Printable View
Hello gentlemen!
I have been wondering this a while, has anyone tested any natural hones for radioactivity?
I expect at least some of them to be somewhat radioactive, having traces of Uranium or other radioactive elements.
Chances are nobody developed cancer from his hones, but if someone had the tools to test his collection, I would love to see the results.
I wonder if honing a blade off of a stone sourced out of Chernobyl would not only cut better, but work as an astringent at the same time?
Lol.
Interesting question!
Might facilitate honing during power failures.Quote:
Originally Posted by earcutter
I think that all stone is radioactive to some degree. My understanding is that the radioactive minerals are ubiquitous and that geological processes sometimes sort and concentrate them into deposits. Houses in Colorado that have contact or exposure to rock or rocky soil often have radon issues.
Disclaimer; I have not done any research on this, it is just how I've always understood it.
There are very few rocks and/or minerals radioactive to any real extent. Considering what hones are comprised of you have a better chance of being struck by lightning on a day without a cloud in the sky.
What would be more interesting is to expose your hones to Ultraviolet light. it might be a real visual treat.
Radon is a gas produced by the natural deterioration of certain isotopes. It usually comes from pretty deep down and the solution is ventilate the area under the structure.
I have friends in the interior of British Columbia and that is exactly what they had to do. I find that a little frightening.Quote:
Originally Posted by thebigspendur
some people expose themselves to small amounts of radiation for it's health benefits.
There are 'Vapor Caves' in Colorado that I think used to be called 'Radium Vapor Caves', or something like that , when the radon was considered an attribute. I've gone to the caves and enjoyed them. I don't think that the radon got any lower when they changed the name. Radon used to be considered helpful to TB patients and there were many sanitariums in Colorado for the treatment of TB.Quote:
Originally Posted by tintin
Five years ago I went for vacations on the Island of Lemnos, a friend had a house there. Here it's generally a bad idea to drink tap water on small islands, and that friend of mine knew of a natural spring where the water was fine for drinking... but it had radon. And his family used to keep it in glass bottles overnight, supposedly to "escape from the water".
Needless to say, I didn't drink it since buying bottles is really cheap, but I did get a stone, fine sandstone that was near the spring, and I started wondering the above after getting the stone.
To my understanding, radiation with higher frequency of the light is always dangerous, and a source of cancer, no matter the health effects advertised.
I remembered the case with the radioactive paints, around the WWII time, that were used as lipstick by the (female mostly I assume) workers as it glows in the night. I bet it looked extraordinary, but many of them got cancer.
As a professional in the field of radiation protection I couldn't have put it better. In summary, it's pretty unlikely that any of the natural stones we use for honing would have significant radioactive content, and certainly very unlikely to present any kind of radiation hazard in normal use.Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesman7
However, one scenario where I could see a hazard arising would be where stones with significant radioactive content were being processed by sawing, grinding and polishing. Operations like these could produce respirable dust which would need to be controlled both for worker safety and environmental reasons. In most jurisdictions there are strong regulations governing stone processing aimed at controlling dusts as the detrimental effects of silica and asbestiform minerals have been well known for a long time.
So the short answer is there is minimal hazard to hone users but companies that process stone need to thoroughly assess the risks of processing, storage and waste management.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by rolodave
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.
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!:D
I've been told that walking down the salt isle in a grocery store with a geiger counter is enlightening.
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.
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/
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.
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
If you opt for non-destructive testing as destructive testing will take less time of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve56
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kees
That would be a very time consuming task.
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