Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!ll-xn!cit-vax!amdahl!amdcad!csanders From: csanders@amdcad.UUCP (Craig S. Anderson) Newsgroups: net.politics,net.sci Subject: Re: life of nuke wastes Message-ID: <12433@amdcad.UUCP> Date: Tue, 22-Jul-86 22:30:24 EDT Article-I.D.: amdcad.12433 Posted: Tue Jul 22 22:30:24 1986 Date-Received: Thu, 24-Jul-86 04:00:18 EDT References: <1970@brl-smoke.ARPA> <320@rtech.UUCP> <2064@brl-smoke.ARPA> <439@dg_rtp.UUCP> <372@argus.UUCP> Reply-To: csanders@amdcad.UUCP (Craig S. Anderson) Organization: AMD, Sunnyvale, California Lines: 45 Xref: watmath net.politics:17593 net.sci:1339 In article <372@argus.UUCP> ken@argus.UUCP (Kenneth Ng) writes: >In article <439@dg_rtp.UUCP>, throopw@dg_rtp.UUCP (Wayne Throop) writes: >> >> 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. > >I thought I posted a correction, caffeine is 1/7 as toxic as >plutonium, using LD50 values. LD50 is the amount needed to kill >half of the test sample. > What exactly is the definition of LD50? Does a person who dies 2 years later count as being killed by the substance? According to the excerpt I posted earlier, it takes .75 micrograms of plutonium maintained in the body to cause "significant body injury" (Rare Metals Handbook). Even if it takes 100 times the dose to progress from "significant body injury" to eventually killing half the people in the sample, one is still a long way from saying that caffeine is 1/7 as toxic as plutonium, unless LD50 means "dead within a certain period of time". It might take a gram of plutonium to kill a person within a week or so, but according to my source a far smaller amount will cause much damage over a long period of time. I agree with those people who say this is getting silly. Some overly concerned people think that they will definitely get cancer because they live near a nuclear power plant. On the other end of the spectrum, some people think it is fine to dump radioactive waste in the ocean in ordinary steel drums, or to dump old nuclear powered subs in the Pacific. I think there is a middle ground in there somewhere. > >-- >Kenneth Ng: -- Craig Anderson Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (408) 749-3007 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra,intelca}!amdcad!csanders #include