Found a bottle of uranium nitrate, safe to be around?

[jack476]

No, I'm not asking if I *should* handle it, just what my level of concern ought to be in regards to being around this stuff.

My physics department hired me to clean up one of the labs they want to start using again. I opened one of the cabinets and saw a pair of small glass stoppered and sealed glass vials with a yellow powder in them, the labels were very faded and the bottles looked extremely old, but I could see that the labels said they contained uranium nitrate. This concerned me, so I asked the professor I'm working for about it and he insisted it was "probably safe", which still left me extremely worried (especially due to the use of the word "probably"). We have some very old equipment in our department and it's entirely feasible that these samples were acquired before current standards for handling radioactive materials were implemented. Also, there were no radiation warnings anywhere. I'll upload a photo of the bottles the next time I go in.

Despite his assurance, I'm still very worried. I don't know a great deal about radiation safety aside from "stay away from it" so erring on the side of caution I haven't been back in that room. I have not touched the bottles since I saw the labels and they didn't break or crack or anything. Compounding my concern was the fact that the professor who had been using that room as an office for several years left 2 years ago for unspecified "chronic health issues". I'm beginning to wonder if I should contact some kind of authorities about this. Advice?

 

[mathman]

Uranium has a very long half life, so it is probably safe. Shouldn't there be someone around who handles radiation safety?

 

[jack476]

Uranium has a very long half life, so it is probably safe. Shouldn't there be someone around who handles radiation safety?

There's that "probably safe" again... :P

There is someone whose responsibility this is, but it's possible that they didn't know it was in there. I'll let him know. Thanks.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

@Borek might have some good advice

 

[Borek]

You definitely should check what are the local regulations about storing such things.

Other that that I can't add much more than another "reasonably safe" comment In other words - not more dangerous than most chemicals in the lab, as long as treated correctly (glasses, gloves, fume hood, don't swallow - you know, usual stuff, more of a common reason than specific requirements).

 

[stedwards]

Uranium decays by alpha particle emission that won't penetrate the the glass. But radioactive radon-222 gas is in the decay chain. I'd say, don't breath the vapors out of the bottle, and don't eat it.

 

[mfb]

Uranium decays by alpha particle emission that won't penetrate the the glass. But radioactive radon-222 gas is in the decay chain. I'd say, don't breath the vapors out of the bottle, and don't eat it.

There are some gamma emissions in the decay chain as well. The overall activity is probably low.

There is someone whose responsibility this is, but it's possible that they didn't know it was in there.

That person should learn about radioactive samples anyway, then he/she can decide what to do with it and it is not your responsibility any more.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Are you in the US? If so, your university has a radioactive source custodian. You should talk with him or her.

 

[arivero]

"Sealed" is a big point, but it would be good to know when it was sealed and if this was just a museum room or if the powder was actually used in the room out of the vial, as part of some experiment... if it were, an extra check of the area could be good idea.

 

[bcrowell]

Are you in the US? If so, your university has a radioactive source custodian. You should talk with him or her.

I'm at a community college in the US. We don't have any such person.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Ben, if you don't have a source custodian, I hope you don't have any sources!

More specifically, for small sealed sources (under 10CFR whatever) you may be exempt from reporting, although your institute still should have a responsible individual. A bottle of uranium salts, however, is not exempt.

 

[stedwards]

[...]under 10CFR whatever) you may be exempt from reporting, although your institute still should have a responsible individual. [...]

What is CFR?

 

[SteamKing]

What is CFR?

CFR = U.S. Code of Federal Regulations

 

[bcrowell]

Ben, if you don't have a source custodian, I hope you don't have any sources!

More specifically, for small sealed sources (under 10CFR whatever) you may be exempt from reporting, although your institute still should have a responsible individual. A bottle of uranium salts, however, is not exempt.

We have some 10 uCi sources, which don't require any administrative work.

 

[Astronuc]

I opened one of the cabinets and saw a pair of small glass stoppered and sealed glass vials with a yellow powder in them, the labels were very faded and the bottles looked extremely old, but I could see that the labels said they contained uranium nitrate.

