> If there is going to be a discussion here, then let's make sure we keep the
> information factual and realistic (e.g., a 1 milligram DU particle in the
> lung is not realistic).
>===============
>We are talking respirable retained particles.
>
Yes, but a 1 mg DU particle (original post) is not respirable (e.g, too
large).
>
> These all change the dynamics of long term DU retention.  The lymphatic
> system does concern me, but I have a greater concern over other elements
> (e.g., fluorides), than I have with depleted uranium.
>=============
>Well if you exclude the DU in lymph nodes you make a major error.   The
lymph
>nodes are the peroxide destruction mechanism for pathogens.     And
Fluorides
>are even more important as they tend to form insoluble fluoride precipitates
>in the lymph nodes that cause the same type problems as toxic metal oxides.

Uranium fluorides are fairly soluble.  As a chemist, I would expect
complexation of fluorine to uranium would facilitate the removal of uranium
from the lymph nodes.  I am not arguing  that the lymph nodes are the wrong
site, I am just stating that perhaps uranium is the wrong element to fixate
on.
 
> Another fact is that this group gets so concerned with "DU" that they
> forget the presence of "natural uranium", which can have high natural
> background concentrations depending on the geographical region.
>==============
>Natural uranium absorbed in the stomoch or guy is not the same insoluble
>partculates mechanism as happens with the lungs--------and the retention
>factors for soluble salts is totally different.

I agree, but why does this group continue to be so concerned about
ingestion of DU?  I am on the fence (so to speak) about DU, but I do
believe that the preoccupation by both sides over ingestion is incorrect.
My personal opinion it that It will be inhalation exposure (if anything).

Ed

Tel:  613-541-6000 ext 6989 FAX: 613-542-9489