Fw: AW: [ RadSafe ] Critique of Busby

[Roger Helbig]

Since Dan is not on the RADSAFE list and Franz's comments were addressed to the list .. I am reposting Dan's reply.   I certainly hope that the London Times is beginning to realize that it has been had and has lost a lot of its credibility by publishing Busby's comments with minimal reportorial research.

Roger Helbig

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Daniel Fahey" <duweapons at hotmail.com>
To: <franz.schoenhofer at chello.at>; <rhelbig at california.com>
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 4:52 PM
Subject: RE: AW: [ RadSafe ] Critique of Busby


Hi Franz,

I admire your skepticism and desire for information about the source of that critique.  I am a Ph.D. student in environmental policy at UC Berkeley.  I have worked on the DU issue for many years, and some of my reports are at www.danfahey.com; others are on the WISE Uranium site.  I have had several tangles with Busby and other extremists over their unsupported claims.  Busby sits on the board of the journal that is "peer-reviewing" his paper, so I thought I'd both point out to them the three major flaws I saw in the paper, and have a bit of fun with them by telling them this is my "peer-review" comment.  

Regarding the natural v. depleted uranium, perhaps I should have made clear that in email exchanges with Busby last week, he confirmed to me that it was natural uranium, and not depleted uranium, that was found in the Berkshire filters.  He suggests that but is very murky about it in his paper.

I am not on the RADSAFE listserv, but I am happy that my note was posted, and I have received positive responses to it from several people, including some who know that Busby is a charlatan.

I meant no offense or trickery by sending out that note; I am well known to the anti-DU activists, some of whom think I am working for the CIA, and it was primarily to that audience that my comments were directed.

Regards,

Dan