Tungsten vs. depleted Uranium
Take off UrPants to reply
the feasibility of using tungsten instead of depleted uranium for armor
piercing shells. tungsten as dense as uranium and alloys of it can be extremely
hard and strong, I suspect better than any uranium alloy.
I have heard from an army surplus store that the depleted uranium uses its
nuclear energy to burn through armor. That is so clearly bullshit I won't
address it here. Uranium is pyrophoric but so is tungsten and I doubt that such
an effect could contribute to the armor piercing capability for the following
reasons:
1) It would need atmospheric oxygen to burn, so the points of actual contact
between the shell and armor would not burn.
2) Assuming that uranium burns not much faster than say magnesium the time
scale of the incindiary reaction would be much slower than the time scale of
the impact of the shell or the detonation of the warhead, so i doubt that it
would be able to contribute to the armor piercing properties.
So the best answer I can think of is that we use it because we have lots of
U238 around from the nuclear weapons enrichment process that we don't know what
to do with which like all radioactives is expensive to get rid of. The tungsten
we would have to buy, though it is not that expensive.
Personally I wouldn't want to see a valuable element like tungsten strewn all
over battlefields, but still that has to be better than exposing our troops,
our testing ranges and other peoples countries to tons of finely dispersed U238
dioxide.
So do you guys know of any reasons why depleted uranium is more suitable than
tungsten?
Uncle Al
1) DU is cheap and abundant as waste from uranium enrichment.
2) DU can be cast. Tungsten is fabricated via powder metallurgy.
3) DU long rod penetrators slough as they penetrate, lubricating
their way through. Tungsten is notoriously brittle. Have a little
compassion for the gun barrel, too.
4) DU exiting the other side *hot* is insanely pyrophoric.
5) DU oxides dust is our own little dirty bomb - aerosolized
respirable radiologically hot particles. Tungsten is merely a heavy
metal poison.
6) We all know all dense metal, interstitial, alloy, intermetallic,
and ceramic penetrators were tried. DU is used in the real world
because it worked like a champ in the prelims.
7) Everybody calls it "uraninum." If we used tungsten we'd need a
whole separate set of "wolfram" manuals for the Europeans.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
David Lloyd-Jones
> 3) DU long rod penetrators slough as they penetrate, lubricating
>their way through. Tungsten is notoriously brittle. Have a little
>compassion for the gun barrel, too.
>
Armor-piercing shells have traditionally been fired within sabots,
wrappers which peel off after the assembly leaves the gun, and it is my
impression that this is true of the depleted uranium rounds fired by the
Abrams M1. There is no reason why this could not also be true of a
hypothetical tungsten round, so that particular bit of compassion
doesn't apply.
-dlj.
Uncle Al
Depends whether you are firing a tank cannon (smooth bore, sabots, fin
stabilization) or a gatling gun (rifled bore, gilding, spin
stabilization).
Muhammar
politicaly correct armies, I suppose,) but the interest is not strong:
tungsten projectiles from layered tungsten are more expensive and far
less effective in armour piercing.
abc
> Personally I wouldn't want to see a valuable element like tungsten strewn
> all over battlefields,
Yes, it breaks my heart too, to think of all that valuable tungsten
contaminated with the intestines of dead iraqui soldiers.
but still that has to be better than exposing our
> troops, our testing ranges and other peoples countries to tons of finely
> dispersed U238 dioxide.
>
This has to be due to the strong sense of justice of the americans:
Each weapon used has to kill an equal amount of own soldiers as of enemies.
jacques jedwab
> 7) Everybody calls it "uraninum." If we used tungsten we'd need a
> whole separate set of "wolfram" manuals for the Europeans.
>
> --
> Uncle Al
...but we Europeans fear that Uncle-Al's chick is in great danger of being
pierced by his tungstenic/wolframic-tipped tongue....
...or should we send him two sets of chemistry books using either
"niobium" or "columbium", which are both used in the States (even by the
respected USGS)?
J.J.
Uncle Al
Repeating Decimal
wrote on 4/7/03 12:55 AM:
It breaks my heart to see all that U238 being wasted when it could be used
in breeder reactors/
Bill
c....@gmx.net
Where do I buy some for my 9mm gun that I use to protect my house with then?
David Halpern
How poisonous is Tungsten though the EPA and U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service
have approved it
as non-toxic shot.
D.H.
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:3E90BB4B...@hate.spam.net...
David Halpern
alternative to depleted-uranium and
tungsten.
D.H.
"jacques jedwab" <jje...@ulb.ac.be> wrote in message
news:jjedwab-2708...@geochim-mac2.ulb.ac.be...
Uncle Al
>
> How poisonous is Tungsten though the EPA and U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service
> have approved it
> as non-toxic shot.
The was a French tradition that new artillerymen were baptized by
drinking wine (of frat magnitudes) poured through a freshly fired
cannon. Tungsten steel liners put an end to a bunch of new
artillerymen and the tradition. Soluble tungsten is definitely a frog
killer.
It's crappy shot, too - too brittle at launch and too brittle at
impact. Crunching into lead shot is hurtful. Crunching into tungsten
shot would be a broken tooth. How would you make tungsten shot? Lead
and bismuth shot are made by shaking the molten metal through a sieve,
then some free fall (to spherodize) into a long column of water
followed by sizing.
David Halpern
What do you know about its inherent toxicity?
D.H.
Good to hear from you by the way.
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:3E958A62...@hate.spam.net...
David Halpern
enforcement entity.
All probition stems from the Armor Piercing Ammunition Act of 1986.
At least you could own 5.56 mm tungsten-core ammo as .22 caliber is exempt
from the ban.
D.H.
<c....@gmx.net> wrote in message news:3E94160B...@gmx.net...
Lucius Chiaraviglio
>http://vzajic.tripod.com/3rdchapter.html
>
>It's a beautiful thing.
Hey Uncle Al, other pages on this site say that depleted uranium is
bad for human health and the environment -- sure you still want to recommend
it? :-)
--
Lucius Chiaraviglio
Approximate E-mail address: luci...@chapter.net
To get the exact address: ^^^ ^replace this with 'r'
|||
replace this with single digit meaning the same thing
(Spambots of Doom, take that!).
David Lloyd-Jones
> Hey Uncle Al, other pages on this site say that depleted uranium is
>bad for human health and the environment -- sure you still want to recommend
>it? :-)
>
Woonit be nice: ya can't start a war until you've filed an Environmental
Impact Statement!
