Monona on sat 13 apr 96
A message for Steve Carfora who asked about uranium:
I have a file full of information about uranium oxide as it is
used in ceramics and other art materials. I'm actually referred
to by name in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's publication on
radioactive consumer products. A column of mine on this subject
will be out in the next Clay Times. Its a fascinating subject.
I will be glad to send you an advanced copy of the column for
your personal use. And if you need to know exactly how
radioactive depleted uranium is, I can send you technical
information on that, too. Its all in hard copy, so leave your
address at my e-mail address.
Monona Rossol, industrial hygienist with Arts, Crafts and Theater
Safety e-mial:75054.2542@compuserve.com
Samantha Tomich on wed 4 sep 96
You lost me. I want to know if a pot a friend of mine has is hazardous
to her health. She's the kind who wouldn't get a microwave for years
because she was leary of the dangers(?), and she'd appreciate knowing if
this object in her kitchen should e there. Lovely bright yellow pot.
Thanks, Sam
Char Raddatz on sat 14 sep 96
Let me preface my answer by saying that I am a Health Physicist
(specializing in radiation protection) with the US Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Office of Research. Oh yeah, and an amateur potter.
BACKGROUND
It is not illegal to sell or possess a pot that contains uranium. Uranium
is naturally occurring in soils and has been ever thus. There are a dozen
different isotopes of uranium, each with a different combination of alpha,
beta, gamma, and xray emissions. When the concentration of specific
isotopes is altered during by mining and milling, these materials become
licensed materials (NRC licenses them in the US). Naturally occurring
uranium worth mining (the rocky's, appalatian states, etc.) is generally
less than 1/20th of a percent uranium. The rest of the country has
uranium concentrations far less than that.
HAZARDS
As far as which is worse, alpha or gamma, it depends. Alpha emitters
outside the body are virtually harmless. That is because the particle is
so large that it is easily stopped by the dead layer of skin. Inside the
body, they deposit all of their energy in a very small area (because they
are too big to go far) so they can actually do measurable damage. Gamma
radiation penetrates thicker materials. But gamma emitters are generally
short lived both in terms of radiological half life and the time it takes
for the body to eliminate them. So ingested gamma emitters are not within
the body nearly as long as most ingestible alpha emitters.
THE BOTTOM LINE
A glazed pot is unlikely to release uranium such that ingestion or
inhalation is likely. Vitrification is how we deal with this waste for
this reason. The alpha emissions are virtually harmless so long as you
don't eat the pot. There are beta and gamma emissions associated with the
daughter products, but because of the long half lives, the concentrations
are vanishingly small. So, this is not a big problem.
Would I sell pots made with uranium oxide glaze for food containers?
Probably not, more for PR reasons than any other. But for decorative ware
or for non-food containers, I would see no problem.
Karl P. Platt on fri 7 nov 97
Let me drop this note again........
I have no problem whatsoever using uranium oxides as colorants. Frankly,
breathing in Mexico City, Driving in Sao Paulo or swimming at the
Jersey Shore carries greater risk in my view. I am abundantly aware of the
physical, chemical and nuclear properties of these materials.
All that said, should anyone out there be frightened fo these substances
and seeking a place to get rid of them, please feel free to contact me
pric\vately --
KPP -- great admirer of flourescent glaze
Talbott on sat 8 nov 97
I once saw a plate that was glazed with a uranium compound... it was
fluorescent orange in color... when a Giger counter was placed near the
plate the counter went nuts! It would be outright foolish to use uranium
as a glazing agent in my opinion... if your customers were passed on any
such piece of pottery you would potentially have a big law-suit to deal
with.. Marshall
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Let me drop this note again........
>
>I have no problem whatsoever using uranium oxides as colorants. Frankly,
>breathing in Mexico City, Driving in Sao Paulo or swimming at the
>Jersey Shore carries greater risk in my view. I am abundantly aware of the
>physical, chemical and nuclear properties of these materials.
>
>All that said, should anyone out there be frightened fo these substances
>and seeking a place to get rid of them, please feel free to contact me
>pric\vately --
>
>KPP -- great admirer of flourescent glaze
101 CLAYART MUGS... A TRAVELING EXHIBIT
2ND ANNUAL CLAYARTERS' GALLERY - NAPLES, MAINE (Summer 1998)
E-MAIL ME FOR AN APPLICATION
http://fmc.utm.edu/~dmcbeth/cag/naples.htm
Celia & Marshall Talbott, Pottery By Celia, Route 114, P O Box 4116,
Naples, Maine 04055-4116,(207)693-6100 voice and fax,(call first)
Clayarters' Live Chat Room, Fri & Sat Nites at 10 PM EDT & Sun at 1 PM EDT
http://webchat12.wbs.net/webchat3.so?Room=PRIVATE_Clayarters
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Evan Dresel on mon 10 nov 97
Marshall brings up a very interesting point. I'll try to offer up an answer
which involves some subtleties and speculation. I actually asked the head
of radiation protection for the Washington State Department of Health about
this a year or so ago. He didn't have a difinitive answer but felt my
reasoning was sound.
Marshall is probably referring to the famous orange Fiesta Ware that
obtained it's colour from a uranium bearing glaze. This stuff will cause a
geiger counter to read off-scale (I don't want to imply any particular level
of health hazard or lack there of). So given my other posts about uranium
being an alpha emitter which is not measured by geiger counters, what gives?
When uranium decays it produces radioactive daughter products. Most of
these are gamma and beta emitters which are detectable if there is enough
present. Go back to the formation of the earth. A certain amount of
uranium-238 and uranium-235 was present in the cosmic goo which became the
earth (appologies to the astro-physicists out there). Most of that has
decayed away and the amount we have now is just the remains. Now when the
uranium decays it produces a whole chain of radioactive daughter products.
Some of those have very short half-lives and you essentially don't see them.
Some have longer half-lives and build up to significant levels. I could
spend some time explaining this but this whole paragraph is a bit of
overkill. The point is that over geologic time uranium deposits end up full
of uranium and daughter radionuclides. It takes a very long time but after
a while the rock ends up quite radioactive due to these daughter isotopes.
Still with me? Here's where the speculation comes in. I don't think that
purified uranium oxide could have been used in Fiesta ware. If that was the
case the daughter radionuclides would have been removed and the glaze would
not be a beta/gamma emitter. Remember this stuff was made before the 1940s
and uranium chemistry was not as well known as now.
Some of the materials we use in glazes are nearly pure chemicals processed
from ores -- cobalt oxide, copper oxide, etc. But some are simply mined,
ground up and separated out as minerals. If you take the uranium minerals
directly from a mine, you will have uranium and all the daughter isotopes
the have built up since the mineral was formed. I think there is very good
reason to believe that the uranium used in Fiesta Ware was not separated
from the daughters. I mean why bother if you can get by with less costly
and less processed material? Just mine and separate out the mineral and use
that.
What this means is that you can't compare the risks of using a glaze
formulated with uranium oxide with a glaze formulated with a mineral which
contained both uranium and uranium daughters. That would be like comparing
the risk of smoking cigarettes with the risk of wearing a nicotine patch.
(Not the best analogy but you get the idea.)
BTW the advice that the WA Department of Health gives to anyone who owns
some of that Fiesta Ware is that it is fine to keep on display in your house
but recommends against using it for food.
-- Evan in Eastern Washington who's cat wants him to stop typing at least
with one hand
At 05:31 PM 11-8-97 EST, you wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>I once saw a plate that was glazed with a uranium compound... it was
>fluorescent orange in color... when a Giger counter was placed near the
>plate the counter went nuts! It would be outright foolish to use uranium
>as a glazing agent in my opinion... if your customers were passed on any
>such piece of pottery you would potentially have a big law-suit to deal
>with.. Marshall
>
Karl P. Platt on mon 10 nov 97
Marshall --
You didn't read my note.
I am wholly aware of any and all the implications of using uranium oxides
as glass/glaze colorants -- whether these be legal, physical, chemical,
nuclear or otherwise. The risks are microscopic compared with drinking
water in most places. Of course, I wouldn't walk around with a lump of U
glass in my pants pocket either.
