[ RadSafe ] Naval Health Research Center's Birth and Infant Health Registry

James Salsman james at bovik.org
Sun Oct 2 05:31:25 CDT 2005

Prof. Otto G. Raabe wrote:

>... the issue ... is not about birth defect rates but
> about activist-conceived health effects from uranium 
> and unspecified toxicants....

Why is the issue not about birth defect rates?

If anyone is capable of identifying a teratogen other than
uranium(VI) which could explain the observed increases in 
birth defects in Basrah as well as U.S. and U.K. troops, 
then there would be two issues.  However, so far only 
uranyl is the only teratogenic substance to which all 
three populations were known to be exposed.  Does anyone 
know of any alternative hypotheses?

What I object to is the attempt to obscure the time series.
As a taxpayer, I want to know whether the exposed vets are 
getting better or worse over time.  There are no prior 
human uranyl exposures from which to estimate.  The 
scientific value of the Naval Health Research Center's 
Birth and Infant Health Registry database is huge, and 
crucial to anyone who must plan for uranium fires, such as 
those in transportation, uranium end-users, and other 
affected parties such as the exposure victims.

Treatment for white blood cell and gonocyte chromosome 
decay seem essentially pointless unless the amount 
occurring over time, and the extent to which it is 
accelerating or decelerating, is known.  There is also
no way to quantify the number of birth defects resulting 
from exposure without understanding the long-term trend.

James Salsman

More information about the RadSafe mailing list