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

Fri Nov 4 14:06:24 CDT 2011

You are missing the point. There are more atoms of U238 per unit dose than atoms of U235. So comparison on a dose basis (which was what started this discussion)is not the point. Both have the same photoelectron emission buthete will be more photoelectrons because there is more U238 for teh same dose.
Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: Witold Matysiak [mailto:matysiw at mcmaster.ca]
Sent: Thu 03/11/2011 16:39
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Cc: C.Busby at ulster.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] DU not toxicologically identical to non D-U

On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Busby, Chris <C.Busby at ulster.ac.uk> wrote:
"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"

I may be missing the point here, but U238 and U235 have the same atomic
numbers so based on the standard theory photoelectric cross-sections are
equal for both.
What effects related with mass number should be included in PE X-section?

On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Busby, Chris <C.Busby at ulster.ac.uk> wrote:

> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>