FMF - Friends of Minerals Forum, discussion and message board

[James Catmur]

Radon tends to occur when radioactive elements decay. So if you live in an area where there is granite or granite derived clays there will be higher levels of radon, naturally. For example:

https://www.ukradon.org/map.php?map=englandwales

These may far exceed what you might get from a few specimens - and if you live is a house in such an area you would need to fit a system to remove the natural radon.

James

[arturo shaw]

In case you have not seen the link Jolyon left in Facebook last Sunday it is this one:
https://xkcd.com/radiation/
(link normalized by FMF)

Cheers!

Arturo

[Matt_Zukowski]

What a great chart arturo. It is good to see Fukushima in context.

[John Medici]

I enjoyed the radioactive specimen discussion. My only background is a grad school course on industrial handling of radioisotopes, and many years of Canadian collecting (mainly betafite, thorite and uraninite)(since 1964). In general, I have had very little worry about handling such material as long as it is treated with respect, for instance avoiding long term exposure and remembering that radon is heavier than air, can accumulate in mineral cabinet drawers and can be carried around long term in the lungs as an alpha emitter. In only a couple of instances, where around 65 pounds of crystals were transported, we decided to average out our exposure by not collecting radioactives for a while. Gilbert G., mentioned by John W., and a long term friend of mine too, probably also had lady luck on his side. The human body has quite good resilience regarding various types of cell damage. One should probably be more worried about the dangers of such activities a driving a car than handling radioactive minerals.

[shep G]

Um...sorry to interupt this party but how about just not touching the stuff that slowly whiddles away your life??? I dont know just a thought. Dont get me wrong this stuff is great and intresting but still....

[alfredo]

I agree with John Medici that driving your car is more likely to bring disaster than handling your uraninites. "Whiddling away your life", as Shep says, is more likely to happen from the grease on your hamburger. Let's not forget that the radiation from even the "hottest" natural rocks is pitifully small compared with that from industrial or medical isotopes. I follow the same rules with ALL minerals, radioactive or not: wash hands after handling, and don't breathe the dust. And my house is well ventilated, even in winter. (I hate stuffy air, and would ventilate even if I didn't have any radioactive minerals.) End of worries. Those who are still panicky about radioactive minerals can PM me to get my address and I'll happily dispose of them for you at no charge :))

[Riccardo Modanesi]

Hi to everybody!
Very interesting discussion! Then we mustn't for get Maria Sklodowska / Marie Curie died true by leukemia beacuse of her continuous exposure to radioactive elements she studied every day the whole day including nights, but it's also tru she died in 1933 at 67, corresponding more or less to 97 or 107 of nowadays! In 1933 a 67 year-old lady was truly old, not like nowadays! And then, she studied radioactive elements continuously every day, not like our collecting uraniferous minerals! There are these two big big differences!
Greetings from Italy by Riccardo.

[alfredo]

Another huge difference between the Curies and mineral collectors is that the Curies were working with purified elements like radium... many many thousands of times "hotter" than the hottest rock in your collection!

[Susan Robinson]

A curator we once knew worked 3 floors underground for many years in an area with no ventilation and over 1400 lbs. of pitchblende from Port Radium in Canada was stored there. He later died of Alzheimer's, not cancer.

[Maxilos]

Alpha emitters aren't that dangerous when you keep them inside a box made from a colourless material. Since the α-emitters are made of a big nucleus, so they bump easily into other atoms. That's why they are dangerous. But when something is shielding you from that (not especially lead) it can do almost no harm. The only issue is when you open that box and the radon flows out. You have to open the airtight box from time to time, since pressure is slowly building up from the radon. I haven't solved that problem, yet. Any help is appreciated.

One last question: my only uranocircite specimen from 1x0,8x0,3cm (L x W x H) was cracked when somebody was cleaning my UV- box. I'd like to replace it, but what should I do with my current uranocircite?


Mark

[Tracy]

My radiation science is rusty, but something seems not quite right here. I thought that radon was a hazard because upon inhalation is can decay into an alpha emitter which lodges in lung tissue and gives off radiation, along with its other decay products?

Also, for radon to build up in an enclosed space, you need to have radon gas pouring into it. I doubt that is the case for any mineral specimen that is radioactive, I don't see these as radon gas generators. If I'm wrong and they are, you're not necessarily keeping yourself safe by opening the box and letting the radon gas out...

- Tracy

[Maxilos]

Radon is indeed hazardous because of the possibility of getting inside your lungs. Inside your lungs the radon atoms are very close tissue which gives an "opportunity" for the "big" Alpha radiation to bump into other atoms. Also the decay-products are radioactive and quite toxic, as for any heavy radioactive material. Don't forget that the half-life of most natural radioactive elements is quite long. Radon is also hazardous when just in the air. Even in the air it is radioactive. Since it is heavier than air, is it not that healthy for you.
Those plastic boxes can serve as a small security measure for a-radiating minerals.

As for the second point, I believe you are correct there.

Mark

[Riccardo Modanesi]

Hi to everybody!
Half-life of a radioactive element is really important, but not always decisive. A good example is 14-C, which has a hal-life of some 5000 years but it isn't so dangerous for our organism, and the contrary example is 131-J (Jodium), which has a 30-days half-life, but it is seriously dangerous for our tyroid, frequently causing cancer.
Greetings from Italy by Riccardo

[Tracy]

Sorry, but I think this topic is getting derailed. Harm from radiation is influenced by:

- the intensity of the radiation (alpha, beta, gamma): how deeply does it penetrate tissue

AND

- the ability for tissue to be irradiated: how can the radiation come into contact with cells

All points made are correct but incomplete. I-131 (which has a decay half-life of 8 days, not 30) can cause thyroid cancers ONLY if it is taken up by the thyroid, which is often the case with iodine in the body. Radon can cause lung tumors ONLY if it's inhaled, It is a gas which has a half-life of 4 days and is a beta-emitter, but degrades into solid-particle alpha-emitters which can lodge in the lungs and will eventually decay to other alpha- and beta-emitters which can reside in tissues for years. Alpha-emitters have the highest energy, but their energy has LESS ability to penetrate tissues (causing mutations leading to cancer along the way) than beta- or gamma-emitters. The entire process with its complexities has to be considered; risk = the degree of hazard + the potential for exposure, and "the dose makes the poison."

If I had a choice between radon gas and solid I-131, I'd choose I-131 because I could put it safely out from reach (like in a jar) and make a point of not eating or otherwise absorbing it. Radon gas, on the other hand, is harder to control because it's tough to keep a gas from moving around and getting inhaled without ventilation control. Radon is also invisible, whereas I-131 is not. However, I might reconsider if it were a mountain on !-131 versus a small puff of radon gas.

It's also worth noting that I-131 in small quantities is used in diagnostic medical procedures.

This is way off track, aren't we supposed to be talking about rocks?

- Tracy

[Riccardo Modanesi]

Hi to everybody! Hi Tracy!
I apologize I gave a wrong datum about 131-I. For the rest, your discussion is very interesting. I just made a comparison between a potentially dangerous radioactive element having a half-life of some days, and a not seriously dangerous radioactive element having a half-life of some thousands years! I think you all understood what I mean.
Greetings from Italy by Riccardo.