Talk:Hot particle

So yeah, The first two references listed in this article appear to entirely contradict the article's claim that hot particles are more dangerous than an equal amount of evenly distributed radioactive material. I intend to rewrite this article completely within a few days unless someone has a reason not to. It seems that the idea of hot particles being more likely to cause serious health effects like cancer is a debunked myth.

quote from first citation, claimed as evidence of increased danger of hot particles: 'Both groups agree that the end point of practical concern following hot particle exposures is skin ulceration and that the risk of cancer mortality is negligible'

see also: 'Health effects of alpha-emitting particles in the respiratory tract' EPA report

So yeah, I plan to come back later and replace this entire article with a short one describing hot particle danger as a debunked myth, with maybe some talk about skin ulceration.

IDK112 (talk) 05:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Not only is the page a platform to promote a debunked theory, but it doesn't really tell the reader what a "hot particle" is. "A hot particle is a small, highly radioactive object, with significant content of radionuclides..." Okay, so what's small? A gram? A milligram? A microgram? I think an example would be in order. Unfortunately, I do not know what a "hot particle" is, so I'm not much help here. The Dark Rabbit (talk) 12:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

delete or greatly shorten
This article contains unnecessary detail about the formation of small radioactive particles in fallout and accident scenarios, while glossing over the fact that mainstream science considered hot particles a non-issue. The article also places undue emphasis on the opinions of Chris Busby.

I feel that the article should be shortened to a brief definition of what a hot particle is, a statement that they are not significant or any more dangerous than other forms of radioactive material (with supporting links), and finally a mention that their is minor controversy and debate on this issue, with some claiming that hot particles are much more dangerous.

Hot particles are such a simple and scientifically unsupported idea that it makes no sense to have such a long, confusing article.

IDK112 (talk) 15:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed - it's biased and misleading in its current form. The article references fringe science and is not representative of either the disciplines of nuclear physics or health physics. Bobathon71 (talk) 01:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'll shorten it, though it keeps getting reverted back to the longer version. IDK112 (talk) 00:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Non-issue?

 * From what I can see, mainstream science does not consider this subject a "non-issue". Two papers are currently cited in the article to demonstrate that "mainstream medicine" no longer supports the theory: One by M. W. Charles, A J Mill & P J Darley (2003) and one by CERRIE (2004).
 * The paper by Charles, Mill and Darley states that their findings on risk factors may only be accurate to within a factor of plus or minus 3, and they emphasise their limited data, as well as noting that there is some in vitro evidence for modest "enhanced cell transformation for hot-particle exposures". They also note the paucity of studies on doses below approximately 1 Gy. In a later paper, M. W. Charles and two co-authors suggest a measure of caution should be exercised around their conclusions, due to "substantial uncertainties in estimates of risks in the internal emitter studies".("Are cancer risks associated with exposures to ionising radiation from internal emitters greater than those in the Japanese A-bomb survivors?", Radiation and Environmental Biophysics November 2007, Volume 46, Issue 4, pp 299-310)
 * Reading the CERRIE report, I discovered it was plagued with controversy, with two of the eleven members of the committee effectively boycotting the report as written. Even the material agreed upon by the other nine suggested significant levels of uncertainty in dose estimates for internal emitters, especially regarding less common radionuclides such as Plutonium-239 and Americium-241. They also noted that different studies had produced wildly varying estimates of dose coefficients for more common radionuclides such as Strontium-90 (pp. 27-28).
 * On this basis, I would conclude that the article's stigmatising of the theory as outmoded and unscientific is going too far. It remains an area of uncertainty, and the article should seek to represent different views on the subject, aiming for a balance that reflects the current balance of opinion in reputable peer-reviewed journal articles. I haven't looked yet at the material that was removed in January, but it may turn out that some of that should be reinstated.
 * If any editor ever thinks that some point of view should be effaced from wikipedia because it's not mainstream or you don't agree with it, please pause and consider whether your motivation is to make wikipedia more informative, or to prevent readers from encountering some "undesirable" idea and making up their own mind. The theory of a fractal universe is obscure and not widely accepted by cosmologists, but I can still find an article in Wikipedia that tells me all about it in detail (and explains why it is not widely accepted). I expect nothing less of this article. Fuzzypeg★ 11:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)