[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Depleted Uranium vs. Tungsten -Reply

To: "radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu" <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Subject: Re: Depleted Uranium vs. Tungsten -Reply
From: William Lorenzen <LORENZEN_W@A1.TCH.HARVARD.EDU>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 09:14:58 EST
A1-type: MAIL
Alternate-recipient: prohibited
Hop-count: 0
Importance: normal
In-reply-to: <9801240031.AA01222@beta.tricity.wsu.edu>
MR-Received: by mta LEILA; Relayed; Mon, 26 Jan 1998 09:20:35 -0500 (EST)
Posting-date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 09:20:00 EST
Priority: normal
UA-content-id: E2419ZXFKDCHXM
X400-MTS-identifier: [;53029062108991/8394061@HUB]

I always understood the chemical toxicity was a function of the chemical form of 
the uranium compound and not the enrichment.  U3O8 - an oxide would be insoluble 
and thus have less chemical toxicity but have a more significant committed dose 
concern.  UF4 - likewise would be more soluble and more of a chemical toxicity 
hazard than U3O8...

Is this not true?

William Lorenzen
Children's Hospital
Boston, MA

617-355-7516
lorenzen_w@a1.tch.harvard.edu

References:
- RE: Depleted Uranium vs. Tungsten -Reply
  - From: rkathren@tricity.wsu.edu (Ron L. Kathren)

Prev by Date: Re: Apology
Next by Date: Re[2]: Remember history - these freaks are dangerous to f---
Prev by thread: RE: Depleted Uranium vs. Tungsten -Reply
Next by thread: Re: Depleted Uranium vs. Tungsten -Reply -Reply
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread