[ RadSafe ] Fwd: ruling out uranium vapor with x-rays

[Steven Dapra]

May 2

         (James Salsman's [JS] message to RADSAFE with replies from Steven 
Dapra [SD] interspersed as noted.)

JS
Steve,

Thank you for your reply. I have a number of questions about your comments.

Do you have any doubt that uranium combustion products are teratogenic? We 
have, for years, discussed several studies including the work of the U.S. 
Navy, Army, epidemiologist M.D.s, and reproductive health M.D.s, all 
writing in peer reviewed journals saying that it is. On the other side, 
there have been absolutely no peer-reviewed medical or scientific journal 
articles stating that uranium combustion products are not teratogenic.

SD's reply:

         In a posting here dated April 28 I asked for citations to these 
alleged papers.  So far you have not presented any such citations.

         Is there a difference between "absolutely" no peer-reviewed 
papers, and "no peer-reviewed papers," and if so what is the 
difference?  Although there may be no papers stating that U combustion 
products are not teratogenic, this proves nothing.  It is difficult to 
prove a negative.>>>>>

JS
Do you deny this? If so, on what basis?

SD's reply:

         Do I deny what?  Let's see some citations to these "several 
studies.">>>>>

JS
You say that Dr. Johnson's statements -- in 
http://lists.radlab.nl/pipermail/radsafe/2006-March/002280.html -- are not 
calling for a study of uranium teratology? You wrote, "In March 2006 he 
didn't ask for a study of teratology, so no one could have 'joined the 
call' to study it."

On the contrary, that message contains:
 >> Will Robert Cherry and John R. Johnson join me in calling for immediate 
chromosome aberration analysis of several species of mammals exposed to 
depleted uranium combustion product inhalation in order to empirically 
judge the genotoxic effects of uranium combustion product inhalation poisoning?

SD's reply:

         On the contrary, the message is about the "genotoxic" effects, not 
about teratogenicity.  Do you have some U combustion product citations or 
don't you?>>>>>

Steven Dapra


At 07:48 AM 5/1/08 -0700, Ben Fore wrote:
>Steve,
>
>Thank you for your reply.  I have a number of questions about your comments.
>
>Do you have any doubt that uranium combustion products are 
>teratogenic?  We have, for years, discussed several studies
>including the work of the U.S. Navy, Army, epidemiologist M.D.s, and 
>reproductive health M.D.s, all writing in peer reviewed
>journals saying that it is.  On the other side, there have been absolutely 
>no peer-reviewed medical or scientific journal articles
>stating that uranium combustion products are not teratogenic.  Do you deny 
>this?  If so, on what basis?
>
>You say that Dr. Johnson's statements -- in 
>http://lists.radlab.nl/pipermail/radsafe/2006-March/002280.html -- are not 
>calling for a study of uranium teratology?  You wrote, "In March 2006 he 
>didn't ask for a study of teratology, so no one could have 'joined the 
>call' to study it."
>
>On the contrary, that message contains:
>
> >> Will Robert Cherry and John R. Johnson join me in calling for 
> immediate chromosome aberration analysis of several
> >> species of mammals exposed to depleted uranium combustion product 
> inhalation in order to empirically judge the genotoxic
> >> effects of uranium combustion product inhalation poisoning?
>
>Dr. Johnson's reply is:
>
> > Yes, provided the "depleted uranium combustion product" is actually 
> from a DU weapon, and not formulated for the animal experiments.
>
>Dr. Johnson stands far and away above the vast majority of radiation 
>protection professionals who have been assigned to
>work on the safety of uranium munition in calling for these studies.  They 
>still have scientists who care about science in
>Canada.
>
>Someday history will look back and wonder why there was such silence in 
>the health physics community.  That silence forces
>those who wish to evaluate the extent of the teratogenicity away from 
>quantitative reasoning.
>
>Some people say that I am "anti-DU" -- but how can I know whether I am for 
>or against a substance for which nobody yet
>knows the extent of its harm?
>
>And why have you not yet joined the call to quantify that harm?
>
>James Salsman, as Ben Fore