ins_akaa@jhunix.UUCP (Ken Arromdee) (04/02/86)
>... there is the >danger (seldom mentioned) of scads of plutonium being released throughout >the Earth from the destruction of the other side's nuclear weapons. >Those weapons contain about 100,000 pounds of plutonium. >Just a few pounds of plutonium could kill everyone on earth. > > tim sevener whuxn!orb Certainly nuclear weapons are dangerous (understatement of the decade) but I am tired of hearing statements that a few pounds of plutonium can kill everyone on Earth. This was gone over recently in net.columbia. (Note: I am cross-posting this to net.sci and net.bio. Would someone there please give me some references that would tend to confirm or refute Mr. Sevener's statement on the toxicity of plutonium?) -- "We are going to give a little something, a few little years more, to socialism, because socialism is defunct. It dies all by iself. The bad thing is that socialism, being a victim of its... Did I say socialism?" -Fidel Castro Kenneth Arromdee BITNET: G46I4701 at JHUVM and INS_AKAA at JHUVMS CSNET: ins_akaa@jhunix.CSNET ARPA: ins_akaa%jhunix@hopkins.ARPA UUCP: {allegra!hopkins, seismo!umcp-cs, ihnp4!whuxcc} !jhunix!ins_akaa
morse@leadsv.UUCP (Terry Morse) (04/08/86)
> Certainly nuclear weapons are dangerous (understatement of the decade) but > I am tired of hearing statements that a few pounds of plutonium can kill > everyone on Earth. This was gone over recently in net.columbia. > (Note: I am cross-posting this to net.sci and net.bio. Would someone there > please give me some references that would tend to confirm or refute Mr. > Sevener's statement on the toxicity of plutonium?) This was covered in my nuclear engineering class once. Plutonium is relatively harmless until it is burned. Inhale a couple of microgams of plutonium oxide dust and you're done for. The good news is that it's hard to burn plutonium. Nuclear explosions are one fairly good way to ignite plutonium, but I would guess most of it gets destroyed. -- Terry Morse (408)743-1487 { hplabs!cae780 } | { ihnp4!sun!sunncal } !leadsv!morse
jsdy@hadron.UUCP (Joseph S. D. Yao) (04/09/86)
Every course I've ever had that mentioned the treatment of plutonium
poisoning agreed that a very small amount can set up a toxic reaction
in the body and lead to death. Note that this is chemical poisoning,
not radiation poisoning. I have never had any interest in doing the
maths to figure out how much to kill everybody. However, a few pounds
in one lump is only likely to kill you folks standing right there
arguing about its toxicity. ;-}
--
Joe Yao hadron!jsdy@seismo.{CSS.GOV,ARPA,UUCP}orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) (04/17/86)
> >... there is the > >danger (seldom mentioned) of scads of plutonium being released throughout > >the Earth from the destruction of the other side's nuclear weapons. > >Those weapons contain about 100,000 pounds of plutonium. > >Just a few pounds of plutonium could kill everyone on earth. > > > > tim sevener whuxn!orb > > Certainly nuclear weapons are dangerous (understatement of the decade) but > I am tired of hearing statements that a few pounds of plutonium can kill > everyone on Earth. This was gone over recently in net.columbia. > (Note: I am cross-posting this to net.sci and net.bio. Would someone there > please give me some references that would tend to confirm or refute Mr. > Sevener's statement on the toxicity of plutonium?) > -- > Kenneth Arromdee A few pounds of plutonium *IF* properly distributed in tiny specks to everyone's lungs could indeed kill everyone on Earth. Plutonium is incredibly toxic stuff. However it would be practically impossible to distribute a mere few pounds of plutonium in such a way that it *would* kill everyone on Earth. My point there was to show the incredible toxicity of plutonium which is awesome. When we are talking about the likely effects of shooting down thousands of nuclear warheads however we are NOT talking about a few pounds of plutonium - we are talking about a figure on the order of one hundred thousand pounds of plutonium. Moreover, we are talking about the probability that the plutonium in thousands of nuclear warheads will be widely dispersed throughout the planet and the atmosphere at many levels as nuclear warheads are being destroyed at the boost phase of missile launching when they are relatively low in the atmosphere, high in the atmosphere and then again on reentry into the atmosphere and finally just before hitting their intended targets in the US. Now what do you suppose will be the effects of that? Logic tells me that it will disperse deadly plutonium *everywhere*. I have no scientific certainty or studies to back this up, it is simply sheer common sense. It is certainly a possibility worthy of scientific study. Just as it was worthy of study to consider fallout effects from nuclear blasts and climatic effects of large-scale nuclear war. The myopia in regards to considering these possibilities was painfully illustrated in the history of the Atomic Energy Commission's statements on radioactive fallout. It wasn't until the unfortunate Japanese fishermen on the "Lucky Dragon" got radiation poisoning from an atomic test tens of miles away that the AEC finally admitted that radioactive fallout doesn't just "drift in the upper atmosphere" forever. Similarly it took scientists discovering strontium-90 in samples of mother's milk and baby's teeth for the nuclear warriors of doom to admit that atmospheric nuclear tests endangered human health throughout the world. tim sevener whuxn!orb
jmc@riccb.UUCP (Jeff McQuinn ) (04/18/86)
> > This was covered in my nuclear engineering class once. Plutonium is > relatively harmless until it is burned. Inhale a couple of microgams of > plutonium oxide dust and you're done for. The good news is that it's > hard to burn plutonium. Nuclear explosions are one fairly good way to > ignite plutonium, but I would guess most of it gets destroyed. > -- This is almost correct, which makes it dangerous. The facts as I know them are as follows: 1.) Finely divided Pu burns just like Mg (so does Uranium) 2.) Pu is a bone seeker just like calcium. In other words your bones like to absorb it. Once absorbed the Pu bombards the surrounding bone cells with alpha particles. 3.) The lifetime body burden (as much as you can safely ingest) is 0.6 micrograms. At some undefined higher level you may get cancer after the proverbial 20 year waiting period due the effects listed in 2 above.
