[ RadSafe ] The DU Myth and the European Parliament

Steven Dapra sjd at swcp.com
Tue May 27 21:14:36 CDT 2008

May 27

         Steven Dapra's comments interspersed.

At 07:04 AM 5/27/08 -0700, James Salsman wrote:
>Thank you for your assertion:
> >... members of Parliament have bought completely into the myth....
>On the contrary, there are far more dangerous myths about depleted
>uranium issuing from your keyboard than from the European Parlament.

SD's comment:

         James you wouldn't recognize a myth if it jumped out of a tree and 
landed on you.  You are the one peddling myths, and it's a pity you don't 
know it.>>>>>

>MYTH:  Uranium smoke inhalation does not lead to increases in birth defects.
>FACT:  This is proven among all on this list but those who have shown
>that they have incorrect understanding of uranyl genotoxicity and are
>not willing to spend $31.50 to update their understanding from the
>most recent reviews in the peer-reviewed literature.

SD's comments:

         What makes you think you have the *correct* understanding of 
uranyl genotoxicity?  Do you have any academic or scholarly credentials 
other than your ability to read (only) abstracts, and then mis-construe 
them?  Or your ability to quote out of context and fabricate sentences as 
you did on RADSAFE in March, 2006?  You have twisted or distorted or 
incorrectly used everything you've ever quoted here.  Why should I spend 
$31.50 to read a seven page paper that you have undoubtedly twisted to suit 
your purposes?  Plus, over the weekend I posted a message here about 
Domingo's abstract that you hold in such high regard.  I also discussed the 
abstract and the full text of two papers co-authored by Domingo.  Have you 
read them, or my message?  Furthermore, the paper co-authored by Domingo is 
*two years* more recent than that one you persist in waving around as 
though it were the last word in the epidemiology of DU smoke.  Now who's 
not reading the most recent reviews in the peer-reviewed literature?>>>>>

>MYTH:  There was no increase in the incidence of birth defects among
>those potentially exposed to uranium smoke and effluents from the
>300,000+ Kg of uranium which has been used in Iraq and Bosnia.
>FACT:  There were huge increases in birth defects among combat troops
>of the February, 1991 Gulf War, including U.S. troops (220% increase
>in females, according to Dr. Han Kang of the Veterans Administration),
>U.K. troops, the people of Basra, which drew its drinking water from
>streams contaminated by smoke condensate rain water runoff effluents,
>and Kuwaitis, who are all also seeing an increase in immunological

SD's comments:

         Can't you think of an authority other than Han Kang?  In April 
2007 we fought out your 220% increase here and you never did explain the 
source of this claim.  In fact, on Feb. 9, 2007, you (James) wrote: " . . . 
I also apologize to Steve Dapra for claiming that a risk ratio of 1.8 or 
2.2 is the same as a 180% or 220% increase; I should have said an 80% and 
120% increase."  Hence, by your own admission the 220% increase is 
false.  Your additional claims (about residents of Basra, and about 
Kuwaitis) are unsubstantiated allegations.>>>>>

>MYTH:  There are no viable alternatives to depleted uranium in munitions.
>FACT:  The U.S. Navy switched to tungsten in the late '90s.  Tungsten
>is not pyrophoric, and not teratogenic -- acting off the battlefield
>-- like depleted uranium, but some alloy formulations are

SD's comments:

         This was answered today by Dan Palmer.  (Thank you, Dan.)>>>>>

>Which would you rather be hurt in a war, the troops or their kids?
>Your defense of D.U. munitions is nothing but a cowardly impulse. What
>conduct is more unbecoming save an attack on your own men?

SD's comments:

         No one's children were hurt by DU smoke.  Your frenetic claims 
about DU smoke's "dangers" are a fraud and a hoax.

>I repeat my challenge to you, to a debate, in public, among impartial
>citizens, with audiovisual recording.
>James Salsman

SD's comments:

         What will this accomplish?  Regardless of the debate's 
circumstances, or its being recorded, if experience on RADSAFE is any 
guide, you will still be wrong about everything you say.>>>>>

Steven Dapra

More information about the RadSafe mailing list