[ RadSafe ] RE: birth defects in Basrah

[Steven Dapra]

April 18

         The only difference I know of is that DU is *less* radioactive 
than U-Nat.  The reason the U-Nat studies don't show the effects some are 
attributing to DU is  probably that DU is not causing those 
effects.  Salsman and I have been around and around on this.  As I keep 
telling him, those few papers he keeps dragging out are replete with 
qualifiers about the need for more studies, or for verification of 
self-reported incidents of birth defects.  (There are other qualifiers too.)

Steven Dapra


At 05:59 PM 4/18/07 -0700, John R Johnson wrote:
>Steven and other Rasdsaers
>
>I must ask the question again!
>
>What is the difference between DU and U-Nat? We have many U-Nat studies 
>that don't show the effects that some are attributing to DU.
>
>John
>***************
>John R Johnson, PhD
>CEO, IDIAS, Inc.
>Vancouver, B. C.
>Canada
>(604) 222-9840
>idias at interchange.ubc.ca
>
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Steven Dapra" <sjd at swcp.com>
>To: "radsafe" <radsafe at radlab.nl>
>Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 5:49 PM
>Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] RE: birth defects in Basrah
>
>
>>April 18
>>
>>         Thank you for posting this, John.  Good questions.
>>
>>         I don't see how birth defects could only have shown up in 
>> Basrah, as Salsman claims.  Or at least he says (below) they were only 
>> reported in the vicinity.  His original question (RADSAFE, Apr. 3) 
>> said:  "Are there any alternative hypotheses for the birth defect 
>> increases in Basrah, U.S., and U.K. troops which have not been ruled out?"
>>
>>         Wasn't DU used in more places than around Basrah?  Even it had 
>> only been used there, the anti-DU partisans seem to be saying the 
>> windblown DU has spread all over Iraq.
>>
>>         My guess is that the reason someone keeps posting stuff about 
>> folate is that folate appears to be effective in decreasing birth 
>> defects, especially spina bifida.  It goes back to the poor diets of the 
>> Iraqi people during the 1990s.
>>
>>Steven Dapra
>>
>>
>>At 10:15 AM 4/18/07 -0700, John Jacobus wrote:
>>>Was that the only city reported on?  Have
>>>epidemiological studies been performed in other large
>>>cities?  What were the birth defect rates 5 years ago?
>>>  You need to validate all of the data, not just
>>>cherry-pick the stuff that supports your position.
>>>
>>>As noted by the Michigan Department of Community
>>>Health at
>>>http://www.mdch.state.mi.us/pha/osr/BirthDefects/summary.asp
>>>
>>>"During 2003, there were 9,383 cases of birth defects
>>>reported for children under one year of age. This
>>>translates to an prevalence rate of 725.0 cases per
>>>10,000 resident live births. For children born during
>>>2002, there were 11,128 cases reported for children
>>>under 2 years of age for an prevalence rate was 869.3
>>>cases per 10,000 resident live births. The prevalence
>>>rate for 2 year olds based upon reported cases has
>>>been above 800 per 10,000 for the past three years and
>>>following a significant effort to improve reporting
>>>quality and completeness."
>>>
>>>I doubt there is much DU in Michigan.
>>>
>>>--- James Salsman <jsalsman at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Why do you keep posting stuff about folate?  Basrah
>>> > was the only place
>>> > in the vicinity reporting an increase in birth
>>> > defects.
>>> >
>>
>>[edit]