Resisting another attack

In answer to Dan Fahey's email (on the previous page) and comments from another source, Dr. Busby has circulated the following.

Dear Robert

Thank you for sending me this exchange. I am concerned about what Henk seems to be implying and feel I should clear up some misunderstandings. Could you send my responses around to all concerned.

1. Dai Williams went to Lebanon at my suggestion specifically to get me a sample from the crater that was referred to by Dr. Kobeissi in the article which I had been emailed for my comment. I thought that there might be DEPLETED URANIUM involved. The Geiger readings were about right on the basis of my scintillation counter measurements in the field in Kosovo and Iraq. I have surveyed these areas and subsequently analysed samples and know what to look for. I also asked Dai to get me an air filter from a vehicle. He did both. The air filter results will appear shortly.
2. Dai brought back SIX samples from different places. I tested these here in our lab. We have a sensitive sophisticated scintillation counter that can discriminate alpha and beta. We also have Geiger counters and a portable Gamma spectrometer, the same one used by IAEA. We also employ alphatrack CR39 plastic methods which enable us to count alpha activity from a surface. Of the five samples, the two from the Khiam crater gave significantly higher than background readings for beta activity. The Taire sample was slightly higher. The others were the same as background. The samples were tested in a lead castle. CR39 plastic showed that there was significantly higher alpha activity in the Khiam sample.
3. Since we are not rich, and the analytical costs are high, we sent two samples to Harwell. I work with Harwell as part of the Ministry of Defence Depleted Uranium Oversight Board, which I am member of and I have satisfied myself that Harwell are to be trusted to give the true answer. However, since Harwell are close to the MoD, and this might be a big political issue, I also sent a different piece of the Khiam sample to Dr David Assinder to analyse using alpha spectroscopy. He has analysed samples of DU for me in the past from Kosovo and I trust him. He runs the radiochemical Lab at the University of Wales Bangor.
4. Both methods showed the presence of ENRICHED URANIUM. This was unexpected. Dan Fahey has accused us of finding what we set out to find. This is untrue. We set out to look for DU on the basis of what we knew about the radiation levels reported. We actually found EU.
5. It is now suggested that the Enriched Uranium is ‘only slightly enriched’. This is untrue. We do not know what the level of enrichment is, since we are looking at a soil sample which would have had normal uranium present. If we allow for that the enrichment ratio is about 100 which is the input mix that can be used for some nuclear reactors.
6. It is also suggested that this result, 108, 117 could be experimental error. This is untrue. The experimental error is well known. Harwell have been doing this for us on the DUOB for two years. We know all about the levels of enrichment and depletion and how they can be measured. The mean U ratio in nature is 137.88. The Standard Deviation on this is about 0.5. If we say it is 1, then levels below 135 and above 141 are vanishingly unlikely, never mind levels of below 120. The differences between Assinder's alpha spec result and Harwell's Mass Spec result are due to the fact that they scraped different amounts of soil off the samples they received.
7. We still have some of this sample and are conducting further tests e.g. U-236.
8. There is no fission product component e.g. Cs-137 as we have done gamma spec at Bangor.
9. Fahey has said we have not used a control. I am at a loss to understand what he means by this. We have other samples of soil from the area that are not as radioactive. Is that what he means? i.e. is he implying that the whole of Lebanon was already contaminated with ENRICHED URANIUM before the war? This accusation seems to be rather incoherent. If I find a pistol on the ground and report this, what could it possibly mean to say I have no control except to suggest that pistols are to be found on the ground all over the place and to find one is no big deal because I should have looked in other places to check there were no pistols there also.
10. Finally we have been accused by Fahey of making money out of all this. The total costs of all the analyses from the labs will have been about £1000. Dai Williams paid £400 out of his savings. A friend of his has paid £400. So far we will have to ask LLRC for the extra £200. My own work, about a weeks work in the lab and writing reports, has been free. Dai paid out of his savings to visit Lebanon and get the samples.

I hope this will clear up some misunderstandings. I can see that Henk is upset that he made a statement about DU weapons in Lebanon which resulted from an over-interpretation of his Geiger counter readings but he is in company with the first UNEP survey of Kosovo, where they made the same mistake. Later, when they had assembled proper instruments they revisited the area and found DU all over the place, and reported it in their second report on the issue. Henk should just now concede that his statement was incorrect.