Send my your uranium!
KPP
carrie jacobson on sun 20 sep 98
Thank you Jo for the information. I really love the Lucy Rie pots that I
saw in this book. And I was surprised that the bowls I had been throwing
were very much the same esthetic as many of hers, though hers were an
ideal, and mine a step along the road.
I obviously know nothing of the history of pottery, and this is a problem.
Perhaps in the winter, I will find time to educate myself on the background
instead of just the craft. Thank you for your sensitive protection of me
here.
Also, as a final note, I so much appreciate this list. The information is
vital to me, the discussion, while often over my head, is fascinating and
informative, and the archives have helped me many, many times.
Sincerely,
Carrie
--+++--
>Carrie;
>
>Lucie Rie is very famous in the clay community. She was aBritish
>potter who worked with Hans Coper, and was part of a movement that
>hasppened about the same time as Leach/Hamada. Her pots are
>wqonderful, and she died of old age, in her 90's.
>
>Jo Molinaro
>Clayart moderator
Carrie Jacobson
Pawcatuck, CT
mailto:jacobson@brainiac.com
agrez on sun 20 sep 98
Thanks to everyone who responded concerning my curiosity of uranium as a
glaze component. While there is some relief in knowing that the
radioactivity is within so-called normal limits, I still feel as though
I would rather not have these items in my house. Afterall, if one plate
registers somewhat on a geiger counter...what must an entire kitchen of
them do? I'm wondering if dealers in fiesta ware, who handle hundreds of
these pieces on a regular basis, have ever been the subjects of medical
research to see if their exposure has exceeded the limits. I realize,
now, that I was naive to think that dangers of this sort didn't
exist...that if radon wasn't present in my basement, then I surely must
be safe from radioactivity. To be honest, if I don't absolutely have to
keep these older untested pieces in my home, I would rather not. Looks
like there is a big garage sale in my future!
Monona, I found the information you presented to be especially
discomforting and I'm hoping that you find a publisher for Mr. Sheets'
monograph...you might try University Graphics, a small publisher in
Atlantic Highlands, New Jersey; I used to be a proof-reader for them a
long time ago, and I recall that the material they published fell often
into this category.
As to potters who callously still use uranium at the expense of their
customers, I can only say that I am appalled. Do they also include high
lead glazes on their products and not tell us about that either?!?
Perhaps their own exposure to the toxicities involved will be their just
reward.
Well, thanks for listening to me rant,
Andrea Grez, who actually thought about making a pinch pot out of the
meatball she was rolling for dinner tonight!
Ron Roy on tue 29 sep 98
It is my understanding that the greatest danger in using uranium in glazes
is getting some of the dust into your lungs - tissue is then bombarded and
the result can be cancer - is that correct?
>Remember, billions of people have never been exposed to meaningful amounts of
>radiation and you are almost certainly one of those. While we need to be
>concerned and informed about our potential radiation exposure as we go into
>the future, it is one of the smaller risks of modern life.
Ron Roy
93 Pegasus Trail
Scarborough, Ontario
Canada M1G 3N8
Tel: 416-439-2621
Fax: 416-438-7849
Web page: http://digitalfire.com/education/people/ronroy.htm
Gavin Stairs on wed 30 sep 98
At 09:17 AM 9/29/98 EDT, Ron Roy wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>It is my understanding that the greatest danger in using uranium in glazes
>is getting some of the dust into your lungs - tissue is then bombarded and
>the result can be cancer - is that correct?
....
Hi Ron,
That appears to be true. In even the smallest dust speck, there are
perhaps thousands to millions of atoms. So a uranous dust speck represents
a sizable reservoir of potential decays, and therefore of potential
radiating particles - alphas, gammas, neutrons and chunks known as fission
fragments, in the case of uranium of any sort. These particles may damage
nearby cells. The likelihood of getting cancer from any one particle
interaction is slight, but it appears that the likelihood rises
significantly if more than one interaction occurs in a single cell over a
short period of time.
The way that radiation appears to cause cancer is this: There are about
three completely separate forms of damage that must occur. No one of them
alone causes cancer. Each form of damage may result in the death of the
cell, or it may be repaired by cell mechanisms. In either case, the cell
or its replacement is then healthy again, life goes on. In order to cause
cancer, all of the separate forms of damage must occur together before the
cell dies or has a chance to repair itself. So there is what we call a
rate dependency: A lot of radiation at once is worse than the same amount
over a long time.
Of course it may be otherwise: The lungs (and other mucosa) are
particularly susceptible to radiation damage by particulates (also by
particles of silica, etc., but that's another story) because, unlike skin,
they have a very thin epidermal layer. Our bodies are covered by dead
epithelial cells, which we call skin. Radiation damage (or burns, scrapes)
to the dead layer does no damage to our living bodies. But in the lungs,
this dead layer does not exist, and any damage to the tissue damages living
cells. It turns out that our skin is just thick enough to prevent damage
by most alpha radiation, which happens to be the most dangerous kind.
This little story that I have told is by no means the last word. Just what
goes on in cancer causation is the subject of a fairly large research
industry, and you shouldn't expect to hear the whole truth from me. The
whole question of rate dependency has been moot for a long time. The fact
of danger from inhaled radioactive particles seems to be better
established. This underlies concern about radon gas and radiation from
soot particles.
However, read the report below. It doesn't make any flat claims about the
danger of inhaled dust, and points out that we are in constant contact with
uranium dust. The report tags Radon gas as the culprit, even in uranium
dust inhalation, which is an entirely different mechanism that the one
sketched above.
Incidentally, I recall a speculation that the danger from radioactive soot
from coal burning was actually a greater radiation danger than that from
all the nuclear activity combined. Could be so. We are continually
breathing in dust, some of which is cleared by our lungs, some absorbed,
and some just accretes in place, and eventually may lead to lung problems
like emphysema, pneumonia, cancer. Particles which are chemically (coal
dust, soot, diesel exhaust, tobacco smoke, etc.) active, or physically
irritating (quartz, mineral and glass fibres), or radioactive (uranium,
thorium, radium, etc.) may be more likely to cause cancer than others. We
live in a sea of such particles, and our bodies deal with most of them
fairly well. If you increase the dose of any of these, you probably
increase the risk of disease, like tobacco smoke leads to cancer and
emphysema, as we are told.
Just to complete the toxicology story:
Ingestion of uranous material may lead to chemical absorption, which may
cause kidney disease. This requires more material than the lung ingestion,
but is a statistically less uncertain poison. Material not absorbed is
discharged in feces, and does not pose a threat. Similarly, chemically
absorbed uranium is eventually cleared in the urine, so it is not a
persistent threat.
Here is the text of a toxicological profile of uranium
prepared for
the...
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Public Health Statement
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Uranium
ATSDR Public Health Statement, December 1990
This Statement was prepared to give you information about uranium and to
emphasize the human health effects that may result from exposure to it. The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has identified 1,177 sites on its
National Priorities List (NPL). Uranium has been found above background
levels at 26 of these sites. However, we do not know how many of the 1,177
NPL sites have been evaluated for uranium. As EPA evaluates more sites, the
number of sites at which uranium is found may change. The information is
important for you because uranium may cause harmful health effects and
because these sites are potential or actual sources of human exposure to
uranium.
When a radioactive chemical is released from a large area such as an
industrial plant, or from a container such as a drum or bottle, it enters
the environment as a radioactive chemical emission. This emission, which is
also called a release, does not always lead to exposure. You are exposed
only when you come into contact with the radioactive chemical. You can come
into contact with it in the environment through breathing air, eating,
drinking, or smoking substances containing the radioactive chemical.
Exposure may also result from skin contact with the radioactive chemical
alone, or with a substance containing it. Exposure can also occur by being
near radioactive chemicals in concentrations that may be found at hazardous
waste sites or at industrial accidents.
If you are exposed to a hazardous substance such as uranium, several
factors will determine whether harmful health effects will occur and what
the type and severity of those health effects will be. These factors
include the dose (how much), the duration (how long), the route or pathway
by which you are exposed (breathing, eating, drinking, or skin contact),
the other chemicals to which you are exposed, and your individual
characteristics such as age, sex, nutritional status, family traits, life
style, and state of health.
