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

[Steven Dapra]

Nov. 8

         What is Goodhead's full name and what is the citation to his 
paper or what-have-you?

         John Gofman was a charlatan.

Steven Dapra


At 01:19 PM 11/8/2011, you wrote:
>You have changed the argument, but yes, it is significant since the 
>U is on the DNA whereas the "dose from all sources" is not on the 
>DNA. Goodhead has argued (and so has Gofman and so have I) that at 
>1mSv a year external each cell gets only one track. You can work it 
>out yourself. Thats the "dose from all sources" and there is time to 
>repair damage. This is not the case for a U atom bound to DNA which 
>has an increased gamma cross section and therefore greater 
>photoelectron (like beta particles) production.
>I have not changed my argument which was about photoelectron 
>enhancement due to high Z elements, which it is now clear you now understand.
>Thats all that needs to be said.
>Cheers
>Chris
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu on behalf of Brennan, Mike  (DOH)
>Sent: Mon 07/11/2011 17:17
>To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList
>Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] DU not toxicologically identical to non D-U
>
>But we are not discussing pure U235: we are discussing the difference
>between DU and non-depleted uranium, U(nat) being the obvious choice, as
>the that is what people are exposed to (while acknowledging that the
>isotopic mix in U(nat) varies within a range).  The specific activity of
>U238 is a little less than half that of U(nat), which means that for a
>given unit of activity there would be about twice the number of U238
>atoms than U(nat) atoms.  You are now in the position of arguing that
>twice the photoelectron dose is significant against the background of
>all dose from all sources.
>
>I do not accept your attempted sleight of hand in trying to use U235 as
>the comparison, as no one, not even you, has claimed that pure U235 has
>been used in weapons (other than atomic weapons, and I hope we are in
>agreement that none of those were used in Iraq without anyone noticing).
>As I have pointed out on several occasions, U(nat) and even most forms
>of enriched uranium are mostly U238.

[edit]