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

[Steven Dapra]

April 18

         (From Steven Dapra; comments interspersed.)

At 08:27 PM 4/17/08 -0700, Dave Blaine [James Salsman] wrote:
>Mike [Brennan],
>
>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.


[Mike Brennan]
> > 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?

[Salsman/Blaine]
>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?

Comment from Steven Dapra:

         DU is alleged to have affected residents of the Balkans and of 
Iraq; and is alleged to have affected soldiers serving in the Balkans and 
in Iraq.  No matter where it might be used in the future it will be alleged 
to have affected residents of those areas or countries, and the soldiers 
who serve there.  That is, it is (or will be) alleged to affect any 
population that is exposed to it.  How does that make its health affects 
unique?  This 'uniqueness' of DU is nonsensical, as is the grandiose 
question from David James Blaine Salsman about gentic damage during 
prolonged conflict.

[Salsman/Blaine]
>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?

Comment (as above):

         Your solitary voice shouldn't mean anything to anyone.

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

[Salsman/Blaine]
>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.

Comment (as above):

         This is rich.  James David etc. knows more about the 10 CFR 20 
standard than do the parties who wrote it.  Are you (JDBS) an HP or an 
industrial hygienist?  What are your academic credentials for petitioning 
the NRC?

[James Salsman, as Dave Blaine]
>Again, why don't radiation protection professionals ask an industrial
>hygienist to find out?

Comment (as above):

         Yes, inquiring minds want to know.

Steven Dapra