Depleted Uranium Forums (DU-BBS)

My site, during the time that hardly anyone but myself has posted on this BBS, has attracted the ire of DU activists from both sides. Specifically, my scientific papers sections were accused of being biased (by critics from both sides).

I find this a bit odd.

In my opinion, scholarly journals are somewhat above reproach. What is the point of criticizing me for spreading the results of our academic peer-review system? I think my critics miss my point. I will try to succinctly restate it yet again. I believe the results of scientific research must be put into the public sphere of attention and analyzed openly. Scientists are not always correct in their conclusions, and they are certainly not above reproach. Anyone who chooses to be particularly swayed by this or that scientific paper should be careful of their reasons for doing so.

Because of the mistrust of my motives coming from someone I would think should see me as an ally, I propose to join anyone who wants to team up with me on an exploratory investigation into the issue of just which science we should trust and which we shouldn't (necessarily).

If DU is approximately as dangerous as certain activists insist, there must be an explanation as to why a significant number of scientists produce reports of its innocuousness. If we recall, the tobacco industry was able to produce plenty of science too, all of it proving that tobacco smoke couldn't be implicated in cancer or most any other health problem.

So why don't we look to see how many of the scientists saying DU is innocuous are funded by way of the weapons industry?

And if anyone has some science links to send me, please do. Entire papers is best. I will not reprint them wholly (That is wrong. The man says so.) But I may try to review them and quote the useful bits.)

Volunteers?

Of course, it is useful to know whether or not someone doing research has a material interest in its outcome.

However, by itself, this proves nothing.

For example, suppose I begin a campaign against milk: "Milk causes cancer; more than 99% of people who die today, have drunk milk at some time in the past..." etc. etc.

Of course, the Milk Industry would be concerned.

Of course, they would fund scientists to do research, hoping that these scientists would find that the "Milk/Cancer" link was hysterical nonsense.

And they would indeed find that. There is no milk-cancer link.

Now, would it be right to dismiss their research, because this research was "funded by the milk industry"?

So also with Depleted Uranium.

You would  have to believe that scientists are a deeply cynical, corrupt, dishonest lot, to believe that they would fake their reseach results, letting tens of thousands of people die of cancer, just to keep their grants.

I've known a number of scientists, and I have never met a single one like that. (I am talking about real scientists now, not people like Douglas Rokke and Leuren Moret.)

I think it is much more likely that the cynicism and dishonesty is on the side of their accusers.

You are certainly right in wanting to see the matter decided on a scientific basis.  But if the vast majority of papers on the subject suggest that DU is relatively harmless in the manner in which it is used, will that satisfy you?  I suggest checking with the Health Physics Society to get their opinion.  Incidentally, very few scientists derive their income from work related to DU.  I am interested in the topic because I do derive my income from radiation safety but not from depleted uranium.  If depleted uranium were banned tomorrow, my income would not decrease by one dollar.

Vast majority? Can you back that up?

Health Physics Society?  Okay. Let's go. Why them? What is the nature of this group's funding and composition?

I've already looked into this group a bit, but please tell me what you think I should know.

I notice a lot of the members of HPS are not cited as holding a PhD but as holding a CHP. Oh, maybe I'm a stickler, but it looks to me that a person with any "techie" Bachelors who monitors radiation for a living (or some such thing related to Health Physics) can study to earn a CHP certification. So does this qualify them to speak definitively on whether DU dust is capable of causing DNA damage? It certainly qualifies them more than say myself, but I'm not convinced totally of this group's authority.

Honestly, when I browse the abstracts in the Health Physics journal, I find very little to allay my concerns. Most of the DU-related papers focus on measurement of uranium, be it in urine, the environment or wherever. Critics of DU however are worried about the percentage, however small, that is retained by the body.

And I do remember well the lessons on biological accumulation from my Bachelor's degree study in biology. Things like heavy metals tend to accumulate in the food chain. This is why it isn't good to eat too much salmon.

And DU is a heavy metal, is it not?

I'm listening. But please speak to me. Well, not just to me. It appears some people do read this board, even if not many choose to post.