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

[James Salsman]

Once again, Radsafers have shown no viable alternative hypothesis for
Gulf War illness.

Dr. Rainer Facius wrote:

> Heimers has a world wide 'reputation' among chromosome aberration experts.

The Schröder H, et al. (2003) paper was confirmed by an independent
laboratory using a background population control:
http://vawatchdog.org/07/nf07/nfAUG07/nf082207-1.htm

> please do NOT bother to reply

I can see why you would prefer that I had not replied to your attempt
to discredit one of the independent replications.

Mike Brennan wrote:

> The most viable explanation is an increase in reporting....  Prove me wrong.

Nice try, but Dr. Han Kang of the Veterans Administration reviewed the
medical records of more than 700 children born to U.S. combat troops,
and compared them to their non-combat cohort.  There was an increase
of 20% over what had been voluntarily reported.  However, the overall
increase was 120% more (not a "220% increase," as I have mistakenly
said; sorry; it's 220% of the non-combat cohort.) See page 10 of
http://www1.va.gov/gulfwar/docs/GulfWarNov03.pdf -- Q.E.D.

Next?

Fred Dawson wrote:

> I would be grateful for a reference to the peer report or reports
> that conclusively proves an increased incidence of birth defects
> in UK troops in Iraq....

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/33/1/74

>... and also proves that this was caused by DU.

Nothing yet, but you can see how well the alternative hypotheses are
doing. It's a matter of time.

Bjorn Cedervall wrote:

> Can anyone provide the key scientific references (peer reviewed) that
> provide evidence for DU being a teratogen?

1. Arfsten, D.P., et al. (2001) "A review of the effects of uranium
and depleted uranium exposure on reproduction and fetal development,"
Toxicology and Industrial Health, vol. 17, pp. 180-91. Summary
contains: "A number of studies have shown that natural uranium is a
reproductive toxicant...." (U.S. Navy Toxicology Detachment)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12539863

2. Domingo, J.L. (2001) "Reproductive and developmental toxicity of
natural and depleted uranium: a review," Reproductive Toxicology, vol.
15, pp. 603-9. Abstract: "Decreased fertility, embryo/fetal toxicity
including teratogenicity, and reduced growth of the offspring have
been observed following uranium exposure at different gestation
periods." http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0890-6238(01)00181-2

3. Hindin, R., et al. (2005) "Teratogenicity of depleted uranium
aerosols: A review from an epidemiological perspective," Environmental
Health, vol. 4, pp. 17. Conclusion: "the human epidemiological
evidence is consistent with increased risk of birth defects in
offspring of persons exposed to DU."
http://www.ehjournal.net/content/4/1/17 (full text)

Roy Herren wrote:

>... I humble suggest that since James Salsman allegedly has access to
> the full paper, and since he is so anxious for you to read this important
> paper that he should share his copy of the full paper with you and the rest
> of the Radsafe mailing list.

My copy is paper photocopied from Stanford's Lane Medical Library,
which I could scan in, but the alternative would be to make someone
who doesn't believe that uranyl is teratogenic pay $31.50 to the
publishers of Reproductive Toxicology.  Plus I would be violating
copyright law at Roy's request, potentially putting Roy and I at risk
of staunch fines if found liable for infringement.

But the abstract speaks for itself; see (2) above.

Steven Dapra wrote:

>  No one's children were hurt by DU smoke.

Your word against Hindin, et. al.  You prove your error by such
absolutist statements.

Dan Palmer, from "duf6.com" writes:

> The [U.S. Navy] change [from DU to tungsten] was not due to any
> radiation or chemical toxicity....

Absolutely false. I have spoken with John C. Taschner, who wrote the
report which convinced the Navy to switch.  He contradicts Dan's
statement. Currently residing in Albuquerque, New Mexico, anyone can
phone him and ask him for themselves.

> Conversely where DU is used for it's ability to penetrate armor, when
> all factors are considered, there is no better option than DU.

Just curious, but do you at "duf6.com" have any financial interest in
the matter?

Michael Borisky, Rad Safety Officer, Army Research Lab., wrote:

> I don't pretend to be a psychologist.... [but James] may actually realize
> that in the scheme of things it is insignificant....

No; was Agent Orange contamination insignificant?  Would you like to tell
that to the taxpayers who are paying for it?  Would you like to tell that to
the victims of congenital malformation?

James Salsman