Yes ionesco. Your article has an amazing lack of substance.
Its an obvious "hit piece" that provides no scientific data but preys upon the publics fears.
Message 21854223
You will notice that the article does not provide any scientific informaton at all as to what the tested levels are in these returning soldiers. Thats the first thing that would be needed before anyone implies a birth defect came from "Radioactive Wounds of War".
There is no way a birth defect was caused by radiation from a returning solidier. DU's radiation is less than the background radiation found in nature!
So the article uses one common birth defect and tries to link it to depleted uranium without any other facts or information?
Junk science, from a junk website.
Syndactyly is one of the most common congenital anomalies in the hand. Failure of programmed cell death in the seventh week of gestation results in this anomaly. The exception is acrosyndactyly, in which refusion of distal digits occurs as part of the constriction ring syndrome. The incidence varies with race but approximates 1 in 2000
emedicine.com
ENVIRONMENTAL TOXICOLOGY (INCLUDING DEPLETED URANIUM)
Based on data developed to date, OSAGWI concluded that, while DU could pose a chemical hazard at high intakes, no Gulf War veterans experienced intakes high enough to cause health effects. (OSAGWI, 2000a) Furthermore, the available evidence indicates that due to DU’s low-level radioactivity, adverse radiological health effects are not expected. The available scientific and medical evidence to date does not support claims that DU caused or is causing illnesses in Gulf War veterans.
Since 1993, the Baltimore VA Medical Center has monitored 33 veterans seriously injured in friendly-fire incidents involving depleted uranium. (Hooper, et al, 1999; McDiarmid, et al, 2000) The VA is following the group very carefully, administering a broad battery of medical tests to determine if the embedded DU fragments are causing any health problems. While these veterans have persistent impairments due to their wartime injuries, the Baltimore researchers report that the veterans are not demonstrating adverse effects from DU’s chemical or radiological toxicity. About half of the 33 veterans still have DU fragments in their bodies, and they have demonstrated persistent elevated concentrations of urinary uranium. The veterans without retained DU fragments have not shown higher than normal levels of urinary uranium. To date, no adverse effects in the kidney have been detected. In 1999, the Baltimore VA evaluated 30 additional veterans involved in friendly-fire incidents, including 4 with suspected embedded DU fragments. (OSAGWI, 2000a) While there has been no clinical evidence of illness associated with DU exposure to date, the veterans involved in friendly fire will remain under medical surveillance indefinitely.
gulflink.osd.mil |
