[ RadSafe ] Uranium and genotoxicity

Steven Dapra sjd at swcp.com
Thu Jun 5 19:09:55 CDT 2008

At 12:14 PM 6/5/08 -0700, James Salsman wrote:
>Dear Dr. Cedervall,
>Thank you for your message.
> > I don't understand why this discussion never ends.
>Why do the ICRP -Y, -M, and -D designations consider clearance time
>but not translocation route?
>Why are U-238-Y compounds considered more dangerous than U-238-D
>compounds?  Shouldn't each compound be considered separately?

         Another reason it never ends is that James Salsman has an infinite 
supply of red herrings.  All of a sudden it's almost as if JS has never in 
his entire life said anything about DU being teratogenic.  Next thing you 
know he'll be wondering about the mating habits of moles.

Steven Dapra

> > If genotoxicity from uranium were an issue many organisms living in 
> soil etc should show severely mutated off-spring (earthworms, moles,...) 
> but we don't see that - there must be more important radiological 
> problems to deal with than this speculative (anti-evolutionary) topic. 
> Remember that having a partner means that you are dealing with a source 
> of natural radiation.
>Do you know the chance that a newborn mole survives long enough to mate?
>James Salsman

More information about the RadSafe mailing list