Fwd: [ RadSafe ] uranium smoke is a teratogen

[Steven Dapra]

May 23

SD's comments interspersed.

At 04:27 PM 5/23/08 -0700, Ben Fore wrote:
>Mike, Steve, Roy, and Dan, thank you for your messages.

[edit]

>In response to Steven Dapra, I wrote:
>
> >> Steven, you are confusing "major" congenital abnormalities (which require
> >> hospitalization) as reported in the Kuwaiti paper with "significant" 
> (defects
> >> which in most U.S. states must be reported to the parents) which number
> >> far more. The U.S. Navy's Birth and Infant Health Registry, and Dr. 
> Han Kang
> >> of the Veterans Administration divide birth defects in to two categories:
> >> "moderate to severe," which is the same as "significant to major," as the
> >> terms are used above, and "minor," which covers all other detectable
> >> birth defects.
> >
> > I am not confusing anything, thank you very much.  I am also not
> > going to get into some futile hair-splitting argument about "major" versus
> > "significant."
>
>If you don't want to use the terminology that the people studying the increase
>use, then the discussion will be less valuable.

SD's comments:

         What you are trying to do here, James, is instigate an argument 
about whether birth defects are "major" or "significant." Gone is any 
remembrance of your initial claim that DU exposure causes birth 
defects.  If this distinction is so important to you, why didn't you bring 
it into the discussion at the outset?>>>>

> >>> See also http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18008151 -- 
> immunodeficiencies
> >>> were not nearly as prevalent in Kuwait in 1990, and were are not talking
> >>> about anything transmissible (yet?)
> >>
> >> (Abstract posted at ncbi)
> >>
> >>   J. Clin. Immunol. 2008 Mar; 28(2):186-93.
> >> "Primary immunodeficiency disorders in kuwait: first report from kuwait
> >> national primary immunodeficiency registry (2004-2006)."
> >>   [by] Al-Herz, W.
> >>
> >> Allergy & Clinical Immunology Unit, Pediatrics Department, Al-Sabah
> >> Hospital, Kuwait city, Kuwait.
> >>
> >> ... Ninety-eight percent of the patients presented in childhood....
> >
> > That figure is about 80% than the average in OECD countries.
>
>Another mistake on my part; please substitute "of" for "than".

SD's comments:

         Substituting "of" for "than" doesn't change anything.  This is a 
dead line of non-reasoning.>>>>>

> >>>> The prevalence of these disorders in children was 11.98 in 100,000
> >>>> children with an incidence of 10.06 in 100,000 children....
> >>>>
> >>>> That's 20-45% more than in OECD countries.
> >>>
> >>> What is this supposed to prove?
> >>
> >> They used not to have anywhere near that many immunodeficiency,
> >> and they are getting so much in kids.
> >
> > What is this supposed to mean?  First you talk about DU, then
> > lead, now it's immunodeficiency.
>
>Both uranium and lead exposure cause increased levels of chromosome
>dicentricities and other aberrations.  However, lead doesn't burn or corrode
>like uranium, so there is less of it soluble and less of it proportionally
>entering drinking water supplies.

SD's comments:

         I was talking about meaning of the un-grammatical sentence ending 
"in kids.">>>>>

[edit]

> >> I would far rather be a nut than be accused of supporting terrorists!
> >
> > If you, James/Ben, are suggesting that I support terrorists, or that
> > anyone on RADSAFE supports terrorists, you are committing a gross
> > slander.
>
>I am not.  And it would be libel, not slander.  Perhaps you do not remember,
>but another member of Radsafe said I was.  I hope everyone understands how
>easy it is to feel touchy about these things.

SD's comments:

         You are correct, it would be libel.  The result is the same.

         I had said you were a nut for dragging out an article about 
Yugoslavia and insinuating that it proved something about Iraq.  I quoted 
from the article showing that it undercut your claims, and I also pointed 
out that the Yugoslavia article cited no refereed literature.>>>>>

> >...  The reason I have not "bothered" to read Domingo is that IT IS
> > NOT AVAILABLE TO ME.
>
>You are willing to put in hours arguing, but not interested in the subject
>enough to put down $31.50 at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0890-6238(01)00181-2
>or fill out an inter-library loan?

SD's comments:

         I am not going to spend $31.50 to read a seven page paper.  ILL is 
expensive too.  This goes back to March 2006 when I showed that you 
incorrectly used all the papers you quoted from that I did 
locate.  Consequently there is every reason to believe you used Domingo 
incorrectly as well.  I have more useful applications for $31.50 than 
exposing some more of your chicanery.>>>>

> > Doing this quantification would be difficult, extremely expensive,
> > and would probably serve no purpose.
>
>It would be less expensive than searching for new large hadrons.
>Which has the potential to be more beneficial to human health?
>The cost is in the $500,000 range.

SD's comments:

         It would be less expensive than food stamps and welfare payments 
too.  So what?>>>>>

[edit]

Steven Dapra