Fwd: [ RadSafe ] Explanation for Gulf War illness?

[James Salsman]

Thanks again to everyone, but if my correspondents' messages are what
pass for refutation these days, we're in trouble.

Mike Borisky wrote:

> Does anyone want to speculate on what role stress and fear
> and anxiety plays...?

Stress, fear, and anxiety have serious affects, as U.S. CIA
interrogators know and have been pleased to use even at the
expense of accuracy, but they do not cause chromosome
damage in germ cells, like soluble uranium(VI) exposure does.

I wrote, in reply to Dr. Rainer Facius, with regard to
 http://www.cerrie.org/committee_papers/INFO_9-H.pdf :

>> I can see why you would prefer that I had not replied to your
>> attempt to discredit one of the independent replications.
>
> This retort is utterly irrelevant regarding the statement I made.
> In order to refute it you ought to
>
> (i) present data not published by Heimers and associates
> which use similarly low or lower reference levels of
> chromosome aberrations
>
> or ( and this includes and)
>
> (ii) present ('positive') findings published by Heimers and
> associates which do not rely on the low background incidence
> in THE "Bremen laboratory control".

I have done far better than that, I have provided independent
confirmation from another laboratory, at Wayne State, with the results
you can see for yourself here:
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwFQJj8Zbdg

Is there any reason that independent confirmation is not superior than
what you have requested?

> By the way, a rule of thumb value for the background incidence
> of aberrations in normal, 'middle aged', unstressed(!) adults -
> i.e. in a  proper reference population - is 10 to 20 dicentric
> karyotypes among 10^4 screened cells (lymphocytes). The
> "Bremen laboratory control" value, 5 +/-1, is lower by at least a
> factor of 2.

So what?  Take the last row, "Control," in Table 2 on Page 215, and
multiply the fourth column, "Mean," by 2.0, and it is still less than
half the Mean just above it.  Thank you for providing the number which
proves that your objection makes no difference to the outcome.

Steven Dapra wrote:

>...  Besides, no has proven that depleted uranium is a teratogen

Steven, you are wrong.  Until you pay $31.50 to the publishers of
Reproductive Toxicology for Jose Domingo's 2001 review, I will no
longer discuss this with you.  But you don't need to ask me why you
should, because you don't even need to spend the $31.50.  See the
sentence in the abstract that says, "Decreased fertility, embryo/fetal
toxicity including teratogenicity, and reduced growth of the offspring
have been observed following uranium exposure at different gestation
periods."?  That is the part that proves you are wrong.
 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2FS0890-6238%2801%2900181-2

>  The abstract also does nothing to support your contentions.

False.  Read it again.

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

In the paper and the video above.

>  Using unspecified sources....

Steven, it is not my responsibility to do your homework.  If you want
to know more about the sources of birth defects, I'm not going to hold
your hand and walk you through it.  Use Google.  I did.  If you find
something which contradicts what I am saying, please bring it to my
attention.

> 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.

I already sent it to you, it was a web site from the Virginia State
Department of Public Health:

>> Here is a web page from Virginia that explains the nomenclature:
>>
>> http://vdhems.vdh.virginia.gov/pls/vacares/vacares.navigate?v_id=34
>>
>> Virginia total defects:  90/1820 = 4.9%
>> Virginia significant defects:  37/1820 = 2.0%
>> Virginia major defects:  17/1820 = 0.9%
>> Kuwait major defects:  97/7739 = 1.25%
>>
>> Still, that 39% increase is a lot smaller than the 120% for male soldiers
>> and 200% increase for females seen in U.S. Gulf War combat vets
>> compared to soldiers serving at the same time that did not see combat
>> (see page 10 of http://www1.va.gov/gulfwar/docs/GulfWarNov03.pdf ).

> Yes, I do believe that if you scan the paper in, I can etc., etc.

No.  Buy it yourself or go to a library that has it.

> I have already destroyed everything from a paper that you've
> ever posted here.  Domingo will be a piece of cake.

HA!  You have refuted only two points -- 120% vs. 220% and closure vs.
failure to close.  That is it.  None of your other attempts at
refutation have been sucessful in the least.  If I have overlooked
anything, I am sure you will want to bring it to my attention.

> 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.

LOL.  See?  You admit the teratogenicity.

Three years ago I posted on Radsafe about the chemical toxicity, from
the work of Alexandria C. Miller (2002).  Just five days ago I posted
this, "Radiation has practically nothing to do with it.  The chemical
toxicity of uranium is a million times more hazardous than its
radiation, per:  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12121782
'...chemical generation of hydroxyl radicals was calculated to exceed
the radiolytic generation by one million-fold....' --
http://lists.radlab.nl/pipermail/radsafe/2008-May/010029.html

>> 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.

Steven, it shows conclusively that you are a liar.  Read your own message:
 http://lists.radlab.nl/pipermail/radsafe/2008-May/010048.html

Domingo's 2001 review is not "two years older than" his "Influence of
Chronic Exposure to Uranium on Male Reproduction in Mice," (1991).

James Salsman