[ RadSafe ] uranium smoke is a teratogen

[Brennan, Mike (DOH)]

>I was referring to the lead levels for contrast.

Contrast for what?  I included your entire statement on the subject, so
I certainly wasn't quoting you out of context.  To me, reading what you
said, it seemed clear that you wanted that shipment to be dangerous
because of the DU, and when that turned out not to be the case (and yes,
I know there was an error of some sort in the original article), rather
than letting it go, you changed to a different reason for it to be
"dangerous".  If that was not your intention, you communicated your
intention poorly.  I do not believe the error was in my understanding,
and I would submit that if we polled the subscribers of this board they
would overwhelmingly agree with my interpretation of what you wrote (and
only in part because most of them have lost patience with you for just
this kind of thing).

>"There turned out to be more birth defects from anthrax vaccine than I
had been believing..."

So, the error that comes to your mind is that you thought the American
Military was Evil for one unsubstantiated reason, but you decided it was
Evil for a different unsubstantiated reason?  

I think we can safely put the discussion of credibility to bed.  

-----Original Message-----
From: jsalsman at gmail.com [mailto:jsalsman at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Ben
Fore
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 9:06 AM
To: Brennan, Mike (DOH); Steven Dapra; radsafelist
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] uranium smoke is a teratogen

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