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

[John R Johnson]

Eric

I agree with you. We have been working with natural uranium (U-Nat) for
generations and know what the risks are. DU should have the same non
radiological risk as U-Nat and a lower radiological risk for the same
exposures.

John
 _________________
John R Johnson, Ph.D.
*****
President, IDIAS, Inc
4535 West 9-Th Ave
Vancouver B. C.
V6R 2E2
(604) 222-9840
idias at interchange.ubc.ca
*****


-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl]On
Behalf Of Eric D
Sent: November 16, 2006 7:49 PM
To: 'Robert Cherry'; radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] National Academies Project: Toxicological
andRadiological 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

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf
Of Robert Cherry
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 10:10 PM
To: radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: [ RadSafe ] National Academies Project: Toxicological and
Radiological Effects from Exposures to Depleted Uranium During and After
Combat

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/projectview.aspx?key=117

Will this bring closure to the "issue"?

Bob C

_______________________________________________
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/

_______________________________________________
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/