Log InRegister
Quick Links : The Mindat ManualThe Rock H. Currier Digital LibraryMindat Newsletter [Free Download]
Home PageAbout MindatThe Mindat ManualHistory of MindatCopyright StatusWho We AreContact UsAdvertise on Mindat
Donate to MindatCorporate SponsorshipSponsor a PageSponsored PagesMindat AdvertisersAdvertise on Mindat
Learning CenterWhat is a mineral?The most common minerals on earthInformation for EducatorsMindat ArticlesThe ElementsThe Rock H. Currier Digital LibraryGeologic Time
Minerals by PropertiesMinerals by ChemistryAdvanced Locality SearchRandom MineralRandom LocalitySearch by minIDLocalities Near MeSearch ArticlesSearch GlossaryMore Search Options
Search For:
Mineral Name:
Locality Name:
Keyword(s):
 
The Mindat ManualAdd a New PhotoRate PhotosLocality Edit ReportCoordinate Completion ReportAdd Glossary Item
Mining CompaniesStatisticsUsersMineral MuseumsClubs & OrganizationsMineral Shows & EventsThe Mindat DirectoryDevice SettingsThe Mineral Quiz
Photo SearchPhoto GalleriesSearch by ColorNew Photos TodayNew Photos YesterdayMembers' Photo GalleriesPast Photo of the Day GalleryPhotography

Techniques for CollectorsScintillation Detection

30th Jun 2011 16:20 UTCTom Henderson

Hi all! I have been interested in radioactive minerals for some time. I am looking for a hand held visual scintillation detector. The type you hold up to your eye in the dark and view flashes on a phosphor screen. Basically a science-nerd toy. I saw one of these in an online catalog and now cant find it again. It was ~$30USD. Any idea where I can find (buy) one? Thanks, -Tom

30th Jun 2011 17:05 UTCEugene & Sharon Cisneros Expert

Here is a link to a kit that is available on eBay.


http://cgi.ebay.com/NEW-Spinthariscope-experimenters-KIT-Ore-Geigerscope-/220792605788?pt=BI_Security_Fire_Protection&hash=item336843cc5c


Also, do a Google search for spinthariscope for more info.


Only use an alpha emitter for a source, as alpha particles will be absorbed by the lens before reaching the eye. Using other materials that emit gamma could be hazardous, depending upon the length of exposure. WWII tank periscopes had lens coatings that were made with radioactive rare earth materials and eventually let to increased cancer rates for operators of that equipment.


Gene

30th Jun 2011 17:34 UTCDean Allum Expert

Tom,


I do not mean to advertise, but that catalog link is unitednuclear-dot-com


I wonder if you could make your own scintillating microscope cover-slide by coating a piece of mica with zinc sulfide.


This reminds me that I have been meaning to build a home-made cloud chamber based on dry ice and isopropyl alcohol. Has anyone attempted to do this?


-Dean Allum

30th Jun 2011 22:02 UTCRoger Curry

There's a page on my website where I describe observing scintillations using a smoke detector & phosphor. A much safer way to observe alpha particles is to use the bare CCD chip in a webcam, illustrated by this video


Regards,

Rog

30th Jun 2011 22:26 UTCRoger Curry

Warning! I'd bookmarked the video linked in my previous post some time ago. After having now watched it again, I realise that the young lady demonstrating the CCD radiation imager swears a couple of times when the alpha particles are hitting the silicon. Sorry for posting it if anyone is offended.


She has an excellent video of a large diffusion cloud chamber into which radon gas is introduced - fascinating! And she doesn't swear this time! Also this video, where the radioactivity from uranium minerals is shown to be rather alarming at Berlin Museum.

1st Jul 2011 00:00 UTCEugene & Sharon Cisneros Expert

Samuel,


I would have to respectfully disagree with the statement that "owning radioactive minerals and the bottom line is not a problem or a peril". Obviously, the writer has no concept of the quantities of naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM) that exist in some amateur collections or what care they take in curating it. My own rather small NORM collection measures around 1mr/hr @ 4'. If I were to store that under my bed, I would receive a dose of approximately 3r/year. That is almost the DOE regulatory dose rate of 5 rem/year. Of course I don't store it under my bed, but that gives a notion of the fact that some care is required in curating such a collection. And, that does not address the issue of Radon, which the HPS has addressed and has even facilitated forced ventilation for a museum case of NORM specimens. Ingestion of dust from NORM is another area of potential danger. I would rather caution amateurs that may not be aware of the potential hazards than make statements which may cause them to be careless with such material. That said, I would recommend to anyone that owns, or is contemplating owning, NORM to read safety guidelines that are available on the internet, for owning such material. Properly curated, a small collection of radioactive materials should pose no health hazard. All of that said, please forgive my obsessive thoughts on the matter. Having been a DOE radiation worker for 38 years has permanently imbedded safe practices into my brain. Always err on the side of safety.


