No subject

Wed May 18 15:38:07 CDT 2011

I think "show" might be an overstatement.  "Suggests", or "implies"
might be better.  There are a lot of ways of drawing lines through the
points on the graphs, and coloration does not prove causality. =20

Given the small changes in the ratios (1.055 to 1.047 male/female range
in the US, for example), there are a lot of confounding factors I would
want to see dealt with.  For example, it wouldn't take many abortions
for sex selection to mess up the numbers (NOTE: I am not saying that is
what happened, just using it as an example). =20

This strikes me as a particularly easy thing to test with animal models,
though I know that is more expensive than searching databases.  But I
think I would want to see some animal testing and perhaps a model as to
the mechanics of how it happens before I got too excited.=20

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at] On Behalf Of Doug Huffman
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 1:48 PM
To: radsafe at
Subject: [ RadSafe ] The human sex odds at birth after the atmospheric
atomic bomb tests, after Chernobyl, and in the vicinity of nuclear
facilities  free
I think

Popularized review
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

More information about the RadSafe mailing list