What is uranium?
Natural uranium is a silver-colored metal that is radioactive. Small
amounts of uranium are present in rocks, soil, water, plants, and animals
and contribute to the weak background radiation from these sources. Soil
commonly contains variable amounts, but the average is about 2 parts
uranium per million parts of soil (2 ppm). This is equivalent to a
tablespoon of uranium in a truckload of dirt. Fertilizers made from
phosphate rocks contain higher amounts of uranium than natural soils. Some
rocks and minerals in underground and open pit mines also contain uranium
in a more concentrated form. After these rocks are mined, uranium is
extracted and chemically converted into uranium dioxide or other usable
forms. The remaining rock from which uranium has been extracted is called
depleted ore or mill tailings.
Natural uranium is composed of three forms (called isotopes) of uranium:
uranium-234, uranium-235, and uranium- 238. The amount of uranium-238 in
natural uranium is more than 99%. Uranium-235 is present at just 0.72%, in
natural uranium, but it is more radioactive (and therefore more hazardous)
than uranium-238. Uranium-235 is used in nuclear bombs and nuclear
reactors. An industrial process by which the percent of uranium-235 is
concentrated is called enrichment, and the uranium obtained this way is
called enriched uranium. Uranium-234 is even less abundant than
uranium-235, so it can be ignored for most practical purposes.
Uranium-238 is not stable but breaks down into two parts. This process of
breaking down is called decay. The decay of uranium-238 produces a small
part called "alpha" radiation and a large part called the decay product.
The breakdown of uranium-238 to its decay products happens very slowly. In
fact, it takes about 4.5 billion years for one-half of the uranium-238 to
break down (4.5 billion years is the half-life of uranium-238). Thorium,
the decay product of uranium, is also not stable, and it continues to decay
until stable lead is formed. During the decay processes, the parent
uranium-238, its decay products, and their subsequent decay products
release a series of new elements and radiation, including such elements as
radium and radon, alpha and beta particles, and gamma radiation. Alpha
particles cannot pass through human skin, whereas, gamma radiation passes
through more easily.
Because of the slow rate of decay, the total amount of natural uranium in
the earth stays almost the same, but it can be moved from place to place
through natural processes or by human activities. When rocks are broken up
by water or wind, uranium becomes a part of the soil. When it rains, the
soil containing uranium can go into rivers and lakes. Mining, milling,
manufacturing, and other human activities also move uranium around natural
environments.
We use uranium mainly in nuclear power plants and nuclear weapons. Very
small amounts are used in making some ceramics, light bulbs, photographic
chemicals, and household products.
How might I be exposed to uranium?
Since uranium is found nearly everywhere, you can be exposed to it in the
air, water, food and soil. We know, roughly, the average amounts of uranium
in food (0.08 to 70 micrograms per kilogram [ug/kg]) and drinking water
(0.4 to 1.4 micrograms per liter [ug/L]; 1 microgram = 1/1,000,000th of 1
gram). Most people in the United States take in some uranium with their
food every day. Root vegetables, such as beets and potatoes, tend to have a
little more uranium than other foods. In a few places, the concentration of
uranium is higher in the water than in the food. People in these areas take
in more uranium from their drinking water than from their foods. Your daily
intake of uranium may be greater than average if you live near uranium
mines or processing plants or an uncontrolled waste site containing
uranium, eat food grown in contaminated soil, or drink water that contains
unusually high levels of uranium. Normally, very little of the uranium in
lakes, rivers, or oceans gets into the fish or seafood we eat. The amount
in air is usually so small that it can be safely ignored.
However, people who work at factories that process uranium, work with
phosphate fertilizers, or live near uranium mines have a greater chance of
being exposed to uranium in the air than most other people. Larger-than-
normal amounts of uranium might also enter the environment from accidental
discharges from uranium processing plants.
How can uranium enter and leave my body?
If you were to breathe in uranium dust, most of it would leave the lungs
when you cough or breathe out. However, you might swallow some of the
uranium you breathe in as your body removes the uranium from your lungs.
Some of the uranium in your lungs will enter your blood, pass through the
kidneys, and be eliminated in the urine within a few days. A small amount
may stay in your lungs for years.
Since uranium is present all over the earth, everyone normally eats or
drinks a small amount of uranium daily. When it enters your body this way,
about 99% of it leaves within a few days in your feces and never enters
your blood. A small amount of uranium (about 1%) will enter the blood. Most
of this will pass through the kidney and be eliminated in the urine in a
few days. A small amount goes to your bones and may stay in your bones for
years. A very small amount, about 1/5000th of the weight of an aspirin
tablet, is found in most people, mainly in their bones.
Although uranium is radioactive, the type of radiation it gives off cannot
go through your skin, so natural uranium that is outside the body is not
hazardous. When uranium gets inside your body, after breathing it in,
eating or drinking it, or through cuts in your skin, radiation and chemical
toxicity are of concern to health.
How can uranium affect my health?
We do not know for certain if natural uranium is dangerous to human health,
although evidence of kidney effects were seen in people who work in uranium
mines. Animals have developed kidney disease after they have been exposed
to large amounts of natural uranium in the food, in the drinking water, in
the air, or on the skin.
There is always a concern about getting cancer from any radioactive
material. Natural uranium has very low levels of radioactivity and has not
definitely been shown to cause cancer in humans or animals. Nevertheless,
it is possible that you could develop cancer from swallowing or breathing
large amounts of natural uranium because the greater your exposure to a
radioactive material, the greater your chance of developing cancer. This is
particularly true for enriched uranium that has been made more radioactive.
Cancer may develop many years after swallowing or breathing a radioactive
material. Just being near natural uranium is of very little danger to your
health because most of the radiation given off by uranium cannot go through
your skin.
We do not know if natural uranium causes reproductive effects or birth
defects in humans, but animal studies suggest that uranium may affect
reproduction and the developing fetus.
What levels of exposure have resulted in harmful health effects?
Small amounts of uranium are always in your body and these amounts are not
known to affect your health. Some uranium miners have developed lung
cancer. This cancer is not from the uranium itself, but from the high
levels of radioactive radon gas, which is formed when uranium decays.
Animals that ate food, drank water, or breathed air that had high levels of
uranium dust have developed kidney damage. The extent of kidney damage
depends on how much uranium gets into their bodies and on the chemical form
to which the animals are exposed. Animals can eat or breathe large amounts
of some forms of uranium without having any health problems at all.
Tables 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, and 1-4 show the relationship between uranium and
known health effects.
Is there a medical test to determine whether I have been exposed to uranium?
There are medical tests that can be performed to determine the amount of
uranium in your urine and feces. If you are exposed to a larger-
than-normal amount of uranium, some uranium may appear in your urine and
feces. Since most uranium leaves the body in the feces within a few days,
the amount in the feces only shows whether you have been exposed to a
larger amount than normal within the last week or so. Uranium can be found
in your urine for up to several months after exposure. The amount of
uranium in your urine and feces does not always accurately show how much
uranium you were exposed to.
Since uranium is known to cause kidney damage in humans and animals, urine
tests can be used to see if you have kidney damage that may have been
caused by exposure to uranium. Some of these tests include measuring the
amount of protein, sugar, or enzymes in the urine, or detecting the
presence of damaged kidney cells in the urine. These tests, however, are
not specific for uranium and are only useful to determine if kidney damage
has occurred.
If you breathe large amounts of radioactive uranium, the amount of
radioactivity in your body can be measured by a special test. This test is
only useful if you have been exposed to certain types of uranium that stay
in the lungs for a long time, or to enriched uranium that is more
radioactive than normal.
What recommendations has the federal government made to protect human health?
EPA states that long-term exposure to 0.003 milligrams of uranium/kilogram
of body weight/day in the food or drinking water is safe for humans. This
value is for compounds of uranium that dissolve easily in water. EPA
requires industries to report discharges of more than 0.1 curie for most
uranium isotopes, including uranium- 238, and to report spills of 100
pounds or more of two uranium compounds, uranyl nitrate and uranyl acetate.
