[ RadSafe ] Re: uranium trioxide gas exposure patterns (was: ... RE: Gardner Sellafield cluster)

[Dimiter Popoff]

> No, I explicitly quantified the concentrations, in the portions
> ...

I saw those. Are you suggesting that similar quantities of chlorine
gas do have the the immediate effect you were referring to?

> As for whether my attempts to resolve the open questions
> concerning uranium inhalation poisoning may be considered
> propaganda, ...

I was not trying to attack you. So far your postings on the topic
indicated you had done a good deal of a homework prior to
starting your campaign; the chlorine analogy, however, does
not seem to hold much water.

 Without having measured things (but with a lot of various
mesaurements and measurement technique implementations behind
me) I would say that John Andrews' point was entirely correct,
except perhaps for those in the immediate proximity of the blast,
i.e. those in the battlefield. I guess the latter are exposed
to hazards which completely outweigh that of DU...

Regards,

Dimiter

------------------------------------------------------
Dimiter Popoff               Transgalactic Instruments

http://www.tgi-sci.com
------------------------------------------------------

> Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 05:59:38 -0700
> From: James Salsman <james at bovik.org>
> To:  didi at tgi-sci.com
> CC:  radsafe at radlab.nl,  andrewsjp at chartertn.net
> Subject: Re: uranium trioxide gas exposure patterns
> 
> 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
>