73

Gene K6ELC

1st Jul 2011 04:55 UTCJames Christopher

Nice reads there!

3rd Jul 2011 22:30 UTCEugene & Sharon Cisneros Expert

Hello Samuel and all,


Thank you, Samuel, for your informative links to the HPS articles. I believe that these selected articles may impart the notion that naturally occurring radioactive minerals pose no health risk. At the end of my response, I have included a few more excerpts, also from the HPS, in hopes of presenting a broader and more accurate view regarding the health risk from naturally occurring radioactive minerals.



I have not claimed that owning and/or handling such material is necessarily dangerous, nor do I wish to scare anyone who may have such material or wish to own or collect some. My intent is to warn of possible health hazards and how to mitigate them by proper handling and storage of this material. Remember, all of the health physics community is in agreement that keeping dose rates “As Low As Reasonably Achievable” (ALARA) should be practiced when dealing with any kind of source material.


I would suggest to anyone with radioactive minerals in their collections to practice the following simple methods of reducing the possibility of health hazards associated with any source material.


1. Practice ALARA by using the simple rule of Time, Distance and Shielding.

2. Avoid ingestion or inhalation of source material

3. Wash hands after handling source material


Until such time that there is a consensus among the scientific community regarding the validity of the linear no-threshold model (LNT), I will continue to accept it and to act in accordance with its worst case scenario and to err on the side of safety.


Also, thanks for questioning my measurements and calculations regarding the radiation levels associated with my small collection of radioactive minerals. For that reason, I have repeated the measurements in a more rigorous way, in an attempt to better validate them. I have used all three of the following survey instruments in my measurements.


1. Monitor 4EC calibrated in the past 3 months at the factory and certified to +/- 20% (Ce137 reference).

2. TBM-3S calibrated from Monitor 4EC using several sources in the past year.

3. CDV-700 calibrated with provided calibration source in the past year.


When tested on several sources, all three instruments agree to +/- 25%. The level of discrepancy is not too surprising considering calibration accuracy, the geometry of the detectors, pancake vs. long tube, and placement repeatability.

Several measurements were made at a distance of 4’ with each instrument and the results averaged for each instrument. The averaged measurements between instruments agreed to within +/-30%. Because the Monitor 4EC was the most recently calibrated instrument, I have used only its averaged measurements in my calculation. That average measurement at 4’, with the Monitor 4EC, was ~1 mR/hr. My claim that I would receive close to the DOE regulatory dose rate of 5 rem/year is based on the following simple assumptions and calculation: I assume that if my collection were stored under my bed the average distance would be 4’ or less for whole body exposure, extremities being less important. Using the measurement at 4’ of 1 mR/hr dose rate gives: .001 R/hr X (8X365)hr = 2.92 rem (assuming a quality factor of 1). By the way, this dose is a little less than the DOE regulatory limit of 5 rem/year, but higher than the administrative limit of 2 rem/year.


What effect would that dose have on me? The National Academy of Sciences, National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement, and the International Commission on Radiation Protection estimate the risk value (to an adult) for an occupational radiation dose (above natural background) of 1 rem (1,000 mrem) represents a risk of 0.0004 or 4 in 10,000 of developing a fatal cancer. The average estimated days of life lost/person from receiving 100 mrem/year from age 18-65 is 5 days. This is, of course, based upon the linear no-threshold model and would therefore exempt those of you who reject this model from being one of the four fatalities. :) This also addresses your facetious question as to why we are not all riddled with cancer by the time we are adults. The answer is that 100 mrem/year will not cause us all to be riddled with cancer by age 65, but will on the average take 5 days from our lives. Being equally facetious, I could extend this to say that if we live long enough, we will all be riddled with cancer.


