Slocum.CSCDA@HI-MULTICS.ARPA (Brett Slocum) (02/25/86)
Plutonium is an extremely dangerous poison; it collects
in the bones and interferes with the production of white
blood cells.
New Columbia Encyclopedia
Just thought you might like some evidence to back up what I said.
Brett Slocum Slocum@HI-MULTICSwdm@PUR-EE.UUCP (Tex) (02/27/86)
In article <860225173815.083415@HI-MULTICS.ARPA> you write: > > Plutonium is an extremely dangerous poison; it collects > in the bones and interferes with the production of white > blood cells. > > New Columbia Encyclopedia > >Just thought you might like some evidence to back up what I said. > >Brett Slocum Slocum@HI-MULTICS I, for one, would like some information to back up what you said. Please supply it at your convenience. If you think this Encyclopedia reference backs you up, I am afraid you are mistaken. Look up arsenic and then determine how many TONS of the stuff is sprayed on crops every year. You will find that several thousand people have been "poisoned" but have not had the decency to die yet.
mcgeer%ji@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU (Rick McGeer) (02/27/86)
In "A Step Farther Out" (not fiction) Pournelle gives the lethal doses of both plutonium and arsenic. Arsenic has a much smaller lethal dose. -- Rick.
Slocum.CSCDA@HI-MULTICS.ARPA (Brett Slocum) (02/28/86)
(Please excuse the mild sarcasm :-) Since the scientific proof obviously does not exist to back up my statement, I retract my entire statement. Plutonium is completely harmless, and there would be no additional danger in having the shuttle carrying the Galileo and Ulysses probes explode over the present explosion. In fact, a plan has been developed to introduce plutonium into children's breakfast cereal as a replacement for sugar. After all, we've been doing this stuff for years and nobody can prove that anybody has ever died from it. Therefore, it must not be harmful. Sincerely, Brett Slocum
mcgeer%ji@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU (Rick McGeer) (02/28/86)
An Air Force assesment of a pad explosion carrying Ulysses or Galileo predicted fatalities in the launch area and substantial contamination of eastern Florida. I don't know what the effects of the contamination would be; I expect they would depend on the winds. Certainly site fatalities can be avoided by proper restriction of the area and precautions for those who must be present. Reference is this week's Newsweek. -- Rick.
wdm@PUR-EE.UUCP (Tex) (03/03/86)
In article <860228145732.368978@HI-MULTICS.ARPA> you write: >(Please excuse the mild sarcasm :-) > >Since the scientific proof obviously does not exist to back up my >statement, I retract my entire statement. Plutonium is completely >harmless, and there would be no additional danger in having the shuttle >carrying the Galileo and Ulysses probes explode over the present >explosion. In fact, a plan has been developed to introduce plutonium >into children's breakfast cereal as a replacement for sugar. > >After all, we've been doing this stuff for years and nobody can prove >that anybody has ever died from it. Therefore, it must not be harmful. > >Sincerely, > >Brett Slocum Upset that some people refused to jump on the hysteria bandwagon?
Slocum@HI-MULTICS.ARPA (Brett Slocum) (03/03/86)
Now, sarcasm aside.
In regards to the plutonium question, I should have stated that plutonium
is a rather poisonous substance, not the most poisonous. Since few
studies have been done since the 50's due to lack of government interest
and money and volunteers, it is difficult to exactly determine
the toxicity. I tend to take potential risks seriously, unlike the
NASA and MT management (and some readers of this forum) appear to.
I don't buy the harmlessness of dropping radioactive materials into the
ocean. Yes, the United States did it for a while (and stopped), and
Britain is still doing it, but there have been problems from this
activity. Areas in coastal Ireland, which is the closest land area
to the British dumping area, have reported very high incidences of
cancer, attributable to the dumping activity. Also, some of the material
has been found as far away as Scandinavia. Now, I realise that the
amount involved in dumping are high, but the material is put into
steel or lead casks and supposedly remains intact. In the case of the shuttle,
most of the material may remain intact, but some will not, and little of
it would be as well protected as the dumping casks.
As far as the death of thousands, I'm not talking about dying instantly
or even in a month from the accident. I'm talking ten years down the road.
Cancer works that way.
In reference to hysteria, I find the negative responses to my original posting
to show a remarkable level of propaganda in the opposite direction. They
seem to be saying "No experts believe plutonium to be exceptionally
dangerous", "No additional deaths would occur", "Nobody has ever died
from atmospheric releases of plutonium", "It's safe to dump it in the
ocean", etc. with as little to back them up as I did. They sound like
spokespersons for Kerr-McGee or the rest of the nuclear power industry or
the U.S. government.
Now, I hope that we can leave this topic alone and move on to other things.
-- Brett Slocum <Slocum at HI-MULTICS.ARPA>
P.S. My reference was not the National Enquirer, but The Nation, which
is respected, but somewhat anti-nuclear.mcgeer%ji@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU (Rick McGeer) (03/03/86)
Calling The Nation a respected journal is more than a little dicey... there are some of us who give The Nation about as much credence as Pravda. Whatever your feelings about The Nation, I'm sure you'll admit that it is hardly a technically-literate publication. Anyway, NOBODY said that "'Nobody has ever died from atmospheric releases of plutonium'"; or "'it's safe to dump it in the ocean'". What people DID say, and which you DID NOT, was that the risks from plutonium, or any other material can be measured and have been measured. Indeed, it is not true that "few studies have been done since the '50's due to lack of government interest"; the subject has been extensively studied and debated. Indeed, one correspondent in the last few days gave precise figures from a 1977 text on the subject. Further figures can be found in Petr Beckmann's "The Health Hazards of Not Going Nuclear" or Michio Kazuo's "Nuclear Power: Both Sides". -- Rick.
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (03/04/86)
> > Plutonium is an extremely dangerous poison; it collects > in the bones and interferes with the production of white > blood cells. > > New Columbia Encyclopedia > > Just thought you might like some evidence to back up what I said. > > Brett Slocum Slocum@HI-MULTICS The quote above says, "extremely dangerous poison", not "most poisonous substance". Also, the quote is describing the radiological effects of plutonium. You used the phrase, "ignoring radioactivity", or words to that effect.
caf@omen.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX) (03/05/86)
From Mar 3 AW&ST, a quote from "another source close to nuclear power machinery" : "The RTG has more armor plate than an M-1 tank. We launched one from Vandenberg, the rocket blew up and dropped the RTG into San Bernadino Bay. We recovered it, wiped it dry, launched it again and it is up there now, powering away ..."
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (03/05/86)
> Now, sarcasm aside. > > In regards to the plutonium question, I should have stated that plutonium > is a rather poisonous substance, not the most poisonous. Since few > studies have been done since the 50's due to lack of government interest > and money and volunteers, it is difficult to exactly determine > the toxicity. I tend to take potential risks seriously, unlike the > NASA and MT management (and some readers of this forum) appear to. > > I don't buy the harmlessness of dropping radioactive materials into the > ocean. Yes, the United States did it for a while (and stopped), and > Britain is still doing it, but there have been problems from this > activity. Areas in coastal Ireland, which is the closest land area > to the British dumping area, have reported very high incidences of > cancer, attributable to the dumping activity. Also, some of the material > has been found as far away as Scandinavia. Now, I realise that the > amount involved in dumping are high, but the material is put into > steel or lead casks and supposedly remains intact. In the case of the shuttle, > most of the material may remain intact, but some will not, and little of > it would be as well protected as the dumping casks. > > As far as the death of thousands, I'm not talking about dying instantly > or even in a month from the accident. I'm talking ten years down the road. > Cancer works that way. > > In reference to hysteria, I find the negative responses to my original posting > to show a remarkable level of propaganda in the opposite direction. They > seem to be saying "No experts believe plutonium to be exceptionally > dangerous", "No additional deaths would occur", "Nobody has ever died > from atmospheric releases of plutonium", "It's safe to dump it in the > ocean", etc. with as little to back them up as I did. They sound like > spokespersons for Kerr-McGee or the rest of the nuclear power industry or > the U.S. government. > Go back and take a look at the postings. No one made the statements you are showing above in quotes. The statements that were made: 1. took exception to the hysterical and GROSSLY INACCURATE statements that you made about plutonium's dangers not associated with the radiological hazards. 2. took exception to your ABSURD statement that one pound would kill everyone on Earth. 3. asked for a basis for your "thousands" of deaths that would result. And even then, it was a request for information to back up your claim. NO ONE claimed it was safe to dump in the ocean -- just that the risks are pretty small from ONE accident. > Now, I hope that we can leave this topic alone and move on to other things. > Not as long as you keep misrepresenting what people said in response to your posting. Reading the postings before responding to them is always a good idea. > -- Brett Slocum <Slocum at HI-MULTICS.ARPA> > > P.S. My reference was not the National Enquirer, but The Nation, which > is respected, but somewhat anti-nuclear. Respected? By who? And if they publish statements so clearly false, why do YOU respect them?
