![]() |
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
|
Comment: I saw an article about a science set sold to children in the
1950s with real uranium-238. Is this for real? Gilbert U-238 Atomic Energy Lab Here is the link to the article: http://www.radarmagazine.com/feature...energy_lab.php |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Healthwise U-238 is not radioactive.
And I believe it poses less of a danger for heavy-metal poisoning than other metals such as gold or mercury as it produces less dust/vapour. |
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
|
Sorry, but uranium-238 is radioactive. It has a half-life of 4.468 * 109 years. Here is its decay chain:
|
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
U-238 is indeed radioactive, but it has such as long half-life that it presents more of a toxicological/carcinogenic hazard than it does a radiological hazard. So both BluGlasses and TrekkerScout are partially right.
- Pseudo "hot time on the old board tonight" Croat |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Separating chemical and radiological toxicity of a material- especially one with a very long half-life - is very difficult and of little practical use . . . ... now off to play Half Life 2 . . .
|
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
We call things non-toxic, even though consuming enough will posion people.
We call pots non-stick, even though food will still stick to it in some amount. U-238 is non-radiocative, because it's radioactivity is not significant. You wouldn't require all restaurants to label their food radiocative because it contains C-14, nor require every single person to have the radioctive symbol tattooed on their forehead. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|