I should mention that it is not uncommon for collectors to have sizable collections of radioactive minerals and this is evidenced by one personal friend who has a collection that is perhaps a factor of 10 larger than mine. The collecting of radioactive materials has a certain amount of mystique about it, as well as scientific interest to many mineral collectors. It is therefore understandable why this specialization of the mineral collecting hobby is growing so rapidly and why many collections are sizable.

Quotes from the HPS, including references:


1. “Lots of folks collect geological specimens containing uranium (I even have couple of uranium ore-bearing rocks on display in my hallway at home) and so long as you do not have large numbers of samples, or samples quite rich in uranium, they should pose no problem but need to be handled with care. Natural uranium is only weakly radioactive and its chemical toxicity is actually of greater concern. Thus, the mineral samples should not be handled frequently, or for very long periods, and the hands should be washed after handling. Obviously one should not carry the specimens in one's pocket or keep them around food. Children should not be allowed to play with them. They should generally be kept away from folks as much as practicable, and it would be well to shield the specimens containing more than a few tens of grams of uranium when they are stored or displayed. Shielding against the beta radiation can be accomplished by a sheet of LuciteTM or other clear plastic at least 1/4-inch thick. This will allow the specimen to be viewed but will greatly reduce the radiation field associated with it.” http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q5847.html


2. “Having said all this, the guiding philosophy in the radiation safety community is that we should keep exposures to radiation as low as reasonably achievable. This is what we refer to as the ALARA principle.

The simple ways for you to achieve this would be to reduce the amount of time you handle the ore, keep the ore stored at some distance from occupied areas, and store the ore in a shielded container or room (e.g., a room with brick walls). These actions are really "overkill" for the small sample you have described however. Their main benefit might be to provide "peace of mind."” http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q573.html


3. “I have not measured radon emission from uraninite, but have had experience with several uranium ore samples in a variety of sizes. The only case I found in which radon in the air was a problem was in a geology department that had a large number of specimens. In that case, we placed the specimens in a display case with its own exhaust system to prevent radon from entering the room.” http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q9222.html


Kind regards,

Gene

4th Jul 2011 16:50 UTCAlysson Rowan Expert

At the risk of seeming self-serving, here's my ha'penneth ...
Care and feeding of radioactive minerals


It's a practical guide, so ... Enjoy!

5th Jul 2011 00:56 UTCEugene & Sharon Cisneros Expert

Alysson,


Thanks so much for your comprehensive article on radiological safety, as it pertains to NORM specimens and the collecting and curating of them. Your work will serve to better inform collectors of such minerals as to the possible risks of collecting them, as well as how to mitigate those risks. This is a project that I have had in mind for quite a long while now, but had no time to devote to. I do hope that your link to the article will remain active, as I will certainly be pointing my collector friends and clients to it. Again, nice work!


Gene

5th Jul 2011 11:33 UTCAlysson Rowan Expert

Gene,


I'm glad that you found it useful.


The artcle is currently a work in progress, and I hope to eventually have a comprehensive list of radioactive minerals and their calculated specific activities and dose-rates, as well as instrument design and construction tips. Updates will be irregular at best, as the data compilation is extrmely slow.


Since that is on my own web space, the link will remain active indefinitely, though once completed, I will be asking Jolyon to host a copy on Mindat.




I would remind everyone that the presence of a hazard is only dangerous when it goes unaknowledged and unprotected.


This is why most fluoroscope operators and early radiation researchers generally died of radiation-mediated cancers, and why modern radiographers are so carefully monitored and highly trained. Recognising and aknowledging the hazard goes most of the way toward preventing one's exposure to danger.




I have had the rare opportunity to measure radon buildup from dispersed radium (Ra226) under a range of conditions, and to experience the radon-daughter activities. By inference, this will suggest the same for Uraninite, though at a rate approximately 1000 times lower.


Even a small amount of Radium (in the micro-curie range - say ten grammes of uraninite) will raise the Radon levels in a small, closed room detectably in a few hours, and will reach a good approximation of equilibrium inside 3 days.


Even an open cieling (i.e. open to the air) will make no significant difference as Radon is a dense gas. The only ventilation that works well is a floor-level ventilator or forced extraction at floor-level. An open door is perfect. Cellars and basements are just traps for Radon.


Long-term exposure of porous materials (paper, brickwork etc) to trapped Radon will lead to those materials becoming heavily contaminated with Radon daughter products, and may raise them to the level of being classifiable as radioacive hazards in themselves. Removal of the Radon source will allow the contamination to decay to background levels over a period of several weeks.


