snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Urban Legends > Science

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 13 January 2007, 07:48 AM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 75,151
Glasses Gilbert U-238 Atomic Energy Lab

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
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 13 January 2007, 07:55 AM
Legion600
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Here's an auction for one

And a google answers post about it.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 13 January 2007, 12:17 PM
DaGuyWitBluGlasses DaGuyWitBluGlasses is offline
 
Join Date: 06 June 2006
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 916
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 13 January 2007, 11:37 PM
TrekkerScout's Avatar
TrekkerScout TrekkerScout is offline
 
Join Date: 25 September 2005
Location: Tacoma, WA
Posts: 482
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaGuyWitBluGlasses View Post
Healthwise U-238 is not radioactive.
Sorry, but uranium-238 is radioactive. It has a half-life of 4.468 * 109 years. Here is its decay chain:
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 14 January 2007, 12:14 AM
Pseudo_Croat Pseudo_Croat is offline
 
 
Join Date: 03 April 2002
Location: Sunrise, FL
Posts: 5,267
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 14 January 2007, 12:41 AM
Alchemy Alchemy is offline
 
Join Date: 05 March 2001
Location: Virginia Tech
Posts: 3,548
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pseudo_Croat View Post
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.
The major danger is from decay and fission products, and ingestion, inhalation, and contamination are major risks. So long as the U-238 is purified of decay products, and kept in such a way that it cannot be powderized, it poses very low health risk.

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 . . .
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 14 January 2007, 03:09 AM
DaGuyWitBluGlasses DaGuyWitBluGlasses is offline
 
Join Date: 06 June 2006
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 916
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.