Re: Fw: Uranium (from Oregon Science & Health University)

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/16/2004 3:20:18 PM Central Standard Time,

hilarydowning@... writes:

> Jumping into this uranium conversation because that's one of our

> highs too (I'm in NJ, not CA, though).

My son was also very high, hair test, we live in TX. One and a half years

later, a second hair test showed the uranium had gone way down. Lots of

supplements given during that time, no chelation to speak of.

Debbie

[Guest guest]

> I remember that when we had

> hair testing done by Great Smokies that they rated the reliability

of hair

> testing for uranium " low. "

>

Jumping into this uranium conversation because that's one of our

highs too (I'm in NJ, not CA, though).

My daughter did the Great Smokies hair test and had .111, which was

high (<=.072). A few months later she did the DDI fecal test, and

uranium showed at .116, so the numbers were very close. At least in

our case, the number seems pretty accurate. Unless BOTH tests are not

reliable for uranium.

One other note is that where Great Smokies listed the range as

<= .072, the DDI fecal listed the range at < .120, so by that

standard .116 isn't high? Am I thinking of that correcting - is the

reference range the level that is deemed safe? And actually, now that

I think of it, is the reference range the same for adults and

children?

[Guest guest]

Supplementary iron reduces hair uranium. In fact this is something

people thiniing about iron supps might want to check - is their hair U

a lot higher than their neighbors?

Unfortunately U varies a LOT geographically so you can't just rely on

normal ranges.

Andy . . . . . . . . .. .

>

>

> > Jumping into this uranium conversation because that's one of our

> > highs too (I'm in NJ, not CA, though).

>

> My son was also very high, hair test, we live in TX. One and a half years

> later, a second hair test showed the uranium had gone way down. Lots of

> supplements given during that time, no chelation to speak of.

> Debbie

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> Jumping into this uranium conversation because that's one of our

> highs too (I'm in NJ, not CA, though).

>

> My daughter did the Great Smokies hair test and had .111, which

was

> high (<=.072). A few months later she did the DDI fecal test, and

> uranium showed at .116, so the numbers were very close. At least

in

> our case, the number seems pretty accurate. Unless BOTH tests are

not

> reliable for uranium.

>

> One other note is that where Great Smokies listed the range as

> <= .072, the DDI fecal listed the range at < .120, so by that

> standard .116 isn't high?

the reference ranges for hair and for poop would not be likely

to be the same. I don't know that they are, I'm just making

a general comment that ref ranges for different media would

not correlate.

Not sure if I followed you, but I think so!?

good wishes,

Moria