[ RadSafe ] Fwd: ruling out uranium vapor with x-rays

Brennan, Mike (DOH) Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV
Thu Apr 17 12:12:28 CDT 2008

Hi, James.

Concerning pseudonyms; I understand using something other than your
actual name when participating in an online discussion where you want to
control who has contact with the rest of your life.  I have done it
myself in several venues.  HOWEVER, using an new "screen name" in a
discussion you have already been in (or might be recognized in) is
called "sock-puppeting", and is considered poor form.  It is usually the
tactic of people who can not find adequate support (either technically
or from other people) to defend their position.  It does not enhance

I apologize for several typos in my last post that might have confused
my meaning.  Let me start off with a couple of questions, to see if we
can establish common ground:

1.  Should potential health issues possibly connected with DU be given
higher priority than health issues that clearly effect more people in an
clearly demonstrable way?  For example, Improvised explosive Devices in
Iraq kill tens of people per day, and wound many more.  Unlike possible
damage from DU exposure, IEDs are (a) clearly the direct cause of these
casualties and (b) not made or used by Americans.  Do you spend as much
time advocating against IEDs as you do against DU?  If not, is it
because in your mind (b) cancels out (a)?  (because I have to tell you,
just in our brief exchanges, you come off as more anti-American Military
than you do pro-Public Health.  As an example of this, your quote,
"However, these problems are usually spread out evenly among the
population, and not concentrated in battle zones where personnel and
civilians have a greater risk of suffering a clinical toxicant
exposure." is a case in point.  You dismiss, or at least minimize,
millions of people world wide (disproportionately poor, for what it's
worth) suffering documentable and clearly causally-linked health effects
because their problems can not be linked to a battle field where DU has
been used (almost exclusively by Americans).  In the same sentence you
ASSUME those in the battle zones have a greater risk of suffering a
clinical toxicant exposure, presumably from DU.  In doing this you
ignore that such exposure is nothing like the highest risk people in
such an area face, that a significant number of the people in such an
area are actually exposed (as opposed to assumed to be exposed because
it supports your premise), or that there is a causal relationship to
observed health effects if such exposure in fact occurs.

2.  At what concentration of UO3 in the air do you consider it to no
longer be of concern?  

More information about the RadSafe mailing list