Uranium levels in the workplace are regulated by the Occupational Safety
and Health Administration (OSHA) and recommended by the National Institute
for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). Both organizations set the
occupational exposure limit for an 8-hour workday, 40-hour workweek at 50
micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) for uranium compounds that dissolve
easily in water. The limits for compounds that do not dissolve easily in
water are 200 ug/m3 (OSHA) and 250 ug/m3 (NIOSH).
Where can I get more information?
If you have any more questions or concerns not covered here, please contact
your state health or environmental department or:
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Division of Toxicology
1600 Clifton Road, E-29
Atlanta, Georgia 30333
This agency can also give you information on the location of the nearest
occupational and environmental health clinics. Such clinics specialize in
recognizing, evaluating, and treating illnesses that result from exposure
to hazardous substances.
End of report.
Hope this helps.
Gavin
Gavin Stairs
Stairs Small Systems (S3)
921 College St., # 1-A
Toronto, Ontario, Canada M6H 1A1
(416)530-0419 stairs@stairs.on.ca
Evan Dresel on fri 2 oct 98
Ron,
I believe you are absolutely correct. Uranium is predominantly an alpha
emitter and alpha particles can provide a dangerous internal dose. Alpha
particles are the heaviest particles from radioactive decay and are composed
of 2 neutrons and 2 protons -- essentially a helium atom without the
electrons. They won't penetrate a sheet of paper or your skin but, in
sufficient quantities, can produce a lot of damage to your lungs. Alpha
decay is really quite hard to measure accurately because the particles get
absorbed before they can be measured. Alpha particles from different
radioactive isotopes have somewhat different energies, but if I remember
correctly, the differences are not significant when you start to calculate
radiation dose.
There is a tiny decay branch for Uranium-238 (less than 1%, I think) that
emits a gamma ray. I don't think that is really significant. I should also
point out something I hadn't taken into account previously, that the U-238
decay series produces two short-lived beta-emitting isotopes as it decays to
U-234. What that means is that you quickly attain a steady-state condition
where you build up to a point where for every U-238 decay you also get 2
beta decays. Assuming you are in equilibrium with U-234 (that is you have
natural, not depleted or enriched uranium) you also get another alpha decay
from U-234.
Beta particles penetrate more than alphas but are still mainly of concern
for internal doses. The energy of betas varies widely and must be taken
into account when calculating radiation dose. Calculating radiation dose,
i.e. the potential health impact of radiation exposure, is a whole science
in itself. There are people licensed to make those calculations -- not your
usual industrial health professional.
BTW, I disagree with the original post, to which Ron responded. I would say
everyone is exposed to meaningful doses of radiation from natural sources.
Most people get significant doses from medical procedures and x-rays. Of
course by far the most important thing you can do to keep your cancer risk
low is to avoid the use of tobacco products.
-- Evan in W. Richland WA near one of only two operating low-level waste
disposal facilities in the USA. So where do you want to put the rest of the
stuff?
At 09:17 AM 9-29-98 EDT, you wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>It is my understanding that the greatest danger in using uranium in glazes
>is getting some of the dust into your lungs - tissue is then bombarded and
>the result can be cancer - is that correct?
>
>>Remember, billions of people have never been exposed to meaningful amounts of
>>radiation and you are almost certainly one of those. While we need to be
>>concerned and informed about our potential radiation exposure as we go into
>>the future, it is one of the smaller risks of modern life.
>
>Ron Roy
>93 Pegasus Trail
>Scarborough, Ontario
>Canada M1G 3N8
>Tel: 416-439-2621
>Fax: 416-438-7849
>
>Web page: http://digitalfire.com/education/people/ronroy.htm
>
>
Ron Roy on fri 2 oct 98
Thanks Gav,
Your particle of truth is heavy and huge - and bright!
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>At 09:17 AM 9/29/98 EDT, Ron Roy wrote:
>>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>>It is my understanding that the greatest danger in using uranium in glazes
>>is getting some of the dust into your lungs - tissue is then bombarded and
>>the result can be cancer - is that correct?
>Hi Ron,
>That appears to be true. In even the smallest dust speck, there are
>perhaps thousands to millions of atoms. So a uranous dust speck represents
>a sizable reservoir of potential decays, and therefore of potential
>radiating particles - alphas, gammas, neutrons and chunks known as fission
>fragments, in the case of uranium of any sort. These particles may damage
>nearby cells. The likelihood of getting cancer from any one particle
>interaction is slight, but it appears that the likelihood rises
>significantly if more than one interaction occurs in a single cell over a
>short period of time.
Ron Roy
93 Pegasus Trail
Scarborough, Ontario
Canada M1G 3N8
Tel: 416-439-2621
Fax: 416-438-7849
Web page: http://digitalfire.com/education/people/ronroy.htm
I.Lewis on sun 30 may 99
To: Subscribers clayart=40lsv.uky.edu
From: Ivor Lewis ivorredhill=40yaho.com.au
Saturday, 29 May 1999
Subject: Uranium
Uranium was mentioned in the context that we, as clay workers, should use
everything available (Ditmar, Ahohaland). Though I have not seen it =
advertised
for sale, I understand that a substance called =22Depleted Uranium=22 may be
available. Now, is this the stuff which is left after it has done its work =
in
those Nuclear Power Plants? Or what remains of that once the Plutonium has =
been
removed? Or is it the residue which remains after the first enrichment =
process
when the original isotopes are separated? Whichever, be it known that my =
copy of
Tables of Physical and Chemical Constants tells me that it will be =
radioactive
for a long, long time. Perhaps some one from Los Alamos or Berkley, =
Sellafield
or Dounreay might enlighten all of us on this one. Given the option of =
yellow
obtainable from Uranium salts and one from Praseodymium I would opt for the
latter.
Uranium mining is a contentious issue in Australia, and big big business. =
The
most recent mine to be licienced is to employ a technology known as =22In =
situ
acid leaching=22. This mobilises the ore body which is pumped to the =
surface. All
the liquid residues after uranium has been removed are pumped back to =
percolate
through the bedrock, including radioactive Thorium. Is this ecologically =
safe?
Ivor Lewis. On a dull day in Oz where it threatens to rain. Promises, =
promises.
Bill Aycock on sun 30 may 99
Interesting question with ambiguous answers.
Is it ecologically safe-? Probably not, but remember- all they are doing
is PUTTING BACK part of what they took out. If it was radioactive before-
it is less so now, because they took out the higher-end radiators.
However- they probably made the stuff more mobile, and possibly a ground
water problem.
Interesting ethical problem-
Ever hear of Bacterial mining? It involves using Split-Pea soup to extract
copper ore.
Bill- on Persimmon Hill- where Radon could be a minor problem, if I let it
be trapped.
At 11:51 AM 05/30/1999 EDT, you wrote: (In Part)
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
SNIP
>
>Uranium mining is a contentious issue in Australia, and big big business. The
>most recent mine to be licienced is to employ a technology known as "In situ
>acid leaching". This mobilises the ore body which is pumped to the
surface. All
>the liquid residues after uranium has been removed are pumped back to
percolate
>through the bedrock, including radioactive Thorium. Is this ecologically
safe?
>
>Ivor Lewis. On a dull day in Oz where it threatens to rain. Promises,
promises.
>
>
-
Bill Aycock --- Persimmon Hill
Woodville, Alabama, US 35776
(in the N.E. corner of the State)
W4BSG -- Grid EM64vr
baycock@HiWAAY.net
Woods on mon 31 may 99
I'm new here but having been a nuclear decontamination tech. I happen to
have some books that mention Thorium in the decay chain of Uranium. Here is
what it says;
" Uranium, along with a few other radioactive materials, is unusual in
that it is part if a radioactive decay chain. Physicists talk about the
uraniun series. What this means is that when an atom of uranium 238 decays
it converts into a different chemical element. This next generation, or
"daughter product," turns out, in the case of decay chcain radionucleides,
also to be radioactive. The daughter decays and causes a third element to be
formed. The third element also turns out to be radioactive and, in fact,
this process of successive decays from parent to daughter goes on for 17
consecutive generations of uranium 238 decays, The products which are formed
are also radioactive.
