RE: DU

["NIXON, Grant (Kanata)" <GNIXON@MDS.Nordion.com>]

Hi Philippe,

 

Correct me if I am wrong but the 95% CI quoted seems way too high (i.e., the

CI covers +/- 6%) to say much about the extra 1% found in the ratio.

Nonetheless, assuming that an extra 1% is solid, as knowing something about

a typical natural U-concentration in the air of mines, can you venture a

simple guess as to the time-weighted risk associated with breathing inside a

highly-concentrated DU plume? 

 

Note that DU is arguably more toxic due to its being a heavy metal than due

to its inherent radiological effects, most particularly in the case of

shrapnels. It is interesting to note that this aspect was conspicuously

omitted in the rebuttalist's arguments, whose quotes and rebuttals appeared

to be totally taken within the context of the radiological effects. This

would make the statements in the counter-argument rather qualified at that.

Does anyone know whether there were any toxological effects detected in

people so-affected?

 

Grant



-----Original Message-----

From: Philippe Duport [mailto:pduport@uottawa.ca]

Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 2:32 PM

To: 'NIXON, Grant (Kanata)'; BobCherry@AOL.COM; radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

Subject: RE: DU







There is no excess of cancer, other than lung, in the pooled data on 11

miner cohorts (1179 cancers other than lung in 64 000 miners).   The ratio

observed/expected is 1.01, 95% confidence interval = 0.95 - 1.07).  See BEIR

VI, table 4-3, p. 123.  U miners inhale U ore dust all the time.



 



Philippe Duport



 



-----Original Message-----

From: owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

[mailto:owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu] On Behalf Of NIXON, Grant

(Kanata)

Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 12:32 PM

To: 'BobCherry@AOL.COM'; radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

Subject: RE: DU



 



 



Thank you for a very stimulating email Bob!



 



In terms of a debate, the rebuttalist wins-out, hands-down, based on the

fact that he is much more informed and took great pains to hedge his point

of view.  A lot of "body-English" was also used, to very strong effect.



 



Although I have little sympathy for the anti-nuke individual, there

nonetheless remains an issue that was not addressed that people on this

listserve may wish to consider. The rebuttalist draws many quotes indicating

that there is little or no evidence to prove that DU dust from munitions

causes harm or is hazardous to troops or civilians. But this does not imply

that the use of DU munitions is safe. It simply implies that claims to the

contrary were not substantiated by the studies performed by these

organizations. So, is the matter really closed, as the military would have

one believe?



 



For example, one could easily argue that inhaling a highly-concentrated

plume of DU dust (e.g., following a hit) arguably presents SOME degree of

hazard. A CHP, basing themselves on decades of uranium miner exposure data,

could make some crude assumptions and render an estimate of risk per unit of

time exposure. 



 



Indeed, some degree of objectivity could be brought to bear on this topic.



 



Grant



-----Original Message-----

From: BobCherry@AOL.COM [mailto:BobCherry@AOL.COM]

Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 9:26 AM

To: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

Subject: Fwd: DU



A most interesting exchange and I wasn't involved in it!



 



WARNING: The rebuttal may offend some of you civilians.



 



http://www.sanjhb.com/writing/dangers.html

<http://www.sanjhb.com/writing/dangers.html> 



 



 



Bob C