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: 2934
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 (1-119) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#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  


#132. To: Kyle (#126)

then there is no use in further discussion.

on this we agree.

christine  posted on  2005-04-28   16:52:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#133. To: Kyle (#120)

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

You got busted misrepresenting the conclusion of a legitimate source. That's just a bit more serious than quibling over whether it was the right page. Look, if you have no ethical integrity, you just as well give up. You just keep demonstrating that you wish to be known as a liar.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-28   16:54:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#134. To: Jethro Tull (#128)

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

Simply can't be true. Our very own RNC Kyle (Retarded Nut Case) says that it's perfectly safe.

Esso  posted on  2005-04-28   16:54:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#135. To: Kyle (#121)

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

I know enough to know that you are a liar.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-28   16:55:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#136. To: Jhoffa_ (#122)

One of his excerpts is from the Ministry of Defence.

Cool, eh?

TRANS: I'm losing the argument so I'll make an allusion to just one of the sources as being part of the 'CONSPIRACY" and ignore the rest.

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.

Meaningless rhetoric.

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

More meaningless rhetoric. I guess I must have gotten through.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   16:55:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#137. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#135)

I know enough to know that you are a liar.

Then you tell me what I've lied about and how you know it, asshole.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   16:56:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#138. To: Kyle (#124)

Scientists Reject Pentagon Reassurances on Depleted Uranium.

US Newswire

US Newswire; 5/8/2003

WASHINGTON, May 8, 2003 (U.S. Newswire via COMTEX)

A widely reprinted May 6 Associated Press wire story quoted US Army officers saying that armor-piercing depleted uranium shells used in Iraq pose no health threat, and that children playing with expended DU tank shells would have to eat and then "practically suffocate on DU residue" before health problems occurred.

But a growing number of scientists and experts are repudiating such reassurances as false. UN and other studies identify DU as a toxic hazard which can attack the kidneys and cause lung cancer if inhaled or ingested, and can contaminate the water supply.

The UK Royal Society, the World Health Organization, and other scientific bodies warn that children in contact with DU- contaminated soil are at particular risk. "Children playing with soil may be identified as the critical population group," reported the peer-reviewed Journal of Environmental Radioactivity in February 2003, "with inhalation and/or ingestion of contaminated soil as the critical pathway."

Tiny DU particles from exploded rounds can be inhaled or ingested by individuals touching or disturbing contaminated equipment, drinking contaminated milk or water or by children playing in soil, and can cause cell damage.

The Department of Defense's own studies point to significant potential probems from DU exposure, causing DNA damage, transformation of cells to a precancerous phase and cancer in the muscles of rats.

Prominent scientists, veterans and other experts on depleted uranium are available now for media interviews to set the record straight on DU hazards, and to make the urgent case for disclosure, monitoring and clean-up of DU in Iraq. They include:

Helen Caldicott, president, Nuclear Policy Research Institute, co-founder, Physicians for Social Responsibility

Dan Fahey, Independent researcher and veterans' advocate

Avril McDonald, TMC Asser Institute for International Law in The Hague, co-editor of forthcoming study

Hari Sharma, senior fellow of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, University of Waterloo

Charles Sheehan-Miles, executive director, Nuclear Policy Research Institute

Jan Olof Snihs, United Nations Environment Program, Swedish Radiation Protection Authority (SSI)

Professor Brian G. Spratt FRS, Royal Society Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Imperial College London Faculty of Medicine

Tara Thornton, executive director, Military Toxics Project

To request interviews or for more information on depleted uranium, please call Stephen Kent, Kent Communications, at 845-758-0097.

Source: Nuclear Policy Research Institute

http://www.usnewswire.com

CONTACT: Stephen Kent of Kent Communications, 845-758-009

Copyright (C) 2003, U.S. Newswire

News Provided by COMTEX (http://www.comtexnews.com)

Jethro Tull  posted on  2005-04-28   16:57:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#139. To: Kyle (#124)

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.

