[ RadSafe ] uranium birth defect causation details

[James Salsman]

Don Kosloff wrote:

> The authors and I all know the difference between cause and correlation.
> Perhaps you should develop an understanding of that difference.  "No
> evidence of a link" still means no evidence of a link.

The correlation published was a risk ratio of 1.5.  "Link" in this
context means "causal link."  In 2002 the UK authors did not have an
explaination for the cause.  That does not change the fact that they
found a 50% increase in risk.  I know this because I have been
corresponding directly with the authors of both studies over the past
several months.

In fact, I have a thank you note from Dr. Araneta dated 8 December
2004 for finding and correcting a numerical error in her and her
co-authors' abstract on MEDLINE.

And, as much as you might wish it were not the case, the Araneta
et al. U.S. study does directly corroborate the Doyle et al. U.K.
study.  Wait until you see what has happened to the birth defect
rate since the turn of the century.

>... I am suggesting that those who oppose the use of DU munitions do
> so primarily because they want to see more dead American soldiers. 
> I have seen no evidence to the contrary.

I have stated my sole motivation is to reduce the risk of birth
defects in my family.  You reject that and accuse me of wanting to
kill American troops?  We must agree to disagree.

Love the sinner, hate the sin.

Sincerely,
James Salsman