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

Sun Nov 6 06:09:07 CST 2011

Yes. Hurrah. Witold Matisiak has figured it out, and he is correct.
As far as his conclusion is concerned (absurd conclusions) we have to ask why are they absurd? Physics is physics. 
Gold nanoparticles have been used to enhance X-ray cancer therapy. The gold is not radioactive, but the tunours die more than if they had the X rays only. Platinum DNA chelation kills tumours also, especially with radiotherapy combined (patented by Hainfeld). 
Health Physics assumes tissue is effectively water. But if there are high Z elements these pull in the gamma background and enhance local dose. And if these have high affinity for DNA (uranyl ion, platinum anti cancer drugs) then its bad news for the DNA.
Sincerely
Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: Witold Matysiak [mailto:matysiw at mcmaster.ca]
Sent: Sat 05/11/2011 22:19
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List; kaleissa at gmail.com
Cc: C.Busby at ulster.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] DU not toxicologically identical to non D-U

On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 11:01 PM, Khalid Aleissa <kaleissa at gmail.com> wrote:

> There are minor differences although they have the same atomic number. The
> hyper fine structure of the electron shells are different due to the effect
> of their differences in their masses.
>

I thought about this too, but this is not what Dr. Busby proposes.

What he does propose is a factor of photoelecron flux around a particular
isotope to its activity. He reasons that since U238 is less radioactive
than U235, there will be more U238 needed for the same activity (or dose)
than U235, so higher number of photoelectros will be produced around the
higher number of U238 atoms. What follows is that his factor will be higher
for U238 than for U235, hence, he claims, U238 is more dangerous.

This line of argument leads to absurd conclusions, e.g. stable elements are
the most radiologically dangerous.

Regards,

Witold

>
>
>  Best regards
>
> Khalid
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 7:39 PM, Witold Matysiak <matysiw at mcmaster.ca>
> wrote:
>
> > 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
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>