Freedom4um

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Health
See other Health Articles

Title: Depleted U - An impromptu interview w/ a Career Tank Specialist
Source: me
URL Source: http://none.com
Published: Apr 27, 2005
Author: Tom007
Post Date: 2005-04-27 22:07:28 by tom007
Keywords: Specialist, impromptu, interview
Views: 2813
Comments: 488

Had an intesting conversation with a man I have known for about 5 months. He delivers to my store, handles alot of cash and is a "straight up" kind of guy. I like him, and I am sure his employer does as well. A steady Eddie man, the kind that makes the country run.

We somehow got talking about the ME, and he mentioned he had been to Egypt, and really did not care for any of it. I asked him how it was that he found himself in the ME and he said he was in the service of the military.

Naturally I wanted to know in what type of service he was in. Well, he was drafted into 'Nam, and did twentyfour years, and tanks were his thing. He started out in a tank designation I did not know of. I know a little about M1A1' and wanted to know some things about them, and the man was very evidently the real deal, no swagger, no he man stories etc. He is who he claims.

After some talk of tactics, guns, how to disable an M1A1, exploding armor, all of which he had the knolwedge of a solider who had spent many years with this type of equipment. He was pretty high up in the system.

Then I asked him about DU. Well turns out he was one of the men on the ground testing it at Aburdeen Proving grounds, shooting various things, like mounds of earth, then digging into it to estimate the ballistics, etc.

Did this many time, and my friend related that one time a DU projectile fragmented into the mound of earth. They were to go dig all the pieces of the remenents out. As he tells me, there was a hole that one of the fragments had made, and as they were poking around, a field mouse was scared up and scampered into that hole made by a fragment.

He just sat back and waited for it to come out-; it didn't. After a few minutes, he saw that it was dead.

He went and got the General of the testing operation, and showed him what he had discovered. The General and his men looked at the situation and told all the testers to go away. For three weeks the site was closed, except to the investigators.

Three weeks later, the investigation was complete. The report said the mouse died of "starvation". My friend looked at me, eye to eye, and laughed. "That mouse damn sure didn't die of starvation", he said emphatically.

He said when the DU rounds hit a tank, he could "see a mushroom cloud", formed (Note, alot of high intensity heat will form a mushroom cloud event).

He said "if you take a giger counter into one of the tanks with DU munitions it will beep like crazy". He said that the explosiom of a DU round into steel was" basically a miniature explosion of a nuclear bomb".

He said they would put goats in the test tanks, and around them. He stated that " for twentyfive meters around the tank, hit by a DU round, all the goats would be dead, ten meters, mangled, turned inside out".

He believed DU dust to be alot more dangerous than the military was allowing.

This man is much more creadible, to me, much more, than the talking hairdoo's reading spin points from the Pentagon.

Draw your own conclusions, this is what I heard today, from a man with incontrovertable creadibility with me. He was there.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Comments (1-90) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#91. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#90)

Maybe you'd like to try this one?

Compendium of Uranium and Depleted Uranium Research

1942 to 2004

That's a lot of material. I'll look at it later. I did note that it was commisioned by:

International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons (ICBUW)

Do you think they have an axe to grind?

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   15:50:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#92. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#87)

Ronald Kathren is not saying that DU is safe. What he is saying is that some of the maladies attributed to "Gulf War Syndrome" are not directly caused by depleted uranium.

You see Kyle, each individual isotope has a very specific effect on very specific body parts. That doesn't mean they aren't a hazard. Renal failure, bone cancer, leukemia. Those are things that some of us would consider a hazard.

What part of, "That their illnesses are attributable to their exposure to uranium is very, very unlikely. A truly enormous body of scientific data shows that it is virtually impossible for uranium to be the cause of their illnesses." don't you understand?

Buzz, you might want to slow down, take a breath and pull your head out of your arse.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   15:53:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#93. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#88)

By the way, your posted conclusion is NOT the conclusion that goes with the abstract I posted. Just a bit deceptive on your part, there little feller.

My appolgies; I thought it was. You see, the link you gave required a password.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   15:54:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#94. To: Kyle (#91)

All of the sources I've provided are extremely well documented and your attempt to write them off as biased is just another example of your patent dishonesty.

A German study published in 2003 (110) found specific chromosomal aberrations known as dicentric and centric ring chromosomal aberrations in the peripheral lymphocytes of 16 Gulf War and Balkans War veterans. The veterans were ill and suffered from chronic fatigue, headaches and muscle and joint pain (111). None of the veterans were heavy smokers. The number of chromosomal aberrations were 5 times greater than expected. Dicentric and centric ring chromosomal aberrations are known to be caused by ionizing radiation. All the veterans in this study suspected that they had been exposed to DU dust on the battlefield

The DU Program at the Baltimore VA Medical Center (112) has followed a small number of Gulf War veterans some of whom have DU shrapnel in their bodies from friendly fire incidences. Begun in 1993 with 35 veterans, the program expanded to 70 or so veterans (113). To date the DU Program has served 3 percent of the approximately 900 Gulf War veterans known to have been exposed to DU in either Level I exposures (friendly fire incidences) or Level II exposures (clean up operations and radiation control (114).

