31 Responses to “Good Scientisits and Bad Science”

1. 1
   DV82XL Says:
   February 7th, 2008 at 7:22 pm

   Oh please.

   Do you really think that anything as mundane and irrelevant as the truth is going to keep that prostitute from collecting a paycheck?

   He’s been involved with a lot of drivel like time travel, parallel universes, UFO’s and other such ’science porn’ that make his credibility questionable. Just another example of someone leveraging a disappointing career in science into a media presence that salves his ego with the fame that eluded him as a researcher.

   
   Quote Comment
2. 2
   drbuzz0 Says:
   February 7th, 2008 at 7:35 pm

   Yeah. To be honest I don’t know what to make of him. I know he has talked of time travel and such, which is… fine, assuming it’s in the purely theoretical sense and based on actual science: ie: “You could slow down time if you could get enough energy to accelerate to a decent fraction of the speed of light.”

   I hear you on the science porn though. They throw in the reality as something of an afterthought. He also was a opposed to Casini on the grounds that the RTG on it could be disiasterously toxic if the rocket blew up. Of course, that didn’t happen and even if it did, there is no reason to think the ceramic tablets of pu-238 would really pose that much hazard. His radio show is about “Science, war, peace and the enviornment.” Herm.. that kind of political thing doesn’t always mix well with science.

   Um.. but. he does hold a chair at CUNY in theoretical physics and he worked on several legitimate textbooks and he did work on string theory especially with relation to the strong force and to the multidimensional theory of super strings. All of this, of course, totally legit and rezonized as scientifically valid. He’s published a couple very noteworthy papers.

   I mean… Carl Sagan talked about time travel and warping space and wormholes too (in the context of “this is not going to happen in our lifetimes and probably never”)

   So… I don’t know… but I won’t go anywhere with being aggressive or anything.

   
   Quote Comment
3. 3
   DV82XL Says:
   February 7th, 2008 at 7:52 pm

   I know you are right…catch more flies with honey, than with vinegar, and all that.

   But still those who do this sort of thing (to me) are much like the priests that rape alter boys – it’s somehow more affronting when someone whose position grants them authority, does something like this.

   As for string theory, that’s looking a little less than solid these days, and lots of questions are being asked about that whole line of research.

   
   Quote Comment
4. 4
   Q Says:
   February 7th, 2008 at 8:41 pm

   I know what you are saying about it being okay if he talks about it in theory and with very carefully sticking to the science of it. Sagan, Stephen Hawking and others all spoke to the public without loosing their scientific credibility. (Sagan was more of a popularist than a hard scientist in a log of ways anyway).

   This guy did good work in theory if you go back. But in the 1990’s he did some stuff for tv, which is okay except it seems like he took a liking to the limelight and has been creeping away from science and more and more toward whatever gets attention. Each time he is seen it seems like he’s less of a scientist and more of a showman.

   Carl Sagan was one of the few who made science inspirational and interesting for it’s own worth while sticking to science and not injecting too much outright BS and entertainment crap of no value. I think this guy is just seeing that he can get easier money and attention as a commentator than as a scientist. Too bad too. It’s not the first time. Linus Pauling’s scientific discoveries dried up after a long run of amazing stuff. He went kinda nutty too. Even Einstein didn’t contribute much his last 20 years and was better known for pithy quotes and that sort of thing. It happens.

   
   Quote Comment
5. 5
   Ian Betteridge Says:
   February 8th, 2008 at 12:45 am

   DV82XL: “But still those who do this sort of thing (to me) are much like the priests that rape alter boys…”

   It’s pretty galling to read a statement as rhetorical and vapid as that from someone professing an admiration of science and reason. Whatever Dr Kaku is doing, is NOTHING like priests raping alter boys, and the fact that you can type those words without pausing and thinking “hey, wait a minute…” does nothing for your own reputation as someone capable of a rational argument.

   Dr Kaku is, in all likelihood, wrong about depleted uranium, and Stephen’s email (and post) was exactly the right way to approach it. Comparing what he does to raping alter boys is classic net.bull****. I think maybe you should learn to think a little before you type.

   
   Quote Comment
6. 6
   Michael Says:
   February 8th, 2008 at 1:48 am

   although, going back to the DU-thing, I still keep wondering why use DU at all, since it’s toxic (even if the toxicity is lower than that of cadmium). Tungsten-Carbide should be fine as well for that sort of bullet and there’s no toxicity there to worry about.

