Okay.
Mr. Burns writes:
It is not my position that DU is the next AIDS (or even the next genital herpes). it is my position that all these "studies" Ark happily referred to as "facts" have that same hollow ring to them as do all the other dismissive "studies" that, when taken together, state unequivovally that nothing is dangerous, everything is safe, go play in the freeway.
Most studies say that everything is dangerous. Good scientists are careful and don't make categorical statements like "X is safe". You're no doubt aware that there are carcinogens in [link|http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8504483&dopt=Abstract|beer and wine]. There are [link|http://www.forcesduluth.com/chem.html|carcinogens] in an awful lot of food we eat. Some would argue that no food should be sold that contains chemicals that cause cancer. Others would say: What level is in the food, and what is the risk at that level? I'm in the latter group. Some say that [link|http://www.americanreview.us/budin.htm|a single plutonium atom can cause lung cancer]. I'm more than a little skeptical of that claim based on what is known about [link|http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Plutonium|plutonium]:
Precautions
All isotopes and compounds of plutonium are toxic and radioactive. While plutonium is sometimes described in media reports as "the most toxic substance known to man", there is general agreement among experts in the field that this is incorrect. As of 2003, there has yet to be a single human death officially attributed to plutonium exposure. Naturally-occurring radium is about 200 times more radiotoxic than plutonium, and some organic toxins like botulism toxin are still more toxic. Botulism toxin, in particular, has a lethal dose in the hundreds of pg per kg, far less than the quantity of plutonium that poses a significant cancer risk. In addition, beta and gamma emitters (including the C-14 and K-40 in nearly all food) can cause cancer on casual contact, which alpha emitters cannot.
Orally, plutonium is less toxic than several common substances, including caffeine, acetaminophen, some vitamins, pseudoephedrine, and any number of plants and fungi. It is perhaps somewhat more toxic than pure ethanol, but less so than tobacco and many illegal drugs (some such as LSD and marijuana are negligibly toxic). Considering the pure chemical toxicity it probably ranks with lead and other heavy metals.
That said, there is no doubt that plutonium may be extremely dangerous when handled incorrectly. The alpha radiation it emits does not penetrate the skin, but can irradiate internal organs when plutonium is inhaled or ingested; particularly at risk are the skeleton, which it is liable to be absorbed onto the surface of, and the liver, where it will collect and become concentrated. Extremely small particles of plutonium on the order of micrograms have a (small) chance to cause lung cancer if inhaled into the lungs.
Emphasis added. A microgram is a lot more than one atom. (The calculation of how many Pu atoms are in 1 ug is left as an exercise for the reader.)
Depleted [link|http://physchem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/UR/uranium.html|uranium] is a toxic material at some levels, as are many many materials that are technologically important (like arsenic, beryllium, lead, mercury, silicon dioxide, etc., etc.)
Why support arguments made by apparent lunatics? If you question the studies, then you need to read them yourself and make up your own mind rather than letting ranting partisans with an axe to grind tell you what they say. Jacking up the BS filter is appropriate, but it's much better to read the original sources, IMHO.
It seems to me that Arkaidy has it exactly right on this issue.
I really will quit now. ;-)
[edit: D'oh! Sorry Mike, and jb4!]
Cheers,
Scott.
