This is getting to be really childish.

----Original Message Follows----
From: Jonathan Campbell <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: Science for the People Discussion List              
<[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: DU article
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 21:32:39 -0400

And professors are never wrong or wrong-headed, thinking they are 
progressive or scientific but ignoring evidence literally before their eyes.

You have discounted good scientists and medical professionals who have seen 
the medical effects of DU in their daily work, the work of Doug Rokke, who 
was supposed to promulgate the cleanup protocol for DU but was prevented 
from doing so, the work of doctors in Iraq and Afghanistan who deal with the 
monstrous radiological birth defects, and now the hard evidence that DU was 
planned from the beginning as a permanent radiological terrain contaminant.

Les Schaffer said in his response to your unthinking comment,  "I've talked 
to medical epidemiologists who claim you simply don't know what you are 
talking about regarding DU and health effects."

I thinmk you need to rethinmk your thinmking patterns.

Jonathan
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Doug Brugge
   To: [log in to unmask]
   Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 8:59 PM
   Subject: Re: DU article


   Jonathan,

   Sorry about spelling your name wrong.  I am a professor.  I've studied 
uranium for a long time.  And there are hundreds of studies of natural 
uranium that show nothing similar to what you describe.  My progressive 
credentials are strong.  Look at the edited book I just did that I forwarded 
earlier today.  Look, the basic problem is that there is no evidence that DU 
is as highly toxic as many other chemcials.  That does not mean it is not 
toxic is, but there are many other substances that are far more toxic than, 
even asbestos, which I would not put particularly high on the toxicity list. 
  Radon is one, but we have been down that road and you simply refuse to 
believe that radon is about a trillion times more radioactive than any form 
of uranium.

   The other thing that makes the situation in war very difficult to tease 
apart are the vast range of exposures.  Perhaps you have read recently that 
the US EPA did not lower the standard for fine particulates as much as their 
scientific panel recommended.  These particulates are killing tens if not 
hundreds of thousands of people at a level of exposure that is 
imperceptaible to our senses.  Then extrapolate that to the smoke and dust 
you see in a war.  Why could these highly proven toxics not be responsible 
for some of the symdrome, but DU has to account for all of the symptoms.  
That is what I mean by magical thinking rather than scientific thinking.

   Doug