Here's a link to the original report. Following publication of the Green Audit study in February 2006, Dan Fahey wrote a critique. In March '06 it was published by WISE Amsterdam. As at December 18th 2006 it seems to have disappeared from the WISE site but here's another site.
Green Audit has replied. To save you the bother of downloading and reading it, here's our summary of the critics with Green Audit's replies in this tasteful blue.

WISE offered its own critique:

• Green Audit didn't do an analysis of the isotope ratios, so you can't tell whether the excess in the Aldermaston filters was Depleted Uranium or Natural.
  Quite true - the data as published by AWE didn't give the ratios. Of course it seems academic now, in view of the enriched Uranium they've found in Lebanon.
• It is not clear what was actually measured, since the GA report uses numbers converted by GA into nBq/cu metre. They use the figure of 12.5MBq/kg for ‘Uranium’ while this figure is valid only for U-238. The three uranium isotopes present rather would give depleted uranium a specific activity of 14.7 MBq/kg. The mineralogic composition of the dust is unclear.
  This is nonsense. The units used by GA were those published by AWE. AWE didn't publish the mineralogic composition. WISE has now deleted this part of its attack from its website.
• Even if one accepts the possibility that Uranium dust from Iraq may have been airlifted to Europe in the same way as Saharan sands sometimes are, GA presented no evidence this had actually happened. GA spent no thought in ruling out other origins (e.g. large Uranium mines in Niger, phosphate mines in Morocco etc.)
  The GA report is such evidence. The other possible (confounding) sources were considered, but the main point is that (as the data show) the massive increase in the filters at the time of the bombing was unique. Saharan sand storms aren't.
• GA did not provide evidence to support the claim that the US uses natural uranium in their weaponry.
  Who needs it? They're using enriched Uranium now.

Dan Fahey had two further criticisms:

• GA didn't provide sufficient evidence showing that air flows in March April 2003 could have transported natural Uranium from Iraq to England
  They did. Exhaustively. Fahey was asked to examine it and didn't respond. At one point he was claiming in emails to LLRC that since a Japanese study showed residues from the oil fires arriving in Japan at the same time it wasn't possible for the wind to be transporting Uranium dust in a different direction. Green Audit had consulted an expert on this, as they say in the paper, and while LLRC's workhorse sits writing this page and glancing out of the window, clouds at different altitudes are moving in different directions - some are blowing east, others to the north.
• The authors do not consider any alternative explanations.
  Bullsh. Did he read the paper?

---

Click here for Sunday Times report of 19th February 2006

---

A further exchange; Uranium in Lebanon

Mr. Fahey says his emails are private ... not intended for publication on the LLRC web site or any other web site, blog, or list serv. We are not complying with this peremptory demand. A polite request would have worked better, but Mr. F's communications are characterised by a lack of courtesy and he has had no compunction about circulating his own attacks widely. LLRC's own communications always assume that they might pop up in some part of the public domain (as they frequently do). These are topics where truth, logic and open debate ought to prevail.

Dan Fahey email 8 November 2006 (after the UN admitted failing to find Uranium in Lebanon) I have no doubt you will deny and defame the news that the UN found no evidence that any type of uranium or other radioactive material was dispersed in Lebanon by the Israeli military. It's clear you found what you set out to find, made your alarmist claim based photographs and one sample with no control, and in the process created unnecessary fear among a population facing very real dangers from cluster bombs and other unexploded ordnance. You should be ashamed of yourselves. I await your public statement on why the UN is wrong and you are right--maybe you have some more photos of explosions that you think prove your point? And I would also like to know how much money you, Green Audit, and LLRC have raised off of your bogus claim. Shame on you.
This is a private email not intended for publication on the LLRC web site or any other web site, blog, or list serv.
Dan Fahey

... to answer your shabby question about money, Green Audit and LLRC received nothing. I carried out at least a weeks work for no payment and this is because it is an important issue and children’s lives are at stake. The costs of analyses by the Harwell and Bangor laboratories (including results from other samples which we have not reported yet, but shortly will) were in excess of £1000. This was paid for by Dai Williams (£400) out of his savings and a friend of his donated £400 and if no one else helps then LLRC will cough up the difference. LLRC has some money from small donations from individuals.
C

---

Yet more of this kind of stuff is here