RE: DU -- FYI

[Franz Schoenhofer <schoenho@via.at>]

At 08:44 17.05.1999 -0500, you wrote:
>
>On Fri, 14 May 1999, Heinmiller, Bruce wrote:
>        > 
>> For example, the statement that DU is much less radioactive than Unat.  The
>> U-235 chain is unimportant in the context of activity of either Unat or DU,
>> so Unat comprises principally four nuclides (unless it's exceedingly fresh)
>> of nominally equal activity, and DU comprises the same activity of the
first
>> three of these (unless it's exceedingly fresh), plus a small quantity of
the
>> remaining U-234.  If you looked at both Unat and DU with a G-M pancake
>> detector you'd be hard-pressed to differentiate between the two, because
>> almost everything you're seeing is the same Pa-234m in each case.  With
>> regard to doses from potential intakes, the activity of alpha emitters (the
>> uranium isotopes) in DU is nominally half that of the same mass of Unat.
>


>	--Natural uranium contains Th-230, Ra-226, Rn-222, Po-218, Po-214,
>and Pb-210, all alpha emitters, not to mention lots of beta and gamma
>emitters (eg Bi-214, Pb-214), which would be absent in DU.
>
>-------------------------------------------------------

Natural uranium  o r e  would contain the listed radionuclides, more or
less in equilibrium, but natural  u r a n i u m  (i.e. not enriched, not
depleted) would have been separated from the daughter products in the
process of producing it and due to the very long half lifes of some of the
daughters it would take an extremely long time for the daughters to grow in.

The statement, that a DU shell contains as much uranium as a
glow-in-the-dark-watch is mere nonsense (if it has been stated this way),
because there are not and have not been any watches containing uranium as
the glow-causing ingredient. It would not work.

Uranium is much more chemotoxic than radiotoxic. A good question is, in
what kind of chemical form the "sprayed" uranium will be, I suppose it will
be mostly in the form of oxides, which should not be to soluble (please
correct me, if I am wrong). Inhalation would deposit the dust in the lungs
where it could act for a long time by dissolving slowly. Ingestion would
only let the particles pass through the gastro-intestine tract and after
particles have been incorporated into a wound they would be removed when
cleaning the wound and they will not dissolve fast.

Both sides distribute arguments which are scientifically not correct.

Franz


Franz Schoenhofer
Habicherg. 31/7
A-1160 Vienna
Austria
Tel.: +43-1-495 53 08
Fax.: same number
mobile phone: +43-664-338 0 333
e-mail: schoenho@via.at

Office:
Hofrat Dr. Franz Schönhofer
Federal Institute for Food Control and Research
Department of Radiochemistry
Kinderspitalg. 15
A-1095 Vienna
Austria
Tel.: +43-1-40 490 27820
e-mail: schoenhofer@baluf.via.at
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html