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: 2615
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 (1-157) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#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  


#161. To: Kyle (#159)

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

And what would be the point?

Zipporah  posted on  2005-04-28   17:22:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#162. To: Kyle (#160)

I've got grandchildren, punk.

Sad..

Zipporah  posted on  2005-04-28   17:23:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#163. To: Kyle (#160)

Implanted depleted uranium fragments cause soft tissue sarcomas in the muscles of rats. (Articles).

Environmental Health Perspectives

Environmental Health Perspectives; 1/1/2002; Hoover, Mark D.

In this study, we determined the carcinogenicity of depleted uranium (DU) metal fragments containing 0.75% titanium in muscle tissues of rats. The results have important implications for the medical management of Gulf War veterans who were wounded with DU fragments and who retain fragments in their soft tissues. We compared the tissue reactions in rats to the carcinogenicity of a tantalum metal (Ta), as a negative foreign-body control, and to a colloidal suspension of radioactive thorium dioxide ([sup.232]Th), Thorotrast, as a positive radioactive control. DU was surgically implanted in the thigh muscles of male Wistar rats as four squares (2.5 x 2.5 x 1.5 mm or 5.0 x 5.0 x 1.5 mm) or four pellets (2.0 x 1.0 mm diameter) per rat. Ta was similarly implanted as four squares (5.0 x 5.0 x 1.1 mm) per rat. Thorotrast was injected at two sites in the thigh muscles of each rat. Control rats had only a surgical implantation procedure. Each treatment group included 50 rats. A connective tissue capsule formed around the metal implants, but not around the Thorotrast. Radiographs demonstrated corrosion of the DU implants shortly after implantation. At later times, rarifactions in the radiographic profiles correlated with proliferative tissue responses. After lifetime observation, the incidence of soft tissue sarcomas increased significantly around the 5.0 x 5.0 mm squares of DU and the positive control, Thorotrast. A slightly increased incidence occurred in rats implanted with the 2.5 x 2.5 mm DU squares and with 5.0 x 5.0 mm squares of Ta. No tumors were seen in rats with 2.0 x 1.0 mm diameter DU pellets or in the surgical controls. These results indicate that DU fragments of sufficient size cause localized proliferative reactions and soft tissue sarcomas that can be detected with radiography in the muscles of rats. Key words: bioassay, carcinogenesis, depleted uranium, Gulf War, rats, sarcomas, soft tissues, tantalum, Thorotrast. Environ Health Perspect 110:51-59 (2002). [Online 15 December 2001]

Link

Jethro Tull  posted on  2005-04-28   17:26:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#164. To: Kyle (#136)

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

Not at all.. I just don't know what's left to say on the subject.

You read everything from the Material Safety Data Sheet your employer would use to treat you for DU exposure in any setting other than the tyrannical US Military. You read Nuke's Excerpts (which were excellent, btw) and Jethro's here now with an admission from the Pentagon... Christine threw some numbers your way and Esso says they're the Governments own figures.

To put it simply, Kyle.. I just think you're wrong and willfully so.

Jhoffa_  posted on  2005-04-28   17:26:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#165. To: Jethro Tull (#156)

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.

What a complete joke. Next time, try posting just the relevant material. An the part you highlighted was self-serving and truncated. The TRUTH was buried in the 10 pounds of shit you posted:

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.

I guess you are conceding when you get this deceptive.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   17:30:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#166. To: Zipporah (#161)

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

And what would be the point?

Exactly. You can't refute the material I've posted and linked to.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   17:31:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#167. To: Jhoffa_ (#164)

To put it simply, Kyle.. I just think you're wrong and willfully so.

Then refute any of the material or links I've posted.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   17:32:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#168. To: Jethro Tull (#163)

Implanted depleted uranium fragments cause soft tissue sarcomas in the muscles of rats. (Articles).

That's nice. Let's stick to the matter at hand. I've posted the info. Deal w/ it.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   17:33:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#169. To: Zipporah (#162)

I've got grandchildren, punk.

Sad..

Sad that I'm an educated person who thinks for themselves and not a conspiracy theorist crank?

