Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!beta!a!mwj
From: mwj@a.UUCP (William Johnson)
Newsgroups: sci.bio,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Xenon/oxygen
Message-ID: <311@a.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 6-Oct-87 12:14:11 EDT
Article-I.D.: a.311
Posted: Tue Oct  6 12:14:11 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 9-Oct-87 06:08:27 EDT
References: <18@krafla.UUCP> <566@uop.UUCP> <3981@ecsvax.UUCP> <1071@theory.cs.cmu.edu>
Organization: Los Alamos Natl Lab, Los Alamos, N.M.
Lines: 20
Xref: mnetor sci.bio:690 sci.physics:2408

In article <1071@theory.cs.cmu.edu>, tsf@theory.cs.cmu.edu (Timothy Freeman) writes:
> In article <3981@ecsvax.UUCP> dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (D Gary Grady) writes:
> >substitute proposed was uranium-238 hexafluoride, which is quite dense,
> >but I'm not sure it's nontoxic.

> Well *I* don't want to swim around with radioactive gas in my lungs
> and around my body.  Sounds like an interesting fling if you have
> nothing else interesting to do with your life, though.

U-238 is so long-lived that radiation hazard from it is insignificant in almost
all situations.  (It's used a lot as shielding for the really nasty stuff, in
fact.)  However, UF6, like practically any actinide compound you want to name,
is indeed chemically toxic.  Don't remember the standards for exposure, but
they're pretty low.  Certainly enough to significantly raise the density of the
breathable medium (you can't really call it "air" any more ...) would wipe you
out in a hurry.

--------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Johnson					Opinions?  Who
Los Alamos National Laboratory			has opinions?