Studies of the veterans in the DU Program have found that veterans with embedded DU shrapnel had high levels of DU in their urine. Veterans with high levels of uranium in their urine did poorly on neurocognitive tests stressing accuracy and performance efficiency (115). Veterans with high levels of urinary uranium also had high levels of prolactin in their urine (116). In addition veterans with high urinary uranium had significantly lower monocyte percentages and lower mean lymphocyte counts than veterans with low urinary uranium as well as significantly higher mean neutrophil percentages (all related to immune function) (117). When 22 veterans with embedded DU had their semen tested for DU, 5 tested positive (118).

McDiarmid et al (2004) (119) reported on a ten-year follow up study done on interviews with 31 Gulf War veterans in the Baltimore DU Program and 8 Gulf War veterans new to the program. In the spring and summer of 2001 researchers gave a battery of tests to the 39 veterans. Ten years after initial exposure to DU all 39 veterans had DU in their urine. The 17 veterans who had embedded shrapnel in their bodies basically had the highest concentrations of uranium in their urine (13 of these were in the high urine uranium group). The other 22 had been exposed to DU through: inhalation (some of these vets had been in or on a tank hit by friendly fire), wound contamination or ingestion of DU through coughing etc.(120). None of the veterans in this group had been involved in clean-up or repair operations on tanks or vehicles destroyed by DU (i.e. no Level II veterans).

There was no difference in frequency of disease including cardiovascular, musculoskeletal, nervous system, or psychiatric conditions between the two groups of veterans (121). None of the veterans had kidney dysfunction and the researchers stated that ?there is a clear absence of a ?signature? specific medical problem shared by this cohort of Gulf War veterans?(122). The veterans who did not have embedded shrapnel in their bodies, with one exception, had lower urine uranium concentrations. The cut-off point in uranium urine concentrations between the high uranium urine group (n=13) and the low uranium urine group (n=22) was 0.10 micrograms/gram creatinine (measured over 24 hours) (123) . Range of urinary uranium values were 0.001 micrograms/gram creatinine to 78.125 micrograms/gram creatinine (124). The mean urinary uranium concentration in the high uranium group was reported to be 62.2 micrograms/Liter, with levels similar to those seen in a study of uranium mill workers in the mid-1970?s (125). (For a discussion of uranium miners and workers, see Appendix C).

The veterans had their urine and blood tested. The high urinary uranium group had significantly lower hematocrits (the volume percentage of red blood cells in whole blood, a low reading indicating anemia) than the low uranium group. Renal function differed significantly between the two groups ? both urine retinol binding protein (a test for proximal kidney tubules) and urine total protein were higher in the veterans with high concentrations of urinary uranium, suggesting decreased protein absorption or increased glomerular filtration of protein (126), i.e. indicating stress on the kidney.

Genotoxic testing included testing for chromosomal aberrations and sister chromatid exchange (SCE) as well as use of an HPRT assay which detects mutations at the gene level. (HPRT stands for Hypoxanthine-guanine phosphoribosyl transferase which is used to detect mutations at the genetic level. It is extensively used in human research (127)). All testing was done using peripheral blood lymphocytes to measure the frequency of genetic mutations. Although there was no significant difference in SCEs between the high and low urine uranium groups, as had been found in a previous study (128), there was a statistical difference in frequency of chromosomal aberrations between the high urine uranium and low urine uranium groups (129). With respect to this latter finding, researchers stated that the chromosomal aberrations were based on near normal ?absolute frequencies of chromosomal aberrations per cell? (130). The HPRT assay showed an association of the HPRT mutation frequency with high urine uranium concentration (131). There was no association with low uranium urinary levels. (132) (The frequency of mutations was significantly higher in the first group). More study was called for. These results demonstrated the mutagenic nature of DU.

Statistical differences between the two groups of veterans were found in free thyroxine levels (an indication of underlying disease unrelated to thyroid function (133)), with the lower urine uranium group having the higher levels. Prolactin levels were also higher in the low urine uranium group although the difference was not significant (134). Thyroid function was within normal range but the prolactin levels were above normal range (135). In immunological testing differences between the two groups were statistically significant in only two of fourteen parameters with all values being within normal range (136). (The percentage of T-lymphocytes was significantly lower in the high uranium group whereas the percentage of monocytes was not quite significant between the two groups with the high uranium group having the higher percentage).

