[ RadSafe ] uranium smoke is a teratogen

[Dan W McCarn]

<< But as Dan pointed out, the levels were so low as to not be natural sand if true>>

Since these values were reported in a newspaper, I suggest that the newspaper folks are at fault and had no clue about ppt or ppm levels in geomedia.  The value is likely 10 ppm, about 1/10 the value found in the Chatanooga, Pierre and Mancos Shales and 2-5 times that found in normal concretes. Many granites are on the close order of 10 ppm, and some like Rossing in Namibia, are about 100 ppm.

My experience is that the media tends to garble results badly.  My survey of 6 newspapers over one year in Central Europe (1988-1989) confirmed a very high incidence of error in reporting on environmental issues, with the notable exception of the one Swiss newspaper.

This is why scientific lieterature is peer reviewed (but not always).

Dan ii

Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA; 
mccarn at unileoben.ac.at           HotGreenChile at gmail.com           UConcentrate at gmail.com


-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Ben Fore
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 11:06 AM
To: Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV; Steven Dapra; radsafelist
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] uranium smoke is a teratogen

Mike,

Thanks for your message:

> ... when faced with strong evidence that DU concentrations
> in this shipment was very, very low; too low to be a health
> risk in any credible exposure scenario, you could have
> responded, "You are right; there really isn't a problem....

But as Dan pointed out, the levels were so low as to not be
natural sand if true:
  http://lists.radlab.nl/pipermail/radsafe/2008-May/009993.html

> Instead, you said (to paraphrase), "OH YEAH!?!
> Well, what about the lead?  SO THERE!"

I was referring to the lead levels for contrast.  But I think you
knew that.  It's a lot easier to insinuate that someone is
shouting an unreasoned argument than to join those of us
who are trying to quantify the answers to what the U.S.
Armed Forces Radiobiology Institute has been calling
"numerous unanswered questions" for at least a decade.

> When was the last time you were wrong about some
> aspect of DU; in particular, when you originally thought
> that something supported the position that DU is a
> serious health problem, but it turned out that it didn't?

There turned out to be more birth defects from anthrax vaccine
than I had been believing (I want to say "lead to believe" but
it has been years since there has been any substantial news
on anthrax vaccines because of the lawsuit ... and I know
how you feel about L-E-A-D....)

Steven Dapra wrote:

> James, you can't even keep track of what you're fulminating about.

I'm sure the people who agree with you that uranium smoke is
not a proven teratogen agree with you on that point, too.  But
then again, if there is one paper that says uranium smoke
contains uranyl, and another that says uranyl is a teratogen,
why are you unable to connect the dots?

Is it because you prefer that people not know the quantities
involved?  How much of a teratogen, and how much exposure
there has been over time?

Why have you not bothered to read the Domingo papers?
You are willing to spend hours arguing with me, but not willing
to read the central papers in the field?  Does that indicate
the depth of your commitment to science?

James Salsman, writing as Ben Fore
_______________________________________________
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/