replies to Schönhofer (was Re: uranium munitions burning in air...)

[James Salsman <james@bovik.org>]

Franz Schönhofer wrote:



> I reject your comment about scientists having an interest in

> uranium commerce.



What grounds do you have to reject the hypothesis that those who

are engaged in and supported by commerce in uranium, are not biased

in their expressed viewpoints of uranium toxicology?  I have

evidence that at least three people who earn their livelihood

either directly or in one case indirectly from commerce in uranium

have quite obviously published multiple reports involving outright

deceit, in some cases contrary to the very literature they have (in

other publications) cited.



>... Your "threat" to expose authors ...  is close to blackmail.



You are "close to" accusing me of the purported crime of exposing

the lies contrary to the truth as has been established by the U.K.

courts in February.  What do you suppose the penalty would be for

such a crime, if it existed?



> Being a radiochemist I declare your claims on "uranium-nitrate

> formation", and "halogen compounds" as complete nonsense.



What evidence do you have that uranyl nitrate is not a product

of burning uranium in air at STP?  I have a Freedom of Information

Act Request with Argonne National Laboratory which has already

been responded to in part indicating that there are detectable

quantities produced.  They are in the process of declassification

of experimental studies now.  Your attempt to obscure the truth

will not stand the test of time.



Even if it turns out to be a very small quantity, the solubility

of UO3 can explain almost all of the extent of the problem.  Most

of the lung burden experiments cited in the debate have involved

the less soluble oxides.  UO3 is almost as water-soluble as uranyl

nitrate is, and certainly forms the deadly uranyl ion.



> You cite  "air-soluble compounds" - absolute non-scientific nonsense.



There are several uranium-chlorine-oxygen compounds which remain

dissolved in dry air at STP, according to the 8th edition of the

Gmelin Handbook of Inorganic Chemistry.  It is common knowledge

that military ordnance propellant often includes chlorates and

perclorates as oxidizers.  What evidence do you have in support

of your position?



>... in the Austrian army ... we received an answer which

> I think is more than appropriate in this case: "If soldiers are 

> supposed to die in enemy fire then it is also acceptable that

> some  will die from radiation from a nuclear bomb."

> 

> Do you understand that?



I most certainly do.  It does not apply to civilians in any way.



 >... it is perfectly compatible with military thinking.



You are from Austria.  I am from Germany.  I was born and raised

in Ansbach, just outside Nuremberg, where international law as we

know it today was established because of the grave grimes of the

German and Austrian military.  The laws of war require that weapons

must not continue to act after a battle is over, that they must not

be unduly harmful to the environment, that they must not act off of

the battlefield, and that they must not kill or wound inhumanly.

Burning uranium munitions fail all four of those tests, and have

placed the consumers of Indian Ocean fish in very grave and

serious danger of contracting cancer, immune system failure, and

birth defects.  This illegality must not be allowed to stand.



Since you have expressed your opposition to the military engagement

of the U.S. in foreign countries without the consent of the United

Nations, please join me in support of the following resolution,

which was put forward by the U.N. Human Rights Commission in 1996:



   RESOLUTION 1996/16 ON STOPPING THE USE OF DEPLETED URANIUM - DU



   The military use of DU violates current international humanitarian

   law, including the principle that there is no unlimited right to

   choose the means and methods of warfare (Art. 22 Hague Convention VI

   (HCIV); Art. 35 of the Additional Protocol to the Geneva (GP1); the

   ban on causing unnecessary suffering and superfluous injury (Art. 23

   §le HCIV; Art. 35 §2 GP1), indiscriminate warfare (Art. 51 §4c and 5b

   GP1) as well as the use of poison or poisoned weapons.



   The deployment and use of DU violate the principles of international

   environmental and human rights protection. They contradict the right

   to life established by the Resolution 1996/16 of the UN Subcommittee

   on Human Rights.



Please ask your ambassador to the U.S. or the U.N. to require that the

U.S. comply with Resolution 1996/16.



>... Your arguments are simply not valid. Even if they were

> valid they are not acceptable in a situation where so many soldiers

> return seriously wounded, lacking arms or legs or even having suffered

> worse wounds. Not to talk about the ones coming home in a coffin. All

> have been paid for their risks.



None of them agreed to participate in illegal activities, including

the use of poison gas weapons.  They were lied to when they were

told that uranium munitions do not produce poison gas.



> I see with much discomfort, that some pressure groups or rather

> lobbyists try to manipulate RADSAFE for their agenda, which clearly 

> are beyond the RADSAFE goals. The James Salsman message is just one

> of the attempts.



I am not a paid member of any groups who have taken sides on the

topic.  My interest stems entirely from the apparent risks to my

own country's financial well-being and liabilities, and some

historical research surrounding the correspondence of a step-brother

of mine whom I never met, and who died of cancer three years after

returning from a tour of duty in the Viet Nam jungle, where he had

been in contact with Agent Orange.  I see many parallels, but this

time, no assay of old stocks in rusty barrels is required to

demonstrate the extent of the problem from uranium combustion products.



And I am certainly no radical -- the U.K. justice system already

agrees quite firmly, and there has only been more evidence on its

side since the ruling in February, and nothing to indicate they

were in any way misled or reached an incorrect decision.  The facts

are clear, and the law is clear, but the law is not yet being

followed here in the U.S., and at least half the lifespan of dozens

of millions of people has been put in serious jeopardy.



Even the D.o.D. has ruled out all of the possible alternative

hypotheses through cohort studies.  Just because they lie about

how they think there might be some other as-yet-unknown hypothesis

doesn't change the fact that the observations of symptoms and

their underlying illnesses are completely compatible with uranium

pyrolite inhalation.  Don't take my word for it -- ask the

Depleted Uranium Oversight Board, or Helen Thomas, or anything on

the topic from the peer-reviewed medical literature over the past

couple of years.



 > How much do these lobbyists earn for their work on RADSAFE?



I have accepted no payment or quid-pro-quo to express myself on

these topics, and I have no financial interest in uranium commerce,

uranium munitions, etc., other than as a U.S. taxpayer.  My income

over the past three years has been entirely as a sole proprietor

working in software development and applied statistics.  I am

acting only as an independent citizen on this matter.



Sincerely,

James Salsman

+1.650.793.0162





************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To

unsubscribe, send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the

text "unsubscribe radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail,

with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/