Neurocognitive tests did not find statistical differences between the high level urinary uranium group and the low level group although there was a marginal association (p=.069) between urinary uranium levels and an automated accuracy index, which was not statistically significant. The researchers stated however that two veterans with severe combat injuries and high uranium urine levels ?drove? this (137). A result of this sort can occur with small numbers.

Twenty-seven of the veterans had their semen counted. Tests included volume of sperm concentration and indices of sperm motility (138). Differences between the two groups of veterans were not significant, although the mean of sperm concentration (over 20 million/ml) was higher in the high urine uranium group as were the means for total sperm count and total progressive sperm, a measure of sperm motility including sperm moving randomly and others not moving at all (139). Incidences of motility characteristics and subnormal sperm count were below WHO 1987 norms (140). The researchers said that the semen characteristics overall were ?based on average values? and that the higher values in the high DU-exposed group ?are not considered clinically significant for an individual?s fertility, as upper limits of normal do not exist? (141).

In summary, the results with prolactin, though significant, were the reverse of what had been found in other research on the veterans in the program. Results indicated that kidney problems might occur in the future and there was evidence that DU could be genotoxic. With this report as with most of the other reports by McDiarmid et al., the small numbers of veterans involved make it difficult to base policies on these results as the V.A. has itself noted, with regard to the induction of cancer (142).

Gwiazda et al.(2004) (143) using inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry showed that 8 years after exposure to DU, 2 groups of the Baltimore V.A. DU Program veterans had DU in their urine. Those veterans with embedded shrapnel (n=16) had higher urinary uranium concentrations (with one exception) than the group suspected of having been exposed through inhalation, ingestion or wound contamination. Soldiers in the control group had not been involved in friendly fire incidents in 1991. One veteran with embedded shrapnel did not have any DU in his urine. Only 10 out of a total of 28 had DU in their urine in the group of exposed veterans without embedded shrapnel. In the control group, one veteran had DU in his urine. Overall, veterans with embedded shrapnel had the highest urinary uranium concentrations.

The median value for urine uranium concentrations in veterans with shrapnel was significantly higher than the median values of urine uranium concentrations in either of the other groups (144). The median uranium level in the exposed group without embedded shrapnel was six times higher than the median uranium level in the control group (n=13). The range of values for the second and third groups overlapped, leading the researchers to state that urine testing alone was not sufficient to indicate body contamination with DU (145). Urine uranium values for the group of veterans who had been exposed to DU but did not have embedded shrapnel, were within normal limits for the U.S. population (after work of Ting et. al 1999 who used 500 participants in the NHANES III survey to ascertain urine (natural) uranium levels in a normal population (146). The 50 percentile was 6.32 nanogram/L (or .00632 micrograms/L) whereas the 95 percentile was 34.5 nanogram/L) (147).

A more recent article by McDiarmid et al. (July 2004) (148) studied 446 veterans (including about 100 active duty soldiers) found that 95 percent of the veterans who had suspected that they had been exposed to DU did not have elevated urine uranium levels (149). Testing for DU was done only if a urine sample had a uranium concentration equal to or more than 0.05 micrograms/gm. creatinine; soldiers with urine samples with uranium equal to or more than 0.05 micrograms per gm. creatinine were retested and if the uranium content of their urine was still high, only then were tests for the presence of DU done. Testing for uranium isotopes was done using inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry. Eighteen samples were tested and the ratios of U235/U238 found for these samples ?were consistent with ratios expected for natural uranium (range = 0.0066 to 0.0078)? (150) (DU has a ratio of 0.002).Veterans with embedded DU shrapnel had DU in their urine (151). Three out of 6 veterans with embedded shrapnel had the highest urine uranium levels; the next two highest positive predictive values for DU exposure were for soldiers in or on a vehicle hit by friendly fire or in a vehicle hit by enemy fired (152). As a group, the 446 veterans when compared to the NHANES population, had higher urine uranium levels percentile by percentile but these differences were not significant (153).

Dr. Helen Caldicott states that it may be possible to be exposed to DU and have no evidence of this in the urine at a later time. For instance, DU may have been stored in the bone or other tissues. DU formerly in the body may have caused mutations before passing out through the urine, leaving no trace of the actual injury (154). Gulf War veterans were not tested for DU until some time after exposure to DU. Also as insoluble ceramic DU that may exist in the lung, does not readily solubilize and travel to the kidneys, the DU in the urine does not necessarily represent the total body burden of DU.

Guidelines regarding embedded shrapnel may be changing in part as a result of AFRRI research (155). In August 2002, Col. Wakayama of the Defense Department stated at a DOD conference that new guidelines indicate the advisability of removing embedded shrapnel longer than one cm. unless medically contraindicated (156).

In March 2003, a physician with the Department of Defense reiterated that the Baltimore Program veterans showed no ill effects from their exposure to DU, in particular no visible signs of kidney disease (157). They had made similar statements in the winter of 2001.

