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

Tue Nov 8 14:25:41 CST 2011

The photoelectric enhancement per dose factor that you propose leads to
singularity when the dose given off by the isotope is zero.

Can you see it?

> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Busby, Chris <C.Busby at ulster.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>> Your brain is not working. You will have to think a bit harder.
>> Sincerely
>> Chris
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Witold Matysiak [mailto:matysiw at mcmaster.ca <matysiw at mcmaster.ca>]
>> Sent: Mon 07/11/2011 14:41
>> 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
>>
>> "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><
>> 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><
>> > 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><
>> > > 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>
>> > > <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
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>