[ RadSafe ] Fwd: Which do people think is the 2nd place explanation for Gulf War illness?

[Steven Dapra]

May 27

         As Mike Brennan pointed out today, "The most viable explanation is 
an increase in reporting."  He's probably correct.  There is no one reason 
for the increase in "health abnormalities."  Why are you all of a sudden 
stuck on getting the "most viable" explanation, and what good would it do 
if you got it?

         Rainer Facius already took care of the Schröder paper so I need 
not address that.  (Thank you, Rainer.)

Steven Dapra


At 07:41 AM 5/27/08 -0700, James Salsman wrote:
>What is the most viable explanation of the increase of health 
>abnormalities seen among troops and in Basra and Kuwait after the 
>February, 1991 Gulf War? Is it depleted uranium? Is it anthrax vaccine 
>(which was given to both combat and non-combat troops) or is it 
>malnutrition, which was put forth by Dan McCarn as an alternative 
>hypothesis? If anyone seriously believes the later, I invite them to read 
>what the CDC has to say about malnutrition and birth defects. Folic acid 
>and fetal alcohol syndrome is about it.  General malnutrition follows the 
>same pattern as folate deficiency. Then please read Schröder H, et al. 
>(2003). "Chromosome Aberration Analysis in Peripheral Lymphocytes of Gulf 
>War and Balkans War Veterans" Radiation Protection Dosimetry 103:211-219, 
>http://www.cerrie.org/committee_papers/INFO_9-H.pdf . Then please look at 
>this:  http://vawatchdog.org/07/nf07/nfAUG07/nf082207-1.htm Please note 
>that independent labs has confirmed that the uranyl exposure victims have 
>genetic damage consistent with genotocixity. I wonder which fraction of 
>radsafers know that uranium salts were, just a handful of decades ago, 
>used to stain DNA.  With an affinity to DNA and clear evidence of 
>genotoxicity in cell nuclei, the second and third place alternative 
>hypotheses are far behind. If anyone believes that they have any chance, 
>please say why. James Salsma__