Liars always have an excuse when they get caught red handed. I would think an educated person like yourself would be interested in hard evidence, but I guess that would make it harder to play your little disinformation games. Better that you stick to Newsmax and WND and Limbaugh.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-28   16:57:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#140. To: Kyle (#126)

Are you unable to differentiate between peer-reviewed science...

You mean like the Health Physical Journal that you are too cheap to sign up for?

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-28   16:58:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#141. To: Esso (#134)

May Kyle sprinkle the find dust on his children's cornflakes. He, and his offspring, have no value.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2005-04-28   16:59:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#142. To: Kyle (#127)

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

There's a literal flood of evidence that internal contamination by soluble depleted uranium is terminally hazardous. You don't believe it? Sign up for the military when you are old enough and put your health where your big mouth is. Go for it, buckeroo. Don't be a coward in addition to a liar.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-28   17:00:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#143. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#140)

Are you unable to differentiate between peer-reviewed science...

You mean like the Health Physical Journal that you are too cheap to sign up for?

Would it be safe to assume that their conclusions are as I stated, thus explaining your repeated refusal to post them?

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   17:01:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#144. To: Kyle (#136)

Hey, I hear Agent Orange is safe, too. Bwahahaha!!!!

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-28   17:02:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#145. To: ALL (#130)

Depleted Uranium: America's Military 'Gift' That Keeps on Giving

Sunday, February 18, 2001 By DAN FAHEY

BOSTON--Despite scant coverage in the U.S. media, a controversy over depleted- uranium ammunition used in the Gulf and Balkan wars has been raging in Europe. Several governments that provided troops for these conflicts fear that a rash of unexplained illnesses in veterans--including hemorrhaging, tumors and cancers--may have been caused by ammunition fired by U.S. warplanes.

Germany, Italy, Norway and the European Parliament have called for a moratorium on using the ammunition, while the World Health Organization has announced plans for a study of civilians in Kosovo and Iraq who may have been exposed. Last week, Pekka Haavisto, the head of the United Nations' investigation of depleted uranium, warned of the necessity to "closely follow the state of health" of those exposed to the ammunition in the Balkans.

Questions abound: Is there a causal link between depleted uranium and serious illnesses? What constitutes dangerous levels of exposure? How many soldiers and civilians have been exposed? How much plutonium is there in the ammunition?

One thing is certain: The Pentagon has inflamed the controversy by withholding information and stonewalling investigations. It is likely to remain a major headache for the Bush administration, especially for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Depleted uranium is a chemically toxic heavy metal that emits low-level alpha radiation. It is used in armor-piercing ammunition because it is extremely dense and pyrophoric, which enables it to punch and burn its way through hard targets such as tanks. But depleted uranium also contaminates the impact area with a fine depleted-uranium dust that presents a health hazard if inhaled in sufficient quantities. In the aftermath of the Gulf War, research on rats conducted by the military's Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute found that depleted uranium's chemical toxicity--not its radioactivity--may cause immune system damage and central nervous system problems and may contribute to the development of certain cancers.

Dr. David McClain, the military's top depleted-uranium researcher, told a presidential committee investigating Gulf War illnesses in 1999 that "strong evidence exists to support [a] detailed study of potential DU carcinogenicity." A separate Army-funded study conducted by the Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute in Albuquerque, N.M., found that depleted uranium caused cancer when implanted in laboratory animals. While Fletcher Hahn, a senior scientist at Lovelace, cautioned about applying the findings to human beings, he also called the study "a warning flag that says we shouldn't ignore this."

Despite the military's own research, however, in recent weeks Pentagon spokesmen have dismissed concerns about depleted uranium as unscientific hysteria and propaganda. For example, Army Col. Eric Daxon recently attributed concerns about depleted uranium to "a purposeful disinformation campaign" by the Iraqi government. Yet, the Army anticipated the current controversy even before the war against Iraq. A July 1990 report from the U.S. Army Armament, Munitions and Chemical Command predicted that, "Following combat, the condition of the battlefield and the long-term health risks to natives and combat veterans may become issues in the acceptability of the continued use of DU [ammunition] for military applications." The report added that depleted uranium is "linked to cancer when exposures are internal."

