Re: DU legislation?

[BobCherry@AOL.COM]

In a message dated 4/7/2003 1:32:41 PM Central Daylight Time, liptonw@DTEENERGY.COM writes:


> [1] Perception is reality.  



[2] We have to address the radiological and
> toxic risks of DU.  



[3] There's still a lot we don't know.  


[4] Look on this as an
> opportunity to learn more about a potential hazard.




1. Perception is not reality, else quantum mechanics and special relativity is baloney.


2. The health physics and radiobiology communities have done it. The Department of Defense has done it and continues to do it everyday.


3. There is a lot we do know. We know enough to say that our use of DU in combat carries little or no radiological and toxicological risk. We know that its non-use carries a large quantifiable risk to our soldiers and to accomplishment of their mission.


4. It is not a significant potential (radiological or toxicological) hazard at the levels of exposure expected in combat, especially in comparison to the many other battlefield risks. That is why, as Army Radiation Safety Officer, I directed, with the little authority that I had, the Chemical School to change the name of the Army's DU training program for the average soldier from its original title of "DU Hazard Awareness Program" to "DU Awareness Program."


Mr. Lipton's comments are not particularly helpful in addressing this issue, IMO.


Bob C