hagerp@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (09/19/89)
I am appalled by continued statements by the neo-Luddite crowd that "... plutonium is the most toxic substance known to man, with one pound -- if evenly distributed -- capable of causing cancer in every human being on the planet ...". If this statement is true WHY AREN'T WE ALL DEAD??? During atmospheric nuclear testing (which the Chinese still do), only some of the plutonium present fissioned -- the rest vaporized and was carried up into the stratosphere to fall out days, weeks, or months later. This amounted to several pounds per bomb. Estimates are that 7 to 10 metric tonnes have been released over the years. Today, on any random square meter of ground, some plutonium can be found. So, I ask again -- if plutonium is so dangerous, why aren't we all dead. -- paul hager hagerp@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu
ken@argus.UUCP (Kenneth Ng) (09/19/89)
In article <27300001@iuvax>, hagerp@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu writes:
: I am appalled by continued statements by the neo-Luddite crowd that
: "... plutonium is the most toxic substance known to man, with one
: pound -- if evenly distributed -- capable of causing cancer in
: every human being on the planet ...". If this statement is true
: WHY AREN'T WE ALL DEAD???
[edit]
: So, I ask again -- if plutonium is so dangerous, why aren't we all
: dead.
: -- paul hager hagerp@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu
Because I believe the proper term is "if properly distributed".
The proper means is that if every man woman and child stands in line,
gets the proper dosage of plutonium, and fails to see the doctor on
a regular basis for the next 20-40 years. However, I really doubt
one could do so. By similar notion the annual production of hydrogen
cyanide could theoritcally kill six trillion people, if we could get
everyone to stand in line and inhale exactly the proper amount.
And as far as "most toxic substance" is concerned, I believe
Boutoulism (sp) is by far the most toxic, although I think the
puffer fish entails comes in a close second (believe it or not
this is considered a delicy and an aphrodisiac in Japan).
Followups to sci.energy please.
Kenneth Ng: Post office: NJIT - CCCC, Newark New Jersey 07102
uucp rutgers!andromeda!argus!ken
bitnet(prefered) ken@orion.bitnet
--
Kenneth Ng: Post office: NJIT - CCCC, Newark New Jersey 07102
uucp !andromeda!argus!ken *** NOT ken@bellcore.uucp ***
bitnet(prefered) ken@orion.bitnetjwm@stda.jhuapl.edu (Jim Meritt) (09/19/89)
In article <1292@argus.UUCP> ken@argus.UUCP (Kenneth Ng) writes: }In article <27300001@iuvax>, hagerp@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu writes: }: I am appalled by continued statements by the neo-Luddite crowd that }: "... plutonium is the most toxic substance known to man, with one }: pound -- if evenly distributed -- capable of causing cancer in }: every human being on the planet ...". If this statement is true }: WHY AREN'T WE ALL DEAD??? }[edit] }: So, I ask again -- if plutonium is so dangerous, why aren't we all }: dead. } }Because I believe the proper term is "if properly distributed". }The proper means is that if every man woman and child stands in line, }gets the proper dosage of plutonium, and fails to see the doctor on }a regular basis for the next 20-40 years. However, I really doubt }one could do so. By similar notion the annual production of hydrogen }cyanide could theoritcally kill six trillion people, if we could get }everyone to stand in line and inhale exactly the proper amount. And one cup of water, "if properly distributed" could kill hundreds. All you have to do is get each to inhale a spoonfull.. "In these matters the only certainty is that nothing is certain" - Pliny the Elder These were the opinions of : jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu - or - jwm@aplvax.uucp - or - meritt%aplvm.BITNET
wyatt@cfa.HARVARD.EDU (Bill Wyatt) (09/20/89)
> : So, I ask again -- if plutonium is so dangerous, why aren't we all > : dead. > > Because I believe the proper term is "if properly distributed". > The proper means is that if every man woman and child stands in line, > gets the proper dosage of plutonium, and fails to see the doctor on > a regular basis for the next 20-40 years. [...] > > And as far as "most toxic substance" is concerned, I believe > Boutoulism (sp) is by far the most toxic, although I think the > puffer fish entails comes in a close second [...] Actually, Pu is *chemically* extremely toxic, certainly one of the most toxic substances around, although I don't know how it compares to the ones cited above. I think I've heard the amount of 40 micrograms as a fatal dose, and death occurs in minutes if it's inhaled as a gas. The second commenter seems to think that radiation is the only problem! I do, however, believe that the current protesters outside Kennedy worrying about launching RTGs are full of it. They ought to go protest outside the Savannah River complex, where the real disasters are waiting to happen! Bill Wyatt, Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory (Cambridge, MA, USA) UUCP : {husc6,cmcl2,mit-eddie}!harvard!cfa!wyatt ARPA: wyatt@cfa.harvard.edu SPAN: cfa::wyatt BITNET: wyatt@cfa
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (09/20/89)
In article <198@cfa.HARVARD.EDU> wyatt@cfa.HARVARD.EDU (Bill Wyatt) writes: >Actually, Pu is *chemically* extremely toxic, certainly one of the >most toxic substances around, although I don't know how it compares to >the ones cited above. I think I've heard the amount of 40 micrograms >as a fatal dose, and death occurs in minutes if it's inhaled as a gas. One has to distinguish based on the route by which it gets into the body. Inhaling fine particles is the bad one. Ingested (eaten), plutonium is not a very impressive toxin, much less dangerous than some of the nastier natural poisons. -- "Where is D.D. Harriman now, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology when we really *need* him?" | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu