
Grand Canyon Museum Had Buckets of Uranium Sitting Around for 18 Years - _bxg1
https://www.npr.org/2019/02/19/696001017/grand-canyon-museum-reportedly-had-buckets-of-uranium-sitting-around-for-18-year
======
saul_goodman
Jeezus Cripes, way over reaction. I have Fiestaware plates that put out over
30uSv/h / 3mR/h / 9200cpm. Unrefined uranium ore puts out waaaay less that. As
long as you're not sleeping with the junk under your bed or working with it
next to your desk all day long you're fine. Even then, it's still less
exposure than air crews that fly every day receive. No one was harmed by this.

~~~
jacobolus
It’s entirely plausible that in practice nobody received a dangerous amount of
radiation in this case, but...

> _The report indicated radiation levels at "13.9 mR/hr" where the buckets
> were stored, and "800 mR/hr" on contact with the ore._

> [...] _The commission lists a maximum safe dosage for the public, beyond
> natural radiation, is no more than 2 millirems per hour, or 100 per year._

[https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2019/02/1...](https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2019/02/18/grand-
canyon-tourists-exposed-radiation-safety-manager-says/2876435002/)

~~~
StreamBright
Actually: [https://www.nde-
ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/R...](https://www.nde-
ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/RadiationSafety/safe_use/exposure.htm)

Regulatory Limits for Occupational Exposure

Many of the recommendations from the ICRP and other groups have been
incorporated into the regulatory requirements of countries around the world.
In the United States, annual radiation exposure limits are found in Title 10,
part 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and in equivalent state
regulations. For industrial radiographers who generally are not concerned with
an intake of radioactive material, the Code sets the annual limit of exposure
at the following:

1) the more limiting of:

A total effective dose equivalent of 5 rems (0.05 Sv)

or

The sum of the deep-dose equivalent to any individual organ or tissue other
than the lens of the eye being equal to 50 rems (0.5 Sv).

2) The annual limits to the lens of the eye, to the skin, and to the
extremities, which are:

A lens dose equivalent of 15 rems (0.15 Sv)

A shallow-dose equivalent of 50 rems (0.50 Sv) to the skin or to any
extremity.

The shallow-dose equivalent is the external dose to the skin of the whole-body
or extremities from an external source of ionizing radiation. This value is
the dose equivalent at a tissue depth of 0.007 cm averaged over and area of 10
cm2.

The lens dose equivalent is the dose equivalent to the lens of the eye from an
external source of ionizing radiation.

This value is the dose equivalent at a tissue depth of 0.3 cm.

The deep-dose equivalent is the whole-body dose from an external source of
ionizing radiation. This value is the dose equivalent at a tissue depth of 1
cm.

The total effective dose equivalent is the dose equivalent to the whole-body.

Declared Pregnant Workers and Minors

Because of the increased health risks to the rapidly developing embryo and
fetus, pregnant women can receive no more than 0.5 rem during the entire
gestation period. This is 10% of the dose limit that normally applies to
radiation workers. Persons under the age of 18 years are also limited to
0.5rem/year.

Non-radiation Workers and the Public

The dose limit to non-radiation workers and members of the public are two
percent of the annual occupational dose limit. Therefore, a non-radiation
worker can receive a whole body dose of no more that 0.1 rem/year from
industrial ionizing radiation. This exposure would be in addition to the 0.3
rem/year from natural background radiation and the 0.05 rem/year from man-made
sources such as medical x-rays.

~~~
godelski
> A total effective dose equivalent of 5 rems (0.05 Sv)

Most places moved to 20mSv now and use 50mSv for short term (100mSv is
detectable chance of cancer developing). Average US worker exposure is
~2mSv/yr.[0]

[0] [https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-
and...](https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-
security/radiation-and-health/nuclear-radiation-and-health-effects.aspx)

------
ams6110
Pretty lacking on specifics. What was the actual radiation level measured? I
would assume these were not buckets of pure uranium, but of uranium ore that
is naturally all over the place in the West, and not terribly radioactive in
its natural state.