-dlj.
Uncle Al
>
> Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
> >http://vzajic.tripod.com/3rdchapter.html
> >
> >It's a beautiful thing.
>
> Hey Uncle Al, other pages on this site say that depleted uranium is
> bad for human health and the environment -- sure you still want to recommend
> it? :-)
I have no problem with killing the now and future enemy. An Earth
with 3 billion people would be a much nicer place to live.
David Lloyd-Jones
>I have no problem with killing the now and future enemy. An Earth
>with 3 billion people would be a much nicer place to live.
>
Ya don't think it maybe depends on *which* three billion is might be?
Surely the real point is that how nice the place is depends more on how
people behave much more than on how many people happen to be there.
One Uncle Al is a useful citizen. Two would be too many.
-dlj.
jitney
> in breeder reactors/
>
> Bill
> It's crappy shot, too - too brittle at launch and too brittle at
> impact. Crunching into lead shot is hurtful. Crunching into tungsten
> shot would be a broken tooth.
I'm with you on the breeder reactor, Bill, unfortunately, the oil
companies and their stooges in the media are not.
How about DU shot for the next round of trap? You could use #10 shot
and still bust those clays!
Zachary
poisonous? DU is, I believe, the uranium found in nature minus as much
of the radioactive componenet as could be practically separated. It is
in fact safer that natural uranium, perhaps it's as non-radioactive as
most elements. A dirty bomb, as someone previously said, would not be
made out of the DU, but preferably out of the enriched uranium.
(Backspaced over the rest of the text for fear of giving people good
bad ideas.)
Uncle Al
Uranium is a typical acute heavy metal poison causing kidney failure.
It also deposits in bone like calcium, presumptively leading to long
term leukemogenesis. Inhaled and retained micron-scale particulates
resumably cause pulmonary carcinogenesis at point of contact (hot
particle hypothesis).
Zachary
the enemy when they go to war, most of them on purpose (mit Absicht).
Es macht nichts Ich bin nur ein typischer bloder Ami.
Ich mag auch kein Spam.
abc <i...@mag.kein.spam.com> wrote in message news:<b6regj$9rf$1...@wsc10.lrz-muenchen.de>...
Zachary
projectile or we'd be really confused.
jje...@ulb.ac.be (jacques jedwab) wrote in message news:<jjedwab-2708...@geochim-mac2.ulb.ac.be>...
G. R. L. Cowan
Zachary wrote:
>
> Question: On what basis are people saying that depleted uranium is
> poisonous? DU is, I believe, the uranium found in nature minus as much
> of the radioactive componenet as could be practically separated.
As much of the *more* radioactive component.
Neither one enough so to matter in terms of safe handling
(0.7 billion year half-life versus 4.5 billion),
although U-238 alpha decay does provide
much of the Earth's interior heat.
Heavy metal toxicity, as Al says,
is what does the collateral harm,
if there is collateral harm.
--- Graham Cowan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html --
100 internal combustion watt-hours in a baby's fist
Jim Buch
Arsenic occurs "naturally" but is a detrimental chemical to insert into
your body.
Lead...........
Cadmium........
More Metals....
Jim Buch
Uncle Al
Coulson, E. J.; Remington, R. E.; Lynch, "Metabolism In The Rat Of The
Naturally Occurring Arsenic Of Shrimp As Compared With Arsenic
Trioxide" Journal Of Nutrition 10 255 (1935) [17.7 ppm]
Spiny lobster has up to 30 ppm arsenic
http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~frf/guid-as.html
(middle)
Don't eat Bangladeshi long pig.
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
> Jim Buch wrote:
> >
> > Zachary wrote:
> > >
> > > Question: On what basis are people saying that depleted uranium is
> > > poisonous? DU is, I believe, the uranium found in nature minus as
much
> > > of the radioactive componenet as could be practically separated. It
is
> > > in fact safer that natural uranium, perhaps it's as non-radioactive
as
> > > most elements. A dirty bomb, as someone previously said, would not be
> > > made out of the DU, but preferably out of the enriched uranium.
> > > (Backspaced over the rest of the text for fear of giving people good
> > > bad ideas.)
> >
> > Arsenic occurs "naturally" but is a detrimental chemical to insert into
> > your body.
>
> Coulson, E. J.; Remington, R. E.; Lynch, "Metabolism In The Rat Of The
> Naturally Occurring Arsenic Of Shrimp As Compared With Arsenic
> Trioxide" Journal Of Nutrition 10 255 (1935) [17.7 ppm]
>
> Spiny lobster has up to 30 ppm arsenic
> http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~frf/guid-as.html
> (middle)
>
> Don't eat Bangladeshi long pig.
Cows require arsenic in small amounts to survive. There goes veal, beef
and milk.
David A. Smith
Michael Moroney
>Question: On what basis are people saying that depleted uranium is
>poisonous?
Uranium (depleted or not) is a heavy metal, like lead, mercury etc. It
is toxic to the kidneys. I don't know how toxic it is compared to lead
etc. but it is toxic.
> DU is, I believe, the uranium found in nature minus as much
>of the radioactive componenet as could be practically separated. It is
>in fact safer that natural uranium, perhaps it's as non-radioactive as
>most elements.
All uranium is radioactive, just not very so. DU is less radioactive than
natural U but is still radioactive.
> A dirty bomb, as someone previously said, would not be
>made out of the DU, but preferably out of the enriched uranium.
No, a "dirty bomb" made out of enriched uranium wouldn't do much more
than scare everyone since it wouldn't be very "dirty" (and would be a
mammoth waste of nuclear weapon material, as far as a terrorist is
concerned) A real dirty bomb would use something incredibly radioactive,
like spent fuel rods.
--
-Mike
David Lloyd-Jones
>Maybe, unlike the Germans who kill more of their own civilians than
>the enemy when they go to war, most of them on purpose (mit Absicht).
>
Only about half right. The victims thought they were Germans, but the
German government denied it.
There was one concession: men who had won the Eisenkreutz in WWI were
sent to Auschwitz in passenger cars with seats.
-dlj.
William DiMenna
"Michael Moroney" <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
news:b7psbd$afo$2...@pcls4.std.com...
> yayo...@hotmail.com (Zachary) writes:
>
> >Question: On what basis are people saying that depleted uranium is
> >poisonous?
>
> Uranium (depleted or not) is a heavy metal, like lead, mercury etc. It
> is toxic to the kidneys. I don't know how toxic it is compared to lead
> etc. but it is toxic.