   Even if you stop to think and say “well, if you’re going to make war to a nation and kill lots of their people, it’s sort of strange to worry about poisoning them as well”, but to drop a lot of potentially toxic stuff on a place through which you send a lot of your own soldiers .. seems sortof economically stupid (in the sense that soldiers, healthy ones, have value). Of course, you can always get out of that by not paying for veterans health-care, but hey *shrug*.

   
   Quote Comment
7. 7
   drbuzz0 Says:
   February 8th, 2008 at 8:02 am

   Why use lead for bullets? Depleted uranium is used because it has both a high density and an ability to “self-sharpen” and pyromatic qualities. Tungsten will dull when it hits something but DU actually begins to burn and the external layers envelop the charge in a sort of high temperature vapor. There’s nothing like it.

   It’s toxic, yes. As are lead bullets. We need to keep in perspective the fact that it’s not that mobile in the environment. it really does not posion the population at all, providing they do not pick it up and eat it. And it poses aproximately zero danger to soldiers walking in the area. The dust is extremely heavy and does not spend any period of time in the atmosphere. It’s difficult to inhale even if you try to.

   I have held depleted uranium in my hand and it does not bother me at all to do so. I won’t need any health care for that. think about lead, for example: It’s in bullets, fishing sinkers, solder, batteries and all kinds of things. Would you panic about picking up a piece of lead-based solder? No of course not. You would not eat it though.

   
   Quote Comment
8. 8
   Gordy Says:
   February 8th, 2008 at 8:07 am

   There are plenty of scientists in the public eye or who have promoted science or written books for the general public and so on. Some have even made that their primary focus. Bob Ballard, Steven Hawking, Carl Sagan, Neil Tyson, Phil Plait (the bad astronomer) and there are many others too.

   Yea, it’s something that not all serious scientists become as involved in, but if you look at their contribution you’ll see that it’s entirely possible to be a famous scientist with a public image and promote science to the public WITHOUT taking a big steamy crap all over science and selling your soul to the tv networks to make some good science pornography.

   
   Quote Comment
9. 9
   DV82XL Says:
   February 8th, 2008 at 9:01 am

   Ian Betteridge,

   Perhaps my comparison was a bit over the top, it was just the first analogy that came to mind of a person abusing their status, and the confidence the public extends to their profession. while at the same time knowing the act is wrong.

   There is no doubt that individually, the victims of rape suffer more than those that swallow Kaku’s nonsense, however the number of people that are being impacted is much higher. I also cannot help but think that his position is not an honest difference of opinion; that is, I am sure he is able to understand that what he is saying is often factually wrong.

   On of the hardest things to overcome getting the pro-nuclear message out is breaking down years and years of negative propaganda that has poisoned public discourse on the subject. The only tool we have to fight this is real science. Often the only criteria the public can use to judge the veracity of any given argument is to judge the source. This is not ideal, but sometimes it’s the only thing we have going for us in a debate. This is what makes Kaku’s betrayal all the worse.

   If I have offended anyone by my comparison, I apologize.

   
   Quote Comment
10. 10
    Ian Betteridge Says:
    February 8th, 2008 at 9:26 am

    Good reply DV82XL – thank you.

    
    Quote Comment
11. 11
    Gene Genie G Says:
    February 8th, 2008 at 6:19 pm

    You would feel a lot different if you lived in Iraq. If you get killed by being shot at then I guess it does not matter, but what about the left over dust? What about after the war? What about generations from now when people are still being poisoned?

    
    Quote Comment
12. 12
    Wilson Says:
    February 8th, 2008 at 10:42 pm

    I agree with Michael. I understand that war means killing people so you don’t worry if what you use is toxic, but we need to remember that after the dust still remains and it gets picked up by the wind. I don’t agree that it’s only toxic like lead. If it were like lead then yea I could understand because lead is not so deadly that you can’t touch it or anything. But if that were true you would not see all the veterans with poisoning and kids dying and with birth defects and rare cancers that are linked to uranium.

    I really think we should stop using it forever. But I know we have a lot of it lying around still so I don’t know what we can do. It won’t ever be safe. Blast it into space maybe? Probably too expensive and risky. Best option is probably to bury it as deep as we can and cover it with cement. Then learn a lesson and never make this stuff again.

