UK Radiation Jump blamed on Iraq shells

[katty]

cont'd: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0%2C%2C2087-2047373%2C00.html

The Sunday Times - Britain


The Sunday Times February 19, 2006

UK radiation jump blamed on Iraq shells
Mark Gould and Jon Ungoed-Thomas


RADIATION detectors in Britain recorded a fourfold increase in uranium levels in the atmosphere after the “shock and awe” bombing campaign against Iraq, according to a report.
Environmental scientists who uncovered the figures through freedom of information laws say it is evidence that depleted uranium from the shells was carried by wind currents to Britain.


Government officials, however, say the sharp rise in uranium detected by radiation monitors in Berkshire was a coincidence and probably came from local sources.

[mom cat]

1. What "local sources"?

[katty]

3. exactly-what?

[pocket]

2. wouldn't DU be too heavy to travel far by wind?

[mom cat]

4. That is what I first thought to, but when it explodes, it is weaponized

into ultra fine particles that are too fine to be stopped by gas masks and can attatch to dust particles which can then travel the globe. With a half life of 4.5 billion years, it can travel a long time and very far.

[Igel]

5. There are a number of things he could do to actually

make his statement "This research shows that rather than remaining near the target as claimed by the military, depleted uranium weapons contaminate both locals and whole populations hundreds to thousands of miles away” defensible.

He does nothing. He shows a correlation. He shows that it's plausible. And then he assumes since it's a correlation that's plausibly accounted for by his hypothesis, it must be true. Because he so wants it to be, one assumes. But maybe not.

Does the radiation signature match that of DU, when averaged with background levels? Is the timing right? Are the anomalous readings as widespread as one must assume if the radiation source originated in Iraq? Can any sense be made of the radiation level distributions?

The first question is likely hard to answer. The second might require a few minutes thought, and more fine-grained data than he could easily get. But the third and fourth questions are neither difficult to answer--he obviously has access to the data--and must be answered before you can reasonably use the word "show" or "demonstrate".

Otherwise, it's a nice bit of abductive reasoning. But abduction is only good for developing testable hypotheses, not for actually concluding squat.