Six months after the Army's prescient report, U.S. and coalition fighting forces charged into Kuwait and Iraq, oblivious to the hazards of the 320 tons of depleted-uranium ammunition shot by U.S. tanks and aircraft. When thousands of veterans reported myriad health problems after the war, a series of federal investigations queried the Defense Department about its use of depleted uranium. In each case, the Army Surgeon General's office asserted that only 35 veterans had been exposed, a number so small that it did not justify further research.

Through Congressional inquiry and the determined work of Gulf War veterans' advocates, however, the Pentagon was forced to dramatically increase its estimates of the number of veterans exposed to depleted uranium.

In January 1998, the Pentagon's Office of the Special Assistant for Gulf War Illnesses made a long-overdue admission: "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 failure to properly disseminate such information to troops at all levels may have resulted in thousands of unnecessary exposures."

The Pentagon's figure of "thousands" tells us little about the effects of depleted uranium on these veterans. Unfortunately, until 1998 the Department of Veterans Affairs accepted the Pentagon's original number and examined only 33 veterans exposed to depleted uranium. Some of these veterans continued to excrete depleted uranium in their semen and urine six years after the war. Several have mild central nervous system problems. The VA removed a bone tumor from one veteran who was wounded by DU shrapnel.

In the absence of an epidemiological study of a larger number of exposed veterans, however, no firm conclusions about the role of depleted uranium can be drawn. Unfortunately, the lack of candor has continued even after Kosovo. When the war ended, a United Nations task force asked NATO to identify areas contaminated with depleted uranium so that peacekeepers, civilians and relief workers might be warned about the potential hazard. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization inexplicably refused to comply with the request. In February 2000, eight months after the war, NATO finally confirmed that U.S. jets had released the equivalent of 10 tons of depleted uranium in Kosovo and Serbia. Another seven months passed before NATO disclosed the 112 locations of contamination. But it wasn't until last month--19 months after the bombing stopped--that NATO finally posted warning signs at the sites.

From all accounts, peacekeepers, civilians and relief workers in Kosovo were surprised to learn about depleted-uranium contamination in their midst. There, as in Iraq, children had long been playing on destroyed equipment. In addition, adults had scavenged destroyed equipment for usable parts and scrap metal.

European outrage increased when the U.N. disclosed that some depleted-uranium ammunition used in Kosovo contains plutonium and other highly radioactive elements. Pentagon spokesmen asserted that the amounts of plutonium in the ammunition are extremely low, but they have failed to publicly disclose the levels of plutonium in ammunition shot in Kosovo, Bosnia, Iraq and Kuwait and on training ranges in Japan, Germany, Puerto Rico and the United States.

The Pentagon's history of withholding information about depleted uranium has fueled suspicions among many of our allies. Rumsfeld should try a new approach: ordering full disclosure of all information and complete cooperation with international investigations.

Dan Fahey, Who Attends the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, Is a Navy Veteran and Former Board Member of the National Gulf War Resource Center

christine  posted on  2005-04-28   17:02:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#146. To: Jethro Tull (#138)

Helen Caldicott and Charles Sheehan-Miles are both hacks. If the rest are of similar quality, you've got nothing. The UN is a joke as far as being a source on this matter - pure politics.

The Department of Defense's own studies point to significant potential probems from DU exposure, causing DNA damage, transformation of cells to a precancerous phase and cancer in the muscles of rats.

Post the conclusions w/ a link. I'll bet they don't say what this implies that they say.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   17:04:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#147. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#139)

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.

Liars always have an excuse when they get caught red handed. I would think an educated person like yourself would be interested in hard evidence, but I guess that would make it harder to play your little disinformation games. Better that you stick to Newsmax and WND and Limbaugh.

That's what - the 3rd time you've refused to post the conclusions and the 3rd time you've accused me of getting my info. from sources I don't have access to. I guess you have nothing else. so weasel and lie, weasel and lie ;o)

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   17:06:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#148. To: Kyle (#143)

Would it be safe to assume that their conclusions are as I stated, thus explaining your repeated refusal to post them?

It would only be safe to assume that if you wanted to look like a liar. If you want to know what the article concludes, you can either read the professional abstract, or you can acquire the copyrighted source article on your own.

