09-10-2006, 05:40 AM
Although this site has so far gone largely unnoticed (just over 200 hits now), a few key anti-DU activists have taken a look at it. Another significant person who has found it is Mr. H (He wouldn't bless me to mention his name, although he tosses names freely himself when criticizing others) , an American citizen who has taken an interest in fighting against what he sees as a distortionary campaign by self-aggrandizing activist-types to demonize depleted uranium unfairly.
He has been called an establishment attack dog by the targets of his one-man campaign against them. I have been having occassional email correspondence with Mr. H, and I don't believe him to be motivated by anything other than his respect for truth.
He wants to convince me I am misguided in my effort to draw attention to a supposed "debate" over DU, giving the nefarious activists more credibility that they so don't deserve. I want him to defeat my hypotheses of why DU can be expected to be harmful.
I tell him, I hope he wins the argument, as that would mean less suffering for the inhabitants of Iraq and other areas that have been shelled with DU. I value his opinion because he cares. I hope he is as open to changing his opinion as I am. And, of course, I am interested in the fact that he maintains a public fued with some very prominant anti-DU activists.
With that as an intro, I'll now post a recent email I received from Mr. H, and my three replies, one of which predictably was another restating of my specific concerns regarding internal alpha emmissions. I just can't stand the thought of it being written for only one person to read.
My friend recently asked me if my DU site was getting attention or was just a "voice in the wind." Most of the time it feels like less than that.
________________________________
Mr. H,
I added sexier linking to the UNEP Bosnia report you like so much, and put it on the 'Not dangerous' page too.
I spent some time reading the physics stuff in the report. I was wondering about the specific activity numbers being used as the basis of stating that DU is less dangerous than 'natural' uranium. I agree that is certainly a valid statement if we are talking about making paperweights out of these substances, but is it a fair assertion given that the DU exposure we are concerned about is the aerolyzed dust and those DU molecules that find their way into the cells and lodge there (indulge me for a moment if you differ on that point - it's another argument).
Just as U-238's long half-life reduces its radioactive potential by several orders of magnitude, doesn't distance do likewise? I think safety levels for radiation must be adjusted when considering such scenarios as extremely close-range alpha bombardment of delicate cells.
Essentially, the logic behind the Bosnia Report holds that DU is actually "less radioactive" than other substances which are known to be only slighly dangerous as environmental contaminants. I know the report addresses internal contamination, but it uses the logic I just stated to pass off the significance of battlefield contamination on the people who must live there later.
You probably don't think the linear dose model holds water, and neither do I. I know there is an array of cellular DNA repair mechanisms that probably actually exploit some low threshold of ionizing radiation to positive benefit.
But the curve will still be different for different situations, and I would expect that if ever there was a condition in which the no safe dose model holds up, it would be close-range alpha emissions. I wouldn't even be surprised if the dose-damage curve actually went the other way at extrememly close distances, such as if DNA binding of DU happens, as has been reported recently by serious researchers.
Can you help me see the light better? Can you convince me these concerns are just red herrings? I agree the UNEP Bosnia report is very informative, but it doesn't answer the specific concerns that arise out of ammunition aerolyzation.
-Peter
He has been called an establishment attack dog by the targets of his one-man campaign against them. I have been having occassional email correspondence with Mr. H, and I don't believe him to be motivated by anything other than his respect for truth.
He wants to convince me I am misguided in my effort to draw attention to a supposed "debate" over DU, giving the nefarious activists more credibility that they so don't deserve. I want him to defeat my hypotheses of why DU can be expected to be harmful.
I tell him, I hope he wins the argument, as that would mean less suffering for the inhabitants of Iraq and other areas that have been shelled with DU. I value his opinion because he cares. I hope he is as open to changing his opinion as I am. And, of course, I am interested in the fact that he maintains a public fued with some very prominant anti-DU activists.
With that as an intro, I'll now post a recent email I received from Mr. H, and my three replies, one of which predictably was another restating of my specific concerns regarding internal alpha emmissions. I just can't stand the thought of it being written for only one person to read.
My friend recently asked me if my DU site was getting attention or was just a "voice in the wind." Most of the time it feels like less than that.
________________________________
Mr. H,
I added sexier linking to the UNEP Bosnia report you like so much, and put it on the 'Not dangerous' page too.
