[ RadSafe ] Explanation for Gulf War illness? (UNCLASSIFIED)
Borisky, Michael (Civ, ARL/ADLO)
mborisky at arl.army.mil
Fri May 30 10:27:58 CDT 2008
Look at the following link. It suggests that there may be some
relationship between chronic stress and DNA damage. I'm not saying that
this is an established fact, or that this is a credible claim or
assertion. I don't have the expertise or experience or perspective to
judge this study. I'm just surprised you are so quick to dismiss this
possibility while at the same time arguing endlessly uphill about your
DU claims. Doesn't seem consistent to me.
From: Borisky, Michael (Civ, ARL/ADLO)
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 10:44 AM
To: 'James Salsman'; radsafelist; Rainer.Facius at dlr.de; Steven Dapra
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Explanation for Gulf War illness?
I'm surprised to hear you make such a strong statement as "they do not
cause chromosome damage in germ cells". I'm not saying that they do
because I don't know. But can you back up such a strong statement with
evidence? I do know that stress and fear and anxiety cause the release
of neurotransmitters that have many effects on the body.
From: jsalsman at gmail.com [mailto:jsalsman at gmail.com] On Behalf Of James
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 1:39 PM
To: radsafelist; Rainer.Facius at dlr.de; Borisky, Michael (Civ, ARL/ADLO);
Subject: Fwd: [ RadSafe ] Explanation for Gulf War illness?
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
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
>> 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:
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.
> 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
> 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:
>> 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
> 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....' --
>> 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
> 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
Domingo's 2001 review is not "two years older than" his "Influence of
Chronic Exposure to Uranium on Male Reproduction in Mice," (1991).
More information about the RadSafe