Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 108 posts

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

#91

Post by lightedman »

simonh wrote: post #73
eveningcoffee wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

This is the correct answer. There're tons of microparticles of radioactive monzonite (and other radioactive minerals) in the dirt. And if you're near a granite body, you will show even higher levels of radiation.

Downvoters need to pick up a geology book.

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

#92

Post by mirimir »

trumped wrote: post #13
mirimir wrote: post #8

Years ago, I was working in a biochem lab, and helping a state senator's staff draft legislation. The state capitol building was classic granite and marble. So one day, I brought in a Geiger counter. Everyone freaked ;)

did you test your kitchen counter?

Well, at that point, my kitchen counter was Formica over plywood, so not much of a radiation source. But I did test my wife's Mexican pottery, and some pretty enamelwork and art glass. Freaked her too ;)

But yes, much granite does contain substantial K-40 (as do we) and some (probably less than 10%) is a substantial source of radon. Also thoron, but it's too short-lived to accumulate. You can buy test kits designed to measure radon production rate from surfaces. The radon gets captured on activated charcoal. You return the kit(s) to the provider, and they send you results.

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

#93

Post by ratsbane »

TheSoftwareGuy wrote: post #17
ratsbane wrote: post #16

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?

Somebody else has one? Realistically though most things aren’t radioactive in a meaningful way.

Yep! I carry a Gamma Scout in my car: https://www.gamma-scout.com/EN/GammaFAQ.php

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

#94

Post by ratsbane »

car wrote: post #26
ratsbane wrote: post #16

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…

I hadn't heard of Safecast before. Very interesting! Nice data sets there, too.

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

#95

Post by phonypc »

austincheney wrote: post #86
crottypeter wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Weird, your source says the opposite. No, it doesn't. Your quote truncates a sentence that supports GP's point.

The remainder of that sentence does not suggest anything about density. But, I will ask your expert opinion: What makes metals toxic and what makes heavy metals more or less toxic than other metals?

"Toxicity is a function of solubility."

First sentence of third paragraph in linked wiki page.

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

#96

Post by phonypc »

austincheney wrote: post #85
adrianN wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

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

#97

Post by cr0sh »

En_gr_Student wrote: post #84

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 electronics surplus and education kit supplier - https://www.goldmine-elec-products.com/)...

It's very well possible that the kid has no real numbers; that is completely unknown.

I'd be willing to bet you could walk into an old mining bar in Flagstaff and have more exposure to natural radiation used in the building materials than you'd experience from these buckets of old ore. Natural radiation sources like these are all over the place in Arizona.

The only real danger I could see and understand, though, is whether these buckets were covered or open; could someone or a kid have "dug through them" with their hands, or been in closer proximity to the material inside - where the dust or whatnot could be left on their hands to be ingested or inhaled in some manner.

That would be a much different situation than merely being near it for a small amount of time.

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

#98

Post by cr0sh »

sigi45 wrote: post #89
saul_goodman wrote: post #58

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.

While there is nothing to harm you, apparently, shouldn't it be still a goal for us humans to try to use materials which do not radiat at all? How much impact does radiation has on our cancer rates we at the moment? I mean, i would accept the risk of flying and getting a xray but i would probably try to choose my building materials differently if it would make sense.

> shouldn't it be still a goal for us humans to try to use materials which do not radiat at all?

At this late stage, that is probably an impossible goal to meet.

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

#99

Post by cr0sh »

sandwall wrote: post #90
Spooky23 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On a purely radiation focused scale, sure. But this is a big deal, as it’s an indicator of the lack of effective management and controls surrounding it. Where did it come from? Why was it stored where it was stored? Why did employees just dump the material?

They're rocks that someone undoubtedly collected from the surrounding area. Radioactive rocks, emitting low levels of mostly self-shielded radiation. Not great, but not a disaster deserving of national news.

I got the impression that they might be some old dirt ore from the 1950s - back then, there were a ton of articles in magazines like Popular Science and Popular Mechanics (check 'em out on Google Books and the like) about the "new gold rush - for uranium ore".

Lots of people from all over drove out to the southwest with bucket and shovels, and tried to find this stuff in a (probably misguided) attempt to "strike it rich".

I'm sure more than a few just left their buckets of dirt sitting around Flagstaff and GCNP area - and they were found and moved around - and...

...here we are.

May or may not be true in this case - but I'm sure it has happened (and I am certain more buckets wait to be found).

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

#100

Post by austincheney »

phonypc wrote: post #95
austincheney wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The remainder of that sentence does not suggest anything about density. But, I will ask your expert opinion: What makes metals toxic and what makes heavy metals more or less toxic than other metals?

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

I mentioned that specifically in my original comment.
Post reply on HN