They used to use uranium glaze to color pottery and other objects

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kutt
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Color Uranium
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the historical use of uranium and other radioactive elements in ceramics, pottery, and various consumer products, exploring the implications of their radioactivity and safety concerns. Participants share anecdotes, historical context, and technical details regarding radiation exposure from these materials.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that uranium was used as a coloring glaze in pottery and question its radioactivity.
  • One participant argues that uranium has a long half-life, suggesting it is only slightly radioactive.
  • Another points out that U-238's decay is alpha radiation, which is not harmful unless ingested.
  • Concerns are raised about the safety of old ceramics, with one participant mentioning that certain old glazes could leach harmful substances like cobalt.
  • Some participants compare the radiation dose from uranium-glazed pottery to that of living in a brick or concrete building.
  • Historical anecdotes are shared about the use of radium in watch dials and other products, highlighting a lack of awareness about radiation risks in the past.
  • One participant mentions the use of thorium in toothpaste before the dangers of radioactivity were understood.
  • There are references to the Manhattan Project and the handling of plutonium, with differing views on its toxicity and safety.
  • Some participants challenge claims about plutonium's danger, citing studies on workers exposed to it without significant health issues.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

The discussion contains multiple competing views regarding the safety and radioactivity of uranium and other radioactive materials used in consumer products. Participants express differing opinions on the implications of historical practices and the understanding of radiation risks.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various historical practices and safety standards that have evolved over time, indicating a lack of consensus on the safety of older materials and the understanding of radiation exposure risks.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to individuals studying the history of materials science, radiation safety, or the evolution of public understanding regarding radioactivity in consumer products.

Kutt
Messages
237
Reaction score
1
Before nuclear elements had any practical applications, they were used as an orange coloring glaze for pottery and various other objects.

Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but wouldn't this coloring glaze be highly radioactive?

s9.JPG
 
Last edited:
Engineering news on Phys.org
Kutt said:
Before nuclear elements had any practical applications, it was used as an orange coloring glaze for pottery and various other objects.

Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but wouldn't this coloring glaze be highly radioactive?

Highly radioactive? No. Uranium has a very long half life, which means it is only slightly active.
 
And U-238's decay is alpha, therefore the very little radiation which's produced won't be able to harm you (unless you inhale parts of the pottery...).
 
Only if it glows in the dark.
 
Up until 30 years ago, the porcelain in false teeth contained uranium salts:

http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q2215.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The radiation dose received from uranium oxide glazed pottery is about the same as the dose received from living or working in a building made of brick or concrete.
 
Indeed some of that old tableware is active.
We used to keep some in the training department at the nuke plant where I worked, for introductory classes in radiation safety. It makes a Geiger counter sound scary and is a good starter for the lecture for it wakes the class up..
But as somebody pointed out it's not very penetrating radiation. So don't worry about your antique china in the display cabinet.

My father in law was a ceramic engineer. He cautioned us about some of the very old blue glazes, said they could leach significant cobalt into your food.

Myself , I use modern tableware because of what's been learned since the 1930's.
Dad's old prewar chemistry book said of element Uranium:
"... sometimes used as colorant in ceramics. The metal has no practical use."

I framed a copy of that page and hung it above my desk in the nuke plant.

old jim
 
Certain types of granite contain many different kinds of nuclear elements and can give off levels of radiation that are many times higher than normal background readings, such as this video shows.



300 cpm and almost 1 msv/h were the highest readings for this granite kitchen sink. The uranium-glazed pottery has nothing on this granite kitchen counter top in terms of radioactivity.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Uranium was used for ceramics and for glassware, to provide color.
I still have some old wine stems with a orange hue from the uranium salts used.
Marie Curie extracted radium from the tailings of the Czech uranium mines. That waste product was cheap enough for her to buy and still held the radioactives she sought.
 
  • #10
Radium used to be painted on watch and clock faces so that they could be read in the dark. The clock and watch factories where this was done became increasingly 'hot' over time.

One time, I saw an old advertisement for a toothpaste which contained a small amount of thorium in its ingredients. Of course, this was pre-Hiroshima and the dangers of radioactivity were not as well known.
 
  • #11
Check this out:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #12
SteamKing said:
Radium used to be painted on watch and clock faces so that they could be read in the dark. The clock and watch factories where this was done became increasingly 'hot' over time.

One time, I saw an old advertisement for a toothpaste which contained a small amount of thorium in its ingredients. Of course, this was pre-Hiroshima and the dangers of radioactivity were not as well known.

Before WW2 and the dawn of the "nuclear era" most people were woefully uniformed about the dangers of radiation. Back then, radiation-producing ingredients were frequently included in retail products that would have been outright banned by today's standards.
 
  • #13
Kutt said:
Before WW2 and the dawn of the "nuclear era" most people were woefully uniformed about the dangers of radiation. Back then, radiation-producing ingredients were frequently included in retail products that would have been outright banned by today's standards.