>
> > DU is, I believe, the uranium found in nature minus as much
> >of the radioactive componenet as could be practically separated. It is
> >in fact safer that natural uranium, perhaps it's as non-radioactive as
> >most elements.
>
> All uranium is radioactive, just not very so. DU is less radioactive than
> natural U but is still radioactive.
Iron is also radioactive, along with copper, tin, oxygen, nitrogen, and
every other element. It is the method of decay and half life that makes
enriched plutonium or fuel rods dangerous (in addition to the heavy metal
concern mentioned elsewhere). Depleted Ur has a shorter half life that
natural Ur, but I know nothing of the decay method, and not interested or
worried enough to look in my old intro to chemistry text book!! In a science
based newsgroup like this I hope that I am "preaching to the choir."
P.S. If you are going to abreviate, at least use the element's periodic
table symbol! Ur = Uranium
BILL D
David Lloyd-Jones
>>Jim Buch wrote:
>>Don't eat Bangladeshi long pig.
>>
>>
Jim,
I doubt that you're talking about the aardvark, so this must be a
reference to all the olde English jokes about cannibalism among the wogs.
It's an English problem, and has nothing to do with Bengal or Bangladesh.
-dlj.
Steve Turner
>P.S. If you are going to abreviate, at least use the element's periodic
>table symbol! Ur = Uranium
Uranium is U in every periodic table I've ever seen.
Or is this a joke with some obscure punchline?
Steve Turner
Real address contains worldnet instead of spamnet
David Lloyd-Jones
>Iron is also radioactive, along with copper, tin, oxygen, nitrogen, and
>every other element.
>
He thus establishes himself as yet another person who can find a fact,
but doesn't have the first clue what relevance might be.
A more interesteing fact, to my mind, would be something about what
"depleted" means. Anybody got one?
-dlj.
William DiMenna
"Steve Turner" <srtu...@spamnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:keg1av4maesm4g2nj...@4ax.com...
Michael Moroney
>> > DU is, I believe, the uranium found in nature minus as much
>> >of the radioactive componenet as could be practically separated. It is
>> >in fact safer that natural uranium, perhaps it's as non-radioactive as
>> >most elements.
>>
>> All uranium is radioactive, just not very so. DU is less radioactive than
>> natural U but is still radioactive.
>Iron is also radioactive, along with copper, tin, oxygen, nitrogen, and
>every other element.
Umm, misleading if not incorrect. Every element has at least one
radioactive isotope, but stable isotopes are just that, stable and not
radioactive. On the other hand, all U isotopes are radioactive. You
certainly won't see pure natural iron (mostly Fe-56) do much of anything!
>P.S. If you are going to abreviate, at least use the element's periodic
>table symbol! Ur = Uranium
You got a mighty funny periodic table, that's for sure.
--
-Mike
Michael Moroney
>A more interesteing fact, to my mind, would be something about what
>"depleted" means. Anybody got one?
Natural uranium is a mix of two isotopes, U-235 and U-238. U-235 is
fissile, which means it can be made into nuclear bombs, nuclear reactor
fuel etc. but you must remove it from the U-238 first. U-238 isn't. The
leftover U-238 is "depleted" uranium.
--
-Mike
William DiMenna
elements. I believe every other isotope of every other element has a half
life, although many are EXTREMELY long. The referenceI was looking for
wasn't in my text book. Maybe inorganic. Have to wait till tomorrow too
tired.
BILL D
"Michael Moroney" <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
news:b7qiad$l2a$2...@pcls4.std.com...
David Lloyd-Jones
>Natural uranium is a mix of two isotopes, U-235 and U-238. U-235 is
>fissile, which means it can be made into nuclear bombs, nuclear reactor
>fuel etc. but you must remove it from the U-238 first. U-238 isn't. The
>leftover U-238 is "depleted" uranium.
>
>
Jeez, Mike, I thought we just flushed that stuff down the
Tennessee-Tombigee and Columbia rivers. And a few hundred spare tons
from Chalk River that we dropped in the, uh, Chalk river.
You're telling me people actually collect that stuff and try to use it
for sumpin'? :-[ Seems odd to me.
Cheers,
-dlj.
Query: I thought U-238 was also radioactive, but with a neutron emission
rate far too low to be useful in making stuff go whoop-peee. Is this
incorrect? (Thirty years ago I did this stuff, and would have thought
this a stupid question; also I would have known the answer. Be tolerant,
and take me back to my wanton
drinking-coffee-through-the-night-with-the-Oppenheimers youth, OK?)
-d.
Buckleys
>
> I believe Fe 56 is the most stable isotope (thermodynamic) of all the
> elements. I believe every other isotope of every other element has a half
> life, although many are EXTREMELY long. The referenceI was looking for
> wasn't in my text book. Maybe inorganic. Have to wait till tomorrow too
> tired.
>
> BILL D
Bill, you believe wrong. While iron has the maximum binding energy per
nucleon (IIRC), that does not mean that all other nuclei must be stable.
How does a hydrogen (protium) atom decay? Hydrogen will fuse, but that
is not due to a decay process, and the rate will be governed by the
reaction conditions.
Rob.
Buckleys
Oops - brain fart. I meant '...nuclei must be UNstable', of course.
Rob.
Uncle Al
>
> "Michael Moroney" <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
> news:b7psbd$afo$2...@pcls4.std.com...
> > yayo...@hotmail.com (Zachary) writes:
> >
> > >Question: On what basis are people saying that depleted uranium is
> > >poisonous?
> >
> > Uranium (depleted or not) is a heavy metal, like lead, mercury etc. It
> > is toxic to the kidneys. I don't know how toxic it is compared to lead
> > etc. but it is toxic.
> >
> > > DU is, I believe, the uranium found in nature minus as much
> > >of the radioactive componenet as could be practically separated. It is
> > >in fact safer that natural uranium, perhaps it's as non-radioactive as
> > >most elements.
> >
> > All uranium is radioactive, just not very so. DU is less radioactive than
> > natural U but is still radioactive.
>
> Iron is also radioactive, along with copper, tin, oxygen, nitrogen, and
> every other element.
Idiot. Fe-56 has the highest binding energy/nucleon of any nucleus.
Into what would you have it decay?
Idiot. Radiologically stable elements are stable to the age of the
universe. Protons do not spontaneously decay - by empirical
observation at Super Kamiokande.
Uncle Al
Uncle Al wrote: "Don't eat Bangladeshi long pig."
