ARMS-D-Request@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU (Moderator) (02/11/86)
Arms-Discussion Digest Tuesday, February 11, 1986 1:41PM
Volume 6, Issue 45
Today's Topics:
Plutonium in the air: how dangerous?
Plutonium in the air: how dangerous?
Bruce's question
Re: Plutonium in the air: how dangerous?
Re: Arms-Discussion Digest V6 #42
SDI
Digest #37 did not exist!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: west@nprdc.arpa (Larry West)
Date: 5 February 1986 2347-PST (Wednesday)
Subject: Plutonium in the air: how dangerous?
In ARMS-D V6#43, Paul Dietz claimed that the ``lethality of
plutonium is greatly exagerated. Measuring the radioactivity...''
I hate to step in where my ignorance is keen, but my impression
is that plutonium is considered lethal due to its chemical nature,
not its radioactivity: that is, it is one of the most potent
poisons known. If someone else knows more about this, I'd
appreciate hearing some reliable information.
Larry West
UC San Diego, west@nprdc.arpa
------------------------------
Date: 6 FEB 86 13:09-EDT
From: GROSS%BCVAX3.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
Subject: Plutonium in the air: how dangerous?
>Date: Tue 4 Feb 1986 21:32:07 EST
>From: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
>Subject: Plutonium in the air: how dangerous?
>
>SDI would distribute a lot of Pu in the air, but the lethality of
>plutonium is greatly exagerated. Measuring the radioactivity (in
>disintegrations per second) of the Pu against that of naturally
>occuring airborne alpha emitters (polonium is the main one, I believe)
>it turns out the plutonium adds a small fraction to the natural
>background of airborne alpha-emitting particulates. In other words,
>Raymond Harwell is talking nonsense.
>
I don't think that's the point. Plutonium is lethal when inhaled in
very small doses, the same way that asbestos is. In fact, if I recall
correctly, plutonium causes a lung disease which very closely
resembles asbestosis. And, as with asbestos, there is no known safe
dose.
The right question to ask is how evenly would the plutonium be
distributed after a successful SDI intercept of Soviet missiles.
Rob Gross (GROSS%BCVAX3.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu)
------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: 6 Feb 86 10:36:24 PST (Thursday)
Subject: Re: Arms-Discussion Digest V6 #44
From: Franke.EIS@Xerox.COM
"If the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. agreed to a permanent freeze on
production of new nuclear warheads, even without building down or
destroying existing warheads, I claim the threat of war would
gradually diminish. Why? Because the slowly eroding confidence
of each side in its nuclear arsenal would tend to favor the
defender." Jong@HIS-BILLERICA-MULTICS.ARPA
Judging from an interview I saw some weeks ago with Paul Warnke (former
U.S. arms negotiator), he seems to support this idea. However, his
Administration opponent in the interview, Richard Perle (if I recall
correctly, the Assistant Secretary for International Security Affairs)
naysayed it.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 86 09:25:38 pst
From: aurora!eugene@RIACS.ARPA (Eugene miya)
Subject: Re: Arms-Discussion Digest V6 #42 Bruce's question
Ask a silly question, get more silly questions:
How do we really know they are women? We have a Turing test here.
Didn't some man in NY pose as a woman in a BBS?
Please no more.
>From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
--eugene miya
NASA Ames Research Center
{hplabs,hao,dual,ihnp4,vortex}!ames!aurora!eugene
eugene@ames-nas.ARPA
------------------------------
From: Dave Truesdell <davet%tp4@rand-unix.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Plutonium in the air: how dangerous?
Date: 07 Feb 86 10:09:38 PST (Fri)
> SDI would distribute a lot of Pu in the air, but the lethality of
> plutonium is greatly exagerated. ...
> {comments about airborne alpha emitters}
> ... In other words,
> Raymond Harwell is talking nonsense.
I agree,
The claim is a dose of 1e-6 grams of Plutonium, is lethal. However, I seem
to remember that the figure applys to soluble forms of Pu, not the insoluble,
metallic, form I imagine the warheads are composed of.
I won't be worrying about it.
-------
Any opinions expressed, are my own, not those of my employer.
David A. Truesdell
Sr. Programmer/Analyst
ARPAnet:
davet@rand-unix
UUCP/usenet:
{hermix,hollywood,litvax,trwrb,ttidca,vortex}!randvax!davet
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 86 21:10:19 PST
From: jon@uw-june.arpa (Jon Jacky)
Subject: Why the Soviets are afraid of SDI
From time to time in this digest, the question arises, "If the Soviets
are committed to eliminating nuclear weapons / don't believe it will work /
<etc...> why are they so opposed to SDI?"
I suggest that the Soviet response is unrelated to any technical assessment of
SDI's prospects. At this point its goals are still so vague that it is
unclear what SDI may turn into. About all that can be said is that the U.S.
appears to be preparing for an ambitious and very expensive strategic weapons
program, whose exact nature will become clear in the years to come. From
this point of view, the importance of the SDI program so far is political:
the spending is creating a constituency that will provide political support
in the future, and expectations are being raised. I believe the Soviets
would be quite alarmed by these developments no matter how they were
motivated or described.
------------------------------
End of Arms-Discussion Digest
*****************************