[ RadSafe ] three questions

[Steven Dapra]

April 6

James:

         I asked you for CITATIONS to the papers by Ryan and by Araneta (or 
you are welcome to give links).  For all I know these two authors have more 
than one paper at bovik, and I don't have the time to go through all of 
them looking for the basis of your questionable claims.

         I neither said nor implied that I was "unable to use Google to 
find their papers".  Whether or not I used Google has nothing to do with 
anything.  I asked for citations -- remember?

         You gave two citations to the medical literature to support your 
claims. Verrry impressive.  Hindin's paper is questionable, as well as 
having some ideological problems.  (See below for my comments on her from 
RADSAFE a year or two ago.)

         You claim "there are no peer-reviewed medical reports from the 
past ten years which deny the reproductive toxicity of uranium." How do you 
know this?  Have you read the entire corpus of literature on this topic 
over the past ten years?  If so, which I seriously doubt, how do you know 
you did such a thorough search that you found all the papers?  Besides, 
lack of denial proves nothing.  What about the "peer-reviewed medical 
reports" that do not discuss reproduction, toxicity, or uranium?  Are they 
also supposed to deny the reproductive toxicity of uranium?  A paper on 
dermatological problems in children (for example) is supposed to deny the 
reproductive toxicity of U?  Ludicrous.

         You also have not answered my question about how you know Han Kang 
reviewed those 700+ medical records.  (You wrote, "So Dr. Kang goes back 
and reviews 700+ medical records, and finds that the number of birth 
defects has increased 20%. He publishes that in his agency 
newsletter.")  How do you know he reviewed all those records, 
James?  How?  Huh? How?  (I know.  You called him up and asked him.  How 
can Kang get anything done with you calling him all the time?)

         You are good at asking questions but you're not much good at 
answering them.  Later, I will have more to say about Hindin, and Arfsten, 
and adverse reproductive consequences.

Steven Dapra
sjd at swcp.com


(My comments on Hindin:)

Hindin, R.; D. Brugge; B. Panikkar (2005) "Teratogenicity of depleted 
uranium aerosols: A review from an epidemiological perspective," 
Environmental Health, vol. 4, pp. 17: 
http://www.ehjournal.net/content/4/1/17 "Conclusion: In aggregate the human 
epidemiological evidence is consistent with increased risk of birth defects 
in offspring of persons exposed to DU."

Salsman quotes the Abstract's Conclusions correctly, and the Abstract's 
Results say, "Animal studies firmly support the possibility that DU is a 
teratogen."

For what it's worth, in the Acknowledgements, the authors write: "Sunny 
Miller, executive director of Traprock Peace Center of Deerfield, MA hosted 
a presentation by Damacio Lopez (director of IDUST, International Depleted 
Uranium Study Team) which Rita Hindin attended and that eventually led to 
the writing of this paper. Our appreciation. Thanks to Len Dietz, Dan 
Bishop (of IDUST) and Tom Fasy (Mt. Sinai Medical Center, NYC) for their 
assistance early on explicating DU toxicology, and to the Uranium Weapons 
Study Team (of Traprock Peace Center) for thoughtful conversations and 
support to explore leads and deepen understanding of DU." (New Mexico 
readers may recognize the name Damacio Lopez. DU is an important part of 
his life, and as recently as Jan. 20 he had a letter published in the 
"Daily Lobo," the University of New Mexico campus newspaper, calling for 
yet another study of DU residues around Socorro, NM, where some DU testing 
was done in the mid-1980s.) (This is a review paper.)



At 06:06 PM 4/5/07 -0700, James Salsman wrote:
>Steven,
>
>There are copies of Ryan and Araneta's papers in
>   http://www.bovik.org/du/mscusn/
>as there have been since July of 2005.
>
>Why were you unable to use Google to find their papers on gulf
>war-related birth defects?
>
>In reference to the reproductive toxicity of uranium, you told me,
>"you already know you are not going to believe anything you're told
>here."  Actually, it has been quite a while since anyone on RADSAFE
>has denied the reproductive toxicity of uranium.  However, all of the
>Health Physics Society web pages which deal with the subject do, e.g.,
>  http://hps.org/documents/dufactsheet.pdf
>"Exposures to airborne DU or to contaminated soil following military
>use are not known to cause any observable health or reproductive
>effects."
>
>Compare that to the published peer-reviewed medical literature:
>
>"A number of studies have shown that natural uranium is a
>reproductive toxicant...."  Arfsten, D.P.; K.R. Still; G.D. Ritchie
>(2001) "A review of the effects of uranium and depleted uranium
>exposure on reproduction and fetal development," Toxicology
>and Industrial Health, vol. 17, pp. 180-91:
>http://www.bovik.org/du/reproduction-review-2001.pdf
>
>"human epidemiological evidence is consistent with increased risk of
>birth defects in offspring of persons exposed to DU."  Hindin, R.;
>D. Brugge; B. Panikkar (2005) "Teratogenicity of depleted uranium
>aerosols: A review from an epidemiological perspective,"
>Environmental Health, vol. 4, pp. 17:
>  http://www.ehjournal.net/content/4/1/17
>
>And again, there are no peer-reviewed medical reports from the past
>ten years which deny the reproductive toxicity of uranium.
>
>Sincerely,
>James Salsman