~~~
trimbo
From a screenshot at [1]

* 800 mR/hr if you touched the ore

* 280 mR/hr on the surface of the bucket (sealed)

* "0 above background" if you were 5 ft away from the bucket

* 2.5 mR/hr if you were touching the cabinet it was in

[1] -
[https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2019/02/1...](https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2019/02/18/grand-
canyon-tourists-exposed-radiation-safety-manager-says/2876435002/)

~~~
gotocake
Basically unless you were having a very prolonged and loving relationship with
the bucket, you were exposed to nothing of consequence. That doesn’t excuse
the morons who kept this stuff, and if a kid took a souvenir home or there had
been a fire it could have been a lot worse. They may have also had
unacceptable levels of radon. If I worked there I’d want to know more, but
just as a visitor I’d shrug and get on with life.

I’m wondering why they used R instead of Sv though. It’s a single source with
a single quality factor, and were only concerned with the impact on humans.

~~~
sandwall
Roentgens are historical units of exposure, it's simply what a lot of older
meters read.

Roentgens can be assumed to safely equal RADs (although they don't, conversion
is less than 1 for kV), the historical unit for "Radiation Absorbed Dose." For
photons this would be equal to REM "Radiation Equivalent Man."

All old units; conversion to S.I., 100 rad = 1 Gray (J/Kg), 100 rem = 1
Sievert.

Essentially, who ever wrote the report was old and conservative.

The occupational risk is also essentially nil. This is much ado about nada.

~~~
your-nanny
assuming inhalation if dust was not an issue..

~~~
dsfyu404ed
5gal buckets are designed to be handled by all manner of people who don't have
enough time to give a crap and still get to their destination without leaking.

A properly sealed 5gal bucket will remain air tight even if it's bouncing
around inside a tote in the bed of a truck on rural gravel roads for ~10mo
(the tote flooded at some point but the bucket wound up dry).

Sitting in a cabinet the risk of dust making it out of the bucket would have
been nonexistent so long as the lid was on it.

~~~
your-nanny
I assumed it was open so people can look at the ore

------
ChuckMcM
If they had just let them sit there for 4 and a half billion years they would
be half gone :-).

If you hike around the Grand Canyon you are going to be exposed to Uranium.
There are a lot of mines in and around the place (see here:
[https://www.grandcanyontrust.org/grand-canyon-
uranium](https://www.grandcanyontrust.org/grand-canyon-uranium)). It really
isn't something to worry about unless you want to live their and/or eat food
that has been contaminated.

------
En_gr_Student
The f*ed up part is the impact on the fetus. The dosage level before harm or
death for kids is 10x smaller than for adults. For babies in the womb it is
way smaller than that.

These folks may have covered up something that resulted in the miscarriage, or
birth defects of the child of any pregnant woman who stood near that closet
for just a few minutes.

I think the folks who covered it up for 8 months, or the morons who (threw the
rocks in a hole and brought the nuclear-contaminated buckets back) should lose
all their power and position. That is an amazingly bad decision.

Lucky thing some kid walked around with a geiger counter. He recorded the
levels, so the numbers that officials are hiding, he knows them. His counter
can be tested and certified by a decent national lab, and the exact and
calibrated level of the radiation determined. And those contaminated buckets
tell something about the material that was in them.

Ore shmore. It is a radioactive substance that gives off dangerous levels of
alpha, beta, and gamma radiation, as well as nuclear byproducts like radon and
other gaseous nuclear isotopes.

Get more than the "top paragraph summary" that NPR did on the original AZ
Central article by reading it in its entirety.

[https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2019/02/2...](https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2019/02/20/grand-
canyon-museum-uranium-radiation-safety-manager-warning-elston-swede-
stephenson/2923344002/)

~~~
cr0sh
> Lucky thing some kid walked around with a geiger counter. He recorded the
> levels, so the numbers that officials are hiding, he knows them. His counter
> can be tested

Neither the linked article nor your's said anything about what kind of "geiger
counter" this kid had; whether it was something picked up off ebay, an old
civil defence unit, or some kit or custom made thing from Electronic Goldmine
(a native AZ electronics surplus and education kit supplier -
[https://www.goldmine-elec-products.com/](https://www.goldmine-elec-
products.com/))...