Radon emission rates are increased by large surface area of source (metamict Autunite, crusts of finely crystallised minerals etc).


Surfaces exposed to radon will, over a period of years, eventually react positively for lead when subjected to even basic chemical testing.


Hope this helps,

Alysson

8th Jul 2011 20:56 UTCEugene & Sharon Cisneros Expert

If my previous posts seem a bit out of context, the person's posts that I was responding to have been removed for reasons unknown to me.


Gene

12th Aug 2011 10:59 UTCAnonymous User

Hi Gene:


My posts were removed for reasons unknown to me too. The debate was about low level radiation and collections containing a few radioactive specimens. I am not talking about very large collections as might appear in a University Geology Department or the basement of an old Museum. Nor am I talking about people exposed to X-Rays or Gamma Rays on a daily basis, or those working at Nuclear Power Plants.


The debate on the real hazards of low level radiation will go on for decades. I am inclined to agree with the philosophy, findings and reasoning of Bernard Cohen and others, and reject the Linear No Threshold Hypothesis outright. The model is flawed and is really an administrative tool than a scientific one. There is overwhelming evidence to show the model is flawed, but not just flawed, very seriously flawed. But like religion belief in the hazards of low level radiation is a personal one, perhaps based on fear and misunderstanding, perhaps part of a hidden environmental/greenie agenda. So I am not here to convince you. All I can say is read the HPS responses and if you have any doubts or misunderstandings please put them to the HPS. Also put the questions regarding the Radon issue back to the HPS, but do not expect them to change their opinion or their findings. On matters of radiation I gave a good reference, chapters 4 and 5 of the book by Richard A. Mueller "Science and Technology for Future Presidents. It contains a wealth of practical information some of which even surprises Physics graduates. Allysson’s PDF was good but if you really want to see how the experts perform their calculations with lots of details given for the underlying assumptions please look at "Introduction to Health Physics" 4th edition by Cember and Johnson. I encourage Alysson to read this book also. So where does this leave us? For me I categorically reject the Linear No Threshold Hypothesis. I will gain great joy in handling and viewing my radioactive mineral specimens and I will continue to maintain my regular exercise program involving walking and serious weight training. According to the WHO obesity will rival tobacco smoking and low level radiation as the number 1 taker of life in the 21st century. To those people who collect radioactive specimens I congratulate and encourage them in their endeavours, and tell them they have more to worry about the size of their girth than the size of their collections.

12th Aug 2011 11:25 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

Samuel. You know you why your previous posts were removed, and it wasn't to do with your dangerous comment that "owning radioactive minerals and the bottom line is not a problem or a peril" - as others have shown this is simply untrue. It was to do with your comments elsewhere on the site, and basically not being a "good internet citizen".


I agree that natural radioactivity in most minerals is statistically irrelevant compared to background radiation levels. And some minerals which are samples of "radioactive minerals" actually have a lower natural radioactivity than some samples of minerals we would think of as harmless which happen to have small % of radioactive impurities, or are associated with a radioactive matrix.


A few small radioactive minerals in your collection won't be that harmful if you ensure you are not exposed to their dust. Having lots of large radioactive specimens in your home, or worse still breaking them up with a rock cracker (for example), is certainly NOT safe.


Jolyon

12th Aug 2011 14:34 UTCAnonymous User

Dear Joylon:


Please do not take me out of context, and please do not call my comment about owning radioactive minerals dangerous. The real danger lays in maintaining beliefs that have no basis in fact which is the main problem with the linear no threshold hypothesis. If an esteemed body such as the Health Physics Society in the United States and the Academy of Sciences in France also feels owning a small collection of radioactive minerals is not a problem or a peril, well I will agree with them. The real danger lies not in the low level of radioactivity these minerals possess but the way the knowledge is misunderstood and misused by those not so well informed or misused by the informed with hidden agendas. You might recall the serpentine scare that hit the Californian legislature a year or so ago. We know lead is a cumulative poison yet what about Galena, we know Mercury is toxic so what about Cinnabar; we know Cadmium is toxic so what about Greenockite, we know Antimony is toxic so what about Stibnite or Native Antimony. And no sane collector would eat them, but I know a lot of people who have no interest in minerals who firmly believe that these dangerous rocks should be banned also. The Health Physics Society in the United States has already given clear direction about owning radioactive minerals, exposure to radioactive mineral dust and radon emission and it is not a bad as Gene and others would have you believe.


