From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Newsgroups: misc.consumers,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Radioactivity and Superstition; was: Re: Are Your Light Bulbs Radioactive?
Date: 27 Aug 92 10:01:23 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:

>[Followups, again, directed to misc.consumers.]

>In article <1992Aug26.195524.25813@athena.cs.uga.edu>, mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes:
>>
>>A child's environment is _full_ of things that are dangerous if ingested.

>Few of which are radioactive, since most folks don't have concentrated sources
>laying around their house...unless they have smoke detectors or compact
>flourescents.  Which is *exactly* the point the originator of this thread was
>trying to make.  Radioactivity *is* a different kind of threat than most
>parents are used to dealing with.  For this reason it makes a great deal of
>sense of consider the threat, know how to deal with it, and spread the word. 
>Yes, this is, in practice, a minor threat compared to electrical sockets, busy
>streets, and pesticides/drain cleaners/oven cleaners.  But it *is* a threat.

Wrong. Radioactivity in the home is NO hazard.  Nothing
encountered in the household (unless you happen to have a
teletherapy unit in your garage) presents a radiological hazard
OR threat. Gross ignorance of the nature of radioactivity
coupled to such "spreading of the word" leads to the worries
that border on hysterical, as we've seen here. 

Dave, you ought to know better.  Let's try a little test.  Put
the  following in ascending order of radioactivity.  Then put
the list in ascending order of radiation emittance.  Identify
the active isotope in each and the  approximate quantity.  For
extra credit, note where, if ever, on the list a radiation
health hazard becomes apparent.  Cite the applicable NCRP or NRC
reference for your assertion. 

FiestaWare china
Coleman lantern mantles
The human body
A common brick.
A basket full of veggies.
A cinderblock
Fireplace ashes
A tritiated luminous clock dial
An ionization smoke alarm
An ordinary fluorescent lamp starter.
A neon bulb
A StaticMaster antistatic camera brush
A compact fluorescent lamp
A vacuum tube.

>>Yet somehow people become morbidly fascinated with the radioactive sources
>>in smoke detectors, as if they were somehow A Class Apart, because they
>>work by means of Invisible Mysterious Rays.

>They *are* different.  You can't see, smell, taste, hear, or feel
>radioactivity.  This isn't true of most physical phenomena people deal with,
>including chemicals and electricity.  It's hardly surprising that it's treated
>differently.

It's treated differently because people who should know better cite 
radioactive sources emitting tens of millions of times less radiation than
that which causes any known or suspected effect and then call them 
hazards.   The trace radioactivity in the home is no more hazardous than
the trace arsenic, cyanide, heavy metals and other stuff found naturally
in food.  Worrying about the activity in a smoke detector is about 
like worrying about the cyanide in an almond.

John

-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine (TM) |
Marietta, Ga                         |Interested in high tech and computers? 
jgd@dixie.com                        |Write me about PE Magazine
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
Xref: sparky misc.consumers:16144 rec.video:10922 sci.electronics:15228 sci.misc:1572