Fwd: [ RadSafe ] Explanation for Gulf War illness?

Steven Dapra sjd at swcp.com
Thu May 29 23:44:33 CDT 2008

At 10:38 AM 5/29/08 -0700, James Salsman wrote:
>Thanks again to everyone, but if my correspondents' messages are what
>pass for refutation these days, we're in trouble.


>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.


         Okay, this paper says U is teratogenic.  So what?  That U has been 
shown in some cases to be a teratogen in laboratory animals does not 
automatically make it into a human teratogen, (nor does that make it into a 
teratogen in any other genus or species of creature).>>>>>

> > 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


         A week or two you derided me for making unsubstantiated claims.  I 
am merely pointing out that you are doing the same thing.  Instead of 
whining about me then, you could just as easily read the material that I 
said made the unsubstantiated claims.  I'm not going to hold your hand 
either.  Furthermore, it would have been much easier to read the already 
cited material that we had been discussing that it would be for me to do a 
needle-in-a-haystack search for the causes of birth defects.  The papers 
*you* recommended said the etiology of birth defects was poorly understood 
(or it used words to that effect).  Hence your claim that DU and NOTHING 
ELSE caused birth defects in humans is unsupportable and probably 
false.  You made the claims so you support them.  I'm not going to prove 
what you claim to be true.>>>>>

> > 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 ).


         I meant a distinction by definition.  You are trying to define a 
word by counting up defects.  The link you gave says that in Virginia, 
every week 90 children are born with birth defects, and that 37 have "a 
significant birth defect."  The word significant is not defined.  There are 
four links within this link.  I looked at two of them and they merely give 
lists of birth defects by type.  They included no definition of the word 
"significant."  The two other links describe themselves as giving birth 
defect statistics stratified in various methods, and undoubtedly do not 
define the word "significant."  This Virginia website does not so much as 
mention the word "major."  To reiterate, I am looking for a definition,and 
counting up birth defects does not constitute defining the words 
"significant" and "major.">>>>>

> > 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.


         NO.  It will be a waste of time and money.>>>>>

> > 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.


         HA! yourself.  I proved you wrong seven times out of nine in 
March, 2006.  The same goes for all the junk about Han Kang that you posted 
at that same general time.>>>>>

> > 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.


         Chemical teratogenicity, NOT radiological teratogenicity.  You 
said DU was a radiological teratogen.>>>>>

>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....' --
> >> 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


         The Domingo *paper* I discussed in that message was published in 
2003.  Your precious Domingo *abstract* was published in 2001.  If you 
don't believe me, look at the top of this message, where you wrote, "Until 
you pay $31.50 to the publishers of Reproductive Toxicology for Jose 
Domingo's 2001 review, . . . ."  The last time I checked, 2001 was before 
2003.  I am not a liar.  You, James (or whatever your name is) are 
incompetent, and in a multitude of ways.

Steven Dapra

More information about the RadSafe mailing list