Re: New Scientist Reports on DU and Iraq

[maury <maury@webtexas.com>]

How difficult must it have been in "Past studies of DU ..." to perform

research on the radiation effects of DU and remain oblivious to toxic effects

of DU and vice versa? From the content of New Scientist I've seen over

the past couple years, my impression is that it is simply a "popular" magazine

and by no stretch of the imagination does it resemble a scientific journal

(whether peer reviewed or not). OK, follow the money, but great jumpin'

butterballs, surely there remain some reasonable limits. Wonder if I really

could prepare a sufficiently enticing grant application for reinventing

the wheel. Or a literature review on that topic suitable for New Scientist???

After all, NASA floats ozone hole "problems" to facilitate its funding

cycle with the Congress and EPA finds the "dangers" of arsenic in my water

consumed over the past 75 yrs. Jeeez ....

Maury Siskel                

maury@webtexas.com

================================

RuthWeiner@AOL.COM wrote:

In a message dated 4/17/03 10:35:12 AM Mountain Daylight Time, fd003f0606@blueyonder.co.uk writes:

). People's fears that DU leaves a deadly legacy must be
addressed, says UNEP. Some scientists go further. Evidence is emerging that
DU affects our bodies in ways we do not fully understand, they say, and the
legacy could be real.

DU is both radioactive and toxic. Past studies of DU in the environment have
concluded that neither of these effects poses a significant risk. But some
researchers are beginning to suspect that in combination, the two effects
-----------  snipped -------------------

Oh for heaven's sake!  That's carrying synergy beyond any reasonable limit./  Maybe the magazine should be re-titled "new pseudo-scientist."

Ruth

Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.
ruthweiner@aol.com

_____________________

An ounce of fear and passion is worth a ton of fact and logic.

                                                                    

Jerry Cohen