Due to the physics of the uranium decay series, fresh depleted uranium
contains only four isotopes - U-238 and the first three daughters of the
seventeen that were mentioned earlier. Uranium 238 will decay into an
isotope ot Thorium-234 Thorium which decays into Protoactinium-234. It is
again radioactive and decays into Uranium-234. Because of its long half
life, U-234 will not decay to produce significant daughter radioactivity for
several Thousand years. So relatively fresh depleted uranium will sontain
only these four individual isotopes, While "old" uranium will contain 17
different isotopes.
All radioactive materials have a unique half-life, The time which it
takes for half of the mass of the material to disintegrate through
radioactivite decay. In the case of U-238, the half-life is 4.5 billion
years, Camparable to the age of the universe as we know it. "
It goes on to tell about the differant kinds of radiation given off in
the first four generations. All fairly low in energy. 7 gamma rays, 2 major
alpha rays with about 4 MeV of energy each. And the most dangerous are the 5
beta particals given off. With the lowest having about a tenth of an MeV.
And the highest dominant one having an energy of up to 2.3 MeV which is
capable of traveling 25 feet in the air. Remember it is a partical and
particals can be breathed and they can penetrate the skin (soft tissue) to a
depth of about half an inch. This leaves the eye ball the move vulnerable,
especially the cornea. If you were to place your hand on a spent (depleted)
uranium metal rod, the skin would have gotten a dose rate of 230
millirem/hour while in direct contact (by the old way of figuring it). That
is a lot.
Needless to say you wouldn't want to be handling it or be near it unless
absolutely nessessary.
P.S. I don't do nuclear Decontamiation any more. I am on disability.
Bets me what the real cause is. But.......Now I are a potter. So give me all
the support you can muster. I will be one of your favorite voyuers here. I
expect to learn a lot.
Thanks, Sue pompupsnpottery@cybrzn.com
-----Original Message-----
From: I.Lewis
To: CLAYART@LSV.UKY.EDU
Date: Sunday, May 30, 1999 10:56 AM
Subject: Uranium
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
To: Subscribers clayart@lsv.uky.edu
From: Ivor Lewis ivorredhill@yaho.com.au
Saturday, 29 May 1999
Subject: Uranium
Uranium was mentioned in the context that we, as clay workers, should use
everything available (Ditmar, Ahohaland). Though I have not seen it
advertised
for sale, I understand that a substance called "Depleted Uranium" may be
available. Now, is this the stuff which is left after it has done its work
in
those Nuclear Power Plants? Or what remains of that once the Plutonium has
been
removed? Or is it the residue which remains after the first enrichment
process
when the original isotopes are separated? Whichever, be it known that my
copy of
Tables of Physical and Chemical Constants tells me that it will be
radioactive
for a long, long time. Perhaps some one from Los Alamos or Berkley,
Sellafield
or Dounreay might enlighten all of us on this one. Given the option of
yellow
obtainable from Uranium salts and one from Praseodymium I would opt for the
latter.
Uranium mining is a contentious issue in Australia, and big big business.
The
most recent mine to be licienced is to employ a technology known as "In situ
acid leaching". This mobilises the ore body which is pumped to the surface.
All
the liquid residues after uranium has been removed are pumped back to
percolate
through the bedrock, including radioactive Thorium. Is this ecologically
safe?
Ivor Lewis. On a dull day in Oz where it threatens to rain. Promises,
promises.
Martin Howard on mon 31 may 99
Depleted Uranium, is mentioned in the quaker discussion group as the
material which is at present being dropped in large amounts on Serbia
and Kosovo and is going to cause those countries and probably the whole
of the Balkans much environmental damage.
It seems to be a waste product of the nuclear power stations, which are
having a problem getting rid of it.
Of course we potters like to use waste products. It makes us feel a
little greener than perhaps we really are. But surely this is one we
should not show any interest in at all, whatever the cosmetic
advantages.
Martin Howard
Webbs Cottage Pottery and Press
Woolpits Road, Great Saling
BRAINTREE
Essex CM7 5DZ
01371 850 423
araneajo@gn.apc.org
Gary Elfring on tue 1 jun 99
>Uranium was mentioned in the context that we, as clay workers, should
use
>everything available (Ditmar, Ahohaland). Though I have not seen it
advertised
>for sale, I understand that a substance called "Depleted Uranium" may
be
>available. Now, is this the stuff which is left after it has done its
work in
>those Nuclear Power Plants? Or what remains of that once the
Plutonium has been
>removed? Or is it the residue which remains after the first
enrichment process
>when the original isotopes are separated? Whichever, be it known that
my copy of
>Tables of Physical and Chemical Constants tells me that it will be
radioactive
>for a long, long time.
Naturally occuring uranium consists of a mixture of two isotopes, 235
and 238.
(Those are the atomic weights.) One is radioactive and the other is
not. (I
can't remember for sure which is which, but I think 238 is the
radioactive
one.) When uranium is mined and refined, you end up with this mixture
of the
two isotopes. By itself, this natural uranium is not good enough to
use in
nuclear power plants, let alone bombs.
So, by a very complicated process called enrichment, the two isotopes
are
separated from each other. This gives you some *really* radioactive
stuff,
and depleted uranium, which is *not* radioactive. You can typically
purchase
this as uranium oxide- there are yellow and a black versions. Uranium
oxide
is used as a colorant in some ceramic glazes. It is not food safe
(uranium
metal is more toxic than lead.) Uranium mines in the US used to sell
the
yellow oxide as a souviner (I bought some as a kid).
Depleted uranium is used in shells because it is the densest naturally
occuring metal we happen to have laying around. It makes very heavy
bullets/shells/etc which because of their weight and small size have
great
pentrating power. The unforseen side effect (sometimes the military
can be very,
very stupid), is that when a uranium shell hits a solid object, parts
of
the uranium vaporize and you get a toxic cloud of uranium /
uranium/oxide gas.
Elfring Soft Fonts, Inc. http://www.elfring.com
http://www.barcodingfonts.com http://www.micrfonts.com
Bar Codes, MICR, Signatures, plus popular TrueType fonts and clip art.
Ditmar/Gayle on thu 30 sep 99
------------------
The possession of uranium metal or compounds is NOT illegal.
There are strict accountability rules and regulations that will vary state =
by
state. Some areas may require a permit or license.
That's due to its toxicity and low radioactivity. Mostly to control it's =
abuse
and potential abuse, as well as assuring proper disposal.
If anyone does have any uranium or uranium compounds they want to get rid =
of,
first check with universities and other teaching institutions. Donating the
material to them can save you a lot of money that you'd pay for
disposal......AND save the school the expense of buying the material.
P.S. It won't hurt you by looking at it.
>From Alohaland, Ditmar.
Monona Rossol on fri 1 oct 99
Ditmar/Gayle wrote:
> -----------Original message---------------------------------------
> The possession of uranium metal or compounds is NOT illegal.
>
> There are strict accountability rules and regulations that will vary state
> by state. Some areas may require a permit or license.
> That's due to its toxicity and low radioactivity. Mostly to control it's
> abuse and potential abuse, as well as assuring proper disposal.
>
> If anyone does have any uranium or uranium compounds they want to get rid
> of, first check with universities and other teaching institutions.
> Donating the material to them can save you a lot of money that you'd pay
> for disposal......AND save the school the expense of buying the material.
>
> P.S. It won't hurt you by looking at it.
>
> From Alohaland, Ditmar.
________________________________________________________
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission asked me back a while to provide evidence
that schools might still use depleted uranium in their programs. I
couldn't get any to admit it. And all the schools where I found it
previously on inspections no longer used it. Now I will provide a copy of
this post when the question comes up again. While your post doesn't name a
school, it does indicates that schools do use the material. Thanks.
Using uranium isn't illegal. But the reason the NRC stated that it didn't
ban uranium in ceramic glazes is that they determined that no one was using
it anyway. Banning a substance that isn't in use would be a waste of effort.
NRC did ban uranium for use in jewelry enamels because these clearly contained
it at that time.
