[ RadSafe ] Analysis of Hawaiian Soil Sample for Depleted Uranium

[Roger Helbig]

It is interesting that upsilquitch (believed to be Ted Weymann of the
so-called Uranium Medical Research Centre, with no known education or
experience in either uranium or medicine) belittles this report from
Professor Randall Parrish, who normally sides with the anti-depleted uranium
crusaders, such as his being invited to Colonie, NY to sample the area
around the closed National Lead Foundry FUSRAP site.  What do you say about
Parrishes presumption that U236 is indicative of depleted uranium.

 

Roger Helbig

--- On Wed, 7/16/08, upsilquitch <upsilquitch at yahoo.com> wrote:

From: upsilquitch <upsilquitch at yahoo.com>
Subject: [DU-WATCH] Randy Parrish (MOD lap dog) lies to people fo Hawaii,
too
To: du-watch at yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, July 16, 2008, 9:50 AM

Report on Uranium Isotope Analysis
For the attention of:
David Bigelow
8 July 2008
I apologise for any delay, but I am pleased to now provide you with 
a uranium isotope analysis and concentration of the sample you 
submitted.
Conclusion in lay terms
The analysis of dust submitted contains a maximum of 1% Depleted 
Uranium as a proportion of the total uranium in the sample. The 
uranium in the dust is less than 1 part per million, a value that is 
typical for rocks that would occur in Hawaii. The uranium contained 
in the dust sample is overwhelmingly or entirely dominated by this 
natural uranium component. Any DU, if present at all, is in fact 
less radioactive than the natural uranium in the sample by virtue of 
its being `depleted' in the more radioactive isotopes 234U and 235U. 
As such the radioactivity of the sample is virtually dominated by 
natural background radioactivity, and any additional component if 
present adds a negligible additional amount to this. In fact the 
normal variation in amount of background radioactivity in rocks is 
far larger than the maximum additional component, if any, of DU in 
the sample.
Technical aspects of the analysis
For your dust sample, the 4M HNO3 leach dissolved all but the 
silicate portion of your samples and the ratio of 238U/235U was 
138.92 with an uncertainty on the measurement of 1.01. The normal 
value is 137.88. Your measurement with its uncertainty band can be 
argued to be sufficiently close to the natural value as to conclude 
that it contains no DU. On the other hand it is slightly elevated 
and given the isotopic composition of depleted uranium munitions, a 
value of 138.9 is also consistent with 1% of the uranium in the dust 
being DU and the rest being natural. When DU makes a contribution to 
uranium, it also contributes the rare isotope 236U. A 1% DU 
contribution would result in a 236U/238U value of ~3.0 x 10-7. The 
value of this quantity we measured in your sample was 5 x 10-7 but 
with an uncertainty of 5 x 10-7, in other words this measurement is 
just at our detection limit. While both measurements can be regarded 
as failing to prove the presence of DU they are also consistent with 
a 1% DU contribution to the dust uranium which is effectively the 
lowest contribution we can measure. The concentration of uranium in 
the dissolved dust material is 0.68 parts per million, which is 
quite normal for volcanic rocks like those that are common in Hawaii.
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to 
contact me.
1
The methodology of the test is similar to that described in the 
publications entitled :
Parrish, R. R., Arneson, J.Brewer, T., Chenery, S., Lloyd, N., 
Carpenter, D. 2008. Depleted uranium contamination by inhalation 
exposure and its detection after >25 years: implications for health 
assessment. Science of the Total Environment, Science of the Total 
Environment v. 390, 58-68; doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2007.09.044. and
Parrish, RR, Thirlwall, M, Pickford, C, Horstwood, MSA, Gerdes, A., 
Anderson, J., and Coggan, D., 2006, Determination of 238U/235U, 
236U/238U and uranium concentration in urine using SF-ICP-MS and MC-
ICP-MS: An interlaboratory comparison. Health Physics v.90 (2), p. 
127-138.
Or you can read of the procedure by visiting the method of 
Laboratory `B' of the following website: 
http://www.duob.org.uk/laboratory.htm
Sincerely,
Professor Randall Parrish
NERC Isotope Geosciences Laboratory
British Geological Survey
rrp at nigl.nerc.ac.uk