I build Geiger counters and scintillator counters as well as Ham Radio gear and a lot of digital electronics and I can tell you it is easy to make things look worse than they are. Place an Americium 241 smoke detector source right next to a GM tube and watch the count rate rise rapidly, yet 4 inches away and you are struggling to get a reading much above background. If I put my large Uraninite right next to the GM tube the counts go very, very high but from 5 feet away you are again struggling to get a reading much above background. My 9x8x7cm Torbernite specimen from Rum Jungle does not even cause any increased clicks even when two feet away. Things only start to “heat up’ when it is about 1 foot away, but not too hot. If you want precise readings I can give them. The best defense against any form of radiation is distance.


And please Joylon do not be so demeaning of me. You are not God and anyway the position is already filled.

12th Aug 2011 14:48 UTCgord major

In the 50's we were advised not to store our radio-actives under the bed if we wanted to have children


LOL

12th Aug 2011 16:57 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

> If an esteemed body such as the Health Physics Society in the United States and the Academy of Sciences

> in France also feels owning a small collection of radioactive minerals is not a problem or a peril, well I

> will agree with them.


And did I not agree with this myself?


> A few small radioactive minerals in your collection won't be that harmful if you ensure you are not exposed to their dust.


What you have singularly failed to realise is that the main danger from keeping radioactive minerals is not the mineral itself (although I agree, keeping them under your bed is a bad idea), but radioactive particles (and to a lesser extent radon gas). Distance is critical as you have mentioned, and when particles are inhaled and in your lungs, the distance is zero, which is when even the tiniest particles can be of serious danger.


Many radioactive minerals are safe as long as you treat them with respect. But it's an extraordinarily bad idea to let people think they have no risk.


Jolyon


ps. Cinnabar is relatively non-toxic.

13th Aug 2011 01:55 UTCAnonymous User

Joylon:


I have not failed to realise that radioactive dust and radon in high concentrations might be a problem. In my earlier posts I addressed this problem by telling mindaters not to eat or inhale their radioactive minerals, but you deleted these remarks. I still have copies of this advice on my computer.


No one denies that accidental inhalation of particles of radioactive minerals “might” be a problem. It is still an area of considerable research and debate, and there are many factors involved apart from the inhalation of a single radioactive dust particle itself. I suggest a review of the literature on the use of depleted uranium as armour piercing bullets, which deals largely with the problems of uranium dust particles that defense force personnel might be exposed to. What we do not need is ill informed paranoia suggesting that an accidental sniff of one’s Autunite will cause lung cancer without doubt. You might recall the HPS dealt with the accidental sniffing of Autunite by a Geology undergraduate.


What you have singularly failed to realise is that the supposed “risks” from keeping radioactive minerals are not a simple one alpha particle kills all scenario. If treated with the same caution one uses with other minerals such as Native Arsenic, Orpiment, Realgar, Stibnite, Native Antimony, Galena and many others the dangers will be minimal at worst.


All my minerals are given the “shake and bake” treatment on arrival, and by that I mean I soak them in water followed by a thorough cleaning with liquid soap and a brush. Some are even cleaned in an Ultrasonic bath. Any particles of loose material and dust are thoroughly removed before the mineral is displayed.


And please Joylon do not be so demeaning of me. You are not God and anyway the position is already filled.

13th Aug 2011 05:52 UTCRalph S Bottrill 🌟 Manager

Sam, I am not sure what God has to do with it, regardless of what God is to you, all sectors of society from the churches to Government to Anarchy Society to bike gangs have codes of conduct and people designated to uphold rules and remove offenders. The rules of this group is we welcome your knowledge and experience with minerals, but reject personal attacks on anyone. Unfortunately your posts to Jolyon and others have a tendency to sound abusive, and detract from your messages.

