[ RadSafe ] three questions

[Steven Dapra]

April 9

1)      Do you (James) mean the reproductive toxicity of uranium, or the 
reproductive toxicity of depleted uranium?  The HPS web pages are based on 
material from the World Health Organization (WHO).  If you have some 
complaints about the HPS page, why not take them to the WHO?

2)      Do you mean the reproductive toxicity of uranium or of DU?  Do you 
mean in animals, or in humans?

3)      Assuming that by birth defects in Basrah you mean defects in Iraqi 
citizens I can think of two hypotheses.  First, bad diet, specifically a 
lack of sufficient folic acid in women who were planning on becoming 
pregnant.  Second bad diet in general, caused by the UN sanctions during 
the 1990s.

         For US troops I don't think anyone has shown conclusively that 
there are increased in birth defects to US children.  There are other 
causes too, such as exposure to poison gas, oil well fire smoke, and 
diseases and insects that are peculiar to the region.  As far as I can 
remember, you have never claimed increases in birth defects in UK 
soldiers.  Do you have any studies for increased birth defects in children 
of UK soldiers?  Let's have some citations.  (Citations, not questions 
about why I was unable to use Google.)

Steven Dapra
sjd at swcp.com


At 11:16 PM 4/3/07 -0700, James Salsman wrote:
>1.  Are there any Health Physics Society web pages which do not deny
>the reproductive toxicity of uranium?
>
>2.  Is there any peer-reviewed medical publication from the past ten
>years that does deny the reproductive toxicity of uranium?
>
>3.  Are there any alternative hypotheses for the birth defect
>increases in Basrah, U.S., and U.K. troops which have not been ruled
>out?
>
>Sincerley,
>James Salsman