"Steph" <steph at vancouver.island> wrote in message
news:4GyDa.133188$3C2.4356938 at news3.calgary.shaw.ca...
>> "Henry" <henry at umailu.com> wrote in message
> news:vdl7rfebdef2fb at corp.supernews.com...> > Are there any know cancer causing(human internal organs) agents/poisons
> that
> > will cause such cancer in the time frame of 3 months to 12 months of
> > ingestion(via mouth)? Not might cause but very likely will cause such
> > cancer in that time frame.
> >
> >
>> No
What about an acute oral dose of the isotope Calcium-45? What would be the
course of that poisoning? Calcium-45 has some unusual properties and
obviates a general failure in science and technology in this arena. Ca-45
wouldn't have been detected by an average geiger counter of 10 years ago.
Historically there are two definitions of "gamma ray": 1)any photon
originating from an atomic nucleus. 2)the portion of the
electromagnetic(photon) spectrum with higher energy than X-rays.
Originally the two were in agreement. With cyclotrons and nuclear reactors
many isotopes were found which emitted photons down in the X-ray and even UV
energy ranges. Now there's been a nuclear isomeric transition in the
visible reported.
Also the entire basis of radiation and the Curie/Becquerel/Rad/Rem dose
ratings and therefore it's health hazards are based upon some very arbitrary
concept of "ionizing radiation". That concept comes from some old concept
of radiation that causes AIR to ionize and therefore conduct electricity in
some "ionization chamber". I claim that concept and standard is old
outdated and not proportional to health hazards. The nuclear industry hacks
will tell you "if it don't ionize then it ain't dangerous" and we don't rate
it as radioactive. So according to the nuclear industry UV and soft X-rays
have no bio-effects and any discussion of ozone holes is just wacko by their
standards.
Where that exact "ionizing radiation" threshold is within the photon
spectrum is not well described anywhere that I can find but apparently it's
above 12KeV soft X-rays.
If one goes into the Health Physics arena and looks up Calcium-45 then
you'll find it listed as a soft beta emitter with "no gamma". That of
course is misleading to the point of being flat false. See:
http://www.missouri.edu/~muehs/draft/newrsm2/Radnuc%20stuff%20in%20PDF/Ca%2045%20sheet.PDFhttp://www.niehs.nih.gov/odhsb/radhyg/nucdata/45Ca.pdfhttp://www.uwm.edu/Dept/EHSRM/RAD/calcium.html
Hard science sites show the truth:
http://ie.lbl.gov/toi/
which is that Calcium-45 emits a soft X-ray at about 12 KeV. When emitted
inside an organism then I suspect that such a photon may be just as/more?
damaging as the soft beta. Apparently these soft X-ray photons are NOT even
counted in radiation exposure figures.
Anyone know for Ca-45 if any actual mammal acute toxicological experiments
have been done and where/what any results might be?