mvs@meccts.UUCP (Michael V. Stein) (03/07/86)
In article <860225173815.083415@HI-MULTICS.ARPA> you write: > > Plutonium is an extremely dangerous poison; it collects > in the bones and interferes with the production of white > blood cells. > > New Columbia Encyclopedia > >Just thought you might like some evidence to back up what I said. > >Brett Slocum Slocum@HI-MULTICS During the Manhatten Project, 26 workers absorbed large doses of plutonium. These 26 have subsequently been studied since then to determine cancer incidence and longivity. Los Alamos published their last update on the study about 6 months ago. A third man has now died of heart disease, one had previously died in a car crash and one had died of a heart attack. None have as yet developed cancers, and the number of deaths is less than half of the expected number for men of that age. The point here is that plutonium is not magic nor evil. It is simply one of many substances that should be handled with care. All of the heavy metals are toxic and some are much more dangerous then plutonium. (Radium is about 4 times as dangerous as plutonium.) -- Michael V. Stein Minnesota Educational Computing Corporation - Technical Services UUCP ihnp4!dicomed!meccts!mvs
mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Tom Keller) (03/07/86)
In article <8603030411.AA03642@pc.Purdue.EDU>, wdm@PUR-EE.UUCP (Tex) writes: > In article <860228145732.368978@HI-MULTICS.ARPA> you write: > >(Please excuse the mild sarcasm :-) > > > >Since the scientific proof obviously does not exist to back up my > >statement, I retract my entire statement. Plutonium is completely > >harmless, and there would be no additional danger in having the shuttle > >carrying the Galileo and Ulysses probes explode over the present > >explosion. In fact, a plan has been developed to introduce plutonium > >into children's breakfast cereal as a replacement for sugar. > > > >After all, we've been doing this stuff for years and nobody can prove > >that anybody has ever died from it. Therefore, it must not be harmful. > > > >Sincerely, > > > >Brett Slocum > > Upset that some people refused to jump on the hysteria bandwagon? I find it interesting that for *MANY YEARS* scientists and medical doctors denied any danger in the use of asbestos for insulation, ceiling tiles, etc. The fact is that we do *NOT* know how dangerous plutonium is or is not. I tend to lean toward the "extremely dangerous" opinion, myself. I find it to be both bad science and bad taste to simply dismiss out of hand the legitimate fear of plutonium, and the distrust of many citizens of the assurances of the pro-nuclear faction that this stuff is "virtually harmless". -- ==================================== Disclaimer: I hereby disclaim any and all responsibility for disclaimers. tom keller {ihnp4, dual}!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020 (* we may not be big, but we're small! *)
allen@mmm.UUCP (Kurt Allen) (03/10/86)
Aviation Week and Space Tech. had an interesting note about the plutonium canisters that are used in the space program. They are very well armoured. An unidentified source said that one missle launched from Vanderburg exploded and dropped a canister of this type loaded with plutonium into the ocean. The canister was recovered unbroken and launched on a subsequent missle. Also if I remember right the apollo astronauts were using plutonium in the LEM. I believe that they manually loaded the plutonium into the reactor after the LEM landed. They were issued a pair of gloves to do this. -- Kurt W. Allen 3M Center ihnp4!mmm!allen
dietz@SLB-DOLL.CSNET (Paul Dietz) (03/11/86)
Some comments on Pu debate: (1) The accident that might cause release of plutonium is an explosion on the pad, or a malfunction in which the shuttle heels over and crashes a few seconds after liftoff. Unlike the 51-L explosion, the SRB's and most of the fuel would explode. The Pu would end up spread all over the launch area, which would be decidedly unhealthy for future launch activities. (2) The Pu in the thermoelectric generators is Pu-238. It has a half-life of around 87 years; pound for pound it is about 260 times more radioactive than Pu-239, and more than an order of magnitude more radioactive than radium (for alpha particles; it does not emit much gamma radiation). I'm not sure how much more radioactive it is than bomb debris, since fallout contains a mixture of trans-uranium isotopes. The same is true for reactor plutonium. (3) The fuel in the thermoelectric generators is in the oxide form, so the chemical toxicity of Pu metal is not relevant. An interesting aside: ionization smoke detectors contain a small quantity of americium (Am-241, I think), an alpha emitter like plutonium. How much americium has been distributed among american households?
mvs@meccts.UUCP (Michael V. Stein) (03/14/86)
In article <860303165814.950167@HI-MULTICS.ARPA> Slocum@HI-MULTICS.ARPA (Brett Slocum) writes: >In regards to the plutonium question, I should have stated that plutonium >is a rather poisonous substance, not the most poisonous. Since few >studies have been done since the 50's due to lack of government interest >and money and volunteers, it is difficult to exactly determine >the toxicity. I tend to take potential risks seriously, unlike the >NASA and MT management (and some readers of this forum) appear to. As has been pointed out numerous studies have been done examining the danger of plutonium. >As far as the death of thousands, I'm not talking about dying instantly >or even in a month from the accident. I'm talking ten years down the road. >Cancer works that way. Oh please. Scientists have been studying the health effects of radiation from the days that X-rays were discovered. More is known today about the health effects of radiation then about almost any chemical or biological toxin. If you can show that the research for the last 80 years has grossly underestimated the health risks of radiation - please do so. >In reference to hysteria, I find the negative responses to my original posting >to show a remarkable level of propaganda in the opposite direction. They >seem to be saying "No experts believe plutonium to be exceptionally >dangerous", "No additional deaths would occur", "Nobody has ever died >from atmospheric releases of plutonium", "It's safe to dump it in the >ocean", etc. with as little to back them up as I did. They sound like >spokespersons for Kerr-McGee or the rest of the nuclear power industry or >the U.S. government. NOBODY said "No experts believe plutonium to be exceptionally dangerous", etc. If you can't disprove your opponents, is the only answer to misrepresent what they said? Insinuating your opponents all have a financial stake in a particular position, or are paid off by the government is simply a cheap shot. >P.S. My reference was not the National Enquirer, but The Nation, which >is respected, but somewhat anti-nuclear. Yes, the Nation is more respected then the National Enquirer. I don't think though, I would use it as a reference source for examining the biological effects of ionizing radiation. -- Michael V. Stein Minnesota Educational Computing Corporation - Technical Services UUCP ihnp4!dicomed!meccts!mvs