KEN@NJITCCCC.BITNET (Kenneth Ng) (03/01/86)
The following is taken from "Hazards from Plutonium Toxicity", by
Bernard L. Cohen, published in Health Physics, May 1977, page
365.
For insoluble reactor-Pu, the most important exposure is to the
GI tract, so the cancer causing dose is 2.8 g of reactor-Pu,
and the LD50 is 2.0 gram. The LD50 in gram for other substances
taken orally are selenium oxide: 0.3; potassium cynaide: 0.7;
mercury dichloride: 0.8; and caffeine: 14. All of these cause
death within a short time. There seems to be no data on the
amount of carcinogens that must be taken orally in order to
induce cancer, and there is no known mechanism for Pu taken
orally to cause early death other than with truly massive does.
That is the toxicity of plutonium directly. Of course that assumes one
can get a population to consume the metal directly. On a more realistic
note, let's say that the space shuttle with the plutonium exploded directly
over New York City at a low altitude. According to page 375 of the same
report, one death per 18 grams released will occur over a long time,
the breakdown is as follows:
Source: grams released to kill one person
Inhalation from initial cloud 24
Resuspension in 1st year 70
Resuspension after 1st year 5000
Very long term 2500
Plant uptake into food > 500
As a final note, atmospheric atomic testing as blown about 3 TONS of
plutonium into the atmosphere, taken from "The Health Hazards of NOT
Going Nuclear", by Petr Beckmann, page 139.KEN@NJITCCCC.BITNET (Kenneth Ng) (03/07/86)
About that reference that plutonium is the most dangerous substance known to mankind. If that were so we'd have a pretty safe world. Unfortunately there are many substance far more toxic than plutonium. Arsenic trioxide, a pesticide often sprayed on food, is about 50 times as toxic. Biological toxins such as Botulism and Arrsanax (sp) are several thousand to a million times as toxic. The last time I saw a cancer chart of the United States, the highest cancer rates in the country are the northeast corridor (New Jersey and New York), and the coasts of Texas and Louisiana. Since these areas of the country are heavy petrochemical refineries, I suspect that petrochemical products are far more cancer causing than radiation. Utah, Colorado, and Nevada have below the national average. The chart I'm looking at was prepared by the National Cancer Institute, the year is not given unfortunately. Also, the government has more information on the effects of plutonium than it does many forms of air pollution. From the Manhattan Project we have 17000 workers exposed to plutonium. Of them, 25 have way over the permissable level in their lungs. As of 1973 none of them have developed cancers. This is from "A 27 Year Study of Selected Los Alamos Plutonium Workers", Report LA-5148-MS, Los Alamos Sci Labs, January 1973. By the way, if the plutonium package was on board the Space Shuttle, it may have been one of the few objects to survive somewhat intact. I cannot recall which one, but one of the SNAP nuclear power systems was tested by blowing up a rocket fully fueled on the launch pad. This was, of course, in the days when NASA could afford to do such things! Finally, some of the material I present may not be entirely correct. By profession I am not an expert in nuclear energy, or plutonium toxicity. I am a computer scientist. One of my major hobbies is reading. I have tried to put references in for those curious, but there just seems to be too much to remember nowadays. If anyone is an expert on these matters and I've misrepresented something, please enter the correction for us all. I'd also appreciate some new reading sources.
KEN@NJITCCCC.BITNET (Kenneth Ng) (03/11/86)
Please execuse me if you saw this before, I think I sent this to the wrong address last time. About that reference that plutonium is the most dangerous substance known to mankind. If that were so we'd have a pretty safe world. Unfortunately there are many substance far more toxic than plutonium. Arsenic trioxide, a pesticide often sprayed on food, is about 50 times as toxic. Biological toxins such as Botulism and Arrsanax (sp) are several thousand to a million times as toxic. The last time I saw a cancer chart of the United States, the highest cancer rates in the country are the northeast corridor (New Jersey and New York), and the coasts of Texas and Louisiana. Since these areas of the country are heavy petrochemical refineries, I suspect that petrochemical products are far more cancer causing than radiation. Utah, Colorado, and Nevada have below the national average. The chart I'm looking at was prepared by the National Cancer Institute, the year is not given unfortunately. Also, the government has more information on the effects of plutonium than it does many forms of air pollution. From the Manhattan Project we have 17000 workers exposed to plutonium. Of them, 25 have way over the permissable level in their lungs. As of 1973 none of them have developed cancers. This is from "A 27 Year Study of Selected Los Alamos Plutonium Workers", Report LA-5148-MS, Los Alamos Sci Labs, January 1973. By the way, if the plutonium package was on board the Space Shuttle, it may have been one of the few objects to survive somewhat intact. I cannot recall which one, but one of the SNAP nuclear power systems was tested by blowing up a rocket fully fueled on the launch pad. This was, of course, in the days when NASA could afford to do such things! Finally, some of the material I present may not be entirely correct. By profession I am not an expert in nuclear energy, or plutonium toxicity. I am a computer scientist. One of my major hobbies is reading. I have tried to put references in for those curious, but there just seems to be too much to remember nowadays. If anyone is an expert on these matters and I've misrepresented something, please enter the correction for us all. I'd also appreciate some new reading sources.