13th Aug 2011 07:41 UTCAnonymous User

OK Ralph B I will tell you what irritates me, when people try to simplify a topic as broad and as complex as ionizing radiation and all the connected fields. No one denies that high doses of radiation are bad for personal health. No one denies that if you got a lung full of radioactive dust you would become very ill. But the verdict on lethality of low levels of radiation and accidental inhalation of a small particle of radioactive rock is an entirely different story. I can direct you to a Website run by a friend of mine in Staten Island, NY. He makes Geiger counters and loads of neat electronic stuff. He has an experiment that one can perform at home using an old CRT television, which electrostatically attracts radioactive dust, and you can measure the radioactivity of this dust with a Geiger counter. This simple experiment shows that radioactive dust is all around us whether you have radioactive minerals or not, but is this dust lethal, who knows. Calculating death rates and exposure rates from airborne radioactive dust is very, very complex and not my area of expertise and that is why I called upon the experts at the Health Physics Society in the USA and the Academy of Sciences in France. I have given references to learned texts that should help people make their own conclusions.


But let us accept what Gene and Joylon are saying is true, that the risks of ionization radiation are too great and so owning radioactive minerals is a real peril. Why is Mindat accepting advertising dollars from vendors who sell such material and why is Gene’s company selling that material? I know Gene’s company requires a waiver but that is for the protection of the seller. The bottom line is this – if the risks are too great even if there is a tiny, tiny chance that a radioactive mineral might cause someone harm Joylon should not be sponsoring those vendors which sell such minerals and Gene should surrender all his stock to the NRC for disposal. You can't have your yellow cake and eat it, too."

13th Aug 2011 09:41 UTCRalph S Bottrill 🌟 Manager

Sam,

I quite agree with most of what you say - the world is radioactive, even our bodies are radioactive, its not a problem, but as Jolyon and others have pointed out, we can overdo it. I had the Health Department carefully check all our radioactive minerals and ore samples in our Geological Survey collection, and most were not a significant problem at all, except for one large uraninite. Management wanted them disposed of but I rebelled and got them put in a safe container out of reach of everyone. But we have a responsibilty to staff and visitors to take precautions to alleviate any dust or radon issue, if for no other reason that is if someone gets cancer they usually look for someone to blame, and if they see radioactive samples about, we are in the firing line. Most people can get very concerned about these and cannot be convinced they are harmless, so its best just to keep quiet and moderate any risk AFAP. And politely accepting their viewpoint and making conciliatory gestures usually works better than telling such people they are stupid.

14th Aug 2011 16:49 UTCgord major

Nothing is new under the sun


Wikipedia Radon


Listed was a Lucas counter which is an updated spintharscope


It would appear that you should check your TV screen

16th Aug 2011 03:39 UTCEugene & Sharon Cisneros Expert

Samuel,


I am afraid that you are misquoting my previous posts on this topic. Nowhere have I said that the risks of ionization radiation are too great and so owning radioactive minerals is a real peril. In fact, if you read carefully, you will see that my contention is that NORM, when handled and stored properly, poses very little or no health risk. You can purchase rat poison, which I'm sure that you will agree can be dangerous if not handled properly. Would you condone selling it to anyone, even minors, without providing some sort of information as to how it is potentially dangerous and how to handle it safely? I hope not. I have posted basic radiological safety information, on our website, with regard to safely owning and handling radioactive minerals, but feel that is not enough, hence the waiver. Consider that we have had numerous inquiries from school teachers and parents who want to purchase specimens for educational purposes. We have actually had parents try to purchase specimens for their “eight year old child's rock collection”. And, teachers who want to purchase specimens to "pass around in class" require some education, in my opinion. Aside from the remote possibility of liability issues, the aforementioned are the reasons that we have adopted a waiver policy for the purchase of NORM. It is a way of informing customers that this is a potentially hazardous material and that they should read the material that we provide and to be aware of what they are purchasing, before placing an order.



I will not post to this discussion any further, as misquotes, circular arguments and unkind comments are not pleasant, but more importantly they are not of any intellectual value. Perhaps we will form a better rapport in some future discussions of other subjects.



Gene

18th Sep 2011 07:18 UTCTrevor Dart

Hello. I have just read through this thread and I thought that I would add my bit. I am one of those science teachers that Gene has been talking about who wants to show students what a radioactive sample looks like and how it effects a Geiger counter. I have a number of radioactive samples in my collection including Torbernite from Arkaroola, Davidite from Olary region (with some magnificent davidite crystals from Billeroo - see my mindat article for pictures) and a pitchblende from the Zinc Mine here at Broken Hill. I have taken a Geiger counter into my mineral room and they do not effect it until I get really close to each sample. When I take them to the school I make sure that all students follow simple safety procedures, as I do the risk assessment first and explain the hazards to the kids. I have also sold a number of the davidites on ebay and when I have posted them off I included safety instructions as follows - mostly for the benefit of paranoid customs officers


"Safety Precautions When Handling This Material


Davidite is a complex Iron, titanium, uranium oxide. This mineral is classed as an unrefined ore of uranium and is mildly radioactive. It is an alpha particle emitter – ie: the low level of radiation is easily blocked by a multilayered cardboard wrapping. While this is a mineral / rock sample that contains a small amount of uranium in its chemical makeup.

