[ RadSafe ] National Academies Project:Toxicological and RadiologicalEffects from Exposures to Depleted Uranium During and After Combat

[Flanigan, Floyd]

Both safer and safest are inflected forms of the work safe ... hence,
not really a word at all ... so ... is it safe to use it in
correspondence on a scientific exchange ...? "Safer" becomes "More safe"
in its correct form as "Safest" becomes "Most safe" when used correctly.

 

And while we're on the subject of bullet-making materials ... what the
heck is wrong with using Tungsten? It has a melting point over 10,000
degrees F and is heavy as all get-out. In my experience, the majority of
Tungsten is non-radioactive with the exception of welding tips and some
other industrial applications. Aaaaaannnnd ...... Bullets are supposed
to be bad for you. Trying to find wholesome materials to make them out
of seems like a glaring paradox. 

 

I like Tungsten.

My wedding ring is made out of Tungsten.

Tungsten doesn't have issues with post-projectile residue.

It would, however, destroy the rifling in the gun barrel over time. 

But as long as there is war, there will be people who will be more than
happy to make and sell us new guns. 

So the rifling issue is relatively moot.

 

Sorry about the tangent. I'm a little punchy this morning.

 

 

Floyd W. Flanigan B.S.Nuc.H.P.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On
Behalf Of dckosloff at firstenergycorp.com
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 7:11 AM
To: Eric D
Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl; radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] National Academies Project:Toxicological and
RadiologicalEffects from Exposures to Depleted Uranium During and After
Combat

 

Dr, Daxon,

 

The word "safe" cannot be honestly used in a scientific context because

nothing involving humans is safe for humans.   For example, the use of

peanuts or peanut oil is not safe.  Neither is the use of milk or water.

Even the use of the phrase "safe and effectinve" in discussing the
approval

of medicines is misleading at best.  Nobody is ever safe.

 

However, it would be honest to state simply that something or some
activity

is "as safe as" or "safer than" something else or some other activity.
For

example, one might honestly say that "the use of DU munitions is safer
than

the use of lead or tungsten munitions," or safer than using no munitions
at

all.

 

Don Kosloff

Shippingport PA and Bedford OH

 

 

 


             "Eric D"


             <edaxon at satx.rr.c


             om>
To 

             Sent by:                  "'Robert Cherry'"


             radsafe-bounces at r         <bobcherry at satx.rr.com>,


             adlab.nl                  <radsafe at radlab.nl>


 
cc 

 


             11/16/2006 10:49
Subject 

             PM                        RE: [ RadSafe ] National
Academies  

                                       Project: Toxicological   and


                                       Radiological Effects from
Exposures 

                                       to Depleted  Uranium     During
and 

                                       After Combat


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

 

 

 

This will bring scientific closure to the issue.  I was a part of the
DoD

IPT that initiated the Capstone project.  I also helped in writing parts
of

the report.  It was a real honor to work with the people on that
project.

 

Whether it will assist with the "soft" part of the issue depends upon
the

Charter of the committee and the willingness of the committee to speak
in

plain language.  One of the NAS's earlier evaluations of the health
effects

of DU actually said it was safe but the language was so convoluted that
it

took me several reads to understand what they were trying to say.  To
the

layman or the non-epidemiologist science-type reading the report, it

sounded

like we did not know what the health effects were.

 

Unfortunately, there are very few - if any - instances where I have seen

the

word "safe" in any of the scientific reviews of health effects we do.
We

tend to couch risk numbers with other risk numbers and hope that the

non-scientist will understand.  It has been my experience that doing
this

just adds to the distrust of the message.

 

Unfortunately again, not using that word - safe - with a targeted
substance

causes harm in the form of fear and never ending Congressional
requirements

for more research. More research is not a good thing when it is
diverting

funds from other work that will yield a benefit.

 

I hope the Committee speaks plainly and perhaps uses a four letter word

here

and there - safe.

 

Eric Daxon, PhD

 

 

 

-----------------------------------------

The information contained in this message is intended only for the

personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If

the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an

agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you

are hereby notified that you have received this document in error

and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of

this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this

communication in error, please notify us immediately, and delete

the original message.

 

_______________________________________________

You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

 

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html

 

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/