    
    Quote Comment
13. 13
    Peter Dearman Says:
    February 9th, 2008 at 2:26 am

    I have just discovered your blog here, and I wonder if you might be willing to take on a simple question that no one else seems willing to answer for me. It goes like this: Since many common sources cite the percentage of U-235 remaining in enrichment tailings at about 0.3%, and other sources cite the U-235 level of reactor fuel to be about 3%, it must be approximately true to say that DU metal is equivalent to reactor fuel being diluted 9:1 with pure U-238.

    To my reasoning, this makes DU a significant external danger, regardless of any internal dangers created by the alpha-emitting U-238 dust. An intact DU shell would not be especially dangerous perhaps, though I wouldn’t want one laying around my home. But, once a shell is incinerated to whatever percentage, the self-shielding effect of the 99.7% U-238 component is greatly reduced, effectively “releasing” the U-235 gamma radiation by increase of surface area.

    So, how can we say 10% reactor fuel is safe to use as an incendiary weapon? I’m all ears.

    
    Quote Comment
14. 14
    DV82XL Says:
    February 9th, 2008 at 5:25 am

    To start off with U238 and U235 are alpha emitters not gamma and the exposed area of the material has little to do with radiative flux from decay. So right off the bat your premises are in error.

    Alpha radiation from decay is not very penetrating and can be stopped by a sheet of paper, in and of itself it is not a serious radiation hazard.

    I have difficultly understanding the point of your calculation from LEU to DU other than for shock value. Why not say it’s less than 1/2 the concentration of natural uranium, that is already present in the earth’s crust at an average of about 3 ppm (or 3 g/t), thus any addition of DU as dust will serve to dilute the quantity of U235 relative to U238 locally.

    See, if you want to argue with numerology, I can play too.

    
    Quote Comment
15. 15
    Michael Ejercito Says:
    February 9th, 2008 at 10:03 am

            Gene Genie G said:

    You would feel a lot different if you lived in Iraq.

    If you get killed by being shot at then I guess it does not matter, but what about the left over dust?

    What about after the war? What about generations from now when people are still being poisoned?

    Depleted uranium dust is heavy, and is not easily blown about by the wind.

    Groundwater and crop contamination are the likely methods of people ingesting enough uranium to cause health problems.

    
    Quote Comment
16. 16
    Michael Ejercito Says:
    February 9th, 2008 at 10:05 am

    I agree with Michael. I understand that war means killing people so you don’t worry if what you use is toxic, but we need to remember that after the dust still remains and it gets picked up by the wind. I don’t agree that it’s only toxic like lead. If it were like lead then yea I could understand because lead is not so deadly that you can’t touch it or anything. But if that were true you would not see all the veterans with poisoning and kids dying and with birth defects and rare cancers that are linked to uranium.
    It has been shown that uranium is as toxic as lead, and less so than cadmium and mercury.

    And how was uranium poisoning diagnosed in veterans? How were these birth defects linked to uranium?

    
    Quote Comment
17. 17
    Johan Says:
    February 9th, 2008 at 11:09 am

    Michael you might find this link interesting

    http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Features/DU/du_qaa.shtml

    Two cut and pastes from the article.

    “Regarding exposures to DU, there have been studies of the health of military personnel who saw action in the Gulf War (1990-1991) and during the Balkan conflicts (1994-99). A small number of Gulf war veterans have inoperable fragments of DU embedded in their bodies. They have been the subject of intense study and the results have been published. These veterans show elevated excretion levels of DU in urine but, so far, there have been no observable health effects due to DU in this group. “

    “There have been a number of studies of workers exposed to uranium (see question and, despite some workers being exposed to large amounts of uranium, there is no evidence that either natural uranium or DU is carcinogenic. This lack of evidence is seen even for lung cancer following inhalation of uranium. As a precaution for risk assessment and to set dose limits, DU is assumed to be potentially carcinogenic, but the lack of evidence for a definite cancer risk in studies over many decades is significant and should put the results of assessments in perspective. “

    
    Quote Comment
18. 18
    Peter Dearman Says:
    February 9th, 2008 at 2:07 pm

            DV82XL said:

    To start off with U238 and U235 are alpha emitters not gamma and the exposed area of the material has little to do with radiative flux from decay. So right off the bat your premises are in error.

    Ah, this is true. I wrongfully assumed that U-235 must emit something other than alpha because the military information on DU repeatedly stresses that it is not dangerous because only the “harmless” U-238 is left. I was pointing out that there is plenty of the U-235 left. But now I am learning (much later than I should) that U-235 only emits alpha particles as well. And the half-life appears nearly as long as U-238.

            DV82XL said:

    Alpha radiation from decay is not very penetrating and can be stopped by a sheet of paper, in and of itself it is not a serious radiation hazard.

    Not externally, I would presume. So, my wrongful premise is that reactor fuel – enriched uranium – is dangerous. Would you say this is so? Can I put a reactor fuel rod on my coffee table without worry simply because nothing more than alpha particles are emitted?

    If this is so, I think the military and others who argue DU is safe should refrain from emphasizing that it is safe because the U-235 has been removed. Is U-235 any more dangerous than U-238?

            DV82XL said:

    I have difficultly understanding the point of your calculation from LEU to DU other than for shock value. Why not say it’s less than 1/2 the concentration of natural uranium, that is already present in the earth’s crust at an average of about 3 ppm (or 3 g/t), thus any addition of DU as dust will serve to dilute the quantity of U235 relative to U238 locally.

    Well, I was discussing whether or not uranium in concentrated form was dangerous, not as a diluted contaminant, though I did mention the incineration and dust. Yes, it was aiming for shock value, but based on my faulty premise that U-235 is worse than U-238. I’m now thinking it is irrelevant to draw any distinction between them.

    But I do have some questions about the dilution. Let’s say a 1kg DU shell was fully incinerated and the dust fell over an area 10m X 10m and was evenly mixed into the top 1 cm of soil in that area – one cubic metre of soil. Rocky soil should be about 2 tonnes per cubic meter. So now you have 1003 g/t or ppm (according to what you say above) which is 3 orders of magnitude above the average earthly concentration of uranium. Sure, it will be further diluted eventually, but this scenario could be close to the truth for the time between a DU strike and the next wind or rain storm, couldn’t it?

    I think the dilution argument gives me piece of mind regarding long-term environmental recovery, but I am still concerned about the immediate effects of all that DU dust. I need to see proof that it cannot get lodged in the body before admitting it to be “safe” as a killing device.

    
    Quote Comment
19. 19
    Michael Ejercito Says:
    February 9th, 2008 at 5:38 pm

    I think the dilution argument gives me piece of mind regarding long-term environmental recovery, but I am still concerned about the immediate effects of all that DU dust.

    The physiological effects of uranium dust have been documented in many sources, including the World Health Organization. .

    “Of the uranium that is absorbed into the blood, approximately 70% will be filtered by the kidney and excreted in the urine within 24 hours; this amount increases to 90% within a few days.”

    The most dangerous forms of uranium are soluble uranium salts (uranyl nitrate for example). Uranium dust is not very soluble.

    
    Quote Comment
20. 20
    drbuzz0 Says:
    February 9th, 2008 at 7:55 pm

            Peter Dearman said:

    Not externally, I would presume. So, my wrongful premise is that reactor fuel – enriched uranium – is dangerous. Would you say this is so? Can I put a reactor fuel rod on my coffee table without worry simply because nothing more than alpha particles are emitted?

    If this is so, I think the military and others who argue DU is safe should refrain from emphasizing that it is safe because the U-235 has been removed. Is U-235 any more dangerous than U-238?

    Alpha radiation is dangerous internally in high enough concentrations. Alexander Litvinenko, for example, died of polonium-210 poisoning. Po-210 emits only alpha radiation. Uranium-238 and uranium-235 are both primarily alpha emitters. There is also some beta and relatively soft gamma, but this comes mostly from daughter products. The point is that the relative amount of emissions is tiny. A curie of Po-210 is a .0002 grams. Curie being the measure of radioactivity. The same amount of radiation from U-238 is slightly more than three tons.

    This is the point. The actual radiation by a nominal sized piece of uranium is tiny. If you were to absorbe enough to make this a concern you’d probably be dead from heavy metal toxicity.

    Removing the U-235 from uranium does not change it that much in terms of hazard. The amount in it to begin with is less than 1%. U-235 is a bit more radioactive than u-238, but it’s a small change because of the overall ratio.

    Yes, you could sit in front of a chunk of reactor fuel (not spent fuel the fuel used before). It would be uranium with a bit more U-235 than you find in nature. You could pick it up. It would not hurt you.