1. It WILL NOT cause a nuclear explosion, heavily contaminate you, give off excess quantities of radiation, render you sterile or any other myth associated with purified uranium.

2. It was formed around 1.8 billion years ago inside a natural rock – granite and has been eroded out over the years to produce these loose crystals.

3. IT IS NOT HAZARDOUS while left in its natural state.


Handling and Safety: Please dispose of the wrapping material in the usual manner – do not reuse or recycle. Do not ingest any part of the sample. Do not inhale sample in powdered form. When handling the sample, wash hands when finished especially prior to eating.

Storage: Allow adequate ventilation. This material has the potential to produce small amounts of radon gas, which when kept in an enclosed space may build up to hazardous levels."


As long as you know the correct handling and storage of these samples then there is no real hazard in keeping them in your collection. I would also appreciate any suggestions for ways to improve my safety instructions.

18th Sep 2011 09:19 UTCAnonymous User

Dear Trevor;


Bravo. good comments and good advice.

18th Sep 2011 11:33 UTCBart Cannon

I don't know how this thread became so mature without me blabbering on since this subject is dear to my lungs.


First off. The instrument you are all trying to think of is the SPINTHAROSCOPE. It was a small cardboard tube with a little mesh screen and a thin scintillator. After adjusting your eyes to the dark, you looked through the open end and could see swirling scintillations. It was included with every Gilbert Chemistry set back in about 1962. When they also included the stuff needed to make gunpowder in their chemical collection.


Human health studies are often nonsense since there is no way to create a control or to characterize extraneous life circumstances.


Let's start with me. I'm 61 years old. I've been told many time that I look pretty good for my age, and I have no aches or pains other than my left ankle which has stainless steel screws in it from an aborted collecting trip. But it's a rare day when I notice a little stiffness there.


I've worked in open pit and underground uranium mines for each summer of my college life, and then later when I made the mistake of becoming a mineral field collector. I know Moab. I even swam in the the arsenic / uranium soup in the pit at the White King Uranium Mine near Lakeview, Oregon. That's a superfund site. But it sure is pretty.


When it comes to uranium minerals...... my basement is SUPER HOT! though it's every so slightly drafty.


And I work in my basement from noon until 7 AM each day of the calendar.


I think I should be dead from radon exposure. But here I am. Hormesis anyone?


Lead and uranium have about equal toxicity when delivered to the digestive system. The difference would seem to be that uranium and its spawn radon damage the lungs. More than lead? Can anyone tell me?


Does anyone remember Dirk Pearson ? He and his wife claim that the secret to their vigor in old age is selenium.


I grind and polish umangite and klockmannite fairly often. They smell like dinner.


My main physical flaw is a slight belly which I attribute to vodka.


Winston Churchill drank two quartz, I mean quarts of vodka per day. I think he died at 84. Probably not of liver failure.


More likely heart attack, stroke, pneumonia, or one of the common cancers that will kill 95% of us.


I say life isn't worth living unless you can heft a Joachmitstal pitchblende in your palm.

18th Sep 2011 16:11 UTCFrank de Wit Manager

Bart, I never met you, I don't know you personally, we never travelled together and survived eachother, but I feel love :) :)

19th Sep 2011 00:42 UTCBart Cannon

Frank,


I always return a gesture of love.


I made a mistake in my post. It was the White King Uranium Mine above Lakeview in the pit of which I took a swim.


In summer of 1970 Western Nuclear owned the mine. We hapless field workers were tasked with taking samples from the pit water from the middle of the little lake using poly-bottles. The managers told us to rent a dingy. We all decided it would be easier to just send me out there with the poly-bottle and my swim suit.


At the time I thought it was part of the prospecting program. I had never heard of CERCLA or SUPERFUND. I don't think they even existed at that time. We owe it all to Richard Nixon. That surprises most people.


