Live data from Hacker News

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

npr.org

101–108 of 108 posts

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

#101
post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gold is toxic if consumed regularly. The symptoms of gold poisoning are no different than other forms of metal poisoning. The primary difference between gold and uranium is that gold isn't very reactive and so it has virtually no contact toxicity. Also, some people are allergic to gold, which does manifest contact toxicity.

Metallic gold is completely safe to consume. You'd have to be taking deliberately prepared compounds to suffer from toxicity.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold#Toxicity

> Although the gold ion is toxic, the acceptance of metallic gold as a food additive is due to its relative chemical inertness, and resistance to being corroded or transformed into soluble salts (gold compounds) by any known chemical process which would be encountered in the human body.

This is true of known natural metabolic processes, but not true with connection to certain drug interactions. Gold is not chemically inert and can be converted into an ion or gold salt, even within the body, when mixed with other reactive non-toxic chemicals. Gold metal is popularly consumed in trace amounts of certain alcoholic beverages and there are many medications that should not be taken in connection with alcohol for many different metabolic altering processes. I am not sure if it has been thoroughly tested, but a combination of gold and nangarin could also result in potentially toxic consequences, which is why certain fruits are forbidden with consumption of certain other chemicals/drugs.

This is exceedingly rare though, since platinum group metals are so expensive, but the same conditions are observed with other platinum group metals. Silver is more toxic than gold because it is more reactive, but the behaviors are similar. A major symptom of advanced toxicity from platinum group metals is a changing of skin color towards the metallic color of the metal toxin.

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

#102
post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Toxicity is a function of solubility." First sentence of third paragraph in linked wiki page.

I mentioned that specifically in my original comment.

No, you said that uranium (which you say is toxic because of its density) "has some dissolution capability."

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

#103
post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Metallic gold is completely safe to consume. You'd have to be taking deliberately prepared compounds to suffer from toxicity.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold#Toxicity > Although the gold ion is toxic, the acceptance of metallic gold as a food additive is due to its relative chemical inertness, and resistance to being corroded or transformed into soluble salts (gold compounds) by any known chemical process which would be encountered in the human body. This is true of known natural metabolic processes, but not true with connection to cer…

For the purposes of human consumption, metallic gold is inert. I've probably eaten on the order of a gram in the last decade. It ends up in the toilet.

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

#104
post #97

The f*ed up part is the impact on the fetus. The dosage level before harm or death for kids is 10x smaller than for adults. For babies in the womb it is way smaller than that. These folks may have covered up something that resulted in the miscarriage, or birth defects of the child of any pregnant woman who stood near that closet for just a few minutes. I think the folks who covered it up for 8 months, or the morons w…

> Lucky thing some kid walked around with a geiger counter. He recorded the levels, so the numbers that officials are hiding, he knows them. His counter can be tested Neither the linked article nor your's said anything about what kind of "geiger counter" this kid had; whether it was something picked up off ebay, an old civil defence unit, or some kit or custom made thing from Electronic Goldmine (a native AZ electron…

> where the dust or whatnot could be left on their hands to be ingested or inhaled in some manner.

This by far would be my number one concern. Proximity doesn't seem to be much to worry about (238-Uranium has an alpha decay and doesn't travel far in air). But inhaling or ingesting radioactive material completely changes the danger level.

> Natural radiation sources like these are all over the place in Arizona.

Or... Grand Central Station. But... you have to consider context, which a lot of reporters don't. Consider this quote.

"It's worth noting that if Grand Central Station were a nuclear power plant, it would be shut down for exceeding the maximum allowable annual dose of radiation for employees."[0]

Yikes! We can trace down the dosage level to 120mrem/yr[1] (1.2mSv), which we can indeed see is on the order of average dosages for radiation workers [2] or 1/20th of the allowable dosage! BUT we can look at [2] more and see that 100mSv is "Lowest annual level at which increase in cancer risk is evident (UNSCEAR)" (threshold model).

So when I see articles like this I'm always a tad hesitant to even read them. They frequently focus on the first part of the last paragraph and give no indication to what these things mean. Or even worse, are misleading like that gizmodo article (I would in fact call this dangerous reporting). Radiation quotas are purposefully (and I agree with this) put to be far below what one might also call "safe" (I'd _upper bound_ "safe" as [0] https://io9.gizmodo.com/grand-central-station-is-radioactive...

[1] https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/inte...

[2] https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and...

[3] https://jciv.iidj.net/map/ (just for fun, now that we have some understanding of what these numbers mean).

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

#105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 regulation…

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

Most places moved to 20mSv now and use 50mSv for short term (100mSv is detectable chance of cancer developing). Average US worker exposure is ~2mSv/yr.[0]

[0] https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and...

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

#106

The f*ed up part is the impact on the fetus. The dosage level before harm or death for kids is 10x smaller than for adults. For babies in the womb it is way smaller than that. These folks may have covered up something that resulted in the miscarriage, or birth defects of the child of any pregnant woman who stood near that closet for just a few minutes. I think the folks who covered it up for 8 months, or the morons w…

Hysteria like this is why it's almost impossible to have rational conversations about things like radiation or nuclear power.

> ...something that resulted in the miscarriage, or birth defects of the child of any pregnant woman who stood near that closet for just a few minutes.

If we really are talking about a couple of buckets of uranium ore, then no, standing near them for a few minutes will not cause miscarriages or birth defects. Even the AZ Central article, in the midst of its fear mongering, says, "Just 5 feet from the buckets, there was a zero reading." The rest of the article is no more helpful, giving not nearly enough context to the cited measurement for readers to draw any conclusions.

> It is a radioactive substance that gives off dangerous levels of alpha, beta, and gamma radiation, as well as nuclear byproducts like radon and other gaseous nuclear isotopes.

Radon yes, and as I learned from another HN thread regarding this same story, radon can be generated at much higher rates than I ever realized. However this is highly unlikely to affect anyone who didn't spend extended periods of time in an enclosed (or sub-grade) space with the ore.

Gamma radiation here wouldn't be significant. Alpha radiation is stopped by mere inches of air. As with alpha, beta radiation is only hazardous if the material is inhaled or ingested. And aside from radon, there are no gaseous elements in uranium's decay chain.

I suppose, if the rocks were chalky and they were taken out the bucket and played with frequently, there could be some kind of inhalation risk. On the other hand, mineral dust is heavy, and typically settles out of the air too quickly to be a significant inhalation hazard. We see something similar with lead, where leaded dust from paint and vinyl mini-blinds is mainly a hazard to babies and little kids who can get their faces right in it, or eat things off floors and window sills.

Otherwise, it's hard for me to imagine how this material could have posed a health hazard to visitors.

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

#107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mentioned that specifically in my original comment.

No, you said that uranium (which you say is toxic because of its density) "has some dissolution capability."

It pleases me you can read. For a second I was about to lose faith in humanity.

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

#108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold#Toxicity > Although the gold ion is toxic, the acceptance of metallic gold as a food additive is due to its relative chemical inertness, and resistance to being corroded or transformed into soluble salts (gold compounds) by any known chemical process which would be encountered in the human body. This is true of known natural metabolic processes, but not true with connection to cer…

For the purposes of human consumption, metallic gold is inert. I've probably eaten on the order of a gram in the last decade. It ends up in the toilet.

* https://www.nuclear-power.net/gold-affinity-electronegativit...

Gold has a far lower ionization energy than you are giving it credit for, which means it is capable of becoming toxic with relatively minor interactions. The safe for consumption statement implies interactions natural to human physiology are not likely to make gold toxic, but that doesn't account for other things humans consume that do trigger reactions not normal to human physiology.

Like gold we generally believe fruit juice is safe for consumption. Fruit juice is even classified as safe for consumption, like gold, by the FDA. This was proven to be not completely true when the price of grapefruit production fell in the 1980s. Certain chemical interactions with fruit juice will make you sick and in extreme cases will kill you. This phenomenon was only discovered because of numerous associated deaths.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grapefruit%E2%80%93drug_intera...

Post reply on HN