[ RadSafe ] Salsman warning

Fri Apr 9 15:41:29 CDT 2010

Dear James, 

The point is that even the mill workers with elevated serum uranium values
had less than the average expectancy of kidney disease.  And that was over a
working lifetime.  If uranium is as toxic as you claim, then certainly these
issues would have been noted.  As they have not been identified, I can only
say that you are likely to be in error. Apparently the kidneys in the mill
workers are fairly robust.  Also, please note that the a priori position of
the US EPA was to assign uranium a carcinogenic label.  After decades of
data that did not support this, they withdrew that assignment.

And again, I have no time to look-up that other reference until next week.

Regardless of any discussions that you might have had with the ATSDR, their
current conclusion TODAY is ""Uranium exposure in the occupational setting
has been associated with relatively few medical problems."  This is training
materials for physicians!  This means mill workers being occupationally
exposed to uranium.  James, this does not mean that mining is not fraught
with potential health hazards, but those hazards (for mill workers) are
primarily inhalation of rock dust, trauma from heavy objects, and contact
with chemical reagents used in mining. 

In the case of metal ore bodies, potential inhalation hazards include dusts
containing arsenic (a known carcinogen) and other heavy metals.  These are
not unique hazards to uranium mining and milling.  They are mitigated by
training and use of PPEs (Personal Protective Equipment) under OSHA and MSHA
as well as proactive health and safety management by the companies.  At
Shell Oil, anyone could stop an activity if they felt there was an unsafe
practice, and I personally did so twice, both involving drilling operations,
the second time because of possible H2S exposure based on geochemical
calculations.  Have you ever used PPEs, James?  I imagine that almost
everyone on this list has or does so on a regular basis as well as having
regular training exercises.  James, even in Kazakhstan, I had to be
re-trained for health & safety while working at a mine site.  There, I
walked around in my hard hat, with eye protection, respiratory protection
(full-face respirator for acids and dust - as required), hand protection, an
approved jacket, sweater and trousers and steel toed footwear. To walk to
the mill facility required me to strip, shower, walk though to the clean
area, don fresh clothing and boots in order to access the mill.  On the way
back, it was strip, bathe, walk to the outer dressing room, and put my old
clothes back on!

http://www.osha.gov/Publications/osha3151.html

http://www.msha.gov/

Writing to the CEOs of companies of people you disagree with, especially
when they can back their statements is poor politic at best, distasteful,
and clearly indicates that you are not willing to work-out differences with
people you disagree with.  I suspect that you are still employing that
strategy to scare and intimidate people, which is exactly what you want to
do, is it not?  That is despicable to many eyes.  Do you think that these
folks ask their management each time they express their personal opinion?
The fact is, you are breaking RadSafe rules for not identifying yourself
with contact information.  And as I recall once before, you had at least one
pseudonym.

Your strategy reminds me of a environmentalist group who used a reference
and figure from one of my publications.  They gave the figure a different
title and explanation favorable to their case, and presented it to the NRC
hearing officer in affidavit form and referenced the figure as my work.
When, in affidavit, I challenged them and presented the original paper (IAEA
Publication) the hearing officer threw out their testimony, affidavit and
all, with prejudice.  So, they decided to go to a US District Court and get
their affidavit re-instated.  Instead, they found themselves being fined
$250,000 dollars for trying to step-out of the NRC's jurisdiction.  When,
two years later, I found that they were still using my report in that way in
public meetings, I stood up, identified myself, and threatened a law suit if
they did not retract all false statements about my work.  They complied.  If
they do it again, I will sue.

What I am saying is that your past history does not present itself to me as
someone who is willing to listen.  You look at the first sentence, ""Uranium
exposure in the occupational setting has been associated with relatively few
medical problems." but then immediately blank that out and jump to the
conclusion that they are just "following party line".  That is hogwash,
James.  The point here, James, is that the mill workers have been followed
for an excess of 20 years already. Did you blank that out, too?

Now what would I think about a reporter who did not confirm his sources?
I'd say that his editor was asking him to follow a prescribed editorial
bias, which is exactly what you seem to be doing.  There was only one paper
out of 6 that I followed (1988-1989) in Central Europe that accurately
reported on environmental issues, The Zurich Times.  The two German papers
(Suddeutcher Zeitung, Deutcher Zeitung) and two Austrian papers (Die Presse
& Der Standard) were systematically wrong with their reporting and followed
the political / editorial bias of their editors. The remaining paper, the
Herald Tribune, was oblivious to environmental issues.  So don't ask me
about reporters because I don't usually think much of their work, especially
when they profess to report on scientific or environmental issues.

Doubts aside James, the rest of us must live with data that can be
substantiated and repeated and reports that are peer reviewed.  Science
isn't journalism! 

By the way, toxicologists always review new data.  And as I mentioned to you
before, when my beautiful, black-haired, bright-eyed, frisky Russian
girlfriend said during the Cold War days in Vienna, "You love your horse
more than you love me!", my response was, "Yes, and your point is?"

Dan ii

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

  _____  

From: James Salsman [mailto:jsalsman at gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 12:29
To: Dan W McCarn
Cc: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Subject: Re: RE: [ RadSafe ] Salsman warning

Dan,

Thank you for the information below. I have been in correspondence with
three ATSDR toxicologists in the past year and they have indicated they are
reviewing the carcinogencity studies reported in various uranium toxicology
reviews. The ATSDR had relying on sources which have influenced by the HPS
party line that uranium is only a danger to kidneys, as your excerpts show.
I doubt any study of people, mill workers or otherwise, with elevated serum
uranyl levels will not show carcinogenicity after 20 years.

I have never asked that anyone on RadSafe be fired, reassigned, or even
repremanded. All I've ever asked for are retractions. Why is that so
dispicable? 

What would you think of a reporter who didn't try to confirm statements
contrary to established, reliable sources with the company management of
those making them?  How is what I've been doing any different?

Sincerely,
James Salsman

On Apr 8, 2010 3:37 PM, "Dan W McCarn" <hotgreenchile at gmail.com> wrote:

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 ...

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-n...