You might be an unethical lying cheapskate, but don't try to drag me down to your level.

You wouldn't happen to occasionally go by the name of Gannon, would you. ;-)

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-28   17:07:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#149. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#142)

There's a literal flood of evidence that internal contamination by soluble depleted uranium is terminally hazardous. You don't believe it?

Damn right I don't, because your 'flood of evidence' is a bunch of circular referenced conspiracy theorists and political hacks and I've already posted numerous links to the contrary from real experts from all over the world.

Sorry to burst your paradigm.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   17:09:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#150. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#148)

Would it be safe to assume that their conclusions are as I stated, thus explaining your repeated refusal to post them?

It would only be safe to assume that if you wanted to look like a liar. If you want to know what the article concludes, you can either read the professional abstract, or you can acquire the copyrighted source article on your own.

I guess it was a good assumption ;o)

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   17:10:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#151. To: Kyle (#147)

That's what - the 3rd time you've refused to post the conclusions and the 3rd time you've accused me of getting my info. from sources I don't have access to. I guess you have nothing else. so weasel and lie, weasel and lie ;o)

Spin away, but you are the one who got caught trying to slip in your little propaganda as if it were the conclusion to a professional journal article. Now you're pissed because I caught your dishonesty and you would like nothing more than to distract and spin and turn it around.

If you want the copyrighted material, you're going to have to get it yourself. I posted the professional abstract. That's what you get for free.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-28   17:10:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#152. To: Kyle (#150)

What an ignorant maroon you turned out to be.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-28   17:11:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#153. To: christine (#145)

Dan Fahey, Who Attends the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, Is a Navy Veteran and Former Board Member of the National Gulf War Resource Center

And not one link to anything verifiable. Shocking.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   17:13:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#154. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#152)

What an ignorant maroon you turned out to be.

That's what always happens when I post factual, verifiable information that is contrary to the conspiracy theory. After they can no longer refute what I post, they just throw insults.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   17:15:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#155. To: Kyle (#154)

Spin, spin, spin. You'll still be an unethical liar. Maybe you'll look back when you grow up and regret your immaturity.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-28   17:16:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#156. To: Kyle (#153)

Link please

http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?DOCID=1G1:50224830&num=2&ctrlInfo=Round9l%3AProd%3ASR%3AResult&ao=

(Subscribe to High Beam Research for access)

U.S. DOD: DoD news briefing--Part 1 of 3

M2 Presswire

M2 Presswire; 8/7/1998

M2 PRESSWIRE-7 August 1998-U.S. DOD: DoD news briefing (C)1994-98 M2 COMMUNICATIONS LTD

RDATE:040898 1:30 p.m. (EDT)

* Dr. Bernard D. Rostker, Special Assistant for Gulf War Illnesses

Col. Bridges: Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. Today Dr. Bernie Rostker, the Special Assistant to the Deputy Secretary of Defense for Gulf War Illnesses will present the latest in a series of public releases of investigations his office has conducted on potential causes of Gulf War Illnesses.

In addition to releasing two new case narratives, he will also be releasing the first environmental exposure report, as well as announcing two new initiatives to help our veterans.

Dr. Rostker?

Dr. Rostker: Thank you very much. It's my pleasure to be here today.

As the Colonel said, we're going to release two case narratives in the series that deal with chemical and biological incidents. We'll also release the first of a new series that deal with environmental exposures. The case narratives on chemical and biological will be relating to French-Czech detections in An Nasiriyah. The narrative or the, now we're calling them environmental exposure reports, will deal with depleted uranium.

We'll also announce two initiatives, one following from the depleted uranium work that will have us assessing several hundred additional soldiers as to possible medical impacts of their exposures to depleted uranium, and the other an effort which we hope will be useful to our veterans. We've been able to locate many of the in-patient medical records from the Gulf and we've established a program that will allow them to request these records and to facilitate them obtaining the information that they desire.

First, in terms of Czech-French. When I took over the investigations we agreed that we would start over on all of the inquiries, and that included the inquiries about the reports of low level chemicals being developed by the Czechs and the French. In that regard we visited Prague and Paris. We had in our team a member of Senator Spectre and Rockefeller's investigating subcommittee, and we have shared with both the French and the Czechs the write-up that you're going to see today, in fact, an earlier version of that.

These exposures were well documented in the 1994 timeframe, and frankly, we can bring little new to the table. We've been able to confirm what was well known.

The area that represents new work is correlating these exposures with the bombing campaign. For the last year we've been working with CIA, DIA and NEMA, the old Defense Mapping Agency, to get a handle on the specifics of the bombing campaign -- exactly what was hit on what date. And this has turned out to be rather difficult. We've had to look at overhead photography; we've had to look at gun camera footage to determine what was actually attacked on what date.

Almost all of the attacks occurred later than the late January timeframe reported by the French and the Czechs. The only exception is that in the area of Mohamidiyah we're not able, yet, to sort out what occurred on what date.

A perfect example of this has to do with An Nasiriyah. We now know that there were chemicals at An Nasiriyah at the time of the bombing campaign. We know these chemicals were stored in Bunker 8 and Bunker 8 was not attacked. So here's where we can bring information from the bombing campaign and correlate it with the Czech-French detections.

Our conclusion in the French and Czech area has not changed. We believe the equipment was highly credible and could, in fact, detect to the low levels that were reported. The CIA had called these detections credible, and we continue that assessment.

In terms of the other reports that have not been confirmed by either the Czech government or the French government, we've made a call of indeterminate. We just don't know. They have not been able to provide us with any additional information that would shed any light on these detections -- either the magnitude of the detections or the source of any of the detections. So they remain open and we call them indeterminate.

Turning for a moment to An Nasiriyah, this is the third ammunition depot that we have examined. The first being, of course, Khamisiyah, then Talil, and now An Nasiriyah. An Nasiriyah is about a kilometer from Talil. It was examined by the United Nations and by the 82nd Division. They found no traces of chemicals in either site, although the United Nations tells us that chemicals were there in January. These are the chemicals that were eventually shipped to Khamisiyah and were, in the case of the 122mm sarin rockets, destroyed both in Bunker 73 and in the pit.

In the case of the 155mm artillery rounds that were filled with sarin, these are the rounds that the United Nations recovered and were subsequently incinerated.

An Nasiriyah is interesting because it is also the subject of several additional reports that we've been able to investigate... one of a mysterious helicopter that landed at An Nasiriyah. Samples were taken, and before the people who took the samples got back into the helicopter they took off their MOPP suits and they burned their MOP suits.

In the report you'll see documented the fact this was one of many missions that were looking for biological samples, and An Nasiriyah was a suspected biological site because it contained a 12 frame bunker that was refrigerated. You'll remember that the main thing the targeteers and the intelligence community were looking at the time were where the S-shaped bunkers were and where the 12 frame bunkers were.

So a mission was sent in to collect samples. We've talked to the pilot of the mission and he was the one who asked that the crew, when they came back in, to burn their MOPP suits. There was nothing specific in terms of what they had found. It was a general concern that he had for contamination.

The samples that were drawn that day have been identified. They were tested for biological agents. All of the tests were negative.

One of the samples was a melted TNT and came from a leaking artillery round. That was, again, one of the stories that veterans have been concerned about. It turns out that's not unusual to rounds that have been put under heat and pressure, which is what happened when we started to blow up those depots. This is one of the rounds that was not completely destroyed, was mysterious as far as the soldier was concerned. Samples were taken, and those samples have shown it to be TNT, which is what we had expected.

So with these last two chemical cases, we have brought to 16 the number of reports -- either case narratives or information papers -- that we've published that relate to chemical or biological exposures.

We continue to look in the chemical and biological area. We'll have, shortly, a paper on the 11th Marines. There's a paper on the incidents at a cement factory. We are looking at all of the 256 kit reports, the so-called Edgewood tapes are, again, reports that are in progress, and we'll be bringing those to you over time.

