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: 2147
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 (1-303) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#304. To: Kyle, Mr Nuke Buzzcut, Jhoffa (#102)

I've read hundreds of MSDS's and they always sound much worse than reality.

Hmm why is it that you've yet to address Dr. Rokke?? Seems you've repeatedly and conveniently ignored what he has to say regarding DU..

Zipporah  posted on  2005-04-29   7:53:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#305. To: Aric2000 (#274)

Global warming is a false comparison, it is something being predicted; there is no concrete evidence only insufficient historical data.

~300,000 Gulf War Vets are on disability and 11,000 are dead. Far too many of their children are being born with birth defects as compared with the general population. In Iraq, the civilian population is also showing the effects. The DU dust is picked up the sandstorms and tradewinds. It is not confined to Iraq.

Already "uninjured" soldiers are returning from Iraq and dying from "unknown" causes.

THESE ARE THE FACTS. YOU are a DISinformer. READ the articles.

robin  posted on  2005-04-29   8:10:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#306. To: SKYDRIFTER (#293)

There's the rub, no one in "power" wants to know the answer; our Veterans are lab-rats. Check the statistics on "Gulf War Syndrome."

I posted a link that has a lot of documentation for this, but he and Kyle won't read it. If it doesn't fit into their preconceived notions, they won't see or hear it.

christine  posted on  2005-04-29   10:39:22 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#307. To: h-a-l-f-w-i-t-t (#302)

I think you have an axe to grind.

My axe is already ground to a razor edge. I just need to give it a heft and a swing.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-29   10:44:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#308. To: Aric2000 (#290)

DU is HALF as radioactive as NATURAL Uranium, in other word Uranium that sits around on the surface and in mines. It is NOT deadly, only when it is concentrated and purified does it become dangerous, and the MORE pure DU is the LESS radioactive it becomes....

Really? This is your "educated" opinion? Perhaps you could address the effects of radon for us - considering you're such an expert on the effects of radioactivity, heavy metals and their effect on the human body.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-29   10:51:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#309. To: robin (#305)

THESE ARE THE FACTS. YOU are a DISinformer.

this certainly isn't lost on anyone here.

christine  posted on  2005-04-29   11:19:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#310. To: Kyle (#69)

You're a liar. You're clearly neither educated, nor intelligent.


SKYDRIFTER  posted on  2005-04-29   14:38:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#311. To: Aric2000 (#288)

So to say that DU is the boogeyman, is ridiculous in the extreme.

You still don't get it. Heavy metals such as lead, mercury and nickel will accumulate. So will DU, but the difference is the radioactivity.

You must not have read that article carefully. It says the radioactivity affects the genes and this is where the birth defects and cancer come in.

WAKE UP!

BTP Holdings  posted on  2005-04-29   14:53:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#312. To: christine, Kyle (#306)

I posted a link that has a lot of documentation for this, but he and Kyle won't read it. If it doesn't fit into their preconceived notions, they won't see or hear it.

Kyle is a dumb-ass; period. Whatever its gender, "it" distracts issues. There is some suggestion that "it" is good at that mission, however.

Kyle claims education, while not even being able to comprehend rather basic ideas; or even common sense, for that matter. Kyle clearly can't deal with Algebra 101 questions, while claiming a college math education.

Kyle is a liar, making BAC look like a saint.

You can always tell the trained disinformationists; they never consider that they could be wrong. The "good" people take a second look & contemplate that idea.

We all make mistakes; there's nothing wrong in that. I respect the person who says, "...let me clarify that;" or "I may have been wrong; let me look."

Kyle defends obvious ignorance with purported indignity. The educated person steps up to the plate. I've given Kyle several good and honest openings. "It" doesn't take them, as "it" can't recognize them.

Kyle has a serious cognitive disability. "It" can drop a ball; "it" can't recognize one.

I've also had fun with Kyles stupidity, as well. "It" deserves that much.

Kyle is finding out that I have no mercy on such obvious disinformationists. If the 'handlers-that-be' decided to give BAC a break; they sent in a weakling.

Funny, BAC & Sneaky don't engage me anymore. Maybe I hurt their feelings; do you think?


(Love those monkeys!)

{:-))


SKYDRIFTER  posted on  2005-04-29   14:57:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#313. To: BTP Holdings, aric2000 (#311)

yes, and it is not only this article. Our actual experience with DU shows us it causes lots of death, cancer & birth defects over time. and he ignores that also.

Red Jones  posted on  2005-04-29   14:58:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#314. To: BTP Holdings, Jhoffa_, Mr Nuke Buzzcut, Aric2000, robin, crack monkey, Axenolith, christine, tom007, SKYDRIFTER, Dude Lebowski, h-a-l-f-w-i-t-t, Zipporah (#262)

Your 'experts' are not so expert and very obviously biased. They are radical Left wing types 'working' outside of their fields. A quick web search will reveal that you have a geo-scientist and two physicists making medical claims. They are also espousing all sorts of extreme Left stuff unrelated to DU and make their claims sound valid by creating groups with impressive names and websites that are primarily just them.