No, it is specific to Bangladesh. To avoid cholera because the
Bangladeshis live 1 foot above mean high tide in pools of their own
fecal waste, the UN drilled millions of drinking water wells at
obscene expense (to the American taxpayer). Being the UN, it tapped
into the largest arseniferous aquifer on the planet. Bangladeshis are
now nicely contaminated with arsenic beyond chronic toxicity edging
into to acute toxicity. If you commit cannibalism with Bangladeshi
long pig the EPA will whack your pee-pee, possibly the FDA too.
Being the UN, capping the wells costs some 5X more each than drilling
them. Amazing. The alternative is to aerate the well water (pour it
through the air a few tiems ) to oxidize soluble As(III) to mostly
insoluble As(V), then add mud and let settle to entrain the As(V)
solids. This, of course, reintroduces cholera.
The thought of providing Enviro-whiner sewage treatment is silly as is
boiling the water before using it. Bangladeshis are primitives living
close to nature and their shit doesn't stink. Boiling their water
would be an assault upon their traditional culture.
Uncle Al
>
> I believe Fe 56 is the most stable isotope (thermodynamic) of all the
> elements. I believe every other isotope of every other element has a half
> life, although many are EXTREMELY long. The referenceI was looking for
> wasn't in my text book. Maybe inorganic. Have to wait till tomorrow too
> tired.
The unviverse doesn't give a sparrow fart what you believe. If you
don't know, don't be loud about it.
Jim Quinn
Zachary -
All elements, materials, things, etc....are bad for you.
It is just a matter of the dosage and duration.
Too much water is drowning; not enough......you dehydrate.
The same is true of energy/radiation.
The same is true of nothing/vacuum.
JQ
--
*********************************************************
Dr. Jim Quinn james...@sunysb.edu
Materials Science 631-632-6663 FAX:8052
SUNY at Stony Brook http://www.matscieng.sunysb.edu/
Stony Brook, New York 11794 - 2275
*********************************************************
G. R. L. Cowan
Jim Quinn wrote:
>
> In article <9f70e03d.0304...@posting.google.com>,
> yayo...@hotmail.com (Zachary) writes:
> >Question: On what basis are people saying that depleted uranium is
> >poisonous? DU is, I believe, the uranium found in nature minus as much
> >of the radioactive componenet as could be practically separated. It is
> >in fact safer that natural uranium, perhaps it's as non-radioactive as
> >most elements. A dirty bomb, as someone previously said, would not be
> >made out of the DU, but preferably out of the enriched uranium.
> >(Backspaced over the rest of the text for fear of giving people good
> >bad ideas.)
>
> Zachary -
>
> All elements, materials, things, etc....are bad for you.
> It is just a matter of the dosage and duration.
>
> Too much water is drowning; not enough......you dehydrate.
>
> The same is true of energy/radiation.
Maybe. But the metalloenzyme vital-nutrients people
don't seem to have got around to uranium yet.
David Lloyd-Jones
>Idiot. Radiologically stable elements are stable to the age of the
>universe. Protons do not spontaneously decay - by empirical
>observation at Super Kamiokande.
>
Empirical evidence of something *not* happening? That's a new one on me.
And from a family of instruments most of which don't exist yet, and the
others of which have this tendency to go poof -- or rather
bang-bang-bang... -- in the night.
This must be a year's, indeed a millenium's, high water mark for Uncle
Al's credulity. (Now the odds are really extremely extremely high that
he's right -- but I hate to see truth asserted on such a shoddy grounding.)
-dlj.
David Lloyd-Jones
>Uncle Al wrote: "Don't eat Bangladeshi long pig."
>
>No, it is specific to Bangladesh. To avoid cholera because the
>Bangladeshis live 1 foot above mean high tide in pools of their own
>fecal waste, the UN drilled millions of drinking water wells at
>obscene expense (to the American taxpayer).
>
This is either an insane lie, or worse, a stupid mistake. It was UNESCO,
and the US hasn't paid its UNESCO bills since about 1955. The US
freeloads as the world's taxpayers run all these programs, some of which
are intended to help illiterate Americans learn to read. 'Nuther damn
failure.
What's a little odd is, it's a lie that is easy to catch. Why does Al
bother?
-dlj.
David Lloyd-Jones
>The unviverse doesn't give a sparrow fart what you believe. If you
>don't know, don't be loud about it.
>
Yeah! Right on!
If you believe something, however crazy, don't say you "believe" it.
Assert it as a general truth, the way Uncle Al does.
-dlj.
Uncle Al
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
>
> >Idiot. Radiologically stable elements are stable to the age of the
> >universe. Protons do not spontaneously decay - by empirical
> >observation at Super Kamiokande.
> >
>
> Empirical evidence of something *not* happening? That's a new one on me.
If you have 50,000 tonnes of ultrapure water, can reliably sense
single proton decays, and you run for a decade,
(50,000 tonnes)(10^6 g/tonne)(1 mole/18.0153 g)(6.02x10^23)(2)(10
years) = 3.34x10^34 H atom-years.
As Super Kamiokande never saw a proton decay (but did see the proper
number of neutrino events), we can state with 50% assurance that
proton half-life exceeds 10^34 years. Compare that with the age of
the universe from recent high resolution cosmic background radiation
measurements.
Zachary
Zachary
"William DiMenna" <dime...@fidnet.com> wrote in message news:<2qmcncW9pJi...@fidnet.com>...
Kevin G. Rhoads
I expect you already know that Bayesian statistics/reasoning seems to be beyond the (proper) ken of even many statistics experts (i.e., many people trained in statistics get it wrong).
Did you really expect most readers to "get it" without spoon-feeding? (Did you expect many readers to "get it" WITH spoon-feeding?)
<sigh>
Kevin
Kevin G. Rhoads
>don't seem to have got around to uranium yet.
You just haven't gone back in history far enough -- look to the radium inhalers &c of the early Victorian era. Radium was "sexier" than uranium, but uranium, thorium &c all got put into patent medicines and patent medicine devices & other forms of
then-modernistic snake oil.
Even today, you can go out west and spend $$ to go down into an inactive uranium mine to get the "radon cure". The testamonials attest to how invigorating and <sic> healthful it is. AFAIK these operations haven't been shut down yet.
People are weirder than you think.
Sincerely
Kevin
Michael Moroney
>> All elements, materials, things, etc....are bad for you.
>> It is just a matter of the dosage and duration.
>>
>> Too much water is drowning; not enough......you dehydrate.
