[ RadSafe ] Uranyl and increased risk ratio

[Steven Dapra]

Jan. 16, 2007

         On Jan. 16, James Salsman (JS) wrote:

         "Firstly, malnutrition defects are unlike those from uranyl 
poisoning.  Secondly, there is no alternative explanation of the U.S. and 
U.K. servicemembers' (and Basrah civilians') increase from a risk ratio of 
less than 0.5 six years after exposure to 1.8 in 2000 and 2.2 in 2003, 
without a corresponding steep increase in cancers -- that is another 
signature of uranyl's teratogenicity. (Of course the Basrah civilians have 
lots of extra cancers, unlike the troops who were not exposed to nerve gas 
in 1991.)"

My Comments:

         How do you know, JS, that there is "no alternative explanation"?

         You seem to be implying that there was in abrupt increase in 
cancer (is that morbidity or mortality?) within a period of six years.  The 
typical latency period for hard tumors in 20 years.

         What does a steep increase in cancers have to do with 
teratogenicity?  Teratogens cause birth defects, they do not cause cancers.

         Do you have a citation (other than Hindin) for those alleged 
excess Basrah cancers?

Steven Dapra
sjd at swcp.com