Monona Rossol
ACTS
181 Thompson St., #23
NYC NY 10012-2586 212/777-0062
Edouard Bastarache Inc. on tue 13 jan 04
The toxicity of uranium and compounds and their radioactivity have=20
placed these materials under close scrutiny with a formal ban on their=20
trade and use, at least in Europe (the old one according to my friend =
Rumsfeld)=20
Later,
"Ils sont fous ces quebecois"
Edouard Bastarache
Irreductible Quebecois
Indomitable Quebeker
Sorel-Tracy
Quebec
edouardb@sorel-tracy.qc.ca
http://sorel-tracy.qc.ca/~edouardb/
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/smart2000/index.htm
http://www.digitalfire.com/education/toxicity/
Ditmar on wed 14 jan 04
..........and one of my soapbox topics.
Non-functional pieces and mixed media components. Sculpture doesn't need
acid leach testing.
Use anything you're competent to handle.
Ditmar
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hal Mc Whinnie"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 4:48 AM
Subject: Re: Uranium
> since i started the uranium discussion let me try to summarize.
>
> in one sense this is quite academic since one can not get the chemcical to
> use. However i started it to hioghlight some of the more conservative
attitudes
> of contemporary glaze makers who seem to fear any material.
>
> the problem with uranium and also lead is not the chemcila when pfired on
> safe bodies such as stoneware or porcelain but in the handling of the dry
> materials in the studio,.
>
> after all has been said about uranium i would still use it in a glaze if i
> could get it.
>
> the problem is that we have blamed the material for our human
carelessness.
> Lead is a perfect example. it is quite safe for glazes on procelain if
fired to
> the right temp.
>
> let us blame ourselves and not some chemcial material. the same goes for
> barium, chrome, manganese, etc.
>
> hal
>
>
John Britt on wed 14 jan 04
Hal,
You are entirely incorrect about lead. You are implying that lead is safe
when fired on porcelain or stoneware and this means that you are generally
firing above cone 6. Certainly you know that lead volatilizes above cone
6. So it is not safe. And firing above a certain temperature also does not
ensure that a material will not leach from a glaze that depends on the
glaze formula and firing.
Secondly the reason lead is not used is the sickness and death it has
caused. This is not in question. It is a known fact. The carelessness you
speak of is what you are doing right now, carelessly disregarding facts
and promoting irresponisble useage.
Finally, manganese and chrome also volatilize at high temperatures and are
very toxic. They too should be used with great caution.
Since you cannot be convinced that materials are dangerous I will not try
to sway you but rather warn others of your mistakes.
John Britt
Earl Brunner on wed 14 jan 04
You just don't get it do you Hal? Firing something to
the "correct temperature" doesn't make it safe, IF
the glaze is NOT chemically balanced correctly and
fired to the correct temperature FOR that balance,
then in all probability it is not "SAFE". John and
Ron on one hand have invested a lot of money and time
and testing to demonstrate this. They make their
research readily available, to support their position
on this.
You on the other hand make general statements with
"NO" supporting data. "Safe" clay has little or
nothing to do with whether or not a chemical in a
glaze ON that clay will leach harmful amounts. You are
not even right about the risk being just to the
potter, in the privacy of their own home or studio. To
some extent you are free to be as careless with
chemicals as you wish but you are wrong in assuming
that the risk is just to the potter.
This week in Las Vegas there is a story about a boy
who found a quart jar of mercury at his home (it's
going to cost superfund - that's the taxpayers-us-
over $500,000.00 dollars to decontaminate the house
and area). The boy is in critical condition in the
hospital and anyone who has been in the house recently
is now at risk.
Hal, with some things, it's just not worth the risk.
--- Hal Mc Whinnie wrote:
> since i started the uranium discussion let me try to
> summarize.
>
> in one sense this is quite academic since one can
> not get the chemcical to
> use. However i started it to hioghlight some of the
> more conservative attitudes
> of contemporary glaze makers who seem to fear any
> material.
>
> the problem with uranium and also lead is not the
> chemcila when pfired on
> safe bodies such as stoneware or porcelain but in
> the handling of the dry
> materials in the studio,.
>
> after all has been said about uranium i would still
> use it in a glaze if i
> could get it.
>
> the problem is that we have blamed the material for
> our human carelessness.
> Lead is a perfect example. it is quite safe for
> glazes on procelain if fired to
> the right temp.
>
> let us blame ourselves and not some chemcial
> material. the same goes for
> barium, chrome, manganese, etc.
>
> hal
>
>
______________________________________________________________________________
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change
> your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be
> reached at melpots@pclink.com.
=====
Earl Brunner
e-mail: brunv53@yahoo.com
John Hesselberth on wed 14 jan 04
On Wednesday, January 14, 2004, at 09:48 AM, Hal Mc Whinnie wrote:
> the problem with uranium and also lead is not the chemcila when pfired
> on
> safe bodies such as stoneware or porcelain but in the handling of the
> dry
> materials in the studio,.
>
> after all has been said about uranium i would still use it in a glaze
> if i
> could get it.
>
> the problem is that we have blamed the material for our human
> carelessness.
> Lead is a perfect example. it is quite safe for glazes on procelain if
> fired to
> the right temp.
>
> let us blame ourselves and not some chemcial material. the same goes
> for
> barium, chrome, manganese, etc.
Tony Hansen, in his response to this message, said it very succinctly
and well. You do not know what you are talking about. Would you please
educate yourself about glaze durability/stability before you post
misinformation like the above.
Regards,
John
http://www.frogpondpottery.com
http://www.masteringglazes.com
Hal Mc Whinnie on wed 14 jan 04
since i started the uranium discussion let me try to summarize.
in one sense this is quite academic since one can not get the chemcical to
use. However i started it to hioghlight some of the more conservative attitudes
of contemporary glaze makers who seem to fear any material.
the problem with uranium and also lead is not the chemcila when pfired on
safe bodies such as stoneware or porcelain but in the handling of the dry
materials in the studio,.
after all has been said about uranium i would still use it in a glaze if i
could get it.
the problem is that we have blamed the material for our human carelessness.
Lead is a perfect example. it is quite safe for glazes on procelain if fired to
the right temp.
let us blame ourselves and not some chemcial material. the same goes for
barium, chrome, manganese, etc.
hal
Zoe Johnson on thu 15 jan 04
I have spoken to health physicists from the national labs, you know the
folks who build a and h bombs. These are the folks who keep the bomb
builders, and their bosses safe. The exposure from a piece of uranium
glazed fiesta ware is TRIVIAL. Exposure from flying in planes or radon
from basement rocks far exceeds the amount from living near a piece of
orange fiestaware. Keeping uranium ore around is slightly more dangerous,
but even then it is not a big deal because most of the radiation is alpha
and beta which can be stopped by relatively thin metal. We even have a
piece of uranium ore! We keep it in an old ammo can in a storage shed far
away from human habitation! BUT you can't tell it's there if the ammo can
is sealed! It belongs to my kid, the senior geo-kid, who is
paleontologist. It is a fossil! Yes, uranium deposits preferentially in
the presence of carbon. BTW, one of the chief ways we are exposed to
radiation is the fine ash from burning coal, as it seems radioactives
deposit preferentially in carbon and coal is carbon!
zoej
--On Thursday, January 15, 2004 6:04 PM -0500 Sherry Morrow
wrote:
> No, it's not going to kill the dog or cause three headed babies, I was
> being facetious, but uranium is dangerous and neither you nor I know
> what a "safe" dose would be. AND YES, If I found out I had a piece
> with Radioactive glaze on it, I would be using strong language. It is
> the long term exposure that causes problems. yes we get background
> radiation all the time. But we have no right to add to someone elses
> radiation burden for selfish reasons. I work with it everyday, I'm not
> full time in potting, and the minimal background radiation we get is
> negligible. But Uranium has a long halflife and will provide a long
> term dose if the piece is kept out and near people. No, don't freak
> out, but for heavens sake, don't poo poo the dangers. Uranium that is
> kept in someones studio in bulk, will cause a dose much greater than
> background.
