[ RadSafe ] Fw: [du-list] insight into the pro-DU psyche

[Roger Helbig]

--- 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
> carefully
>  > manipulated quotes?
> 
> I believe my quotes, even the few which aren't
> exactly verbatim,
> correctly represent the text from which they are
> taken.
> 
>  > 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
> combat-deployed
> 1991 Gulf War troops on MEDLINE.  I am still not yet
> entirely
> 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
> effects....
>  >
>
www.who.int/entity/ionizing_radiation/pub_meet/en/DU_Eng.pdf
> 
> Here is another quote which needs to be read very
> carefully:
> 
> 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 --
>
http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/pub_meet/en/Depluranium4.pdf
> -- 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)."
> 
> Sincerely,
> James Salsman