[ RadSafe ] Re: [ RadSafe] What Became of this 2001WHO Investigation?

[Dimiter Popoff]

Roger Helbig,
"among chemists" does not equal "chemists" as I am sure you know,
you are taking my words out of context.
I suggest we keep this list clear of plain propaganda wars at least as long 
as they are not radiation related. 

I may consider studying the issue why this chemist did or did not whatever
he or she was supposed to do or not to so I can answer you what I think
about that once _my_ question - why activists picked
depleted uranium of all uncountable other hasards, many of which are much
nastier - receives a plausible explanation. I mean hasards to which the soldiers
and the population of the battlescene are potentially exposed.

Thanks,
Dimiter

------------------------------------------------------
Dimiter Popoff               Transgalactic Instruments

http://www.tgi-sci.com
------------------------------------------------------

-------Original Message-------
> From: Roger Helbig <rhelbig at california.com>
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Re: [ RadSafe] What Became of this 2001WHO	Investigation?
> Sent: Jul 25 '05 01:32
> 
>  Thanks, Dimiter.  If chemists could so quickly dispose of this, why do you suppose that the chemist who evaluated the anti-DU propaganda reports for Project Censored at Sonoma State University failed to grasp that?  Do you know of anywhere to get this kind of discussion from chemists?  Thanks again.
>  
>  Roger Helbig
>  
>  ----- Original Message -----
>  From: "Dimiter Popoff" <didi at tgi-sci.com>
>  To: <radsafe at radlab.nl>
>  Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2005 2:45 PM
>  Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Re: [ RadSafe] What Became of this 2001WHO Investigation?
>  
>  
>  James,
>  
>  >  What do you think the total mass of the uranium involved is?
>  
>  what do _you_ think it is? It takes no calculations at all; it is obvious
>  that the concentration will be unmeasurable even if you dissolve all
>  the munitions fired so far in all wars in the annual rainfall of a country
>  smaller than Iraq. And please save us the thought on how some
>  local contamination can occur because all the munitions from all
>  wars will be cooked right into a tiny lake which provides the drinking water
>  of the nearby village unless you have sample reports from the water
>  of that lake prior to and after the event of interest. Uranium is
>  radioactive, it's easy to measure.
>  BTW, this effort of yours begins to sound suspicious to me.
>  Of all known and unknown (kept secret) agents the soldiers are exposed to
>  you chose depleted uranium, probably the most harmless (just think
>  of all those vaccines, anti-chemical warfare treatments etc. etc., you
>  should know better than I do about that stuff). Could it be you are doing
>  this because you are a part of campaign to deflect attention from
>  some real  - well known to insiders - cause? Like the rest of the listmembers
>  I also know about your testicle concerns, there is no need to put these
>  forward again, but if you have an explanation how come you chose uranium
>  of all things I'd be curious to know that.
>  
>  To the rest of the radsafers, sorry for the off-topic posting.
>  This non-radiation issue keeps recurring on this list probably because
>  it could not be sustained more than a couple of minutes among
>  chemists, which is where it belongs. We all have some chemical
>  background which tempts us to reply to threads like this
>  (just like I do now), which is unfortunately enough to serve the agenda,
>  i.e. keep the thread(s) alive....
>  
>  Dimiter
>  
>  ------------------------------------------------------
>  Dimiter Popoff               Transgalactic Instruments
>  
>  http://www.tgi-sci.com
>  
>  
>  
-------Original Message-------