User talk:Physbang
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Not James
Hi James, how’s it going? Don’t you know its against the Arbcom ruling to edit DU, or have you forgotten?. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
I am not James. This is Al Marshall, the author of the Sandia report. I did not know the history of the DU Wikipedia page (in fact I am relatively new to using Wikipedia). I spotted some minor errors in the DU writeup and tried to correct them. No big deal. Overall, I think that the page looks very good. I can understand that this is not a page that you want everyone to change at will. Not sure if this is how I respond to your message.
Best,
Al —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Physbang (talk • contribs).
[edit] I believe you are Al Marshall
I am James Salsman, and I believe that you are indeed Al Marshall. I note that you have never responded to my open letters to you; e.g.:
OK James, my response is below. Who is the guy who thought I was you?'
-------- Open Letter -------- Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Sandia completes depleted uranium study Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 13:12:48 -0700 From: James Salsman To: acmarsh at sandia dot gov CC: du-list at yahoogroups dot com, radsafe at radlab dot nl Albert C. Marshall Sandia National Laboratories Dear Sir: In my previous message, I complained that your statement, "no excess health effects of any type have been observed from epidemiological studies for uranium workers," based on A. Bordujenko, "Military Medical Aspects of Depleted Uranium Munitions," ADF Health, vol. 3 (September 2002) was considerably out of date. Please find these two articles which might help you update that particular topic: http://villagevoice.com/news/0525,lombardi,65154,5.html http://buffalonews.com/editorial/20041216/1025306.asp
I was not able to open the second web site. As for the first, this is just a report on worker illnesses and a compensation act to provide compensation for illnesses. People get sick with or without exposure to toxins and radioactive materials. What is not given here is a scientific study showing that illnesses of any type are greater in the exposed population than in a comparable unexposed population. The key words in my statement are "excess healtrh effects"
I note that you have made several factual errors and a contradiction in your report. Most telling is perhaps the quote, "This assessment should not be interpreted to be a general validation of the SNL National Securities Studies Department methodology for studying the consequences of terrorist use of radiological dispersal devices." In other words, it's not good enough to correctly predict the effects of uranium combustion weapons.
Huh?? The statement means the opposite. It is a validation of the method used for the study. The statement is just a precaution to carry out additional validation for studying potential terrorist threats, such as exploding a dirty bomb.
By the way, did anyone
notice how Jose Padilla is now charged with plotting to blow up high-density housing with "natural gas" instead of uranium? UO3 gas is both natural and artificial. I agree that Table ES-1 on page 12 indicates a 24% increase in fatal cancer risk and an 8% increase in birth defects, and ignores chemical toxicity by reporting radiological risk only.
Good point. I only briefly touched on this using conclusions from the Royal Society study. I have recntly assessed the potential chemical effect and found that it is on the order of 10% or less than the radiological effect. My analysis will be provided in a forthcoming journal paper.
Also, "veterans" is apparently used to mean "all veterans," instead of "exposed veterans," as far as I can tell.
Not sure where in the document your statement applies, but I suspect that you are correct. I found several places where i did not make it clear that I was referring to exposed veterans.
Please let
me know if I am wrong about that. Uranium causes 1e+6 more DNA damage from chemical toxicity than from its radiological hazard. Miller, et al., J Inorg Biochem, vol. 91, no. 1 (2002), pp. 246-252: http://www.bovik.org/du/Miller-DNA-damage.pdf
Thanks for pointing out this paper, however, your conclusion is not correct. Miller's paper points out that chemical generation of hydroxyl radicals is 10 to the 6 fold greater than radiolytic generation of hydroxyl radicals. Alpha particle damage of DNA can result from a number of mechanisms, including direct damage from radiation as well as indirect damage by the production of reactive chemical species from alpha particle bombardment of water in the cell. The hydroxyl radical is only one of several reactive chemical species. The bottom line, however, is the incidence of cancer induction, rather than hydroxyl radical production. IIncidently, I used Miller's work to draw the conclusion in the above statement; i.e., the chemically-induced cancer risk is only 10% (or less) than the radiological risk.
Therefore, if only 5% of veterans were exposed, then the risk ratios for the exposed are 4.8e+6 for fatal cancer, and 1.6e+6 for birth defects, above the radiological risks reported.
See above comments.
However, I can not agree with the study because it is self- contradictory. In earlier sections in section 1.2 on scope, it claims to include complete evaluation of both radiological and nonradiological hazards, but Section 5.2 on p. 72, "Other Heavy Metal Effects," reads: > Some evidence has been reported for the possibility of other > chemical effects associated with uranium internalization (see > Appendix D).... Among the tested veterans, McDiarmid s team > observed a statistically lower score in [a] neurocognitive > test for veterans with high uranium concentrations in their > urine.... > > Veteran, animal, and in vitro testing suggests that a few > other chemically induced health effects are possible, such > as reproductive effects and chemically induced cancers.... A few? There are over 30 categories of congenital malformation.
