Re: reply to Cedervall (was Re: uranium munitions burning in air....)

[James Salsman <james@bovik.org>]

John,



Thanks again for your message:



> I believe that there is indeed a question about inhaled uranium 

> accumulating in the testes, particularly from DU use in wartime.



This is the latest:



"Depleted and natural uranium: chemistry and toxicological effects" in

the _Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health Part B, Critical

Reviews_; July-August 2004; vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 297-317.  The ISSN is 

1093-7404.  It can be obtained for $25 from the publisher online:

http://journalsonline.tandf.co.uk/openurl.asp?genre=article&issn=1093-7404&volume=7&issue=4&spage=297

Authors: Craft, ES; Abu-Qare, AW; Flaherty, MM; Garofolo, MC; Rincavage, 

HL; Abou-Donia, MB.  Affiliation: Med Ctr, Nicholas Sch Environm and

Earth Sci, Duke Univ, C173A Levine Sci Res Ctr, Box 3813, Durham, NC,

27710, USA.  Institution: Duke Univ, Med Ctr, Nicholas Sch Environm &

Earth Sci, C173A Levine Sci Res Ctr, Box 3813, Durham, NC 27710 USA;

Duke Univ, Med Ctr, Nicholas Sch Environm & Earth Sci, Durham, NC 27710

USA; Duke Univ, Dept Pharmacol & Canc Biol, Durham, NC 27710 USA; Duke

Univ, Dept Chem & Biol Chem, Durham, NC 27710 USA.



I recommend comparison and contrast of that to J. L. Domingo in

_Reproductive Toxicology_, vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 603-609 (2001)

which is cited by www.bovik.org/du/reproduction-review-2001.pdf



>... I see no specific information indicating that exposure in wartime 

> to DU would cause a particular increase in uranium in the testes.



Have you seen an assay of the combustion products?  The temperature

rarely peaks under 3000 Kelvin, uranium burns in pure nitrogen at

under 1000 Kelvin, and UO3 is a fifth of the oxides.  How much

uranyl nitrate do you think is produced?  That melts at 330 Kelvin,

and precipitates as a yellow film, not glomming to the ash like most

of the oxides.  In the case of an updraft, such as from the fire

that produced it, the gas can travel for a distance, and will result

in some particles kept aloft for dozens of kilometers.  The official

uranium fire stand-off according to the U.K. military is 50 meters.

Burning uranium produces vast plumes of poison gas that can be

detected dozens of kilometers downwind.



> My experience with ...  uranium indicates to me that the primary

> exposure  pathway is ingestion, not inhalation



That is true in areas where large quantities are not being

burned in the open air.  What kind of uranyl nitrate detectors

are being used in uranium ore extraction these days?  Forced-air

filter cation chromotographs?  I would hope by now we have

hundreds of reasonable-temperature cation detection methods for

the uranyl ion.  Sigma-Aldrich sells an ionophore compound for

something like $500 for 50 grams.



Can you tell me whether this study considered anything other

than oxides?  http://www.bovik.org/du/aerosol.pdf

This one admits that they missed anything that didn't glom to

the ash:  http://www.bovik.org/du/dust.pdf



Seven days after inhalation exposure, 20% of the uranyl nitrate

and 10% of the UO3 lung burdens are already in the skeleton.

All of the isotopes except U232 clear from the skeleton, but

those that do have a half-life of 300 days.  The antidotes are

difficult to synthesize.  There are no immediate symptoms of

accumulations when the kidneys do not show immediate signs of

stress.  However, I believe the miscarriage rate goes up quite a

bit in the days following exposure, but that will not work as a

detection mechanism.



Once this starts showing up in Indian Ocean fish, then more

cancer and birth defects for the victims.  I've been trying to

prevent the financial disaster that would be.  I've asked all

of the people I've been able to determine are in charge of the

issue to stop burning uranium in any unsealed atmosphere.  I

would recommend the same civics project to anyone.



> I have never tested a testicle for uranium...  None of our 

> employees were willing to contribute such a bioassay sample.



You don't need to use invasive methods.



Urine concentration is the closest autopsy correlate, but I

would generally recommend checking U232 levels in the bone,

because nobody is sure whether U232 can be removed from bone

at all.  It doesn't clear over time like the other isotopes.

If you know the urine level over time and the U232 bone level,

then you can deduce the time frame of exposure.



What do you think of whole-body counting as a possibly

cost-effective substitute for skeleto-tomographical U232

isotope counting?  The way the uranium isotopes clear

from the skeleton leads me to believe that the urine test

as has been used over the past year is as good as any other

measure of pre-kidney-morbidity exposure, but a good old

Geiger counter to the abdomen should correlate nicely.



However, the 92 proton signature isn't exactly difficult to

detect with magnetic resonance.  Unless your employees are

afraid of magnets, you can probably get direct measures from

a typical CAT tuned to 92 protons.  If your NMRI scanner

doesn't go up that high, you can get the parallel harmonics

with a micromolar sample -- assuming all the actinide

harmonics aren't dampened.  You can give a CAT expert a sample

of assayed granite to test.  Uranium is paramagnetic, so

please do not try NMRI with any refined metal.



Sincerely,

James Salsman





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

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/