[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Good Morning America
The chemical toxicity of Pu-239 is irrelevant since it is so much lower
than the radiotoxicity. I daresay the radiological effects would be fatal
or otherwise totally overshadow effects attributable to chemical
toxicity, if any.
Ronald L. Kathren, Director
US Transuranium and Uranium Registries
Please consult the Registries Home Page: www@beta.tricity.WSU.edu or
call the USTUR if we can be of help with respect to the radiological
health aspects of Pu or other actinides.
On Tue, 17 Oct 1995, John DeLaHunt wrote:
> >>Did anyone catch the Good Morning America program this morning. Joan L.
> >>was, apparently, doing a promo for a special of hers (I think tonight) -
> >>part at Los Alamos. Showed her with a Pu shape in a cladding. She
> >>commented on the heat then came "one of the most hazardous substances known"
> >>and "a particle as small as the head of a pin inhaled will cause your
> >>death". The quotes are not exact but close enough. The death statement was
> >>the stating of an absolute fact. All the discussions of the linear
> >>hypothesis we have been seeing really don't mean a thing until we get this
> >>kid of statement corrected. A few words on Good Morning America repeated in
> >>more detail on a special program has more affect than tons of our words
> >>preaching to the choir. How do you counter act this sort of thing?
> >
> >The most effective way to counter tihs is to offer Joan a education in
> >proper terminology. This offer should be made with the condition that if she
> >declines to get the truth that the descrepancies in her program will be
> >shared with her advisaries.
>
> Anyone know the chemical LD50 of plutonium? Not that it's easy or possible
> to divorce the radioactive component from the chemical component, but the
> alpha dose might be insignificant if the metal itself is toxic.
>
> This has always been my understanding of plutonium -- it's not the alphas,
> it's the metal -- but I'm young.
>
> I had heard, from a non-toxicologist, that 1/60,000 of a gram of plutonium
> was enough to cause statistically significant increased cancer rates.
>
> Why are the max permissible air concentrations so low (as in 10^-13 uCi/cc
> low), if a small amount isn't dangerous?
>
> Just curious.
>
> John
>
> *******************************************************
> *John DeLaHunt, EH&S * 1125 Glen Avenue *
> *The Colorado College * Colorado Springs, CO 80905*
> *jdelahunt@cc.colorado.edu* VOX: (719)389-6678 *
> * Owner: * FAX: (719)635-3177 *
> *hazmat-l@cc.colorado.edu * *
> ***********This message is hereby disclaimed***********
>
>