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 -----
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