However, at least two veterans in the Baltimore program have been ill. One veteran had a bone tumor removed from his arm while another veteran who did not have shrapnel in his body has lymphoma (158), a rare type of cancer (the incidence for Hodgkins Lymphoma in the U.S. is 2.8 cases per 100,000)(159). The fact that this cancer has been largely ignored by the Baltimore DU Program from the point of view of DU exposure, may be partly because the nuclear industry, including the military, makes a distinction between radiation that causes cancer and radiation that promotes or accelerates cancer (they discount the latter) (160).

The veterans who are in the DU Program in Baltimore are a small number compared to other highly exposed veterans who inhaled or ingested DU or had wounds contaminated by DU who are not in the program. Veterans not enrolled in the program have reported having health problems including kidney dysfunction and birth defects (161).

Another VA Program in Wilmington, DE treated 24 Gulf War veterans who had been involved in the clean up and decontamination of 24 U.S. vehicles and tanks destroyed by DU munitions in Saudi Arabia over a three and a half month period. Dr. Asaf Durakovic, an expert in Nuclear Medicine and head of the program from 1991-1997 discussed the illnesses of many of the veterans in the program with a reporter with the World Socialist Web Site in September 1999. Fourteen of the veterans tested positive to DU (162) and they suffered from kidney pathology, as well as lung disease, GI dysfunction and immune system problems. At the time of the interview Dr. Durakovic was Professor of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine at Georgetown University (163).

Of the over 600,000 service men and women who served in the Gulf War in 1991, 100,000 veterans have reported having symptoms of Gulf War Syndrome ? including symptoms of chronic fatigue, memory loss, joint pain, headaches, anxiety and depression (164). DU may likely be responsible in part for these disabilities.

A study by Winrow et al. (2003) (165) found that the inhibition of a gene, neuropathy target esterase (NTE), in mice produced neurological problems similar to some of the symptoms of Gulf War Syndrome when mice were exposed to organophosphates present in some chemical warfare agents such as certain nerve gases and pesticides. The organophosphates inhibited the activity of the gene. NTE is involved in neurodevelopment and is active in the hippocampus, important for memory and learning, the cerebellum, site of control of gait and movement, and the spinal cord. Inhibition of the gene killed unborn mice and produced the type of hyperactivity found in attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) as well as some of the symptoms of Gulf War illness (166). The study was partly funded by the Department of Defense.

A group of researchers at Duke University (2004) (167) did a rat study on conditions affecting Gulf War troops in 1991. Rats were exposed to stress for 28 days and were given low doses of chemicals encountered on the battlefield: the anti-nerve gas pyridostigmine bromide, the insecticide permethrin and DEET, an insect repellant. Rats exposed to stress and the chemicals showed significant brain and liver damage. Rats exposed only to stress and rats exposed only to the chemicals did not suffer injury, or in the case of the chemicals, little or no injury to brain or liver.

Areas of the brain damaged by the combination of stress, as on the battlefield, and chemicals, included the cerebral cortex, which controls motor and sensory regulation, the hippocampus, and the cerebellum. Damage included death of neurons and increased destruction by oxygen free radicals (168). The researchers stated that the changes seen in the stressed rats receiving the chemicals ?likely explain some of the symptoms such as loss of memory, muscle weakness, and alterations in learning ability observed in Gulf War veterans.? (169). They called for further research.

An editorial on Gulf War illness in the December 13, 2003 issue of the British Medical Journal (BMJ) (170) states that ?war is incredibly stressful? (171). The writer asserts that the Gulf War veterans are ill but that their symptoms can be found in the general population as well. He refers to an article by Hotopf et al. in the BMJ (same issue), which found that Gulf War veterans have experienced poorer health (172) than military personnel who did not serve in the Gulf War in 1991; or had served as peacekeepers in Bosnia (but their level of health was better than that of the Gulf War veterans). The Gulf War veterans suffered significantly more persistent fatigue than the veterans in the other two groups, but were not, however, experiencing new illnesses to a greater degree than the veterans in the other two groups (173). A larger study published in BMC Public Health in July 2004 found that British Gulf War veterans reported higher rates of general ill health and higher number of symptoms than military personnel who were not deployed to the Gulf, and were more likely to have reported at least one new medical symptom or disease since 1990 (174).

The writer of the BMJ editorial mentioned a large study by Macfarlane et al. (175) also in the BMJ which found no difference in incidence rates of cancers between veterans who had served in the Gulf War and soldiers who had not been in the war. The Gulf War veterans sustained 270 cancers as opposed to 269 cancers in the control group (176). Investigation of site-specific cancers suffered by Gulf War veterans showed no excess in numbers of cancers at different sites (177). However, there were 24 cases of lymphoid and hematopoietic cancers in the Gulf War veterans group as opposed to 11 in the Era (not Gulf War) cohort (178).

