[ RadSafe ] Salsman warning

[James Salsman]

2010/4/8 Dan W McCarn <hotgreenchile at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [Salsman] is proposing an actively anti-nuclear point of view

That is false.  I am strongly in favor of research reactors and
medical isotope production.

> In Salsman's argument, "I honestly do not know why people who I am sure are
> in favor of nuclear power don't explain that uranium is one of the reasons
> that coal is so dirty. Is it possible instead, or in addition, that they
> don't want people to know about high cancer rates in uranium miners?"
>
> His argument is based on a maximum 1.9 millirem dose....

My argument is based on the fact that uranyl toxicity is far more of a
chemical effect than a radiological effect.  Uranium dissolved in
animal tissue has an affinity for gonocyte and white blood cell DNA.
It is mutagenic, genotoxic, carcinogenic, teratogenic, immunotoxic,
and nephrotoxic, but the nephrotoxicity is tolerated.

> uranium mill workers, exposed to high levels of serum uranium do not develop
> elevated cancer

Source, please?

> the later uranium mine workers did not have such high levels of lung cancer

Again, what is the source for this?

Sincerely,
James Salsman