[ RadSafe ] is uranium genotoxic? (was Re: CB interview onenrichedU)

[Busby, Chris]

Excuse me people. This is not an anti tank penetrator. It is not the same weapon. Ok? Its a new weapon. For which patents have been found. Cited in the paper. OK? So anti tank arguments are misplaced.
Chris


-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu on behalf of Brennan, Mike  (DOH)
Sent: Thu 27/10/2011 18:47
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] is uranium genotoxic? (was Re: CB interview onenrichedU)
 
Upon review of the document that you linked to, the problem becomes
clear: you don't know what you are talking about, and apparently don't
understand what you read.

The document you linked to said:

"Isotope analyses to determine the types of uranium present show that
0.0028 per cent of the uranium in the penetrators is in the form of
isotope U-236.  The presence of U-236 indicates that part of the DU came
from reprocessed uranium.  This information was provided by one of the
five laboratories being used by UNEP for its DU assessment work.
According to the laboratory, the content of U-236 in the depleted
uranium is so small that the radiotoxicity is not changed compared to DU
without U-236.  However, the final assessment by UNEP will be made only
once results from all laboratories are available."

This paragraph says several things.  

It says that one of five labs found U-236 in very small amounts, leaving
open the question of whether the other labs also found it and hadn't
reported it, or hadn't found it, which in turn leaves open the question
of whether U-236 was present only in the samples that went to one lab,
or if it were missed by the other labs, or if it was identified by
mistake by the lab that reported it.  All are possible.

It also says that the presence of U-236 indicates that part of the
depleted uranium came from reprocessed uranium.  Reprocessed uranium is
not the same as enriched uranium.  Enriched uranium contains a greater
percentage of U-235 than natural uranium; usually in at least the
several percent range.  This article does not mention U-235, and given
the tiny, tiny amount of U-236 mentioned, one would expect that it would
have come up.  

The article also clearly states that the samples were collected in
Kosovo, where there has never been any doubt that DU munitions were
used, presumably mostly against armored vehicles, for which it is most
effective.  It's use in Kosovo does not imply its use in Fallujah, where
there were no armored vehicles on the insurgent side.  

Usually, if I cite something in support of an argument, it has something
to do with that argument.  Just saying.   



  



-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of James Salsman
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 6:32 AM
To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Cc: ecraft at edf.org
Subject: [ RadSafe ] is uranium genotoxic? (was Re: CB interview on
enrichedU)

Mike Brennan wrote:

>... The idea that a lab identified "enriched uranium", supposedly
> from projectiles, is absurd.  Either the people in the lab didn't
> know what they were doing (possible) or their results were
> misrepresented (also possible).

It may be absurd, but it's not the first time this has happened.
Durakovic reported an isotope ratio indicating enriched uranium
in soil samples in Afghanistan, and the UN admitted some
reprocessed fuel had made it into some DU munitions in Kosovo:
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2001/unep81.doc.htm

Again, do you believe that uranium is a genotoxin or not?  The
literature is abundantly clear on the issue, and I wonder why
people on this list get so upset about the question.  Dr. Raabe
has stated quite clearly that uranium is not a genotoxin, and
Lt. Cherry has testified to that effect.  It seems like RadSafers
ought to be able to decide whether they believe them or the
peer reviewed literature reviews, or is that question just too
hard for a yes or no answer?

Steven Dapra wrote:

> Salsman gives a link to a paper by Craft, et al. in the Journal of
> Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part B, 7:297317, 2004.
> In its section on "DNA Damage/Carcinogenicity," (p. 308)
>...
> Apparently Craft et al. are right alongside Dr. Raabe and
> Col. Cherry in not believing that DU is a genotoxin.

I am sending a cc of this message to Dr. Craft. I am not sure
she will appreciate how Mr. Dapra has characterized pp. 308-9 of
http://www.dmzhawaii.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/health-overview-04.p
df

> I suspect Salsman's request that as a Navy veteran you can help
> him obtain statistics is a clever and  subtle way of insulting you

No, I honestly haven't been able to get anything out of the Birth and
Infant Health Registry, even though they were publishing annual
reports right up until 2001 when the birth defect rate for combat
versus noncombat 1991 Gulf War veterans started to skyrocket.  I just
thought Mike might be interested enough to help, too.  Does anyone
know a good FOIA attorney?

Now that it's 20 years out, will someone publish the cancer rate
statistics for those two groups?

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