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

[Dan W McCarn]

Dear Ahmad:

Uranium mineral species tend to leach U-234 more easily than U-238 because
crystal lattice dislocation is caused by alpha recoil when U-238 decays to
Th-234.  As I recall, the alpha particle has about 4-5 MeV energy, and the
imparted kinetic energy in the recoil is around 50 KeV to the Th-234 atom.
This is sufficient to dislocate the Th-234 atom. 

For this reason, when Th-234 decays to U-234 within a mineral, the U-234 is
no longer tightly bound to the mineral lattice and is therefore
significantly more leachable. This feature has been well documented in
uranium deposits especially redox-controlled roll-front sandstone deposits
and in environmental geochemistry measurements. Elevated U-234 values are
typical of weak-leach conditions in near-surface vadose zones.  Likewise,
elevated U-234/U-238 ratios are characteristically present in the leading
edge of roll-fronts.  Yellowcake produced from acid in-situ-recovery (ISR)
in Central Asia characteristically has an elevated U-234/U-238 ratio caused
by various geochemical conditions encountered during mining.  This has been
reported on at the IAEA in "Downstream constraints on product specification
and ISL mining methods" by G. Capus in IAEA TECDOC-1396.

http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/te_1396_web.pdf 

Note that for U-234 to reach secular equilibrium requires 1-2 million years,
so leachate containing elevated U-234/U-238 ratios likely comes from natural
mineralized sources.

I looked at the Fallujah data, and was quite surprised at how low the total
U concentrations were in soils - around 1 mg/Kg U.  Quite a bit of the USA,
Sweden and the mid-east is directly underlain by uranium-bearing marine
black shales (Kolm Shale, Chattanooga Shale, Pierre Shale) and marine
phosphorites not to mention elevated uranium in granites such as the Reading
Prong.  The soils associated with these widespread formations tend to be
much higher in concentration, up to 100 mg/kg U. 

Respectfully,

Dan ii

--
Dan W McCarn, Geologist
108 Sherwood Blvd
Los Alamos, NM 87544-3425
+1-505-672-2014 (Home - New Mexico)
+1-505-670-8123 (Mobile - New Mexico)
HotGreenChile at gmail.com (Private email) HotGreenChile at gmail dot com




-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Ahmad Al-Ani
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 23:18
To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] DU not toxicologically identical to non D-U


On Mon Oct 31st, 2011 9:30 PM AST Brennan, Mike  (DOH) wrote:

>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.

Is there such a technique called Uranium Bio-Enrichment? It would be
interesting if farmed cells or organisms can selectively absorb U235 in an
efficient manner to compete with current methods. 

Ahmad Al-Ani
Radiation Physicist


>
>-----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

_______________________________________________
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