Misrepresentation by critics of depleted uranium

[Robert Holloway <roberth@ntanet.net>]

Recently I have noticed that certain activists have drawn 

mistaken conclusions from a reading of a memo, written in 

1943 to General Leslie Groves, head of the Manhattan 

Project. These activists have concluded, incorrectly, that a 

memo dated 30 October, 1943 suggested the use of uranium as 

a radiological weapon.  A close reading of the memo, given 

in one of the links below, suggests that the substance being 

  promoted as a weapon was fission material and not uranium. 

  It might be helpful if several members of this list would 

send their opinion of the memo to the anti-nuclear activists 

who spread their false information on the following 

websites. I have taken the following text from my own email 

to those organizations.  They seem to prefer to deny reality 

than to acknowledge that they are mistaken.





http://www.stopnato.org.uk/du-watch/caldicott/medico.htm



http://traprockpeace.org/rokke06june03.html





The following was found on one of the web sites above, with 

something similar or identical on the other one.



 >>>>A letter sent to General Leslie Groves during 1943 is 

even more disturbing. In that memorandum dated October 30, 

1943, senior scientists assigned to the Manhattan Project 

suggested that uranium could be used as an air, water, and 

terrain contaminant. According to the letter sent by the 

Subcommittee of the S-1 Executive Committee on the "Use of 

Radioactive Materials as a Military Weapon" to General 

Groves (October 30, 1943) inhalation of uranium would result 

in "bronchial irritation coming on in a few hours to a few 

days."<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<



The mistaken part of Rokke's quote is that the letter never 

mentions uranium. It specifically does not say what Rokke 

implies it to say.  It does not say that inhalation of 

uranium would result in "bronchial irritation coming on in a 

few hours to a few days. In fact, contrary to Rokke's words, 

the letter never uses the word uranium.  It is clear from 

other parts of the letter that the radioactive material 

being promoted as a weapon is fission products. In contrast 

to uranium, fission products often have enough radioactivity 

per unit mass to be considered as a weapon. Uranium does not 

have this level of activity.  The letter mentions "f 

products" or "fission products" several times. Uranium is 

not a fission product.  Notice that in the last part of the 

quote above, Rokke does not put the word uranium in quotes. 

But his wording is very misleading. The word uranium is a 

word that Rokke has inserted. It is not in the original 

letter and in fact, there is nothing at all in the letter 

that implies that uranium is the material being suggested. 

On the contrary, the mention of fission products certainly 

is proof that it is fission products and not uranium that is 

being promoted as a weapon.



A clear copy of the text of the 1943 memo can be found at 

the following web site address:



http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/Groves-Memo-Manhattan30oct43.htm



I invite you to read the memo in full and with a knowledge 

of what fission products are, it is easy to see that the 

material being promoted is fission products and not uranium. 

  I think you will be hard pressed to find any experienced 

nuclear scientist who will agree with Doug Rokke's 

interpretation of the 1943 letter. Fission products are much 

more radioactive than uranium and much more dangerous in 

many cases. No qualified expert can read that letter and 

come to the conclusion that it is uranium that is being 

discussed.







-- 



-- 



Robert Holloway

Nevada Technical Associates, Inc.



http://www.ntanet.net

Tel: 1-702-558-7671

Fax: 1-702-558-7672



"Where everyone thinks alike, no one thinks at all"

       attributed to Albert Einstein