[ RadSafe ] Fwd: ruling out uranium vapor with x-rays

Dave Blaine dfblaine at gmail.com
Thu Apr 17 22:27:48 CDT 2008


Thank you again for upholding the standards of discussion. One of the
most important reasons for me to use a pseudonym is that some people
believe embarrassing messages from their opponents' early 20s are
reasonable grounds on which to base a request for censorship.  It
makes me think about what people trying raise safety discussions go
through under repressive regimes.  I understand and agree with the
reasons that weigh against using a pseudonym.

> 1.  Should potential health issues possibly connected with DU be given
> higher priority than health issues that clearly effect more people in an
> clearly demonstrable way?

No.  However, health effects from DU are unique because of the
population they affect, and the impact that population has on military
readiness and homeland security. Can a nation be secure when its
enlisted corps are subject to suffer long-term genetic damage during
prolonged conflict?

Also, it is not known whether chromosome damage from uranium's
chemical genotoxicity is inheritable. What can I do to encourage
people in the health physics community to ask industrial hygienists to
find out?  I know that at least one Canadian health physicist on this
list has joined me in that request.  I have contacted the leadership
of industrial hygiene professional societies on these matters, but
what does my solitary voice mean to them?

> 2.  At what concentration of UO3 in the air do you consider it to no
> longer be of concern?

Normally I would rely on 10 CFR 20, but that standard incorrectly
suggests that soluble compounds are less dangerous to inhale than
insoluble compounds, while the uranium toxicology literature
completely disagrees.  That is what my NRC rule making petition
NRC-PRM-20-26 is about.

Again, why don't radiation protection professionals ask an industrial
hygienist to find out?

James Salsman, as Dave Blaine

More information about the RadSafe mailing list