RE: uranium in drinking water

["Bradshaw, Keith" <Keith.Bradshaw@nnc.co.uk>]

Tammy

I've copied your message and put in my comments as you go along:

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	TMARKS5333@aol.com [SMTP:TMARKS5333@aol.com]
> Sent:	Sunday, October 08, 2000 2:43 PM
> To:	Multiple recipients of list
> Subject:	uranium in drinking water
> 
> I am trying to find out if anyone might have an idea of the health 
> consequences when one consumes high levels (800pCi/liter or around 700 
> micrograms)of Uranium for 5 years from their well water.
> 
	I think there's a mistake in the arithmetic here.  Natural U is
25.4Bq/mg.  So 800pCi/liter would be 1165 microgram/liter, not 700, and the
other way round, 700 microgram/liter would be 480 pCi/liter (1Bq = 27 pCi).

>  The family has been 
> told that it is not absorbed through the skin in its soluble state, but
> there 
> seems to be at least a couple of people who do not agree with that
> statement. 
> I have also found a couple of studies that tell it differently. 
> 
	Are they not drinking it?

	By my calculation, they may be getting radiation doses by ingestion
of around the 1mSv/year mark from uranium ingestion.  That's the limit for
members of the public in Europe.  So by current radiological thinking, they
are unlikely to suffer any ill effects due to radiation.  But they *would*
be advised to reduce this dose.

> Hair levels of U have been retrieved and range from 3400 times the high 
> normal in their 2 1/2 year old daughter to 1500 times the norm in the
> mother 
> and next youngest child. The next two children are around 600 times the
> norm. 
> The eldest child and father are yet to be tested. 
> 
	Someone else has commented on this.  I'm not sure what hair
concentrations prove.  It might be better to spend the resources on better
monitoring of the well water.

> The mother presented at age 33 with low bone mass with no past nutritional
> 
> history to indicate such, and progressively decaying teeth. The two
> younger 
> children have very poor dental, with good hygiene habits. The youngest
> again 
> has no mass to her teeth -- the dentist refers to it as comparable to 
> drilling chalk.
> 
> The radium levels were also tested and are above the federal limits
> (12pCi/l 
> of R226 and 3.5pCi/l of R228). The radon levels in their home were 3.7 but
> in 
> their water is 9228.
> 
> Any help would be appreciated.
> 
> Tammy Marks
> 
> 
	Only my own unchecked, very rushed, calculations.  Personal
non-corporate views only.

	Regards

	keith.bradshaw@nnc.co.uk


**********************************************************************
NNC Limited
Booths Hall
Chelford Road
Knutsford
Cheshire
WA16 8QZ

Country of Registration: United Kingdom
Registered Number: 1120437

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and 
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they   
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify 
the NNC system manager by e-mail at eadm@nnc.co.uk.
***********************************************************************
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html