If you look back at this, there were some really nightmarish cases of young women hired to paint radium dials who died from mouth cancers. They were moistening the brushes with their lips to paint the fine lines.
 
  • #14
etudiant said:
If you look back at this, there were some really nightmarish cases of young women hired to paint radium dials who died from mouth cancers. They were moistening the brushes with their lips to paint the fine lines.

Back then, did they teach anything about radiation in elementary and high school science classes? How many people even knew what radiation was?
 
Last edited:
  • #15
etudiant said:
If you look back at this, there were some really nightmarish cases of young women hired to paint radium dials who died from mouth cancers. They were moistening the brushes with their lips to paint the fine lines.

At the Manhattan project they had a ball of plutonium that they handed to guests. It was radioactive enough to be warm to the touch.
 
  • #16
ImaLooser said:
At the Manhattan project they had a ball of plutonium that they handed to guests. It was radioactive enough to be warm to the touch.

Reportedly they handed one to Stalin, who was suspicious and wanted to be sure that the scientists were not just fooling him. A spontaneously warm metal lump in sunny Moscow was pretty persuasive evidence to him that the researchers were doing something out of the ordinary.
 
  • #17
Kutt said:
Back then, did they teach anything about radiation in elementary and high school science classes? How many people even knew what radiation was?

Not many had any sense of risk. Even the Curies were initially incredibly casual about the radiation exposure. There is another 1920s case of a man who sold radioactive soft drinks as a healthy refresher, sort of a nuclear Gatorade. He eventually also died an ugly death from his elixir, which he had great faith in.
 
  • #18
ImaLooser said:
At the Manhattan project they had a ball of plutonium that they handed to guests. It was radioactive enough to be warm to the touch.

Was this the plutonium warhead core of an atomic bomb?

I'm guessing it was probably radioactive enough to make you very ill within 15-30 minutes of exposure. Plutonium is the most toxic and dangerous substance known to man. I'm sure that the Manhattan project scientists were well aware of this risk.
 
  • #19
Plutonium is the most toxic and dangerous substance known to man. I'm sure that the Manhattan project scientists were well aware of this risk.

That often heard statement is tripe circulated by activists who want to appear impressively knowledgeable.

Manhattan project machinists who fabricated the bomb parts, as well as scientists who worked with the stuff, were monitored for decades after the war.
By 1997 the only unnatural death was from a car crash.

Over the years, there have been a
few other studies on Los Alamos workers
exposed to plutonium, but most of
them are smaller in scope. Published
in 1983, one such study by Voelz et al.
was conducted on 224 males exposed to
plutonium between 1944 and 1974.
Their plutonium deposition was greater
than 0.16 microgram, or 0.01 microcurie.
None of the people involved in this
study developed bone or liver cancer,
and by 1980, the final year of the study,
only one person had died of lung cancer.
This study did not confirm earlier
opinions of some nuclear-industry
critics who predicted a very high risk
for lung cancer at low plutonium doses.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/lanl/pubs/00818013.pdf

again, please don't spout propaganda as fact.
 
  • #20
Kutt said:
Plutonium is the most toxic and dangerous substance known to man. I'm sure that the Manhattan project scientists were well aware of this risk.

Although I'm not sure about the "most" part of your statement, Plutonium is indeed very toxic and therefore dangerous. Inside the body. Unless I'm mistaken, nuclear warheads are normally stored outside the human body.

As long as the scientists don't start eating the core, there'll nothing happen to their health. Even if they take the thing to bed every night.
 
  • #21
Kutt said:
...
I'm guessing it was probably radioactive enough to make you very ill within 15-30 minutes of exposure. Plutonium is the most toxic and dangerous substance known to man. I'm sure that the Manhattan project scientists were well aware of this risk.

I love when I hear this argument about every two years.

Heres the deal Kutt I'll swallow half of a gram of plutonium and you can have a tenth of gram of cyanide (one fifth of what I just knocked back). I may have several years knocked off of my life expectancy due to a cancer in my GI tract, but I'm going to be alive long enough to goto your funeral, and see my children grow up, and my grandchildren, and who knows if medical science advances enough in the next 50 years my great grandchildren.

To Clancy688 with plutonium in the body I'd be more worried about heavy metal poisoning, or if the plutonium were powdered I'd be worried about inhaling it and having a heavy metal in my lungs, and on a less worry some vector having an alpha emitter in my lungs.
 
  • #22
clancy688 said:
Although I'm not sure about the "most" part of your statement, Plutonium is indeed very toxic and therefore dangerous. Inside the body. Unless I'm mistaken, nuclear warheads are normally stored outside the human body.

As long as the scientists don't start eating the core, there'll nothing happen to their health. Even if they take the thing to bed every night.

Also, I believe nuclear cores are usually electroplated with a layer of stable, non-corroding and non-toxic metal.
 
  • #23
Much like holding a handful of fuel pellets, I'm assuming that holding a ball of raw nuclear material that is radioactive enough to be warm to the touch is bad for ones health.

