Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21
Like Tree29Likes

Thread: Radioactivity of natural stones

  1. #11
    Moderator rolodave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Racine, WI USA
    Posts
    7,531
    Thanked: 1927
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Shale is naturally radioactive.
    Sand and limestone are not.


    I do not know if shale exposure or ingestion is hazardous.
    If you don't care where you are, you are not lost.

  2. #12
    The Hurdy Gurdy Man thebigspendur's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    32,737
    Thanked: 5016
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rolodave View Post
    Shale is naturally radioactive.
    Sand and limestone are not.


    I do not know if shale exposure or ingestion is hazardous.
    Depends on the particular formation the shale came from. The Marcellus Shale found back east through West Virginia is well known to be Radioactive.

    The problem isn't so much handling a chunk of the stuff it's when it's bought up as overburden (waste rock) and it's concentrated in piles or thrown into rivers where it breaks down.
    No matter how many men you kill you can't kill your successor-Emperor Nero

  3. #13
    32t
    32t is offline
    Senior Member blabbermouth 32t's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    50 miles west of randydance
    Posts
    9,573
    Thanked: 1352

    Default

    I know a couple of people that work in nuclear power plants.

    I wonder if I could ask them to carry my hones to work in their lunch box?

    From what I understand they have some pretty sensitive sensors!
    rolodave, Vasilis and alex1921 like this.

  4. #14
    Senior Member blabbermouth bluesman7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Denver CO
    Posts
    4,561
    Thanked: 810

    Default

    I've been told that walking down the salt isle in a grocery store with a geiger counter is enlightening.

  5. #15
    aka shooter74743 ScottGoodman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    SE Oklahoma/NE Texas
    Posts
    7,285
    Thanked: 1936
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default

    When I was a home builder in Kansas City, we has a few basements that we had to put low flow air exchangers in due to Radon build up.
    Southeastern Oklahoma/Northeastern Texas helper. Please don't hesitate to contact me.
    Thank you and God Bless, Scott

  6. #16
    Senior Member blabbermouth Kees's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    5,474
    Thanked: 656

    Default

    Here is a publication on natural background radioactivity and cancer. It is full of arithmetics that I do not understand but the authors conclusion is that natural background radiation is not harmful.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4674188/
    Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr.

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Kees For This Useful Post:

    Vasilis (09-23-2018)

  8. #17
    Senior Member Vasilis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Thessaloniki, Greece
    Posts
    885
    Thanked: 202

    Default

    Interesting meta-analysis, though the studies somewhat contradict each other. It would be cool if we could naturally develop radiation resistance, like the dark skin color for the Ultraviolet light.
    I'm not afraid of natural radiation, but the presence of radioactive minerals in the stones, as if they happen to be present in the stone deposits, or even as inclusions that look like iron salts. Thorium salts are yellow, from a few I have seen (it could be impurities or some specific salt) as well as some Uranium salts.

    Thinking about the fluorescent paint above I feel stupid for not thinking it sooner;
    @Maladroit or anyone who knows about it (and anyone else who wants to say something, naturally), can I use some mineral/salt that's fluorescent under ionizing radiation to see if it glows in the dark after "spending some time" with something that could be radioactive? Fluorite, or maybe Lithium fluoride? I don't know which ones would work, or how much radiation would they need.
    Last edited by Vasilis; 09-23-2018 at 08:36 AM.

  9. #18
    Senior Member Steve56's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    1,837
    Thanked: 508
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    I too am a former radiation protection person (tech then later engineer), retired after 35 years at a university and National Lab.

    Most natural materials, stone included, contain traces of uranium and thorium. I’ve never seen an analysis of most hone materials, but Alex Gilmore once sent me an analysis of Japanese natural stones, and they’re (unsurprisingly) about 86% silica, 6% iron, and the rest other trace elements. Being in the profession that I was, I looked for radioactive elements and there were none listed though no doubt some tiny traces are present. Out of curiosity I also looked for other problem children like heavy metals that could be a problem for miners/processors but saw none of them either.

    Hones by their nature have to be mostly silica to function (except coticules), so there’s not a lot of ‘room’ left for much else, though a few percent of uranium/thorium could be detected with a simple geiger counter.

    Radon is a noble gas with a half-life of about 3 hours. Being a noble gas, it does not accumulate in our bodies or undergo chemical reactions, therefore it is of no concern unless it is being replenished in our environment, for example from building materials. The radon daughters have an aggregate half life of about 45 minutes. However, the daughters can be accumulated or concentrated in our bodies, so if there is a source replenshing the radon, that is a concern. Hones however, simply aren’t large enough to provide a source of concern at trace uranium/thorium amounts.

    Vasilis, if you have concerns, please send me all your best hones and I’ll have them tested for you and return them in a decade or two....

    Cheers, Steve
    32t, rolodave, Vasilis and 2 others like this.

  10. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Steve56 For This Useful Post:

    bluesman7 (09-23-2018), Maladroit (09-23-2018), Vasilis (09-23-2018)

  11. #19
    Senior Member blabbermouth Kees's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    5,474
    Thanked: 656

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve56 View Post

    Vasilis, if you have concerns, please send me all your best hones and I’ll have them tested for you and return them in a decade or two....

    Cheers, Steve
    If you opt for non-destructive testing as destructive testing will take less time of course.
    Vasilis likes this.
    Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr.

  12. #20
    32t
    32t is offline
    Senior Member blabbermouth 32t's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    50 miles west of randydance
    Posts
    9,573
    Thanked: 1352

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kees View Post
    If you opt for non-destructive testing as destructive testing will take less time of course.
    I think at least 10% to even 20% of the surface of the hone would have to be slowly abraded away to imitate "normal" use. The effect of slurry etc.

    That would be a very time consuming task.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •