[ RadSafe ] Fwd: Which do people think is the 2nd place explanation for G...

StevenFrey at aol.com StevenFrey at aol.com
Wed May 28 00:08:48 CDT 2008

Well, it's clear that sophistry can always invent new ways to attempt to  
validate itself. Thank you, Mr. Salsman, for showing us a  haughty example (your 
What a great forum this is, that it allows sensationalist ideologues  who 
expound epidemiology of all things as proof of their outlier  exhortations. 
Please come by anytime, Mr .Salisman. You do us a  service by helping remind us 
that our adherence to objective science and  the scientific principle may be dull 
(good science usually is) but it passes the  test and beats histrionics any 
In a message dated 5/27/2008 9:47:08 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
BenjB4 at gmail.com writes:

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:

>  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 

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.


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....


>...  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)

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

You are  currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a  message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the 
RadSafe rules.  These can be found at: 

For  information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: 

**************Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch "Cooking with 
Tyler Florence" on AOL Food.      

More information about the RadSafe mailing list