Learning Center What is a mineral?The most common minerals on earth Information for Educators Mindat Articles The Elements The Rock H. Currier Digital Library Geologic Time

Minerals by Properties Minerals by Chemistry Advanced Locality Search Random Mineral Random Locality Search by minID Localities Near Me Search Articles Search Glossary More Search Options

The Mindat Manual Add a New Photo Rate Photos Locality Edit Report Coordinate Completion Report Add Glossary Item

Mining Companies Statistics Users Mineral Museums Clubs & Organizations Mineral Shows & Events The Mindat Directory Device Settings The Mineral Quiz

Photo Search Photo Galleries Search by Color New Photos Today New Photos Yesterday Members' Photo Galleries Past Photo of the Day Gallery Photography

Discussions

💬 Home 🔎 Search 📅 Latest

╳Discussions

💬 Home 🔎 Search 📅 Latest

Groups

Recent Images in Discussions

Generalpoisonous minerals

2nd Jul 2006 15:15 UTCLeon Hupperichs Expert

Many minerals are poisonous and dangerous, but how much ?

What are the most poisonous minerals (chemical, not radioactive U and Th minerals).

My guess: Avicennite (Thalliumoxide).

Other suggestions.

Leon

2nd Jul 2006 16:47 UTCErik Vercammen

Is there a physicist or a pharmaceutic specialist in the (chat)room? I guess it depends above all on the solubility of the minerals. So, an arsenatoe with (OH)and H2O may be dangerous, things like bukovskyite and pharmacolite.

2nd Jul 2006 18:45 UTCDavid Von Bargen Manager

You are looking at two different factors. There is the inherent toxicity of the mineral and there is the exposure mechanism. The exposure methods are inhalation, ingestion and skin contact. For instance, breathing a lot of fine silica dust can result in silicosis, but just handling a quartz crystal would be safe.

3rd Jul 2006 09:52 UTCPeter Nancarrow 🌟 Expert

As David has pointed out, there are several variables to consider, and exposure, solubility and the physical form of a mineral all affect it's potential toxic effects. A toxic element is obviously much more dangerous if it is in a soluble compound. BaSO4 is so insoluble that powdered baryte can be ingested in fairly large quantities without any harm, wheras BaCO3 is readily soluble in HCl, so ingestion of even a small amount of witherite is dangerous, as it will be dissolved in stomach acid, allowing the Ba ions to be absorbed.

In this context, it's also easy to concentrate on ingestion of heavy metals, and overlook potentially toxic anions and other routes of absorbtion. For example, consider fluorite and villiaumite - the fluorides of Ca and Na, neither of which is regarded as a toxic element. Fluorite is generally considered pretty harmless, but due to it's much higher water solubility, villiaumite can be much more dangerous not only if it is ingested, but even when handled, because there is the possibility of skin absorbtion of the harmful fluoride ion due to solution in skin moisture. I have only ever handled villiaumite with gloves or tweezers, or briefly with a piece of tisse, but I have no qualms about handling witherite for relatively long periods with bare hands, so long as I remember to wash them before eating my sandwiches!

If you are considering just which elements a mineral contains, and the weight percent content of potentially toxic elements, then as Tl is certainly one of the most toxic heavy metals, avicennite would come high on the list. But with regard to hazard, I suspect that it's halides might be more soluble than the oxide, in which case lafossaite Tl(Cl,Br) could be higher on the list than avicennite.

If it's a cocktail of toxic heavy metals you're looking for, how about vrbaite? - Tl4Hg3Sb2As8S20?

Pete N.

4th Jul 2006 03:29 UTCJeremy Zolan

As much as I love the Thallium minerals, they are some of the most toxic- many of theb being nice coctails of mercury, arsenic, antimony, silver, and others. About solubility, Tl oxide isn't too soluable but the chlorides are quite so don't swallow any! I keep mine just as I would any other mineral but I'm just ultra careful when it comes to handiling them and the fact that you should always wash your hands after handling such things.

4th Jul 2006 10:50 UTCPaul Bongaerts 🌟 Expert

There is a good article about toxic minerals in the Min.Rec. volume11 n1 !!

the article is from 1980 but there is a list with about 200 minerals that are suspected or proven toxins. its a good base to start with .

the article is from the hand of J Puffer.

for intance aa 3mm cube of pure claudetite is the lethal adult dose !!

regards Paul

5th Jul 2006 15:51 UTCLeon Hupperichs Expert

thanks for the responce.

