[ RadSafe ] [Fwd: RE: uranium combustion produces how much UO3(g)?]

[Eric D]

The data presented do not support the conclusions in your statements.  The
data to date (even in the articles you quote) support that it is not an
issue.  The message conveyed in your last statement is incorrect.

Eric Daxon 

-----Original Message-----
From: James Salsman [mailto:james at bovik.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 10:37 PM
To: Eric D
Cc: alexandc at Battelle.org; radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] [Fwd: RE: uranium combustion produces how much
UO3(g)?]

Dear Colonel Daxon,

You say the data don't support my conclusions, but there isn't any
data, is there?  Nobody has ever even bothered to measure the gas
combustion products, from Gilchrist's 1970s work through to the
present, the people charged with quantifying the health risk of
incendiary depleted uranium munitions have never even attempted to
measure the gas products.

Your suggestion that air is "too cool for UO3" doesn't make any
sense.  UO3(g) doesn't decompose at any temperature; it decomposes
only if it has a chance to condense.  The proportion remaining
dissolved in air won't decompose until it condenses.  I am told
by Dr. Alexander that UO3(g) is quite stable.

Won't you please support an empirical measurement of the amount of
UO3(g) produced by uranium burning in air to settle this question
once and for all?  There is a pressing need, because the toxicology
and appropriate means of treating inhaled UO3(g) is very different
than that of the solid oxide particulates.

Sincerely,
James Salsman

Eric D wrote:
> I stand by my statements.  The points make below were made in previous
posts
> and the data do not support the previous posts or the conclusions drawn.
I
> addressed the surfaces for condensation - particulates in the air.  I have
> also addressed the temperature issue - too cool for UO3. The discussion of
> "uranyl-oxide" and the discussion uranium isotope ratios below are
incorrect
> and the conclusions drawn are also incorrect.
> 
> Eric Daxon
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Salsman [mailto:james at bovik.org] 
> Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 1:08 AM
> To: edaxon at satx.rr.com
> Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] [Fwd: RE: uranium combustion produceshowmuchUO3(g)?]
> 
> 
>>... The cooling causes it to change to U3O8.  The results of the
>>Capstone Study are consistent with this.  The statement that UO3
>>vapor poses a significant hazard is not.
> 
> 
> It's not the cooling per se, but the condensation which occurs as
> it cools -- if and only if there is a surface on which to condense
> -- and then subsequent decomposition.  See p. 213 of Wilson (1961):
>   http://www.bovik.org/du/Wilson61.pdf
> 
>       1/3 U3O8(s) + 1/6 O2(g) --> UO3(g) at T1
>       UO3(g) --> 1/3 U3O8(s) + 1/6 O2(g) at T2
>       where T2 < T1
> 
> This is why the Capstone and earlier studies don't distinguish
> between UO3(s) and U3O8(s) -- the former becomes the latter.
> 
> There is always going to be some fraction of UO3(g) which doesn't
> condense, and for open-air combustion, it's a fairly substantial
> amount.  Cool UO3(g) is still UO3(g), until it condenses.  If it
> happens to reach lungs before condensing, it's absorbed
> immediately without any corresponding trace of slowly-dissolving
> UO2(s) which accompanies the particulate dust, which disperses
> slower and less distant before settling.
> 
> So, inhaled uranyl oxide will not leave as much of an obvious
> isotope ratio signature in urine as the particulate dusts, not
> just because of the lack of persistent UO2(s), but also because
> the uranyl ion translocates to cellular nuclei (uranyl ions
> are used to stain DNA, to which they have an affinity) and will
> not appear in blood or urine as much as uranium(VI) ions, such
> as are present from natural uranium.
> 
> Again, I'm urging everyone I can to actually measure the
> production of UO3(g) empirically, as well as the metabolic
> absorption in potentially exposed populations.  Absorbed uranyl
> ought to be detectable in white blood cell nuclei years and
> maybe even decades after exposure.
> 
> Sincerely,
> James Salsman
>