>>
>> The same is true of energy/radiation.
>Maybe. But the metalloenzyme vital-nutrients people
>don't seem to have got around to uranium yet.
Hah! I stumbled on one of these products on Ebay that seemed to include
just about the entire table of isotopes except for the well-known baddies
mercury, lead, arsenic and maybe one or two others. What is notable is
the list _included_ technetium, polonium, promethium and similar elements!
Even francium I think!
--
-Mike
Uncle Al
In a world where people cannot post a 60-character line and believe
that a starch wafer will magically transform into the ingested flesh
of their god, I hold no hope whatsoever for the eventual fate of
humanity. Four billion people exist to beg charity, offering
sustained appetites and their profligate reproduction as
reimbursement. Why is god always short of pocket change?
The best possible future is Homo fulgans and Homo nitor leaving for
the stars while Homo sapiens inherits the Earth - and Hell with it.
In the meanwhile we struggle with austenite and martensite and reap
damned little appreciation for our successes.
Uncle Al says, ""How can evil be eradicated in modern society? Start
by executing the do-gooders."
Terry Harper
news:3EA1C0AD...@alum.mit.edu...
>
> Even today, you can go out west and spend $$ to go down into an inactive
uranium mine to get the "radon cure". The testamonials attest to how
invigorating and <sic> healthful it is. AFAIK these operations haven't been
shut down yet.
You can no doubt get the same dose of radon by living in Aberdeen or
Cornwall. However building regulations exist to prevent build-up inside
modern properties.
--
Terry Harper
http://www.terry.harper.btinternet.co.uk/
David Lloyd-Jones
>You just haven't gone back in history far enough -- look to the radium inhalers &c of the early Victorian era. Radium was "sexier" than uranium, but uranium, thorium &c all got put into patent medicines and patent medicine devices & other forms of
>then-modernistic snake oil.
>
>Even today, you can go out west and spend $$ to go down into an inactive uranium mine to get the "radon cure". The testamonials attest to how invigorating and <sic> healthful it is. AFAIK these operations haven't been shut down yet.
>
I think the Radium Bath <blink>RadiumBath</blink> is still doing
dusiness at its same old stand on the Kichijochi-Kaido corner in
Kawasaki. Hate the bastards: I was never able to get them to put in a
coin laundry.
-dlj.
David Lloyd-Jones
>Hah! I stumbled on one of these products on Ebay that seemed to include
>just about the entire table of isotopes except for the well-known baddies
>mercury, lead, arsenic and maybe one or two others. What is notable is
>the list _included_ technetium, polonium, promethium and similar elements!
>Even francium I think!
>
Eureka! I gottit! I'll put out Transuranic Ointment, white zinc oxide in
a petroleum jelly base, with the world's largest concentrations of
elements over 100. Most of these are from Russia, where they also have
monkey glands!
If called down by the FDA and the SEC, I'll just point out that these
elements have rather short half-lives.
-dj.
David Lloyd-Jones
>David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
>
>
>>Uncle Al wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Idiot. Radiologically stable elements are stable to the age of the
>>>universe. Protons do not spontaneously decay - by empirical
>>>observation at Super Kamiokande.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Empirical evidence of something *not* happening? That's a new one on me.
>>
>>
>
>If you have 50,000 tonnes of ultrapure water, can reliably sense
>single proton decays, and you run for a decade,
>
>(50,000 tonnes)(10^6 g/tonne)(1 mole/18.0153 g)(6.02x10^23)(2)(10
>years) = 3.34x10^34 H atom-years.
>
>As Super Kamiokande never saw a proton decay (but did see the proper
>number of neutrino events), we can state with 50% assurance that
>proton half-life exceeds 10^34 years. Compare that with the age of
>the universe from recent high resolution cosmic background radiation
>measurements.
>
Yes, Al. Quite right. *If* you can reliably detect single proton decays,
then your conclusion follows.
If you can't it doesn't.
As I said earlier, I do not dispute the conclusion. I just point out
that the equipment keeps imploding, nobody knows whether a "proton"
"exists" in three, four, eight, or eleven dimensions -- to say nothing
of the fact that nobody has come up with a good falsifiable way of
knowing whether our "Universe" is alone or one of some Multiverses.
I'd think that the immutability of protons is a reliable day-to-day
assumption, and the validity of Uncle Al's logic isn't worth the Kleenex
it takes to wipe it off your glasses.
-dlj.
David Lloyd-Jones
>Well, then why don't people protest lead ammunition? This is also a heavy metal.
>
>
People did. Lead shotgun shot is now off the market.
-dlj.
David Lloyd-Jones
>Well, then why don't people protest lead ammunition? This is also a heavy metal.
People did. Lead shotgun shot is now off the market.
'Course this increases the pain when you bite into a piece of steel shot
in your Thanksgiving duck.
-dlj.
Steve Turner
>Well, then why don't people protest lead ammunition? This is also a heavy metal.
Largely because most people understand that protesting bullets on the
basis of lead toxicity is absurd to the point of comedy, and activists
generally don't enjoy being laughed at.
But Depleted Uranium ... wow, that has such a seriously sinister SOUND
to it...
Steve Turner
Real address contains worldnet instead of spamnet
Dale A Trynor
Dale Trynor wrote:
Eviro whiner logic. Better duck and roll to avoid those uranium projectiles cose they
can give you cancer :).
Dale A Trynor
Dale Trynor wrote:
I have read that both uranium as well as germanium are both plant stimulants
but what got me really wondering if they were at one time a required elements
is that some uranium deposits are fossil algae deposits and that germanium is
sometimes obtained from coal ashes or at least so I read.
hanson
news:3EA1D379...@hate.spam.net...
> "Kevin G. Rhoads" wrote:
> > Dear Uncle Al,
> > I expect you already know that Bayesian statistics/reasoning seems to be
> > beyond the (proper) ken of even many statistics experts (i.e., many people
> > trained in statistics get it wrong).
> > Did you really expect most readers to "get it" without spoon-feeding? (Did
> > you expect many readers to "get it" WITH spoon-feeding?)
>
> In a world where people cannot post a 60-character line and believe
> that a starch wafer will magically transform into the ingested flesh
> of their god, I hold no hope whatsoever for the eventual fate of
> humanity. Four billion people exist to beg charity, offering
> sustained appetites and their profligate reproduction as
> reimbursement. Why is god always short of pocket change?
>
> The best possible future is Homo fulgans and Homo nitor leaving for
> the stars while Homo sapiens inherits the Earth - and Hell with it.
