[ RadSafe ] uranium smoke is a teratogen

Steven Dapra sjd at swcp.com
Wed May 28 21:44:35 CDT 2008

Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 22:21:36 -0700
From: "James Salsman" <BenjB4 at gmail.com>

         Steven Dapra's comments interspersed as [SD:].

Thank you for your continued critique and fact-checking. This message
is entirely replies to you.

Steven Dapra wrote:
 > the MJBU paper, recommended by
 > James, says, "It has been estimated that 20% of birth defects are due to
 > gene mutations, 5-10% to chromosomal abnormalities (structural and
 > numerical) and about 5-10% due to exposure to a teratogenic agent of
 > maternal factor [citation omitted]."....

Those are the background proportions for the population at large, not after
exposure to above-average levels of teratogens.


         The fundamental rule of toxicology is "the dose makes the 
poison."  Even exposure that's above average proves nothing.  What's the 
average, and how far above average was the exposure?  People get killed 
falling off ladders.  I've been up and down an above average number of 
ladders, and I've never so much as been injured.  (Plus the fact that some 
people fall off ladders and don't get killed or even injured.)  Besides, no 
has proven that depleted uranium is a teratogen, and even the papers whose 
quotes you have mangled all call for more studies, and say their studies 
don't prove anything conclusive.  Even the paper(s) from the Medical 
Journal of Basra University were full of qualifiers.

What about birth defects in (for example) Scotland?  Are they also caused 
by depleted uranium?>>>>>

 > What causes the other 60 percent? Even the authors don't suggest
 > any cause(s).

Other sources list the causes in more detail; I'm sure you can find some if
you look. We have discussed folic acid deficiency and fetal alcohol
syndrome, but there are a handful of other causes, too.


         Using unspecified sources.  Now you're doing the same thing you 
accused me a few weeks ago.  (You said I was invoking "unspecified" 
qualifiers in some papers about DU.)  With respect to fetal alcohol 
syndrome, yeah, there's a *lot* of drinking goes on Kuwait and Iraq.  I'm 
sure the birth defects there stem from ingesting mass quantities of 
Windsor, Jack Daniels, and Beefeater.  (James you're a nut.)>>>>>

 > I believe that poor nutrition (lack of folic acid) results in *incomplete*
 > closure of the neural tube, not closure of the tube.

You are right about that; by "closure of the neural tube and
related birth defects," I was trying to say closure-related defects.


         Hmmmmmm.  Look at this.  James admits he was wrong.  It's only a 
blunder, not an error of fact, but it's still an admission.>>>>>

 > In invoking a "broad spectrum" of birth defects you are dragging in
 > a red herring.

You are wrong about that. Folate deficiency has a unique effect, and
germ cell exposure to teratogenic agents with genotoxicity as their
primary method of action (such as uranyl) has a completely different
pattern of malformations, leading, for example, to aortic valve stenosis
orders of magnitude more than malnutrition does.


         Another unsubstantiated claim ("completely different pattern"); 
and what are the orders of magnitude, and where was this published?>>>>>

 > What you are trying to do here, James, is instigate an argument
 > about whether birth defects are "major" or "significant."

Do you deny the distinction?


         Is there an distinction?  The paper from the Eastern Mediterranean 
Health Journal (recommended by you, James) refers to significant defects 
once, and major ones many times.  It defines the latter, and not the 
former.  If there is a distinction between major and significant let's have 
it.  I'll look it over and let you know what I think.  Let's have full 
citations too.>>>>>

 > I am not going to spend $31.50 to read a seven page paper. ILL
 > is expensive too.

Fine, the abstract speaks for itself. Do you believe that if I scan in
the paper and let you read it you will be able to find something which
will allow you to believe that uranyl isn't teratogenic? Fat chance.
Also, the Hinden et al. paper recapitulates some of Domingo's most
important findings, and that's free on the web.


         The abstract also does nothing to support your contentions.  Yes, 
I do believe that if you scan the paper in, I can etc., etc.  I have 
already destroyed everything from a paper that you've ever posted 
here.  Domingo will be a piece of cake.  Here's something from Hindin et 
al. about Domingo:  "From their maternal animal exposure studies the 
members of Domingo's group concluded that it was chemical toxicity, not 
radiation that resulted in teratogenicity."  NOT radiation, James.

         To recapitulate something means to summarize it.  Hindin et al. 
only talks about *one* of Domingo's findings, and  Domingo's name appears a 
mere three times in the text of Hindin et al.  That's some kind of 

 > "Influence of Maternal Stress on Uranium-Induced Developmental
 > Toxicity in Rats." ... "No teratogenic effects were noted in any group."

I note that you saved the year of that earlier Domingo paper, 1991,
until the end of your message discussing it. Is that because you
don't want people to know that you are discussing a paper ten years
older than the same author's peer-reviewed literature review, which,
as you can see by its abstract, has none of the 1991 paper's uncertainty?


         James, this shows conclusively that you are out of your mind.  The 
order in which I presented that stuff had nothing to do with anything.  I 
didn't even pay any attention to the dates, except to note that your 
precious Domingo abstract (the $31.50 paper one) was two years older than 
the Domingo paper I discussed in that message.

         No one can tell anything about "uncertainty" by reading that 
abstract.  James, you're a nut.  You're also grasping at straws, and some 
singularly weak ones at that.

Steven Dapra

More information about the RadSafe mailing list