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   17:34:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#170. To: Kyle (#165)

and then that heavy metal has a toxic effect on the cells in that area. - Dr Kilpatrick

"That heavy metal" Dr K is talking of is DU. The "toxic effect" on the cells is what it is. Your comical defense of these imperialists is a typical 'bot response. May your grandchildren's grandchildren have their lungs filled with the shit. When they fall ill, they can think fondly of you (g)

Jethro Tull  posted on  2005-04-28   17:39:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#171. To: Kyle (#167)

    Then refute any of the material or links I've posted.

I did.. It's a hazard. The Navy's own document (AFTER an FOIA, I might add..) says so.

Jethro did. Nuke'em did. (Repeatedly)

All you seem to be able to do is cry "crackpot" when confronted with anything contrary to your view on Depleted Uranium.

Ya know, to turn this around a bit.. When you see admissions from the Government & the Military themselves, some of which would apply anywhere but a military setting, it makes your information look like 100% pure kookery.

I realize this upsets you, but you need to grow up and face reality at some point.

Jhoffa_  posted on  2005-04-28   17:39:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#172. To: Kyle (#160)

I've got grandchildren, punk.

I noticed you have stopped addressing substance completely.

Sure you do, little feller. hehehe Tell me another story, grandpa.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-28   17:46:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#173. To: Kyle (#169)

Sad that I'm an educated person...

You just keep telling us how educated you are while simultaneously proving otherwise. You remind me of the trailer trash types who brag about how much money they've got.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-28   17:49:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#174. To: Jethro Tull (#170)

Your comical defense of these imperialists is a typical 'bot response.

I'd like to see Kyle tell us how Agent Orange got a bad rap, too.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-28   17:50:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#175. To: Kyle (#169)

Facts don't mean anything to these people Kyle.....

DU has Uranium in it, and therefore it must be radioactive, and therefore it MUST be dangerous...

BAH, clueless, just totally clueless.

Here are some more facts for them, but they are going to fight me on this as well, it says URANIUM, IT MUST BE DANGEROUS, sorry my Show immitation coming through.

Health aspects of DU

Depleted uranium is not classified as a dangerous substance radiologically, though it is a potential hazard in large quantities, beyond what could conceivably be breathed. Its emissions are very low, since the half-life of U- 238 is the same as the age of the earth (4.5 billion years). There are no reputable reports of cancer or other negative health effects from radiation exposure to ingested or inhaled natural or depleted uranium, despite much study.

However, uranium does have a chemical toxicity about the same as that of lead, so inhaled fume or ingested oxide is considered a health hazard. Most uranium actually absorbed into the body is excreted within days, the balance being laid down in bone and kidneys. Its biological effect is principally kidney damage. WHO has set a Tolerable Daily Intake level for U of 0.6 microgram/kg body weight, orally. (This is about eight times our normal background intake from natural sources.) Standards for drinking water and concentrations in air are set accordingly.

Like most radionuclides, it is not known as a carcinogen, or to cause birth defects (from effects in utero) or to cause genetic mutations. Radiation from DU munitions depends on how long the uranium has been separated chemically from its decay products. If thorium-234 and protactinium-234 has built up through decay of U-238, these will give rise to some beta emissions. On this basis, DU is "weakly radioactive" with an activity of 39 kBq/g quoted (12.4 kBq/g if pure).

In 2001 the UN Environment Program examined the effects of nine tonnes of DU munitions having been used in Kosovo, checking the sites targeted by it. UNEP found no widespread contamination, no sign of contamination in water of the food chain and no correlation with reported ill-health in NATO peacekeepers.

Thus DU is clearly dangerous for people in vehicles which are military targets, but for anyone else - even in a war zone - there is little hazard. Ingestion or inhalation of uranium oxide dust resulting from the impact of DU munitions on their targets is the main possible exposure route.

Aric2000  posted on  2005-04-28   17:52:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#176. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#174)

I'd like to see Kyle tell us how Agent Orange got a bad rap, too.

I want to hear about the magic bullet.

Dakmar  posted on  2005-04-28   17:52:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#177. To: Aric2000 (#175)

DU has Uranium in it, and therefore it must be radioactive, and therefore it MUST be dangerous...

