[ RadSafe ] Another Letter to the Editor about DU

[Marcel Schouwenburg]

Bob,

As moderator of this list I welcome you to continue posting your messages.

I think it is important for those interested in this subject (but also in
general) to be informed about the views from both (or more) sides. No
matter the views from the other sides may be not scientific, they exist
and, at least some of us (including myself), have to deal with them and
react on them. Listening to those other views can be very usefull,
interesting and can aid us in reacting to the the other side. However, I'm
very well aware of the fact that in some cases and for some RadSafers this
is a struggle that can't be won or they allready give up. I'm not at this
point yet and I think a lot of other RadSafers with me.
Denying messages from the "other side", or not allowing them to the list,
will cause a bias that I would not like to see on RadSafe. Besides this,
denying other views can cause serious harm. I would like to see all views
on a subject. Preferrably in the form of discussions that are scientific
as far as possible (like at least including references). Other posting are
acceptable as long as posters follow the RadSafe rules
(http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html).

The case of depleted uranium (DU) is somewhat special since we are dealing
with both a radiological as a chemical aspect (whatever the most important
aspect is). Since these are difficult to separate I think postings on both
aspects are acceptable.

With kind regards,

Marcel Schouwenburg - RadSafe moderator & List owner
Head Training Centre Delft
National Centre for Radiation Protection (Dutch abbr. NCSV)

Faculty of Applied Sciences / Reactor Institute Delft
Delft University of Technology
Mekelweg 15
NL - 2629 JB  DELFT
The Netherlands
Phone   +31 (0)15 27 86575
Fax     +31 (0)15 27 81717
email   m.schouwenburg at tnw.tudelft.nl

> Radsafers,
>
> Some you have privately expressed support when I tell you of another
anti-DU article in the media. Some of you have privately asked me to stop
> sending such notes to Radsafe. I would like to know what is preferred:
to
> keep this to myself or let you know what the activists are saying about
DU
> and my occassional responses.
>
> Pushing on, here is the web address for an opionion piece by Lauren
Moret
> in today's Battle Creek Enquirer:
>
> http://www.battlecreekenquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050809/OPINION02/508090332/1014/OPINION
>
> Here is my response to the editor:
> ===========
> Dear Editor:
>
> I will make this short with regard to the Lauren Moret-written opinion
piece you published on August 9, “Depleted uranium is WMD”: The column is
> a flat-out misrepresentating, mistake-ridden, anti-war anti-nuke
propagandist tirade from the start (Lauren Moret “is an international
expert on depleted uranium”) to the end (“Cancer starts with one alpha
particle under the right conditions”) and for virtually everything in
between.
>
> Opinions are fine, but one should support her arguments with the truth
and
> the facts. Moret did neither, as anyone can easily verify. Since her
arguments have no scientific merit and no support within the responsible
scientific community, she did not support her premise.
>
> I wonder why you printed it. How did it come to you? Do you always
publish
> opinion columns that purport to be scientific without a minimum of
fact-checking?
>
> Robert N. Cherry, Jr., PhD (physics, University of Michigan)
> Certified Health Physicist
> Colonel, U.S. Army (retired)
> ============
>
> Bob C
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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:
> http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
>