[ RadSafe ] Fwd: CTBTO.org: Polonium is also a common, natural radioisotope.

Mon Aug 17 04:05:26 CDT 2015

Brad is on point. I was going to say virtually the same thing... but he got
there first!

Franz - I was not aware that tobacco plants sorb Po-210 from the air...
Interesting. I assumed that it was from soils; I never thought about
accumulation from air...

Dan ii

Dan W McCarn, Geologist
108 Sherwood Blvd
Los Alamos, NM 87544-3425
+1-505-672-2014 (Home – New Mexico)
+1-505-670-8123 (Mobile - New Mexico)
HotGreenChile at gmail.com (Private email) HotGreenChile at gmail dot com

On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 8:58 PM, Brad Keck <bradkeck at mac.com> wrote:

> Of course, the Christina MacPherson “headline” - "Nuclear bomb testing has
> resulted in radioactive polonium in seafoods” -  is non-sequitur.
>
> 210Po occurs naturally in the U-238 decay series and is ubiquitous in
> nature;  the presence of polonium simply does not indicate any man made
> activity at all in most cases.  In the cases where it might be introduced
> by human effort, the half-life is quite limiting from a geochemical
> perspective - as Franz points out below.
>
> Polonium does sound dangerous though ( and of course it is if you have
> enough of it in a concentrated form, just ask Alexander Litvinenko ), and I
> am sure that people who want to provide a scare find polonium to be an
> excellent villain provided it can be assigned to bombs instead of good old
> mother nature.  In reality, of course, polonium exists pretty much anywhere
> uranium exists or radon can reach and is concentrated in a few species
> (tobacco probably being  the most important from a human exposure point of
> view).
>
> Maybe the New Zealand seafood folks will put up a rebuttal down there in
> Wellington !
>
> Bradly Keck
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 16, 2015, at 3:46 PM, Franz Schönhofer <
> franz.schoenhofer at chello.at> wrote:
> >
> > Roger and Chris,
> >
> > The questions you raise are not really difficult to answer - especially
> not for me, who has some experience n such matters.
> >
> > Let us leave the question of Cs137 and K-40 aside because in this
> context it is of no importance. The same is true for Xenon ("asphyxation" -
> just one of the most funny, paranoid and silly statements I ever
> heard!!!!!): Anybody knows the percentage of nitrogen or CO2 in air?
> Depletion of oxygen in air by Xenon (I suppose Xe-133) is more than absurd.
> >
> > I "guess" they refer to Po-210 - what else? Po-210 is used in the
> neutron source of nuclear bomb ignition.
> >
> > It is more than well known, that Po-210 is enriched by mussles and
> seafood. See for instance Australian reports on the impact of waste waters
> from the Northern Territory uranium mines on local aborigines food like
> feshwater mussles, the impact of the Sellafield releases on seafood (I had
> in Cumbria delicious seafood!!!!). Finally I suggest to study the report of
> the IAEA on the Mururoa project- easily found on Google, where one
> important result was, that the main contribution of radioactived dose to
> the population of the South Pacific was due to Po-210 in seafood a natural
> staple of them. I have been the head of the Terrestrial Working Group, but
> could not help to look over my shoulder to the maritime working
> group.,......
> >
> > Now let us getting a little deeper into science: The number of nuclear
> bombs exploded in the air is very well known. Anybody who knows, how much
> of Po-210 is in such an nuclear ignition device? I do not believe that this
> is still a secret. Then one could easily calculate the maximum amount of
> Po-210 potentially distributed over the world and the health risk taking
> into account the half live of 138 days!
> >
> > BTW tobacco concentrates it from air because the leaves are very hairy,
> such enhancing the possbility to take up the radon progeny very efficiently.
> >
> > Franz
> >
> >
> > -- ---Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Chris Alston
> > Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2015 8:10 PM
> > To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
> > Subject: [ RadSafe ] Fwd: CTBTO.org
> >
> > Roger
> >
> > We don't know what species of Po it is.  If it is Po-210 (t1/2 = 138 d),
> > the first thing I wonder is what its analogues are, and if certain
> seafoods
> > do not concentrate it (before they become sea-"food").  For instance,
> > tobacco does this, no?
> >
> > Looking at the website, my first take on it is that they are
> > well-intentioned, but need more expert advice.  For instance, their
> "Chart
> > 1" (which actually is a "table") properly should include K-40 (cesium is
> a
> > K-analogue) to give a better perspective on the issue.  Then, they seem
> at
> > a loss to give radiation risks for xenon, so they note for it a hazard of
> > asphyxiation, by reason of oxygen-displacement.  This really is grasping
> at
> > straws; any gas that is not O presents potentially the same hazard.  And
> > the last thing anyone will worry about, in the event an "A-bomb" goes
> off,
> > will be inhaling so much xenon that their air supply has < 18% oxygen.
> >
> > Cheers
> > ca
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Roger Helbig <rwhelbig at gmail.com>
> > Date: Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 5:10 AM
> > Subject: [ RadSafe ] Has Nuclear bomb testing has resulted in radioactive
> > polonium in seafoods
> > To: RADSAFE <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> > After reading this, I searched for Polonium and found this CTBTO website
> >
> https://www.ctbto.org/nuclear-testing/the-effects-of-nuclear-testing/general-overview-of-theeffects-of-nuclear-testing/
> > and since it cites activist organizations, I wonder how much of the
> > information that they present on this page is accurate (for example,
> > how accurate is the following?)
> > Thanks.
> > Roger Helbig
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>