[ RadSafe ] uranium smoke is a teratogen

[Brennan, Mike (DOH)]

Hi, Dan.

Regardless of Ben/James' response, I have found your posts extremely
interesting and informative.  Natural rad in the ground is not my strong
suit, and I appreciate you sharing your expertise with us. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan W McCarn [mailto:hotgreenchile at gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 12:21 PM
To: 'radsafelist'
Cc: 'Ben Fore'; Brennan, Mike (DOH); 'Steven Dapra'
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] uranium smoke is a teratogen

<< 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/