The researchers commented that exposure to DU or pesticides were self-reported with the most common symptoms including fatigue, poor memory, stiffness, inability to sleep, irritability and sudden mood changes (179). Non-melanoma cancers and cancers where site information was lacking, were not included in the study (180). The study was funded by the U.K. Ministry of Defense.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-28   15:58:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#95. To: Kyle (#93)

You see, the link you gave required a password.

Well, if you want to base your opinion on education and reality, you're going to have to actually expend some effort. Or, you could just regurgitate the Newsmax / WND / Fox / Rush Limbaugh talking points.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-28   16:00:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#96. To: Kyle (#92)

What part of, "That their illnesses are attributable to their exposure to uranium is very, very unlikely. A truly enormous body of scientific data shows that it is virtually impossible for uranium to be the cause of their illnesses." don't you understand?

The part I don't understand is where some moron who calls himself Kyle claims that DU is not a hazard.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-28   16:01:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#97. To: Jhoffa_ (#89)

I'm still waiting for that MSDS on air that you promised.

He DID promise this, didn't he?

Perhaps he's full of molarkey?

http://www.airliquide.com/safety/msds/en/000A_AL_EN.pdf

http://www.airliquide.com/safety/msds/en/000B_AL_EN.pdf

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   16:06:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#98. To: Kyle (#97)

Interestingly enough, I just read the MSDS you provided for compressed air, and guess what! It isn't considered a hazard. Doh! The MSDS for DU was just the tiniest bit more serious. Eh?

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-28   16:09:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#99. To: Kyle (#97)

    Hazard Identification: Not Hazardous..

    No effect on living tissue.

Thanks for the sheet, Kyle.

I'm afraid it does little for your arguement, however.

Jhoffa_  posted on  2005-04-28   16:10:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#100. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#95)

You see, the link you gave required a password.

Well, if you want to base your opinion on education and reality, you're going to have to actually expend some effort. Or, you could just regurgitate the Newsmax / WND / Fox / Rush Limbaugh talking points.

1) Listen idiot - Don't give me bad links and I won't make the mistake. It is moot though - the conclusion I posted is real and conforms to the facts.

2) I don't know Newsmax and don't know their position on anything. I don't know what WND is. I don't get Fox and I work days, so I don't hear Limbaugh. I'm educated, including technically, and generally informed and I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I've backed up every claim I've made and that's why you're pissed off.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   16:12:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#101. To: Kyle (#93)

Yeah, tell it to the Gulf War 1 veterans who, btw, your "Help is on the way" administration has pretty much told to STFU and go away. I have a lot more faith and trust in the validity of the extensive data given here than I do your sources. I guess it all comes down to who you choose to believe. I know this government has a long, long history of lying to the American people. As dumbya said here. ..

Gulf War Syndrome/Depleted Uranium

"Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy." ~ Henry Kissinger ~ January-February 2003 edition of Eagle Newsletter

christine  posted on  2005-04-28   16:14:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#102. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut, Jhoffa_ (#98)

Interestingly enough, I just read the MSDS you provided for compressed air, and guess what! It isn't considered a hazard. Doh! The MSDS for DU was just the tiniest bit more serious. Eh?

I've read hundreds of MSDS's and they always sound much worse than reality. The reason is similar to why the warnings on drugs make them almost always sound worse than the disease. My point was that after all of the other substance that has been posted, to dredge up the MSDS is silly.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   16:14:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#103. To: christine (#101)

I have a lot more faith and trust in the validity of the extensive data given here than I do your sources. I guess it all comes down to who you choose to believe.

Bingo! We have a winner. I choose to believe the vast majority of the experts worldwide who aren't political hacks. You choose to go w/ the small minority that fit into your twisted world view. 'Nough said.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   16:16:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#104. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#98)

The MSDS for DU was just the tiniest bit more serious. Eh?

Oh no, of course not. In Bushzarro World, exposure to ionizing radiation and aerosolized heavy metals is good for you. If you don't believe me, just ask the half of the Gulf War I vets that are now either dead or disabled. Pass the Kool-Aid please.

Esso  posted on  2005-04-28   16:17:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#105. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#96)

What part of, "That their illnesses are attributable to their exposure to uranium is very, very unlikely. A truly enormous body of scientific data shows that it is virtually impossible for uranium to be the cause of their illnesses." don't you understand?

The part I don't understand is where some moron who calls himself Kyle claims that DU is not a hazard.

It's not me; it's the vast majority of the peiople who know this stuff. I'm just the messenger.

Calling me a moron doesn't make up for losing the argument on substance.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   16:18:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#106. To: Esso, Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#104)

If you don't believe me, just ask the half of the Gulf War I vets that are now either dead or disabled.

