This has apparently been studied at least slightly, and another paper is by R. Howald (or Howlad, sources differ), "'N22 HOWALD, Reed Montana state University Radioactivity from Pitchstone Plateau area of YNP.' 1982", cited in the YNP archives, as reached by <a href="http://www.nps.gov/yell/historyculture/upload/natural.pdf">http://www.nps.gov/yell/historyculture/upload/natural.pdf</a> -- Lee W may have easier and more complete access to this than the rest of us.<br>
<br>This gets pretty close to what I do for a living (or did before I became a useless paper pusher...), and I'd like to learn more of what actually happened in this study and any others like it. The notion of radioactive critters fogging photographic film seems far-fetched, to put it mildly. However, naturally-occurring potassium contains about 1% K-40, a long-lived radioactive isotope easily detected with modern sensors (and the bane of us folks who do low-level detection because it's in natural background and you can't get rid of it). K-40 is therefore present in living things in tiny quantities, whether on the Pitchstone Plateau or elsewhere. <i>Really</i> long exposures would be necessary to see it on photographic film, though. Radon in rodents is not a credible source of photographic film fogging for various reasons.<br>
<br>One of the pages that cites that Howald (Howlad? Howard) study says something to the effect that the basalts of the Pitchstone Plateau contain "two to three times" as much radioactivity as rocks elsewhere at YNP. To this, all that I can say is "big deal." There are any number of places in the world where you can get in a car and drive for five minutes, and produce order-of-magnitude variations in natural background; I live in one of them (Jemez Mountains of New Mexico) which just happens to have geology very similar to YNP.<br>
<br>This whole thing strikes me as much ado about nothing, but the scientist in me is interested in learning more about it, just out of curiosity. Other links appreciated.<br><br>-- Bill, speaking only for himself.<br><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 8:46 PM, Ruth & Leslie Quinn <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ruthleslie.ynp@gmail.com">ruthleslie.ynp@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div>
<div><font face="Times New Roman"> I found the source where I
think the original paper on this subject is located. It's:</font></div>
<div><font face="Times New Roman">Linn, Robert M., editor, <i>Proceedings of
the 1<sup>st</sup> Conference on Scientific Research in the National Parks</i>
(U. S. Department of the Interior, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington,
DC, 1976, 2 volumes, 1325 pages). I don't recall exactly where in there the
paper is, but I'm pretty sure I saw it in there once upon a time.</font></div>
<div><font face="Times New Roman">Leslie Quinn</font></div>
<div><font face="Times New Roman"></font> </div><font face="Times New Roman"></font></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Geysers mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Geysers@lists.wallawalla.edu">Geysers@lists.wallawalla.edu</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.wallawalla.edu/mailman/listinfo/geysers" target="_blank">https://lists.wallawalla.edu/mailman/listinfo/geysers</a><br></blockquote></div><br>