[ RadSafe ] Birth defects: uranium in the gulf war, Co60 in Taiwan, steroids
hflong at pacbell.net
Sun Jul 23 21:41:39 CDT 2006
"Three children were born with congenital heart formations, indicating a - rate of 1.5 cases per 1,000 children under age 19." -- [with av 0.4 Sv or 4 rad extra, Taiwan apts with Co60 reinforcing steel]. "Control" prevalence 23 congenital malformations / 1,000
One-eighth suggests hormesis, 1/8 the rate.
Testosterone and reproductive rates are greatly improved by similar radiation in rats.
The new Viagra? From "Underexposed What if radiation is actually good for you?" Hiserodt, Laissez Faire Books www.LFB.com 1,000 + studies described in fascinating humor and accurate graphs. I've given away a dozen cc.
Eric D <edaxon at satx.rr.com> wrote:
I did not make it up. Here is the conclusion paragraph from the abstract of
the study I mentioned in a personal email to Carlos Billing. I assume he
forwarded the email to you:
"CONCLUSIONS: We did not find a statistically significant association
between the parents' Gulf War service and the risk of birth defects in their
children. The limited statistical power of the study requires that the
results be considered tentative and interpreted cautiously."
Citation: Kang, H et al., "Birth Defects Among Children of Gulf War
Veterans: a pediatric evaluation of 787 children of Gulf War era veterans,"
BDRA-03-0072, Department of Veterans Affairs, Vermont Avenue, Wash, D.C.
Here is the first paragraph of a more recent review article:
"In this review we summarize the scientific literature on reproductive
health following deployment to the first Gulf war by armed service
personnel. All the studies examined had methodological limitations, making
interpretation difficult. Nonetheless we conclude that for male veterans
there is no strong or consistent evidence to date for an effect of service
in the first Gulf war on the risk of major, clearly defined, birth defects
or stillbirth in offspring conceived after deployment. Effects on specific
rare defects cannot be excluded at this stage since none of the studies had
the statistical power to examine them. For miscarriage and infertility,
there is some evidence of small increased risks associated with service, but
the role of bias is likely to be strong. For female veterans, there is
insufficient information to make robust conclusions, although the weight of
evidence to date does not indicate any major problem associated specifically
with deployment to the Gulf. None of the studies have been able to examine
risk according particular exposures, and so possible associations with
specific exposures for smaller groups of exposed veterans cannot be
Doyle, P, et al. "Reproductive Health of Gulf War Veterans," Phil. Trans. R.
Soc. B (2006) 361, 571-584.
From: James Salsman [mailto:james at bovik.org]
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 2:25 AM
To: Eric D; radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: Re: VA study of medical records on birth defects (was Re: [ RadSafe
] RE: uranium in the gulf war)
Dear Colonel Daxon:
If you stand by your statements that the Veterans' Administration
"found that Gulf War veterans REPORTED more birth defects than
non-Gulf War Veterans. When they actually did the study and examined
the medical records, the birth defect rates were equal to the normal
population rates," and, "the paper that found that the birth defect
rates were equivalent did not receive much press," then why are you
unable or unwilling to provide a citation to the paper?
Surely you would want such a paper to get more press, and to be
well-known within the RADSAFE community?
Or did you just make it up?
On 6/27/06, Eric D wrote:
> Mr. Salsman,
> I stand by my statements.
More information about the RadSafe