> In the meanwhile we struggle with austenite and martensite and reap
> damned little appreciation for our successes.
>
> Uncle Al says, ""How can evil be eradicated in modern society? Start
> by executing the do-gooders."
>
[hanson]
That is an interesting notion. Perhaps even the truth. But you have to
word it very DIFFERENTLY to sell it effectively and make it become reality.
It has too much of a Mengele taste and Hilterian aroma to it, the way you
have put it.
hahahaha.......ahahahahanson
Uncle Al
All you require to validate your argument is a complete reformulation
of physics without any existant empirical evidence to back it. All I
require to bounce a naval shell off tissue paper is empirically
consistent SOP physics. The shell bounces until proven otherwise.
David Lloyd-Jones
>Political philosopher "Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
>news:3EA1D379...@hate.spam.net...
>
>Uncle Al says, ""How can evil be eradicated in modern society? Start
>by executing the do-gooders."
>Uncle Al
>
>
>[hanson]
>That is an interesting notion. Perhaps even the truth. But you have to
>word it very DIFFERENTLY to sell it effectively and make it become reality.
>It has too much of a Mengele taste and Hilterian aroma to it, the way you
>have put it.
>hahahaha.......ahahahahanson
>
>
>
Doesn't either of you well-intentioned civic-minded guys have a Grandma
who taught you "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions?"
-dlj.
David Lloyd-Jones
>David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
>
>
<all snipped -- but it's right there in your memory>
>
>All you require to validate your argument is a complete reformulation
>of physics without any existant empirical evidence to back it.
>
Al, My note was not about physics, it was about your logic. We agree on
the conclusion. I only pointed out that your justification for it sucked.
> All I
>require to bounce a naval shell off tissue paper is empirically
>consistent SOP physics. The shell bounces until proven otherwise.
>
Hmmm. Uncle Al has Chadwick's gold foil experiment bounding around
inside his head, but somehow he can't find a way of making a bit of
invective out of it.
-dlj.
William DiMenna
to generate further discussion. The word believe can have many meanings. One
of which is to hold a firm conviction as to the ability of something. It
obviously did not work as a few midgets unable to see past the most direct
meaning of the word have resorted to attacks. The newgroups are a place for
intelligent discussion. Interesting yet simple questions are often raised in
the course of a discusion allowing all who participate to increase their
knowledge. Except for UA who knows all, just ask him.
A simple example of this: People once believed the word was flat. We
currently believe the world is round. (And revolves around Uncle Al)
Back to the orignial discussion, I have a question, which I tried to
initiate with my original 'believe' post. Will all heavier elements
eventually form Fe56, and reach the thermodynamicly most stable isotope?
Will all lighter elements also eventually form Fe56? Is one true without the
other? I realize for the latter to happen two fusing atoms must be in close
proximity to each other. (i.e. An atom from Mars will not fuse with an atom
from Earth. I wonder what the activation energy of this would be!) You site
this 50,000 ton water experiment. Will a proton spontaneously react with
another supposedly stable element to form a heavier atom, and eventually
Fe56? Is this a cold fusion problem? If it does not happen I assume this is
a problem of kinetics vs thermodynamics where the activation energy is too
high to reach the more stable product. Isn't there a finite althoug hoften
extremely small chance of the system being at that higher energy state?
(Particle in a box)
BILL D
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:3EA162C9...@hate.spam.net...
> William DiMenna wrote:
> >
> > I believe Fe 56 is the most stable isotope (thermodynamic) of all the
> > elements. I believe every other isotope of every other element has a
half
> > life, although many are EXTREMELY long. The referenceI was looking for
> > wasn't in my text book. Maybe inorganic. Have to wait till tomorrow too
> > tired.
>
> The unviverse doesn't give a sparrow fart what you believe. If you
> don't know, don't be loud about it.
>
hanson
news:4bzoa.112415$jVh....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> Social reformer hanson wrote:
>
> >Political philosopher "Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
> >news:3EA1D379...@hate.spam.net...
> >
> >Uncle Al says, ""How can evil be eradicated in modern society? Start
> >by executing the do-gooders."
> >Uncle Al
> >
> >[hanson]
> >That is an interesting notion. Perhaps even the truth. But you have to
> >word it very DIFFERENTLY to sell it effectively and make it become reality.
> >It has too much of a Mengele taste and Hilterian aroma to it, the way you
> >have put it.
> >hahahaha.......ahahahahanson
> >
>
> Doesn't either of you well-intentioned civic-minded guys have a Grandma
> who taught you "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions?"
> -dlj.
>
No, because our grandmas are nice and don't talk like that.
You apparently do not have even one and never had one.
Now, go chase the Easter bunny and suck an egg or two,
with your good intensions, you well-intended old fart.
hahahahaha.........hahahahanson
Michael Michalchik
> Well, then why don't people protest lead ammunition? This is also a heavy metal.
Yes, It is and the military has eliminated lead containing bullets and
replaced them with tungsten composities. Not all heavy metals are
equal.
Michael Michalchik
> Zachary wrote:
> >
> > Question: On what basis are people saying that depleted uranium is
> > poisonous? DU is, I believe, the uranium found in nature minus as much
> > of the radioactive componenet as could be practically separated. It is
> > in fact safer that natural uranium, perhaps it's as non-radioactive as
> > most elements. A dirty bomb, as someone previously said, would not be
> > made out of the DU, but preferably out of the enriched uranium.
> > (Backspaced over the rest of the text for fear of giving people good
> > bad ideas.)
>
Uranium's acute heavy metal toxicity is several hundred times greater
than many common heavy metals (though I don't have the direct numbers
for humans). Like most heavy metals it interferes with critical
enzymic functions by substituting for other cationic coenzymes at
catalytic sites. I suspect that most of the actinides and many of the
lanthanides are very toxic due to all those fluffy f orbitals engaging
in all sorts of side reactions. Tungesten doesn't scare me much. Lead
has a biological half-life of 18 years so cumulative exposure is a
real problem, mercury is fun for brain damage but its biological half
life is only a few months so cumulative effects are as much of a
worry.
