[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Deadly Plutonium ?
What I find interesting is the belief that an alpha particle from Plutonium
is much more hazardous than an alpha particle from Uranium. If you compare
the ALI in 10CFR20 you only get a factor of about 12 between Pu and U with
Pu being the lower value. The news article states that there might have
been as much as 328 grams of Pu present in 89,000 metric tons of Uranium
feed. When you do the specific activity conversions for Pu and U you get
about 328 Ci of Pu (conservative estimate based on the isotopic distribution
on recycle Pu rather than weapons grade Pu) and 63,000 Ci of Uranium
(natural Isotopic). No matter how I look at it I can not see how the Pu
contribution would dominate the internal health effects.
The article also states that the radiation emitted by the feed plant ash,
when measured a foot away, was commonly 10 to 20 Rem per hour. This must be
in error and probably should be 10-20 mRem/hr. That would be far more
realistic for these materials. Can anyone confirm.
A. Joseph Nardi
Supervisory Engineer
Environment, Health and Safety
Westinghouse Electric Company
Phone: (412) 374-4652
Email: nardiaj@westinghouse.com
> ----------
> From: Elizabeth M. Brackett[SMTP:brackett@bright.net]
> Reply To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> Sent: Monday, February 07, 2000 10:11 AM
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: Re: Deadly Plutonium ?
>
> >Article of intrest in the Sunday 2/6/2000 Louisville KY Courier Journal.
> =
> >http://www.courier-journal.com/localnews/2000/0002/06/000206uranium.html
> >
> >Is 2/100th of a ounce of injested plutonium immediatly leathal?
> >
> No, it isn't. This is an interesting statement because most of the
> article
> and sidebar seem relatively reasonable and balanced. They quoted an
> individual from the Nuclear Control Institute, but noted that it was an
> organization generally critical of the nuclear industry. It goes on to
> state that inhaling smaller amounts of plutonium results in an increased
> cancer risk, which is true. It's "safer" to ingest plutonium because it's
> relatively insoluble and doesn't absorb into the body from the GI tract
> easily. I'd like to know what their source of information was.
>
> Liz Brackett
>
>
> ******************************
> Elizabeth M. Brackett, CHP
> Sr. Health Physicist
> MJW Corporation, Inc.
> (330) 644-3757
> mailto:brackett@bright.net
> ******************************
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html