It's important, though, that we expand the horizons of the office to move it not only from just chemical and biological inquiries, but to other environmental inquiries. Right now we're actively engaged in looking at the impact of the oil well fires, of pesticides, and of depleted uranium. Today we're going to release the report on depleted uranium.

This report has been a long time in the preparation. Because of interest that some veteran groups have had in the subject, we wanted to make sure that there was complete unanimity of understanding within the federal government, certainly, as to what the science was concerning depleted uranium. So we have a list for you of the organizations that have coordinated, have chopped on the depleted uranium paper.

The paper really does three things. It first of all provides a short course, if you will, on depleted uranium. It points out its radioactive properties which are less than natural uranium, and that the major concern we have is for kidney damage as a result of it being heavy metal and the toxicity of heavy metals. The concern here is if the material could be ingested.

We then review the number of cases or incidences where we believe there was extraordinary exposure to depleted uranium and we've categorized those in terms of Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3. On page eight of the case narrative is a table which looks like the table here on the side, and here we've identified Level 1 which is of most concern, those who were involved in friendly fire incidents or immediately the retrieval of people or equipment from those vehicles; Level 2, those people who were involved in cleanup. Part of that Level 2 is those who were involved in the cleanup at Camp Doha which was a fire situation. Then all of the other people.

To date, 33 of the Level 1 people, actually 33 of these folks here have been monitored by the Department of Veterans Affairs. At their request we are extending that program to include all of those in Level 1 as well as, for safety's sake, extending the inquiry to all of the rest of Level 2 with the exception of Doha. If we find there are medical reasons to include the Doha group we certainly will do that and go even further.

Let me highlight for you the results so far of the VA's program monitoring the 33. I'm going to read a couple of short paragraphs to be very precise in this language. These can be found on page 128 and 129 of the case narrative and is also in the handout, the two page information handout that we are including with the information fact sheet we're sending to anybody we've contacted.

The important part here is that since 1993 the Department of Veterans Affairs has been monitoring 33 vets who were seriously injured in friendly fire incidences involving depleted uranium. These veterans are being monitored at the Baltimore VA Medical Center. Many of these veterans continue to have medical problems, especially problems related to the physical injuries they received during friendly fire incidents, and these physical injuries include burns and wounds from being in a tank or a Bradley that was hit by a depleted uranium round.

About half of this group still have depleted uranium fragments in their bodies. These are small, pin-sized fragments that cannot be removed surgically. Those with higher than normal levels of uranium in their urine since monitoring began in 1993, have embedded DU fragments. These veterans are being followed very carefully and a number of different medical tests are being done to determine if the depleted uranium fragments are causing any health problems.

The veterans being followed who were in friendly fire incidents but who do not have retained depleted uranium fragments generally speaking have not shown higher than normal levels of uranium in their urine.

For the 33 veterans in the program, tests for kidney function have all been normal. In addition, the reproductive health of this group appears to be normal in that all babies fathered by those veterans between 1991 and 1997 have no birth defects.

So that's the result of the work so far on 33. And as I said, we're going to extend it to all like people who have had heavy doses of depleted uranium, as well as those who worked around depleted uranium equipment.

Frankly, our expectation is that we would not see heavy concentrations of uranium in the urine except if unbeknownst to these folks they have embedded uranium fragments, so that's what we're going to be looking for, as well as to understand any kidney functions.

The report also highlights the various incidents where depleted uranium, where there were friendly fire incidents, where there was exposure to depleted uranium.

There are two other parts to our effort here. One is by CHIPM, the Army's environmental health unit at Aberdeen, and they are calculating what kind of dosages we might have expected from these various incidents. They have defined a worst case, and I say this is a worst case. It is a case that did not appear in the Gulf. It's more severe than anything we actually experienced in the Gulf. This would be where an Abrams tank, that was protected with depleted uranium armor, was hit by two depleted uranium rounds. And their calculation based on test data is that the amount of ingested depleted uranium oxide that would occur over a 15 minute period is equal to one REM which is 20 percent of the occupational limit for a year. So we're looking at exposures that are well below the occupational limit set by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

In addition, the RAND Corporation has been working on a paper that somewhat parallels our effort that looks at the medical literature as it pertains to depleted uranium. I received today their final draft that we will put in interagency review and then they will react to that review and we will publish that later this summer or early in the fall. So there is additional work that's coming forward.