Tunsten oxide: LD50/LC50: orl-rat LDLO: 840 mg/kg
Lead oxide: IPR-RAT LD50 630 mg kg-1
Oral rat LD50 for Mercuric Oxide 18 mg/kg
<from http://www.mefst.hr/cmj/1999/4001/400110.htm>
Uranium heavy metal toxicity has been extensively studied for two
centuries. The main parameter in the assessment of its toxic effect
were mortality studies and LD50 at different quantities in a single
dose or as a function of time. Other parameters extensively studied
include survival time, the effects on the life span, growth and
development, excretion of uranium in the urine, deposition in tissues
and organs and general and local health effects. During the Manhattan
Project, acute toxicity studies were conducted at different National
Centers in the United States, with the most intensive investigation
done at the University of Rochester with a rat model, mainly with
uranyl nitrate, uranyl fluoride, and uranyl tetrachloride given
parenterally.
Further preparation of UF6 by oxidation or fluoridation provides the
basis of combination between UF6 and the metal fluorides. Uranyl
fluoride was found to be more toxic than uranyl nitrate or uranium
tetrachloride, with a lethal dose of uranyl nitrate being 2 mg/kg by
subcutaneous or 0.4 mg/kg by intravenous injection. Oral toxicity of
insoluble UO2, U3O8, and UF4 was found to be non-toxic in rats, while
six other soluble components were of a considerable toxicity. Uranyl
nitrate had a more dramatic effect on the mature than on the newborn
rats. The main chemical toxicity was observed in the proximal
convoluted tubule of the kidney. Experiments on dogs with oral
administration of 0.2 mg/kg of soluble UO2F2 to 10 mg/g of insoluble
UO2, as well as uranyl nitrate at 0.2 g/kg and 0.05 g/kg of uranium
tetrachloride, demonstrated renal cortical tubular changes with very
little evidence of necrosis. Renal pathology was a common finding with
several chemical compounds of uranium tested parenterally.
> your body.
>
> Lead...........
> Cadmium........
>
> More Metals....
>
>
> Jim Buch
Michael Michalchik
Well admitedly having lead bullets strewn around the wilds is
considerably safer than having its aerosols spewed out the exhaust
pipe of 100 million cars in population centers, but I don't think that
the later is particularly unreasonable considering the many
alternatives and the fact that the military has already done it.
Mohammed Farooq
> Jim Buch <jb...@revealed.net> wrote in message news:<3EA02812...@revealed.net>...
> > Zachary wrote:
> > >
> > > Question: On what basis are people saying that depleted uranium is
> > > poisonous? DU is, I believe, the uranium found in nature minus as much
> > > of the radioactive componenet as could be practically separated. It is
> > > in fact safer that natural uranium, perhaps it's as non-radioactive as
> > > most elements. A dirty bomb, as someone previously said, would not be
> > > made out of the DU, but preferably out of the enriched uranium.
> > > (Backspaced over the rest of the text for fear of giving people good
> > > bad ideas.)
A detailed toxicological information on Uranium is given by ATSDR
chapter-wise in html and pdf format here
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp150.html
The relevant chapters are
1.Publich Health Statement
2. Health Effects
5. Potential for Human Exposure
Buckleys
Rob.
Buckleys
>
> The purpose of using the word believe was to indicate that I was unsure, and
> to generate further discussion. The word believe can have many meanings. One
> of which is to hold a firm conviction as to the ability of something. It
> obviously did not work as a few midgets unable to see past the most direct
> meaning of the word have resorted to attacks.
> Back to the orignial discussion, I have a question, which I tried to
> initiate with my original 'believe' post.
Um, Bill, actually in an earlier post you stated that ALL elements were
radioactive. Your 'I believe' comment was in a later post, and to anyone
following the thread would have simply reinforced that you thought this
was a 'fact'.
> Will all heavier elements
> eventually form Fe56, and reach the thermodynamicly most stable isotope?
No. Why would they fall apart? If a nucleus heavier than 56Fe is stable,
what possible decay mode is there that leads to 56Fe?
Even with uranium fission, you don't get the 'most stable' possible
isotopes only - you get a range of atomic weights.
> Will all lighter elements also eventually form Fe56?
Unlikely on the timescale of the universe.
> Is one true without the
> other? I realize for the latter to happen two fusing atoms must be in close
> proximity to each other. (i.e. An atom from Mars will not fuse with an atom
> from Earth. I wonder what the activation energy of this would be!) You site
> this 50,000 ton water experiment. Will a proton spontaneously react with
> another supposedly stable element to form a heavier atom, and eventually
> Fe56? Is this a cold fusion problem?
> If it does not happen I assume this is
> a problem of kinetics vs thermodynamics where the activation energy is too
> high to reach the more stable product.
Yep. Fortunately.
Rob.
Buckleys
>
> Oops! :-[
>
> I felt as I typed it that it didn't sound quite right, though I think
> Rutherford was building on Chadwick to some extent.
Rutherford predated Chadwick by 20 years, so that would have been quite
a feat.
> So thanks for the correction.
>
> Now I'll put on my Granny Grammar hat and correct you a wee bit. You
> have the apostrophe in the wrong place, since only one Rutherford,
> Ernest, was involved. Maybe you're thinking of the Braggs. :-)
> The family that rays together stays together.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> -dlj.
I claim typo. ;)
Rob.
David Lloyd-Jones
>Rutherford predated Chadwick by 20 years, so that would have been quite
>a feat.
>
>
Rob,
They overlapped for most of both of their lives.
Are you claiming the existence, even once in the universe, of a teacher
who did not steal his best stuff from his grad students?
-dlj.
Lucius Chiaraviglio
>Lucius Chiaraviglio wrote:
>> Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>> >http://vzajic.tripod.com/3rdchapter.html
>> >
>> >It's a beautiful thing.
>>
>> Hey Uncle Al, other pages on this site say that depleted uranium is
>> bad for human health and the environment -- sure you still want to recommend
>> it? :-)
>
>I have no problem with killing the now and future enemy. An Earth
>with 3 billion people would be a much nicer place to live.
That's what I get for trying to put together a joke after midnight --
I meant to ask did you still want to recommend the site, since just about
everybody here can make a pretty good guess about whether you want to use
depleted uranium (or highly enriched uranium, for that matter). :-)
--
Lucius Chiaraviglio
Approximate E-mail address: luci...@chapter.net
To get the exact address: ^^^ ^replace this with 'r'
|||
replace this with single digit meaning the same thing
(Spambots of Doom, take that!).
Lucius Chiaraviglio
>Cows require arsenic in small amounts to survive. There goes veal, beef
>and milk.
That sounds interesting -- do you have a link (preferably one which
says what they need the arsenic for)?
