[ RadSafe ] Salsman warning

[James Salsman]

I would like to know what RadSafe list members think the expected
behavior and correct course of action should be when we see someone
acting as an expert in a professional capacity making statements about
serious health risks which are at wide variance with the secondary
peer reviewed medical literature.

My disagreement with Gary Isenhower concerned these sources about the
incidence of cancer rates in uranium miners:
http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/full/92/9/1410
http://www.ehponline.org/members/2001/109p305-309mulloy/mulloy-full.html
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/310/23/1481
http://sfaa.metapress.com/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,8,11;journal,65,231;linkingpublicationresults,1:113218,1
http://www.joem.org/pt/re/joem/abstract.00043764-200003000-00008.htm

Gary denied that such information had been suppressed in the Health
Physics Society literature about the toxicity of uranium.  I've
checked; the literature reviews agree with those sources, and there
aren't any peer reviewed reports that disagree with them.  Here are
the HPS sources people are likely to find when searching the HPS web
site on information about the health effects of uranium:

http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q754.html - by Dr. Raabe

http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q2590.html - by Dr. Kathren

What is the correct and proper course of action in this case?

Why do nuclear power proponents not accurately represent the
scientific literature on this topic, which is far more pertinent to
coal ash contamination than it is to any part of the nuclear fuel
chain, except perhaps the use of depleted uranium as pyrophoric
incendiary munitions?

Sincerely,
James Salsman