breuel@h-sc1.UUCP (thomas breuel) (04/21/86)
||A few pounds of plutonium *IF* properly distributed in tiny specks to ||everyone's lungs could indeed kill everyone on Earth. Plutonium is ||incredibly toxic stuff. However it would be practically impossible ||to distribute a mere few pounds of plutonium in such a way that it ||*would* kill everyone on Earth. My point there was to show the ||incredible toxicity of plutonium which is awesome. | |A few pounds of carbon, *IF* properly distributed in everyone's brain |cells, could indeed kill everyone on Earth. However, it would be |practically impossible to distribute a mere few pounds of carbon in such |a way that it *would* kill everyone on Earth... I hope you know that you are talking non-sense. Carbon is non-toxic as a compound, and by just distributing it physically, it will kill no-one. Release of plutonium oxide when missiles are shot down is, however, a real concern. I do not have the exact reference, but there was a discussion about it in the letters to the editor in one of the recent editions of Nature, for those who are interested. Plutonium is indeed one of the most poisonous substances in existence, and regardless whether shooting down missiles will just kill a few people through plutonium poisoning, or whether it will make the planet uninhabitable, it is something that must be kept in mind when making claims about how anti-missile weapons can protect the population. Personally, I doubt that anyone can really anticipate the effects that the release of large amounts of plutonium oxide in the athmosphere would have. Thomas.
greg@harvard.UUCP (04/21/86)
In article <1069@h-sc1.UUCP> breuel@h-sc1.UUCP (thomas breuel) writes: >||A few pounds of plutonium *IF* properly distributed in tiny specks to >||everyone's lungs could indeed kill everyone on Earth. Plutonium is >||incredibly toxic stuff. However it would be practically impossible >||to distribute a mere few pounds of plutonium in such a way that it >||*would* kill everyone on Earth. My point there was to show the >||incredible toxicity of plutonium which is awesome. >| >|A few pounds of carbon, *IF* properly distributed in everyone's brain >|cells, could indeed kill everyone on Earth. However, it would be >|practically impossible to distribute a mere few pounds of carbon in such >|a way that it *would* kill everyone on Earth... > >I hope you know that you are talking nonsense. Carbon is non-toxic >as a compound, and by just distributing it physically, it will kill >no-one... >Personally, I doubt that anyone can really anticipate the effects that >the release of large amounts of plutonium oxide in the athmosphere >would have. Yes, I know I was talking nonsense; Tim Sevener was also. But you're changing the subject. Mr. Sevener was talking about small amounts of plutonium; you are talking about large amounts of plutonium oxide. Note the differences: "small" vs. "large", and "plutonium" vs. "plutonium oxide". -- gregregreg
falk@sun.UUCP (04/22/86)
> > This is almost correct, which makes it dangerous. The facts as I know them > are as follows: > > 1.) Finely divided Pu burns just like Mg (so does Uranium) > > 2.) Pu is a bone seeker just like calcium. In other words your bones > like to absorb it. Once absorbed the Pu bombards the surrounding > bone cells with alpha particles. > > 3.) The lifetime body burden (as much as you can safely ingest) is > 0.6 micrograms. At some undefined higher level you may get > cancer after the proverbial 20 year waiting period due the effects > listed in 2 above. I have heard, that one of the fears of "homemade" atomic bombs deals with Pu dispersal. Apparently, if you try to make a bomb by just banging two chunks of Pu together it doesn't work. The material must be brought together under the right pressure, geometry and so forth or you get a sort of "mini" explosion where only a small amount of the Pu actually takes part in the reaction. The problem is, the rest of the Pu is vaporized and goes into the atmosphere. It has been speculated that this much Pu dispersed so finely into the air near a major city could kill more people than the bomb itself would have. -ed falk, sun microsystems
rdp@teddy.UUCP (Richard D. Pierce) (04/22/86)
In article <885@harvard.UUCP> greg@harvard.UUCP (Greg) writes: >In article <708@whuts.UUCP> orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: >>A few pounds of plutonium *IF* properly distributed in tiny specks to >>everyone's lungs could indeed kill everyone on Earth. Plutonium is >>incredibly toxic stuff. However it would be practically impossible >>to distribute a mere few pounds of plutonium in such a way that it >>*would* kill everyone on Earth. My point there was to show the >>incredible toxicity of plutonium which is awesome. > >A few pounds of carbon, *IF* properly distributed in everyone's brain >cells, could indeed kill everyone on Earth. However, it would be >practically impossible to distribute a mere few pounds of carbon in such >a way that it *would* kill