🚀 go-pugleaf

I'd rather not.
Richard
"aji" <aji@cmandt.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:S6qdnfzvyMPsnpffRVnysw@brightview.com...
> Actually, Plutonium should not stay in your lungs for ever because your 
> lungs produce mucous to remove the dust in the air. I have been told it 
> stays in for a month or two. However, if you work in a Plut facility that 
> is not ventilated, your could be breathing it in all the time. AJI
>
> "Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message 
> news:cd4rif$m1s$3@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
>> In article <LEjJc.44549$yd5.7244@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
>> daestrom <daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>"Harlan Osier" <maya_egg@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:89ec59b9.0407121648.7b99eb5e@posting.google.com...
>>>> You can eat it and nothing will happen !
>>>
>>>Sure, encase it in stainless steel and it passes through the GI track 
>>>about
>>>as fast as your last meal.  And the steel shields any alpha.  But lodge a
>>>'raw' chunk of it in your lung where it will irradiate lung tissue for 
>>>years
>>>and you're likely to develop a cancer.  Inject it into your blood stream 
>>>(or
>>>through an open wound) and it may find its way to some bone marrow 
>>>(another
>>>cancer).
>>
>> As I recall, according to the BEIR-IV, plutonium workers had been tracked
>> for more than 50 years, and the risk above background is apparantly low
>> enough that there's no epidemiological data that can determine it.  So 
>> the
>> risk due to plutonium remains theoretical, based on extrapolation of
>> animal studies and other types of exposures in humans.
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> "The result of this experiment was inconclusive, so we had to use
>> statistics."  (Overheard at international physics conference)
>
>