[ RadSafe ] Uranyl and increased risk ratio

[James Salsman]

Steven Dapra wrote:

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

What teratogens have been suggested that anyone might have
been exposed to in 1991 Iraq which do not cause an even more
pronounced increase in rapid-onset cancers?  According to the
CDC, most of the sulfur mustards and sarin, which were involved,
do.  Uranyl does not.  There have been no such alternative
hypothesis -- PB, anthrax vaccine, pesticides, and oil smoke
have all been ruled out.

> 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.

No, cancers in the U.S. and U.K. soldiers remained very low in the
first six years, but recently have began to pick up, especially for
brain and testicular cancers.  I suspect in 2011 the cancer rate
for the troops will be substantially higher across the board.

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

Not exactly. Uranyl compounds such as uranium trioxide gas
are teratogens which do not cause much immediate-onset
cancer, unlike most teratogens including all of the nerve gases
that I have looked at.

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

Sure, I have plenty.  Here's one from a Mount Sinai Pathologist:
  http://www.nuclearpolicy.org/files/nuclear/fasy_jun_14_03.pdf

Sincerely,
James Salsman