9th Jul 2006 18:23 UTCGeorg Graf

Hi Leon, hi All,

very poisonous in my opinion are Heinrichite containing Ba, As and U (radioactive a n d poisonous); and minerals like Bararite (NH4)SiF6, Hieratite K2SiF6 and Malladrite Na2SiF6, giving off HF or Fluorides under suited conditions.

Greetings from Goslar

Georg

10th Jul 2006 10:09 UTCPeter Haas

Georg,

Hexafluorosilicates a stable complex anions that do not give off any HF, unless treated with strong alkali. The particular stability of the hexafluorosilicate anion is the reason why quartz can be etched with hydrofluoric acid at all (remember that HF is a rather weak acid). Dilute hexafluorosilicate solutions are widely used as disinfectants !

14th Jul 2006 12:20 UTCRock Currier Expert

Some years ago I bought a cut and polished egg from the Congo (Zaire). Most of it is Cuprosklodowskite judging from the color. I thought this was pretty interesting and it is hot as a pistol on my little Geiger counter. I then took a trip to the Congo, Lubumbashi among other places and in the suburb of Ruashi there is an area where there are a lot of little home style lapidary shops where they fashion rough malachite into all sorts of carvings, eggs, etc. Iâ€™m sure you have seen it at various gem and mineral shows. The thing is that they do all their grinding of the malachite and other materials dry. I know this is where my cuprosklodoskite egg must have been manufactured and am sure it was not the only one made. I wonder how many years would be cut of the life expectancy of a lapidary that would dry grind Cuprosklodowskite.

Rock

14th Jul 2006 13:40 UTCJeremy Zolan

Polishing dry malachite is also quite dangerous- Copper is toxic to living things in large quantities, it affects the formation of red blood cells. A lapidarist at my mineral club says that if you breath in the dust of dry malachite, you have less than a day to live.

21st Jul 2006 03:46 UTCDavid Aldridge

I thought that it was soluble Cu compounds that were toxic. Isn't Cu in its pure form relatively safe?

15th Aug 2006 10:07 UTCRock Currier Expert

Yes, copper in its pure form is relatively safe unless you drop a heavy ingot on your toe. Many copper compounds are also relatively stable in ambient conditions. When you ingest or inhale them, the conditions are no longer ambient and the acid in your stomach or fluids in your lungs may dissolve some of them leaving the dissolved copper ions free to react with your precious bodily fluids, which is certainly the case with malachite powder produced by grinding wheels. I have never heard that breathing in malachite powder will kill you in a day, but it will certainly cause you substantial discomfort if not harm. Even a little malachite dust will leave a terrible long lasting taste in your mouth (personal experience) and I can't imagine anyone working with malachite who would not go to substantial lengths to make sure that they did not breathe the dust. About three years ago I visited a lapidary factory in Daye City where they were making chip and bead necklaces where they used a lot of malachite and azurite rough to make their products. Often these and probably other secondary copper minerals were discriminated in rocks from the local mines. Many of the beads were rough ground by hand. The round ones were further smoothed by bead mills and then tumbled polished. All the workers used water to cut down in the dust. However, after two or three minutes in the factory I noticed a distinct irritation in my throat that caused me to cough frequently and did not go away till an hour or so after I left the factory. The workers and management had apparently gotten use to it. I suspect that the workers in this factory could easily suffer eventual long term copper poisoning.

Rock Currier

15th Aug 2006 22:01 UTCMatteo Chinellato Expert

Arsenolite? I have read in a mineral book its good a 0.2 grams of arsenolite for kill a person

17th Jun 2016 16:17 UTCDb

Can any one one here give me the name of someone in California who could tell me what some I've found on my property ie. verasite chalk turquoise iron oxide whatever it might be.

17th Jun 2016 16:59 UTCOwen Melfyn Lewis

Try your nearest rock and mineral club?

