[ RadSafe ] pyrophoric uranium considered nonessential

[Roy.Herren at med.va.gov]

No, James the problem is that this is a weapon of war, and you are opposed
to war as are most of the rest of humanity.  The enemy located inside the
target, the very person or persons who might breathe in a fraction of a lung
full of 1000 degree gas/air mixture, doesn't die of "chemical toxicity".
Clearly they die due to the explosion and related debris.  The high
temperature gas/air mixture that escapes the target rapidly dissipates its
thermal energy. 

Roy Herren
Physical Science Technician
Radiation Safety Branch of the Radiology Department
Veterans Affairs Medical Center San Francisco, CA
 

-----Original Message-----
From: James Salsman [mailto:james at bovik.org] 
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 5:02 AM
To: Roy.Herren at med.va.gov; radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] pyrophoric uranium considered nonessential

Roy Herren wrote:

>... the potential ill consequence of the use of depleted
> uranium as munitions isn't a consequence of radiation....

No, the chemical toxicity is about one million times worse
-- Miller, et al., AFRRI, 2002:
   http://www.bovik.org/du/Miller-DNA-damage.pdf

Is part of the problem here that people (myself included)
often say "uranium trioxide" when we should be saying
"uranyl oxide"?

Sincerely,
James Salsman