Leaving aside [y]our dispute with UNEP's methods

Now, is that a reasonable idea?
More criticism from Dan Fahey in answer to this report

----- Original Message -----
From: Daniel Fahey
To: bramhall@llrc.org
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 7:57 PM
Subject: RE: Uranium in Lebanon: Don't look, don't find

Richard,
About the only thing you have added here is a new term to the growing lexicon: "weapons derived uranium." Leaving aside your dispute with UNEP's methods (as if Dai Williams picking up random chunks of dirt is valid), you simply assert "it became apparent that there was Uranium in the bombs." Can please provide some actual evidence of this--not a patent listing a bunch of metals and alloys--but actual evidence that any uranium is used in any missiles or bombs. Thank you.
Dan

---

From: "Richard Bramhall"
To: "Daniel Fahey"
Subject: Re: Uranium in Lebanon: Don't look, don't find
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 13:35:14 -0000

I'm glad you don't dispute the validity of the term "WDU" but I have to say the idea that it's the only thing we have added is fundamentally stupid. The refusal or inability of a UN body to look appropriately for Uranium is a very serious matter, which makes it very curious that you "leave aside" the issue of UNEP's methods.
I'm forwarding this to Dai Williams for a response. If he can be bothered. Doesn't it occur to you that even if it were valid to talk about random chunks (what is your definition of "random"?) the presence of EU still calls out for an explanation?
Richard Bramhall
Low Level Radiation Campaign

---

----- Original Message -----
From: Daniel Fahey
To: bramhall@llrc.org
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2006 19:55 PM
Subject: RE: Uranium in Lebanon: Don't look, don't find

I'm confused--was it WDU or EU that you found? Does it matter?
UNEP at least took a systematic approach to this topic. I'm sure the truth about your samples will come out over time. Given the past work of Dai and Chris, I'm naturally dubious of the findings and the interpretation of them, particularly given the complete absence of any evidence that any missiles or bombs used in Lebanon contained uranium of any type. A piece of dirt won't change that.
This is a private email, not intended for publication on the LLRC web site or other web sites, list servs, or blogs. Please respect that.
Dan

---

----- Original Message -----
From: Daniel Fahey
To: bramhall@llrc.org
Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2007 5:25 AM
Subject: RE: Nuclear Monitor apology

Dear Richard,
This is very interesting. You must be pleased that the Nuclear Monitor responded to you and agreed with your position that certain individuals had been wrongly attacked in a public way. Now I am asking you to turn that lens around and look at your own web site, on which you have posted emails that I sent out and clearly marked as private and not intended for posting, which you in fact posted, along with defamatory (and false) commentary by Chris Busby. Please follow the professional path blazed by the Nuclear Monitor and remove those postings on your web site that contain and comment upon private emails that I sent to individuals.
As with the other emails, this email is not intended for distribution, publication, or posting on any web site, blog, or list serv.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Dan

----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Bramhall
To: Daniel Fahey
Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2007 13:08
Subject: RE: Nuclear Monitor apology

Dan,
In what way are Busby's commentaries defamatory or false? I have been in this field a long time and have often heard allegations such as you are now making; when I ask for details none are forthcoming or those which are offered are mistaken in some way or other. The end of the CERRIE process in 2004 represents the pinnacle of this experience when UK government lawyers and the chairman of the Committee were so desperate to keep our evidence out of an official report that they said it was libellous, which (apparently) frightened other Committee members into voting to exclude it, though they had all (bar one) previously voted on two separate occasions for exactly the same material to be included. No-one ever said what was libellous. Similarly the chairman accused us of writing material that was offensive or factually incorrect, but when we asked exactly what the problem was he refused to reply. This is all recorded and the material they were complaining about is all published in the Minority Report, which so far hasn't led to any libel suits. Our critics' response was to say the Government minister who set up the Committee had interfered in its work and had bullied its chairman, which is utter nonsense. It's all on www.llrc.org - click on the "CERRIE" button if you're interested.
So please be specific about what's defamatory or false, and please note that you don't need to elaborate on your complaint about seeing your emails posted on web sites - I understand what you are saying.
sincerely
Richard

Like Dudley Goodhead and the UK Government lawyers Dan Fahey hasn't answered this challenge (29th January '07).

Next installment