everyone on Earth... >-- Yes, but does anyone realize that PLUTONIUM CARBIDE is so POISONOUS, that one drop on the tongue of a dog could KILL a MAN!? To test gregregreg's hypothesis about carbon, I did indeed take a few pounds of carbon and distributed it in one of my office partner's brain. It did indeed kill him, and I still have the big lumps of coal left over to do it to everyone else on earth. NEXT! Seriously folks, this plutonium issue, about which I (and apparently others) have little expertise, has gotten completely out of hand. Some have attempted to get ahold of real sources to back themselves up, but, in general, the information content of the discussion has been remarakably low. How about get ahold of a definitive source both for and against, and let's stop the name calling, as this has been going on for a couple of months now. Exasperated, Dick Pierce
rb@ccird2.UUCP (04/26/86)
In article <708@whuts.UUCP> orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: >> >... there is the >> >danger (seldom mentioned) of scads of plutonium being released throughout >> >the Earth from the destruction of the other side's nuclear weapons. >> >Those weapons contain about 100,000 pounds of plutonium. I am probably wrong about this, but in FUSION bombs, there isn't that much plutonium needed. The fission is used to trigger the ignition of the tridium or deuterium (sp?). In fact, some tactical weapons don't weigh more than a few pounds including the fusion fuel. Even strategic weapons don't contain that much plutonium do they? Since most of the weapons that would be used by both sides are of this variety. >> Certainly nuclear weapons are dangerous (understatement of the decade) but >> I am tired of hearing statements that a few pounds of plutonium can kill >> everyone on Earth. > >A few pounds of plutonium *IF* properly distributed in tiny specks to >everyone's lungs could indeed kill everyone on Earth. >However it would be practically impossible >to distribute a mere few pounds of plutonium in such a way that it >*would* kill everyone on Earth. Aren't neutron bombs intended to do something like this? >When we are talking about the likely effects of shooting down thousands >of nuclear warheads however we are NOT talking about a few pounds of >plutonium - we are talking about a figure on the order of one hundred >thousand pounds of plutonium. There are lots of other things to worry about when you start talking about several hundred, or even thousand, fusion bombs going off in airburst fashion at the same time. Things like possible ignition of water vapor in the atmosphere, loss of ozone, and possibly even loss of atmosphere, might be more valid concerns. It is quite probable that if a major exchange were to occur, no one would live long enough to experience plutonium poisoning. Does someone who KNOWS what is in the current bombs, want to clear this up, or is that "Classified" :-).
ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (04/27/86)
> > > >A few pounds of plutonium *IF* properly distributed in tiny specks to > >everyone's lungs could indeed kill everyone on Earth. > >However it would be practically impossible > >to distribute a mere few pounds of plutonium in such a way that it > >*would* kill everyone on Earth. > > Aren't neutron bombs intended to do something like this? > No. Neutron bombs are designed to give everyone within some large radius a fatal dose of radiation poisoning. What makes them special is that this radius is larger than the radius of blast destruction. -- "Ma, I've been to another Ethan Vishniac planet!" {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan ethan@astro.UTEXAS.EDU Department of Astronomy University of Texas
apn@gilbbs.UUCP (Alex Novickis) (04/28/86)
In article <13439@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, desj@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (David desJardins) writes: > In article <796@ccird2.UUCP> rb@ccird2.UUCP (Rex Ballard) writes: > >>thousand pounds of plutonium. > > > >There are lots of other things to worry about.... Things like possible > >ignition of water vapor in the atmosphere.... > > Water vapor is the *product* of combustion. How could it be "ignited"?? > > -- David desJardins I believe here we are talking about the fusion meaning of ignition. Consider water vaper("") in a highly dissociated state, and furthermore examine only one of many possible reactions: 1 4 0 4( H) > He +2( e) + 24.7 MeV 1 2 1 It is already known that this can be thermodynamically triggered, If this reaction is self sustaining, ( i.e. large cross-section) then we could be in lots of trouble. It should give Sol some competition, at least in this planetery system. -- ============================================== Alex Paul Novickis (707) 575 8672 Fulcrum Computers, Inc. 1635 Ditty Ave. Santa Rosa, CA 95401-2636 {ihnp4, dual}!ptsfa!gilbbs!apn "Almost doesn't count... but it almost does" DISCLAIMER: The opinions contained herein may not be of anyone that I know.
