Fahey the Bad Cop

A message from Daniel Fahey To: Felice & Jack Cohen-Joppa Date: Jan 2007

Jack,
I was thinking about this further. It seems that there should be some sort of discussion about what work needs to be done, irrespective of Busby et al. They are a major irritant, to be sure, and they get lots of attention, but what needs to be done to move the issue forward? It seems to me there are two things: 1) health studies of exposed populations, i.e. populations with confirmed exposures; 2) testing of potentially exposed populations using Randy Parrish's highly sensitive test. Both of these involve money, but maybe there should be a push to try to get bigger groups, e.g. WHO, ICRC, MSF, to consider some small pilot projects, e.g. funding urine testing for people from Basra or Baghdad, as Randy Parrish is located. [sic] In order for the results to be taken seriously, they must be done by real scientists using credible methods, not the sloppy work of Busy et al. The problem is that Busby et al tend to scare off credible scientists, partly through their aggressive tactics but also by making the issue look like a circus, which keeps people away. I know there were differences of opinion at the Hiroshima conference, but maybe the UK event could be an opportunity for a smaller discussion about where the people working on the issue want it to go, and how exactly they will get there. I think there answer lies in science, for at its heart this is a scientific issue, but it addition, I'd say that activists (including CADU) should ignore to the greatest extent possible the work of Busby et al. I know that's easier said than done (especially for me!), but maybe I can be the bad cop and slam them while the others move forward with a more positive agenda.

[Notes: the UK event referred to was a lobby in the House of Commons, London, organised by CADU (the Campaign Against Depleted Uranium) on 7th February 2007.]

----- Original Message -----
From: bramhall@llrc.org
To: Daniel Fahey
Sent: February 12, 2007
Subject: WDU and health studies

Dan,
I hear you've been doing some thinking and that it seems there should be some kind of discussion about what needs to be done (this was just a couple of weeks ago on 26th January). You muse about health in populations exposed to WDU and about finding money to collect and analyse urine samples. Good ideas, but not original — the Depleted Uranium Oversight Board in UK was set up to do just that. Where have you been all this time? (Incidentally DUOB includes Busby and other critics of orthodox radiation risk models). But if you want to raise the wind to do it again with other populations you'll have our blessing so long the studies are done transparently and without undue delay (i.e. without waiting so long that people's bodies will have excreted most of their Uranium burden). Another condition of our approval would be that health outcomes in the exposed population be compared with a well-selected unexposed control; it would be completely unacceptable to go through all the hoops only to end up with Unepese statements like radiation doses were too low to have caused any discernible health effect, or there are observable increases in disease, congenital malformations, anomalies in birth rates and so on but they can't be ascribed to WDU because there is no linear correlation with dose. So how is your idea progressing? How do you see it fitting into the big picture? Do you see it persuading a jury that they should convict someone for using Uranium weapons because their indiscriminate effects make them illegal, or do you see it as a lobbying tool in the campaign to ban them, or both perhaps?

----- Original Message -----
From: Daniel Fahey
To: bramhall@llrc.org
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 7:56 PM
Subject: RE: WDU and health studies

Richard,
Why would I discuss anything substantive with you when you have demonstrated a lack of professionalism by posting my private emails on your web site?
Dan

----- Original Message -----
From: bramhall@llrc.org
To: Daniel Fahey
Sent: February 17, 2007
Subject: re: WDU and health studies

Dan,
I don't know what you mean by professionalism. Perhaps you could explain. My experience leads me to feel that "professional" standards are very likely to be tribal if not entirely individualistic, and this is what I see in your approach to WDU issues. The only puzzle is to identify the tribe (and I note that you still haven't said where your funding comes from).
I feel WDU has so much potential to destroy life and health that ethics has to take precedence. As far as your correspondence is concerned this means that when you attack scientific work as unscientifically, as tendentiously, and as persistently as you habitually do you can't expect to keep your stuff in any sense private; in other words we may not be able to stop you being unscientific, tendentious and persistent but we won't condone you being insidious as well.
This is a far more compelling public interest case than, say, a super-model's drug habit or the sexual preferences of a clergyman. In my opinion people ought to be warned about your intention to marginalise us and your suggestion that you be the bad cop and slam Busby and his colleagues. Your remedy is to be more moderate and more logical in what you say. The feedback we get from the web pages is that you consistently lose the debate.

----- Original Message -----
From: Daniel Fahey
To: bramhall@llrc.org
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 12:43 AM

My my, you are both paranoid and insecure. I pity you.

----- Original Message -----
From: bramhall@llrc.org
To: Daniel Fahey
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007

huh???
Richard Bramhall

and yet another unscientific assertion ...