[ RadSafe ] uranium smoke is a teratogen

[Steven Dapra]

May 22

         Again, my "SD comments" will be interspersed.

Steven Dapra


At 09:05 AM 5/22/08 -0700, Ben Fore wrote:
>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

SD comments:

         DU levels are so low the substance can't be natural 
sand.  James/Ben, you are getting desparate.>>>>>

> > 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.

SD comments:

         As Mike has already asked, 'contrast with what?'  Your argument, 
James/Ben, isn't "unreasoned," it is nonsensical.  What are some of these 
alleged "numerous unanswered questions" that go back for a decade?>>>>>

(edit some material that is not germane)

[Salsman/Fore now replies to me (Steven Dapra)]

> > 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?

SD comments:

         A mere one paper doesn't prove anything.  The dose makes the 
poison, so we first must know what that dose is, and if it differs by age 
and general health of the exposed person (and it will differ).  Then we 
must know the exposure levels of the (allegedly and actually) exposed 
persons.  Because of all the intervening and as yet unknown knowledge 
between them, your "dots" are so far apart that no reasonable person would 
connect them.>>>>>

>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?

SD comments:

         I would be glad to know all of this.  I doubt that such knowledge 
will do anything to support your claims.>>>>>

>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?

SD comments:

         James/Ben, you are sooooo . . . ..  I can't think of a word to 
describe you.  We covered the Domingo paper on March 5, 2006.  You invoked 
it as proving something, and I replied saying, "No comments. Reproductive 
Toxicology is not at the local university library and I could not find it 
on line."  The reason I have not "bothered" to read Domingo is that IT IS 
NOT AVAILABLE TO ME.

         Permit me to remind you that you dragged out nine papers in that 
March 2006 encounter, and I showed that in a variety of ways you used seven 
of them incorrectly.  The eighth paper you used correctly, however it was a 
study of a mere 16 soldiers, and no conclusions can be drawn from a study 
this small.  The study even recommended additional studies.  You would know 
this, James/Ben, if you had "bothered" to read the study.  It is patently 
obvious that you have not bothered to read much of the literature you 
cite.  (Merely reading the abstract does not count.)

-----  END  -----