werner@aecom.UUCP (Craig Werner) (04/28/86)
> Yes, but does anyone realize that PLUTONIUM CARBIDE is so POISONOUS, that > one drop on the tongue of a dog could KILL a MAN!? Only if the dog was big enough and mad enough. :-) Now let's hear it for water toxicity..... -- Craig Werner !philabs!aecom!werner (1935-14E Eastchester Rd., Bronx NY 10461, 212-931-2517) "The DNA genetic system is the one library in which it is worthwhile to browse"
falk@sun.UUCP (04/29/86)
> >There are lots of other things to worry about.... Things like possible > >ignition of water vapor in the atmosphere.... > > Water vapor is the *product* of combustion. How could it be "ignited"?? Water vapor contains Hydrogen. I have heard (but it was a long time ago so I appologise if I have the details fuzzy) that at the time of the first atomic bomb tests (or perhaps H-bomb tests) that scientists had postulated that a big enough bomb might trigger atmospheric Hydrogen into a fusion reaction and destroy the planet. The decision was made that if the probability of this happening was less than 1%, to go ahead with it. In other words, the powers that be were willing to take a 1% chance of destroying the world. Luckily, the chance turned out to be infinitesimal. I have also heard, that when tests were being made to see how big an explosion could be produced, what was supposed to be a 50 megaton bomb actually yielded 100 megatons. Scientists trying to figure out where the extra energy had come from postulated that atmospheric Nitrogen had started to enter the reaction. They decided not to go any higher. Personally, I'm not sure I believe this one, I heard it at least third generation. Are there any physicists out there who know about such things? -- -ed falk, sun microsystems
john@anasazi.UUCP (John Moore) (04/30/86)
In article <796@ccird2.UUCP> rb@ccird2.UUCP (Rex Ballard) writes: >In article <708@whuts.UUCP> orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: ....... >>to distribute a mere few pounds of plutonium in such a way that it >>*would* kill everyone on Earth. > >Aren't neutron bombs intended to do something like this? No. Neutron bombs are not designed to spread plutonium or any other radioactive substance. A neutron bomb is a device which has a much higher than normal prompt neutron flux, thus causing more deaths from PROMPT radiation than a normal bomb of the same explosive power. Neutron bombs, by the way, do still make a big bang, just not as big as they would otherwise. There is a difference between a prompt release of radiation (which means photons and fast moving particles) and the release of radioactive material (which LATER releases photons or fast moving particles). -- John Moore (NJ7E/XE1HDO) {decvax|ihnp4|hao}!noao!terak!anasazi!john {hao!noao|decvax|ihnp4|seismo}!terak!anasazi!john terak!anasazi!john@SEISMO.CSS.GOV (602) 861-7607 (day or evening) 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Paradise Valley, AZ, 85253 (Home Address) The opinions expressed here are obviously not mine, so they must be someone else's.
gottlieb@alliant.UUCP (Bob Gottlieb) (05/05/86)
In article <796@ccird2.UUCP> rb@ccird2.UUCP (Rex Ballard) writes: >Does someone who KNOWS what is in the current bombs, want to clear >this up, or is that "Classified" :-). There was a very good article in the Economist a few months back on exactly how nuclear weapons are constructed. They tend to consist of a minimum critical mass (that is, a critical mass generated by implosion techniques). I've heard that the Pu weight is either 22 lb or 22 kg - I think the former. I might comment that if you hit a warhead in space, killing or crippling it, you tend to get one of two effects: 1. Warhead hit with massive KE transfer (e.g. Kinetic Intercept missile) The dispersal pattern will probably be radial to the axis of the intercept velocity, with the Pu being pulverized to micro-fine particles. Half of it will probably achieve escape velocity, the other half will probably wind up shortly thereafter at the top of the atmosphere. It will probably disperse more-or-less evenly over the hemisphere it is in. 2. Warhead damaged, left to burn up on reentry. This assumes that the heat shield has been badly damaged, say by an X-ray laser or a particle beam. In this case, it is hard to say, but all of the warhead will be in the atmosphere (unless it actually hits the ground). Dispersion will be reminiscent of the Soviet reactor melt-down, except that the levels will be MUCH less - there are tons of radioactive "hot" material in a reactor. I would rather have the missiles mold in the tubes, given a preference. However, I would rather have warheads fall without blowing up than the alternative. -- -- Bob Gottlieb UUCP: ...!linus!alliant!gottlieb Mail: Alliant Computer Systems Corp, 42 Nagog Park, Acton, MA 01720 Phone: (617) 263-9110 Foot: "You can't get there from here". --------------------------------------------------------------------------- "I don't know what I'm doing, and Alliant isn't responsible either, so there!"
orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) (05/06/86)
> In article <708@whuts.UUCP> orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: > >A few pounds of plutonium *IF* properly distributed in tiny specks to > >everyone's lungs could indeed kill everyone on Earth. Plutonium is > >incredibly toxic stuff. However it would be practically impossible > >to distribute a mere few pounds of plutonium in such a way that it > >*would* kill everyone on Earth. My point there was to show the > >incredible toxicity of plutonium which is awesome. > > A few pounds of carbon, *IF* properly distributed in everyone's brain > cells, could indeed kill everyone on Earth. However, it would be > practically impossible to distribute a mere few pounds of carbon in such > a way that it *would* kill everyone on Earth... > -- > gregregreg 1) As I understand it, carbon is one of the essential building blocks of all organic materials. So how is it necessarily toxic? Indeed carbon is a major constituent of the brain cells of everyone reading this article if they are human. Why aren't we all dead? On the other hand do you have amazing new evidence that plutonium, which is an element not found naturally on Earth and manmade, has ever been a regular nonfatal constituent of organic material? 2) What is your evidence that carbon could *ever* be properly distributed in brain cells so as to be fatal? Michio Kuchko, a physicist at New York University, is my source for contending that plutonium particles are deadly. 3) It is quite plausible to suppose that plutonium particles can become airborne and inhaled into the lungs. how do you propose to get allegedly toxic carbon into brain cells so as to be fatal? I have suggested that the hundred thousand pounds of plutonium in nuclear warheads shot down by a Start Wars system, would be likely to suffer at least some dispersion in the atmosphere as the nuclear warheads are annihilated. Since airborne plutonium particles are deadly in *very* small amounts, it seems reasonable to hypothesize that the dispersion of such particles could cause many deaths. What is your postulated mechanism for distributing supposedly fatal carbon into people's brain cells so as to be fatal? I realize this is all inconsequential since your posting is not meant to be any kind of serious analysis so there is little reason to take it seriously. tim sevener whuxn!orb
orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) (05/06/86)
> >|A few pounds of carbon, *IF* properly distributed in everyone's brain > >|cells, could indeed kill everyone on Earth. However, it would be > >|practically impossible to distribute a mere few pounds of carbon in such > >|a way that it *would* kill everyone on Earth... > > > >I hope you know that you are talking nonsense. Carbon is non-toxic > >as a compound, and by just distributing it physically, it will kill > >no-one... > >Personally, I doubt that anyone can really anticipate the effects that > >the release of large amounts of plutonium oxide in the athmosphere > >would have. > > Yes, I know I was talking nonsense; Tim Sevener was also. But you're > changing the subject. Mr. Sevener was talking about small amounts > of plutonium; you are talking about large amounts of plutonium oxide. > Note the differences: "small" vs. "large", and "plutonium" vs. "plutonium > oxide". > -- > gregregreg I was talking about the incredible toxicity of small amounts of plutonium. However I also pointed out that there are one hundred thousand pounds of it in nuclear warheads. I would not call that a "small amount". Especially in light of its incredible toxicity. tim sevener whuxn!orb
timothym@tekigm2.UUCP (05/09/86)
Hi net.landians, With all this discussion about lethal compounds, I just 'HAD' to add that one of the most lethal of substances is used daily in the manufacture of a very large number of electronic items (mostly military where they are subject to disintegration by explosion). This substance, or compound, is BeO, or Beryllium Oxide. BeO is lethal when inhaled at a concentration of 50 ppm, with long range ill effects at levels above 2 ppm. This white ceramic is used for insulators in electronic devices, typically between transistors and heatsinks, and was also commonly used in certain high- frequency vacuumn tubes. Alot of companies have discontinued use of BeO due to it's toxic nature, but there are some that still use it because there is no good substitute in certain applications. So, those of us getting worried about plutonium poisoning, iodine poisoning, asbestos poisoning, or any other bad thing - take heart, BeO was even used in you first television sets. Did you ever break or chip away at any of those pretty white insulators found when you tore them apart? If so, and you inhaled at all, you probably have enough BeO in you to cause cancer within 25 years. Oh well, I used to file on the tubes, trying to get the innards out intact. I guess the jokes on us (:-() Tidings, p.s. Does anybody out there know what the average background radition level is for the Pacific Northwestern United States? We here are recieveing over 350 picorems (if I believe the news). This seems rather low, and I question whether this is a real value. I seem to remember millirems in the background radition norm. Thanks, -- Tim Margeson (206)253-5240 tektronix!tekigm2!timothym @@ 'Who said that?' PO Box 3500 d/s C1-937 Vancouver, WA. 98665
throopw@dg_rtp.UUCP (Wayne Throop) (05/10/86)