    
    Quote Comment
21. 21
    A thinker and Doer Says:
    February 9th, 2008 at 11:32 pm

    Well I still think it’s wrong to shoot anything toxic or radioactive. How can you stand there are say lead is only mildly toxic? Lead is horribly toxic. Kids are in huge danger from lead paint and where you have lead in water it’s a big concern. And it pollutes horribly which is why they banned it in gasoline. Lead poisoning is horrible and it can definitely cause all kinds of problems and kill people.

    I would never want to think of kids playing around lead and I know I would never touch something like that. If I did then I’d definitely scrub my hands and also go see a doctor just to get checked out!

    
    Quote Comment
22. 22
    DV82XL Says:
    February 10th, 2008 at 12:41 am

    That’s the entire point, thinker and Doer, fixating on DU is silly, when there are other toxic components to the hazmat mix on a battlefield.

    As for the relative toxicity of Lead it is defined as mildly toxic because exposure to a small amount won’t kill you outright. I would much prefer to eat a gram of lead acetate than a gram of sodium cyanide – I’d survive the first although with an increased body-burden of Pb – the second would kill me outright. Both however are toxic.

    
    Quote Comment
23. 23
    DV82XL Says:
    February 10th, 2008 at 1:05 am

    Peter Dearman

    The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists (no fan of anything nuclear) tried to estimate the possible external radiation levels on the battlefield by assuming that 100 tons of depleted uranium had been distributed uniformly over a one-kilometer-wide strip along 100 kilometers of the “Highway of Death” between Kuwait City and Basra, a city in southern Iraq. The average dose for someone who lived in the area for a year would be about one millirem – or about 10 percent of the dose from uranium and its decay products already naturally occurring in the soil. The dose rate immediately around a destroyed vehicle could be about 30 times higher. But even that figure would only add about 10 percent to the natural background radiation.

    For someone close to the battle who inhaled one milligram of depleted uranium (a wildly inflated scenario) the equivalent whole-body dose would be up to 0.1 rem. That is roughly half the annual dose from inhaled radon and its decay products in a typical single family home in North America. The estimated added risk of cancer death for such a dose would be about one in 20,000. (To put things in perspective, North Americans have a one-in five risk of dying of cancer).

    As much as it galls me to give any credit to these fearmongering idiots, even they can’t find anything to worry about, so there is no reason anyone else should.

    REF: Fetter S, von Hippel F. – Depleted Uranium: How Great Is the Risk? – Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 1999. Vol 55, No. 6.

    
    Quote Comment
24. 24
    Dave G Says:
    February 10th, 2008 at 5:31 am

    A thinker and Doer: Lead is not horribly toxic. You can pick it up and hold it. You can touch it. If you find it you don’t need to panic. If you ate lead it would not kill you. It can cause nerve damage over time and it is especially dangerous to kids because they are still developing. Yes, eating paint chips can be very bad for them. but EATING not just looking at it.

    The romans may have gone nutty from lead but that’s after years and years of exposure. That’s the problem is chronic exposure. It can get to you because it builds up. You ever seen a fishing sinker? They are often lead. Do you see people touch them and drop dead? What about solder? Ever touched it? Did you rush to the ER to get checked out?

    thinker/doer: Nobody dies from lead or has major health problems except in extreme circumstances. People do get sick from lead but usually only after a very long time of exposure. If you touch it yes you should wash your hands but that’s good practice anyway. What if you do not? Well probably nothing. But if you did that daily you’d be in trouble.

    Like if you drink lead contaminated water. Unless it has a load of lead in it you won’t even notice. People who drink it every day though, they are at risk. It’s not good to expose yourself to lead obviously. But can we be reasonable? Don’t get upset over just touching it or having it around. Seriously.

    
    Quote Comment
25. 25
    Roger Helbig Says:
    February 13th, 2008 at 3:07 am

    Peter Dearman, teacher of English as a second language in Taiwan, plays both ends against the middle; he feeds two anti-DU lists AmericanDUST (the DUST part is supposed to be Depleted Uranium Study Team, but they do not study, they only endlessly discuss the same anti-DU crusader arguments and consider the Moret/Rokke mouthpiece Bob Nichols to be a source of knowledge along with Cathy Garger, and NoMoreDU – he posts inflammatory material there and claims his http://www.dubbs.org website is to debate the “DU controversy” and refuses to acknowledge that there is no scientific controversy, that it is a solely a political one. He is not an honest broker.

