Rads in your pants? 360+ atoms of radioactive sulfur daily may have been inhaled by Californians

[flamingdem]

Where’s That Radioactive Sulfur Now? Possibly In Your Pants, Forbes.com by Jeff McMahon, August 16, 2011:

When the news broke yesterday that a previously unreported type of fallout from Fukushima—radioactive sulfur—had reached the United States in late March, nearly all mainstream media reports made the claim that it poses no threat to the health of Americans. <...>

And if you’re a man, you may be interested to know that some miniscule portion of it could be in your testicles. <...>

The California Air Resources Board estimates that Californians inhale 10-50 liters of air per minute during normal activities ranging from sitting to running. A liter equals 0.001 cubic meters, meaning Californians may have inhaled only about 360 radioactive sulfur atoms on that day—or more. <...>

Sulfur-35 is absorbed by the entire body but is of particular concern to men because it tends to concentrate in the testicles, according to a Nuclide Safety Data Sheet from the University of North Carolina Charlotte. Beta radiation occurring there could damage neighboring cells. <...>

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2011/08/16/wheres-that-radioactive-sulfur-now-possibly-in-your-pants/

[TheWraith]

1. 360 atoms. Sheesh.

Reporters should be required to pass high school science classes before they write stupid stories like this.

[FBaggins]

But no such requirement is necessary in order to post it

After all... what would we do without the free entertainment? :)

[flamingdem]

3. LOL! I was expecting to hear from you

I do see that some of this is a bit over the top, but there is an impact however small.

[TheWraith]

5. Um... no. There isn't.

Unless you believe in the discredited LLNR people, then no, there is no impact. It's silly.

[FBaggins]

2. Now we're counting ATOMS???

You can't imagine how ridiculous that is.

Quick quiz for you. With a half-life of about 85 days, how many zeroes would you have to put after the decimal point to cite the activity of those atoms in becquerels?

[flamingdem]

4. Hey I'm just posting something from FORBES MAGAZINE! pretty mainstream nt

[FBaggins]

8. Not really. No.

It's a blogger on their site who just started posting in March.

Not exactly the same cache' as the magazine... which itself is hardly a recognized source for nuclear energy analysis. :)

[caraher]

6. What a train wreck of an article

The finding is interesting though not alarming. But the writing is, even in corrections:

Sulfur-35 has a half-life of 87.5 days outside of the body, but a biological half-life of 623 days, according to Michigan State University’s Office of Radiation, Chemical & Biological Safety.

They corrected this to strike the words "outside the body," I assume to clarify that the isotope's half-life is the same whether in the body or outside. But it still suggests that the longer biological half-life somehow "overrides" the physical half-life; that somehow, magically, those nuclei take longer to decay when in the body. All the biological half-life gives is the biochemical residence time of the atom in the body, which is generally not important when the physical half-life is shorter.

[TalkingDog]

7. Glo-Nads. Because somebody had to say it.

n/t