Another reference quite detailed. http://www.iicph.org/docs/du_update_1_3.htm
Joe Craig Barrett wrote: >Hi > >The linked article (the second reference from the Gulf War page) also >doesn't really give anything useful. It gives numbers, but not reasons. >11000 dead, but how many actually died due to the Gulf War? Perhaps the >eminent scientist is being misquoted and did actually specifically say that >all of those 11000 deaths have been linked to DU, but how to tell from the >article? I haven't read the report, perhaps I will if I can find it and >have time, but how many other eminent scientists have reproduced the testing >that Leuren presumably did to come to his conclusion? Where are the >references to the supporting work? Wikipedia is not the most reliable >source of information, but it comes up as the first link when searching >Google for Leuren Moret and it's less than complimentary. Fair enough, it >refers to mainstream scientists and, of course, it's always possible they >have their own agenda, but it makes me wonder about the 'eminent' >qualification in the Natural News article. > > > >>On the other hand, you don't give any references for your statements. >> >> > >Fair enough. I read a WHO page >(http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/), probably the same one >Chip read, that intimated DU was no big deal, while nevertheless giving some >info on possible effects and how to treat exposure. 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. Wikipedia (insofar as it can be trusted) >says the jury's out and that no one has yet provided any hard evidence that >DU is a significant threat. > >As to the second bit, " I couldn't find anything about the UN", how exactly >would I provide references that don't exist? > >Nevertheless, where are there references to the studies that show the high >toxicity of DU and the fact that the UN has declared it an illegal weapon of >mass destruction? Where is the reference to the UK AEA study that concludes >that 500k cancer deaths would result from 50t of DU dust and where is the >reference to the follow up that determined how many cancer deaths actually >resulted? The first one may be overkill to provide, but the follow up is >what's important. There's one somewhat meaningful reference, and it's not >even at the point where the reference should be, i.e. in the last paragraph >where the numbers of dead and disabled Gulf War veterans are mentioned. > >The problem I have is this - an article that is written with a bunch of >vague, wishy-washy statements disguised as arguments. Numbers are bandied >about, but they don't actually say anything. If someone wants to be taken >seriously with something like that the argument had better be sound. 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. Don't give me >meaningless stuff like 35% of Gulf War veterans are dead or on permanent >disability, tell me that 35% of Gulf War veterans' deaths or permanent >disabilities have been directly linked to DU by several independent >scientific studies. It's not a question of whether the information is out >there somewhere, it's the fact that nothing of actual substance was >presented in the article in support of its conclusion which is presented in >the headline. > >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of >Keith Addison >Sent: 21 May 2008 07:16 PM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Depleted Uranium Shells Used by U.S. Military Worse >Than Nuclear Weapons > >Hello Craig > > > >>Hmmmm... while DU may be dangerous, this article doesn't help much with the >>way it's written - poor use of statistics, no references to support its >>claims. >> >> > >Not so, there are plenty of references. Every word in the text that's >coloured blue is a cross-ref. With this NaturalNews site most of them >are internal links to other articles and resources at the site, but >it's easy to find your way. Eg, clicking on "Gulf War" (blue) takes >you to a page called "Gulf War news and articles", quite good >resources: >http://www.naturalnews.com/Gulf_War.html > >The 2nd item is another NaturalNews feature, by a different author: >"Depleted uranium has killed 11,000 U.S. military veterans; >mainstream media ignores story": >http://www.NaturalNews.com/020978.html > >That's also cross-reffed. For instance, the 2nd paragraph says >"however, a special report published by eminent scientist Leuren >Moret naming depleted uranium as the definitive cause of 'Gulf War >Syndrome'...", with "depleted uranium" in blue, and so on. You can >keep going or you can pick up keywords along the way. Eg, search >Google for "Leuren Moret depleted uranium" (no need for the quotes): >Google: 27,400 results for Leuren Moret depleted uranium ><http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Leuren+Moret+depleted+uranium&btnG=Goo >gle+Search> > >These are the first two results: > >Depleted Uranium: The Trojan Horse of Nuclear War LEUREN MORET ... >LEUREN MORET. Since 1991, the United States has staged four wars >using depleted uranium weaponry, illegal under all international >treaties, conventions and ... >http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2004/DU-Trojan-Horse1jul04.htm > >Leuren Moret Speaking on Depleted Uranium >This event featured three speakers: Doug Rokke, a Vietnam and Gulf >War I Veteran and the Army's expert on depleted uranium; Leuren >Moret, a whistle-blower ... >http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2003/DU-Leuren-Moret21apr03.htm > >The first is a substantial piece, much data given. At the top it's >bylined: "LEUREN MORET / World Affairs - The Journal of International >Issues 1jul04", with "[More by Leuren Moret]", the name in blue, >click on it and it gives you a Google site-search page showing 69 >results at www.mindfully.org for "Leuren Moret". > >You can check it all that way. > >On the other hand, you don't give any references for your statements. >"From what I've read...", "I couldn't find anything about the UN >declaring DU a weapon of mass destruction, but perhaps further >searching..." > > > >>I'm certainly no fan of DU being used in weapons. However, when >>I read an article that is written with this sort of quality I find it >>encouraging me to ignore it because the author has made a number of >>allegations and has written in such a way as to make it appear as if an >>argument is being made where, upon inspection, it turns out that no actual >>supporting evidence is supplied to justify the conclusion. >> >> > >The inspection left something to be desired, IMHO. > >Actually you'll find a lot of information on DU in the list archives, >url listed at the bottom of every list message: > > > >>Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 >>messages): >>http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ >> >> > >Best > >Keith > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Biofuel mailing list >[email protected] >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/[email protected]/ > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/attachments/20090224/e5aaa6e0/attachment.html _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list [email protected] 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/[email protected]/
