Note: The first comment to the post below was by an Anonymous user and consists of a "cut and paste" from an "activist" web site and not one iota of independent thought or analysis. In fact, here is the link from which the entire "comment" was copied: IICPH.
The "comment" is typical of the rambling disjointed nature of the anti-DU crowd who use frequently repeated assertions totally unsupported by fact. They "respew" other's arguments. The premise being if you hear it often enough, it must be true.
I have no problem with posting links or any number of appropriate methods of documenting supporting evidence for arguments, but pasting a mountain of drivel for my readers to wade through is an abuse of this forum.
I would normally delete something like this, but it is a good illustration of the dirty tactics these people use to propagate their junk science, namely by "taking over" other people's blogs and forums. However, all future posts will be moderated.
I will be posting a reply to some of the more salient "arguments"...which I've already addressed elsehwere.
Finally, I don't think much of people who remain anonymous and don't have the courage to identify themselves when addressing a charged topic. This user didn't even have the courage to use their own arguments.
We now resume our regular post.
Last month, I took a look at a two-part interview by Kathy Sanborn with alleged depleted uranium (DU) expert Leuren Moret. The two-part interview was a continuation of DU topics that I began with the first post on this blog which grew out of the DU discussion on the blog Principled Stand.
This is the fourth posting on this topic. This time I will address the “other side of the DU debate” as presented by Ms Sanborn. I wrote to Ms Sanborn with specific criticisms of her “interview”. She did make a change in her lead-in for part two of her interview offering to present the other side. She also stated that it was her intent to provide both sides to allow the reader/listener to make up their own minds. This is the result of what she provided. It should be fairly obvious that she never had any intention of doing an impartial presentation so that the audience could make up their own minds.
You can read her presentation here. In this case, not only did she not bother to interview a real expert, but in reviewing the Moret interview, you find that she made no effort to pose critical questions to Ms. Moret. She never even questioned the Dr. Strangelove twist that Moret threw out there. Clearly Ms. Sanborn is “in bed” with lunatics like Moret.
In the first place “the other side” is not just the military’s position, but that of the World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), the Royal Society, and the Center for Disease Control (CDC) just to name a few.
In the second place, Ms. Sanborn does not let the reader make up their own mind at all, contrary to her stated goal in the previous interview. She cherry picks elements from various reports out of context and then provides her own editorial comments clearly intended to sway the reader.
The problem is this for the anti-DU loonies – produce proof of your assertions. They cannot. Not one study has been able to conclusively prove a link between all the “horrors”, put forth by people like Ms. Moret, and DU. People like Ms. Sanborn, clearly ignorant of scientific fact, are unfortunately in positions that allow them propagate junk science. This they do with great gusto.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Friday, April 4, 2008
It seems I'm not the only one to recognize the propensity of certain parties to misquote and deliberately misrepresent something Senator McCain said.
Done the first time, it is a simple misquote. Done after their misquote has been pointed out to them, it is deliberate misrepresentation. Certain parties have this down to science. Perhaps they have the DNC talking points.