17th Jun 2016 17:51 UTCŁukasz Kruszewski Expert

I think it is hard to say which mineral would be the most dangerous. There are some factors involved. What matters in this topic is the way (and time period) of the contact and the amount/dose. Happily for the collectors, most of minerals containing the dangerous elements (Be, As, Pb, Tl, Hg, Cd, Cr(VI) U, Sb, Se, Ni, Co) are insoluble or present in tiny quantities only. This changes a bit when such minerals enter the gastrointestinal system (HCl in stomach is quite strong). Continuing this way of thinking, uranium minerals would be quite poisonous not only due to radioactivity; kidneys are especially affected, among others; uranium is a typical toxic heavy metal. Soluble uranium minerals that I'd consider more dangerous include sulphate minerals, like meisserite, but these are rare.

So is thallium, and this one is indeed seriously dangerous, but avicennite and most of other Tl minerals are "insoluble" in water (very to extremely sparsely soluble); lafossaite - TlCl - is somewhat soluble and this would be more dangerous. But there is a special case - lanmuchangite; this belongs to alum group, and alums are very soluble; I think this mineral could be in maybe the first 10 most dangerous ones.

Beryllium minerals are mostly safe due to insolubility; beryllium hydroxides (behoite, clinobehoite) and BeO (bromellite), and many other Be compounds are "insoluble"; although many of them, incl. beryllium oxide, are 4th category poisons, and carcinogenic, these would only be dangerous when in form of dust → inhaled. I'm not sure about the skin contact, but I consider it safe.

Mercury minerals - similar case: mostly (actually all, I think) Hg minerals are insoluble or very sparsely soluble; however, inorganic Hg salts are, in general, considered very dangerous (though not as much as organomercury compounds) but - again - these are especially dangerous when ingested; personally, I'd avoid (prolonged) skin contact and/or just wash hands after handling Hg minerals (some Hg compounds may be absorbed through skin, although this is especially true for the organomercurials). Hg arsenate minerals - kuznetsovite and chursinite - would be "monsters" after ingestion.

Monteponite, CdO, is also dangerous, but again it is practically insoluble (in water). Cd sulphates - drobecite, lazaridisite, voudourisite - would be more dangerous; Cd sulphate, in general, is considered as very toxic.

Nickel compounds are known to be carcinogenic, thus especially the soluble Ni minerals, like retgersite, morenosite, etc., and chlorides like nickelbischofite, are dangerous if ingested (also skin irration may appear). Cobalt sulphates - like bieberite - would probably be less dangerous, but still such compounds are suspected cardinogens.

I find As2O3 and similar minerals (claudetite, arsenolite, stibioclaudetite) quite poisonous; it is volatile and inhalation + skin absorption are dangerous. Sb minerals would be less dangerous. Arsenates are carcinogenic, but most (if not all) arsenate minerals are practically insoluble in water.

17th Jun 2016 19:46 UTCOwen Melfyn Lewis

Lukasz,

Sorry to have to say it but you post as a mineralogist, posting about something you do not sufficiently understand and of which (toxic effect) you seem you have little or no first-hand knowledge.

In place of personal experience, all can refer to the MSDS sheets now published and freely available for most chemical compounds. Proceed on the basis that what these describe are 'worst case', to suit a culture that is now both highly risk-averse and litigious.

Now 75, I spent a decade playing about with native mercury and its compounds (other elements in your list too) with no special protection. Lead compounds for three decades extra.

My thallium malonate sits with me in an unventilated room no more then three feet from me as I type. Do you know that in the last 100 years it was widely sold as a depiliatory and is still, in some countries, sold over the counter as a household pesticide? This does not mean that I would let my great-grand-daughter put in in her orange juice, no matter how good it tastes. But, when she is old enough to follow instructions and understand the reason for them, I will have no more qualms about letting her use it than I did over letting our intervening generations live comfortably when growing up with items that can be unintentionally life threatening if mis-used - some seriously so.

When did you *ever* know of a scientist dying or being incapacitated by occasional contact with any mineral? Never mind the theory, where are the mortality statistics? The last I know of was Marie Curie, more than 100 years ago and before the effect of gamma radiation on living cells was known.

17th Jun 2016 20:58 UTCŁukasz Kruszewski Expert

Dear Owen,

Indeed, I'm a mineralogist, but I am also a geochemist, and thus very interested in chemistry, especially the inorganic one. Sorry but I must disagree with me "not sufficiently understanding". Toxicology and chemistry is my hobby and I spent some hours reading about it and watching some reports; as a mineralogist I've also spend quite many hours in a laboratory playing with various toxic compounds; as a coordinator of a X-Ray Lab, I've had a plenty of various substances in my hands to be analyzed; beside minerals I also collect some chemicals. Of course I do believe that when you "play" with a particular substance for a long time, then you get much more knowledge on in. That is why I spend a lot of time with informations coming - exactly - from the material safety data sheets; these include the toxicity categories, and I know what is 4, 3, 2, ... And yes, I know what is LD50 ;-) And I know the difference between inhalation, skin contact, injection, etc.

