
Scientists Who Pee Plutonium - sergeant3
http://warisboring.com/articles/the-scientists-who-pee-plutonium/
======
madaxe_again
The bit about lung cancer and cigarette smoking being more relevant to their
cause of death is very likely true - they will likely have had more radiation
exposure, never mind chemical, from smoking than from their entire nuclear
careers.

Cigarettes produce leave polonium and lead 210 in your lungs - which, while
"only" an alpha emitter, being already inside your body has plenty of
opportunity to do damage. Smoking a pack a day is about the equivalent of
having a CT scan every day, due to the cumulative buildup of radioactive gunk
in your lungs.

~~~
ams6110
I assume these are naturally occuring in the tobacco, as I can't see any
reason that polonium or lead would be added to cigarettes. Does marijuana
smoke contain similar radioactive components?

~~~
madaxe_again
Both from the soil and from phosphate fertilisers - see
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/5914751](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/5914751)
.

So yeah, weed probably does have similar components, but if there's one thing
in its favour, weed is an expectorant - far less crap sticks around in your
lungs than with tobacco.

------
irixusr
Interesting, but the last line sent it out of the ballpark:

"The same is not true for others [...] the people the U.S. government secretly
injected with plutonium."

~~~
ptha
Some further info from wikipedia:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_radiation_experiments#Ex...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_radiation_experiments#Experiments_performed_in_the_United_States)

------
Paul_S
Reminds me of Chaplain Tappman peeing heavy water in Joseph Heller's Closing
Time. Whenever I read a story like this I can't help but think that things are
improving when it comes to treatment of employees and how much value we put on
human lives vs progress.

~~~
mhb
The Empire State Building was constructed in less than a year and a half and
ahead of schedule.

~~~
irremediable
Didn't a load of workers die? In China they recently put up a skyscraper over
three weeks -- admittedly one that was half the height.

~~~
mhb
Wikipedia says five died. But that's why I mention this. Today, it is possible
that no one would have died or been injured but the project would probably
take ten times as long and cost ten times as much. Partly due to the modern
infrastructure which seeks to minimize all risk.

The additional time and expense devoted to safety isn't without it's own
costs.

~~~
zeveb
> Today, it is possible that no one would have died or been injured but the
> project would probably take ten times as long and cost ten times as much.

It took eleven years for One World Trade Center to exceed the height of the
Empire State Building; it took over 13 years for it to open. Granted, it's a
larger, more complex building—but still, that's a remarkably long time.

Human life simply isn't priceless: it's obviously not worth $1 trillion to
save a random person. Nor is it worthless: it's obviously worth 50¢ to save
almost anyone. Somewhere in between, there's an economic balance. I recall
reading that from numerous estimates of the value that people place on their
own lives (through insurance purchases, risk ratios when pursuing various
activities &c.) that we tend to value our lives at about $1.5-2 million.

A safety regulation which costs significantly more than that to save one life
is, quite literally, not worth it.

~~~
7Z7
>it's obviously worth 50¢ to save almost anyone

almost?

~~~
sbierwagen
Some individuals have negative value.

------
sxcurry
For some reason, the UPPU made me think of the mysterious U.P. Up in Joyce's
Ulysses.

