[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: DU

 

Thank you for a very stimulating email Bob!

 

In terms of a debate, the rebuttalist wins-out, hands-down, based on the

fact that he is much more informed and took great pains to hedge his point

of view.  A lot of "body-English" was also used, to very strong effect.

 

Although I have little sympathy for the anti-nuke individual, there

nonetheless remains an issue that was not addressed that people on this

listserve may wish to consider. The rebuttalist draws many quotes indicating

that there is little or no evidence to prove that DU dust from munitions

causes harm or is hazardous to troops or civilians. But this does not imply

that the use of DU munitions is safe. It simply implies that claims to the

contrary were not substantiated by the studies performed by these

organizations. So, is the matter really closed, as the military would have

one believe?

 

For example, one could easily argue that inhaling a highly-concentrated

plume of DU dust (e.g., following a hit) arguably presents SOME degree of

hazard. A CHP, basing themselves on decades of uranium miner exposure data,

could make some crude assumptions and render an estimate of risk per unit of

time exposure. 

 

Indeed, some degree of objectivity could be brought to bear on this topic.

 

Grant



-----Original Message-----

From: BobCherry@AOL.COM [mailto:BobCherry@AOL.COM]

Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 9:26 AM

To: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

Subject: Fwd: DU





A most interesting exchange and I wasn't involved in it!

 

WARNING: The rebuttal may offend some of you civilians.

 

http://www.sanjhb.com/writing/dangers.html

<http://www.sanjhb.com/writing/dangers.html> 

 

 

Bob C