[ RadSafe ] On-Line Posting to Senator Rosa Franklin, Washington State Senate
pnwnatives at gmail.com
Sat Apr 22 10:56:28 CDT 2006
Putting all the anti-war rhetoric aside, and sticking with the facts, I
believe what I consider harm and the learned scientific community appear
to view as harm, is different. I happen to think that if there is a
change however slight to the human anatomy, then there is harm. Some
harm is detectable and some is not. There seems to be a great deal said
about denial of any affects from exposure to depleted uranium, but very
little about why that is. Exposure to depleted uranium, smoke from the
expended artillery shells, bad food, and an endless number of other
things have effects. The greater the exposure, the greater the effect.
There is a point in which the effect is great enough that it is actually
detectable. That point is not necessarily the same as the point in
which cancer or death occurs. It can be a point in which it causes
interference with other bodily functions and reduces the quality of
those functions, such as impeding the healing of an open wound. The fact
of the matter is that there is a lower threshold at which the effect
measurable. There is a threshold at which the certainty of death is a
certainty, and a range in between. I believe that hard medical evidence
should be used to make decisions. Unfortunately as you say the measure
seems to be on cancer, birth defects, death, sterility etc. These are
pretty severe impacts on a person, or possibly their off spring. That
does not seem like a reasonable gage by which to go by, but I am unaware
of any lessor gage that seems to be used.
I simply would like to see the exposure to depleted uranium treated like
any other medical condition that, when a person receives medical
attention they benefit from it and they receive it when it is
warranted. That to me is a medical decision.
Roger Helbig wrote:
> I still don't see why you as a retired nuclear worker are siding with the scientific know nothings. You have a legislative report with a flat out lie in it. Does that not concern you? Do you want legislation in this area dominated by people with a warped agenda who butcher the scientific facts? There is more than adequate research to show that no one has been harmed by depleted uranium beyond the wounds created when individual soldiers were hit by DU fragments. None of those soldiers with DU in their bodies has developed cancer or fathered children with birth defects. The whole anti-DU crusade is a myth which has only gained steam because it has appealed to scientific know-nothing peace activists and because people believe that if Abu Ghraib happened that the US could in fact sow Iraq and Afghanistan with radioactive materials as part of its war strategy. This is pure nonsense and you know it. You know that use of DU is not a form of genocide. You know that the cannon cocker on the tank who fired the DU round at an Iraqi tank did not commit a war crime. You know that there is no international treaty banning the use of DU, that DU is not a weapon of mass destruction, and that it is not considered a chemical weapon.
More information about the RadSafe