> I was talking about the incredible toxicity of small amounts of plutonium. > However I also pointed out that there are one hundred thousand pounds > of it in nuclear warheads. I would not call that a "small amount". > Especially in light of its incredible toxicity. > tim sevener whuxn!orb Plutonium is not (chemically) particularly more toxic than other heavy metals. Neither is it (radioactively) particularly more toxic than some other radioisotopes. Not that it is particularly benign... far from it. But there are *many* things that are orders of magnitude more deadly. The "incredible toxicity" of plutonium is simply overrated. I do not argue that dispersal of that much plutonium into the environment would not be a Very Bad Thing. But at least some of those warheads will go off. That being the case, there will be other things far worse going on. Nor do I argue either for or against SDI. I am merely trying to clarify what risks are present in the release of that much plutonium. And I conclude that these risks are swamped by others that will necessarily accompany strategic nuclear war of any plausible flavor whatsoever. While I am disgusted as much as the next person by advertisements featuring innocent 5ish-year-old voices saying how smart daddy is, to the accompanyment of animated nuclear warheads being harmlessly popped into oblivion against a magic, vaguely defined, transparent sheild, with lovable animated tots playing below, I don't consider it worth worrying over the plutonium. Again, it is certain that there will be far, far worse things to worry about. -- Wayne Throop <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw
marr@yale.ARPA (Leon Marr) (05/12/86)
Summary: Expires: Sender: Followup-To: Distribution: Keywords: In article <796@ccird2.UUCP> rb@ccird2.UUCP (Rex Ballard) writes: >In article <708@whuts.UUCP> orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: >>A few pounds of plutonium *IF* properly distributed in tiny specks to >>everyone's lungs could indeed kill everyone on Earth. >>However it would be practically impossible >>to distribute a mere few pounds of plutonium in such a way that it >>*would* kill everyone on Earth. > >Aren't neutron bombs intended to do something like this? > No. Neutron bombs (enhanced radiation weapons) are designed to kill by releasing larger numbers of neutrons. Essentially one builds a device which is of lower yield, thus reducing blast and shock (and so reducing collateral damage), while keeping the number of neutrons and amount of radiation high. I am not entirely sure how this is done. Leon Marr
ken@njitcccc.UUCP (Kenneth Ng) (05/13/86)
If plutonium was as dangerous as you infered then we should be all dead by now. Early atmospheric tests blew tons of plutonium into the atmosphere. Furthermore the phrase "if properly distributed" is nearly worthless when it comes to the realistic manner in which atmospheric particles distribute themselves. Kenneth Ng: inhp4!allegra!bellcore!njitcccc!ken ken@njitcccc.bitnet
jmc@riccb.UUCP (Jeff McQuinn ) (05/14/86)
> > > >Aren't neutron bombs intended to do something like this? > No. Neutron bombs are not designed to spread plutonium or any other > radioactive substance. A neutron bomb is a device which has a much > higher than normal prompt neutron flux, thus causing more deaths > from PROMPT radiation than a normal bomb of the same explosive power. > Neutron bombs, by the way, do still make a big bang, just not as > big as they would otherwise. There is a difference between a prompt > release of radiation (which means photons and fast moving particles) > and the release of radioactive material (which LATER releases photons > or fast moving particles). > -- This is basicly correct however I don't believe that prompt neutrons are are any more damaging then any other kind. The concept behind the neutron bomb is to deliver more radiation per kiloton of bomb. This concept was controversial because it's intent is to kill people more efficiently then to destroy property. A smaller yield bomb can kill as many people as a larger bomb. Neutron radiation is the particle of choice because neutrons can be highly energetic like gamma rays and beta particles and they still pack a wallop like alpha particles because they are massive particles. Neutron radition is the most damaging (at distances greater then 3 cm) and the hardest to shield from since they are neutral particles. It is interesting to note that mutual assured destruction (MAD) policies did not take radiation effects into account when setting targets. Destructive capabilities were calculated based solely on blast pressures. Nice world we live in, huh. Jeff McQuinn just VAXing around
bzs@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) (05/15/86)
>From: ken@njitcccc.UUCP (Kenneth Ng) >If plutonium was as dangerous as you infered then we should >be all dead by now. Maybe we are!...more seriously, isn't anyone else in this plutonium discussion at least mildly disturbed at the 10% increase in Cancer deaths over the last 20 years recently reported by the Harvard School of Public Health? (again, to fend off the sophomoric, yes it was corrected for an older population and all that, it seems to have convinced most of the professional skeptics so far, the comments seem to be that if anything it may be worse as some known "cured" cancers weren't completely accounted for.) None of us wants to believe it, but some of us are getting worried that the apparently inevitable result of our actions is slowly coming true. -Barry Shein, Boston University
ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (05/15/86)
In article <616@bu-cs.UUCP>, bzs@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) writes: > > >From: ken@njitcccc.UUCP (Kenneth Ng) > >If plutonium was as dangerous as you infered then we should > >be all dead by now. > > Maybe we are!...more seriously, isn't anyone else in this plutonium > discussion at least mildly disturbed at the 10% increase in Cancer > deaths over the last 20 years recently reported by the Harvard School > of Public Health? > > (again, to fend off the sophomoric, yes it was corrected for an older > population and all that, it seems to have convinced most of the professional > skeptics so far, the comments seem to be that if anything it may be worse > as some known "cured" cancers weren't completely accounted for.) > > None of us wants to believe it, but some of us are getting worried that > the apparently inevitable result of our actions is slowly coming true. > If the excess were correlated with the release of man-made radioactivity then it would show a strong correlation with the local radioactivity. This is how people have been able to show that some deaths in Utah *were* caused by nuclear testing (at least statistically). In general the local cancer rates appear to be correlated strongly with the presence of certain toxic chemicals in the environment. Radiation may well be the least of our problems. -- "Ma, I've been to another Ethan Vishniac planet!" {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan ethan@astro.UTEXAS.EDU Department of Astronomy University of Texas
