[ RadSafe ] o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years may protect from much teratogenesis

[Steven Dapra]

July 2

         (Some portions of Salsman's message have been omitted.)

James Salsman wrote:

“What in particular suggested an insufficient understanding of 
teratogenicity? Do you remember that Steve Dapra has been holding out for 
years against the reality of uranyl teratogenicity? When he finally 
admitted he was wrong less than three months ago, he tried to suggest that 
uranyl acetate was different from the largest of the uranium combustion 
products, uranyl oxide, which is actually far more soluble.”

Steven Dapra's comment:

         Most of this is false.  I did not hold out for “years” about 
uranyl teratogenicity.  When JS and I were disputing about DU in March of 
2006, we were not talking about the teratogenicity.  I was showing that 
JS’s quotes of eight papers on DU were quotes that had been manipulated in 
some way.  Earlier this year JS dragged out the teratogenicity of 
DU.  Technically, I was wrong.  DU is teratogenic in laboratory mice and 
rats.  Whether or not these results can be applied to humans is at best 
debatable.  I don’t think I “tried to suggest” that uranyl acetate was 
different from uranyl oxide.  I merely asked the question.

James Salsman wrote:

“However, I recently found all 15 pages of Miller A.C. and McClain D. (2007 
Jan-Mar). "A review of depleted uranium biological effects: in vitro and in 
vivo studies". Rev Environ Health 22 (1): 75­89. It was the second mostt 
difficult medical paper I've ever obtained. The information from page 84 to 
the end of the paper is suburb. Alexandria Miller is the U.S. armed forces' 
top uranium toxicity specialist. She is not allowed to speak to the press 
because of the damage that the people who have been telling us that uranium 
weapons are save has done to the veracity of the U.S. position on the topic.”

SD's comment:

         Who cares how difficult it was to obtain this paper?  What is 
“suburb” information?

James Salsman wrote:

“Several people have hinted to you or stated outright that DU as a 
teratogen is not very helpful to your cause. What do you think my cause is? 
Some say I am trying to attack the offensive capability of the troops, but 
I say I am trying to improve their health. I was born on an Army base and I 
feel a strong bond with the health of the force. Towards those ends, it is 
obvious to me at least that exploring the details of uranyl teratology and 
neurotoxicity as well as carcinogenicity. Increasing the likelihood of 
reproductive health issues in military families makes it harder to recruit 
and for that and other reasons it's an attack on the military to have 
weapons that work off the battlefield. This is nothing new, it's been 
against international law for almost 90 years. Are you suggesting that 
there is some other way to address the issue than to tell the truth about 
uranyl teratogenicity and neurotoxicity?”

SD's comment:

         Singling out a few of JS's comments:

“I was born on an Army base and I feel a strong bond with the health of the 
force.”

SD's comment:

         This sounds somewhat on the self-serving side to me.

“Increasing the likelihood of reproductive health issues in military 
families makes it harder to recruit and for that and other reasons it's an 
attack on the military to have weapons that work off the battlefield. This 
is nothing new, it's been against international law for almost 90 years.”

SD's comment:

         I rather doubt that potential recruits are asking recruiting 
sergeants about reproductive health “issues.”  My guess is that the armed 
services and the soldiers want their weapons to work “off the 
battlefield.”  What good is a rifle, machine gun, or tank that only works 
on the battlefield?  Pretty hard to do any target shooting when your rifle 
only works when the user is shooting at the enemy.   Cite the so-called 
international laws that you are invoking here.

         Here is the abstract to the Miller and McClain paper that JS found 
it to difficult to obtain.  Note the qualifier “suggest the 
possibility.”  For those who want to take the time, if you look up the work 
“controversy” you will find that that everything is controversial.  Hence, 
the word doesn’t mean much of anything.

“The use of depleted uranium in armor-penetrating munitions remains a 
source of controversy because of the numerous unanswered questions about 
its long-term health effects. Although no conclusive epidemiologic data 
have correlated DU exposure to specific health effects, studies using 
cultured cells and laboratory rodents continue to suggest the possibility 
of leukemogenic, genetic, reproductive, and neurological effects from 
chronic exposure. Until issues of concern are resolved with further 
research, the use of depleted uranium by the military will continue to be 
controversial.”

         Link and citation:

<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17508699>

Rev Environ Health.  2007 Jan-Mar;22(1):75-89.  Miller, Alexandra and 
McClain, David.


Steven Dapra


Interesting aside:

         Reviews on Environmental Health is published by Freund Publishing 
House Ltd which is located in Tel Aviv.  This is from its web site:

“Freund Publishing House Ltd was founded in 1970 in Tel Aviv, Israel by 
H.E. Freund.
The company is now the largest international publisher of technical and 
scientific material in Israel.
“Since its inception, Freund Publishing House Ltd has continued to abide by 
its commitment to customer service and support.
“We publish books and journals on Chemistry, Materials Science and 
Engineering, Genetics, Endocrinology, Orthopedics, Neuroscience, 
Psychology, Sociology,
Physiology, Pharmacology, and Environment Health, Mathematics, and 
Education.  Also,  Children's Books, Judaism, and the Holocaust, as well as 
Computerized education aids and games in science.  Also: Co-publishing, 
Co-production, Cooperative distribution for new books and journals; and 
Translation, editing and printing services.”

-----  END  -----