[ RadSafe ] "Highly toxic" Pu found near Fukushima - what about natural U and Th?
terryj at iit.edu
Thu Jun 9 09:57:56 CDT 2011
You have to be careful not to confuse the safe and healthy, ORGANIC alpha particles from natural Th, U , with the dangerous variety of alpha particles from Man-Made plutonium. Technology was used to create that plutonium and we all know that technology is bad.
I am pretty sure that is what leads to the much higher price of the Th, U alphas at the grocery store. Those cheap Pu alphas are not very good for you.
Hope that helps ; )
To explain the joke for those who don't understand Organic, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_food
Alternatively, see satire: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire
It is really not as much fun when you have to explain the joke ; )
On Jun 9, 2011, at 9:14 AM, Miller, Mark L wrote:
> One thing that has always confused me is why Pu (an alpha emitter) can be the "most toxic substance known to man" ...NOT... while the natural thorium and uranium decay series have several alpha-emitting radionuclides in their decay chains. Why don't people see these radionuclides as similarly "toxic"?
> (not glowing) In the Dark,
> Mark Miller
> -----Original Message-----
> From: SAFarber at optonline.net [mailto:SAFarber at optonline.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 11:56 PM
> To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu; gfinnigan at aol.com
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] 109 million million atoms of Pu-239 per sq. meter Measured! --was Re: "Highly toxic" Pu found near Fukushima
> Hi gfinnigan,
> Thanks for pointing out my typo. 88 billion atoms of Pu-239 per square
> meter after 10 half lives is the right number given the current deposition
> of 1 E+14 atoms/m^2 noted. I noticed the error after posting my note, but
> decided not to write a correction to see if anyone was reading my posts!
> The real significance point in the numbers involved is in showing the
> distortion in the endless repeated myth that "a minute speck" of plutonium
> is enough to cause a case of lung cancer. Pu-239 was dispersed by nuclear
> bomb testing throughout the world as a fine dust [a total mass of a bit
> over 6,000 kg of Pu-239] and after leaving the stratosphere was inhaled
> deep into the lungs of everyone on earth. If the claims by various
> anti-nuke activists were true, rather than distortions by factors of a
> hundred million or more, every person on earth would have contracted lung
> S. Farber
> On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 23:29:14 -0400, <gfinnigan at aol.com> wrote:
>> If 1.1E+14 atoms per sq. meter of Pu-239 is a supposed significant risk
>> now, on what basis are 88,000,000,000 atoms [ 88 billion or 8.8E+9 atoms
>> ( How about 8.8E+10 )]
>> in 250,000 years not a risk after 10 half lifes of decay?
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: RADPROJECT - SAF <radproject at sbcglobal.net>
>> To: Jerry Cohen <jjcohen at prodigy.net>; The International Radiation
>> Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>;
>> Edmond Baratta <edmond0033 at comcast.net>
>> Sent: Wed, Jun 8, 2011 4:05 pm
>> Subject: [ RadSafe ] 109 million million atoms of Pu-239 per sq. meter
>> Measured! --was Re: "Highly toxic" Pu found near Fukushima
>> In the mid-1970s the EPA reported that the areal terrestial deposition of
>> u-239 essentially everywhere on earth in the Northern Hemisphere from
>> rior open air tests of nuclear weapons was:
>> 2.65 milli-Curies/km^2 = 9.8E+7 Bq/km^2 = 98 Bq/m^2 [*1]
>> Of course we can measure Pu-239 everywhere. What didn't deposit on land,
>> nded up depositing or flowing into the oceans and ended up in sediments,
>> Of note 98 Bq/m^2 of Pu-239 equals 109,000,000,000,000 [ 1.1 E+14 ]
>> toms per square meter. With proper sampling and ultra low-level counting
>> e can presently quantify trivial quantities of Pu-239 [and other
>> adionuclides] in soil and sediment -levels that result in minute doses
>> resenting essentially zero theoretical health effects.
>> The common nonsensical,and totally false statement about Pu in the
>> nvironment by the media and anti-nuke activists for the last 40 years is
>> omething like: "Pu is so toxic it will present a serious health risk for
>> 50,000 years". [i.e.: 10 half lives].
>> In assessing the risk of radioactivity in the environment, it is not the
>> ere presence of measurable radioactivity in the environment, or a fixed
>> umber of half-lives of decay, but can the radioactivity in question
>> esult in enough radiation exposure to be a significant risk factor to a
>> eal individual or group of people.
>> [*1] Source: EPA 520/1-76-010 [May 1976]-"Radiological Quality of the
>> nvironment" --Reported deposition of Pu-239 based primarily on extensive
>> easurements made by the Health and Safety Lab [HASL] of AEC, and then
>> nvironmental Measurements Lab [EML] of the US DOE and other domestic and
>> nternational labs.
>> tewart Farber, MS Public Health
>> arber Medical Solutions, LLC
>> ridgeport, CT 06604
>> n Wed, 08 Jun 2011 17:08:37 -0400, Edmond Baratta
>> edmond0033 at comcast.net> wrote:
>>> Since when is Plutonium not toxic. You are correct it is the
>> environment from the nuclear weapons test. Years back the Health and
>> Safety Laboratory (DOE, NY City) did a study of it in the environment
>> and found it almost everywhere.
>> Ed Baratta
>> edmond0033 at comcast.net
>> -----Original Message----- From: Jerry Cohen
>> Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 8:33 PM
>> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
>> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] "Highly toxic" Pu found near Fukushima
>> As a consequence of atmospheric nuclear explosives testing, I believe
>> that if
>> you try hard enough,
>> Pu can be detected just about anywhere. The problem with anything
>> is that it can be detected even in miniscule quantities.
>> From: Steven Dapra <sjd at swcp.com>
>> To: radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu
>> Sent: Mon, June 6, 2011 5:53:32 PM
>> Subject: [ RadSafe ] "Highly toxic" Pu found near Fukushima
>> June 6
>> Dumb and dumber. It never ends, does it?
>> Steven Dapra
> Stewart Farber, MS Public Health
> Farber Medical Solutions, LLC
> Bridgeport, CT 06604
> 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://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
More information about the RadSafe