Plutonium in Los Alamos Drinking Water?
This post seems to suggest it was found in the late 1990s, and that there are tons of PU238 all over the grounds.
http://enenews.com/los-alamos-lab-begins-removing-radioactive-soil-canyo...
This is from 2007
http://www.nukefreetexas.org/news_ccns_news_070607.html
Isn't plutonium in drinking water a bad thing?
Pu 239 is highly toxic
According to Dr Glen Theodore Seaborg, plutonium 239 is highly toxic and accumulates in bone and spleen. He also states that 0.000000000001 per litter makes water dangerous. That is one billion times more toxic then the public is lead to believe. The energy in electron volts that the Alpha rays emitted from Pu 239 is 5.5 Mev. The energy that the Gamma rays emit are between 40 to 53 thousand ev. Plutonium 239 emits a 13 digit number of Alpha rays and Gamma rays per second.
This is textbook information that has been long forgotten and is kept a secret in modern times.
According to past textbooks, any Alpha emitter is extremely toxic due to the high energy's that the Alpha's produce. Although no textbook directly states a specific reason as to why all Alpha emitters are extremely toxic, it becomes fairly obvious why when viewed within a Chemistry perspective.
As one byproduct that can be produced within a human body due to Alpha emitting substances entered internally would be hydrogen peroxide and the rest is through simple Chemistry. According to a public report by W. G. Sutcliffe, R. H. Condit, W. G. Mansfield, D. S. Myers, D. W. Layton, and P. W. Murphy from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory April 14, 1995 is pure hogwash as the calculations provided within this report are calculated in milligrams and not in millimicrograms as claimed by Dr Glen T Seaborg. However the proper terminology in modern times is the picogram.
Older textbooks (1957 to 1970) of concern contain truthful information as compared to the claims of modern literature and this information is directly from such textbooks. All one needs to do is search through some older textbooks to find similar information as claimed within this comment.
This information along with other similar truths will be made public (very soon) along with the proof that clearly shows that the public has been grossly misinformed concerning Pu 239.
I know of no conspiracy to hide information
This is textbook information that has been long forgotten and is kept a secret in modern times.
According to past textbooks, any Alpha emitter is extremely toxic due to the high energy's that the Alpha's produce. Although no textbook directly states a specific reason as to why all Alpha emitters are extremely toxic, it becomes fairly obvious why when viewed within a Chemistry perspective.
=============================================
I know of no conspiracy to hide information. All the textbooks that I have, both modern and older show identical data with regard to the properties of Plutonium. I don't believe the public is misinformed at all.
The reason that Alpha emitters are so radiologically dangerous is that they have a charge of +2. This means they deliver their energy in a short distance. This is a double edge sword. If the alpha emitter is already in the body, the fact that it has such a high LET ( Linear Energy Transfer ) means that it dumps a lot of energy in a short distance and is very damaging.
However, it also means that the alpha has a very short range and is easily shielded. Alpha particles from Plutonium won't even penetrate a sheet of paper. They won't even penetrate the dead layer of skin on your body.
So while an alpha emitter that has been ingested or inhaled is a problem; an alpha emitter that is outside the body is no problem.
As long as the Plutonium stays outside the body; it is NOT a threat to health.
I wrote the comment on Glen T
I wrote the comment on Glen T Seaborg that 0.000000000001 of Z-94 per liter of water makes water dangerous. This aspect is difficult to find however, if you go to CCNR (dot) org/plute_tox (dot) html the highly toxic aspect of Z-94 becomes evident. Most governments do not provide numeric data as to what amount is dangerous. The closest I have found that compairs to Seaborg's data so far is in micrograms and that is still a lie! Another coverup is Xe 136. It has a 21 digit half life and most charts show that it is stable! I have no reason to lie or make any of this up. My intentions are to wake people up! There are many quintillion year half-life radioisitopes that are missing from the 73rd edition of the physics and chemestry handbook (also know as the rubber book)! The main culprit seems to be the USA that is hiding the information. Xe-136 has a nuclear cross section 4400 times that of U-235 and under normal operation it is destroyed as fast as I-136 decays into Xe-136. When a reactor stops running such as the Chernoble accident or Fukushima, this then becomes perfect breeding ground for Xe 136. This is the reason that big brother keeps this aspect a secret! The more you investigate into the subjects I have put forth the more lies you will find! I will provide a list of the missing radioisotopes next time I get a chance and you all can look for your selfs.
"Another coverup is Xe
"Another coverup is Xe 136."
Lol. You just can't make this stuff up.
Xe 136 is stable, which means it isn't radioactive.
Every time I have used the
Every time I have used the term "lie", I should of stated "mislead" or "misleading". Do a search using google for isotope and then look at wikipedia. The table of nuclides shown there displays Xe-136 as long-lived along with others that are not found on most charts! Apparently this is not the only chart that shows this. I shall now leave this forum not to return. Thank you for your response.
Just so you know that *I*
Just so you know that *I* don't have an agenda, I am trying desperately to keep my mind open to information on both sides of this argument; that is, pro and anti nuke. I worked for years in utilities, peripherally connected to nuclear plants, and was always gung ho for nuke power. After Fukushima, I had to rethink my premises, and am trying to remain objective in my info gathering.
My concern is that you have so d&^% many posts on this forum one would think you were paid to do so, and it raises suspicion. You seem to take "anti" nuke info personally, and then you often personally attack the person who posted the comment. I don't get it, what's your angle? Seriously, are you paid to troll here? Do you work in the industry? Are you associated with Berkeley? You're obviously not a "regular joe", so maybe you should be more forthcoming with your background and reasons for such deliberate concentration of effort here.
I don't mean to sound disrespectful, I just want you to understand how you come off sounding on this forum, and the suspicion it raises from a reader.
Thank you.
Consider also...
Consider also the amount of anti-nuke propaganda and scare tactics that misrepresent scientific information.
Take anti-nuclear activist Helen Caldicott. She is a physician, so she goes around saying that she is giving people good science-based information. She then tells people that a single kilogram of Plutonium if released into the environment will kill all living things on Earth.
The truth is that due to the atmospheric testing by the USA, the Soviet Union, and the other nuclear powers back in the '50s; the amount of Plutonium that actually is in the environment is about 10 metric tonnes or about 10,000 times what Caldicott says will kill all life on Earth.
Caldicott exaggerates the toxicity and danger of Plutonium by greater than a factor of 10,000. We already have 10,000 times what she says will extinguish all life on the planet, and we are not all dead.
How should we treat someone who tells us that big a LIE and then tells us she is basing everything on science? Can you see why scientists react so strongly to the abuse and misrepresentation of the field of study they hold so dear?
I am a scientist
I don't get it, what's your angle? Seriously, are you paid to troll here? Do you work in the industry? Are you associated with Berkeley? You're obviously not a "regular joe", so maybe you should be more forthcoming with your background and reasons for such deliberate concentration of effort here.
=============================
Do I have to have an "angle". I am not paid to troll here. I do not work in the industry. I am not associated with Berkeley. If being a scientist means I'm not a "regular joe"; then I accept your definition.
However, as a scientist, I despise it when people post things that are not scientifically accurate. I think people need to have / know the scientific truth.
I don't take "anti-nuke" info personally; but I do get upset when people misrepresent the science; usually for their own political reasons. Science is the one area where we know what the absolute truth is, because Mother Nature determines what truth is, not opinion polls, or "gurus" in the field.
I am happy to educate people in science. However, when I post scientific facts that are easily verifyable, I often get "challenges" from the political types that don't like the fact that I am offering scientific truth.
I bet a lawyer would be just as upset if someone here offered bad legal advice that could get people in trouble. Suppose someone said you don't have to pay your income tax because the Constitution forbids income taxes. That was once true, but our leaders changed that and income taxes are now legal. Would you be comfortable with bad legal advice posted that could get people in trouble if they followed it. Do you think such advice should go unchallenged?
To bad we breath and drink therefore the threat is high IMO
Since we breath 20,000 breaths a day we filter lots of air .also we need water to live soo although your point is true on plutonium bieng not so bad outside your body .i think if pu is in your environment chances are high u would ingest some whether it be from eating,breathing, drinking ,driving ,dusting ,mowing, gardening ,earthmoving ,smoke from fires ect ect ect.