[ RadSafe ] DU not toxicologically identical to non D-U

[Busby, Chris]

There is such a way. Since U238 is slightly less intrinsically radioactive than U235, the quantity of U238 per Becquerel is greater, so for the same implicit activity (alpha decay of the parent nuclide) there are more atoms of Uranium in the same calculated dose from teh U.  Since Uranium absorbs natural background gamma radiation on the basis of its high atomic number, the photoelectron flux at the position of the uranium is greater, dose for dose, U238 that U235 since there are more atoms.
Furthemore, you havent taken into consideration the daughter nuclides, the betas from Pa234m and Th234, two betas before U234. In the case of U235 there is only Th231, one beta. Therefore the total dose, U238 + two fast daughters is greater than U235 +1 fast daughter.
Hows that?
I mean its no big deal, but you do have to be careful here. 
Chris
  


-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu on behalf of Brennan, Mike  (DOH)
Sent: Mon 31/10/2011 18:30
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] DU not toxicologically identical to non D-U
 
James,

While I can see an argument that DU is LESS toxic, radiologically, than
uranium that has not had the shortest half-life, and thus highest
specific activity, isotopes removed, I assume that is not what you wish
to imply.  If you have an argument for how something with a lower
activity (by weight or per atom) is more toxic, I would be interested.
If you are saying that the chemical properties of U238 are sufficiently
different from those of U235 and U234 as to be detectable in the way
organisms are affected, I would like to see the model and the evidence.


I do, however, see a problem with you citing evidence, as your record of
citing relevant items that actually support your position is not good.

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of James Salsman
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 10:35 AM
To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Subject: [ RadSafe ] DU not toxicologically identical to non D-U

Mark Sonter wrote:

> DU *must* be toxicologically identical to non D-U.

That is not consistent with the translocation graph shown in the
Gmelin Handbook of Inorganic Chemistry, 8th Edition, English
translation (Springer-Verlag, 1982), Title U -- Uranium, Supplemental
Volume A7 -- Biology, Section 3 -- Metabolism: Absorption, page 305,
Figure 3-1, "Retention and translocation of inhaled uranyl nitrate,"
from J.E. Ballou, R.A. Gies, and N.A. Wagman in BNWL-2500, Part 1, pp.
379-380 (1978.)

If I owe Bob Cherry an apology for not knowing about genotoxicity when
he made statements to federal officials on the health aspects of
uranium fume inhalation, or for getting his title wrong, then I
apologize.  I remain of the opinion that a more appropriate title
would involve a Quantico detainee number for decades followed by
"Defendant" in a medical expense loss recovery class action suit, and
I appreciate all the work the military does to defend my right to
express such opinions.

Sincerely,
James Salsman
_______________________________________________
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://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
_______________________________________________
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://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu