[ RadSafe ] uranium smoke is a teratogen

Steven Dapra sjd at swcp.com
Fri May 23 23:38:10 CDT 2008

May 23


         Thank you for a well-thought-out and thought-provoking message.  I 
have omitted the portion about the birth defects study published in the 
Maternal and Child Health Journal and have gone directly to the questions 
you asked of James Salsman and of me.

Steve, a reasonable question to both you and most certainly to James/Ben 
is, do you think that the author(s) of the article about birth defects in 
Basra accounted for and corrected for the incidence of birth defects caused 
by preterm births? If they didn't correct for this seemingly significant 
percentage of birth defects, is it possible that their already low numbers 
are in fact inflated? Is there any chance that living in a war torn region, 
such as Basra, with the constant stress of violence and poor nutrition (a 
side from the folic acid issue) could cause an increase in preterm births 
and therefore an increase in birth defects? If there was in fact an 
increase in birth defects isn't it more likely that the cause was from a 
more common human condition than from something exotic?

SD's comments:

         I re-read the paper published in the Medical Journal of Basra 
University (MJBU), and the authors say nothing about pre-term births.  Your 
(Roy's) suggestion that the cause of the defects in the study was "a more 
common human condition than from something exotic" is very likely 
correct.  It's far more likely than the depleted uranium smoke theory, or 
whatever else James wants to propose.>>>>>

James/Ben are you asserting that only your postulated teratogenic effects 
of uranium could possible account for any increase in birth defects in 
Basra? Can you admit to the possibility that there are somethings that one 
can't know? In other words, if "you" can't prove the actual number of birth 
defects caused in Basra from lack of folic acid, and "you" can't prove the 
actual number of birth defects caused in Basra by preterm births, then 
"you" can't prove the actual number of birth defects caused in Basra by any 
of the other myriad possibilities much less uranium! In short, even if your 
hunch about uranium were correct (which I am not saying that it is), you 
can't prove your hunch based on the numbers. Therefore, the "truth" about 
your hunch in unknowable.

SD's comments:

         In his reply to this, James gave an un-adorned "Yes" --- only DU 
could have caused the teratogenic effects.

         This is said despite the fact that the MJBU paper, recommended by 
James, says, "It has been estimated that 20% of birth defects are due to 
gene mutations, 5-10% to chromosomal abnormalities (structural and 
numerical) and about 5-10% due to exposure to a teratogenic agent of 
maternal factor [citation omitted]."  This covers at most only 40 percent 
of birth defects.  What causes the other 60 percent?  Even the authors 
don't suggest any cause(s).

         The paper "Profile of major congenital malformations in neonates 
in Al-Jahra region of Kuwait." in the Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal, 
also recommended by James, says, in its Introduction, "The etiology of 
birth defects often remains unknown."

         On top of that, the MJBU paper's discussion ends by saying, "The 
evidence so far presented [on] the effect of ionising radiation in this 
study on the incidence of congenital anomalies is circumstantial."

         So here we have two papers, recommended by James, that contradict 
or call into question his assertion that ONLY depleted uranium caused the 
observed teratogenic effects.  And, to repeat, the MJBU paper says the 
evidence for ionizing radiation is "circumstantial."  Even the authors of 
the reports won't decisively blame DU.  Nevertheless, James doesn't let 
that stand in his way.  Apparently he knows more and better than anyone, 
including the very sources he cites.>>>>

Steven Dapra

More information about the RadSafe mailing list