[ RadSafe ] uranium smoke is a teratogen
sjd at swcp.com
Sat May 17 01:20:09 CDT 2008
I have already explained in considerable detail that the Arfsten,
Domingo, and Hindin papers you cite below (in the link) do nothing to prove
anything either way about the teratogenicity of DU smoke. You can see my
message dated May 4th, that is based on my message of March 6, 2006; and
"We have already been through part of this on RADSAFE on March 6, 2006.
First, let's take the new material.
"You cite to Maynard et al. (1953). This is about "Oral toxicity of uranium
compounds," and is a study in which rats were fed uranium (VI) nitrate
hexahydrate and then produced fewer litters and smaller litters. It was not
about birth defects in the offspring. The study was not about inhaling
uranium combustion products, hence the study has no bearing on DU smoke.
"You cite two papers published in medical journals in Basra, Iraq. Neither
of the small portions you quote from these papers says anything about the
cohorts' having exposed to uranium combustion products. There may have been
some increase in birth defects in the Iraqi cohort, however you appear to
be unaware of the fact that correlation does not mean causation. Have you
personally read either of these papers, and if so, have you read any of the
literature cited in them?
"The papers from March 2006 are Arfsten, Domingo, and Hindin. Arfsten
studied exposure to natural uranium, and Domingo studied uranium exposure.
(I am relying on your [Salsman's] quote of Domingo. I was unable to locate
this paper.) Hindin's paper was a review paper, and if you read it you will
find that it is well-larded with qualifiers, including the section that
specifically addresses DU teratogenesis. Hindin doesn't mention smoke or
combustion --- these two words do not appear in the paper. She mentions DU
aerosols, however aerosols are fine particles, and are not necessarily the
result of combustion.
"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, and all of them
that I have read are full of qualifiers about what the effects of DU may
be. All the cited literature is worthless for what you are trying to prove."
--- END of May 4 message ---
Dan McCarn has more than adequately addressed the cleft palate
claim, so I need not discuss that.
To answer your questions below, based upon the junky "evidence"
you have presented so far, there is no reason to believe that DU smoke is
teratogenic. I don't know whether or not DU smoke dissolves into uranyl
ions in lung fluid, and I don't see how this has any bearing on whether or
not DU smoke causes birth defects. I don't know anything about uranyl,
hence I cannot comment on whether or not it causes birth defects.
Thanks again for your repeated request:
> When are you going to present some evidence that DU smoke is a teratogen?
I have, here: http://lists.radlab.nl/pipermail/radsafe/2008-May/009894.html
I am not sure if you are trying to imply that it is not.
Do you think uranium smoke is not teratogenic or not?
Do you think it dissolves into uranyl ions in lung fluid or not?
Do you think that uranyl is teratogenic or not?
James Salsman, as Ben Fore
At 09:28 PM 5/15/08 -0700, Ben Fore wrote:
>First, I join those who have thanked Dan McCarn. His knowlege
>of uranium hydrology and geophysics in general is vast, and his
>messages are very welcome and very helpful.
>Thanks again for your repeated request:
> > When are you going to present some evidence that DU smoke is a teratogen?
>I have, here: http://lists.radlab.nl/pipermail/radsafe/2008-May/009894.html
>I am not sure if you are trying to imply that it is not.
>Do you think uranium smoke is not teratogenic or not?
>Do you think it dissolves into uranyl ions in lung fluid or not?
>Do you think that uranyl is teratogenic or not?
>James Salsman, as Ben Fore
More information about the RadSafe