[ RadSafe ] uranium smoke is a teratogen

Steven Dapra sjd at swcp.com
Thu May 22 20:49:49 CDT 2008

May 22

         I don't think I posted this to RADSAFE so here it is.  My 
apologies if it is a duplicate posting.

Steven Dapra

May 20

         I would like to contribute some comments on this message.  They 
will be interspersed, and prefaced with SD.

(From James Salsman/Ben Fore, replying to Dan McCarn.)


If you want to rule uranium out, isn't in your interest to call on your 
colleagues, associates, and the scientific community at large to
quantify the precise amount of reproductive damage uranyl exposure does to 
many different kinds of mammals at many different dosages?

If not, why not?

SD's comments:

         Doing this quantification would be difficult, extremely expensive, 
and would probably serve no purpose.  In addition, the results would 
probably be inconclusive.

Please review the data in this paper from the Medical Journal of Basra 

SD's comments:

         This paper shows an increase in birth defects from 1990 to 
1998.  The Abstract ends by saying, "The above findings indicate clearly 
that there must be an exposure to a teratogenic factor prior to 1995 most 
probably radiation emitted from weapons used in the aggression against 
Iraq."  All the authors did was count birth defects, and even though the 
data are probably correct, they present no evidence to substantiate their 
assertion about the cause of the defects being exposure to radiation.

         In each year the number of birth defects is less than one percent 
of the number of births.  Birth defects can be expected in three percent of 
births, so the defect rate in this study is well below the number of 
defects that would be expected to occur.  The highest percent of defects 
occurred in 1998, when there were 10186 births, and 79 defects.  This is 
0.8 percent (rounded to the nearest tenth).  In its Methodology section, 
the authors even acknowledge that there was a "relatively small number of 
cases".  The study was conducted in only one city (Basra).

         In the Discussion, the authors write, "The fact that radioactivity 
of samples obtained from plants, soil and water in Basrah exceeded the 
natural background level, makes the hypothesis that the increased incidence 
of congenital anomalies due to such radiation more tenable."  This is so 
silly it defies description.  The authors conveniently omit any radiation 
levels.  And --- of course --- they drag in Chernobyl.>>>>>

Do you maintain that foliate deficiency and the use of phosphate fertilizer 
or both could result in such a sharp increase in less than
a decade? The vast majority listed were not related to neural tube closure 
defects, which foliate deficiency causes.

Wouldn't it be in everyone's interest to know exactly what uranyl exposure 
does, and in what amounts at different doses?>>>>>

SD's comments:

         Since the study is worthless, there is no need to comment on 

-----  END  -----

[edit earlier messages]

More information about the RadSafe mailing list