[ RadSafe ] industrial hygiene of radionuclides

[WILLIAM LIPTON]

10 CFR 20 takes the chemical toxicity of uranium into account:
10 CFR 20.1201(e) limits soluble uranium intake to 10 mg per week, based on chemical toxicity.
10 CFR 20, Appendix B, footnote 3, adds chemical toxicity limits to the radiological limits:
(1) If the U-235 does not exceed 5%, then the concentration for a 40 hour week is limited to 0.2 mg/cubic meter.
(2) For any enrichment, the product of concentration and time is not allowed to exceed (8 E-3)*SA uCi-hr/ml, where SA is the specific activity.
It is also interesting to note that NCRP Report no. 65, "Management of Person Accidentally Contaminated with Radionuclides," recommends chelation for plutonium intake, but NOT for uranium intake, since chelation would increase residence time in the kidneys.  I  faced this situation when advising the site physician on treating an individual who had entered a facility with airborne U without respiratory protection (long story).
Bill Lipton
It's not about dose, it's about trust.



----- Original Message ----
From: James Salsman <BenjB4 at gmail.com>
To: "Johnston, Thomas" <Tom_Johnston at nymc.edu>; radsafelist <radsafe at radlab.nl>
Sent: Wednesday, June 4, 2008 12:47:37 PM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] industrial hygiene of radionuclides

Tom,

Thanks for recommending the Radiological Health Handbook.  Under
U-238, is there an account of the teratogenic genotoxicity?

I ask because 10 US CFR 20 has been showing the toxicity of soluble
compounds as less than insoluble, which strongly suggests that only
the radiological toxicity and not the chemical genotoxicity has been
taken into account. (Pending U.S. petition NRC-PRM-20-26.)

We were just discussing some reproductive toxicity work from 1953:
Voegtlin and Hodge, eds., "Pharmacology and Toxicology of
Uranium Compounds" -- at least three volumes.  I would like to see
that one.  Some of its reports seem to be enjoying a contemporary
series of replications, e.g.:
  http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2137136

Why aren't they karyotyping the white blood, sperm, and egg cells of
those rats?  That's where the action is.  I guess since rats only live
for about 5 years, tops, maybe it's not a substantial enough amount to
be significant?  It depends on the dose, of course.

Still, there's no excuse for not quantifying the reproductive toxicity
before writing about it with the certainty that we were hearing from
the military and their lapdog contractors 1972-2004.

James Salsman

On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 8:29 AM, Johnston, Thomas <Tom_Johnston at nymc.edu> wrote:
> I must comment/speak up on this!
> I am certain you are not familiar with the body of work that was done in
> the 1940s, 50s and 60s. Most certainly this is considered to be Classics
> as far as establishing toxicity levels for radionuclides. If anyone is
> not familiar with these works, pick up your RHH and check out the
> Bibliography of any Section...  For the uninitiated, RHH stands for
> Radiological Health Handbook, an ESSENTIAL reference for any respectable
> scientist or specialist in this field. Today, the most recent edition is
> Handbook of Health Physics and Radiological Health, Third Edition.
>
> Tom
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On
> Behalf Of James Salsman
> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 10:58 AM
> To: radsafelist
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] industrial hygiene of radionuclides
>
> Is the industrial hygiene of radionuclides part of health physics?
>
> If not, why not?
>
> I have told Richard Urban that if Juan Trippe were alive today, he
> would be investing in wind.  It's not so much because of increasing
> windspeeds from the greenhouse effect and increasing engineering
> effeciencies, but also because of health physicists who have not
> considered the industrial hygiene of radionuclides as part of health
> physics.
>
> James Salsman
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
> the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
>
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/