I spent some time reading the physics stuff in the report. I was wondering about the specific activity numbers being used as the basis of stating that DU is less dangerous than 'natural' uranium. I agree that is certainly a valid statement if we are talking about making paperweights out of these substances, but is it a fair assertion given that the DU exposure we are concerned about is the aerolyzed dust and those DU molecules that find their way into the cells and lodge there (indulge me for a moment if you differ on that point - it's another argument).
Just as U-238's long half-life reduces its radioactive potential by several orders of magnitude, doesn't distance do likewise? I think safety levels for radiation must be adjusted when considering such scenarios as extremely close-range alpha bombardment of delicate cells.
Essentially, the logic behind the Bosnia Report holds that DU is actually "less radioactive" than other substances which are known to be only slighly dangerous as environmental contaminants. I know the report addresses internal contamination, but it uses the logic I just stated to pass off the significance of battlefield contamination on the people who must live there later.
You probably don't think the linear dose model holds water, and neither do I. I know there is an array of cellular DNA repair mechanisms that probably actually exploit some low threshold of ionizing radiation to positive benefit.
But the curve will still be different for different situations, and I would expect that if ever there was a condition in which the no safe dose model holds up, it would be close-range alpha emissions. I wouldn't even be surprised if the dose-damage curve actually went the other way at extrememly close distances, such as if DNA binding of DU happens, as has been reported recently by serious researchers.
Can you help me see the light better? Can you convince me these concerns are just red herrings? I agree the UNEP Bosnia report is very informative, but it doesn't answer the specific concerns that arise out of ammunition aerolyzation.
-Peter
Quote:
On 9/9/06, Peter Dearman wrote:
By the way, I've had a link to the UNEP report on the site since it went online. It's on this page, fourth entry down: (used to be second down, heh, heh)
http://www.dubbs.info/officialsites.htm
But I will make a better entry now.
-Peter
On 9/9/06, Peter Dearman wrote:
Mr. H.,
Thanks for the feedback. I'm pretty busy these days, and there are a lot of things I should put on the site. I did spend a day looking at academic publications, and I've put up some recent stuff regarding the NYC hearing and the AP story that got widespread coverage.
I did add some stuff here that should please you:
http://www.dubbs.info/academic.htm#partb
Anyway, the main idea for the site is to host a BBS. I really don't want to try and make another one-way info site. I think your criticism of my site being "unbalanced" is totally valid. I could not create a totally impartial site even if I tried, as I do have my own opinions, and I can't restrain myself from editorializing a bit.
I hope that you will register for the BBS and provide some counterbalance. That's the whole idea of a BBS. I would much rather engage in a conversation with you on the BBS, where our efforts can have some enlightening benefit for others who follow, than just in private emails. I've already posted several leading questions there. Why don't you post some replies. You won't even need to register to post replies.
Rokke, Moret and their pals are all aware of the site. Some anti-DU activists plan to help publicize the site once I clean it up a bit more. (There are some glaring ommissions in it, such as no link yet to the CERRIE (sp?) report.)
So why don't you take the platform to question the creds of your favorite targets? I'd be elated, as that ought to draw them into responding. BBS debates are much more satisfying that emailing list debates.
Gotta run now. Have a nice day.
-Peter
By the way, I've had a link to the UNEP report on the site since it went online. It's on this page, fourth entry down: (used to be second down, heh, heh)
http://www.dubbs.info/officialsites.htm
But I will make a better entry now.
-Peter
On 9/9/06, Peter Dearman wrote:
Mr. H.,
Thanks for the feedback. I'm pretty busy these days, and there are a lot of things I should put on the site. I did spend a day looking at academic publications, and I've put up some recent stuff regarding the NYC hearing and the AP story that got widespread coverage.
I did add some stuff here that should please you:
http://www.dubbs.info/academic.htm#partb
Anyway, the main idea for the site is to host a BBS. I really don't want to try and make another one-way info site. I think your criticism of my site being "unbalanced" is totally valid. I could not create a totally impartial site even if I tried, as I do have my own opinions, and I can't restrain myself from editorializing a bit.
I hope that you will register for the BBS and provide some counterbalance. That's the whole idea of a BBS. I would much rather engage in a conversation with you on the BBS, where our efforts can have some enlightening benefit for others who follow, than just in private emails. I've already posted several leading questions there. Why don't you post some replies. You won't even need to register to post replies.
Rokke, Moret and their pals are all aware of the site. Some anti-DU activists plan to help publicize the site once I clean it up a bit more. (There are some glaring ommissions in it, such as no link yet to the CERRIE (sp?) report.)
