[ RadSafe ] Daniel Fahey Paper on DU testing

[James Salsman]

Tom,

Thank you for your great question.

The proportion of teratogenic uranyl compounds which remain in the
atmosphere is at present unknown, but I believe it is at least 5%,
based on thermodynamic and dispersal data, and Wilson (1961).
However, I have not yet done a citation search on Wilson (1961), so
that figure is preliminary.

The other poison metals you mention below are well-regulated.
Regulation of teratogenic metals, being necessary for the security
and freedom of unhindered reproductive fidelity, should not be
infringed for a meager short-term tactical advantage, even if the
civilian leadership has no problem with it.  I hope you agree.

Sincerely,
James Salsman

tomhaz at aol.com wrote:

> I will be urging the editors of Critical Reviews in Chemistry
> to reject your manuscript, and to admonish you for your
> negligence in the field of epidemiology...........
> 
> James,
> Of course when you offer your credentials as a critic of scientific 
> work, no one will be tempted to laugh.  By the way, uranium won't loose 
> its danger in 5 billion years, it will be toxic for ever, as will lead, 
> cadmium, mercury,  and a host of other substances that are chemically 
> toxic and will remain so.   Where is your anger at being forced to live 
> in such an unsafe universe filled with nasty chemicals.  Taking the long 
> view, since radioactive materials eventually become non radioactive, 
> arn't many of them safer than the chemical poisons?
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Salsman <james at bovik.org>
> To: radsafe at radlab.nl
> Sent: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 19:45:51 -0800
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Daniel Fahey Paper on DU testing
> 
>  >Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 15:17:30 -0800
>  >From: James Salsman <james at bovik.org>
>  >To: Spratt, Brian G <b.spratt at imperial.ac.uk>
>  >CC: ... duweapons at hotmail.com....
> 
> Dear Dr. Spratt:
> 
> I have learned from Dan Fahey [1] that you have submitted a
> paper to Critical Reviews in Chemistry claiming that the
> Depleted Uranium Oversight Board's measurements of uranium
> exposure from urine isotope ratio studies, which assume that
> substantial exposure must be from insoluble uranium oxides,
> are accurate. Sadly, they are not accurate because of the
> assumption, that uranium combustion product exposure will
> result in residual amounts of insoluble oxides remaining in
> the lungs, is not correct. (I note also that Fahey's paper
> inexplicably ignores the use of 30 mm incendiary DU ammunition
> fired from Apache helicopters.)
> 
> I will be urging the editors of Critical Reviews in Chemistry
> to reject your manuscript, and to admonish you for your
> negligence in the field of epidemiology. I have repeatedly
> informed you that uranyl oxide, including as a gas vapor, is
> produced by uranium burning in air. You, in turn, dismissed
> my concerns in a most unscientific manner.
> 
> Please see Wilson, W.B. (1961) "High-Pressure High-Temperature
> Investigation of the Uranium-Oxygen System," in the Journal Of
> Inorganic and Nuclear Chemistry, 19, 212-222 [2], on page 213:
> 
> 1/3 U3O8(s) + 1/6 O2(g) --> UO3(g)
> 
> Again, absorption of UO3(g) is immediate and small U3O8 particles
> (which comprise 75% of the particulate combustion products,
> according to Gilchrist, Glissmyer, and Mishima, 1979) dissolve
> readily to uranyl ions, so uranium contamination from pyrophoric
> uranium munitions by way of their UO3(g) would not necessarily
> be detected urine studies which reflect only lung contamination
> with the dioxide dust particles which settle more quickly and
> travel less distance. [3, 4] There is no hypothesis which explains
> the observed increased incidence of birth defects in the military
> [5] and civilian populations of which I am aware, other than uranyl
> compound inhalation. Mustard gases would be accompanied by the
> increased cancer rates seen in those near sites of known nerve
> gas exposure, but not most U.S. and U.K. troops. Uranium
> combustion products are the only viable explanation.
> 
> And let us not forget the words of your colleague, Simon Cotton,