What we have done is report scientific results made by two separate labs using sophisticated state of the art instruments. The origin of the Uranium is open to speculative discussion, but we cannot deny that it is there. And as you will discover shortly, it is also elsewhere in the country. This is not diminished by snide remarks about my status as a green activist rather than a scientist, as The Independent's science correspondent has done (see 8th November article). For those who wonder what my scientific status is, I attach my latest CV.

Sincerely

Chris Busby

---

From: Daniel Fahey [mailto:duweapons@hotmail.com]
Sent: 09 November 2006 8:07 PM
To: christo@greenaudit.org
Subject: RE: No Uranium in Lebanon! Wake up Chris. You've destroyed your credibility with this claim and your jumbled claim about natural (or was it depleted?) uranium in England. Need I forward to you comments from real scientists about the shoddiness of your work?
[The jumbled claim refers to this.]

Email from Chris Busby to Dan Fahey 10th November 2006

I am always ready to respond to coherent questions and criticism; by all means send these comments along. I'm not sure how you would define a ‘real scientist’. I assume you include yourself in this group?? I recall you creating a rather hysterical unsolicited ‘peer review’ article about our Aldermaston findings (which were properly peer reviewed by the journal) and sending your review around the internet. So you clearly think you are my peer and know enough to sensibly criticise my research. Perhaps you could let me have a list of your scientific credentials, jobs etc. I attach my cv for your interest. Perhaps you could send me yours and we could decide.

You say that to ask about our funding sources is legitimate. Maybe. And so I have replied. So here is a question for you. What are your funding sources? Who pays you, Dan? I was told that you have a US Government Grant and live on that. Is that true? What does that say about your bias? I expect an answer to my question about your income and a copy of your own CV.

If you do not send these I will publicise your failure to do so among the internet DU people and ask Richard to put a review of this exchange on the LLRC website.
C

---

The site manager says Richard is so enraged by Dan Fahey that he isn't waiting to see if he complies with Dr. Busby's requests or not.

---

From: Daniel Fahey [mailto:duweapons@hotmail.com]
Sent: 22 November 2006 17.25
To: bramhall@llrc.org
Subject: RE: enriched Uranium confirmed in Lebanon

It is amazing that only Dai Williams and Chris Busby are able to find enriched uranium in Lebanon--it's almost too good to believe.

From: bramhall@llrc.org
Sent: 22 November 2006 17.56
To: Daniel Fahey [mailto:duweapons@hotmail.com]
Subject: RE: enriched Uranium confirmed in Lebanon

DW, CB and the laboratories, don't forget. Are you suggesting the samples are spiked? I have seen no answer from you concerning Busby's challenge to you over your own funding and CV. Did I miss something?
Richard Bramhall

---

From: Daniel Fahey [mailto:duweapons@hotmail.com]
Sent: 24 November 2006 20.53
To: bramhall@llrc.org
Subject: RE: enriched (hyperbole) confirmed in Lebanon

Richard,
You and Chris seem to be confused. I'm not the one making claims about (depleted) uranium in air filters in England or (enriched) uranium in Lebanon--or raising money off of those claims. Perhaps you think you can deflect attention away from your hyperbole by trying to direct attention onto your critics (including me), but such a tactic is a transparent sign of your insecurity and weakness. No one is paying me to point out the glaring flaws in the claims you promote, despite what you might fantasize to be true.
Regarding the samples, I'm not suggesting any intentional spiking, but it is very interesting to note that neither UNEP nor the Lebanese government has found any evidence to support your claim. The Lebanese government would seem to have an interest in confirming your finding, yet it did not. It is indeed curious that those who have vocally asserted that weapons containing enriched uranium have been used are the only ones who claim they found evidence to support this assertion. Only Dai and Chris can answer questions about intentional spiking, contamination at the lab, lack of control samples, or problems in interpretation of lab results. Given Chris and Dai's past work, I'd say all possible explanations for the flawed claims are open for consideration.
This email is not intended for reproduction or publication on the LLRC web site or other web sites, blogs, or list servs.
Dan

No-one thought this abuse worth replying to. Dan hasn't sent a CV, he's equivocal about what he gets paid for, he expresses a touchingly naive faith in UNEP, and chucks some pretty desperate mud at the laboratories who conducted the analyses (as if Green Audit could have engineered contamination of independent and highly experienced labs at Harwell and the School of Ocean Sciences in Bangor!)

---

This page will be updated in light of any further correspondence.
December 2006: Sorry, but there has been, so here it is.