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

Mon Nov 7 08:41:13 CST 2011

"The gamma absorption is proportional to the 5th power of the atomic number"

Photoelectric X-section varies as Z^5, so there is no difference in
photoelectron flux per ATOM between 235U and 238U, since they have equal Z
numbers.

Photoelectric flux per DOSE is higher for 238U than 235U. For any stable
element photoelectric flux per DOSE is infinite. This is nonsense.

On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Busby, Chris <C.Busby at ulster.ac.uk> wrote:

> **
>
> 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 <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><
> 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><
> > 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>
> > <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
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>