🚀 go-pugleaf

> Lloyd R. Parker (lparker@curly.cc.emory.edu) wrote in article <62npuc$j0r@curly.cc.emory.edu>
>



>  If you simplistically consider only the chemical toxicity, I guess.  If you do a little more
> research and also consider the radiation, you'd get a different answer, but the answer wouldn't
> be to your liking.


hmm....judging from the title of this thread, one would have to assume that we are only
considering the degree of toxicity of the substance in question.  If you want to bring in every
extraneous variable, and how it impedes biological function, into the equation  then we would end
up with a "deadliest susbstance?" debate.  A toxin refers to a substance produced as a by-product
of metabolism in certain organisms, and a poison is generally a chemical -  non-biological -
substance.  Radiation is a secondary concern, ranking only slightly above velocity in pertinence
to toxicity (after all, a 1g ball of lead travelling at 1000 m/s can also kill you).
  Granted, if you had a chunk of plutonium embedded in your flesh, the radiation may concern you
a little bit, but if the Pu didn't kill you, then the amount of radiation emitted by such a small
particle would probably cause a small, local tumor over the course of several years (decades?) at
worst.
  But, all in all, if given the choice between ingesting equal amounts of Pu or Botulism A (or
D), I think I would be forced to take the Plutonium, and take my chances with radiation.