Raving lunatic rantings. This is utter BS and unsupportable. I've seen this posted before by the truly gullible and I've seen their laughable sources. Grow up and start thinking for yourself.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   16:20:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#107. To: Kyle (#102)

    My point was that after all of the other substance that has been posted, to dredge up the MSDS is silly.

On the contrary, the purpose of these sheets is to provide emergency medical professionals with the information they need to save your life or treat you in the event you're exposed to one, or more, dangerous substances.

The sheets clearly say (under hazards) that DU is Toxic and to avoid inhalation or ingestion, be surveyed and decontaminated.

I fail to see how this could be any more clear.

PS: It took an FIOA for the Navy to come off that "Silly" sheet, btw.

Jhoffa_  posted on  2005-04-28   16:21:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#108. To: Kyle (#100)

Listen idiot - Don't give me bad links and I won't make the mistake. It is moot though - the conclusion I posted is real and conforms to the facts.

Bad link? Hardly. It was an link to a very well respected journal publication specific to the nuclear industry. You made such a big deal about being educated and depending upon reality that I thought you might be interested in hard evidence. I guess I was wrong. You're only interested in spin, evasion and distraction. Maybe you should consider enlisting in the military when you get out of high school. I hear it builds character.

2) I don't know Newsmax and don't know their position on anything. I don't know what WND is. I don't get Fox and I work days, so I don't hear Limbaugh. I'm educated, including technically, and generally informed and I'm not a conspiracy theorist.
You're not a very convincing liar.
I've backed up every claim I've made and that's why you're pissed off.
Tell me again how DU is not a hazard. I just love that one!

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-28   16:22:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#109. To: Kyle (#105)

    Calling me a moron doesn't make up for losing the argument on substance.

Well, you're half right.

Kyle, he's posted absolute reams of data above.. and you've read what the US Navy has to say.

This arguement isn't lost by a long shot.

Jhoffa_  posted on  2005-04-28   16:23:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#110. To: Kyle (#106)

Raving lunatic rantings.

U.S. Government numbers, Asshole.

Esso  posted on  2005-04-28   16:23:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#111. To: Kyle (#102)

My point was that after all of the other substance that has been posted, to dredge up the MSDS is silly.

No, the point was to highlight that you are a mindless bot who parrots the pro-war propaganda no matter how much evidence and fact is placed before you. Guess what, it worked.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-28   16:29:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#112. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#108)

Bad link? Hardly.

Try it buttmunch. It asks for a password.

It was an link to a very well respected journal publication specific to the nuclear industry. You made such a big deal about being educated and depending upon reality that I thought you might be interested in hard evidence.

Then, since it was a bad link, please post the conclusions.

2) I don't know Newsmax and don't know their position on anything. I don't know what WND is. I don't get Fox and I work days, so I don't hear Limbaugh. I'm educated, including technically, and generally informed and I'm not a conspiracy theorist.

You're not a very convincing liar.

It is the absolute 100% truth. I don't appreciate it when you slimeballs acuse me of lying. being a paid shill, being whatever, just because I haven't bought your BS.

I've backed up every claim I've made and that's why you're pissed off.

Tell me again how DU is not a hazard. I just love that one!

You have neatly conflated two intyenetional distaortions: I never said it wasn't hazardous at all. Tons of experts have said that it is only very slightly hazardous. You must be getting desparate to use such tactics.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   16:30:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#113. To: Kyle (#103)

I choose to believe the vast majority of the experts worldwide who aren't political hacks.

Again with the lies. You've systematically rejected the plethora of worldwide experts that have been presented to you here.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-28   16:31:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#114. To: Jhoffa_ (#70)

PS: Looks like the dust is explosive too.. Now, isn't that interesting?

Dust of nearly anything is explosive.

tom007  posted on  2005-04-28   16:31:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#115. To: Jhoffa_ (#109)

Kyle, he's posted absolute reams of data above.. and you've read what the US Navy has to say.

Get off the MSDS crap. Tons of data have been posted already; read it.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   16:31:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#116. To: Kyle (#105)

Calling me a moron doesn't make up for losing the argument on substance.

Substance? You mean like the Health Physics Journal article you tried to misrepresent? hehehe Nice try, bot.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-28   16:32:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#117. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#113)

Again with the lies. You've systematically rejected the plethora of worldwide experts that have been presented to you here.

Your 'experts', to a man, have a political axe to grind. Some are downright ludicrous. You have conveniently ignored the real experts that I've linked to, when you haven't cavalierly dismissed them as part of the 'CONSPIRACY'.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   16:34:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#118. To: Kyle (#112)

Try it buttmunch. It asks for a password.

No shit, hotrod. That's what professional journals do. Once you get out of high school, you might actually discover that you too can register and read real scientific data. Until then, enjoy your press releases from the RNC.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-28   16:34:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#119. To: Kyle (#112)

I don't appreciate it when you slimeballs acuse me of lying.

