[ RadSafe ] Re: uranium birth defect causation details OR NOT

[Paul Lavely]

I have seen these studies being used by Mr. Salsman as fact. They are 
not. I read the studies and found that not one of the studies show 
that radiation or DU exposure was a cause and effect relationship.

In fact one study stated that they could not exclude chemical 
exposure. The real issue here is an individual using their 
interpretation of both scientific studies in animals and 
epidemiological studies and draws conclusion that support their 
position. I can just as easily use the ije study to say that "we were 
NOT able to establish a causal  relationship between DU exposure and 
birth defects." or "The effects of exposure to chemicals can not be 
ruled out as a cause of . . . .


>
>That is the fifth time someone here has asked for this:
>
>"Overall, the risk of any malformation among pregnancies reported
>by men was 50% higher in Gulf War Veterans (GWV) compared with
>Non-GWVs" -- http://ije.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/full/33/1/74
>(that data from prior to November 1997)


>KEY MESSAGES
>
Offspring of male UK veterans of the first Gulf war were not found to 
have increased risks of stillbirth, chromosomal malformations, or 
syndromes.
Fathers' service in the first Gulf war was associated with an 
increased risk of miscarriage and some groups of malformations.
These results need to be interpreted with caution and we cannot at 
this stage conclude that the associations are causal.

That is, they did NOT state with certainty that there was a cause 
effect or that it was related to radiation.

>
>"Infants conceived postwar to male GWVs had significantly higher
>prevalence of tricuspid valve insufficicieny (relative risk [RR],
>2.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-6.6; p = 0.039) and aortic
>valve stenosis (RR, 6.0; 95% CI, 1.2-31.0; p = 0.026) compared to
>infants conceived postwar to nondeployed veteran males. Among infants
>of male GWVs, aortic valve stenosis (RR, 163; 95% CI, 0.09-294; p
>= 0.011) and renal agenesis or hypoplasia (RR, 16.3; 95% CI, 0.09-294;
>p = 0.011) were significantly higher among infants conceived postwar
>than prewar."
>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12854660&dopt=Abstract


We observed a higher prevalence of . . .. We did not have the ability 
to determine if the excess was caused by inherited or environmental 
factors, or was due to chance because of myriad reasons, including 
multiple comparisons. Although the statistical power was sufficient 
to compare the combined birth defects prevalence, larger sample sizes 
were needed for less frequent individual component defects.

That is, they did NOT state with certainty that there was a cause 
effect or that it was realted to radiation.

>... increasing with time
>
>This is a graph of the birth defect incidence rate in Basrah:
>   http://www.bovik.org/du/basrah.gif


That is, the rate is less than historical values.


>
>>... and in p
>  A.C. Miller,
>et al., U.S. Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute:
>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12121782
>
>"In rats, there is strong evidence of DU accumulation in tissues
>

Yes, but as all researchers know rat data can not be directly 
extrapolated to human. This study says nothing about actual rate of 
increase or decrease.

>
>James Salsman
>


We can not change the opinion of someone who does not appear willing 
to look at the conclusions made by those performing the research. 
What can be more clear than a statement of "We did not have the 
ability to determine if the excess was caused by . . . " or "we 
cannot at this stage conclude that the associations are causal." Here 
we have a person who is making interpretations of charts and numbers 
and reaching conclusion from these that are not supported by direct 
statements by the authors of these studies.

Give up - stop responding to Mr. Salsman or let us demand information 
as to expertise that allows him to read research results and reach 
conclusions not supported by those performing the study.


-- 


****
Paul Lavely AS, BS, MS, JD
Radiation Safety Officer
UC Berkeley