[ RadSafe ] Re: Toxin

[JGinniver at aol.com]

In a message dated 08/07/2005 18:43:12 GMT Standard Time, james at bovik.org  
writes:

So, is a  uranyl peptide a toxin?

Is carbon a toxin?

Sincerely,
James  Salsman



James,
the honest answer is I don't know.  I'm not a toxicologist, and for  the same 
reason I don't debate your postings on the chemistry or the chemical  hazard 
of Uranium.  I like to think that I make a passable stab at being a  health 
physicist.  Much as I would like to debate the minutia of the  various 
publications you cite I just don't have the right background.  As  you will be aware 
I'm happy to look at the more general issues of why the  broader scientific 
community, the extensive watchdog groups or those  individuals who have 
extensively argued for greater controls on radiation and  radioactive material haven't 
flocked to your banner on this particular  issue.  And where I can, draw the 
attention of the list to other documents  or references that may provide a 
reasonable, where possible independent,  scientific evaluation of the risks of DU. 
 
I have to agree with Sandy, who eloquently stated 'With no disrespect  meant, 
simply providing a definition from some on-line source does not equate to  
knowledge of the term.'
 
On this occasion I had simply hoped to draw to a close the extended debate  
on whether uranium in any of its chemical forms was a toxin.  I would have  to 
say that on the basis of the definitions cited, I cannot see how it can be  
regarded as a toxin.  But this is only my opinion based on the various  
definitions I submitted in my last post.  Others, as always, are free to  make up 
their own minds.
 
One final comment if I may, you have again stated in several of your  recent 
posting that the chemical hazard from Uranium (and DU) is much more (was  it a 
million times more you said) than the radiological hazard.  Given  that no 
one appears to argue otherwise, can we take it as established, on  this list at 
least, that the primary concern should be the chemical  hazard.  As this is a 
list for discussing Radiological issues and,  although it occasionally strays 
from this area, is what individuals on the list  really want to discuss.  You 
have been good enough to enlighten  me on the regulation of Uranium in the US, 
and that this is a matter for  the NRC, but even so this doesn't make it a 
radiological issue if it is the  chemical hazard that dominates, and dominates 
by several orders of  magnitude.  Consequently I can't help but feel that your 
energies would be  better spent, discussing the hazards of Uranium with 
chemists and toxicologists,  rather than health physicists/radiation protection 
specialists.  If  nothing else you may find their responses much more 
challenging:-)
 
Regards,
    Julian