[ RadSafe ] uranium combustion product inhalation

[Steven Dapra]

Feb. 10

         This is turning into the theatre of the absurd.

         I cannot find anyplace in Kang et al. (2001) where the authors 
give a "risk ratio" of 1.8 or 2.2.  In the two tables that list ratios, the 
authors use the expression Odds Ratio, not risk ratio.  (Table 3, p. 507, 
and Table 4, p. 508.)  Table 4 gives an Crude Odds Ratio of 1.8 for 
"Moderate to severe"  "adverse outcomes" among male Gulf War 
veterans.  (The adjusted ratio is 1.78.)  This table does not give a ratio 
of 2.2, and none of the ratios it gives can be rounded off to 2.2.  WHERE 
do you (James) get this ratio of 2.2?  Please give the Table number, or the 
page number, column, and paragraph.

         WHY are you calling Odds Ratios risk ratios? Have you read Kang, 
et al. (2001)?

Steven Dapra
sjd at swcp.com

REFERENCE
Kang, H. et al.  Annals of Epidemiology.  11:504-511; 2001.


At 11:08 PM 2/9/07 -0800, James Salsman wrote:
>I'm sorry I just sent a null reply to a digest, and I also apologize
>to Steve Dapra for claiming that a risk ratio of 1.8 or 2.2 is the
>same as a 180% or 220% increase; I should have said an 80% and 120%
>increase.
>
>When we make mistakes, we apologize and try to do better in the future.
>
>Making bullets out of depleted uranium is a monumental mistake in any
>situation where friendlies or civilians can become contaminated with
>uranyl. We need to apologize.
>
>How much of the restitution should come from those responsible for the
>poor decision making?
>
>Sincerely,
>James Salsman