[ RadSafe ] three questions
sjd at swcp.com
Mon Apr 9 20:29:31 CDT 2007
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
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.)
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
More information about the RadSafe