    Roger

    
    Quote Comment
26. 26
    Soylent Says:
    February 17th, 2008 at 11:02 pm

            DV82XL said:

    I know you are right…catch more flies with honey, than with vinegar, and all that.

    Balsamic vinegar will net you a lot more fruit flies than honey.

    
    Quote Comment
27. 27
    Peter Dearman Says:
    February 18th, 2008 at 2:00 am

    Yo, Roger,

    Thanks for not using insults. That’s a nice change. Since you presume to understand my motivations and , let me state them myself to clarify. I am a person who first heard about DU about two years ago. I forget exactly how or where, but, being a compassionate, peace-loving sort, I surely did become very concerned about this matter, and moreso after reading stuff by Rokke, Moret and Nichols. However, being very familiar with science (I was a dean’s list student during my one year at Cornell where biology was my best subject and became my major after transferring to a smaller Canadian school), I am well aware that scientific claims and the degrees held by those making claims prove nothing. I am only interested in the process and methodology. So, I am no more impressed by Moret’s claims to being a scientist than I am your claims that the judgement of your favorite scientists like Franz Schönhofer and Ron Kathren. Scientists disagree in diametrical fashion all the time. It is you Roger who think that appeals to authority win the day. Perhaps this is because you have no scientific training yourself. I do. And it is of no matter that I choose to teach English. I like kids, and find most adults to be insufferably egotistical and selfish. Kids can be selfish to, but it easier to overlook.

    Anyway, there are scientists arguing both ways about DU, and this is no surprise. I never deny either side’s possible correctness. I consider the matter unresolved, so I am seeking to understand things better. Actually, people on this thread have finally given me a couple clues that I had been seeking for ages.

    My gripe is with journalists. They have failed the public on this issue. It should be up to them to inspire a settling of the matter. There is no way that internally lodged uranium dust is harmless, making the claims of most DU defenders like yourself appear to be hyperbole to me. I also agree that there is no way for the environment to be rendered permanently unlivable by some uranium dust. (Saying stuff like this makes me hated by the activists.)

    So, I created a Website to help people like myself who want to hear all the arguments. Show me another forum like to one I set up. Tell me how it is biased when you are free to make more posts on it than I have done myself. If that is “playing one side off the other” then so be it. I am guilty.

    
    Quote Comment
28. 28
    DV82XL Says:
    February 18th, 2008 at 2:47 am

    Peter Dearman, where I you I wouldn’t claim scientific training too loudly around those that do really have it.

    While your stated objectives are laudable, the fact remains that this debate is fueled more by secondary issues and less by evidence than you allow for. You are granting credence to those who claim that there is some debate in the scientific community on this issue when there is none. This is the same tactic used to create legitimacy for such nonsense as ’scientific creationism’ via the Trojan horse appeal to ‘teach the controversy.’ It is nothing but rhetorical maneuvering devoid of any scientific value.

    If you claim a background in science and do not see that this is the case, you are incompetent; if you do know better you are a charlatan; or you do not have scientific training, thus making you a fraud.

    Given that your posts above in this thread show little real grasp of the fundamentals of this subject, and your inflammatory attempt to compare DU with reactor fuel your credibility, if not your motivations, are in doubt.

    Active combat theaters are not OSHA compliant workplaces. Any attempt to single out the impact of one low-level insult to the human body against a background of other exposures, is simply not possible with any degree of confidence, and anyone claiming that they can is in grave error at best, or has questionable motives at worst. And that Sir, is the only truth to be found in this whole bloody mess.

    
    Quote Comment
29. 29
    Peter Dearman Says:
    February 18th, 2008 at 9:11 am

    Sorry to all readers for the incomplete sentences in my last post. I was typing and thinking fast during a short break between classes.

    A quick read of this thread will demonstrate one definite habit of scientists: They love to dismiss non-scientists (and each other) as being categorically wrong, and seldom refrain from using put-downs while doing so. Science is a very “macho” business, and I am not the first to say so.

    DV8, your bringing scientific creationism into this argument is nothing but a red herring; totally irrelevant. I won’t go there. Furthermore, dismissing all opposition by attacking people’s credentials, lack of direct experience with research or supposed political motivations is well-known as the straw man fallacy.

    Now, to the issues. You say, DV8 (without providing your name or credentials), that I shouldn’t claim a background in science. So, doesn’t my BSc. count for anything? That’s not even ‘background’? Oh, ****. Why did I bother?