> THe doses you will get from that will be much greater than flying in a
> plane or from natural environmental sources. I wear two radiation badges
> everyday, and my hands get very high doses. And I do worry about
> Leukemia. It is a real possiblity. Do what you want, use it, but if
> it would be used, the recipient had better be educated about it. Sher
> Morrow
>
>
Chris Rupp on thu 15 jan 04
It seems that there is a lot of misinformation going on about uranium in
glazes. So I thought I would share my personal experience with the subject.
I purchased a brilliant orange piece of pottery created by Laura Andreson
that was created in the late 1940's of early 1950's. She worked quite a bit
with the Natzler's who often used depleted uranium in many of their
experimental glazes. Anyway, I suspected this piece was a uranium glaze and
wanted to find out if it was dangerous to have on the shelf. So I went to a
local college and they agreed to conduct an experiment as a student project.
They immediately tested the piece with a geiger counter - NOTHING! So they
began their testing using a germanium detector. They tested the piece for 24
hours using the germanium detector and the results were hardly detectable
above the background radiation for the 24 hour period. They determined that
the piece did indeed have some uranium in it, but it was so minimal that it
was nothing to think twice about. The half life of the detected uranium is
something like one billion years before it could decay into a more
threatening daughter product. They also said that if the piece was releasing
particles (alpha, beta, gamma, etc..whatever the dangerous ones are) they
would not travel any further than 1/2 from the piece. They agreed that it
may not be best to drink lemonade out of the bowl, but even that would most
likely not be dangerous. Long story short, the old Fiesta ware will not kill
you! It may not be best to eat and drink off of it, but even if you did the
chances of any harm are so minimal it is not worth discussing. On the other
hand, old glazes from the Natzler's and Andreson, should be tested to make
sure they are safe. There is no telling how much uranium they used in each
experimental batch of glaze and some could potentially be harmful.
Uranium in the studio is a different matter. There is at least one person on
Clayart that I know has a powder from of Uranium used for glaze making. It
was inherited by the person and I remember them saying they kept it sealed
out in the woods away form the studio. If this powder is breathed there
could be significant damage to the body. It is dangerous in a way, but not
if it is handled safely. There is at least one potter in Japan who uses
uranium in their glazes today. It might be difficult to come by, but
certainly not impossible to find. If it is handled correctly it presents no
more harm than using silica in the studio.
Chris
Sunny Santa Barbara
>From: Sherry Morrow
>Reply-To: Clayart
>To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
>Subject: Re: Uranium
>Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 18:04:00 -0500
>
>No, it's not going to kill the dog or cause three headed babies, I was
>being facetious, but uranium is dangerous and neither you nor I know
>what a "safe" dose would be. AND YES, If I found out I had a piece
>with Radioactive glaze on it, I would be using strong language. It is
>the long term exposure that causes problems. yes we get background
>radiation all the time. But we have no right to add to someone elses
>radiation burden for selfish reasons. I work with it everyday, I'm not
>full time in potting, and the minimal background radiation we get is
>negligible. But Uranium has a long halflife and will provide a long
>term dose if the piece is kept out and near people. No, don't freak
>out, but for heavens sake, don't poo poo the dangers. Uranium that is
>kept in someones studio in bulk, will cause a dose much greater than
>background.
> THe doses you will get from that will be much greater than flying in a
>plane or from natural environmental sources. I wear two radiation badges
>everyday, and my hands get very high doses. And I do worry about
>Leukemia. It is a real possiblity. Do what you want, use it, but if
>it would be used, the recipient had better be educated about it. Sher
>Morrow
>
>
> > The word radiation should not cause an immediate freakout. We are all
> > exposed to radiation constantly, from gamma rays, to radon from
>basement
> > rocks, to very fine ash from coal fired electric plants. It is out
>there
> > all the time. It is a relative thing based on amounts. I agree
>adding
> > Uranium to glazes is stupid, but it's not going to cause three headed
> > guppies or kill the dog. We are all exposed to far more radiation in
>our
> > environment all the time. Especially if you fly, get x-rayed or live
>at
> > altitude, like in Denver or Albuquerque or over the stable craton
>where the
> > basement rocks are close to the surface.
> > zoej
> >
> > --On Thursday, January 15, 2004 6:10 AM -0500 BeardiePaw
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Usually, I stay out of discussions because I'm not knowledgeable
>enough to
> > > put two cents in. Here is where I Do know what I'm talking about,
>this
> > > is where I hold my degree. The problem with Uranium is it gives
>off
> > > radiation!! That should be enough to make it a definite NONO. You
>buy
> >
> >
>________________________________________________________________________
>______
> > Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
> >
> > You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> > settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
> >
> > Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
>melpots@pclink.com.
> >
> >
> > _____________________________________________________
> > This message scanned for viruses by CoreComm
> >
>
>--
>CoreComm Webmail.
>http://home.core.com
>
>______________________________________________________________________________
>Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
>You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
>settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
>Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
>melpots@pclink.com.
_________________________________________________________________
Check out the coupons and bargains on MSN Offers!
http://shopping.msn.com/softcontent/softcontent.aspx?scmId=1418
Lee Love on thu 15 jan 04
I thought we got on to these materials hysteria topics at least once
a year. Looking at the archives, I came up with this post from
Karl Platt, which agrees with Hal, that the materials are not the
problem, the way we use them and handle them are:
the glaze that killed the world (insert diminished minor chords here)
updated thu 9 jan 03
*Karl Platt* on mon 6 jan 03 (kplatt@GLASS.COM
)
The topic that won't go away.........
"physicochemical characteristics such as molecular weight and
hydrophilic and lipophilic characteristics of the material.
Altough small molecular weight lipophilic compounds can be
extensively absorbed, volatilization from unoccluded skin tends
to reduce their absorption."
>"e plomb inorganique est absorb=E9 par les poumons et le tractus
>gastro-intestinal.
>L'absorption cutan=E9e est g=E9n=E9ralement faible......"
Qua, qua, qua, qua, qua.
What the hell does this have to do with potting in the 21st Century?
Less than nothing.
"Having fooled around with the most commonly used ceramic raw
materials for more than 35 years, I do not think any of them present
a threat of poisoning following skin contact."
Agreed.
"I will send this information to a friend who is an occupational
hygienist
and who recently obtained a masters degree in toxicology...."
", organophosphates and chlorinated hydrocarbons
(pesticides), cyanides, amino and aromatic nitro compounds,
mercury, tetraethyl lead... A good starting point would be
if the chemical has an ACGIH Skin notation..."
Say what?! Does this have something to do with why old glaze smells
funny?
Why shy from lead silicates (stable enough to amuse the
archaeologists of the next civilization, they are), potassium
bichromate (lovely brushed over soft white),
antimony (Enamel White), selenium (Pink, Red, Orange, or barium
(buttery matte, high chemical durability, fusion). I admit to having
used some tons of these materials
and, well, have all my teeth, all my neurons, a very sturdy heart,
robust luings, I don't drool uncontrollably nor forget what I just
said as a result of having made batch.
On the contrary. It's hard not to look a little bewildered in the
face of tortuous polysyllabic medispeak that gets bandied about as
though it were meaningful because
the words were spelled correctly in the midst of a lot of pedantic
claptrap with footnotes from nowhere relevant to what you or I did
this afternoon -- even in the very
abstract.
Any modern studio worker who ever took ill from raw materials in a
ceramic or glass studio did so because they were stupid -- and they
are *extreeeeemly* rare.. Fact.
Anyone who got sick licked brushes, worked in a pigpen, smoked in
the batch room, smoked while glazing stained glass or picked their
nose while dipping raw glaze
daily for a decade or something else similarly dumb in the extreme.
Most people reading this list are working at an extremely limited
scale where the concentration raw
material is exceedingly small. It could seem a lot while standing at
a gram balance making-up a recipe copped from Clayart. Although in
context it's not like working at
a mine, the frit factory, a color house, a beer bottle mill or a
window plant. Places where huindreds of tons of raw materials might
pass in a day. Tons of things like
SiLiCa (insert startled *gasp* and terse diminished minor 9th chord
here).
