> I didn't defend the article, all I did was debunk your statement that >it didn't give any references.
No, you didn't, since the only reference the article gives is one to another article that similarly doesn't give any actual information beyond numbers with no context. The numbers in the two articles don't even match. The other blue links on the page lead to pages that have nothing to do with the article, so they're not references either. A reference is a statement, "this is where I got my information from". > Your response is much the same: "I haven't read the report, perhaps I >will if I can find it and have time...", "I don't have the links >anymore..." Not true, I went and read the closest thing to a reference from that article and discovered it was pretty much just more of the same. I checked the other pages and discovered they don't contain anything relating to the article. Even the cancer link had nothing about cancer caused by DU. I also went and had a look at some info about the "eminent" scientist to discover that the use of "eminent" is probably pushing the boundaries. If I had time I would certainly already have read Moret's Trojan Horse page, but I haven't. When I have time I will read it. > Now you didn't just blind-eye their reasons like you've been doing >here did you? The original article didn't give any reasons. It gave what looked like reasons that turned out not to be since they weren't explicitly linked to what the article was about. I did have a look at one anti-DU site and found that the articles were much like the one originally posted. I've just had a look through a couple of articles on the ICBDU site and, other than one where someone had cancer that is believed to have been caused by exposure during clean-ups (involving being relatively close to detonations and direct inhalation of large quantities from that), they all say pretty much the same thing - we're not sure, studies say that there's no issue, but we have concerns about things that might have been overlooked. Perhaps in there somewhere is something definitive, but it's certainly not made obvious. > I don't think the fact that you couldn't find them means they don't exist. There's a difference between the resolution and a link to it existing and the fact that I couldn't find it. You asked me to give the references to something I couldn't find. I didn't have a reference since I couldn't find any and therefore I can't give you a reference that doesn't exist. It's the equivalent of me saying I couldn't find a unicorn and you asking me to show you where I found the unicorn. I did find the article in the link you posted, but it says that the UN passed a resolution highlighting serious health concerns. I didn't see anything about the UN declaring DU weapons illegal weapons of mass destruction, so I didn't mention it as a reference since it's not a reference to the UN resolution referred to in the original article. I checked the resolution PDF and it said only that the request was that a study be conducted and that the results be included on the agenda of a future session. > You still haven't given any references for your own claims. Yes, I did, I put in a link to the WHO page that plays down any significant danger from DU. I didn't include a direct link, but I also mentioned (in two places) Wikipedia pages that give information, including a sort of disclaimer that Wikipedia isn't necessarily the ideal source of facts. The information in there about the jury still being out on whether and to what extent DU is dangerous does match up with what WHO says and with all but one of the articles I read on the ICBUW site (which, admittedly, was only 3 of them). > opened up a lot of angles for you to follow, if you'd wanted to, but >you went and closed them all again I followed several of the links, read what was at all but one of the ones I followed, did other searches and yet I'm just closing the angles? I'm all for criticism, but an argument must be made. As I said in my original response, I'm not saying the claims aren't true, I'm just saying that what's presented doesn't actually constitute an argument and that does more damage than good, certainly for me. ExxonMobil has every right to ask for the proof. If not, where does one draw the line? If you were running a business and I told you you had to spend a whole lot of money to change the way you do business based on a claim I had about damage you were causing, are you telling me you'd just make the expensive changes, possibly lose revenue, etc., simply on my say so? I know I wouldn't, I'd want the claim verified. There do at least appear to be fewer naysayers in the scientific community about global warming these days and while there are still those who're claiming it's not real, or at least that we're not causing it, are finding it harder and harder to support their stance. By the way, in case it's not clear, I'm enjoying this. I know that I have a tendency to get carried away and commit exactly the crimes I'm accusing others of doing. Having it pointed out to me is most welcome. Cheers Craig -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Keith Addison Sent: 22 May 2008 01:20 PM To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Depleted Uranium Shells Used by U.S. Military Worse Than Nuclear Weapons Craig I didn't defend the article, all I did was debunk your statement that it didn't give any references. Your response is much the same: "I haven't read the report, perhaps I will if I can find it and have time...", "I don't have the links anymore..." >Other pages I found (I >don't have the links anymore) were pages of anti DU groups saying it's bad, >but not giving any reason why. Sure, anti-DU groups are bound to go about their campaign by saying it's bad but not giving any reason why. :-) Like this one: http://www.cadu.org.uk/info/index.htm Campaign Against Depleted Uranium (CADU) Information No shortage of reasons there. Nor here: http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/ International Coalition to Ban Depleted Uranium Now you didn't just blind-eye their reasons like you've been doing here did you? >As to the second bit, "I couldn't find anything about the UN", how exactly >would I provide references that don't exist? I don't think the fact that you couldn't find them means they don't exist. http://www.cadu.org.uk/info/campaign/27_3.htm UN General Assembly Passes DU Resolution >See below for the full text of the resolution: >'Effects of the use of armaments and ammunitions containing depleted >uranium' A/C.1/62/L.18/Rev.1 >Full text (select your language of choice): >http://www.un.org/Docs/journal/asp/ws.asp?m=A/C.1/62/L.18/rev.1 No difficulty finding it. You keep asking "Where are the references?" but it seems the last thing you want to find is references, whether they exist or not. You still haven't given any references for your own claims. >How many people are going to spend hours of their day trawling the internet >trying to determine if there's any substance to what's said? Most people >simply don't have that kind of time on their hands. :-) So you think I do? Actually it only took two minutes, and it opened up a lot of angles for you to follow, if you'd wanted to, but you went and closed them all again. Did you check the list archives? No, right? 116 finds for "Depleted uranium". It's a controversial subject, anything that criticises the glorious US military is a controversial subect. You remind me of what ExxonMobil's been saying about global warming for the last 20 years: Where's the proof? Where's the evidence? Where's the sound science? Better question: where's the precautionary principle? There's rather more than just a good case for applying it to DU, long since. Unless you also think the Ford Pinto was a great car. Keith _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
