[ RadSafe ] lethal amount of Po-210 [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Peter Thomas
Peter.Thomas at arpansa.gov.au
Thu Dec 14 19:05:16 CST 2006
John,
You appear to have made an error in the transcription of the coefficient for red marrow, which is 2.6E-06 and left out the spleen at 1.1E-05. Using the CD-ROM database (version 2.0.1) the coefficient for red marrow at 30 days is 1.1E-06. On this basis, 10 MBq would give a red marrow dose of about 10 Sv by 30 days. Newell Stannard's book gives rough numbers for acute lethality in test animals of about 30 microCi per kg, so about 2 mCi for a 70 kg adult, this is about 80 MBq. So my vote is for the hematopoietic version of acute radiation syndrome. 10 Gy is around about the dose given in therapy for marrow ablation prior to transplant.
Peter Thomas
Medical Physics Section
ARPANSA
-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of John R Johnson
Sent: Friday, 15 December 2006 11:09 AM
To: Franz Schönhofer; 'Toro Laszlo'; radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] lethal amount of Po-210
Franz et al
The international accepted model for Po-210 radiation protection dose calculations is given in Section 12 of ICRP Publication 67. This is for cancer induction and (I think) should be modified for "early" lethal effects. The doses to adults per Bq ingested are (Table 12.2)
Organ Sv/Bq
Adrenals 2.8 x E -07
Bladder Wall 2.8 x E -07
Bone Surfaces 1.6 x E -06
Brain 2.8 x E -07
Breast 2.8 x E -07
GI Tract
St wall 2.8 x E -07
SI wall 2.8 x E -07
ULI 2.9 x E -07
LLI wall 3.2 x E -07
Kidneys 1.5 x E -05
Liver 6.6 x E -06
Lungs 2.8 x E -07
Muscle 2.8 x E -07
Ovaries 2.8 x E -07
Red marrow 2.8 x E -07
Skin 2.8 x E -07
Testes 2.8 x E -07
Thyroid 2.8 x E -07
Uterus 2.8 x E -07
Remainder 6.6 x E -06
Effective Dose 1.2 x E -06
My question; What dose to which organs caused the death in this case?
John
_________________
John R Johnson, Ph.D.
*****
President, IDIAS, Inc
4535 West 9-Th Ave
Vancouver B. C.
V6R 2E2
(604) 222-9840
idias at interchange.ubc.ca
*****
-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl]On
Behalf Of Franz Schönhofer
Sent: December 14, 2006 2:41 PM
To: 'Toro Laszlo'; radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] lethal amount of Po-210
Dear Laszlo,
By chance I have been in London during the days when it became known, that a person had been poisoned by Po-210. TV showed clearly a chemist, who was using a beaker, which was stirred - with other words, this was without any doubt the well known plating of Polonium to a disc of whatever suitable metal (Ag, Cu,....). Knowing the expertise of our collegues from England very well I cannot assume that they intended to measure traces of Po-210 by gamma-spectrometry.
You did not specify, which method you used for your survey on childrens urine in the 80's. Not really being an expert in dose calculation from intake I still have a feeling, that the concentrations of Po-210 in urine are by orders of magnitude to high. Values of up to 3 Bq/l urine are scaring. Compare that to the recommendation of the European Union on Pb-210 and Po-210 concentrations in drinking water!
Please give me further information - I hope I am wrong.
Best regards,
Franz
Franz Schoenhofer
PhD, MR iR
Habicherg. 31/7
A-1160 Vienna
AUSTRIA
phone -43-0699-1168-1319
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im
> Auftrag von Toro Laszlo
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 14. Dezember 2006 14:19
> An: radsafe at radlab.nl
> Betreff: [ RadSafe ] lethal amount of Po-210
>
> Dear Collegues,
>
> In the absence of quantitative information related to
> the amount of Po-210, I made some calculations started
> from ther information:
> "How do we know it is Polonium-210?
> Analysis of samples taken from the deceased person
> identified Polonium-210 through its characteristic but
> weak emission of gamma rays. This and further tests
> are consistent with the deceased person having had a
> large intake of Polonium-210. "
> (http://www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk/articles/article.aspx?articleId=2086)
> Assuming:
> - they used a 30-40% relative efficiency well type
> HPGe based gamma spectrometer
> - a minimal value of a peak area (at 803keV) to be
> considered by a skilled gamma spectrometrist "as peak"
> about 2-3 E-3 ips (about 400-500 impulses in the whole
> peak in 2E5 seconds)
> -the measured sample is an urine sample taken after
> 7days from the ingestion (some source give 8 of
> November the admitance in the hospital)
> Results:
> - the minimal activity measured in the sample is about
> 4000Bq
> -the total ingested activity at 1 of November is
> between 4-21MBq (0.1-0.6mCi; some tens-hundred ngram)
> -the dose (according ICRP 67 dose factors) is 5-25 Sv
> If somebody is interested in the whole calculations
> and assumtions I can send it privatelly (it was a good exercice for
> dose reconstruction). Regarding the "mass tests" for Po-210, I found
> some old results in our files:
> Po-210 in urine
> 1983(samples from 70 subjects, children between
> 10-15y, from three rural communities) 304 mBq/l
> (extreme values 222-518 mBq/l)
> 1983(samples from 77 subjects, children between
> 10-15y, from other three rural communities but
> fundamentally different habits) 1.88 Bq/l (extreme
> values 148-2930 mBq/l)
> 1988 (collective sample from 20 subjects, children
> between 10-15y, from a school from Timisoara) 82mBq/l
> with no significant difference femal/male.
> It seems everybody of us should be found "positive"
> against a Po-210 test.
> Sorry for this long message.
>
> Laszlo Toro
>
> ======================================================================
> Laszlo Toro PhD
> senior scientist
>
> Institute of Public Health Timisoara
> Radiation Hygiene Dept.
>
> RO 300226 Timisoara
> Bd. V. Babes 16-18
> Romania
> ph. +40 256 492101 ext 34
> fax +40 256 492101
> e-mail toro at ispt.ro
> torolaszlo at yahoo.com
> ======================================================================
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and
> understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
***********************************************************************************
Important: This email (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the
addressee and may contain confidential and / or privileged information.
If you are not the intended addressee, you are prohibited from relaying on, distributing, disclosing,
copying or in any other way using any information in this email. If you have received this email in error,
please notify the sender immediately and erase all copies.
Any opinions expressed in this email are not necessarily held or authorised by Australian Radiation
Protection And Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA).
Whilst ARPANSA has taken all reasonable steps to ensure this is email is virus free,
it accepts no responsibility and makes no warranty. The recipient should take its own steps to ensure
there is no virus and bears full responsibility for any use.
Australian Radiation Protection And Nuclear Safety Agency
***********************************************************************************
More information about the RadSafe
mailing list