carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (07/14/86)
[Kenneth Ng] >When inhaled, plutonium is more dangerous: 1300 milligrams to cause >cancer. The figure I have read in various places is that < 1 *microgram* of Pu is sufficient to cause cancer if inhaled. It is less toxic if it is not lodged in lungs or absorbed into bloodstream. Something is amiss if published estimates differ by 6 or 7 orders of magnitude. Here are some references to check: Cohen, Bernard L. "The Hazards in Pu Dispersal." Inst. for Energy Analysis, March 1975. Edsall, John T. "Toxicity of Pu and some other actinides." Bull. Atomic Scientists, Sept. 1976, pp. 27-37. Gofman, John W., M.D. "The Cancer Hazard From Inhaled Pu." Comm. for Nucl. Responsibility, CNR Report 1975-IR, 5/15/75. ______. "Estimated Production of Human Lung Cancers by Pu from Worldwide Fallout." CNR, 7/10/75. ______. "The Pu Controversy." Reprint, J. Amer. Med. Assoc., 236, 7/19/76. Lisco, H., M.P. Finkel, and A.M. Brues. "Carcinogenic Properties of Radioactive Fission Products and of Pu." Radiology 49 (1947), p. 361. >As a side note: plutonium cannot be too toxic, there are about 2 to 3 >tons of it floating in the air from the atmospheric atomic bomb >tests. Well, that's a relief. However, your logic escapes me. >Eh, most of my references are not books commonly available in >bookstores. Most are articles taken from technical journals and from >various reports, such as the TMI, Rassmussen, and Lewis reports. Since most of the Lovinses' many references are to the technical literature, I am not sure what difference it makes that their books are written primarily for a lay audience as well as the interested professional. You see, they (and I) believe we should not let an elite of experts make hugely important decisions of public policy for us, as long as we still have a democratic society. >But all these so called soft energy paths are missing something very >important. They all depend upon the utility company being able to >supply power when more than about 3 days of sunless days occur. I don't follow this (the wind blows, water flows downhill, and plants grow even on cloudy days) but in any case you seem to have very oversimplified ideas of what "soft energy paths" are all about. If you want to be well-informed about energy issues, please read what people who disagree with the nuclear advocates are saying. The Lovinses' books are an excellent place to start. Richard Carnes
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (07/15/86)
> [Kenneth Ng] > >When inhaled, plutonium is more dangerous: 1300 milligrams to cause > >cancer. ----- > [Richard Carnes] > The figure I have read in various places is that < 1 *microgram* of > Pu is sufficient to cause cancer if inhaled. It is less toxic if it > is not lodged in lungs or absorbed into bloodstream. Something is > amiss if published estimates differ by 6 or 7 orders of magnitude. ----- I suspect we have an apples and oranges comparison. In principle, 1 ATOM of a radioactive substance is sufficient to cause cancer, albeit with a low probability. Such statistics as that are meaningless for comparison. Some standard is needed, such as the amount of a substance inhaled that gives the inhalee a 50% chance of developing cancer within five years, or some such standard. Without this, pro and anti nuclear authors will use wildly divergent figures to back up their own biases. In any event, as an alpha-emitter, plutonium is pretty ordinary, when compared to other alpha emitters with a comparable half-life. Anyone who claims that the radioactivity from Pu in the lungs is much more likely to cause cancer than all or almost all other radioactive substances is misinformed. However, some radioactive substances are more dangerous because of their chemical resemblances to essential body chemicals. Obvious examples are Strontium 90 collecting in bones (resembles calcium) and Iodine 131 in the thyroid (resembles non-radioactive iodine). I don't know where, if anywhere, plutonium in the body tends to collect. The chemical toxicity of plutonium is, of course, a completely different matter. It is also conceivable that plutonium could be highly carcinogenic as a CHEMICAL, independent of its radioactivity. I don't know if this is true, either. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
ken@argus.UUCP (Kenneth Ng) (07/22/86)
In article <2201@ihlpg.UUCP>, tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) writes: > > [Kenneth Ng] > > >When inhaled, plutonium is more dangerous: 1300 milligrams to cause > > >cancer. > ----- > > [Richard Carnes] > > The figure I have read in various places is that < 1 *microgram* of > > Pu is sufficient to cause cancer if inhaled. It is less toxic if it > > is not lodged in lungs or absorbed into bloodstream. Something is > > amiss if published estimates differ by 6 or 7 orders of magnitude. > ----- > I suspect we have an apples and oranges comparison. In principle, > 1 ATOM of a radioactive substance is sufficient to cause cancer, albeit > with a low probability. Such statistics as that are meaningless for > comparison. Some standard is needed, such as the amount of a substance > inhaled that gives the inhalee a 50% chance of developing cancer within > five years, or some such standard. Without this, pro and anti nuclear > authors will use wildly divergent figures to back up their own biases. Gee that sounds familiar, remember a couple weeks ago I posted some values for various substances with the LD50 values? > Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan -- Kenneth Ng: Post office: NJIT - CCCC, Newark New Jersey 07102 uucp(for a while) ihnp4!allegra!bellcore!argus!ken soon uucp:ken@argus.cccc.njit.edu bitnet(prefered) ken@njitcccc.bitnet or ken@orion.bitnet soon bitnet: ken@orion.cccc.njit.edu (We are VERY slowly moving to RFC 920, kicking and screaming) Spock: "Captain, you are an excellent Starship Captain, but as a taxi driver, you need much to be desired." Savaak: "He's so....human" Spock: "No one is perfect"