[ RadSafe ] The DU Myth and the European Parliament

Dan D. Palmer ddpalmer at duf6.com
Wed May 28 08:07:49 CDT 2008



I don't doubt that John C. Taschner wrote a report for the Navy about DU
ammunition for the Phalanx system. But I know that this was not the only
report that was considered in the change to tungsten.


>From personal experience, the munitions were not a radiological or
chemical concern to the ships crews. And since the targets they were
fired at were over water, any residue on the targets would either end up
at the bottom of the ocean or be so quickly diluted as to be
undetectable considering the natural uranium already dissolved in the
water. So why would the Navy stop using an effective weapon for reasons
that don't apply in an ocean environment?


As to my email address, duf6.com is UDS LLC. We are constructing and
operating two facilities to convert depleted uranium
hexafluoride(DUF6)into uranium oxide and hydrofluoric acid. This allows
for safer storage/disposal. We don't sell DU or manufacture anything
from DU.


Daniel Palmer


This message and any attachments are solely for the use of
the intended recipients.  Unofficial or personal messages do 
not reflect the views or position of UDS, LLC; the Department 
of Energy or the federal government.  This message may 
contain privileged and/or confidential information, attorney 
work product or other information protected from disclosure.  
If you are not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified 
that you received this email in error, and that any review, 
dissemination, distribution or copying of this email and any 
attachment is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this 
email in error, please contact the sender and delete the 
message and any attachments from your systems.  Thank 
you for your cooperation.

More information about the RadSafe mailing list