Re: Uranium Uptake Above 10 CFR 20 Limit

[William Lorenzen <LORENZEN_W@A1.TCH.Harvard.edu>]

          Just because uranium was detected in the urine does not mean it was 
          100% soluble...   My point still stands. What is the purpose of the 
          comparison to a soluble limit?  Bioassay is only as good as the 
          model you use to determine the intake.  Since it is basically an 
          oxide (U3O8) one may see a small fraction in urine (thank you Liz), 
          however, to state you know that the chemical form of the material 
          is an oxide and then compare it ONLY to a soluble intake limit 
          makes no sense to me.  If I follow your reasoning it is equally 
          valid to assume 100% insoluble since it was known to be U3O8.  
          Right?  Whats the dose from that scenario?
          
          Your posting of a regulatory paragraph (or footnote) about exposure 
          to soluble material has no meaning if the intake was of an 
          insoluble nature. How and why does that apply in this particular 
          case? One must decide which regulatory constraint and model applies 
          to the most probable scenario of the exposure.  Just because it was 
          uranium does not mean that the soluble limit is appropriate for 
          that exposure.
          
          I don't understand why the 10 mg/wk limit was posted in the notice 
          as a rational that NO limit was exceeded. It appears short sighted 
          and contradictory to the other information provided.
          
          Regards,
          
          W. Lorenzen

************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html