[ RadSafe ] Re: uranium trioxide gas exposure patterns

[James Salsman]

Dimiter Popoff wrote, in reply to:

>> The difference, of course, is that chlorine has an immediate effect,
>... 
> Are you sure this is the only difference you see?

I stated that molecular chlorine gas is comprised of molecules
smaller than uranium trioxide (by at least a full Angstrom) so,
in fact, chlorine also disperses more quickly than UO3.
Therefore my dispersion estimates based on chlorine gas cloud
volume after 10 minutes of mild wind are conservative.

> Did you just forget to quantify the concentrations?

No, I explicitly quantified the concentrations, in the portions
of my message that you included in yours.  I can't believe that
you didn't see that.  Do I understand what are you asking for?

You have insinuated that I am attempting "a propaganda effort."

As for whether my attempts to resolve the open questions
concerning uranium inhalation poisoning may be considered
propaganda, I point out again that essentially all of my main
assertions and hypotheses on this topic have been supported
by dozens of reports from the peer-reviewed medical and
scientific literature.  Only once here on RADSAFE have my
detractors on this topic claimed support from a single
peer-reviewed publication:  A couple of people suggested
that men merely wearing pants would produce at least a 50%
increase in the incidence rate of congenital malformations
in their offspring, citing L. Ehrenberg, G. von Ehrenstein,
and A. Hedgran, in "Gonad Temperature and Spontaneous
Mutation Rate in Man," (Nature, vol. 180, no. 4599 (21 Dec.
1957) pp. 1433-1434.)  That claim is absurd.  According to
University of Pittsburgh Emeritus Professor and RADSAFE
participant Bernard L. Cohen's analysis of that article,
"estimates are that the genetic effects of 1 mrem of
radiation are equivalent to those of 5 hours of wearing
pants."[1]  So we would expect that a man wearing pants for
his entire 75 year life would experience genetic effects
equal to about 131 rem.  Dr. Cohen writes in the same
chapter of his book, "Often an individual worries about his
or her own personal risk of having a genetically defective
child; it is about 1 chance in 40 million for each millirem
of exposure."  Therefore, wearing pants for a full 75 years
would cause a birth defect incidence rate increase of only
0.3% -- nowhere near the 50% increase observed among the
children of male Gulf War veterans in 1998.

[1] http://home.pacbell.net/sabsay/nuclear/chapter5.html

I submit that if mine were merely a propaganda effort, my
detractors should be able to cite sources which actually
support their claims, instead of exposing, at best, their
abject lack of understanding of the subjects they attempt
to discuss, or at worst their fraudulent misrepresentation
of authorities with which they guess that I will not
become familiar.  Do you agree?

Sincerely,
James Salsman