Re: Can someone explain this to me in fireman talk

[Mark Sonter <sontermj@tpg.com.au>]

Hi Lou,



Many years ago I was a rad safety officer in a uranium mine (long since

closed and successfully remediated!) where to my embarrassment the

spillages of yellowcake were on a monthly basis, guys splashed around in

the stuff, and the airborne uranium ore dust was also quite high.



The mine and plant operators certainly got uranium exposure, in amounts

that would have been hundreds or thousands of  times higher than these

soldiers might have received.



The company whilst pretty ordinary in workplace cleanliness control, did

at least carry out monthly urine analyis for uranium.  I was the poor

sap who had to prep the samples for despatch to the government analyst

by addition of preservative.  (BTW, fluorimetric (chemical) analysis of

U in urine would not cost anywhere near $1000 per sample, more like

$50.  If these guys are doing ISOTOPIC analysis, they are pissing army

money up against the wall)



We knew from industrial hygiene literature that uranium-induced kidney

damage would likely kick in at urinary uranium levels of something like

2000 micrograms U per litre of urine.  The highest I ever saw, even in

the relatively dirty conditions we had, was about 170 micrograms U /

litre. The average I saw was at about the limit of detection, that being

5 ug/l.  So the situation was (despite appearances) a non-event as far

as risk to kidneys went.



I did my thesis on the radiation dose to internal organs from inhalation

of the ore dust.  Again, despite appearances, the radiation doses (which

were primarily from isotopes other than the U isotopes anyway) were

small, from memory something like a tenth of the then limit say half a

rem to a rem per year.  Again, a non-event.



Now, some people make something of the difference between natural U and

depleted U.  It's not significant.  In fact DU is less hazardous

radiologically than natU, because there is less of the "more

radioactive" U235 and U234 than in the natU.  And chemically, in terms

of kidney toxicity, it is exactly the same.



My conclusion then is that these guys cannot possibly be suffering from

U poisoning, but that some or various other agents are the culprits:

other chemicals, birdshit, fungi, solvents, all of which can do bad

things to your lungs.  And should have been thought of by the army docs

when investigating complaints. Not forgetting psychosomatic problems

that are always a potential but will arise particularly when you get fed

BS and get kept in the dark.



I would bet the troops had less-than-adequate briefings as to what

medical risks might be present at the outset, because if they had, they

would be focussing in on the real "probable exposure" situations (eg

pneumonitis from birdshit, sensitization from solvent exposures, etc

etc) rather than the unrealistic one of U exposure.  The army docs

should know this, but are fighting a credibility gap if there was

inadequate prior preparation and briefings to these men before going

into the field.



Just my thoughts.



Mark Sonter

(now an independent agent operating as Radiation Advice & Solutions Pty

Ltd)







************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To

unsubscribe, send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the

text "unsubscribe radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail,

with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/