[ RadSafe ] ethics in research question
sjd at swcp.com
Thu Mar 1 20:39:38 CST 2007
March 1, 2007
This graph proves nothing. It's so silly and so ill-supported it
should be an embarrassment..
According to Salsman and bovik.org, the graph is based on the 2001
Kang et al. paper in the Annals of Epidemiology about pregnancy outcomes
among Gulf War vets. I have already discussed that paper on RADSAFE and it
does nothing to substantiate any of Salsman's claims.
The graph is also based on the Gulf War Review question and answer
article that I discussed yesterday on RADSAFE. You will recall that the
Q&A article had a footnote that mentioned some research by Kang wherein he
claimed to have found that the rate of birth defects in children of Gulf
War deployed male veterans was 2.2 times the rate of birth defects in
non-deployed GW vets. According to this 2003 Gulf War Review Q&A, Kang's
research was undergoing peer review.
In plain English, this graph doesn't explain anything --- at least
not about the incidence rate of birth defects. It might explain something
about James Salsman's scholarship, however I will refrain from making any
comments on *that*.
sjd at swcp.com
At 03:34 PM 3/1/07 -0800, James Salsman wrote:
>On 2/28/07, Maury Siskel wrote:
>>... the attribution to Dr. Kang is correct. But that remains far from a
>>complete view of the situation. Follows several quotes regarding other
>>studies (preponderance of evidence?) of this subject.
>The point is that the earlier studies all had lower rates, meaning that
>the rates are increasing. I think they are increasing way too rapidly.
>Here's a graph that explains it:
>Complaining about this problem and trying to get it fixed helps our
>troops, their families, and our ability to recruit. Tungsten might cause
>cancer, but it doesn't damage gonocytes, which are, after all, our future.
More information about the RadSafe