"When did you *ever* know of a scientist dying or being incapacitated by occasional contact with any mineral? Never mind the theory, where are the mortality statistics?"

We are not talking about mortality in this thread. We are talking about poisons. And yes, I've heard about people (from my faculty) dying - on cancer. Voila. And it is known that cancer is a typical disease for geologists, although not only the ones working with chemicals.

"I spent a decade playing about with native mercury and its compounds (other elements in your list too) with no special protection."

I just wrote at the beginning: "There are some factors involved. What matters in this topic is the way (and time period) of the contact and the amount/dose". So, it all depends on what kind of contact did you have. I've also wrote about the organics. And regarding mercury - well, as we know some metals tend to accumulate and this exactly concerns mercury and lead.

Btw, do you know which substance is currently considered as the most toxic one? Is aluminium dangerous and by which conditions? Which food is most rich in selenium, which in radium; what is the influence of REE to human organism; or why is lithium carbonate used as a sedative? I am ready to discuss these and similar topics ;-)

17th Jun 2016 21:09 UTCŁukasz Kruszewski Expert

David, soluble Cu compounds are indeed toxic, but not that much as for example nickel compounds, because the Cu compounds are not in particular recognized as carcinogens. Cu chloride is a known irritant.

17th Jun 2016 21:47 UTCBob Harman

As so many previous posters have pointed out there are various ways to look at all this. As a retired MD pathologist, I saw drownings, so even water (a bit of a stretch) might be considered a dangerous mineral and also in its crystalline ice phase. And chrysotile asbestos fibers of the right size and type, inhaled over long time frames, are very carcinogenic causing mesothelioma and lung cancers. The numbers of folks drowning and with lung cancers secondary to asbestos mineral inhalation might far out number the few people dying from exposures to many other rarer toxic minerals and radioactive minerals. So it boils down to narrowly and very specifically defining all the terminology in the question. CHEERS.......BOB

17th Jun 2016 21:55 UTCŁukasz Kruszewski Expert

Yup, I remember entering a serpentinite mine where piles of crushed material were deposited; the weather was dry and the piles haven't been water-sprinkled at that moment; you could feel some pain immediately after gettting outta car...

17th Jun 2016 21:56 UTCŁukasz Kruszewski Expert

Eric has mentioned bukovskyite. It is not really soluble, nevertheless I've got heard that in Czech Republic it was used as a rat poison...

17th Jun 2016 22:46 UTCOwen Melfyn Lewis

Dear Lukasz,

Copper and tin. When we were married (1966) my wife and I were given a set of copper pans, lined with a thin tin coating. The purpose of the tin was to prevent contact between the food being cooked and the copper; the copper being fairly reactive with acids simple and complex that are found in foodstuffs. This precaution was not because copper is poisonous (it really is not particularly so) but because the copper compounds formed in the cooking can affect the taste of delicate dishes. That said, after about 20 years in daily use, the tin coating wore through and for the next 25 years in daily use I was cooking more and more on naked copper and less on tin (most of which had probably been ingested in one form or another. I then had the pans professionally cleaned and re-lined by one of the few persons still skilled in this 200+ year old craft and passed them on, in as new condition, to my son who now enjoys using them as much I did for so many years. Similar copper pans are still produced - but for some years they must be lined with stainless steel and not the historic tin.

I grew up in a home that was plumbed throughout with lead. In my late teens the fashion changed to copper piping and copper or zinc-coated tanks. These days, it is all plastic. If one's teeth needed filling, a silver/mercury amalgam would be made by the dentist on the spot, leaving one to swallow t least some of the excess material, including elemental mercury, as well as having mercury compounds leach into one's body for years afterwards.

