Piotr Bein, firstname.lastname@example.org,
In a January 9, 2001, email message to a long list (that eventually became DU-WATCH e-list), Ben Works wrote about aspects of my postings on depleted uranium that he found disagreeable:
"You impugn people and impeach any organization which does not utterly agree with your preconceptions. Impeach the Pentagon all you want, even RAND. But when you impeach independent organizations such as the Royal Society (Isaac Newton, and Edmund Halley were among ts early members), the "ICRP" and other independent bodies you lose credibility."
Let the Cells Live
We know, after a bit of schooling on miscellaneous anti-DU e-groups and websites, that the ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection) uses ridiculous methods to falsify information on internal radioactive doses to organs inside our bodies. According to these methods, a lymph node that has a mass of about one gram, but receives all the alpha particles emitted by a tiny speck of DU lodged inside the node after being removed from the lung (where it entered with the air in Iraq or the Balkans), is at no risk at all. The method simply divides the energy of the deadly alpha particles into the mass of all internal organs! A literate high school student knows that alpha particles travel no farther than 30 microns, so why would anybody with a clear conscience want to divide the dose into the mass of all the viscera?
We also learned (thanks to NATO) that the truth about DU is posted most everywhere - except at NATO website. Every cell in our bodies is pierced, on average, by one nuclear particle coming from space per annum. God designed our cells to handle that damage: Immediately, the cell's logic receives an instruction to repair the damage. Re-construction work starts, but like scaffoldings and fresh concrete at a construction site cannot take full loads expected in the life of the structure, so, too, the cell re-building is extremely vulnerable during the several hours it takes to restore a cell. If a second particle hits the DNA in that time window, you can kiss your health goodbye. The damage is permanent and transmittable to neighbouring cells and to one's offspring.
A DU particle lodged in internal organ tissue, such as
a lymph node or lung, sends a constant stream of
destructive alpha energy. The energy is more than
enough to finish off any cell that is affected; that
is, within a radius of 30 microns. The alpha energy is
millions of times higher than the lowest threshold
necessary to start permanent cell damage. Deficient
copies of cells are produced, causing cancers and
leukemia. If the DNA becomes damaged, then erroneous
copies would be produced forever afterwards. What it
means in babies, you can see by placing your mouse
over the DU WATCH logo (the radiation sign) at
Is it intellectual blindness or an impoverished conscience (and a fat paycheque, too?) that makes the following enthusistic crowd revere the low-level radiation fraud and cover-up:
Many more "information bandits" take out their pens and employ their mouthpieces in the service of the information war being waged for the Pentagon's, NATO's and the nuclear industry's credibility in the current DU "controversy".
Is the Royal Society independent and respectable? Maybe in the distant times of Newton and Halley, but not since depleted uranium became a highly charged political and strategic issue in the United Kingdom. The DU issue had to be skewed and covered up, or else Britain's supremacy would be at stake as the prime European ally of the US. The two countries polluted Iraq prodigiously with this deadly substance and worked in sync to save their skins from public scrutiny, the ire of veterans sick with Gulf War Syndrome, and from potential liabilities to their own soldiers; to civilians in the war regions and to their own citizens living near DU shooting ranges, DU processing and manufacturing facilities, and DU waste dumps. The US and UK dance their tango again, this time co-opting amultitude of other NATO countries, in the breakup of Yugoslavia and the Balkan wars that also contaminated the region with DU.
Dr. Chris Busby was highly critical about the Royal Society's "studies" on this vital topic in a paper solicited by the the Royal Society itself in London on July 19th, 2000. Under the longish title Science on Trial: On the Biological Effects and Health Risks following Exposure to Aerosols produced by the use of Depleted Uranium Weapons, the paper is available here. It was also given in part to the International Conference against Depleted Uranium in Manchester, in November 2000. In his conclusion, Dr. Busby wrote:
"The Gulf War Syndrome and the increases in cancer and congenital effects in Iraqi populations are merely more and recent evidence of the serious error in the way in which the health consequences of ionizing radiation exposures are presently modelled. They do not stand alone as some sort of curiosity which needs special examination and complex explanations. Polanyi's Azande scientists might have to find some special explanation here: perhaps their Oracle would tell them that the problem must be that the Gulf War veterans had been given many injections to protect against gas attacks by the evil dictator.
