[ RadSafe ] uranium smoke is a teratogen

[Ben Fore]

Mike,

Thanks for your message:

> ... when faced with strong evidence that DU concentrations
> in this shipment was very, very low; too low to be a health
> risk in any credible exposure scenario, you could have
> responded, "You are right; there really isn't a problem....

But as Dan pointed out, the levels were so low as to not be
natural sand if true:
  http://lists.radlab.nl/pipermail/radsafe/2008-May/009993.html

> Instead, you said (to paraphrase), "OH YEAH!?!
> Well, what about the lead?  SO THERE!"

I was referring to the lead levels for contrast.  But I think you
knew that.  It's a lot easier to insinuate that someone is
shouting an unreasoned argument than to join those of us
who are trying to quantify the answers to what the U.S.
Armed Forces Radiobiology Institute has been calling
"numerous unanswered questions" for at least a decade.

> When was the last time you were wrong about some
> aspect of DU; in particular, when you originally thought
> that something supported the position that DU is a
> serious health problem, but it turned out that it didn't?

There turned out to be more birth defects from anthrax vaccine
than I had been believing (I want to say "lead to believe" but
it has been years since there has been any substantial news
on anthrax vaccines because of the lawsuit ... and I know
how you feel about L-E-A-D....)

Steven Dapra wrote:

> James, you can't even keep track of what you're fulminating about.

I'm sure the people who agree with you that uranium smoke is
not a proven teratogen agree with you on that point, too.  But
then again, if there is one paper that says uranium smoke
contains uranyl, and another that says uranyl is a teratogen,
why are you unable to connect the dots?

Is it because you prefer that people not know the quantities
involved?  How much of a teratogen, and how much exposure
there has been over time?

Why have you not bothered to read the Domingo papers?
You are willing to spend hours arguing with me, but not willing
to read the central papers in the field?  Does that indicate
the depth of your commitment to science?

James Salsman, writing as Ben Fore