Being a mineralogist or a geo-physicist gives you little to no help in assessing the true risks to health from the compounds of elements such as copper, lead and tin that you have stated as 'poisonous'. Many things are poisonous if one ingests sufficient of them. That includes oxygen (deadly poisonous if breathed for any period more than a very few minutes at pressures of as little as 3 bar. Air with a standard gas mix will kill you from oxygen poisoning (if the nitrogen narcosis has not already caused you to die) at pressures of 10 bar+. So, should we all stop breathing because too much oxygen will poison one?? The concerns are those of proper risk assessment - a mix mainly of heuristics and statistics when done correctly. And of risk control which, for the properly informed, is largely a matter of commonsense.

My great-grandparents lived well into their 80's, my grandparents lived healthily into their 80s and 90's, as did both of my parents. I fully expect to do the same. The risks from occasional (or even regular) low level contamination from most minerals (e.g. Cu, Sn, Pb and Hg) are commonly exaggerated.

But what the hell.... there is now a multi-billion dollar industry built on rafts of health and safety legislation that applies an artificial stimulus to national economies. It all makes non-jobs for those otherwise difficult to employ in the modern world :-)

The above all being said and true, I would not encourage feeding even a milligram of Po-220 even to one's worst enemy. Nor could I find ever find good reason to keep such in my house :)-D

17th Jun 2016 23:27 UTCŁukasz Kruszewski Expert

Of course you're right about these exaggerations, although I'd be careful with Hg; metallic Hg is of course harmless, but Hg vapors are not; and Hg may undergo methylation in certain conditions - then you've got a serious problem. But here, again, this is a matter of time, frequency, dose.

I haven't stated in my original post that Sn and Cu (or their compounds) are poisonous. I've just mentioned that some soluble compounds, in particular minerals, are poisonous. I'm not surprised with Pb plumbing not influencing anything, as the oxidation of Pb leads, usually, to "insoluble" aka almost insoluble compounds, like PbSO4, Pb2(CO3)(OH)2, PbCO3. I used to lick my synthetic "chalcanthite" without any intoxication. I wouldn't be worried about Cu at all, as the Cu poisoning does not seem to be very serious and common condition. But I' quite happy that I haven't done it with synthetic "lopezite"... licking chromates and dichromates is not a good idea. I'd rather be careful with carcinogens....

18th Jun 2016 02:10 UTCAlfredo Petrov Manager

This is more of an issue for lapidary folk than it is for mineral collectors, because the lapidarists can inhale fine dust particles during cutting and polishing work (if they're too daft to take adequate precautions). Mineral collectors, on the other hand, rarely eat their specimens and hardly ever grind them up and snort them.

18th Jun 2016 10:53 UTCOwen Melfyn Lewis

Alfredo Petrov Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> This is more of an issue for lapidary folk than it

> is for mineral collectors, because the lapidarists

> can inhale fine dust particles during cutting and

> polishing work (if they're too daft to take

> adequate precautions). Mineral collectors, on the

> other hand, rarely eat their specimens and hardly

> ever grind them up and snort them.

:-)

In theory, yes; in practice, I have never heard of - let alone known - of a lapidarist suffering this way. Miners however are another matter, entirely as a result of the gross intake from working daily in a dust-laden atmosphere.

18th Jun 2016 14:55 UTCŁukasz Kruszewski Expert

This is exactly the matter of frequency...

18th Jun 2016 16:21 UTCJoshua Chambers

I know this isn't really about 'poisonous' minerals (radioactive instead), but I'm interested in purchasing some Uranocircite. Obviously, as it contains radioactive U, is it safe to keep stored in my bedroom (in a wooden cabinet with glass doors)? All of my minerals are kept in my bedroom, but as I've never purchased (known) radioactive minerals before, I don't know the safety limits.

Thanks

Josh

18th Jun 2016 16:25 UTCD. Peck

Lukasz, I believe that your comments are correct and well balanced. I am a chemist by training and have taught chemistry at the university level. I was trained by OSHA to work as a compliance officer, and did so. Minerals present a minimal hazard because we do not handle any particular species or type that much, and common sense, like washing one's hands after handling them and before eating mitigate the dangers. But I would offer two additional comments. It is true that MSDS sheets are readily available to warn of the hazards of particular chemical compounds, but in reading them one should be aware that they are written primarily for the protection of workers who are in environments with those chemicals for eight hours a day, five days a week. That is not to say that there is not and can not be hazards for short exposures, but they are considerably lessened. The second comment is that if there is a group in our hobby that may have increased risks, I believe it is the lapidarists. Breathing either dust or partculate laden mist can cause problems. Wearing adequate masks is important.

