[ RadSafe ] US enriched uranium weapons caused Fallujah cancer, UK-Iraq study finds

[Steven Dapra]

Nov. 27

         Comments interspersed.

Steven Dapra


At 01:42 PM 11/27/2011, you wrote:
>Dan McCarn wrote: > After reviewing the abstract 
>of the paper that James mentioned, the > 
>concentration of uranium represented by 27 
>mBq-Kg-1 (0.027 Bq / Kg) is about > 1 µg/L (1 
>microgram / L).  Most waters have more than 
>that. I wasn't trying to imply that the West 
>European cheeses were contaminated, only that 
>the uranium that they did contain had an 
>enriched isotope ratio, which was attributed to 
>natural processes by the authors. This assertion 
>that chemical isotope separation occurs 
>naturally is consistent with the very different 
>translocation rates of uranium isotopes in the 
>human body reported in BNWL-2500, Part 1, pp. 
>379-380 (1978.) If chemical isotope enrichment 
>is a born secret doctrine taboo topic, which 
>seems very likely to me, then fine, but it's not 
>ethical to try to ridicule or discredit 
>researchers who find enriched ratios in groundwater.

         Is anyone trying to ridicule or 
discredit researchers who find enriched ratios in 
groundwater?  If your answer is "yes," who is 
guilty of doing so, and who are the researchers?

         The abstract you offered is about 
U234/U238 ratios.  The authors say "this 
enrichment is believed to be due to the 
geological features of the pasture, soil and 
underground water."  Busby was claiming that U235 
is present in excess in Fallujah as a result of 
its alleged use in DU weapons. What does U234 in 
cheese in Europe have to do with anything?

>Especially when only anti-DU researchers are the 
>ones who are subject to such 
>ridicule.  Especially when authorities keep 
>telling bald faced lies about safety, e.g., 
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/nov/14/minister-sorry-dangers-depleted-uranium 
>

         Your assertion about "bald faced lies" 
is itself false.  If you had read the Guardian 
article you would have read this:

"Nick Harvey [Minister of Defense] admitted that 
he had inadvertently misled MPs about a Ministry 
of Defence review that he said had concluded the 
weapons were permissible on humanitarian and 
environmental grounds under the Geneva Conventions.

"It subsequently emerged that the review had 
never happened, and Harvey has apologised for the 
error, which he said had been made 'in good faith' ".

         And this:

“A subsequent search of departmental records has 
failed to find any such review,” he[Harvey] told 
her [anti-DU MP Katy Clark] on 26 October. 
“Though incorrect, the statement in my [Harvey's] 
letter was made in good faith on the advice of officials, . . . "

         An accidental error does not constitute a 'bald faced lie.'

>Back to the topic, I can't find any reports of 
>anyone looking at Iraqi dairy products, which 
>seems absurd given the amount of soil and 
>groundwater contamination studies which are 
>published. Almost all of the food chain studies 
>of uranium contamination around geological 
>deposits and mine tailings in developed 
>countries focus on dairy because it's the most 
>concentrated and bioavailable source in the 
>human food chain (other than the livers of 
>Caribou that have eaten lichens around deposits somewhere in Canada.)

         Do you have some citations to these 
alleged food chain studies?  If you do, why 
didn't you include them in your e-mail?

>Domestic milk in Iraq is entirely from goats and 
>sheep watered from wells, so why isn't anyone 
>looking at Iraqi dairy? Sincerely, James Salsman

         By the way, James, you still have not 
answered my question from a month or two ago, to 
wit, do you believe uranium is a genotoxin?.  Do you or don't you?

Steven Dapra