"But then they would have to give another explanation for the Iraqi children who did not receive such injections. So their problems have to be something else, perhaps the oil-well fires.
"But then, what about the children in the north, who were also bombed but where there was no oil? Perhaps, in that case, it was a demon: population mixing. Or maybe there is no increase in illnesses at all and the evil Iraqis have made it all up. Quick! Despatch a team from IARC in Lyon to discover that the Iraq Cancer Registry only has a 286 computer (this happened). Ah! That must be it. A computer problem. And so forth.
"In this entire affair, it is not DU that is on trial. Science itself is On Trial, and the Royal Society is On Trial. If this committee follows the Azande method of deliberation, the credibility of the Royal Society will be finished. Because, following the Azande Scientific Oracle advice on BSE, Global Warming, Sellafield [nuclear leak], Mobile Phones and GM [genetically modified] crops, it would take very little for people to revert entirely to believing the evidence of their own senses and the advice of their own instincts in areas that to their unscientific minds appear both massive and vital."
"Polyani's Azande scientists" in Busby's paper is a reference to an eminent, past member of the Royal Society, the Nobel-prize winner, Chemist and Economist Michael Polanyi. Polanyi saw many similarities between scientists and primitive witch-doctors like the Azande who had been studied by the anthropologist Evans Pritchard. "The contradiction between experience and one mystical notion is explained by reference to other mystical notions," observed Pritchard in 1937 about the group he researched.
Remarking similarities between the scientific worldview and witchcraft, Polanyi concluded in his Personal Knowledge in 1958:
"[For] the stability of the naturalistic system we currently accept, instead, rests on the same logical structure as Azande witchcraft beliefs. Any contradiction between a particular scientific notion and the facts of experience will be explained by other scientific notions. There is a ready reserve of possible scientific hypotheses available to explain any conceivable event. Secured by its circularity and defended by its epicyclical reserves science may deny or at least cast aside as of no scientific interest, whole ranges of experience which to the unscientific mind appear both massive and vital."
I am afraid that both Polanyi and Busby may be wrong;
it is not a pre-conceived worldview that has been
concealing the truth about the tragic health effects
of DU, but the Pentagon, NATO and the nuclear industry
Within NATO, Psychological Operations (PsyOp) mean, "planned psychological activities in peace and war directed to enemy, friendly and neutral audiences in order to influence attitudes and behavior affecting the achievement of political and military objectives."
Information warfare and operations of the US Department of Defense (DoD) target foreign nations and groups, including foreign governments. DoD actions, the military manual goes on, "convey and/or deny selected information and indicators to foreign audiences to influence their emotions, motives, and objective reasoning; and to intelligence systems and leaders at all levels."
Steven Derix wrote in the Dutch daily NRC on January 13th, 2001, that the US had kept the Dutch ministry of defence uninformed for months about the true extent of depleted uranium ammunition use during the Kosovo war. This was apparent from internal ministry of defence documents. The Netherlands were completely dependent on the information provided by the NATO headquarters' SHAPE to the various member states.
If the Dutch and other NATO states' governments could be fooled by NATO bulletins prepared to "project the truth," "cover," and "deceive" (all terminology from military manuals on Psychological Operations), without doubt the research community could also be fooled and manipulated by PsyOp. The techniques of information warfare are improvements over those developed by the Robber Barons of the 19th century, so we can safely assume that the nuclear "industry" have their own PsyOp units.
Only one thing is unclear to me: Does Ben Works know he is part of a PsyOp scheme or is he an involuntary victim? If he is part of it, why would he defend Yugoslavia's position against the unprovoked, barbaric attack it sustained from NATO? The Special Operations and PsyOp literature explains this type of case too. A dated report for the USSOCOMM (US Special Operations Command) explains it: If PsyOp need a believable source in the future, that source should for a few years consistently advocate seemingly opposite view. When the critical time comes, the source starts to disseminate propaganda which would not be recognized as such by the target audience.
Either case does not give credence to an institute
that would like to be known as a
(copyleft: reproduce and acknowledge the source)