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

Mon Aug 17 08:41:10 CDT 2015

If I remember correctly, radon particulate progeny settle out on the broad (and apparently hairy) tobacco leaves. Among these progeny is Po-210.

Andy

P. Andrew Karam, PhD, CHP
NYPD Counterterrorism
One Police Plaza, Room 1109
New York, NY 10038
(718) 615-7055 (desk)
(646) 879-5268 (mobile)

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Dan McCarn
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 5:05 AM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Fwd: CTBTO.org: Polonium is also a common, natural radioisotope.

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/g
> eneral-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
>
_______________________________________________
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