fyn and c-Cbl- cause birth defects in unborn children. Fyn and c-Cbl are two chemicals involved in low level signaling in the body - they regulate cell growth- we're very sensitive to changes that effect them.
Source -
"Chemically Diverse Toxicants Converge on Fyn and c-Cbl to Disrupt Precursor Cell Function"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1790953/If you are pregnant, plan on getting pregnant or older, I would take NAC supplements.
NAC also helps protect hearing.
To prevent sunburn, I have had the best luck with green tea extract, containing lots of EGCG. (and l-theanine, an amino acid that seems to have positive effects on cognition and quality of sleep)
NAC is probably the best supplement that is widely available that I know of for radiation generally. If may be helpful to prevent adverse effects of high level RF exposure - I would be surprised if it wasnt, because of the glutathione connection..
NAC also reduces the short term death rate in animals from high doses of gamma radiation substantially - increasing the LD-50 by a fairly decent amount.
It would be a good thing to have if there was a nuclear accident or similar.
As far as NAC and lead? There is a fair amount of research on this and the big question they have been asking is does NAC "chelate" lead out of the body, increase excretion of Pb from the body in a way similar to DMSA or IV edta (the way people with lead poisoning are treated.)
I have no opinion - (and cant really comment not being qualified to..)
Its worth it to read pubmed - there is a fair amount of research on this and it doesn't seem conclusive to me on chelation, however, it does clearly ameliorate many of the other symptoms of innumerable kinds of intoxications - including lead, and does help the body get rid of toxic things, generally. A lot, because the body converts it into glutathione.
NAC is an amino acid so its food, there is no risk of it doing anything harmful (make sure you're taking N-Acetyl-Cysteine though, and not L-cysteine)
Another amino acid that may help is taurine.
Disclosure, ive been reading extensively on amino acids as functional foods for a long time and probably have read thousands of papers on various them, dating back 30+ years.
Also (this has nothing to do with glutathione) if you're concerned about ionizing radiation exposure from a nuclear accident or god forbid a nuclear war, keep everything in perspective. I think that the powers that be are deliberately downplaying the danger of nuclear war because they dont want to lessen the deterrent value of the threat of it, but the fact is, billions of people all around the world would die in even a small nuclear war from starvation due to dramatic increases in the price of food and a likely nuclear winter.
The risk is far higher of a nuclear accident or solar storm caused meltdown.. due to loss of the power grid..