From: | kc2th@aol.com |
Date: | 29 Jan 2002 14:39:05 -0000 |
Reply: | cpeo-military |
Subject: | RE: [CPEO-MEF] DU Munitions |
With regard to Ms. Gibbon's puzzlement over the "angry" refernce to Ms. Gawarecki's posting, I can only note that there is often more to a posting or its response then the single specific event referenced. Having not met Ms. Gawarecki personally to my recollection, I will only state that sometimes people speak from a scientific perspective in a manner that can come across as authoritarian or condescending to some, even though it may not have been meant that way. For example, Ms. Gawarecki may not have intended to, but certainly when someone responds to a posting with such text as: "We'd be better off focusing our energy on real problems, then trying to spread disinformation about non-problems in the name of a politically correct cause," it is highly likely that it will be taken as offensive. Intended or not, such language suggests another person was only politcally motivated and spreading lies. Thus, I can clearly see why someone else, particularly someone who dedicates a great deal of volunteer time, would not respond kindly to such a posting. Lastly, while I was going to let it slide I should note that Ms. Gawarecki's comments about DU were a little off the mark - at least based on my limited, but supportable knowledge of DU. First, DU toxicity is as much, if not more of a concern, than it's radiological properties. Thus, the reference to DU ore in the ground being more of a concern than a pyrophoric DU penetrator hitting a tank is misleading. Furthermore, I wonder how much true study there has been of lung cell death or carcinogenesis as a result of both a simultaneous heavy metal and radiological assult provided by DU. And I will admit that I have not kept up with the DU literature in recent years, but given that we have studied lead for decades and are still learning about its toxicity, I suspect we have a long way to go with regard to DU. Second, on the exposure pathway front, the reference to DU not traveling far is highly questionable. Many of us are aware of Dr. Deitz' paper on the DU particles being found 26 miles from a New York plant. This is emperical datum that is hard to argue. Given the heat and energy associated with a DU impact, I wonder how far such volatilized particles might travel? I am not aware of any study of such an event, but certainly would be interested in it if anyone has done it. Peace Ted Henry | |
Prev by Date: [CPEO-MEF] Perchlorate Workshop Next by Date: RE: [CPEO-MEF] DU Munitions | |
Prev by Thread: Re: [CPEO-MEF] DU Munitions Next by Thread: RE: [CPEO-MEF] DU Munitions |