[ RadSafe ] Re: uranium and breast cancer
sjd at swcp.com
Mon Jun 2 18:29:24 CDT 2008
Debating with this joker is like trying to nail Jello to the wall
. . . .
If you (James) had bothered to read Domingo, you would have seen
that in his Table 1 (p. 604) he listed two papers whose author(s) did work
on male rats.
What's this about cat-ions? And in dogs?? I always thought
cat-ions only showed up in cats --- or at least only in felines. Dogs are
canines. (But you knew that, didn't you, James?)
No I have not found the 1953 text, and I'm probably not going to
try. I have a 100 percent record of proving you wrong, so why should I?
The balance of your e-mail is rubbish. More government is the
last best hope for tyranny, not for science. Why do you want an IH website
that is discussing DU? So you can push your nonsense somewhere besides
RADSAFE? As far as war criminals are concerned, James you are a war
criminal in the battle for truth.
Tell us, James ---- Have you personally read Domingo's 2001 paper
that you have spent so much time waving around like a talisman? No
mumbo-jumbo, just TELL us ---- have you read it?
At 08:07 AM 6/2/08 -0700, James Salsman wrote:
>Thank you for reading the J.L. Domingo review:
> > DU in the form of uranyl acetate dihydrate
> > appears to be teratogenic, at least in certain
> > strains of laboratory mice and rats.
>Rats? I though you said not rats for Domingo. Anyway, that's not the
>only uranyl cation. Uranyl oxide is soluble in dog lung fluid in
>around 3-5 days. Serum chemistry is not going to care very much at
>all about the cation in solution, although if you have acetate ions
>you are certainly in different shape than if you have O+ in serum too.
>Did you ever find the 1953 text?
> > It's also true that not much work has been done [in]
> > an attempt to duplicate these findings. (I imagine the
> > evil military-industrial complex is derailing any such
> > proposed work.)
>There are people out there so conditioned by the military-industrial
>complex to argue in favor of cluster bombs, defoliants without
>adequate safety measures, depleted uranium, and land mines, that they
>forget there are non-combatants, who, if they don't play their cards
>right, would fall off the battlefield, making the authors war
>I think we in the U.S. need to organize a direct-to-congress campaign
>of truth in advertising when it comes to safety provisions, asking
>each congressperson to hold committee hearings. Surely more
>government is the last, best hope for science. Unless, of course,
>science doesn't need a currency.
>If anyone out there knows of an industrial hygiene listserv out there
>handling depleted uranium, I would be glad to learn of it.
>I am still trying to figure out the electronegativity profile of the
>exposed surface of the uranyl ion as it binds (as a ligand) to a
>chromosome. If Franz has problems with me using the word "ligand"
>please let me know. Also, you guys who are telling me how wrong I am
>in reply to a true statement have made very little progress. I would
>tend to give Dr. Alexandria C. Miller the benefit of the doubt --
>maybe Mattias will have the opportunity to ask her. I would like to
>hear Mattias telling USAFRBI security that he needs to talk to Dr.
>Alexander about cytoplasm chemistry.
>As for uranyl causing cancer, I would like to know how you could
>damage the white blood cells' chromosomes and not see an increase in
>cancers of the areas they frequent. They are the first line of
>defense against odd-smelling (including precancer) cells.
>--- forwarded message ---
>[ RadSafe ] FW: [NukeNet] Uranium: It's worse than you think
>Roger Helbig rhelbig at california.com
>Sun Jun 1 00:35:47 CEST 2008
>Yet another publicly made claim about the horrors of uranium, now they are
>trying to claim it causes breast cancer all it takes is the word "may" in
>big headlines and apparently on the front cover.
More information about the RadSafe