18th Jun 2016 16:45 UTCBob Harman

FOR JOSHUA, The vast majority of small sized radioactive collector minerals are not hazardous when displayed properly and in a proper place in the house and only occasionally handled for short time periods. They should NOT be kept in any room frequented by children, especially near the head of a bed in a child's bedroom. And, in my humble opinion, for that matter, they should NOT be kept in any bedroom.

If you have to bring up the subject like you have and ask about it, I feel you are not ready to buy these type mineral specimens until you are more experienced and have a proper place in your house/apt to properly display them. At this stage, you should stick to minerals totally and completely safe unless you drop them onto your foot. That is my opinion. CHEERS.....BOB

18th Jun 2016 16:59 UTCJoshua Chambers

Bob, thank you for the reply. Some valid points you proved. Maybe I am too immature at the moment to own specimens like these, perhaps when I'm more experienced :-)

Thanks

Josh

18th Jun 2016 17:00 UTCOwen Melfyn Lewis

Łukasz Kruszewski Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> This is exactly the matter of frequency...

Actually, no. Rather, some mix of:

- Intake during an event.

- The duration of an event.

- Lastly, the frequency of repetition of an event.

Mammalian bodies have evolved to both trap and void particulate matter before it enters the lungs and also to remove it from the lungs before it causes serious damage. Only where these natural defences are overwhelmed will all but a few substances become a serious problem - and the body has other mechanisms for avoiding the more serious consequences of inhalation of most of those.

18th Jun 2016 19:11 UTCChristian Auer 🌟 Expert

Lukasz , I've been working today the whole day in a mercury mine and will do so again tomorrow. No I'm not worried at all. The dosis makes the poison, Paracelsus once mentioned...

18th Jun 2016 22:14 UTCKnut Eldjarn 🌟 Manager

Minerals should always be handled as chemicals and potential health hazards if ingested or inhaled. It is a good idea to look at the chemistry and the safety profile of similar chemicals (many have CAS-numbers and SDS-information readily available.) Washing the hands before eating is a sensible contribution to preventive health care also after handling minerals. On the other hand, only rarely will the handling of a mineral have a potential for being a health hazard due to absorbtion through the skin. I do not think occasional skin contact through the handling of i.e. a soluble fluoride like Villiuamite will have the potential of introducing more fluorine into the body than what people regularly get from their toothpastes or NaF- tablets (= Villiuamite) taken to prevent caries.

Having worked for many years with issues related to trace elements and health, it is clear to me that the human body and most other living organisms have adapted through evolution to their chemical environment in many interesting ways. Life itself must have formed in environments with a large number of elements being present in fumes and solutions making them available to be incorporated in living organisms. Some of the common elements occur in major amounts in the body - i.e. Carbon, Oxygen, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Sulfur etc. But a huge number of elements are present in the body only in trace amounts but are never the less of vital importance for biochemical processes in living organisms. In many cases of toxic effects caused by introducing poisenous elements and chemicals there is a close interaction between processes of organic and inorganic chemistry. There is still a lot to learn about these interactions that may be both healthy and harmfull. Sometimes there are interesting links between medicine and mineralogy. Many of you may know that also silver can be harmfull if introduced into the body. "Argyrosis" as a disease was known long ago. Interestingly many of the symptoms have been shown to be caused not by a direct harmfull effect of silver itself - but by the fact the silver reacts with Selenium which is of vital importance in the body. It was discovered that the black patches in the skin of patients with argyrosis contained small "deposists" of the mineral Naumannite (silverselenide). Many of the symptoms were similar to the ones found in patients with a nutrition deficient in Selenium.

That radioactive minerals can be harmfull by exposure to radiation, is well known. But since the eve of evolution living organisms have adapted also to the natural radiation to a large extent caused by radioactive minerals in the bedrock and soil! There are many studies (i.e. studies of Hiroshima survivers) indicating that a certain amount of radiation actually may be healthy! It can be explained by the adaptation by the living organisms to the radiation of the environment and that its present may have been incorporated to support important biochemical processes in the body. Still radioactive materials - including minerals - should be handled with respect. It is especially important to avoid the inhalation or ingestion of radioactive particles. But there is no reason to be hysterical and there is no scientific evidence to prove that a small increase in the "background radiation exposure" caused by a brief look at radioactive minerals specimens - i.e. in your mineral collection or in a museum would cause any harm. Some would even argue it could be of benifit to persons living in "low background radiation" environments! There is no reason not to have radioactive minerals in your collection - but keep them in a good ventilated area, wash your hands after handling them - AND do not keep them under your bed...