Then quit lying.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-28   16:35:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#120. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#116)

Substance? You mean like the Health Physics Journal article you tried to misrepresent? hehehe Nice try, bot.

That's all you got left? Quibling over whether a quote came from the right web page. I guess you're done.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   16:35:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#121. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#119)

I don't appreciate it when you slimeballs acuse me of lying.

Then quit lying.

I'm not lying. You don't know me. Shove it up your ass.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   16:36:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#122. To: Kyle (#115)

I am.

One of his excerpts is from the Ministry of Defence.

Cool, eh?

And, so far as the MSDS goes... I know you're probably outraged at President Bush for not treating our brave soldiers and soldierettes as well as the law would require a factory worker to be treated after DU exposure, but do try to control yourself.

If you need to vent over his neo-con wickedness, I'd suggest firing off a scathing letter to your congressman.

Jhoffa_  posted on  2005-04-28   16:40:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#123. To: Kyle (#103)

Of course, you won't look at the link with the vast information posted there and documentation of numerous victims of DU poisoning. You won't accept anything that doesn't fit into your closed-minded paradigm. I beg to differ with your "small minority" accusation. I believe the small minority, the world over, are people like you who believe a government who lies to you over and over.

christine  posted on  2005-04-28   16:41:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#124. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#118)

No shit, hotrod. That's what professional journals do. Once you get out of high school, you might actually discover that you too can register and read real scientific data. Until then, enjoy your press releases from the RNC.

It requires that I pay. I'm not going to pay to find out what I already know. If you are insisting that that site concludes differently than all the other truly scientific sources, please post their conclusions.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   16:41:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#125. To: Kyle (#112)

I never said it wasn't hazardous at all.

Okay. I'll pretend that the following two posts don't exist. hehehe

Most is excreted rather quickly and studies have found that there is no evidence of significant hazard.

Hazards are minimal.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-28   16:42:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#126. To: christine (#123)

Of course, you won't look at the link with the vast information posted there

Are you unable to differentiate between peer-reviewed science and the conspiracy theorist rantings of 'Beyond Treason 2005'? If not, then there is no use in further discussion.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   16:44:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#127. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#125)

Most is excreted rather quickly and studies have found that there is no evidence of significant hazard.

Hazards are minimal.

What's wrong w/ the above. They are the facts. Too bad they conflict w/ your prejudices.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   16:46:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#128. To: Kyle (#126)

Pentagon admits Gulf War weapons were toxic: Many troops didn't know depleted uranium ammo, armor dangers, report says.

The Atlanta Journal and Constitution

The Atlanta Journal and Constitution; 1/9/1998; Arthur Brice STAFF WRITER

Arthur Brice STAFF WRITER The Atlanta Journal and Constitution 01-09-1998 The Pentagon said for the first time Thursday that thousands of Gulf War soldiers may have been needlessly exposed to toxic depleted uranium (DU).

The revelation in a yearly report released Thursday by Bernard Rostker, special assistant for Gulf War Illnesses, comes just a few months after the Pentagon maintained that only a handful of U.S. ground troops had been exposed during Operation Desert Storm. The Pentagon had assured Gulf War veterans early last year that they were not under any health risks from the radioactive ammunition.

"The admission that DU is a health hazard and that thousands may have been exposed is a watershed event," said Paul Sullivan, executive director of the National Gulf War Resource Center, a group representing 36 veterans groups.

"It's another step forward in favor of veterans," Sullivan said. "It's another answer in a very large puzzle."

U.S. and British forces used more than 1 million DU armor-piercing rounds during Desert Storm, mostly to penetrate Iraqi tanks and other heavy armor. It was the first time that the toxic metal, 1.6 times more dense than lead, was used in warfare. Depleted uranium also was used in the construction of M1A1 tanks used by American troops.

Many of the 100,000 Gulf war veterans suffering from a host of maladies say they believe their illnesses were caused by inhaling smoke and particles from exploding DU rounds or by exposure to contaminated vehicles.

Rostker's report admits that the Pentagon could have prevented exposure with proper training of ground troops. The health hazards, the report said, were well-documented.

"Our investigations into possible health hazards of depleted uranium," the report says, "point to serious deficiencies in what our troops understood about the health effects DU posed on the battlefield."

For the most part, Rostker said, the information was known only by technical specialists in nuclear-biological-chemical health and safety fields.

"Combat troops or those carrying out support functions generally did not know that DU-contaminated equipment, such as enemy vehicles struck by DU rounds, required special handling," the report states. "Similarly, few troops were told of the more serious threat of radium contamination from broken gauges on Iraq's Soviet-built tanks.

"The failure to properly disseminate such information to troops at all levels may have resulted in thousands of unnecessary exposures."

But the Pentagon still maintains that it doesn't know whether any troops were made ill by the exposure.