    Let me guess at your credentials. My spider sense tells me you are likely a member of the Health Physics Society holding the title CHP, or Certified Health Physicist. I guess this since nearly all the busybodies who take the time to insult and attack people like myself seem to be a member of this club. I have looked into this group and was amused to find that these “certified physicists” need only hold a BSc. along with at least six years experience monitoring radiation. I would agree with calling them “experts” but using the term “physicist” for people who don’t necessarily hold a PhD. or any other graduate title is dodgy in my book. I also looked and found a great number of CHPs really don’t have any graduate titles or diplomas.

    As for the HPS, it is officially allied with OSHA, a branch of the U.S. Department of Labor. Mightn’t this lead one to justifiably question the motives of HPS members? See, if you want to argue with meritocracy, I can play too.

    So DV8, pray tell, who are you and what exactly is your expertise? And, while you’re at it, how about explaining to all how, exactly, you are so free of allegiances or motives. I thought we all have motives for everything we do. I know mine – peace and a reduction in human sadism. I’ve held these motives since about age six.

    As for your claim that there is no debate within the scientific community over DU, I confidently challenge that bizarre assertion. I had no trouble finding a slew of papers and abstracts on the Web in which bona fide research scientists (not geiger counter slingers) conclude DU is potentially dangerous. I have also been slowly adding to a list of ’scientists against DU’ on my BBS. Admittedly, these scientists may not be unanimously convinced of DU’s danger, but these ones do admit that it is potentially dangerous according to reasonable models and has not been proven “safe” for use in a military fashion as the military likes to claim.

    BTW, if you want to create a contrary thread listing scientists condoning weaponized uranium, be my guest, but please don’t post on the same thread in order to save me the trouble of moving such posts to a new thread. Just be polite and start a new thread.

    BTW2, you can scroll down that first link to see how I was also open-minded enough to post links to papers and abstracts that you would agree with. So, if you want to tell me there is “no debate,” you’ll have to do much better than ask me to trust you on that.

    There is more I want to say and ask about the actual physics, but I am tired now from defending my motives and background. (Hint – I think dividing DU tonnage by the entire area covered by a very long stip of tarmac is a less realistic model that the one I used. Any thoughts?)

    Cheers. I’ll be polite from now on if you will. Sir.

    
    Quote Comment
30. 30
    DV82XL Says:
    February 18th, 2008 at 10:36 am

    If you click on my name it will bring you to a page that holds my profile. I won’t bother to repeat it here again. Suffice to say that I would be unlikely to make the sort of remarks that you made in comment #13 in this thread.

    This medium makes it easy to assume whatever identity a poster wants, consequently the only real indication of anyones creditability is by the words they float. Your obvious ignorance of the fundamentals and your admitted hyperbole in that post I’m afraid makes more of an impression than a scan found on a link. Please do not insult me by calling this a straw man, or ad hom attack; your words are what speak for you here, and they don’t speak well.

    There is no question that uranium and its compounds are hazards to health if there is sufficient exposure, however there is no real debate in the legitimate scientific community about the impact of DU weapons contamination on the environment. There is grandstanding and there is hand wringing, but there is precious little real science being done on this issue, and what has been done shows nothing.

    The major component of this debate is political. Depleted uranium first emerged as a social, political, and scientific issue after the 1991 Gulf War. The decline of rational discourse about DU can be traced to the 1999 Kosovo conflict. At that time, the DU issue took on a more overtly political role. The Yugoslav government under Sloboban Milosevic suggested the use of DU in the Balkans would have genocidal effects, and when the U.S. government refused to release information about its use of DU following the war, activists and propagandists alike suggested that the United States was responsible for causing widespread and severe effects from its use of DU munitions. Saddam Hussein similarly blamed the United States (and DU) for a sharp increase in cancers and birth defects, and Yasser Arafat joined the chorus by accusing Israel of using DU in Palestinian territories. In the years since 1999, politicians, propagandists, and activists have intoxicated each other with heart-wrenching but extremely misleading and unsubstantiated claims about the effects of DU munitions, radicalizing the issue in a way that has had a chilling effect upon serious debate.

