[ RadSafe ] Uranium and genotoxicity

Bjorn Cedervall bcradsafers at hotmail.com
Sun Jun 8 08:58:05 CDT 2008

Read over an earlier of my own messages to which I got no response. I saw,
however, one sentence that needs to be improved - as has been done with large
caps below. That was an understatement from my side as I had clarified
that in an earlier posting but for those who hadn't read that the sentence
must have seemed strange as everyone eventuay dies.
Bjorn Cedervall------------------------------------------------------------------------> From: bcradsafers at hotmail.com> To: radsafe at radlab.nl> Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Uranium and genotoxicity> Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2008 02:21:30 +0000> > > 1. I distinguished between effects on the germline and effects on somatic cells.> My comment was not about somatic cells like all cells in a developing embryo> except the germ cells in the gonads.> > You are asking a question (birth defects) that I didn´t address. If I am to> respond to that I want to see at least 2-3 peer reviewed papers on the topic> before I come with an opinion.> > The paper (from 1991) that has been discussed recently is about male> reproduction in mice. The answer could even be a libido question due to> metallic toxicity.> > 2. I don´t wish scientific facts to be this or that way. The survivability> for humans in an equilibrium situation follows the same principle as that> of moles regardless of whether we wish/like it or not: With N number of> offspring, an average of N-2 will die WITHOUT PRODUCING OFFSPRING
we wish.> > We have, however, over the past 200 years or so strongly manipulated> the fraction of offspring dying before reproductive age (with modern> medicine, manipulation of the environment and so on).> In the longer run Nature can be expected to hit back very forcefully> - right now we are building up a time bomb with "bad mutations" in the> human species - unfortunately, for humanitarian reasons, we cannot> do much about it - for some reading on that see Jim Crow in PNAS:> http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/94/16/8380> (especially the last page)> > 3. I represent myself and no one else in my statements. I have> written that many times. Most Swedish health physicists have> not studied molecular biology or teratology in detail so I don't> think that there is room for some strong statement where I> should involve others.> > If you want to understand the points I am making you should read> the following scientists:> http://www.geocities.com/bjorn_cedervall/Science/evolution_links.html> OK the list is long but if you focus on Fischer, Haldane, Wright,> Dobzhansky, Ayala, Crow, Kimura and Mayr much can be explained.> If it is still too much - read only the books by E. Mayr as he develops> the species concept during the period 1950-1975. Focus in> particular what Mayr writes about allele dynamics.> > My personal ideas and reflections which must not be shared by anyone particular,> > Bjorn Cedervall bcradsafers at hotmail.com> -------------------------------------------------------------------> > > Dear Dr. Cedervall,
> > Your point is not valid. The fact remains that increasing exposure to
> uranyl cause an increase in birth defects. Do you deny that?
> Do you wish humans to have the same survivability as moles?
> Is your understanding of DNA biology and teratology what passes for> normal in the Swedish health physics community?
> James Salsman
Now you can invite friends from Facebook and other groups to join you on Windows Live™ Messenger. Add now.

More information about the RadSafe mailing list