The military has "insulted" the intelligence of members of the Commons defence committee by unnecessarily sugar-coating the potential health risks of radioactive-depleted uranium, a Canadian Alliance MP says.

Peter Goldring, the Alliance's veterans affairs critic, says a recent presentation by Canadian Forces Col. Ken Scott before the committee did not provide a balanced view of the possible health risks associated with depleted uranium, the radioactive substance that was used in anti-tank missiles used in the Persian Gulf and the Balkans.

Mr. Goldring said when he attended a committee meeting last month he hoped Col. Scott, the Forces director of health policy, could offer convincing testimony that the substance poses no risk.

"His entire presentation was on the safety of depleted uranium, how it was no more radioactive than natural uranium around us," Mr. Goldring said in an interview.

"In my mind, it was rather insulting. It was treating us like school children, when obviously depleted uranium is not the same as the earth and the sky around us."

The unexplained cancer deaths of about two dozen NATO peacekeepers sparked controversy in Europe earlier this year when it was suggested that radiation from exploded missiles, tipped with depleted uranium, might be a serious health hazard to peacekeepers who have served in the Balkans. Some Gulf War veterans have also raised questions about whether the substance is responsible for some of the mysterious symptoms known as Gulf War Syndrome.

About 40,000 depleted uranium rounds were fired during bombing campaigns in Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990s. No scientific link has been established between cancer and depleted uranium, a position to which NATO and the Canadian government strictly adhere. However, NATO has said further study of the issue is appropriate given the level of concern.

Some physicians and researchers maintain that despite the absence of a firm scientific link, a connection between the substance and cancer can't definitively be ruled out.

Mr. Goldring said the Forces are bending over backward not to publicly acknowledge that other opinion.

Mr. Goldring added that it was inappropriate for Col. Scott to seek changes to a report by Royal Military College scientists who were asked to review the massive body of literature surrounding depleted uranium.

In memos recently obtained by the Citizen, Col. Scott tells the scientists to tone down "unnecessarily inflammatory" language to keep from inciting "special interest" groups, "naive" readers or the media.

"Any conscientious scientist would not be trying to be an alarmist. They would be trying to reflect what their real concerns are," said Mr. Goldring.

One of the lead scientists who contributed to the paper said he didn't feel Col. Scott's suggestions were inappropriate and that some of his suggested changes in wording were incorporated into the report's final draft. None of Col. Scott's suggestions affected the content of the paper, said William Andrews, a nuclear engineer at RMC.

Mr. Andrews said he did not feel "gagged" or that his academic freedom was threatened in any way. He said Col. Scott was probably concerned how the general public would interpret the report.

"I guess in one sense he was right that people would read it, and unless the diction was very careful people would read into it what they wanted.

"This stuff can be acquired through Access to Information, and read by people who don't have the same background ... Col. Scott has a very sensitive and important job to do, and I'm not in a hurry to trade with him. I think he was concerned we might be causing him some grief further down the road."