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

Cindy Bloom radbloom at comcast.net
Thu Jul 3 05:39:02 CDT 2008

Although I know it's a bit off this note's point, I can't help but think 
that any finding of teratogenicity (or other effect) is linked to some 
minimal dose in mice and rats, which has yet to be related to the range of 
uranium doses occurring in humans.


At 11:15 PM 7/2/2008 -0600, Steven Dapra wrote:
>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.

More information about the RadSafe mailing list