Look, I'm not dead or even in slightly poor health because of my
work, which has to do with tons of these vile substances of which
the blithering idiots speak. On the
contrary, who's ever been more alive.
*The point being that there's no point to* the endless hysteria into
which these topics appear to be doomed. All you need to know is on
the MSDS, and to not wallow in
your work, eat your work, smoke (anything) while working and to
follow one's natural anti-Darwinian inclinations by avoiding being
downwind of anything dusty or
fumey as a matter of course....and, of course, to bathe.
Normal people practicing reasonable hygiene have more to fear from a
sneeze.
KPP -- wishing the that the blithering hysterics would go back in
their respective holes and leave us to our honorable and healthy work.
--
Lee in Mashiko http://mashiko.us
Web Log (click on recent date):
http://www.livejournal.com/users/togeika/calendar
BeardiePaw on thu 15 jan 04
Usually, I stay out of discussions because I'm not knowledgeable enough to
put two cents in. Here is where I Do know what I'm talking about, this is
where I hold my degree. The problem with Uranium is it gives off
radiation!! That should be enough to make it a definite NONO. You buy
uranium, you are getting exposed when you are around where it is stored,
your kids are getting exposed, your wife is getting exposed, the family dog
is getting exposed! Your guppies start having babies with three heads!.
you make a beauTIFUL vase and put uranium in the glaze. You sell it to a
young mother, she takes it home, she's exposed, her small children are
exposed and her new baby is born with three heads!! (slight exaggeration,
but not much). Unless someone comes into her home with a GM ( geiger
counter), they'll never know why their child with one head came down with
leukemia. If they do find out, I betcha they'd come looking for the potter
with a BIG ASS attorney. I know I WOULD! I understand this is academic,
but the same thinking applies to other substances. Golden Rule: Do unto
others yada yada.... legally it should still be a good idea. Sher Morrow
BeardiePaw Pottery
Zoe Johnson on thu 15 jan 04
The word radiation should not cause an immediate freakout. We are all
exposed to radiation constantly, from gamma rays, to radon from basement
rocks, to very fine ash from coal fired electric plants. It is out there
all the time. It is a relative thing based on amounts. I agree adding
Uranium to glazes is stupid, but it's not going to cause three headed
guppies or kill the dog. We are all exposed to far more radiation in our
environment all the time. Especially if you fly, get x-rayed or live at
altitude, like in Denver or Albuquerque or over the stable craton where the
basement rocks are close to the surface.
zoej
--On Thursday, January 15, 2004 6:10 AM -0500 BeardiePaw
wrote:
> Usually, I stay out of discussions because I'm not knowledgeable enough to
> put two cents in. Here is where I Do know what I'm talking about, this
> is where I hold my degree. The problem with Uranium is it gives off
> radiation!! That should be enough to make it a definite NONO. You buy
Sherry Morrow on thu 15 jan 04
No, it's not going to kill the dog or cause three headed babies, I was
being facetious, but uranium is dangerous and neither you nor I know
what a "safe" dose would be. AND YES, If I found out I had a piece
with Radioactive glaze on it, I would be using strong language. It is
the long term exposure that causes problems. yes we get background
radiation all the time. But we have no right to add to someone elses
radiation burden for selfish reasons. I work with it everyday, I'm not
full time in potting, and the minimal background radiation we get is
negligible. But Uranium has a long halflife and will provide a long
term dose if the piece is kept out and near people. No, don't freak
out, but for heavens sake, don't poo poo the dangers. Uranium that is
kept in someones studio in bulk, will cause a dose much greater than
background.
THe doses you will get from that will be much greater than flying in a
plane or from natural environmental sources. I wear two radiation badges
everyday, and my hands get very high doses. And I do worry about
Leukemia. It is a real possiblity. Do what you want, use it, but if
it would be used, the recipient had better be educated about it. Sher
Morrow
> The word radiation should not cause an immediate freakout. We are all
> exposed to radiation constantly, from gamma rays, to radon from
basement
> rocks, to very fine ash from coal fired electric plants. It is out
there
> all the time. It is a relative thing based on amounts. I agree
adding
> Uranium to glazes is stupid, but it's not going to cause three headed
> guppies or kill the dog. We are all exposed to far more radiation in
our
> environment all the time. Especially if you fly, get x-rayed or live
at
> altitude, like in Denver or Albuquerque or over the stable craton
where the
> basement rocks are close to the surface.
> zoej
>
> --On Thursday, January 15, 2004 6:10 AM -0500 BeardiePaw
> wrote:
>
> > Usually, I stay out of discussions because I'm not knowledgeable
enough to
> > put two cents in. Here is where I Do know what I'm talking about,
this
> > is where I hold my degree. The problem with Uranium is it gives
off
> > radiation!! That should be enough to make it a definite NONO. You
buy
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
______
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots@pclink.com.
>
>
> _____________________________________________________
> This message scanned for viruses by CoreComm
>
--
CoreComm Webmail.
http://home.core.com
Ababi on fri 16 jan 04
I see the longing for uranium this way:
When I was searching in the net, long time ago in the last millennium
for recipes, every new material, especially kind of material that even
my teacher could not tell me what it was - had been like a search to a
mysterious country:
SiC?
RIO?
KIANITE?
PUMIC?
Uranium is no exception perhaps it is more like climbing on a volcano,
more dangerous exciting.
The only exception is that the first four materials will not kill you
unless:
SiC: a grinder falls on your head
RIO the other side of the grinder
Kianite: The same but a sack
Pumice... I would not breath it free but I am free of pumice
Ababi Sharon
Glaze addict
Kibbutz Shoval Israel
ababisha@shoval.org.il
http://ababi.active.co.il
http://www.matrix2000.co.nz/Matrix%20Demo/Ababi.htm
.
Joe Coniglio on fri 16 jan 04
I like the old Monsanto slogan when we were kids we related
everything from our new age pharmas to bathroom cleaners:
"Chemicals: Life would be impossible without them."
Earl don't be so hard with Hal.
$500,000 for a mercury clean up? Must have made the tv news and
got blown out of proportion like everything else. You know, kids
looking ridiculous riding bicycles with helmets.
I was back at my family house recently and found my old crayola
crayon box.
Next to the "copper" and the "tin" was "uranium" and "lead".
The uranium compounds are so hard to get, I don't think there is
anything for anyone to worry about. It falls under the category of
novelty.
Have some fun, live a little, take some falls, us a Geiger Counter.
All the best. JoeC
Earl Krueger on fri 16 jan 04
I do believe that the number of posts
with Uranium in the Subject line has
now reached the threshold that the
anti-terrorist police may take notice.
Not saying you should stop posting
about it but just don't be too surprised
if a guy in a black suit starts snooping
around your studio tomorrow.
Earl...
Bothell, WA, USA
Lee Love on fri 16 jan 04
Zoe Johnson wrote:
> The word radiation should not cause an immediate freakout. We are all
> exposed to radiation constantly, from gamma rays, to radon from basement
> rocks, to very fine ash from coal fired electric plants.
Hi Zoe,
I think that the single greatest health hazard to people working
with clay is silica dust. While we abstractly argue about the hazards
of uranium, which we cannot buy, every one who works in clay is exposed
to silica dust. Working clean, keeping a clean workshop and wearing
masks when we are mixing or cleaning are the best things we can do for
our health.
Lee in Mashiko http://mashiko.us
Web Log (click on recent date):
http://www.livejournal.com/users/togeika/calendar
--
Lee Love on fri 16 jan 04
BeardiePaw wrote:
>Usually, I stay out of discussions because I'm not knowledgeable enough to
>put two cents in. Here is where I Do know what I'm talking about, this is
>where I hold my degree. The problem with Uranium is it gives off
>radiation!!
>
Dear Beardie,
All the discussion about the use of uranium in glazes is
hypothetical, because this material is not available to us.
Lee in Mashiko http://mashiko.us
Web Log (click on recent date):
http://www.livejournal.com/users/togeika/calendar
--
wayneinkeywest on fri 16 jan 04
All this talk about uranium has caused my monitor's screen to glow when I
shut off the lights! Yikes!
ROFLMAO
Wayne Seidl
| |
|
