Massive Quake Hits NE Japan

[BlackCat]

No.

[Docfeelgood]

No.

ok

[Kuciwalker]

I will take pity on him

The toxicity is directly related to the amount of radiation, in proportion. The amount of radiation is directly related to the half-life, inversely. So something with a long half-life produces very little radiation and is not very toxic (if it's toxic at all), whereas something with a short half-life produces a lot of radiation and is very toxic.

So when you say "I am thinking of potency rather than decay" it just reveals that you don't understand the issue at all; "potency" and "decay" are the same thing.

[Docfeelgood]

I will take pity on him

The toxicity is directly related to the amount of radiation, in proportion. The amount of radiation is directly related to the half-life, inversely. So something with a long half-life produces very little radiation and is not very toxic (if it's toxic at all), whereas something with a short half-life produces a lot of radiation and is very toxic.

So when you say "I am thinking of potency rather than decay" it just reveals that you don't understand the issue at all; "potency" and "decay" are the same thing.

I'm wrong? plutonium is not deadly?

[KrazyHorse]

About as toxic as mercury.

[Docfeelgood]

Recent research with one of the least radioactive isotopes of plutonium (plutonium-242, which has a half-life of 376,000 years) indicates that plutonium in the body may contribute to the development of tumors. In general, however, plutonium isotopic mixtures that are commonly encountered in the nuclear fuel cycle, nuclear weapons programs, or thermoelectric generator applications exhibit much higher radiological toxicity than chemical toxicity.

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-co...plutonium.html

[Docfeelgood]

I guess they don't know what they are talkin about? are they wrong?

[KrazyHorse]

No, YOU don't know what you're talking about.

Stable isotopes (like the longer lived Pu) are basically just toxic chemicals. Thos are the ones with high half lives

Ones with higher activity (like the shorter lived Pu) are additionally radiologically toxic. However, they have shorte half lives.

Idiot.

[KrazyHorse]

Stop trying to understand this. You are beyond stupid.

[Docfeelgood]

Stop trying to understand this. You are beyond stupid.

So, this info going public scares you?, because then all will know. You really are pathetically a sad little man.

BTW
Do you dispute what is posted at the NRC website?

Recent research with one of the least radioactive isotopes of plutonium (plutonium-242, which has a half-life of 376,000 years) indicates that plutonium in the body may contribute to the development of tumors. In general, however, plutonium isotopic mixtures that are commonly encountered in the nuclear fuel cycle, nuclear weapons programs, or thermoelectric generator applications exhibit much higher radiological toxicity than chemical toxicity.

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-co...plutonium.html

[BlackCat]

I guess they don't know what they are talkin about? are they wrong?

You read it, but didn't understand it

[KrazyHorse]

This is so sad.

How can people go so long without realizing that they are utter ****ing imbeciles?

[Docfeelgood]

No, YOU don't know what you're talking about.

Stable isotopes (like the longer lived Pu) are basically just toxic chemicals. Thos are the ones with high half lives

Ones with higher activity (like the shorter lived Pu) are additionally radiologically toxic. However, they have shorte half lives.

Idiot.

Recent research with one of the least radioactive isotopes of plutonium (plutonium-242, which has a half-life of 376,000 years) indicates that plutonium in the body may contribute to the development of tumors. In general, however, plutonium isotopic mixtures that are commonly encountered in the nuclear fuel cycle, nuclear weapons programs, or thermoelectric generator applications exhibit much higher radiological toxicity than chemical toxicity.

Please, correct me if I am wrong but the NRC does not say the same as you.

[Docfeelgood]

You read it, but didn't understand it

plutonium-242-exhibit much higher radiological toxicity than chemical toxicity.

Tell me what part I am not understanding?

[BlackCat]

Please, correct me if I am wrong but the NRC does not say the same as you.

You are wrong - KH and NRC says exactly the same.