If it was 1970 you and I could go for a swim and then collect from the high grade pile North of the pit.


Now we would be arrested for such behavior..


The White King was a noted location for meta-heinrichite. Most of the stuff I found in the high grade was more likely trogerite. Sometimes in nice crystals in the rhyolite lithophsyea. Or however you spell it. Lets just say vacuoles.


Bart

21st Nov 2011 00:08 UTCcascaillou

Hi all

Here's a link where I explained how to make a spinthariscope yourself:


http://gemologyonline.com/Forum/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=11299


If you're interested in radioactive minerals, this is definately fun.

21st Nov 2011 05:45 UTCBart Cannon

Is there record of Jolyon having any of his posts removed or re-directed ?


Jolyon knows he is not God. Just Imperial Wizard of Mindat.

21st Nov 2011 07:36 UTCJames Zigras

LOL

21st Nov 2011 07:39 UTCJames Zigras

LOL to Barts comments that is....

21st Nov 2011 09:40 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

Not sure what this has to do with this thread, Bart!


But there are many managers here who remove abusive messages, or messages from people who have been banned for abusive behaviour (such as 'Samuel' from Australia) -- it's not always me with my finger on the kill button.

21st Nov 2011 12:55 UTCRock Currier Expert

You don't pull on superman's cape, you don't rip the mask off the old lone ranger and you don't fool around with Jolyon unless you are really pissed off. I know for a fact that on occasion he can see reason.

21st Nov 2011 14:54 UTCJames Zigras

I am always really pissed off but then again that is why i refrain from writing my opinions on here. Im trying not to get kicked off of mindat again!

21st Nov 2011 16:20 UTCBart Cannon

* Jolyon,


Turns out I was responding to some old posts by "Anonymous User" in which he made references to you and God.


I didn't realize that his posts were from August.


They were at the bottom of the first page of the thread, and I got confused.


Sorry for wasting space inappropriately.


* And, Rock,


Do you still refer to yourself as "Chief Factotum" of Jewel Tunnel, and to your employees as "Toadies".


Don't mess with Bacteria Bart !!! He still has a memory !

21st Nov 2011 16:39 UTCJames Zigras

Good stuff Bart! HAHA

I believe Jewel Tunnel also has a rat living in the warehouse besides the toads

21st Nov 2011 21:01 UTCTom Henderson

I haven't returned to this thread in some time. Reminds me of a fellow I knew who, in the army, was marched thru ground zero. He said that stuff never hurt anybody! X( Project photo attached. Now I need to work on my photo skills! :S

23rd Nov 2011 15:12 UTCRock Currier Expert

We have no rats at Jewel Tunnel except for the occasional one that walks in on two legs. We do seem to have a number of little mice whose numbers wax and wane from time to time. A few months back I heard a sound near the telephone on my desk and looked up and there with his nose twitching and poking around the back of my phone and looking at me was a tiny baby mouse. Cute as can be. I didn't have the heart to try and kill it. One fell into my trash can under my desk and couldn't get out. I made a tiny mouse house in the trash can for him with some water and some cheese, but he soon died.

23rd Nov 2011 15:37 UTCDonald Peck

Rock, mice around here know where it is warm in the winter. My wife and daughters don't speak to me if I kill them, so I use "Have-a-Heart" traps and deport them . . . at least a mile away!

23rd Nov 2011 17:09 UTCTimothy Greenland

Rock,


Be careful with them thar mice! I had a couple get into my collection drawers about 15 years ago, when I was inactive on the minerals front, and they made a nest in the 'divers silicates' section. Trouble was that it (the nest) was made from the well-chewed-up labels from about half a dozen drawers. Luckily I could remember a lot of the data, because much was self-collected, but there are still some nice specimens that have beeen 'moused' into anonymity!


Hope all is well with you


Cheers


Tim
 
Mineral and/or Locality  
Mindat Discussions Facebook Logo Instagram Logo Discord Logo
Mindat.org is an outreach project of the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy, a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization.
Copyright © mindat.org and the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy 1993-2024, except where stated. Most political location boundaries are © OpenStreetMap contributors. Mindat.org relies on the contributions of thousands of members and supporters. Founded in 2000 by Jolyon Ralph.
Privacy Policy - Terms & Conditions - Contact Us / DMCA issues - Report a bug/vulnerability Current server date and time: March 19, 2024 11:52:42
Go to top of page