[ RadSafe ] James Salsman, volunteer uranium poisoning protection amateur

[JGinniver at aol.com]

In a message dated 17/04/2005 06:42:46 GMT Standard Time, james at bovik.org  
writes:

and a  superseded Royal Society
report already rejected by the British  government.



James,
In your response I saw no evidence that the report had either been  
superseded, OR rejected by the UK Government.
 
Your response was to draw attention to a decision by the UK Pensions  
Tribunal which  was reported to have accepted DU exposure in a single case  that was 
set before them.
 
I have tried to obtain details of this decision, however I can only find  
newspaper reports or summaries on anti DU websites.  I have little faith  that 
either of these can be regarded as independent and would only draw  emphasis to 
those parts of the decision that supported their/your case.  I  found the web 
site for the tribunals and am hoping that in the near future their  promised 
search engine for decisions will allow me to review the actual  
judgement/decision that was written by the tribunal.  Then I may be able to  respond in more 
detail.  At the moment I feel I don't have enough  information to make 
sensible comment on the decision itself.
 
However with regard to the processes adopted by the Tribunal, I would say  
this.  I think it unlikely that the Tribunal reviewed as much evidence as  the 
Royal Society.  The tribunal consists as far I can tell of three  individuals 
one of whom must be a doctor,  I do wonder whether the tribunal  had the 
appropriate background to examine the evidence placed before them.   This is a 
debate currently ongoing in the UK about Juries (in general) that  have to hear 
evidence that is complex and may be beyond the ability of the  jurors to 
understand fully.  One suggestion has been that for some cases a  specialist jury 
should be provided this might also be appropriate for the  tribunal or at least to 
co-opt some independent experts in this area.  Also  don't know what 'burden 
of evidence' of evidence is required to conclude that DU  exposure may have 
been a contributory factor in the mans illness.  I do  know that for example in 
the UK the burden of proof in a Criminal Case (i.e. one  brought by the 
state/Crown) is much higher than in a Civil Case (i.e. one  brought by an individual 
or company against another).  It is also  interesting to note that this case 
doesn't appear to have produced a series of  other claims of DU exposure and 
illness to the Tribunal, this is perhaps an  indicator that large numbers of 
claims for DU based illnesses don't exist.   Particularly as the individual who 
brought the case was supported by the Gulf  War Veterans Association who have 
campaigned vigorously for ex-service personnel  who believe that they have 
become ill as a result of serving in the Gulf, and  I'm sure would have seen this 
as an opportunity to get the same conclusion for  others who believed their 
illnesses result from DU exposure.…
 
If you have details of where I can read the original decision by the UK  
pensions Tribunal I would appreciate it you could let me know as I'm keen to  
understand it.  Also if you have more details where the UK Government has  
rejected the findings of the Royal Society I would appreciate these also.
 
It is interesting that while you reject the findings of the Royal Society  
report you are making some of the same comments/recommendations.  For  example, 
the Royal Society recommended that measurements were made of the type  and 
quantity of Uranium excreted by UK service personnel (both those in service  and 
those who have left the service) as this important to assess the likely  
exposure of (approximately 55,000) UK service personnel who served in the  Gulf.  
The UK MInistry of Defence itself admits that the voluntary  screening service 
it has established for these individuals was as a direct  result of the 
recommendations made by the Royal Society.
 
Regards,
    Julian