It's very well possible that the kid has no real numbers; that is completely
unknown.

I'd be willing to bet you could walk into an old mining bar in Flagstaff and
have more exposure to natural radiation used in the building materials than
you'd experience from these buckets of old ore. Natural radiation sources like
these are all over the place in Arizona.

The only real danger I could see and understand, though, is whether these
buckets were covered or open; could someone or a kid have "dug through them"
with their hands, or been in closer proximity to the material inside - where
the dust or whatnot could be left on their hands to be ingested or inhaled in
some manner.

That would be a much different situation than merely being near it for a small
amount of time.

~~~
godelski
> where the dust or whatnot could be left on their hands to be ingested or
> inhaled in some manner.

This _by far_ would be my number one concern. Proximity doesn't seem to be
much to worry about (238-Uranium has an alpha decay and doesn't travel far in
air). But inhaling or ingesting radioactive material completely changes the
danger level.

> Natural radiation sources like these are all over the place in Arizona.

Or... Grand Central Station. But... you have to consider context, which a lot
of reporters don't. Consider this quote.

"It's worth noting that if Grand Central Station were a nuclear power plant,
it would be shut down for exceeding the maximum allowable annual dose of
radiation for employees."[0]

Yikes! We can trace down the dosage level to 120mrem/yr[1] (1.2mSv), which we
can indeed see is on the order of average dosages for radiation workers [2] or
1/20th of the allowable dosage! BUT we can look at [2] more and see that
100mSv is "Lowest annual level at which increase in cancer risk is evident
(UNSCEAR)" (threshold model).

So when I see articles like this I'm always a tad hesitant to even read them.
They frequently focus on the first part of the last paragraph and give no
indication to what these things mean. Or even worse, are misleading like that
gizmodo article (I would in fact call this dangerous reporting). Radiation
quotas are purposefully (and I agree with this) put to be far below what one
might also call "safe" (I'd _upper bound_ "safe" as <100mSv/yr but think most
would agree 20mSv is "safe"). Yeah, we should pay attention and not expose
ourselves to radiation unnecessarily, but let's also be realistic about the
danger (especially when we're in such dire need if we're going to solve our
climate problem).

[0] [https://io9.gizmodo.com/grand-central-station-is-
radioactive...](https://io9.gizmodo.com/grand-central-station-is-
radioactive-1689028425)

[1]
[https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/inte...](https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interact/facts.html)

[2] [https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-
and...](https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-
security/radiation-and-health/nuclear-radiation-and-health-effects.aspx)

[3] [https://jciv.iidj.net/map/](https://jciv.iidj.net/map/) (just for fun,
now that we have some understanding of what these numbers mean).

------
mirimir
Years ago, I was working in a biochem lab, and helping a state senator's staff
draft legislation. The state capitol building was classic granite and marble.
So one day, I brought in a Geiger counter. Everyone freaked ;)

~~~
trumped
did you test your kitchen counter?

~~~
mirimir
Well, at that point, my kitchen counter was Formica over plywood, so not much
of a radiation source. But I did test my wife's Mexican pottery, and some
pretty enamelwork and art glass. Freaked her too ;)

But yes, much granite does contain substantial K-40 (as do we) and some
(probably less than 10%) is a substantial source of radon. Also thoron, but
it's too short-lived to accumulate. You can buy test kits designed to measure
radon production rate from surfaces. The radon gets captured on activated
charcoal. You return the kit(s) to the provider, and they send you results.

------
js2
Discussed yesterday:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19195087](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19195087)

Not nearly as interesting as the radioactive boyscout story:

[https://harpers.org/archive/1998/11/the-radioactive-boy-
scou...](https://harpers.org/archive/1998/11/the-radioactive-boy-scout/)

David Hahn sadly passed away at 39:

[https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/11/this-fall-the-
radioa...](https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/11/this-fall-the-radioactive-
boy-scout-died-at-age-39/)

~~~
djsumdog
The boysout and the smoke detector nuclear experiment is one of those really
amazing and interesting stories.

