[ RadSafe ] Fw: [du-list] insight into the pro-DU psyche
rhelbig at california.com
Fri Mar 10 05:20:48 CST 2006
--- James Salsman <james at bovik.org> wrote:
> To: du-list at yahoogroups.com
> From: James Salsman <james at bovik.org>
> Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 05:46:03 -0800
> Subject: [du-list] insight into the pro-DU psyche
> Being censored on RADSAFE gives me an excellent
> opportunity to test
> which things certain RADSAFE participants don't want
> you to see.
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: answers (was Re: [ RadSafe ] James
> Salsman, DU, and
> peer-reviewed literature)
> To: RADSAFE....
> Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006
> Steven Dapra wrote:
> >... how could you possibly come up with all those
> > manipulated quotes?
> I believe my quotes, even the few which aren't
> exactly verbatim,
> correctly represent the text from which they are
> > And how did you manage to so cleverly extract
> those eight words
> > from Durakovic's review paper?
> That quote was verbatim. I note that Durakovic
> seems to be somewhat
> more respected in the pro-DU community than Rokke,
> Sternglass, Moret,
> and others, and I believe that is justified because
> he has done some
> of the best work. However, I think the prejudice
> against Sternglass
> is absurd: nobody was able to suggest any serious
> problems with the
> tooth fairy project's scientific protocols: The
> best RADSAFE could do
> was a question about potential radium contamination
> which was quite a
> reach at best.
> > How did you do what you did with the Miller et
> al. paper?
> > You wrote: "Abstract: 'chemical generation of
> hydroxyl radicals by
> > depleted uranium in vitro exceeds radiolytic
> generation by one
> > million-fold....'"
> Well, that one has more of an interesting story
> behind it.
> Originally MEDLINE had it as "106 fold" instead of
> "one million
> fold" because the original typesetting had 10^6, ten
> to the sixth.
> After I corresponded with Dr. Miller, she did not
> oppose my
> request to have that changed in MEDLINE. I also
> fixed a typo
> in a confidence interval in the abstract of Dr.
> Araneta's report
> on the huge number of congenital malformations in
> 1991 Gulf War troops on MEDLINE. I am still not yet
> comfortable about having to go around correcting the
> mistakes of
> medical professionals on the internet. If you are
> worried about
> whether my copy correctly represents Dr. Miler's
> results, you can
> email and ask her about it.
> As for the legal questions, I'll deal with those at
> some point
> in the future. I would like to know whether you
> think that a
> survey of college students from military families
> could be used
> to determine the extent to which potential exposure
> to depleted
> uranium fumes has dissuaded military recruitment. I
> think such a
> survey could be made fairly accurate and could be
> very reasonably
> inexpensive to conduct.
> John R Johnson wrote:
> > I have found that the WHO report on DU is useful
> reference. Details
> are at
> >... Depleted uranium: sources, exposure and health
> Here is another quote which needs to be read very
> Quoting A. Pfister in Chapter 8, "The Chemical
> Toxicity of Uranium," of
> _Depleted Uranium: Sources, Exposure and Health
> Effects_ (World Health
> Organization, Ionizing Radiation Unit, 2001 --
> -- page 103: "Until more information on the chemical
> form of uranium and
> DU in the environment is obtained, it would be
> prudent to assume that it
> is in a soluble form (ICRP Type F)."
> James Salsman
More information about the RadSafe