So why don't you take the platform to question the creds of your favorite targets? I'd be elated, as that ought to draw them into responding. BBS debates are much more satisfying that emailing list debates.
Gotta run now. Have a nice day.
-Peter
On 9/9/06, Mr. H wrote:
You still have not balanced your site .. anything put out by the crazies has center stage ..
I did not see the UNEP report .. nor of course this one
You will note that the measurement of uranium used by Axel Gerdes and the NY Daily News to prove that Herbert Reed, Gerard Matthew and others had DU in their bodies is the same infinitesimal level used to determine the natural uranium level. Given that, how does anyone know that any of these soldiers have DU in them or that the whole thing, which began as a stunt to improve the Daily News's circulation figures and is now in Federal Court, ever was legitimate. Are these soldiers being diverted from the true cause of their ailments? Is the Government defense attorney ignorant of DU as well?
Mr. H
What follows is article that was referenced in reply on RADSAFE (and which I had to locate in their archives, which I urge you to research for Rokke, Moret, Salsman and others in the anti-DU movement that convinced these soldiers that they had been exposed to DU.
The quantities of natural radioactive elements researchers measure are in the femtogram, or one quadrillionth of a gram, scale
Quote:
Researchers find time in dusty polar ice
Contact: Todd Hanson, ,
LOS ALAMOS, N.M., June 12, 2000 -- Scientists at the Department of Energy's Los Alamos National Laboratory recently unveiled a direct radiometric dating method for determining the age of polar ice. Further development of the novel dating method could improve mankind's knowledge of glaciers and the terrestrial history of meteorites as well as improve the accuracy of paleoclimate records.
The radiometric dating method uses mass spectrometry to make extremely sensitive measurements of minute amounts of uranium-series elements naturally present in ancient polar ice. Researchers determine the age of the ice by comparing concentrations of daughter uranium-series isotopes to parent isotopes in the sample. The quantities of natural radioactive elements researchers measure are in the femtogram, or one quadrillionth of a gram, scale. The uranium-series elements are uranium, radium, thorium and protactinium.
Using the new method, Steven Goldstein, Michael Murrell and Andrew Nunn of the Laboratory's Chemical Science and Technology Division have refined previous age estimates for ice samples taken from Allan Hills, Antarctica and are currently studying samples from the Summit region of central Greenland.
"Our primary goal is to develop a more ideal method for determining the age of ice," says Goldstein. "Paleoclimatologists and others interested in determining the age of ice usually either count the visible bands or layers in the ice, or use carbon-14 dating methods. While both methods are fairly accurate, each has limitations. Band counting can't really account for any missing sections in the ice column and carbon-14 is generally useful for dating back only about 40,000 years. Our method could be more widely applied than counting banding and works on a time scale well beyond that of carbon-14 dating."
The team's uranium-series dating results for the samples from Allan Hills suggest a far younger age for the ice than previously thought. Earlier published data placing the Allan Hills ice's age at roughly 325,000 years was based on measurements made using alpha spectrometry. Los Alamos researchers estimate that the actual age is probably less than 100,000 years. Goldstein and his colleagues are quick to point out, however, that more samples and studies are needed to substantiate this determination.
The new dating technology also may someday help settle an apparent disparity in paleoclimate research between continental and marine records detailing glacial-interglacial climate change. The marine coral record of sea-level fluctuations indicates an age of 122,000 to 130,000 years for the onset of the last interglacial period. On the other hand, a Great Basin calcite vein record of continental climate indicates the onset occurred earlier, about 140,000 years ago. The uranium-series dating method for polar ice cores could be used to address this issue, helping to pinpoint the timing and origin of past natural variability in climate and atmospheric carbon dioxide. The development of the dating technique takes advantage of Los Alamos's scientific expertise in detecting and measuring very minute amounts of radioactive materials in the natural environment.
Allan Hills is a 12-mile-long group of hills located near McMurdo Station along the coast of the Ross Sea in Antarctica. Named for Prof. R.S. Allan of the University of Canterbury in New Zealand, Allan Hills is known for its abundance of old meteorites and as the source of ALH 84001 the controversial meteorite that produced speculation about possible life on Mars.
The ice cores from Greenland used in the study were from the base of a core made by the Greenland Ice Sheet Project Two. The Greenland Ice Sheet Project successfully completed drilling 3 kilometers through the Greenland Ice Sheet in 1993, making it the deepest ice core record in the world.
