[ RadSafe ] uranium and breast cancer

Steven Dapra sjd at swcp.com
Tue Jun 3 19:22:14 CDT 2008

June 3

         I wrote: "DU in the form of uranyl acetate dihydrate appears to be 
teratogenic, at least in certain strains of laboratory mice and rats."

         James Salsman wrote: "Rats?  I though you said not rats for Domingo."

         Below, James claims he has read Domingo's 2001 review paper.  If 
he has read it, why doesn't he know that work has been done on rats that 
have been exposed to uranyl acetate dihydrate?  Domingo cites two such 
papers in a table on the second page of his review.  In my critique of 
Domingo I specifically mentioned the table.  I wrote that Domingo and 
presumably his co-workers " . . . conducted a literature search on the 
chemical toxic effects of U in mammals.  This search is summarized in Table 
1 (p. 604), and lists nine studies, seven of them on mice, and two on 
rats.  Domingo was author or co-author of seven of the studies."

         What's your problem, James?  You whined for two or three weeks 
that I either hadn't read Domingo (2001), or that I wouldn't pay to read 
it.  Then when I do read it, and post a critique of it, you don't read my 
critique.  What's your problem, James?

Steven Dapra

At 09:48 AM 6/3/08 -0700, James Salsman wrote:
>This is line 050 of Gary's pseudocode, but on topic: "... at the end of 
>the first Gulf War, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority estimated 
>that 50 tons remained in Iraq, and that amount could be responsible for 
>500,000 cancer deaths by the year 2000." -- 
>Did the UKAEA actually say that? It is neither naïve nor ridiculous to 
>demand accountability in government safety standards.  What is ridiculous 
>is to imply that Congressional hearings would be detrimental to 
>accuracy.  If Mike Brennan has any evidence that government investigation 
>is not strongly correlated with an increase in accuracy, he will need to 
>present it to keep from seeming to advance that ridiculous position. 
>Steven Dapra wants to know whether I have read Domingo's 2001 review. I 
>have, and I will gladly read it again if he or I find it necessary. Ref.: 
>http://lists.radlab.nl/pipermail/radsafe/2008-June/date.html#10139 James Salsma

More information about the RadSafe mailing list