Do you have special glasses that allow you see whatever you believe you see? Most of this thread is about toxicity from inhalation.

Dakmar  posted on  2005-04-28   17:55:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#178. To: Aric2000 (#175)

Nice try at spin. Nobody has indicated that DU is a hazard due to external radiological exposure. However, the evidence is overwhelming that it IS a hazard when taken internally, either as a radiological hazard as it accumulates in specific organs, or as a chemical hazard as it passes through the kidneys. Furthermore, all of the government studies are carefully controlled so as to evaluate only very carefully manufactured samples. Problem is, the bulk manufacturing of DU ammunition is not so controlled. Many other isotopes besides pure DU end up in the penetrators.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-28   17:58:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#179. To: Kyle (#169)

Sad that I'm an educated person who thinks for themselves and not a conspiracy theorist crank?

well.. I won't address this statement but thats not what came to mind at all.. I was thinking the adage 'you can't teach an old dog new tricks' may have some validity..

Zipporah  posted on  2005-04-28   18:02:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#180. To: Zipporah (#179)

I was thinking the adage 'you can't teach an old dog new tricks' may have some validity..

Hey, wait...wait... That isn't really true. Old dogs just take their time and get everything done in a thorough and efficient manner.

As for anyone being an "educated person," there are such things as educated jackasses.

Don  posted on  2005-04-28   18:14:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#181. To: Don (#180)

Hey, wait...wait... That isn't really true. Old dogs just take their time and get everything done in a thorough and efficient manner.

As for anyone being an "educated person," there are such things as educated jackasses.

I did say 'some validity'.. there is also an adage about being educated beyond reason..

Zipporah  posted on  2005-04-28   18:27:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#182. To: Zipporah (#181)

there is also an adage about being educated beyond reason..

There are people who have been educated beyond their reason.

Don  posted on  2005-04-28   18:29:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#183. To: Don (#182)

There are people who have been educated beyond their reason.

Obviously :P

Zipporah  posted on  2005-04-28   18:35:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#184. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#174)

I'd like to see Kyle tell us how Agent Orange got a bad rap, too.

Did he run away?

Jethro Tull  posted on  2005-04-28   18:44:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#185. To: Jethro Tull (#170)

The "toxic effect" on the cells is what it is. Your comical defense of these imperialists is a typical 'bot response.

Blather on. I have posted sound, peer-reviewed science from the world over that says that the amount of uranium in the surface soil in the area of a large battle using DU rounds was increased 1%. You guys just ignore everything that doesn't fit w/ the CT rant.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   19:01:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#186. To: Jhoffa_ (#171)

I did.. It's a hazard. The Navy's own document (AFTER an FOIA, I might add..) says so.

Jethro did. Nuke'em did. (Repeatedly)

All you seem to be able to do is cry "crackpot" when confronted with anything contrary to your view on Depleted Uranium.

Ya know, to turn this around a bit.. When you see admissions from the Government & the Military themselves, some of which would apply anywhere but a military setting, it makes your information look like 100% pure kookery.

The MSDS as similar items say the obvious - there is SOME potential for hazard. Nobody denies that. You are intentionally blurring the issue. The issue is if the hazard is significant and what evidence is there that vets or local populations have suffered from DU. The solid science says that the hazrd is insignificant and that there is little to no evidence of actual DU injury.

The crackpots are crackpots. They aren't that difficult to spot. Why do you prefer the crackpots and dismiss the real science?

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   19:07:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#187. To: Kyle (#186)

    The MSDS as similar items say the obvious - there is SOME potential for hazard. Nobody denies that.

Exactly.. I completely believe there is a risk.

Burning DU has been cited as dangerous, as has pulverizing it..

Look, ignore static tests and bricks comprised of the stuff.. think about the mechanics of this for a minute.

If you ask me about riding in an airplane which utilizes DU as a balance weight, I'd say it's probably fine. Inhalation/ingestion however is dangerous to proven some degree. It's obviously more dangerous with repeated exposure.

We're putting these things in tanks, where they rattle around and bump and bounce before ramming them in gun barrels and blasting them on the bottom with high explosives.. they then arc through the air and hit something and try to smash it to bits..

