[ RadSafe ] Re: uranium trioxide gas exposure patterns (was:...RE:Gardner Sellafield cluster)

[James Salsman]

Jaro Franta wrote:

>... Balkan veterans experiencing "very high leukemia rates" is
> utter nonsense:  several nations who had troops in the Balkans
> conducted detailed medical surveys and dismissed any such claims....

I wrote, "starting around 2001" -- I believe all the reports
referred to here were concluded by 2001.  Is that not the case?

Anyway, I should refer to all cancers, instead of just leukemia,
in order for the statement to be incontrovertibly true, at least
as far as the results of this recent report:

Quoting P. Gustavsson, M. Talbäck, A. Lundin, B. Lagercrantz,
P.-E. Gyllestad, and L. Fornell in "Incidence of cancer among
Swedish military and civil personnel involved in UN missions
in the Balkans 1989–99," Occupational and Environmental
Medicine, vol. 61 (2004) pp. 171-173:
   http://oem.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/61/2/171

"Among Swedish personnel (8750 men and 438 women) involved in
UN missions in the Balkans 1989–99, the overall incidence of
cancer was slightly higher than expected.... future follow up
is necessary for evaluation of long term risks....  There were
34 cases of cancer versus 28.1 expected, SIR = 1.2 (95% CI
0.9 to 1.7)....  There were eight cases of testicular cancer,
whereas 4.3 would be expected.... The overall SIR for cancer
was increased in the convoy group, SIR = 3.0 (95% CI 1.0 to
7.0), based on only five cancers at four different sites. The
excess of testicular cancer that was found in the cohort came
from the subgroups outdoors, convoy, and ammunition clearance."

Granted, I don't know whether most people consider a 20%
increase in cancer a "very high" rate.  I know I do.

> one can always claim some future "explosion of leukemia."

The vast majority of the peer-reviewed medical research
reports on this subject call for further study on this
question.  Does anyone deny the observed chromosome damage,
or the reproductive toxicity observed in exposed populations?
If so, are there any peer-reviewed medical publications
supporting that view?

> native American Indians of the South-West used to use the
> colorful salts of uranium (yellow, red, green) as pigments
> for ceremonial face and body painting

Paints are not usually inhaled.  Uranium uptake from the
gastrointestinal track and skin is very slight.  From the
lungs, though, all of the soluble and partially soluble
compounds are eventually absorbed.

>... you might as well be talking to a tree stump.

Such comments only serve to accentuate the fact that thus
far, Dr. Franta's argument opposing mine has been entirely
unsupported by any reference to medical literature.

Sincerely,
James Salsman