Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently Apr 22, 2018 12:00 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Nov 24, 2013 10:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Jun 05, 2011 6:59 pm
Posts: 1328
Location: NoOPWA
Cyril R wrote:
The Wiki entry on barium says the following.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barium

Quote:
Because of the high reactivity of the metal, toxicological data are available only for compounds.[23] Water-soluble barium compounds are poisonous. At low doses, barium ions act as a muscle stimulant, whereas higher doses affect the nervous system, causing cardiac irregularities, tremors, weakness, anxiety, dyspnea and paralysis. This may be due to the ability of Ba2+ to block potassium ion channels, which are critical to the proper function of the nervous system.[24] Other target organs for water-soluble barium compounds (i.e., barium ions) are eyes, immune system, heart, respiratory system, and skin.[23] They affect the body strongly, causing, for example, blindness and sensitization.[23]

Barium is not carcinogenic,[23] and it does not bioaccumulate.[25][26]


Muscle stimulant... that's interesting, considering the notion that Cs concentrates in the muscle, and we are talking about truely tiny doses here (in radiation sense already, so certainly in a chemical sense).

Note that barium does not bioaccumulate. Neither does cesium. It concentrates in muscle tissue, but that is not the same as bioaccumulation; if you regularly take cesium it will concentrate in the muscle, but when you stop taking in cesium it will quickly pass out of the body.
All wonderful descriptions for ingested barium. Now what about internally created barium?

By the way, thanks for making the distinction between concentration and accumulation. I will have to ponder (and research) its validity.

_________________
DRJ : Engineer - NAVSEA : (Retired)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 24, 2013 4:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jul 14, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 5061
I don't think the amount of internally created barium is meaningful. With a biological half life of just a few months, compared to the actual radiological half life of 30 years, less than 1% of the ingested cesium actually decays to form barium.

The little barium that does form in the muscle tissue would be either soluble (like the carbonate) or insoluble (like the sulphate). Don't know which one will happen. If its soluble then it's on its way out just like ingested barium. If its insoluble it stays in the muscle tissue, which does not appear to be an issue. You'd start to worry when the barium gets into the bone marrow. Don't see how that can occur in any meaningful amount, but a biologist would have to chime in here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 24, 2013 5:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Dec 16, 2011 7:27 am
Posts: 262
Cyril R wrote:
There is no evidence for that at all. The authorities just keep repeating it till people believe it, including themselves.

If you are an authority then there's a power game. The Church had maintained that the earth was the center of the solar system for centuries. Anyone who questioned this, even with great scientific evidence, challenged the authority of the Church. So they were burned at the stake. Science or not was irrelevant. Challenging authority was the key blasphemy.

We're still in those middle ages when it comes to radiation effects. Many scientists have shown proof that LNT is completely wrong especially on chronic doses (the only type of dose relevant to nuclear power plants even in accidents). They are simply excommunicated or ignored with bad excuses on methodology (the latter is particularly ironic considering the Japanese bomb survivor data is methodologically inappropriate for determining chronic doses). The only difference is that the scientists aren't burned at the stake, so we must have had some progress.


And meanwhile we're still focusing much of current development on energy sources that do have the catastrophic potential that is often claimed in the case of nuclear power with little or no factual foundation.

You have to wonder how far institutional inertia is going to carry us while negative changes that can be largely mitigated by switching to nuclear power become so obvious.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 24, 2013 6:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Dec 16, 2011 7:27 am
Posts: 262
KitemanSA wrote:
I can find few sources, and can't re-find some that I read, but what I have read is that Cs accumulates in muscle tissue at a fairly high factor (20:1 type of numbers). This is not sufficient to engender radiation damage issues at the kinds of environmental levels at issue. But there is another issue besides radiation, what happens to the decay product in the biological scheme of things. If a biochemical had Cs137 in it and all the sudden has Ba137 instead, what does that do to biochemistry? Certainly it is an issue that should be studied.


I'm not finding a lot, but there may be some indications of health impacts on children studied in the Ukraine who have exposure to cesium-137.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2866691/

Quote:
Conclusions
These findings are unique and suggest significant airway obstruction and restriction consequences for children chronically exposed to low-dose radioactive contaminants such as those found downwind of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant.


The issue I find with how radioactivity and associated risks are commonly presented is that it seems much more geared to evoking fear than actual risk management and assessment with the underlying message that, "Radiation Will Kill You!".

Sure there are associated risks with nuclear power, but they are a tiny fraction of those we've already assimilated into our daily lives with fossil fuel use. The chances we'll even have a Chernobyl type accident again are greatly reduced as modern reactor designs don't have the volatility and vulnerabilities of the RBMK reactors and even the more sensible designs like the BWRs at Fukushima.

Nuclear power is only going to get safer and more efficient and we're already at a technological wall with fossil fuels, in the broad scale the relative cost/benefit ratio would seem from a factual basis to overwhelmingly favor nuclear power.

Which may be why opponents are so hysterical when criticising nuclear power.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group