[ RadSafe ] Re: uranium smoke is a teratogen

Ben Fore BenjB4 at gmail.com
Mon May 5 21:52:16 CDT 2008

Steven Dapra wrote:

> You claimed, James, to have presented "peer-reviewed publications
> which show that uranium combustion products are teratogens."  None of the
> publications you invoked are about U combustion products....

There are plenty of papers, e.g., U.S. Army work by M. Parkhurst, which
say that uranium smoke dissolves into uranyl ions.  Do you need me to cite
those for you, too?

>... all of them that I have read are full of qualifiers....

So we have several papers, including three peer-reviewed literature reviews,
stating that uranyl is a teratogen, but they are "full" of unspecified
And how many papers say that uranyl isn't teratogenic or isn't a reproductive
toxicant?  Zero.

>...You cite two papers published in medical journals in Basra,
> Iraq.  .... Have you personally read either of these papers, and
> if so, have you read any of the literature cited in them?

Yes, I have read both of them.  You can find them both on the web by,
e.g., googling their titles.

Jim Muckerheide wrote:

> Note that the Maynard '53 paper is a post facto report on work done during
> the war on the Manhattan Project. At lower doses exposed groups had no
> effect and beneficial effects, e.g., papers by Miriam Finkel and others.

Which papers show beneficial effects of uranyl intake?  There aren't any.

James Salsman, as Ben Fore

More information about the RadSafe mailing list