"We're studying that," Defense spokesman Tom Gilroy said Thursday. "I wouldn't say we've reached a conclusion one way or the other on that."

That rankles some veterans' advocates.

"They won't step up to the line and say we have to assume exposures and provide treatment," said Jim Tuite, director of the Gulf War Research Foundation.

"It's sad to learn that there were exposures," Sullivan said, "but let's do something positive. Let's provide health care, conduct medical research and initiate training."

The Pentagon announced Wednesday that it was going to initiate widespread training on depleted uranium.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2005-04-28   16:46:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#129. To: Kyle (#127)

MoD knew of depleted uranium risks four years ago.

The Daily Mail (London, England)

The Daily Mail (London, England); 1/11/2001

Byline: DUNCAN GARDHAM;MICHAEL CLARKE

OFFICIALS knew at least four years ago that depleted uranium posed a serious risk to soldiers' health, it was revealed last night.

Ministry of Defence documents show servicemen should have been warned of the potentially lethal affects of the cancer-causing dust.

Leaked reports dating back to 1997 warned Ministers of the dangers of the substance, used to make armour-piercing ammunition more effective.

The documents said soldiers could suffer lung, lymph and brain cancers as a result of working inside vehicles contaminated by depleted uranium (DU).

They added: 'First and foremost, the risk of occupational exposure by inhalation must be reduced.' Army veterans accused Armed Forces Minister John Spellar of misleading the House of Commons when he made an embarrassing U-turn this week and announced that Balkan veterans would be offered health tests.

Mr Spellar went out of his way to play down the health implications of DU, saying the Government had no evidence of any damage to our troops and that the danger was negligible. The leaked document suggests otherwise.

It says: 'Inhalation of insoluble uranium dioxide dust will lead to accumulation in the lungs with very slow clearance - if any.

'Although chemical toxicity is low, there may be localised radiation damage on the lung leading to cancer. Uranium compound dust is therefore hazardous.'

It adds: 'All personnel should be aware that uranium dust inhalation carries a long-term risk to health ... [the dust] has been shown to increase the risks of developing lung, lymph and brain cancers.

'Working inside a DU dust contaminated vehicle without adequate respiratory protection will expose the worker to up to eight times the OES [the Occupational Exposure Standard].' The document from 1997 - The Use and Hazards of Depleted Uranium Munitions, which was based on research carried out in 1993 - adds: 'All personnel should have a full medical history taken and be counselled appropriately.' It says the worst exposure was likely to be for troops working involved in the recovery destroyed tanks.

And it goes on to advise that exposure can be limited by 'careful husbandry and the use of respiratory filters or positive pressure systems when working in battle-damaged vehicles'. No such protective clothing was worn by soldiers.

An MoD spokesman said last night: 'This is just one document. It is based on another document from 1993, produced by a trainee and never endorsed or finalised.

'It was not endorsed by superiors and does not reflect other government studies dating back several years. We believe it is scientifically flawed, misleading and incorrect. ' But Shaun Rusling, of the National Gulf War Veterans and Families Association, said: 'This shows Mr Spellar misled the Commons in what he said on Tuesday.' Ian Townsend, the British Legion's general secretary, dismissed the Government's response.

He said: 'If a member of the public suffered from chronic fatigue, hair loss, severe bouts of depression or cancer, they would ask for and receive assessment, answers and treatment.' Tory defence spokesman Iain Duncan Smith, said: 'Ministers must explain when they found the risk, what precautions they took and why they have refused to say that they knew anything about it.'

Meanwhile the MoD also admitted that DU could pose a much bigger risk to soldiers in Kosovo than previously thought.

They said the dust could have been spread when weapons missed their targets and hit buildings or cars.

It was also claimed that Britons living near firing ranges could be at risk from DU. Professor Malcolm Hooper of Sunderland University said dust from exploding shells could travel 25 miles, threatening the populations of nearby towns.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2005-04-28   16:50:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#130. To: Kyle (#117)

Your 'experts', to a man, have a political axe to grind.

Really? Perhaps you could enlighten me to the axe that the following people are grinding:

REJ Mitchel
S. Sunder
K. Baverstock
C. Mothersill
M. Thorne
Dr. Rosalie Bertell
Michael Mariotte
Col. J. Edgar Wakayama OSD/DOT and E/CS
Dr. Doug Rokke
Asaf Durakovic
Alexandra Miller
Z. Goldbert
B.E. Lehnert
O.V. Belyakov
A.M. Malcolmson . . .

And the list goes on and on and on...

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-28   16:52:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#131. To: Jethro Tull, christine, Mr Nuke Buzzcutt, Jhoffa_ (#129)

Maybe Kyle is a UN shill:

WHO ‘suppressed’ scientific study into depleted uranium cancer fears in Iraq

Dakmar  posted on  2005-04-28   16:52:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (132 - 488) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest