Results 1 to 10 of 21
Like Tree29Likes

Thread: Radioactivity of natural stones

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    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

  2. #2
    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.

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

    Vasilis (09-23-2018)

  4. #3
    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.

  5. #4
    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.

  6. 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)

  7. #5
    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.

  8. #6
    32t
    32t is offline
    Senior Member blabbermouth 32t's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    50 miles west of randydance
    Posts
    9,575
    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.

  9. #7
    Senior Member rodb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Saint Paul, Minnesota, United States
    Posts
    2,943
    Thanked: 433

    Default

    As I don't hone more than once a week or so and don't stuff my pockets full of hones or rub them on my body constantly I'm not going to worry about it. Texting drivers on the other hand I do worry about
    32t, Vasilis and Steve56 like this.

Posting Permissions

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