RE: Niagara, Franz, Kidneys around MED AEC sites

[John R Johnson <idias@interchange.ubc.ca>]

MessageAll



Uranium is a known kidney toxin, but we think that the toxicity depends on

the instantaneous kidney concentration (Harley et al 1999 RAND report). The

intakes need to be large before this concentration is reached.



There are private water supplies that result in uranium intakes above that

usually see in the workplace, without significant health effects. Are the

intakes "around MED AEC sites" greater than these private wells?

 _________________

John R Johnson, Ph.D.

*****

President, IDIAS, Inc

4535 West 9-Th Ave

Vancouver B. C.

V6R 2E2

(604) 222-9840

idias@interchange.ubc.ca

*****

or most mornings

Consultant in Radiation Protection

TRIUMF

4004 Wesbrook Mall

Vancouver B. C.

V6R 2E2

(604) 222-1047 Ext. 6610

Fax: (604) 222-7309

johnsjr@triumf.ca

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

  From: owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

[mailto:owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu]On Behalf Of Hall, David A.

  Sent: April 1, 2004 9:31 AM

  To: 'NiagaraNet@AOL.COM'; franz.schoenhofer@CHELLO.AT;

radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

  Subject: RE: Niagara, Franz, Kidneys around MED AEC sites





  Dear NN aka LR,



  This commentary is offered in all seriousness. (Seriously!!!)



  So, How many of these "kidney disease" cases have had bioassay for

Uranium?



  Likewise, how many "cases" have had post-mortem investigation of Uranium

in *any* organs?



  Uranium is easy to detect at very low amounts with current analytical

technology, especially if you have a tissue sample (biopsy).



  Today's Key words:  "bioassay" "biopsy"



  Oh, I almost forgot.  When are *all* the dialysis patients in the region

going to be tested for Uranium exposure?

  It seems to be to be an easy to find "smoking gun" for adverse health

effects.



  David Hall

  Las Vegas, Nevada



  Speaking, as I always do on radsafe, only for my own professional

curiosity.



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

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

    Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 7:31 AM

    To: franz.schoenhofer@CHELLO.AT; radsafe@list.Vanderbilt.Edu

    Cc: NiagaraNet@AOL.COM

    Subject: Niagara, Franz, Kidneys around MED AEC sites





    Re: RADSAFE Archive #1074



      Franz:   (After reading this, would you recommend an investigation?)



      Interestingly, kidney disease is being seen not only in the *surviving

workers in addition to their cancers, but also in the general population of

Western New York around the old MED AEC facilities. I find no surprise in

this. *See: Lewis Malcolm of Lockport, New York's MED AEC contractor,

Simonds Saw and Steel. While dying of cancer, Mr. Malcolm died of kidney

failure. I know who gave him his last dialysis treatment.



       You have made a very good, albeit obvious observation and salient

point about the areas in question, industrial activities involving the MED

AEC and the chemical toxicity of these heavy metals. I appreciate your keen

observation and comment that further supports my concerns, claims and

impressions about a subject I feel very intimate with. Thank you Franz.

Sincerely, Lou Ricciuti

    ----

    Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 22:43:04 +0100

    From: "Franz Schoenhofer" <franz.schoenhofer@CHELLO.AT>

    Subject: AW: Bethlehem workers and Western NY State



    - -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----

    Von: owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

    [mailto:owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu]Im Auftrag von Steven Dapra

    Gesendet: Samstag, 27. März 2004 09:24

    An: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

    Betreff: Re: Bethlehem workers and Western NY State



    March 27



        Posted by Louis Ricciuti (at the request of Marvin Resnikoff):

"Ingestion

    of uranium would be much more effective in yielding a radiation dose to

the

    colon and stomach; several of these workers developed colon cancer."



        Is radiation exposure a known risk factor for colon cancer?

    ---------

    Steven,



    I wish you "good luck" for receiving an answer by Louis or Marvin....



    It is more than well known - except for the anti-DU folks and some

others

    like Louis or Marvin - that uranium is by far more chemotoxic than it is

    radiotoxic. The US drinking water regulations have a maximum

concentration

    level for uranium, based on mass and not on activity concentration. The

mass

    concentration of the US level corresponds to a much lower activity, than

is

    for instance in the European Union allowed for the activity

concentration.

    The EU has - unfortunately - no mass concentration based limits!



    Before somebody would die of any cancer developed by uranium radiation

    exposure, he or she would die of kidney failure. Uranium is a very

poisonous

    heavy metal and it acts like such one in the human body.



    I thought better to stay out of the "Bethlehem"-discussion, but reading

this

    last contribution made me write.



    If somebody who worked with uranium would claim, that he developed

kidney problems by the uptake of uranium I would understand it and recommend

a careful investigation. But radiation injuries caused by uranium without

any much more severe chemotoxic problems are simply ridiculous.



    Franz



    *****

    References: Niagara Falls Memorial Medical Center-Dialysis Unit

(personal interview), USA Today Newspaper-Sept. 6-8, 11, 2000, Lockport, New

York, Union Sun and Journal Newspaper, Bulletin of the Atomic

Scientists-July August 2001.