    There are many environmental hazards caused by modern munitions, singling out DU is a bit of a red herring that is leveraging peoples fear of all things nuclear. This stuff has been use in ordnance since 1958, but it wasn’t till two tin-pot dictators tried using the issue to discredit NATO in general and the U.S. in particular that anyone noticed it. Never mind Iraq, why haven’t epidemiological studies been done to the populations near test ranges in the U.S., the U.K. and France? Why would anyone want to run a study under conditions where the confounding variables will make any conclusion scientifically suspect?

    Consequently you have done nothing to change my opinion of you and your site; you are out of your depth or you have ulterior motives. I can draw no other conclusion.

    
    Quote Comment
31. 31
    drbuzz0 Says:
    February 18th, 2008 at 11:01 am

            Peter Dearman said:

    Sorry to all readers for the incomplete sentences in my last post. I was typing and thinking fast during a short break between classes.

    A quick read of this thread will demonstrate one definite habit of scientists: They love to dismiss non-scientists (and each other) as being categorically wrong, and seldom refrain from using put-downs while doing so. Science is a very “macho” business, and I am not the first to say so.

    DV8, your bringing scientific creationism into this argument is nothing but a red herring; totally irrelevant. I won’t go there. Furthermore, dismissing all opposition by attacking people’s credentials, lack of direct experience with research or supposed political motivations is well-known as the straw man fallacy.

    Now, to the issues. You say, DV8 (without providing your name or credentials), that I shouldn’t claim a background in science. So, doesn’t my BSc. count for anything? That’s not even ‘background’? Oh, ****. Why did I bother?

    “Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee’s against being dead wrong” – Carl Sagan.

    I am not interested in hearing about anyone’s degrees, awards or general purpose accomplishments as a reason why they are correct about depleted uranium. Feel free to present data, studies, valid analysis. if you have any direct experience with depleted uranium, I’d like to hear it but simply “I graduated with a degree in science and I’m smart” is not going to cut it.

    Let me guess at your credentials. My spider sense tells me you are likely a member of the Health Physics Society holding the title CHP, or Certified Health Physicist. I guess this since nearly all the busybodies who take the time to insult and attack people like myself seem to be a member of this club. I have looked into this group and was amused to find that these “certified physicists” need only hold a BSc. along with at least six years experience monitoring radiation. I would agree with calling them “experts” but using the term “physicist” for people who don’t necessarily hold a PhD. or any other graduate title is dodgy in my book. I also looked and found a great number of CHPs really don’t have any graduate titles or diplomas.

    As for the HPS, it is officially allied with OSHA, a branch of the U.S. Department of Labor. Mightn’t this lead one to justifiably question the motives of HPS members? See, if you want to argue with meritocracy, I can play too.

    I am not a member of the HPS. However, I do take offense to such ridiculous and baseless attacks against an organization which I am acquainted with many members of. The HPS is not “allied” with OSHA. The HPS does provide information to OSHA, which is what you would expect since they are the experts in radiation safety.

    It’s an independent organization and it’s maintained a high degree of credibility. If you want to argue there is a big conspiracy between the DOD, OSHA and HPS I’d like to see some evidence.

    So DV8, pray tell, who are you and what exactly is your expertise? And, while you’re at it, how about

    As for your claim that there is no debate within the scientific community over DU, I confidently challenge that bizarre assertion. I had no trouble finding a slew of papers and abstracts on the Web in which bona fide research scientists (not geiger counter slingers) conclude DU is potentially dangerous. I have also been slowly adding to a list of ’scientists against DU’ on my BBS. Admittedly, these scientists may not be unanimously convinced of DU’s danger, but these ones do admit that it is potentially dangerous according to reasonable models and has not been proven “safe” for use in a military fashion as the military likes to claim.

    What is your point. There are “scientists” who are pro creationism and “scientists” who chase down UFO’s and ghosts and think the earth is hallow. There are a lot of people in the world who qualify for the title “scientist” and it doesn’t actually mean that they have valid data or conclusions

    (paging Dr. Roy. Dr. Rustum Roy)

    BTW, if you want to create a contrary thread listing scientists condoning weaponized uranium, be my guest, but please don’t post on the same thread in order to save me the trouble of moving such posts to a new thread. Just be polite and start a new thread.

    You will not find any scientists “condoning” weaponization of anything in general because few scientists are going to stick their neck out into such a political issue and risk looking like a warmonger.

    Show me a list of scientists who condone weaponizing of lead and tungsten and we’ll talk.

    
    Quote Comment

Leave a Reply