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

[Brennan, Mike (DOH)]

Hi, James.  I strive to remain civil, as I find it more relaxing, and
more likely to produce worthwhile results.   

>> 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?

I would contend that the population effected by DU (should there be
health effects, which is not strongly in evidence) is quite small
compared to the population effected by a number of health risks that
also effect the possibly exposed population in ways that clearly are of
greater risk than DU.  For example, the most common automatic weapon in
the hands of combatants world wide is the AK-47.  Most of the ammunition
for it seems to be coming from China.  Every day AK-47s firing Chinese
ammunition kill outright probably a couple hundred, wound thousands, and
help terrorize, rob, and oppress millions.  AK-47s will, today, kill or
wound Americans serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as civilians of
those countries.  The effects of DU exposure are at best difficult to
prove, the effects of AK-47s conclusively demonstrated.  The population
exposed to DU is also exposed to AK-47 with very few exceptions.
Populations not exposed to DU are by definition not at health risk from
it, but large populations not exposed to DU are at risk from AK-47s.  So
why the fixation with DU, rather than spending the same effort trying to
stir up pressure to get China (and other, mostly former Eastern Block,
countries) to stop selling AK-47 ammo?  The reason that seems to spring
to most people's minds is because the American military uses DU, and the
actual agenda is anti-American military, not risk reduction for people
in war zones.

>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?

I assume that you understand that for "chromosome damage" to be
inheritable it has to happen in the reproductive cells.  Unless you can
create a viable scenario for inhaled uranium to pass into the blood,
neither be removed by the kidneys nor attach to the bones, but proceed
to the testes (assuming male), decay at the right time and in the right
place to damage the particular sperm that will fertilize an ovum, and do
it in a way that can be distinguished from the same thing occurring due
to other radioactive material from other, non US Military sources, you
are likely to not find a lot of enthusiasm for your request.  Your
"...it is not known..." at the moment needs to be paired with "...and
there is no reason to believe..." 

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

You didn't answer the question.  Give us a number, in mass or activity
per unit volume.  Then we can discuss as to whether or not it is a
reasonable number. 


-----Original Message-----
From: jsalsman at gmail.com [mailto:jsalsman at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Dave
Blaine
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 8:28 PM
To: Brennan, Mike (DOH); radsafelist
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Fwd: ruling out uranium vapor with x-rays

Mike,

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