[ RadSafe ] Re: Damage from Regulating U exposure

[James Salsman]

Dear Dr. Long:

Thank you for your message.  I do not dismiss hormetic arguments,
although I believe there is ample evidence that the individual
variation of response to hormetic dosages precludes their utility
in policy.

Please have a look at this:
   http://www.bovik.org/du/devtox-mice.pdf

What would you recommend as an appropriate daily dose of uranium?

Sincerely,
James

> / As  a physician with Public Health training, I see no credible 
> evidence of damage from U, except for obvious, extreme exposure as in 
> mining, bombs or careless handling - either from radiation or chemical 
> toxicity. This is NOT like neurological damage from lead in paint or 
> fuel additive, which was properly regulated./
>  
> /Regulation as proposed by Salsman below IS damaging./
> /HPs see /in production of nuclear power, /the economic disruption and 
> failure to access energy and prosperity resulting from such throttles,/ 
> regulating hormetic doses, .
>  
> Do respond to Salsman's misguided fears!
>  
> Howard Long 
> 
> */James Salsman <james at bovik.org>/* wrote:
> 
>     I want to express deep gratitude to everyone who has acknowledged
>     the problems I have been discussing both on and off list over the
>     past several days. I will respect requests for anonymity, but I
>     would like to request that anyone who wants to send me important
>     information and remain anonymous should please create a throw-away
>     webmail account to do so, and not include any personally identifying
>     information, in case my email ever gets subpoenaed or something.
> 
>     The Federal Register published my rulemaking petition for recognition
>     of the developmental and reproductive toxicity of heavy metals today:
> 
>     http://www.bovik.org/du/NRC-PRM-20-26.pdf
> 
>     Please send a comment before August 29th to SECY at nrc.gov with a
>     subject line such as: comments on PRM-20-26 toxicity petition
> 
>     I recommend that you include the following points:
> 
>     1. Current regulations ignore the developmental and reproductive
>     toxicity of heavy metal radionuclides, and are at present designed
>     only to prevent kidney failure.
> 
>     2. The reproductive toxicology profile for uranium combustion
>     product inhalation in humans is currently unknown with any accuracy
>     beyond 14 years (i.e., since the February 1991 exposures) and has
>     shown an increasing and accelerating tendency, consistent with the
>     fact that uranium accumulates in testes damaging sperm production
>     cells and increasing chromosome damage over time.
> 
>     3. It is completely unethical and immoral to allow any release of
>     a known reproductive toxin without a fully established toxicology
>     profile. Doing so is reckless and negligent; to willfully allow
>     such releases is potentially a crime.
> 
>     4. Regulators should attempt to extrapolate the existing known
>     toxicology profile of heavy metal radionuclides and assume the
>     worst case within the projections' 95% confidence intervals, and
>     in an abundance of caution allow at least a two order-of-magnitude
>     margin of error for limiting the increase in congenital
>     malformations in children of the exposed to 5% after 30 years.
> 
>     Sincerely,
>     James Salsman
> 
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list
>     radsafe at radlab.nl
> 
>     Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and
>     understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
>     http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
> 
>     For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other
>     settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
>