Because of that uranium is radioactive and that radioactivity is harmful, but is not the primary harm, unless you are allergic to uranium at which point the radiation is the primary harm. Also, sensitivity to radiation varies wildly by person. Uranium is a high density metal that has some dissolution capability into water, like lead, which means heavy metal poisoning. Uranium is more dense than lead and thus more poisonous but less poisonous than osmium. Under certain conditions uranium can be (or become) very brittle and break apart into a fine dust that can be respirated.
Grand Canyon Museum Had Buckets of Uranium Sitting Around for 18 Years
31–40 of 108 posts
Re: Grand Canyon Museum Had Buckets of Uranium Sitting Around for 18 Years
#32Re: Grand Canyon Museum Had Buckets of Uranium Sitting Around for 18 Years
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, if one abandons the idea that dose response is linear, there is the possibility that the slope is even larger in the low dose regime than LNT would predict. The conservative approach would then be to adopt stricter limits, not looser ones.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6043938/
The notion seems to be the alternative to LNT is "radiation is not as bad at low doses as LNT". But there are many alternatives, all consistent with the evidence, and some would have the effect at low doses be worse.
Radiation is not a criminal defendant that requires proof beyond reasonable doubt to be regulated.
Re: Grand Canyon Museum Had Buckets of Uranium Sitting Around for 18 Years
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
The radiation hormesis theory[1] isn't widely accepted and shouldn't be used as a policy mechanism until there is much more known about its legitimacy and limitations. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis
Also, if one abandons the idea that dose response is linear, there is the possibility that the slope is even larger in the low dose regime than LNT would predict. The conservative approach would then be to adopt stricter limits, not looser ones.
No regulations, and no alarmist theories of risk.
-- Not saying it shouldn't be regulated, just that the regulations are inordinately strict and out of line with the evidence.
Re: Grand Canyon Museum Had Buckets of Uranium Sitting Around for 18 Years
#35Uranium ore is mostly alpha particle radiation. Clothing and aluminum foil are generally sufficient to block alpha particle radiation. Uranium metal can be up 28% beta particle, which can be blocked by sandbags or a thick brick wall. Depleted uranium contains almost no beta particle radiation. Uranium ore lacks the purity of uranium metal and usually more beta particles than depleted unranium but not much more though…
I think there’s a little more to heavy metal toxicity than that...
Re: Grand Canyon Museum Had Buckets of Uranium Sitting Around for 18 Years
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, if one abandons the idea that dose response is linear, there is the possibility that the slope is even larger in the low dose regime than LNT would predict. The conservative approach would then be to adopt stricter limits, not looser ones.
Airline workers are exposed to more radiation than "radiation workers." No regulations, and no alarmist theories of risk. -- Not saying it shouldn't be regulated, just that the regulations are inordinately strict and out of line with the evidence.
The problem is that radiation effects at low doses are very difficulty to detect. They could be very bad per unit of radiation and we could not now rule that out.
Re: Grand Canyon Museum Had Buckets of Uranium Sitting Around for 18 Years
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
Airline workers are exposed to more radiation than "radiation workers." No regulations, and no alarmist theories of risk. -- Not saying it shouldn't be regulated, just that the regulations are inordinately strict and out of line with the evidence.
It's weird you think you're making an argument there. The problem is that radiation effects at low doses are very difficulty to detect. They could be very bad per unit of radiation and we could not now rule that out.
Re: Grand Canyon Museum Had Buckets of Uranium Sitting Around for 18 Years
#38As correctly pointed out by other readers, this is a non-issue and complete overreaction. All feeding into misconceptions and irrational fear of radiation. The "safety professional" was out of his depth and clearly undereducated about the risks of radiation and uranium ore in particular. Hence, the true risk of a "dirty bomb" -- is psychological, i.e. it would be a weapon of mass disruption (not destruction), triagin…
Re: Grand Canyon Museum Had Buckets of Uranium Sitting Around for 18 Years
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's weird you think you're making an argument there. The problem is that radiation effects at low doses are very difficulty to detect. They could be very bad per unit of radiation and we could not now rule that out.
You're assuming that an unknown risk is _worth_ spending money on to regulate. Don't know if there are boogey men, better protect against them. Costs be damned.
This is Lawyer Science, not actual science.
Re: Grand Canyon Museum Had Buckets of Uranium Sitting Around for 18 Years
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're assuming that an unknown risk is _worth_ spending money on to regulate. Don't know if there are boogey men, better protect against them. Costs be damned.
Your mindset is that the risk has to proven, as in a court of law, before it can be regulated. This is Lawyer Science, not actual science.
And not court of law, by evidence and observation, i.e. science.