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

[Bjorn Cedervall]

There seems to be some serious confusion here. Genotoxicity if about changes in DNA and
stochastic effects. In contrast, general toxicity like tissue damage to various organs and similar
effects is about the chemistry. With very few known exceptions (protons substituted with
deuterium in some biomolecules) isotopic differences mean practically nothing in the context
of physiology.
 
If the different uranium isotopes were "handled" differently by some physiological mechanism
it would have been exploited more than 50 years ago for the purpose of U-235 enrichment...

Bjorn Cedervall, Stockholm
PS. This reminds me of actually having had the "opportunity" to weigh a good block of unenriched
but natural uranium (probably about 150-200 cc as I recall so it must have been kilos) in my hand
45 years ago. It was not until recentty that I realized that the man who's lab I visited for a few
weeks at that time (for totally different "projects") was also deeply involved in the development
of the Swedish nuclear program. It was of course the density of that impressed me the most.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 11:34:53 -0600
> From: jsalsman at gmail.com
> 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