I mentioned CHIPM's work. In effect, CHIPM's work is based on test data and modeling. We have, unfortunately, people who actually have been exposed here in ways that we would never expose people in a laboratory and a test setting. We expect to be able to learn a great deal about residual uranium and kidney, the effects on the kidneys from the people who will be monitored by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

The last program that we want to announce today has to do with medical records. As part of our inquiry, we became aware that the Army had in fact taken the inpatient records from the Gulf and had archived them and created a database, but this was not widely known and it did not facilitate the veteran's ability to retrieve this information.

We've been able to locate a good deal of the remaining health records from the Air Force and the Navy, and have created an expanded database of about 17,000 entries which identify people that we have health, inpatient records for, and we've been able to identify where those records physically are. They're generally in St. Louis, but we have been able to identify where specifically they are, what box they literally are being stored in.

If the veterans need this information, we'll be happy to facilitate that process. So we'll be working with the VSOs, the Veterans Service Organizations, to publicize this. We have an 800 hotline number. We can ascertain whether or not, if a veteran calls, whether his records are in fact in St. Louis. Then we will fill out the paperwork, requiring only the veteran's signature. We'll forward that to the veteran. If he or she will sign it, then the records can be retrieved.

We're also working with the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide that information in any claims processing to make sure, again, that individuals have the best information that we're able to provide them, even though this is seven years later.

We believe there were about 25,000 inpatient visits. About 8,000 were MEDEVAC'd out of theater and their records went with them, and are well scattered throughout the system. We're still looking for those in the major receiving hospitals and in their records. The Army had catalogued about 10,000 and we've been able to add to that about 7,000. So we think we're getting close to having all of the records accounted for, and we hope we can be of service to the veterans by facilitating the process with which they would be able to get those records.

I'll be happy to take questions. I'm joined here today by folks from the VA and from my medical department, as well as the analysts who did the actual work on Czech-French, An Nasiriyah and the depleted uranium papers, so I think we can have quite a useful dialogue. At times, I'll ask some of those folks to come up to the microphone and fill in whatever answers you need.

Q: It's my understanding that DU causes very specific kinds of kidney problems.

Dr. Rostker: Yes.

Q: Could you, in non-technical terms, could you tell us what those are?

Dr. Rostker: I think I'm going to ask Dr. Kilpatrick to...

Dr. Kilpatrick: As with all the heavy metals, the toxicity in the kidney is, as it comes through the kidney and is filtered from the blood and the urine, it hits the acidity of the urine, and then that heavy metal has a toxic effect on the cells in that area. That's in the collecting tube where the urine is first formed, so it's a very specific area.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2005-04-28   17:16:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#157. To: Kyle (#154)

That's what always happens when I post factual, verifiable information that is contrary to the conspiracy theory. After they can no longer refute what I post, they just throw insults.

LOL.. uh huh.. just keep believing that one..

Zipporah  posted on  2005-04-28   17:17:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#158. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#151)

Spin away, but you are the one who got caught trying to slip in your little propaganda as if it were the conclusion to a professional journal article. Now you're pissed because I caught your dishonesty and you would like nothing more than to distract and spin and turn it around.

What I did was unintentional. The conclusions that I did post are real. Your focusing in on this reveals that you've got little else to go w/ at this point. Hilarious.

If you want to make a substantive argument, tell me why the links and exerpts I've posted are wrong. Go ahead. This should be funny.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   17:18:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#159. To: Zipporah (#157)

That's what always happens when I post factual, verifiable information that is contrary to the conspiracy theory. After they can no longer refute what I post, they just throw insults.

LOL.. uh huh.. just keep believing that one..

I noticed you aren't making any substantive arguments either.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   17:18:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#160. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#155)

Spin, spin, spin. You'll still be an unethical liar. Maybe you'll look back when you grow up and regret your immaturity.

I've got grandchildren, punk.

I noticed you have stopped addressing substance completely.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   17:20:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (161 - 488) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest