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

Busby, Chris C.Busby at ulster.ac.uk
Mon Nov 7 07:29:46 CST 2011 

The gamma absorption is proportional to the 5th power of the atomic number, that what you are missing.
Dont argue with me, argue with physics.
Chris


-----Original Message-----
From: Witold Matysiak [mailto:matysiw at mcmaster.ca]
Sent: Sun 06/11/2011 21:11
To: Busby, Chris
Cc: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List; kaleissa at gmail.com
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] DU not toxicologically identical to non D-U
 
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Busby, Chris <C.Busby at ulster.ac.uk> wrote:
"This does not settle the argument since your original observation was the
correct one and you have not altered that."

Systematically:

1) Photoelectron flux per ATOM is equal for all isotopes of the same
element, in our discussion for 238U and 235U.
- Gold is used in radiation treatment because its Z is higher than average
Z of tissue, hence photoelectron flux per atom is higher.

2) Photoelectron flux per DOSE is higher for 238U than 235U.
This calculation proposes the "photoelectron flux enhancement per dose"
factor as a measure of isotope toxicity.

"And it does not mean that stable high Z elements are the most radiotoxic;
that depends on the level of exposure"

So provided that the level of exposure is equal for all considered
elements, the toxicity of stable elements is indeed infinite. This
conclusion is absurd.



On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Busby, Chris <C.Busby at ulster.ac.uk> wrote:

> **
>
> This does not settle the argument since your original observation was the
> correct one and you have not altered that. It is not a big deal: I just
> wanted to point out that you have to be a bit careful.
> And it does not mean that stable high Z elements are the most radiotoxic;
> that depends on the level of exposure.
>
> C
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Witold Matysiak [mailto:matysiw at mcmaster.ca <matysiw at mcmaster.ca>]
> Sent: Sun 06/11/2011 17:09
> To: C.Busby at ulster.ac.uk; The International Radiation Protection (Health
> Physics) Mailing List
> Cc: kaleissa at gmail.com
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] DU not toxicologically identical to non D-U
>
> On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 7:09 AM, Busby, Chris <C.Busby at ulster.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> "Yes. Hurrah. Witold Matisiak has figured it out, and he is correct."
>
> Arguments ad hominem aside.
>
> "But if there are high Z elements these pull in the gamma background"
> "Gold nanoparticles have been used to enhance X-ray cancer therapy"
>
> There is significant difference in Z between tissue and gold. There is no
> difference in Z between U235 and U238. I think this settles the argument in
> this portion.
>
> As you pointed out earlier, the difference is in this "photoelectric flux
> enhancement per unit dose" factor, and this one gives absurd results, i.e.
> stable elements are the most toxic.
>
>
> 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 <matysiw at mcmaster.ca><
> 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<radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu>
> <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
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

More information about the RadSafe mailing list