Of course, if they really do need arsenic, I suspect that the
acceptable dosage for them is probably like the acceptable dosage of
selenium for us: too little is bad, but too much is extremely toxic, and
we don't get very much room in between the limits (at least compared to
most other required minerals).
Lucius Chiaraviglio
>Iron is also radioactive, along with copper, tin, oxygen, nitrogen, and
>every other element. [. . .]
Never heard of any measured radioactivity being found in these
elements unless they were (1) contaminated with radioisotopes produced by
cosmic ray or accelerator/reactor neutron or other particle bombardment,
or (2) contaminated with radioisotopes of some other element.
If you dive into a supernova remnant, you should be able to find some
radioactive (60)Fe (half life on the order of 100,000 years).
Theoretically, (54)Fe should be unstable to double electron capture
decay to (54)Cr, and (112)Sn should be unstable to double electron capture
decay to (112)Cd, but last I heard, no one has actually been able to measure
such radioactive decay. Likewise, (124)Sn and (122)Sn should be unstable to
double beta decay to (124)Te and (122)Te, respectively, but I have not heard
of anyone actually being able to measure such radioactive decay. (These are
all based upon the atomic weights of each isotope listed in a 1988 Photon
Technology International periodic table program -- I don't have another
reference handy to guard against typos in this source.)
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Lucius Chiaraviglio" <luci...@chapter.net> wrote in message
news:3ea528c0...@news.charter.net...
> "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <)dl...@cox.net> wrote:
> >Cows require arsenic in small amounts to survive. There goes veal, beef
> >and milk.
>
> That sounds interesting -- do you have a link (preferably one which
> says what they need the arsenic for)?
>
> Of course, if they really do need arsenic, I suspect that the
> acceptable dosage for them is probably like the acceptable dosage of
> selenium for us: too little is bad, but too much is extremely toxic, and
> we don't get very much room in between the limits (at least compared to
> most other required minerals).
I have only my recollection that "herds" of cattle were lost upon moving to
a new field, where insufficient arsenic was found. Most links on the
internet talk about an *excess* of arsenic.
<http://www.dasc.vt.edu/dasc4374/Chap7int.htm>
0.05 ppm in cow's milk
Normal tissue concentrations are less than 0.5 ppm,
while aresnic levels in acute arsenic toxicosis range
from 2 to 100 ppm.
<http://www.cas.psu.edu/docs/CASDEPT/VET/vetex/pdf/vn9711.pdf>
Sorry I couldn't do better.
David A. Smith
Michael Press
Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
> David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
> >
> > >>Jim Buch wrote:
> > >>Don't eat Bangladeshi long pig.
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> > Jim,
> >
> > I doubt that you're talking about the aardvark, so this must be a
> > reference to all the olde English jokes about cannibalism among the wogs.
> >
> > It's an English problem, and has nothing to do with Bengal or Bangladesh.
>
> Uncle Al wrote: "Don't eat Bangladeshi long pig."
>
> No, it is specific to Bangladesh. To avoid cholera because the
> Bangladeshis live 1 foot above mean high tide in pools of their own
> fecal waste, the UN drilled millions of drinking water wells at
> obscene expense (to the American taxpayer). Being the UN, it tapped
> into the largest arseniferous aquifer on the planet. Bangladeshis are
> now nicely contaminated with arsenic beyond chronic toxicity edging
> into to acute toxicity. If you commit cannibalism with Bangladeshi
> long pig the EPA will whack your pee-pee, possibly the FDA too.
Incorrect use of "acute"
Acute: Of short duration, rapid and abbreviated in
onset, in reference to a disease. "Acute" is a measure
of the time scale of a disease and is in contrast to
"subacute" and "chronic." "Subacute" indicates longer
duration or less rapid change. "Chronic" indicates
indefinite duration or virtually no change. The time
scale depends on the particular disease. For example,
an "acute" myocardial infarction (heart attack) may
last a week while a bout of "acute" sore throat may
only last a day or two.
>
> Being the UN, capping the wells costs some 5X more each than drilling
> them. Amazing. The alternative is to aerate the well water (pour it
> through the air a few tiems ) to oxidize soluble As(III) to mostly
> insoluble As(V), then add mud and let settle to entrain the As(V)
> solids. This, of course, reintroduces cholera.
>
> The thought of providing Enviro-whiner sewage treatment is silly as is
> boiling the water before using it. Bangladeshis are primitives living
> close to nature and their shit doesn't stink. Boiling their water
> would be an assault upon their traditional culture.
--
Michael Press
Steve Turner
>In article <3EA16290...@hate.spam.net>,
> Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>> No, it is specific to Bangladesh. To avoid cholera because the
>> Bangladeshis live 1 foot above mean high tide in pools of their own
>> fecal waste, the UN drilled millions of drinking water wells at
>> obscene expense (to the American taxpayer). Being the UN, it tapped
>> into the largest arseniferous aquifer on the planet. Bangladeshis are
>> now nicely contaminated with arsenic beyond chronic toxicity edging
>> into to acute toxicity. If you commit cannibalism with Bangladeshi
>> long pig the EPA will whack your pee-pee, possibly the FDA too.
>
>Incorrect use of "acute"
>Acute: Of short duration, rapid and abbreviated in
>onset, in reference to a disease. "Acute" is a measure
>of the time scale of a disease and is in contrast to
>"subacute" and "chronic." "Subacute" indicates longer
>duration or less rapid change. "Chronic" indicates
>indefinite duration or virtually no change. The time
>scale depends on the particular disease. For example,
>an "acute" myocardial infarction (heart attack) may
>last a week while a bout of "acute" sore throat may
>only last a day or two.
Yes. None of which invalidates the original statement:
"Bangladeshis are now nicely contaminated with arsenic beyond chronic
toxicity edging into to acute toxicity."
In this case the implication is that the exposure levels [to As] have
increased, turning a formerly chronic affliction into one with acute
manifestations.
I'm not sure what the pee-pee whacking is all about. I thought this
was something a bailiff did...
Buckleys
Rutherford's gold foil experiment was in 1906. Chadwick was 15 at the
time. If Rutherford was pinching his ideas at that age, he must have
truly been a prodigy. Perhaps you are thinking of Geiger?
Rob.
Michael Press
Steve Turner <srtu...@spamnet.att.net> wrote:
I do not question the report. The exposure and
affliction are and remain chronic; they are in no way acute.
This is a science newsgroup. Please respect technical terms.
"of short duration", "rapid and abbreviated in onset"
This is why SARS is severe _and_ acute.
--
Michael Press