In essence - you should handle chemicals - including minerals - with caution but based on knowledge and not fear.

Knut

18th Jun 2016 22:37 UTCŁukasz Kruszewski Expert

A very cool information about this human-body naumannite!

19th Jun 2016 20:12 UTCMartin Rich Expert

@ Łukasz: "...And yes, I know what is LD50...". I hope you are on the right side of the 50 %! :-)

I have a basic education in organic/inorganic chemistry and in lab work. I'm also educated in anatomy and physiology (not in human area). So I'm familiar with the problems of toxic substances. I approve the most statements here. We are living in a world of chemical substances; say, we disassemble a tourmalin crystal in his single chemical elements. All this elements per se could be dangerous. As said above, it's a question of form (in most cases, ionic form in our body is toxic), amount, how long and how often will a chemical substance pollute a organism. Don't panic if you hold a chunk of galenite in your hands! I think it is dangerous to find on some mineral shows man made crystals of chromates or dichromates! Children love this colourful and shiny crystals, but these chromates are watersoluble and little children can not resist to play with them.

And yes, pure water can also be dangerous!! Some years ago, in the USA I think, there was a tv-show. One of the games of this show was drinking water so much as possible. Big amounts of H₂O in the body changes the osmotic pressure in the cells. Unfortunately, one of the candidates passed away after the show....

Łukasz wrote: "Btw, do you know which substance is currently considered as the most toxic one?"

The exotoxine of Clostridium botulinum and others (botulinum toxine) is sure one of the most toxic substance. The LD₅₀ for mice is 30 pg/kg and for human about 2 ng/kg! You can find this bacterium nearly everywere.

20th Jun 2016 01:09 UTCŁukasz Kruszewski Expert

You're all right, guys. I was a bit angry with a comment about my knowledge in a topic that I feel quite good in, but now we have had a "beer" together with Owen ;-)

Josh's question about uranocircite reminds me a discussion some years ago when I was also asking about a similar matter (I've had some neurosis-induced fears/compulsions at that time, and gave away 50% of my uranium minerals; now I regret that (-;). Basing on many nice comments mainly here on Mindat and some reading I now know, that what is dangerous about radioactive materials is wheter (1) they contain the most common U-238 in dominance (which is true for all uranium minerals), (2) there is or there isn't a mineral dust that may be inhaled (this is especially important in case of uranium micas like uranocircite, as they tend to cleave easily; this is not in particular important in case of uraninite) - and this case is a bit similar to that described by Don (the lapidarists case). Most of uranium- and (likely all) thorium-bearing minerals are mainly "responsible" for alpha radiation, which is stopped by a paper sheet, glass, plastic, etc. Again, all is fine until such radioactive particulates get into the body. I wouldn't worry for the more penetrating beta and gamma radiation as it would account for a relatively small percentage of the total radiaton of the mentioned minerals, maybe discluding primary species like uraninite (though I know many people keeping uraninite just in a box, though far from places where they usually reside). I was once worried about davidite-(La), but then I read that it is not really "hot" - I keep it at home in a small plastic box. Uranium minerals tend to produce some radon; but - as far as I was informed by a uranium-mining worker - radon "sticks" for example to plastic - so it would likely stick to plastic box covering the mineral specimen; I wouldn't also expect vast amounts of radon being produced by uranium minerals. Interestingly, there is an information (although not confirmed ;-)) that uranium may enter some enzymes. The question is if it is required there, of it it just has some affinity to them. I also agree with Knut - even in such harsh environment as the Exclusion Zone around Pripyat'/Chernobyl, where it would be expected for all the living creatures to become extinct, life is prosperous and actually there are more animals living there than before the accident (that's actually because there are no people living there anymore). The animals do have some growth anomalies etc., but they are far fom extinction.

Martin - you're of course right about the botulinotoxine; however, there are rumours of some human manipulations with it, with some danger of producing yet worse monster.

Btw - if you like the Brazilian nuts then you also like radium, barium, and selenium (-; A small cup full of these may introduce more selenium to the body than a daily requirement (not talking about radium) (-; No need of consuming naumannite (-; And a tonne or so of bananas is enough radioactive to be measured by a Geiger (potassium... (-;).

20th Jun 2016 17:16 UTCGeorg Graf

Having read once again this thread, also my own contribution, I shake my head.

OK, absolute security is not possible. Not by handling minerals; and not by driving on the motorway.

Calcite and Apatite one can eat and to a certain degree inhale dust without risks for health. But why the hell one should eat Calcite or Apatite?!

I keep my minerals safe in boxes ect. So no one can damage them; and no baby or other uneducated person can lick on them, esp. not on my uranium ores, and not on soluble heavy metal minerals.

Best wishes to all! Georg

21st Jun 2016 05:01 UTCDoug Daniels

Heck, I agree with Georg. If someone can navigate my basement (where I store my beasties), then good luck. I have a hard enough time myself....

21st Jun 2016 20:14 UTCDon Saathoff Expert

Speaking of basements, some years ago (like 40 or so) I was preparing a presentation on Barringer Hill in Llano Co., Texas. In order to get photos of specimens I visited several museums in central Texas and paid "photo fees" for the right. The catalog of the U of T museum showed a good number of specimens but were not to be found - strlke one. The catalog of the Witte museum showed several specimens but when I went to the basement storage area, the cabinet/drawer numbers produced no specimens. I asked to be allowed to search w/ my geiger counter for the (hopefully) misplaced specimens. This lead me to a set of open-topped drawers in an open cabinet which read VERY hot. No Barringer specimens, but in the front of one of the drawers was a LARGE specimen of very powdery (unlabeled) tyuyamunite/carnotite surrounded by a halo of bright yellow dust. It was on the bottom of the drawer, the top edge of the drawer, the front of the cabinet and just to the left of the cabinet was a large Hunter style fan on a floor stand directed across the front of the cabinet toward the desk of a museum worker at the other end of the basement room. The top of the desk was relatively clean but the front of the desk was covered with a fine yellow dust. I asked the curator (?) if she had any idea what the yellow dust was and she had no idea (why the collection had been moved to the basement-no curator!!!) When I showed her the level of radioactivity on the desk and in the room proper she panicked. They (deaccesioned) the specimens and I never got the photos I wanted but was refunded my photo fees with thanks for the warning.....

Don S.

21st Jun 2016 22:59 UTCŁukasz Kruszewski Expert

What Don describes is exactly what I've heard about "uranium micas" and dust formation; these minerals cleave easily and are dust-forming and this Don's description is a good confirmation of this phenomenon. That's why it is advisable to keep such minerals in boxes (I'd personally recommend the plastic ones due to radon attraction, although I'm not sure which materials do actually attract radon easily; the plastic attraction is what I've heard from a miner who claimed he had to do with some mine radon elevated levels) and/or in a well-ventilated areas. That's my opinion. Btw - thanks god we don't have plutonium minerals :-D although they'd be quite colourful...

22nd Jun 2016 02:56 UTCDoug Daniels

Considering radon is an inert gas, can't imagine why it would be attracted to anything in particular. Unless it is created as an ionized gas (???). As far as we are concerned, you don't want to breathe radon gas, and have the fortune of it decaying to one of its solid daughter phases in your lungs.

22nd Jun 2016 03:39 UTCAlfredo Petrov Manager

Just one more reason to live in a well-ventilated home.

22nd Jun 2016 15:00 UTCŁukasz Kruszewski Expert

Doug, I must admit that I completely rely on what I saw (as an answer to radon concern ca. 2 years ago here on Mindat, and what I was told by the miner) that is what I found: " Plastic materials should not be placed inside the shield as their surface draws radon progenies by electrostatic attraction", its from a "Analysis of Environmental Radionuclides" book by P. Povinec. Also found a paper that may or may not be related to this matter: "Measurement of radon activity in air using

electrostatic collection to the Timepix detector" where there is a description of "the sensitive apparatus which uses electrostatic field collection of positively charged radon progenies". And finally this sentece from wiki: "Because of their electrostatic charge, radon progenies adhere to surfaces or dust particles, whereas gaseous radon does not."

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: April 20, 2024 03:42:50

Go to top of page