> who has stated in that the aerial oxidation of uranium results,
> eventually, in the formation of a uranyl compound. ("Lanthanides
> and Actinides," New York: Oxford University Press, 1991, page 127.)
> Therefore, the urine isotope ratio studies are only vaguely
> correlated with soluble uranyl exposure, and you know it. Your
> assertions to the contrary are most unprofessional.
> 
> Again, I hope you will please join me in advocating that uranium
> contamination be measured by chromosome abberation analysis
> instead of urine isotope analysis. White blood cell karyotyping
> is essentially the same test as are used for amniocentesis and
> biopsies in most hospitals regularly. [6, 7]
> 
> And I hope that you will also please join me in asking that the
> DoD Birth and Infant Health Registry include epidemiological
> statistics particular to the exposed 1991 population in their
> annual reports currently in preparation instead of omitting
> any mention of the exposed subset as they do in their current
> draft annual reports.
> 
> Sincerely,
> James Salsman
> 
>  
> [1]http://lists.radlab.nl/pipermail/radsafe/attachments/20060317/61dfd541
> /2006-Test-Results.pdf
> 
> [2]http://www.bovik.org/du/Wilson61.pdf
> 
> [3]http://www.bovik.org/du/scans/crc.jpg
> 
> [4]http://www.bovik.org/du/aerosol.pdf
> 
>  
> [5]http://www.annalsofepidemiology.org/article/PIIS1047279701002459/abstr
> act
> 
> [6]http://www.bovik.org/du/chromosome-abberations.pdf
> 
> [7]http://www.bovik.org/du/chromosome-abberations.ppt
> 
> --- from previous message ---
> I thought you would be interested in this new peer-reviewed article:
> 
> Rita Hindin, Doug Brugge and Bindu Panikkar, "Teratogenicity
> of depleted uranium aerosols: A review from an epidemiological
> perspective," Environmental Health, vol. 4 (26 August 2005),
> pp. 17: http://www.ehjournal.net/content/4/1/17
> 
> Abstract:
> 
> BACKGROUND: Depleted uranium is being used increasingly often as a
> component of munitions in military conflicts. Military personnel,
> civilians and the DU munitions producers are being exposed to the DU
>  aerosols that are generated. METHODS: We reviewed toxicological data on
>  both natural and depleted uranium. We included peer reviewed studies and
> gray literature on birth malformations due to natural and depleted
> uranium. Our approach was to assess the "weight of evidence" with
> respect to teratogenicity of depleted uranium. RESULTS: Animal studies
> firmly support the possibility that DU is a teratogen. While the
> detailed pathways by which environmental DU can be internalized and
> reach reproductive cells are not yet fully elucidated, again, the
> evidence supports plausibility. To date, human epidemiological data
> include case examples, disease registry records, a case-control study
> and prospective longitudinal studies. In aggregate the human
> epidemiological evidence is consistent with increased risk of birth
>  defects in offspring of persons exposed to DU. DISCUSSION: The two most
>  significant challenges to establishing a causal pathway between (human)
> parental DU exposure and the birth of offspring with defects are: i)
> distinguishing the role of DU from that of exposure to other potential
> teratogens; ii) documentation on the individual level of extent of
> parental DU exposure. Studies that use biomarkers, none yet reported,
> can help address the latter challenge. Thoughtful triangulation of the
> results of multiple studies (epidemiological and other) of DU
> teratogenicity contributes to disentangling the roles of various
> potentially teratogenic parental exposures. This paper is just such an
> endeavor. CONCLUSIONS: In aggregate the human epidemiological evidence
> is consistent with increased risk of birth defects in offspring of
> persons exposed to DU.
> 
> Full text: http://www.bovik.org/du/du-teratogenicity.pdf
> 
> Sincerely,
> James Salsman
> 
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> 
>  Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood 
> the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: 
> http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
> 
>  For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings 
> visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
> 
>