RE: RE: Evidence of internal contamination in Paducah, KY

["Jacobus, John (OD)" <JJacobus@exchange.nih.gov>]

Ray Carroll wrote:
------------------------------

I'm curious as to what information in the newspaper article lead to the
conclusion that "it appears that he did receive a significant body burden"?

Would you expect some uranium above background levels to appear in the
skeleton of an individual that worked around uranium for years?

Ray Carroll

Original message -> The following appeared on the front page of the
Washingtion Post, August 22.  While the worker probably did not die from
radiation exposure, it appears that he did receive a significant body
burden.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/aug99/paducah22.htm

************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html

------------------------------
As Ron Kathern said in an earlier posting, there are no values listed in the
article.  Indeed, the Canadian lab used was not identified.  To me, the numbers
given in the article are ambiguous, but certainly alarming.  Whether the
analytical values are typical for an autopsy performed 3 years after the worker
died, which occurred 9 years after he stopped being exposed to uranium dust for
the previous 18 years, are relevant factors.  I do not know what is typical.