Kyle, if there's not some DU aerosol being created here, I'll kiss your foot.

Jhoffa_  posted on  2005-04-28   19:14:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#188. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut, Aric2000 (#178)

However, the evidence is overwhelming that it IS a hazard when taken internally, either as a radiological hazard as it accumulates in specific organs, or as a chemical hazard as it passes through the kidneys.

I posted multiple impeccable sources to the contrary. Why do you ignore them?

Furthermore, all of the government studies are carefully controlled so as to evaluate only very carefully manufactured samples.

What aboout the non-gov't studies and all the foreign studies and the studies of ACTUAL exposure on the battlefield? Didn't read those either?

Problem is, the bulk manufacturing of DU ammunition is not so controlled. Many other isotopes besides pure DU end up in the penetrators.

Already dealt with as well. I guess you didn't read that either. DU is produced while enriching U235. It is done via the uranium hexafluoride gas centrifuge method. As previously described, virtually nothing but U238 and residual U235 can get through. The Pu content is in parts per billion. Any amounts of radioactive U decay products are exceedingly small even if the DU is fairly old because nearly all of the U is U238 and it has a half-life of 4.5 BILLION YEARS!

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   19:16:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#189. To: Jethro Tull, Mr Nuke Buzzcut, Don, Zipporah (#184)

Did he run away?

ROTFL!!

No. I drove home from work. Now I'm going to eat dinner. I know it's hard for you guys to relate to people w/ jobs and lives. Far from running, I feel that I have made my points sufficiently well that any rational lurker would see the truth. You guys have long since stopped trying to defend your CT and psuedoscientific crap and never really attempted to refute the hard science. All you've got left is talking about me behind my back to buck each other up. So long losers.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   19:22:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#190. To: Jhoffa_ (#187)

Kyle, if there's not some DU aerosol being created here, I'll kiss your foot.

Of course there is. The question is to what effect. Early in this thread I posted numerous links to hard science that says that the risk is STILL minimal. Go back and read them.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   19:24:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#191. To: Kyle (#189)

I know it's hard for you guys to relate to people w/ jobs and lives.

So not true

It's hard for us to relate to *you* with a job and a life.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2005-04-28   19:39:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#192. To: Kyle (#190)

    Of course there is. The question is to what effect.

And that's a good question..

The guy's outside the military who come in contact with the stuff are being treated differently than the people behind the breach of the weapons firing it.

Like I said, they'd destroy your clothes and scrub you down in one scenario.. In another, you'd get to share a confined space with these aersol's

?

Jhoffa_  posted on  2005-04-28   19:45:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#193. To: Kyle, All (#189)

You guys have long since stopped trying to defend your CT and psuedoscientific crap and never really attempted to refute the hard science. All you've got left is talking about me behind my back to buck each other up. So long losers.

BushBots have this common failing. They are a legend in their own mind.

Don  posted on  2005-04-28   19:50:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#194. To: Kyle (#190)

Makes one proud, doesn't it warmonger?

Soldier wins fight with Army over Gulf War illness; Tribunal rules contaminated shells were to blame.

The Daily Mail (London, England)

The Daily Mail (London, England); 2/4/2004

Byline: STEVEN HENRY

A FORMER soldier who claimed he was poisoned during the first Gulf War has won a victory against the Army.

Kenny Duncan, 34 , claimed he was contaminated by depleted uranium from exploded shells while serving as a specialist tank transporter in 1991.

The Ministry of Defence has refused to recognise that Gulf War veterans may suffer illness from so called 'tank-buster' shells, despite testing Kosovo and Bosnia veterans for effects of the radioactive substance.

However, Mr Duncan has just became the first veteran to win a war pension appeal after taking the MoD t o the Pension Appeal Tribunal Service.

The tribunal in Edinburgh found that Mr Duncan's exposure to the cancer- causing uranium could be attributed to his service in the Gulf.

Mr Duncan, a father of three from Clackmannan, said: 'It has been a long, hard fight but it has been worth it.

'Hopefully this will open up the door for other veterans to push forward. It brings the issue into the public eye, closer to the public inquiry that we all want.' His wife Mandy, 36, added: 'We're ecstatic. Shocked really.

