🚀 go-pugleaf

Kym Horsell <kym@faraday.ee.latrobe.edu.au> wrote in article
<6202fb$uge$1@news.latrobe.edu.au>...
> In article <60cf2j$ipe@lynx.dac.neu.edu>,
> Michael Kagalenko <mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu> wrote:
> >John B. Hines (jhines@enteract.com) wrote in article
<342a7646.207312379@news.enteract.com> 
> >]
> >]Of far more concern, Plutonium is highly toxic, you'll die from
> >]poisoning long before the radiation gets you.
> >
> > Plutonium is less chemically toxic then caffeine or tetracycline 
> > hydrocloride (common medicine)
>

<snip LOTS of data>

> Max permitted rad levels for foodstuffs and feeding stuffs Bq/kg in
> different foodstuffs:
> Nuclide         Baby food   Dairy    Other food  Liquid food Feeding
stuffs
> 
> Isotopes
> of Sr,                75       125       750         125       no max 
> notably Sr90                                                   laid down
> 
> Isotopes of          150       500      2000         500       "
> I, notably I131
> 
> Alpha emitters         1        20        80          20       "
> of Pu and trans-Pu
> notably Pu239 and Am241
> 
> All other rad nuc    400      1000      1250        1000       pigs 1250
> with t_1/2 > 10 days                                            poultry, 
> notably Cs134 and Cs137                                        lambs,
calves
>                                                                2500
>                                                                others
5000
> 
> Hence the relevant permissible levels of isotopes of "Pu and Am" are
between 
> 1 and 10% of their nearest "competitor" -- Sr90 et al. We would regard
that
> as some evidence that Pu/Am are regarded as around 10 times more
> "dangerous" than other radio nuclides.

Interesting post - thanks.

I have saved it as will look it over in detail later.

It's interesting to note that you put Pu and Am in about the same bucket
here, and that nearly all smoke detectors have a 1uC Am241 source in them.