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

[Roger Helbig]

James,

No one is deliberately attacking children.  You just are completely unable to grasp that.  You may have tied the Nuclear Regulatory Commission up in knots, but I have your submissions now and you have not brought a single fact to bear that has not already been thoroughly discounted as being false information.  Go find another life.  The only kids at risk are ours - our kids have been killed because of the lies that you, Rokke (and yes, I see that you copied him on your NRC submissions, so I presume some sort of connection), Moret, Busby, Durakovic and others have filled the net with.  

Roger Helbig

And my retired reserve military rank has nothing to do with RADSAFE - there is nothing to debate!  The scientific community has spoken, you were given an opportunity to present your views to the NRC and you and those views were both found to be wanting.


-----Original Message-----
From: jsalsman at gmail.com [mailto:jsalsman at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Ben Fore
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 3:52 AM
To: radsafelist; Roger Helbig; garyi at trinityphysics.com
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Fwd: ruling out uranium vapor with x-rays

[Replies to Gary I. and Roger H. are included below.]

Gary,

Thank you for your good advice.  I regret that I must
continue to another pseudonym as the Radsafe list
manager seems not to share the opinion that this is
an important discussion.

> those tanks are shot with DU in a very earnest
> effort to destroy the tank and kill the troops in it.

Attacking the children of combatants is illegal, and
is a serious war crime.  Tungsten is preferable, even
if it does have more shrapnel cancers (one of many
ways people die in wars.) The U.S. Navy switched to
tungsten around 1993 under John Taschner's direction.
Their Toxicology Detachment publhjicly recognized the
genotoxic and teratogenic nature of DU as early as
1998.

At least one of the U.S. Army contract
researchers on this list who failed to recognize the
genotoxicity or teratology of uranium in their safety
studies have joined the call to study its teratology:

  http://lists.radlab.nl/pipermail/radsafe/2006-March/002280.html

Others working for the U.S. Army, such as
Col. Bob Cherry -- and who also failed to recognize
the teratology of uranium even though it was
well-established in 1953, have not joined the call
to correct that mistake.

Will anyone else join the call to study the teratology
of uranium smoke?

Do radiation protection professionals have any
responsibility to ask for it to be learned?

> That is usually how war goes - you shoot at and
> kill the enemy until somebody surrenders.

Sadly, there are also the innocent bystanders.  Why
are we using something that harms N generations
of victims when nobody has any idea what N is?

> The real tragedy is war itself.  Work on that....

What makes people hate war more than seeing how
badly the war-mongers' safety provisions have been?

Roger Helbig wrote:

> James Salsman, Mountain View, California, aka
> Dave Blaine has already wasted perhaps a
> hundred thousand or more of your tax payer
> dollars in his complaints to the Nuclear Regulatory
> Commission

It's money well spent. I would debate that in public
with Col. Helbig, who has probably done more to
see that the teratology of uranium smoke has not
been funded than anyone else. Helbig has refused
a public debate in the past, because he knows that
his position is utterly contradicted by current
medical and military research.  The challenge
stands, however.

James Salsman, as Ben Fore (not running out of pseudonyms)