The Los Alamos research was presented recently at the Spring Meeting of the American Geophysical Union in Washington, D.C.
Los Alamos National Laboratory is a multidisciplinary research institution engaged in strategic science on behalf of national security. The Laboratory is operated by a team composed of Bechtel National, the University of California, BWX Technologies, and Washington Group International for the Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration.
Los Alamos enhances national security by ensuring the safety and reliability of the U.S. nuclear stockpile, developing technologies to reduce threats from weapons of mass destruction, and solving problems related to energy, environment, infrastructure, health and global security concerns.
Contact: Todd Hanson, ,
LOS ALAMOS, N.M., June 12, 2000 -- Scientists at the Department of Energy's Los Alamos National Laboratory recently unveiled a direct radiometric dating method for determining the age of polar ice. Further development of the novel dating method could improve mankind's knowledge of glaciers and the terrestrial history of meteorites as well as improve the accuracy of paleoclimate records.
The radiometric dating method uses mass spectrometry to make extremely sensitive measurements of minute amounts of uranium-series elements naturally present in ancient polar ice. Researchers determine the age of the ice by comparing concentrations of daughter uranium-series isotopes to parent isotopes in the sample. The quantities of natural radioactive elements researchers measure are in the femtogram, or one quadrillionth of a gram, scale. The uranium-series elements are uranium, radium, thorium and protactinium.
Using the new method, Steven Goldstein, Michael Murrell and Andrew Nunn of the Laboratory's Chemical Science and Technology Division have refined previous age estimates for ice samples taken from Allan Hills, Antarctica and are currently studying samples from the Summit region of central Greenland.
"Our primary goal is to develop a more ideal method for determining the age of ice," says Goldstein. "Paleoclimatologists and others interested in determining the age of ice usually either count the visible bands or layers in the ice, or use carbon-14 dating methods. While both methods are fairly accurate, each has limitations. Band counting can't really account for any missing sections in the ice column and carbon-14 is generally useful for dating back only about 40,000 years. Our method could be more widely applied than counting banding and works on a time scale well beyond that of carbon-14 dating."
The team's uranium-series dating results for the samples from Allan Hills suggest a far younger age for the ice than previously thought. Earlier published data placing the Allan Hills ice's age at roughly 325,000 years was based on measurements made using alpha spectrometry. Los Alamos researchers estimate that the actual age is probably less than 100,000 years. Goldstein and his colleagues are quick to point out, however, that more samples and studies are needed to substantiate this determination.
The new dating technology also may someday help settle an apparent disparity in paleoclimate research between continental and marine records detailing glacial-interglacial climate change. The marine coral record of sea-level fluctuations indicates an age of 122,000 to 130,000 years for the onset of the last interglacial period. On the other hand, a Great Basin calcite vein record of continental climate indicates the onset occurred earlier, about 140,000 years ago. The uranium-series dating method for polar ice cores could be used to address this issue, helping to pinpoint the timing and origin of past natural variability in climate and atmospheric carbon dioxide. The development of the dating technique takes advantage of Los Alamos's scientific expertise in detecting and measuring very minute amounts of radioactive materials in the natural environment.
Allan Hills is a 12-mile-long group of hills located near McMurdo Station along the coast of the Ross Sea in Antarctica. Named for Prof. R.S. Allan of the University of Canterbury in New Zealand, Allan Hills is known for its abundance of old meteorites and as the source of ALH 84001 the controversial meteorite that produced speculation about possible life on Mars.
The ice cores from Greenland used in the study were from the base of a core made by the Greenland Ice Sheet Project Two. The Greenland Ice Sheet Project successfully completed drilling 3 kilometers through the Greenland Ice Sheet in 1993, making it the deepest ice core record in the world.
The Los Alamos research was presented recently at the Spring Meeting of the American Geophysical Union in Washington, D.C.
Los Alamos National Laboratory is a multidisciplinary research institution engaged in strategic science on behalf of national security. The Laboratory is operated by a team composed of Bechtel National, the University of California, BWX Technologies, and Washington Group International for the Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration.
Los Alamos enhances national security by ensuring the safety and reliability of the U.S. nuclear stockpile, developing technologies to reduce threats from weapons of mass destruction, and solving problems related to energy, environment, infrastructure, health and global security concerns.
[From here: http://www.lanl.gov/news/index.php?fusea...ry_id=1034 ]
Can you show me the connection between the New York case and the minute uranium isotope levels mentioned in this article?