[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Uranium Uptake Above 10 CFR 20 Limit



Regardless of the sophistry you employ, the fact is that uranium is a
nephrotoxin; so its concentration in the urine is the key indicator of  potential
hazard, regardless of the nominal chemical form.  If urinalysis indicates an
uptake above the mass limit, this must be taken seriously.

The licensee did the right thing by admitting the problem, rather than going into
denial with specious legalistic arguments.

The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
It's not about dose it's about trust.

Bill Lipton
liptonw@dteenergy.com

William Lorenzen wrote:

>           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

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