[ RadSafe ] Salsman warning

[Dan W McCarn]

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Case Studies in Environmental Medicine (CSEM)
Uranium Toxicity
Course: WB 1524
Original Date: May 1, 2009
Expiration Date: May 1, 2012
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/uranium/docs/uranium.pdf

"Cancer among uranium miners has not been associated with exposure to
uranium, but instead with exposure to radon progeny, diesel exhaust
particles, arsenic, and other elements in the mine air which they breathe
[ATSDR 1999 (updated 2008)]". Page 58

"The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the U.S.
National Toxicology Program (NTP) have no carcinogenicity ratings for
uranium. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has withdrawn its
carcinogenicity classification for uranium." Ibid, Page 29

"Uranium exposure in the occupational setting has been associated
with relatively few medical problems. Renal disease is related to
over-exposure to uranium, but it s not specific to uranium. Pulmonary
disease is related to dust exposure and is also not specific to uranium.
These problems are also not related to exposure to radiation; such problems
would not be expected unless the individual were handling highly enriched
uranium." Ibid, Pages 5-6.

This is not the reference that I reviewed in 2003 related to uranium mill
worker data, but serves for the present time.  That was a US Gov't
publication dated around 1998 as I recall on the toxicology of uranium.

Dan ii

--
Dan W McCarn, Geologist
2867 A Fuego Sagrado
Santa Fe, NM 87505
+1-505-310-3922 (Mobile - New Mexico)
HotGreenChile at gmail.com (Private email)

-----Original Message-----
From: James Salsman [mailto:jsalsman at gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 12:46
To: Dan W McCarn; radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Salsman warning

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