Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw
From: throopw@dg_rtp.UUCP (Wayne Throop)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.sci
Subject: Re: life of nuke wastes
Message-ID: <439@dg_rtp.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 15-Jul-86 15:57:35 EDT
Article-I.D.: dg_rtp.439
Posted: Tue Jul 15 15:57:35 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 16-Jul-86 07:49:45 EDT
References: <1970@brl-smoke.ARPA> <320@rtech.UUCP> <2064@brl-smoke.ARPA> <627@mhuxr.UUCP> <559@ecn-pc.UUCP> <561@ecn-pc.UUCP>
Lines: 53
Xref: linus net.politics:16491 net.sci:905

> sandersr@ecn-pc.UUCP (Robert C Sanders)
>> ken@argus.UUCP (Kenneth Ng)

>>Caffeine is about 1/10 as toxic as plutonium.

> This is totally outrageous.  Plutonium is THE most toxic substance known
> to man, according to the Book of World Records.

If the Book of World Records really claims this, it is wrong on this
point. "Toxicity" is normally rated in terms of lethal dose, that is, a
dose that has a fixed probability of killing in a fixed time-frame.
There are biological compounds (such as the botulism toxin) that make
plutonium seem about as toxic as tofuti.

> Inhaling a few micrograms
> will cause lung cancer.  It is a powerful alpha-emitter that causes
> severe cell damage if it gets inside your body.  Plutonium must be handled
> in sealed gloved boxes, and workers must wear complicated breathing filters
> when working around the stuff.

(Note that "will cause cancer" is a vast oversimplification.  The cancer
 is by no means certain if the dose is a microgram as stated.)

All true.  But irrelevant.  There are more powerful alpha-emitters than
plutonium.  And there are chemical and bio-hazards that make
alpha-emitters seem beneficent.  So the statement that plutonium is "the
most toxic substance known to man" is *very* far wrong, unless the "man"
in question is *very* ignorant.  It's not the most toxic substance, it's
not the most toxic isotope, it's probably not even the most toxic
*element* for Bog's sake (consider californium, some isotopes of which
are neutron emitters with very short half-lives).

Dammit folks, this comes up over and over, and is refuted over and
over.  Once and for all, FACE FACTS:

    PLUTONIUM IS NOT EVEN *CLOSE* TO BEING THE MOST TOXIC SUBSTANCE.

If you are worried about plutonium gettin' ya, you're worried about the
*WRONG* *THINGS*.  You've been sucked in by an incorrect popular
mythology.  Worry about drunk drivers, about chemical spills, about
scrubbing smokestacks (and what to do with the toxic chemical residue
that *scrubbing* produces), and a million other things before worrying
about plutonium.

On the other hand, I doubt that plutonium is only 1/10 as toxic as
caffine either.  The points I've made here I base on several articles in
the popular scientific press (Scientific American, Science News) of
about a year ago, reporting on public perception of toxicity, contrasted
with the reality of the situation.  In these articles, plutonium was
found (along with one of the dioxins) about half-way down a list of
toxic substances ordered by toxicity.
-- 
Wayne Throop      <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw