Live data from Hacker News

Grand Canyon Museum Had Buckets of Uranium Sitting Around for 18 Years

npr.org

71–80 of 108 posts

Re: Grand Canyon Museum Had Buckets of Uranium Sitting Around for 18 Years

#71

Jeezus Cripes, way over reaction. I have Fiestaware plates that put out over 30uSv/h / 3mR/h / 9200cpm. Unrefined uranium ore puts out waaaay less that. As long as you're not sleeping with the junk under your bed or working with it next to your desk all day long you're fine. Even then, it's still less exposure than air crews that fly every day receive. No one was harmed by this.

It’s entirely plausible that in practice nobody received a dangerous amount of radiation in this case, but... > The report indicated radiation levels at "13.9 mR/hr" where the buckets were stored, and "800 mR/hr" on contact with the ore. > [...] The commission lists a maximum safe dosage for the public, beyond natural radiation, is no more than 2 millirems per hour, or 100 per year. https://www.azcentral.com/story/ne…

Actually: https://www.nde-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/R...

Regulatory Limits for Occupational Exposure

Many of the recommendations from the ICRP and other groups have been incorporated into the regulatory requirements of countries around the world. In the United States, annual radiation exposure limits are found in Title 10, part 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and in equivalent state regulations. For industrial radiographers who generally are not concerned with an intake of radioactive material, the Code sets the annual limit of exposure at the following:

1) the more limiting of:

A total effective dose equivalent of 5 rems (0.05 Sv)

or

The sum of the deep-dose equivalent to any individual organ or tissue other than the lens of the eye being equal to 50 rems (0.5 Sv).

2) The annual limits to the lens of the eye, to the skin, and to the extremities, which are:

A lens dose equivalent of 15 rems (0.15 Sv)

A shallow-dose equivalent of 50 rems (0.50 Sv) to the skin or to any extremity.

The shallow-dose equivalent is the external dose to the skin of the whole-body or extremities from an external source of ionizing radiation. This value is the dose equivalent at a tissue depth of 0.007 cm averaged over and area of 10 cm2.

The lens dose equivalent is the dose equivalent to the lens of the eye from an external source of ionizing radiation.

This value is the dose equivalent at a tissue depth of 0.3 cm.

The deep-dose equivalent is the whole-body dose from an external source of ionizing radiation. This value is the dose equivalent at a tissue depth of 1 cm.

The total effective dose equivalent is the dose equivalent to the whole-body.

Declared Pregnant Workers and Minors

Because of the increased health risks to the rapidly developing embryo and fetus, pregnant women can receive no more than 0.5 rem during the entire gestation period. This is 10% of the dose limit that normally applies to radiation workers. Persons under the age of 18 years are also limited to 0.5rem/year.

Non-radiation Workers and the Public

The dose limit to non-radiation workers and members of the public are two percent of the annual occupational dose limit. Therefore, a non-radiation worker can receive a whole body dose of no more that 0.1 rem/year from industrial ionizing radiation. This exposure would be in addition to the 0.3 rem/year from natural background radiation and the 0.05 rem/year from man-made sources such as medical x-rays.

Re: Grand Canyon Museum Had Buckets of Uranium Sitting Around for 18 Years

#72
post #26

Which takes me back to a shower thought I had a long time ago: How do you know you don't need a geiger counter unless you have one?

I had the same thought, and wanted to check some strange ore from the desert. Eventually I soldered my own Geiger counter, thanks to the fabulous Safecast project. This is it: https://blog.safecast.org/bgeigie-nano/ It cost ~$650, but that's because it uses a very high-end geiger tube, and can detect alpha and beta in addition to gamma radiation. Comparable commercial devices do apparently cost a couple thousand. Low…

> ...taking the counter on an airplane was quite shocking, and gave the cabin crew real concern.

Concern about radiation exposure or concern about the mysterious-looking device you whipped out mid flight? ;)

Re: Grand Canyon Museum Had Buckets of Uranium Sitting Around for 18 Years

#73

Jeezus Cripes, way over reaction. I have Fiestaware plates that put out over 30uSv/h / 3mR/h / 9200cpm. Unrefined uranium ore puts out waaaay less that. As long as you're not sleeping with the junk under your bed or working with it next to your desk all day long you're fine. Even then, it's still less exposure than air crews that fly every day receive. No one was harmed by this.

For the reference, I measured the levels with my basic dosimeter on one flight. Measurements topped at 72 uSv/h. Common reading during the flight was in the 50-60 uSv/h range. What I found very interesting was that the levels were slightly lower in the air near the ground than on the ground where I landed.

Maybe that just means the ground is more radioactive than air?

Re: Grand Canyon Museum Had Buckets of Uranium Sitting Around for 18 Years

#74
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_toxicity It appears as there if is little correlation between metal density and toxicity

Weird, your source says the opposite. > Toxic metals sometimes imitate the action of an essential element in the body, interfering with the metabolic process resulting in illness. Many metals, particularly heavy metals are toxic Metal toxicity is the correlation between density and reactivity. Iron and manganese are limited exceptions where iron is about 84% of hemoglobin, which is about 80% of red blood cells, but i…

> Weird, your source says the opposite.

No, it doesn't. Your quote truncates a sentence that supports GP's point.

Re: Grand Canyon Museum Had Buckets of Uranium Sitting Around for 18 Years

#75
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_toxicity It appears as there if is little correlation between metal density and toxicity

Weird, your source says the opposite. > Toxic metals sometimes imitate the action of an essential element in the body, interfering with the metabolic process resulting in illness. Many metals, particularly heavy metals are toxic Metal toxicity is the correlation between density and reactivity. Iron and manganese are limited exceptions where iron is about 84% of hemoglobin, which is about 80% of red blood cells, but i…

Gold is nearly twice as dense as Lead, but it's completely safe.

Re: Grand Canyon Museum Had Buckets of Uranium Sitting Around for 18 Years

#76

Jeezus Cripes, way over reaction. I have Fiestaware plates that put out over 30uSv/h / 3mR/h / 9200cpm. Unrefined uranium ore puts out waaaay less that. As long as you're not sleeping with the junk under your bed or working with it next to your desk all day long you're fine. Even then, it's still less exposure than air crews that fly every day receive. No one was harmed by this.

[deleted]

Re: Grand Canyon Museum Had Buckets of Uranium Sitting Around for 18 Years

#77
post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Weird, your source says the opposite. > Toxic metals sometimes imitate the action of an essential element in the body, interfering with the metabolic process resulting in illness. Many metals, particularly heavy metals are toxic Metal toxicity is the correlation between density and reactivity. Iron and manganese are limited exceptions where iron is about 84% of hemoglobin, which is about 80% of red blood cells, but i…

Gold is nearly twice as dense as Lead, but it's completely safe.

Metallic gold is pretty inert. Ionic gold, on the other hand, is toxic.

Re: Grand Canyon Museum Had Buckets of Uranium Sitting Around for 18 Years

#78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basically unless you were having a very prolonged and loving relationship with the bucket, you were exposed to nothing of consequence. That doesn’t excuse the morons who kept this stuff, and if a kid took a souvenir home or there had been a fire it could have been a lot worse. They may have also had unacceptable levels of radon. If I worked there I’d want to know more, but just as a visitor I’d shrug and get on with…

Roentgens are historical units of exposure, it's simply what a lot of older meters read. Roentgens can be assumed to safely equal RADs (although they don't, conversion is less than 1 for kV), the historical unit for "Radiation Absorbed Dose." For photons this would be equal to REM "Radiation Equivalent Man." All old units; conversion to S.I., 100 rad = 1 Gray (J/Kg), 100 rem = 1 Sievert. Essentially, who ever wrote t…

assuming inhalation if dust was not an issue..

Re: Grand Canyon Museum Had Buckets of Uranium Sitting Around for 18 Years

#79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Time to whip out the XKCD radiation chart[1], which gives us measures around: * One chest CT per hour for touching the ore (or about 9 hours touching the ore to reach your annual max dosge) * One head CT per hour for touching the bucket * nothing for 5ft away * One chest XRay per hour touching the cabinet (less than a cross-country flight LA NYC) [1] https://xkcd.com/radiation/

I've seen this chart and yet it's always fascinating. A dental X-ray is like eating 50 bananas, and half of what you would get over the course of a normal day.

assuming the X-ray equipment is not faulty. I need to mention any specific famous cases of that not being true...

Re: Grand Canyon Museum Had Buckets of Uranium Sitting Around for 18 Years

#80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do get a lot more exposure if you’re working at the museum every day though.

Only if you spent hours within 5 feet of the bucket. (That's what the comparison with sunlight is aboot)

They are cumulative, if you walk around the museum every day you could easily rack up hours with 5 feet.
Post reply on HN