This is why human handling of nuclear fuel (such as at a fuel processing plant) is done through very thick glass and with lead-insulated gloves.
 
Last edited:
  • #24
Kutt said:
I'm assuming that holding a ball of raw nuclear material that is radioactive enough to be warm to the touch is bad for ones health.

You have to differ.

Plutonium is alpha decay. Alpha radiation is very powerful, but at the same time has only very little penetration ability. So little that it is stopped by the uppermost boundary of human skin - which consists mostly of dead cells.

Therefore you don't need any lead glass or special gloves when handling plutonium since its radiation can't penetrate your body deep enough to do damage.

It's an entirely different matter when this stuff is inside your body, though. There was a guy called Litwinenko. Google him. He was poisened with Polonium-210, which emits alpha radiation just like Plutonium.
 
  • #25
clancy688 said:
You have to differ.

Plutonium is alpha decay. Alpha radiation is very powerful, but at the same time has only very little penetration ability. So little that it is stopped by the uppermost boundary of human skin - which consists mostly of dead cells.

Therefore you don't need any lead glass or special gloves when handling plutonium since its radiation can't penetrate your body deep enough to do damage.

It's an entirely different matter when this stuff is inside your body, though. There was a guy called Litwinenko. Google him. He was poisened with Polonium-210, which emits alpha radiation just like Plutonium.

Now let's be fair here. Yes both Polonium 210 and Plutonium 239 are alpha emitters. However Polonium is an alpha fire hose, it has an approximate half life of 138 days. Where as Plutonium is more like a dripping faucet of alpha emitters, 24k years.

And yes half life dose matter, the shorter the half life (hours, days, three digit years) elements are going to be more dangerous due to a much more energetic life.
 
  • #26
Kutt said:
Much like holding a handful of fuel pellets, I'm assuming that holding a ball of raw nuclear material that is radioactive enough to be warm to the touch is bad for ones health.

This is why human handling of nuclear fuel (such as at a fuel processing plant) is done through very thick glass and with lead-insulated gloves.

Kutt, you're just a wealth of misinformation.

I toured a fuel pelletizing plant south of St Louis.
The fuel comes in as gas in cylinders and leaves as small green pellets that look like rabbit food.
The automated machinery is reminiscent of cigarette manufacturing equipment.
You can stand right beside it and watch the pellets go by on little conveyor belts.
Nice ladies carry trays of it where it needs to go, wearing thin gloves just like in a cafeteria.
As visitors we were not allowed to handle it, it was after all 'snm' and you don't want to get fingerprints on it.

The equipment you describe is for handling high level radioactive waste not new fuel.

Fuel is shipped to the power plant on flatbed trucks driven by regular truck drivers over regular highways. They stop for lunch at regular truck stops.

When we take it from the truck we wear gloves of thin cotton, again so as to not get fingerprints on it.
New fuel is barely (if at all) radioactive and I have stood amidst tons of it in our new fuel storage room.

Please spend some time educating yourself.
And quit trying to scare people.

old jim
 
  • #27
Kutt said:
This is why human handling of nuclear fuel (such as at a fuel processing plant) is done through very thick glass and with lead-insulated gloves.
Um - no. I've handled fuel pellets at a number of fabrication plants. One uses a thin glove, latex or alternative. At a reprocessing plant, the MOX or reprocessed fuel is handled remotely, certainly with operators shielded.

jim hardy said:
I toured a fuel pelletizing plant south of St Louis.
I've been there a couple of times.

UF6 is a solid at room/transportation temperature. The container is heated to about 125°C in a steam chest. The gas is hydrolyzed in a solution (wet process) or steam (dry process).
 
Last edited:
  • #28
jim hardy said:
I toured a fuel pelletizing plant south of St Louis.

Jim and Astronuc can the public still tour this facility, or is it like all NPPs after Sep 11. It sounds like a really cool place to go see, how would you rate it compared to EBR 1?
 
  • #29
Astronuc said:
...

I've been there a couple of times.

UF6 is a solid at room/transportation temperature. The container is heated to about 125°C in a steam chest. The gas is hydrolyzed in a solution (wet process) or steam (dry process).

Thanks - if I ever knew that i'd forgotten it...
sorry for the misinformation. I should have checked before asserting.

250px-Uranium_hexafluoride_phase_diagram.gif

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_hexafluoride
 
  • #30
Argentum Vulpes said:
Jim and Astronuc can the public still tour this facility, or is it like all NPPs after Sep 11. It sounds like a really cool place to go see, how would you rate it compared to EBR 1?
It was shutdown more than 10 years ago (2001), and the site decommissioned as far as I know. The company was merged into another larger company as part of an industry consolidation.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
4K
  • · Replies 66 ·
3
Replies
66
Views
10K
  • · Replies 83 ·
3
Replies
83
Views
18K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
5K
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
16K
Replies
5
Views
3K