It's a landmark recognition for depleted uranium sufferers.' Mr Duncan, who now works as a lorry driver, believes he inhaled the deadly dust while recovering tanks in Iraq as part of the Royal Corps of Transport.

Part of his job was to move Iraqi tanks destroyed by depleted uranium shells.

In the years following his return from the Gulf he claims his children, Kenneth, ten, Andrew, eight, and sixyearold Heather were born with deformed toes and other health problems.

Mr Duncan suffers joint pain, breathlessness and coughs up blood - all symptoms of depleted uranium poisoning.

Mr and Mrs Duncan believe the conditions he and his children suffer were caused by his exposure to depleted uranium.

The couple also hope the ruling will lead to an increase in his war pension, which currently stands at 50 per cent of his former salary.

Roy Gibson, who represented Mr Duncan in the appeal hearing, read from the judgment, which said: 'In our opinion, the appellant has succeeded in showing a reasonable doubt in this case and therefore the appeal succeeds.' The lawyer added: 'I am ecstatic. We have fought a number of depleted uranium cases and this is the first we have won.' Shaun Rusling, chairman of the National Gulf Veterans and Families Association, said the tribunal's verdict added to its call for a full public inquiry into Gulf War illnesses.

He said: 'The finding by the Pensions Appeal Tribunal was absolutely tremendous and extremely significant for Kenny Duncan.

' It proves that his ill health was due to depleted uranium poisoning and it is great news for Kenny and his wife to at long last have his condition recognised.

'The National Gulf Veterans and Families Association is extremely pleased that justice has been done.' According to the association, 606 Gulf servicemen have died from ill health and a further 5,933 have applied for a war pension due to disablement.

A spokesman for the MoD said: 'Once we have received the written decision by the Pensions Appeal Tribunal, we will consider any implications this may have for the Ministry of Defence.'

A key military element

DEPLETED uranium is a critical element on the modern battlefield, with uses both in attack and defence.

It is a very heavy substance, 1.7 times denser than lead.

When used in ammunition, this helps the shell punch through enemy armour.

When munitions made with DU strike a solid object, such as the side of a tank, the round penetrates the armour and hot metal fragments from it scatter inside the vehicle, causing injury to the crew and damage to the vehicle. In Desert Storm, the British Army fired 88 DU rounds, but the Americans used it much more extensively.

DU is itself radioactive, but its density makes it ideal for use in armour plating.

During the 1991 Gulf War, the armour on American M1-A1 Abrams tanks received a number of direct hits from Iraqi shells that did not penetrate, thanks to DU.

When a DU round impacts, the material can be vapourised and can contaminate the wreckage.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2005-04-28   19:53:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#195. To: Kyle (#189)

All you've got left is talking about me behind my back to buck each other up.

A little paranoid there are we cookie? You know what Freud said about paranoia. Until now I thought he was just another homo-obsessed intellectual.

Dakmar  posted on  2005-04-28   19:59:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#196. To: Kyle, Aric2000 (#35)

If DU is so safe,why do workers at a DU shell plant don such protective clothing?

Arator  posted on  2005-04-28   20:04:57 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#197. To: Arator (#196)

It is a HEAVY metal, just like lead.

Workers that work with lead, that is cut, sanded, smoothed etc, use the SAME protective garments. Lead dust ingestion is MORE dangerous then DU, because Lead is taken readily by the body and will damage the brain, nervous system etc, compared to lead, DU, which is NOT readily taken in by the body, is safer to work with, MUCH safer....

Aric2000  posted on  2005-04-28   20:14:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#198. To: Aric2000 (#197)

Lead dust ingestion is MORE dangerous then DU, because Lead is taken readily by the body and will damage the brain, nervous system etc, compared to lead, DU, which is NOT readily taken in by the body, is safer to work with, MUCH safer....

The answer I've heard is that nobody knows. There is very little experience with DU and nobody really knows what damage results. There is hundreds of years of experience with lead and mercury and the effects are well documented. Hence, there are more documented problems with these materials, but that doesn't make DU necessarily safe. What is known is that all of the heavy metals from this group are harmful.

crack monkey  posted on  2005-04-28   20:17:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (199 - 488) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest