Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 13:42:44 +0930 From: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> Cc: screwinup@aol.com (Screwinup), chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Anarchists decry 72lbs plutonium launc Message-ID: <199708250412.NAA01430@word.smith.net.au> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 24 Aug 1997 20:13:00 MST." <199708250313.UAA00633@phaeton.artisoft.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > On Oct. 6, NASA will launch a space probe containing 72 lbs. of > > plutonium. This is the 24th launch containing plutonium. Three have failed > > and two have burned up leaving 1 to 3 lbs of plutonium dust in the > > atmosphere. That will cause untold people to get lung cancer years hence, > > but may already be causing decreased immunity we perceive as "new > > diseases" or old ones coming back. > > Ah, uunet, how we've missed ya'... We have? > Plutonium is a metabolic poison; it interferes between stage 2 > and stage 3 of the Krebbs cycle. If you were going to be dead from > it you would be dead already. Take an elementry biology course. My SO (biotech) thought this was kinda funny too. Mind you, you could argue that depending on which isotope is in question, the radioactive decay activity _might_ pose a cancer risk. Decreased immunity, OTOH, isn't an issue. (Wrong material, try iodine.) > Finally, the waste materials from a coal or petroleum fired power > plant don't break down, period, unless acted upon by a highly > energetic process. One taking more energy than was originally > produced (it's called "entropy", kids); take an elementry chemistry > course. Nuclear waste is only toxic for 50,000 years (or less), > a far cry shorter than forever. This is oversimplistic; the ultimate waste materials in question here are hydrogen, carbon and oxygen (don't get too carried away about the trace junk 8), and these _are_ recombined as part of the biosphere energy cycle. The only problem is that the cycle time is a bit long given our rate of consumption. > PS: any takers on a guess as to whether or not 72lbs is over critical > mass for Plutonium? My understanding (Brian Handy, are you listening here?) is that the plutonium is used as a heat source to provide electrical power. I have a hard time imagining 30+ kilos of the stuff being required for anything on the scale of a satellite. mike
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199708250412.NAA01430>