Likely, the uranium is of natural enrichment (I expect and hope so). The sealed sources are probably below levels required for radioactive sources, but stoppered vials of powder or liquid should be controlled under an accounting system, although if it is grams of U, and thus milligrams of U-235, it might be under a threshold for Materials Control and Accounting (MC&A), but under a normal chemical control system.

It's been a while since I had to be concerned about that. In the nuclear engineering department, all our sealed radiological sources and quantities of U and Pu were under MC&A.

One should discuss the matter with the department chairperson.

 

[insightful]

I worked at a uranium refinery for 19 years around tons of uranium salts and metal. Sealed as you describe, and kept at a safe distance (say one meter away) this poses no threat. Ask around for a Geiger counter. You'll be amazed at how close you have to be to see a reading above background.

Handling these vials for short periods (an hour or two) also poses no threat. Washing hands afterward is, of course, prudent.

 

[arivero]

Let me insist that bottle is not problem... the real issue is if then bottle has been open, used and closed in the room and how the powder has been used. Same issues that any other chemical venom with the advantage that some radiation measure can help to look for powder in drawers or other vials.

 

[#Thomas#]

Guys... what is there even to discuss? Just have him grab a Geiger counter and measure if there's any danger. Problem solved.

 

[mfb]

Guys... what is there even to discuss? Just have him grab a Geiger counter and measure if there's any danger. Problem solved.

You cannot measure alpha radiation reliably with most Geiger counters. Also, interpreting their measurement results is not trivial.

 

[insightful]

You cannot measure alpha radiation reliably with most Geiger counters. Also, interpreting their measurement results is not trivial.

Absolutely true. This type is a minimum:

http://www.geigercounters.com/Detector.htm

 

[#Thomas#]

We are not talking about some ridiculous accuracy here, just so that he could determine whether he has been exposed to less than 250 miliseverts, which is the safe dosage.

 

[mfb]

No he cannot. If the Geiger counter is not designed for it, it won't detect alpha radiation at all.
250 millisieverts are above nearly all safety limits.

 

[#Thomas#]

Look, wherever his workplace is, they must have some measuring equipment for this!

 

[Vanadium 50]

Which was mentioned in the part of the thread you pooh-poohed.

You've hit bottom. It's time to stop digging.

 

[arivero]

I wonder what can be done, not only in this case, but also in general historic sites where we know that some leak has happenned. Not for safety but for didactical interest. Can we go catching a powder from five or years ago? 20 years? the sixties?

 

[SteamKing]

I wonder what can be done, not only in this case, but also in general historic sites where we know that some leak has happenned. Not for safety but for didactical interest. Can we go catching a powder from five or years ago? 20 years? the sixties?

What do you mean "catching a powder"?

If you are concerned that a particular site might have radioactive contamination, then soil samples can be tested to determine if radiation is present, and chemical analysis can be performed to determine what elements might be present.

 

[ohwilleke]

There is also potential legal liability for having possession of a uranium containing substance if the situation is not in compliance with federal regulations. While safety is obviously the first priority, the federal government, whose power is enforced by lawyers, judges and law enforcement officers who didn't take science classes in college, sporadically take this very seriously (often too seriously for the nature of the problem).

The possibility of somebody getting antsy and charging someone with violations of nuclear material related crimes in federal court are not immaterial.

 

[votingmachine]

No he cannot. If the Geiger counter is not designed for it, it won't detect alpha radiation at all.
250 millisieverts are above nearly all safety limits.

I know that in a lab I worked in there was an old bottle of uranyl acetate. And it would definitely blast the geiger counters we had. If I recall, it was thru the glass, but it might have been thru the lid, or with the lid off. I was curious about it and checked it. We eventually turned it into one of the University radioactive waste handling. I don't know if there was anything special about our geiger counters. They were to track P-32 and S-35, both beta emitters.

If it is unnecessary, and radioactive, dispose of it responsibly. JMO.

