[ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain / o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years.... / Miller and McClain, 2007

Steven Dapra sjd at swcp.com
Sat Jul 5 19:02:53 CDT 2008

July 5

         Comments from Steven Dapra (SD).


James Salsman (JS):
The Miller and McClain 2007 review clearly indicate mutations and other 
chromosome aberrations, and their findings have been adopted by the U.S. 
National Research Council:



         This page of the National Research Council book cites two papers 
by Miller.  One was published in 1998 and McClain is not one of the 
co-authors.  The other was published in 2003, and McClain is the fifth of 
six co-authors.  Even if Miller and McClain did write a paper in 2007 about 
mutations and other chromosome aberrations, it is not cited in the link 
given by JS.  The Council has not "adopted" anything.  All it did was 
report what Miller and an assortment of co-workers said in 1998 and in 2003.

         The Introduction to the 1998 Miller paper says, "In spite of 
epidemiological studies that suggest that uranium is a carcinogen (1), 
there is no evidence that uranium of any type (depleted, naturally 
occurring, or enriched) can transform human cells to the tumorigenic 
phenotype (1)."  [Reference (1) is to BEIR IV.]

         Did you see that James?  NO EVIDENCE.

         Following the Abstract, Miller and her co-authors say, "The 
contributions of Eric Daxon, [and various others] are greatly appreciated 
and were invaluable to the success of this project."

         On March 6, 2007, on RADSAFE, James Salsman wrote,  "Then Eric 
Daxon lies that Kang actually found a decrease after medical records 
review, not an increase."  Salsman calls Eric Daxon a liar, while Alexandra 
Miller --- whose work Salsman is waving around all over the place --- 
thanks him for his "invaluable" contributions.  This would be funny if it 
weren't so utterly pathetic.


Steven Dapra (SD) wrote:

 > According to McDiarmid et al., so few chromosomal aberrations were found 
that they couldn't perform linear regression on them.

James Salsman (JS):
What do you think the relation is between the ability to perform linear 
regression and confirmation of their existence?


         It doesn't matter what the relation is.  All that matters is that 
so few aberrations were found that no analysis (regression) could be 
performed.  (McDiarmid et al. wrote, ". . . it was not possible to use 
regression to assess its relationship with ln urine uranium . . 
.."  There's your "relation" --- it's not possible.)

Steven Dapra wrote:
 > it has become patently obvious to me that you *can't* read reports.

Steve, three months ago you were trying to convince us that uranyl wasn't 
teratogenic. How long do you intend to keep playing the fool? If you have a 
problem with the way Miller and McClain characterized McDairmid's results, 
please email or phone her at her office. She is on Eastern time and 
returning from her vacation on Monday.


         I wasn't trying to convince anyone that uranyl wasn't 
teratogenic.  I was asking you to present some evidence (for example the 
Domingo paper) to substantiate your anti-DU histrionics.  As it turned out, 
the Domingo paper didn't do much to support your histrionics, and after 
some perfunctory comments you dropped the matter.

         Miller and McClain summarized McDiarmid et al. thus:  "McDairmid 
et al (2004), in their 10-year follow-up of 39 veterans exposed to DU in 
friendly fire incidents during the 1991 Gulf war, reported that the study 
participants exposed to the highest levels of DU showed a statistically 
significant increase in chromosomal aberrations as compared with 
low-exposure groups."  McDiarmid et al. did not say there was a 
statistically significant increase in chromosomal aberrations.  If you had 
bothered to read McDiarmid you would have known this.  If anyone on RADSAFE 
is playing the fool, it's you, James.  Even if I'm the only one willing to 
say so, I'm certain it's obvious to everyone.

Steven Dapra

More information about the RadSafe mailing list