Print

Print


Doug,
 
I also looked up your qualifications and background. It appears you have little, if any, training in radiological biology, that is, the mechanism of action of radionuclides on living tissue. Your claim that radon is a trillion times more potent than uranium does not take into consideration concentration and longevity. A microgram uranium particle embeds itself deep into lung tissue and irradiates nearby cells continuously. Sometimes a particle will enter the bloodstream or lymph system, migrates to another part of the body, and imbed in some other internal tissue. Radon is a gas, and does not have such situational persistence except, obviously, in industrial settings, such as uranium mining. I have never heard of radon causing aggressive sarcoma in a matter of months after exposure.
 
Tell me, do the Navajo miners ever die of cancers of other parts of their bodies other than their lungs? Is the cancer rate of such cancers higher than the average in the US population? If so, then they probably were killed by migrating uranium particle irradiation.
 
I suggest you read the works of John Gofman, such as Radiation and Human Health. No one has refuted this work.
 
Jonathan
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From: [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">Doug Brugge
To: [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 8:59 PM
Subject: Re: DU article

Jonathan,
 
Sorry about spelling your name wrong.  I am a professor.  I've studied uranium for a long time.  And there are hundreds of studies of natural uranium that show nothing similar to what you describe.  My progressive credentials are strong.  Look at the edited book I just did that I forwarded earlier today.  Look, the basic problem is that there is no evidence that DU is as highly toxic as many other chemcials.  That does not mean it is not toxic is, but there are many other substances that are far more toxic than, even asbestos, which I would not put particularly high on the toxicity list.  Radon is one, but we have been down that road and you simply refuse to believe that radon is about a trillion times more radioactive than any form of uranium.
 
The other thing that makes the situation in war very difficult to tease apart are the vast range of exposures.  Perhaps you have read recently that the US EPA did not lower the standard for fine particulates as much as their scientific panel recommended.  These particulates are killing tens if not hundreds of thousands of people at a level of exposure that is imperceptaible to our senses.  Then extrapolate that to the smoke and dust you see in a war.  Why could these highly proven toxics not be responsible for some of the symdrome, but DU has to account for all of the symptoms.  That is what I mean by magical thinking rather than scientific thinking.
 
Doug