 

[votingmachine]

A thing that my PI used to always think was hilarious is that old, orange dishes ... Corningware, Fiestaware ... I don't recall the brands, used uranium in the pigments. And they were also radioactive. I don't know if they still make them the ame, but lantern mantles used to have thorium in them and they were a good radioactive source you could quickly use to test a geiger counter.

Rather off-topic, but the uranium salts are not just found in old chemistry labs.

 

[SteamKing]

A thing that my PI used to always think was hilarious is that old, orange dishes ... Corningware, Fiestaware ... I don't recall the brands, used uranium in the pigments. And they were also radioactive. I don't know if they still make them the ame, but lantern mantles used to have thorium in them and they were a good radioactive source you could quickly use to test a geiger counter.

Rather off-topic, but the uranium salts are not just found in old chemistry labs.

In the 1930s, Fiestaware used uranium compounds in some of their glazes. When the war came along, the US seized all stocks of uranium and Fiestaware discontinued those products using uranium or switched to another glaze:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiesta_(dinnerware)

 

[arivero]

What do you mean "catching a powder"?

If you are concerned that a particular site might have radioactive contamination, then soil samples can be tested to determine if radiation is present, and chemical analysis can be performed to determine what elements might be present.

It was a bit of understatement, but i was thinking about a very old leak, 1970; the nuclear labs next to the university campus have got some produce from a Swiss central to experiment, and a conduct broke so that about sixty liters of a dissolution were sent down to the sewer system. Usual stuff, Cesium etc with some salts of uranium and traces of plutonium. The mix eventually dissolved into the main sewage channel of the capital and went to the river after it, where the government was forced to buy the vegetables of the area and forbid the seasonal fish competition.

It was a very remarkable event at that age, and I have always wondered if it could be possible to detect/measure some remnants, expectedly very diluted. In the river there is still a pond called by the locals "the radioactive pond", and some other memory of the event. In the university campus there was not really measurement of impact, as it was assumed that the sewer system did its work, but few years later some of the tubes were observed to be broken by roots and some possibility of leaking to the fields and flow via the local trees and irrigation system was possible. A secondary problem is that in 1977 the Prime Minister residence and office staff was moved to the university site, so now some extra layers of authorisation should be required to be able so sample the area. Some cops from the sewer vigilance in the eighties actually protested about perceived increase in cancer rate. The prime minister wife, all their sons and daughters, as well as the wife of the next prime minister were positive for cancer years later, but it could had been just a statistical fluke.

 

[jack476]

I thought I'd offer a follow-up of what happened after I brought this to the attention of the department chair.

Out of concern for a potentially improperly contained source (the bottle was marked as being from the 50s, therefore the concern was that an exposed radiation source had been lurking around the science building for decades) some people from the state came and tested the entire building with Geiger counters, as well as the bottle. Thankfully, it turned out that the salts in one of the bottles were made from depleted uranium and that the amount of radiation it was producing was no cause for alarm, and the rest of the building had not been contaminated.

The other bottle, apparently, contained sulfur. The memo left in the department by the people who tested the building stated in no uncertain terms that getting sulfur and uranium nitrate mixed up was a careless mistake.

I understand that the department ended up getting fined for both of these points. Either way, everything turned out fine...at least for me, what with relief at not having been exposed to radiation.

 

[arivero]

getting fined for both of these points.

Well I expect a reduced fine, or some waive, given that there was not repercussions and surely at the time the bottle come there was a different legislation.

 

[jack476]

Well I expect a reduced fine, or some waive, given that there was not repercussions and surely at the time the bottle come there was a different legislation.

I really think it was mostly just that they were required to pay for the testing, and a stern telling-off to be more careful.

I should say that I'm just a student working for the department, not a faculty member, so any penalties that were leveled did not affect me.

 

[arivero]

I really think it was mostly just that they were required to pay for the testing, and a stern telling-off to be more careful.

I should say that I'm just a student working for the department, not a faculty member, so any penalties that were leveled did not affect me.

Ah yes, a professional, regulated testing surely does not come cheap. Which on the other hand can be the main reason for this kind of potential dangers still existing. At the end of the day, surely admins puts faith on the safety of ancient users and in half-life decay cycles, before paying for a false alarm.