Geeze, I wanted to look up him, thinking he'd have gotten an engineering
scholarship or something. Looks like he served in the military, but afterwards
he got addicted to drugs and died in his late 30s. ... .. Geeze that's fucking
tragic.

------
ratsbane
Which takes me back to a shower thought I had a long time ago: How do you know
you don't need a geiger counter unless you have one?

~~~
car
I had the same thought, and wanted to check some strange ore from the desert.
Eventually I soldered my own Geiger counter, thanks to the fabulous Safecast
project. This is it: [https://blog.safecast.org/bgeigie-
nano/](https://blog.safecast.org/bgeigie-nano/)

It cost ~$650, but that's because it uses a very high-end geiger tube, and can
detect alpha and beta in addition to gamma radiation. Comparable commercial
devices do apparently cost a couple thousand.

Low and behold, the desert rocks weren't radioactive. However, taking the
counter on an airplane was quite shocking, and gave the cabin crew real
concern.

~~~
SmellyGeekBoy
> ...taking the counter on an airplane was quite shocking, and gave the cabin
> crew real concern.

Concern about radiation exposure or concern about the mysterious-looking
device you whipped out mid flight? ;)

------
dwighttk
They've issued a correction clarifying that it is Uranium ore, not straight
Uranium.

This paragraph didn't make sense to me: "Photos provided to the newspaper by
Stephenson show technicians arriving in June 2018 to take away the buckets of
uranium ore. The technicians reportedly dumped the buckets at an old uranium
mine 2 miles away, then for some reason brought the buckets back to the
building."

I'm guessing they mean "dumped" _the contents of_ "the buckets"

------
NikolaeVarius
[https://n.pr/2XfmoZh](https://n.pr/2XfmoZh) NPR correction

------
supermw
My mother still has old uranium glassware in her home. Not really sure if it's
dangerous or not but it's pretty cool to see in person.

~~~
darkpuma
Radiologically, Uranium glass is virtually harmless. However I believe Uranium
glass often contains a lot of lead as well, similar to the lead crystal
glassware a lot of people own. Lead crystal glass is mostly harmless but not
totally harmless, if you leave anything alcoholic or acidic in it long enough,
it will leach a significant amount of lead. Used briefly on occasion it's not
really a big deal.

~~~
lostlogin
It’s important to down the drink fast to reduce the risk of poisoning?

~~~
darkpuma
It's not quite that serious. It's fine to serve yourself with a lead crystal
but you shouldn't be storing wine in a lead crystal decanter or something like
that.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_glass#Safety](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_glass#Safety)

------
austincheney
Uranium ore is mostly alpha particle radiation. Clothing and aluminum foil are
generally sufficient to block alpha particle radiation. Uranium metal can be
up 28% beta particle, which can be blocked by sandbags or a thick brick wall.
Depleted uranium contains almost no beta particle radiation. Uranium ore lacks
the purity of uranium metal and usually more beta particles than depleted
unranium but not much more though it’s purity and composition are naturally
variant.

Because of that uranium is radioactive and that radioactivity is harmful, but
is not the primary harm, unless you are allergic to uranium at which point the
radiation is the primary harm. Also, sensitivity to radiation varies wildly by
person. Uranium is a high density metal that has some dissolution capability
into water, like lead, which means heavy metal poisoning. Uranium is more
dense than lead and thus more poisonous but less poisonous than osmium. Under
certain conditions uranium can be (or become) very brittle and break apart
into a fine dust that can be respirated.

~~~
monochromatic
> Uranium is more dense than lead and thus more poisonous

I think there’s a little more to heavy metal toxicity than that...

~~~
austincheney
How so?

~~~
tco03
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_toxicity](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_toxicity)
It appears as there if is little correlation between metal density and
toxicity

~~~
austincheney
Weird, your source says the opposite.

> Toxic metals sometimes imitate the action of an essential element in the
> body, interfering with the metabolic process resulting in illness. Many
> metals, particularly heavy metals are toxic

Metal toxicity is the correlation between density and reactivity.

Iron and manganese are limited exceptions where iron is about 84% of
hemoglobin, which is about 80% of red blood cells, but its toxic (though in
larger doses) matches almost exactly the implications of other metal toxicity.

~~~
adrianN
Gold is nearly twice as dense as Lead, but it's completely safe.

~~~
austincheney
Gold is toxic if consumed regularly. The symptoms of gold poisoning are no
different than other forms of metal poisoning. The primary difference between
gold and uranium is that gold isn't very reactive and so it has virtually no
contact toxicity. Also, some people are allergic to gold, which does manifest
contact toxicity.

~~~
phonypc
Metallic gold is completely safe to consume. You'd have to be taking
deliberately prepared compounds to suffer from toxicity.

~~~
austincheney
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold#Toxicity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold#Toxicity)

> Although the gold ion is toxic, the acceptance of metallic gold as a food
> additive is due to its relative chemical inertness, and resistance to being
> corroded or transformed into soluble salts (gold compounds) by any known
> chemical process which would be encountered in the human body.

This is true of known natural metabolic processes, but not true with
connection to certain drug interactions. Gold is not chemically inert and can
be converted into an ion or gold salt, even within the body, when mixed with
other reactive non-toxic chemicals. Gold metal is popularly consumed in trace
amounts of certain alcoholic beverages and there are many medications that
should not be taken in connection with alcohol for many different metabolic
altering processes. I am not sure if it has been thoroughly tested, but a
combination of gold and nangarin could also result in potentially toxic
consequences, which is why certain fruits are forbidden with consumption of
certain other chemicals/drugs.

This is exceedingly rare though, since platinum group metals are so expensive,
but the same conditions are observed with other platinum group metals. Silver
is more toxic than gold because it is more reactive, but the behaviors are
similar. A major symptom of advanced toxicity from platinum group metals is a
changing of skin color towards the metallic color of the metal toxin.

~~~
phonypc
For the purposes of human consumption, metallic gold is inert. I've probably
eaten on the order of a gram in the last decade. It ends up in the toilet.

~~~
austincheney
* [https://www.nuclear-power.net/gold-affinity-electronegativit...](https://www.nuclear-power.net/gold-affinity-electronegativity-ionization/)

Gold has a far lower ionization energy than you are giving it credit for,
which means it is capable of becoming toxic with relatively minor
interactions. The safe for consumption statement implies interactions natural
to human physiology are not likely to make gold toxic, but that doesn't
account for other things humans consume that do trigger reactions not normal
to human physiology.

Like gold we generally believe fruit juice is safe for consumption. Fruit
juice is even classified as safe for consumption, like gold, by the FDA. This
was proven to be not completely true when the price of grapefruit production
fell in the 1980s. Certain chemical interactions with fruit juice will make
you sick and in extreme cases will kill you. This phenomenon was only
discovered because of numerous associated deaths.

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grapefruit%E2%80%93drug_intera...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grapefruit%E2%80%93drug_interactions)

------
gumby
I remember visiting the Toronto science centre in the 1970s and just pickingup
a block of uranium for comparison with a block of aluminium and perhaps other
ones. They wanted to teach kids about density.

Glad they didn't use plutonium, which is toxic!

~~~
userbinator
Uranium is toxic too, but I bet that was depleted uranium, which isn't all
that radioactive and the bigger danger is its regular toxicity:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium)

~~~
lostlogin
Can any of the down voters add a comment? Is this inaccurate?

~~~
yesenadam
I didn't downvote, but I was surprised to read in that link that "DU used in
US munitions has 60% of the radioactivity of natural uranium". I knew already
that the US fired a lot of it at Iraqis not long ago and it's still killing
them. That wiki page links to this 2013 story:

"Official Iraqi government statistics show that, prior to the outbreak of the
First Gulf War in 1991, the rate of cancer cases in Iraq was 40 out of 100,000
people. By 1995, it had increased to 800 out of 100,000 people, and, by 2005,
it had doubled to at least 1,600 out of 100,000 people. ..."My colleagues and
I have all noticed an increase in Fallujah of congenital malformations,
sterility, and infertility," he said. ... the Fallujah health crisis
represented "the highest rate of genetic damage in any population ever
studied". ... Doctors in Fallujah are continuing to witness the aforementioned
steep rise in severe congenital birth defects, including children being born
with two heads, children born with only one eye, multiple tumours, disfiguring
facial and body deformities, and complex nervous system problems. Today in
Fallujah,...many families are too scared to have children..."