greg@harvard.UUCP (Greg) (05/15/86)
In article <616@bu-cs.UUCP> bzs@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) writes: > >>From: ken@njitcccc.UUCP (Kenneth Ng) >>If plutonium was as dangerous as you infered then we should >>be all dead by now. > >Maybe we are!...more seriously, isn't anyone else in this plutonium >discussion at least mildly disturbed at the 10% increase in Cancer >deaths over the last 20 years recently reported by the Harvard School >of Public Health? Do you think maybe that cigarettes contain plutonium? Oh dear, no wonder there are all these warnings about smoking... -- gregregreg
ken@njitcccc.UUCP (Kenneth Ng) (05/16/86)
In article <683@riccb.UUCP>, jmc@riccb.UUCP (Jeff McQuinn ) writes: > wallop like alpha particles because they are massive particles. Neutron > radition is the most damaging (at distances greater then 3 cm) and the hardest > to shield from since they are neutral particles. Not quite true: neutrons are not as affected as alpha particles or beta particles, but they can be easily stopped by a few feet of water or a dozen feet of earth. The original reason for the neutron bomb was to combat large tank assault groups invading from the east in europe. It seems a bit impractical for tanks to be surrounded by a few feet of water or dirt, but not too hard to protect those in cities who have basements. -- Kenneth Ng: uucp(unreliable) ihnp4!allegra!bellcore!njitcccc!ken bitnet(prefered) ken@njitcccc.bitnet New Jersey Institute of Technology Computerized Conferencing and Communications Center Newark, New Jersey 07102 Vulcan jealousy: "I fail to see the logic in prefering Stan over me" Number 5: "I need input"
ken@njitcccc.UUCP (Kenneth Ng) (05/16/86)
In article <954@harvard.UUCP>, greg@harvard.UUCP (Greg) writes: > Do you think maybe that cigarettes contain plutonium? Oh dear, no wonder > there are all these warnings about smoking... I do recall an article that said that cigaretts contain polonium, I forgot which isotope, but it did say it was a radioactive one. -- Kenneth Ng: uucp(unreliable) ihnp4!allegra!bellcore!njitcccc!ken bitnet(prefered) ken@njitcccc.bitnet New Jersey Institute of Technology Computerized Conferencing and Communications Center Newark, New Jersey 07102 Vulcan jealousy: "I fail to see the logic in prefering Stan over me" Number 5: "I need input"
gottlieb@alliant.UUCP (Bob Gottlieb) (05/16/86)
In article <616@bu-cs.UUCP> bzs@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) writes: >Maybe we are!...more seriously, isn't anyone else in this plutonium >discussion at least mildly disturbed at the 10% increase in Cancer >deaths over the last 20 years recently reported by the Harvard School >of Public Health? The thrust of that paper (according to Nightline) was that while most cancers have stayed the same or declined slightly in fatalities, Lung Cancer has continued to rise. This could mean either: o Atmospheric Radioactives (Pu, et al) lodge in our lungs, causing cancer. o If you smoke cigarettes, Lung Cancer is sure to get you sooner or later. I believe that the rate of Lung Cancer is 15 times higher for smokers than for non-smokers. It would be interesting to attempt to correlate the rise in Lung Cancer with non-smokers, taking into account exposure to other people's smoke. Personally, I feel that while Reactors are dangerous, they don't even begin to touch the dangers from smoking tobacco. -- -- Bob Gottlieb UUCP: ...!linus!alliant!gottlieb Mail: Alliant Computer Systems Corp, 42 Nagog Park, Acton, MA 01720 Phone: (617) 263-9110 Foot: "You can't get there from here". --------------------------------------------------------------------------- "I don't know what I'm doing, and Alliant isn't responsible either, so there!"
bill@sigma.UUCP (William Swan) (05/19/86)
In article <683@riccb.UUCP> jmc@riccb.UUCP (Jeff McQuinn ) writes: >>[...]Neutron bombs are not designed to spread plutonium or any other >>radioactive substance. A neutron bomb is a device which has a much >>higher than normal prompt neutron flux, thus causing more deaths >>from PROMPT radiation than a normal bomb of the same explosive power. >>Neutron bombs, by the way, do still make a big bang, just not as >>big as they would otherwise. There is a difference between a prompt >>release of radiation (which means photons and fast moving particles) >>and the release of radioactive material (which LATER releases photons >>or fast moving particles). > >This is basicly correct however I don't believe that prompt neutrons are >are any more damaging then any other kind. The concept behind the neutron >bomb is to deliver more radiation per kiloton of bomb. This concept was >controversial because it's intent is to kill people more efficiently then >to destroy property. Here we go with the "Landlord's Dream" concept again. The neutron bomb does _not_ kill people and leave property untouched (unlike your bio-chem warfare). It _is_ designed to kill more people in a more limited area without leaving the lingering nasties that an unenhanced bomb does. This makes it substantially more useful as a tactical weapon (and perhaps _that_ is why it should be banned). There were at least two situations where an enhanced-radiation bomb would be advantageous, according to a Scientific American article sometime in the past few years. I am not sure I agree with all the assumptions therein (and I don't have the article anymore), but.. The neutron bomb could be useful in a defensive situation where your own soldiers (or local populace) are dug in and protected and the enemy is advancing and exposed. Setting off such a device gives you a fairly quick kill of the exposed enemy, while making the grounds in question dangerous for a "short" time, 2-3 days I think the article said, before friendly troops could pass, or civilians emerge. By the way, in war the real objective is to gain control over the enemy. Killing people or destroying property are merely means to that end.
desj@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (David desJardins) (05/21/86)
In article <260@alliant.UUCP> gottlieb@alliant.UUCP (Bob Gottlieb) writes: >In article <616@bu-cs.UUCP> bzs@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) writes: > >>Maybe we are!...more seriously, isn't anyone else in this plutonium >>discussion at least mildly disturbed at the 10% increase in Cancer >>deaths over the last 20 years recently reported by the Harvard School >>of Public Health? > >Personally, I feel that while Reactors are dangerous, they don't even begin >to touch the dangers from smoking tobacco. Let's not repeat the perennial confusion between nuclear REACTORS and nuclear WEAPONS. Certainly no one would blame an increase in cancer deaths on nuclear REACTORS, since it is very easy to detect radiation release from a reactor, and the total of all such leaks is simply insignificant. On the other hand, it is at least possible that some increase in cancer deaths could be due to nuclear WEAPONS testing, particularly atmospheric testing of the 50s. I'm sure that this is what Barry meant to suggest. -- David desJardins
bzs@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) (05/21/86)
>I believe that the rate of Lung Cancer is 15 times higher for smokers >than for non-smokers. It would be interesting to attempt to correlate the >rise in Lung Cancer with non-smokers, taking into account exposure to >other people's smoke. > >Personally, I feel that while Reactors are dangerous, they don't even begin >to touch the dangers from smoking tobacco. Perhaps tobacco is to blame, I don't know if smoking over the last 20 years has increased, I don't think so although of course you have the long latency values showing up for 'older' smokers, pre-surgeon general's report. Just to nitpick, I don't think there has ever been a study that showed that there is any demonstrable cancer risk from second-hand smoke, I believe that's a myth used by anti-smokers to amplify their annoyance, if I'm wrong I sincerely would be interested in a reference. And then of course there are the synergy factors, people who were exposed to asbestos AND smoked were remarkably more likely (like dozens of times) to get lung cancer than smokers or non-smokers who were exposed. Therefore, what we know about smoking may be seriously flawed in many ways, it may in many cases have been necessary but not sufficient, other exposures having been exacerbated by the tobacco smoke. I think it should be weak comfort to point and say: See, it's the smokers, so forget the radioactive materials we are dumping into our environment. I know* such things are massively complicated to analyze and the only rational reaction, when confronted with a distinct rise in cancer across a population the size of the US is to go after all plausible carcinogens, not attempt to rationalize something like radiation away as harmless in lieu of tobacco smoking. Besides, aren't you disturbed that of the two you can personally avoid only one (ie. stop smoking)? You can put that in your pipe and...oh forget it... -Barry Shein, Boston University *Ok, why do I 'know', well, I did do 6 years at the Harvard School of Public Health in epidemiological research of occupational diseases. No big deal, but I have worked on such analyses a little. Although I did pulmonary research it had nothing directly to do with tobacco or radiation (although tobacco was a considered factor in every study, of course.)
jmc@riccb.UUCP (Jeff McQuinn ) (05/21/86)
> >Maybe we are!...more seriously, isn't anyone else in this plutonium > >discussion at least mildly disturbed at the 10% increase in Cancer > >deaths over the last 20 years recently reported by the Harvard School > >of Public Health? > Cancer is something that by and large you have to live long enough to get. In other words, the longer you live the greater your chances of getting cancer. (maybe we need to put a Surgeon Generals warning on birth certificates: Warning, life is nearly always a fatal condition). Anyway, the point is that in the past two decades the average lifespan has increased by a couple of years, toxic waste dumps abound, Agent Orange was sprayed all over Vietnam's DMZ, acid rain was discovered, catalytic converters were added to cars, cyclomates were banned, pesticides abound, add infinitum. And we dumped a lot of Pu in the atmosphere. Which of these occurences caused the increase in cancer? Maybe we should turn off the sun because people get skin cancer. Maybe we need to assess the risks vrs. the benefits before we make blanket statements about the use of nuclear materials, pesticides or anything else for that matter. We need to worry less about radionuclides from atmosheric testing causing cancer and worry more about why we seem to need weapons at all. Pu is dangerous stuff, there is no doubt on that score. Arsenic is also dangerous. So are cars, people and grizzly bears. The world is full of danger. Stay in bed if you really need to minimize your exposure to dangerous things. The rest of us will try to weight the risk against the benefits. Jeff McQuinn just VAXing around
pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) (05/22/86)
In article <260@alliant.UUCP> gottlieb@alliant.UUCP (Bob Gottlieb) writes: >Personally, I feel that while Reactors are dangerous, they don't even begin >to touch the dangers from smoking tobacco. The two act in concert. Cigarettes destroy the cillia that constantly move the dust and dirt out of the lung so that smokers, are stuck with waiting for enough build up to "cough" it out. Of course, any radioactive dust in the mixture has that much longer to harm the body, or even be absorbed. Of course smokers have an alternative life style that might lower their cancer risk if this theory is correct. They can sleep like bats - hanging upside down from the ceiling of a cave so their sputum can be contantly eliminated through gravitational forces. :-) Don't choke. Physicists outside of the Eastern Block do NOT smoke, in general. The Eastern block physicists do smoke tobacco, to a much greater extent; with the Chernobyl Nuclear melt down, such a vice will cause even greater difficulties for them in particular. Lobby for Clean Plasmak(tm) Fusion It's like a breath of spring time It's clean!! +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+ | Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075 | FUSION | | Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222 | this | | {umcp-cs | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP | decade | +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+
olsen@ll-xn.ARPA (Jim Olsen) (05/22/86)
> Just to nitpick, I don't think there has ever been a study that showed > that there is any demonstrable cancer risk from second-hand smoke... > > I think it should be weak comfort to point and say: See, it's the smokers, > so forget the radioactive materials we are dumping into our environment. > -Barry Shein, Boston University [bzs@bu-cs.UUCP] It seems to me that Barry reveals an often-used double standard. Both tobacco smoke and ionizing radiation are known carcinogens at high levels of exposure. Barry (and others) will quite willingly extrapolate from this to conclude that low-level radiation is a carcinogen. However, Barry refuses to accept the same extrapolation for second-hand tobacco smoke. I think current medical theory says that if a substance is a carcinogen at high levels of exposure, it will be a carcinogen at any level of exposure. Why doesn't this apply to tobacco smoke? -- Jim Olsen ARPA:olsen@ll-xn UUCP:{decvax,lll-crg,seismo}!ll-xn!olsen