I have no idea where you came up with this observation.
> Uranium is also deposited in the kidney, liver, lymph nodes, > and other organs in small quantities.... -- ignoring testes and gonocyte contamination --
The testes and gonocyte exposures were studied and data was provided in the text. Furthermore, the data was used to predict the risk of birth defects.
> Some evidence has been reported for other chemical effects > associated with uranium internalization. In vitro studies suggest > that DU can induce malignant transformations with frequencies > similar to those observed with the nonradioactive heavy metal > carcinogens, nickel and lead. Studies by Benson et al. on female > rats with DU implants have shown that uranium can cross the > placental barrier.... So, female reproductive toxicities are considered, but not male?
Both male and female reproductive toxicities were considered.
> Furthermore, no excess health effects of any type have been > observed from epidemiological studies for uranium workers [12]. No excess health effects of any type? [D-12] is A. Bordujenko, 'Military Medical Aspects of Depleted Uranium Munitions,' ADF Health, vol. 3 (September 2002.) Way out of date! Several excess health effects have been observed in epidemiological studies of uranium workers.
2002 is way out of date? What scientific data do you have that shows incresed health effects for uranium workers?
> The incremental risk of DU-induced birth defects for civilians > is estimated by multiplying the equivalent dose to the gonads > by 0.013 per person-Sv. "0.013" should be "1e+6". No wonder you used radiological risk and not chemical risk in the executive summary. Therefore, the risk ratios are 4.8e+6 for fatal cancer, and 1.6e+6 for birth defects among the exposed. Is that right?
No, that is not correct. No comparisons were made relative to birth defects in the Miller study (her study was for cancers) and no data has ever been provided to support your assertion. This has not been observed in animal tests of gynetic effects of DU internalization
Sincerely, James Salsman
[edit] Two questions
Have you discussed the production of uranium trioxide gas from uranium combustion with Dr. Carl Alexander at Battelle? He published a paper on UO3 gas more than 45 years ago, and another one in 2005. You can reach him at +1-614-424-5233 or alexandc at battelle dot org. He has given me his word that he will take all questions on the subject.
Have you discussed the birth defect rate in the children of Gulf War soldiers with Dr. Han Kang? He is a professional epidemiologist and you would surely benefit from discussing the issue with him, if you care about the truth instead of just serving Lockheed-Martin. LossIsNotMore 22:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cancer rate
If you want to argue that non-uranium sources are responsible for the birth defects, then I think you will have a very difficult time explaining the lack of cancers. Apparently, uranyl solutions are some of the relatively few teratogens which aren't immediate carcinogens. Can you confirm that? LossIsNotMore 21:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
James,
I make it a hard rule that I will not discuss this topic with anyone who stoops to personal accusations. Lockheed-Martin runs Sandia at the top level for DOE and has no say in what is studied or what conclusions will be reached. I did this study because I was concerned about the health effects issues of depleted uranium and originally believed it was a major issue. I asked my boss at Sandia Laboratories for permission to study the topic. I was given permission, but the results did not turn out as I expected. Well, that’s the way it works. I report what I find regardless of whom I piss off. I am retired now, but that does not keep me from speaking my mind. We are finished communicating.
Al
- Al, I have made no accusations, only a plea. I have a very good reason for asking: On page 19 of your report, you wrote, "Both radiological and chemical health effects were assessed using best estimates of health risks for both nominally and maximally exposed individuals." But later you admited that you did not consider nonradiological reproductive toxicity, developmental toxicity, or immuniological effects. Now that you are retired, do you have any control over the document, or will that blatant falsehood on page 19 stand as the official output of a US national laboratory, serving the interests of Lockheed-Martin (whether intended to or not) and betraying the interests of truth, science, the health of our nation's armed forces, and their ability to recruit? I, for one, demand a retraction, and I know that all those who know the truth and care about our country's future stand with me. If you are not capable of retracting the document as it stands with that error, then who at Sandia is? LossIsNotMore 00:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- As far as the cancer rate question goes, the only other teratogen which isn't a strong and immediate carcinogen I've been able to find is thalidomide. LossIsNotMore 00:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Inhalation exposure estimates
Al, do you agree with Carter and Stewart (1970) that about half of uranium combustion produces a gaseous vapor fume? Did you consider vapor inhalation when you estimated exposure, or only the aerosol particulates, which settle relativly quickly? LossIsNotMore 18:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