[https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/03/201331517...](https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/03/2013315171951838638.html)

------
stesch
We were nowhere near the Grand Canyon.

------
sandwall
As correctly pointed out by other readers, this is a non-issue and complete
overreaction. All feeding into misconceptions and irrational fear of
radiation.

The "safety professional" was out of his depth and clearly undereducated about
the risks of radiation and uranium ore in particular.

Hence, the true risk of a "dirty bomb" \-- is psychological, i.e. it would be
a weapon of mass disruption (not destruction), triaging a "worried well" would
be expensive and time consuming.

~~~
Spooky23
On a purely radiation focused scale, sure. But this is a big deal, as it’s an
indicator of the lack of effective management and controls surrounding it.

Where did it come from?

Why was it stored where it was stored?

Why did employees just dump the material?

~~~
sandwall
They're rocks that someone undoubtedly collected from the surrounding area.
Radioactive rocks, emitting low levels of mostly self-shielded radiation. Not
great, but not a disaster deserving of national news.

~~~
cr0sh
I got the impression that they might be some old dirt ore from the 1950s -
back then, there were a ton of articles in magazines like Popular Science and
Popular Mechanics (check 'em out on Google Books and the like) about the "new
gold rush - for uranium ore".

Lots of people from all over drove out to the southwest with bucket and
shovels, and tried to find this stuff in a (probably misguided) attempt to
"strike it rich".

I'm sure more than a few just left their buckets of dirt sitting around
Flagstaff and GCNP area - and they were found and moved around - and...

...here we are.

May or may not be true in this case - but I'm sure it has happened (and I am
certain more buckets wait to be found).

------
hirundo
Depending on the radiation level the public may have benefited via radiation
hormesis. With only the given data it's hard to know if this was a net health
menace or boon.

~~~
jhayward
The radiation hormesis theory[1] isn't widely accepted and shouldn't be used
as a policy mechanism until there is much more known about its legitimacy and
limitations.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis)

~~~
pfdietz
Also, if one abandons the idea that dose response is linear, there is the
possibility that the slope is even larger in the low dose regime than LNT
would predict. The conservative approach would then be to adopt stricter
limits, not looser ones.

~~~
sandwall
Airline workers are exposed to more radiation than "radiation workers."

No regulations, and no alarmist theories of risk.

\-- Not saying it shouldn't be regulated, just that the regulations are
inordinately strict and out of line with the evidence.

~~~
pfdietz
It's weird you think you're making an argument there.

The problem is that radiation effects at low doses are very difficulty to
detect. They could be very bad per unit of radiation and we could not now rule
that out.

~~~
sandwall
You're assuming that an unknown risk is _worth_ spending money on to regulate.
Don't know if there are boogey men, better protect against them. Costs be
damned.

~~~
pfdietz
Your mindset is that the risk has to proven, as in a court of law, before it
can be regulated.

This is Lawyer Science, not actual science.

~~~
sandwall
Science is not the regulation of the unknown. So, I dont understand your
position at all.

And not court of law, by evidence and observation, i.e. science.

~~~
sandwall
LNT is lawyer science, low dose radiation risk (cancer induction) is
stochastic. There is already a high prevalence of cancer in society. To
protect against possible litigation we eliminate sources as a possible
induction points.

However, iff you developed a radiation induced cancer there's very little way
to determine if your (mulitple) DNA errors were induced by cosmic rays or that
time you walked past a bucket of naturally occurring radiation or due to those
flights you took from Colorado to Brazil.

The dose makes the poison, we protect (and waste inordinate amounts of time
and money) against low levels -- because we're ignorant to the precise
pathways of cancer induction.

