[ RadSafe ] industrial hygiene of radionuclides

Wed Jun 4 18:38:05 CDT 2008

I'm not seeing the same numbers as you.  The current 10 CFR 20 (from "e-cfr") shows:  6 E-10 uCi/ml for U-238D and 2 E-11 uCi/ml for U-238Y.  I believe that these values are based solely on radiological considerations.  You then have to go to footnote 3 and 10 CFR 20.1201(e) to determine the nonradiological limit. You'd then use the most conservative limit.  Also note that the value for U-238D is a nonstochastic value, with the bone surfaces as the critical organ.  
Bill Lipton
It's not about dose, it's about trust.

----- Original Message ----
From: James Salsman <BenjB4 at gmail.com>
To: WILLIAM LIPTON <doctorbill at post.harvard.edu>
Cc: "Johnston, Thomas" <Tom_Johnston at nymc.edu>; radsafelist <radsafe at radlab.nl>
Sent: Wednesday, June 4, 2008 7:12:02 PM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] industrial hygiene of radionuclides

Bill,

Thank you for your reply.  Regarding:

  http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part020/appb/footnotes.html

Why is the allowed inhalation concentration (Col. 3) 3E-11 µCi/ml for
U-238-Y, but 3E-9 for U-238-D?

That is inverted, given that the chemical genotoxicty is 1E7 times the
radiological hazard (Miller, A. (2004)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12121782 US AFRBI), and so it does
not take chemical toxicity in to account.  Please correct me if I'm
wrong.

Shouldn't the concentrations be graded by cation?  Does anyone
seriously think that O+ from UO3 in solution is as safe as acetate?

James Salsman

On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 11:36 AM, WILLIAM LIPTON <wlipton at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> 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/
>