They also spout obvious lies. The 500,000 disabled US Gulf War I vets claim is absurd. That would be nearly all of them. It would be statistically impossible for that to be true and yet none of the several vets that I know have any medical issues at all. Hell, according to the VA, the VA has only treated less than half that number for ANY condition whatsoever!

The claims about birth defects are unsubstantiated. In some places, these people have claimed that 2/3 of the vets children concieved after the war have birth defects. That DESTROYS any credibility that they may have had; The New England Journal of Medicine:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/336/23/1650

ABSTRACT

Background There has been suspicion that service in the Persian Gulf War affected the health of veterans adversely, and there have been claims of an increased rate of birth defects among the children of those veterans.

Methods We evaluated the routinely collected data on all live births at 135 military hospitals in 1991, 1992, and 1993. The data base included up to eight diagnoses from the International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) for each birth hospitalization, plus information on the demographic characteristics and service history of the parents. The records of over 75,000 newborns were evaluated for any birth defect (ICD-9-CM codes 740 to 759, plus neoplasms and hereditary diseases) and for birth defects defined as severe on the basis of the specific diagnoses and the criteria of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Results During the study period, 33,998 infants were born to Gulf War veterans and 41,463 to nondeployed veterans at military hospitals. The overall risk of any birth defect was 7.45 percent, and the risk of severe birth defects was 1.85 percent. These rates are similar to those reported in civilian populations. In the multivariate analysis, there was no significant association for either men or women between service in the Gulf War and the risk of any birth defect or of severe birth defects in their children.

Conclusions This analysis found no evidence of an increase in the risk of birth defects among the children of Gulf War veterans.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-29   15:06:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#315. To: Jhoffa_ (#70)

There's a good source, for sure!

(Watch Kyle slither!)


SKYDRIFTER  posted on  2005-04-29   15:09:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#316. To: Kyle (#314)

Your 'experts' are not so expert and very obviously biased. They are radical Left wing types 'working' outside of their fields.

You can repeat that until the cows come home, but mere repetition of the lie doesn't change reality. Numerous very qualified scientists and research studies have been quoted showing that DU is an extremely serious health hazard to both our own troops as well as the civilian populations in the region where it is used. On the other hand, you have the same folks who promised that Agent Orange was safe to drink assuring us that DU is equally benign.

It is you and your sources that are severely biased on this issue. Biased in the extreme!

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-29   15:09:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#317. To: Kyle (#314)

Putz. Your study is dated June, 1997. It's coming on 8 years old. The material you've chosen to ignore is current. Here's a dollar. Buy a clue.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2005-04-29   15:11:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#318. To: Kyle, BTP Holdings, Jhoffa_, Mr Nuke Buzzcut, Aric2000, robin, crack monkey, Axenolith, christine, tom007, Dude Lebowski, h-a-l-f-w-i-t-t, Zipporah (#314)


Fuck you and your disinformation atempts, Kyle! The military specs are clear, as to the hazards.

Ask the Gulf War vets. Even the Brits have the DU problem.

You're a piece of shit, Kyle!


SKYDRIFTER  posted on  2005-04-29   15:12:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#319. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut, BTP Holdings, Jhoffa_, Aric2000, robin, crack monkey, Axenolith, christine, tom007, SKYDRIFTER, Dude Lebowski, h-a-l-f-w-i-t-t, Zipporah (#316)

It is you and your sources that are severely biased on this issue. Biased in the extreme!

It is duly noted that you made no attempt to defend the claims that I skewered. I sense that you know that the 500,000 disabled GWI vets is BS and absurd on its face, and that the NEJM findings are dead accurate. But to admit that would be to admit that the 'experts' that you are relying on have no credibilty, so you won't. No one is so blind as he who will not see.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-29   15:14:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#320. To: Kyle (#319)

Putz. Your study is dated June, 1997

FLASH! BABE RUTH TRADED TO THE YANKEES!

Jethro Tull  posted on  2005-04-29   15:18:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#321. To: Jethro Tull (#317)

Putz. Your study is dated June, 1997. It's coming on 8 years old. The material you've chosen to ignore is current. Here's a dollar. Buy a clue.

So what are you saying, Jethro? Do you mean to imply that large numbers of children had RETROACTIVE birth defects in the last few years? Idiot.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-29   15:19:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#322. To: Starwind (#45)

The explosion described in the article is most likely a pyrophoric effect and certainly not atomic.

I believe the primary risk of DU is heavy metal poisioning. I certainly wouldn't want to inhale DU dust.

Radioactivity risk is nil. I keep some hot uranium rocks under my bed for the healthful hormetic effects of elevated exposure.

AdamSelene  posted on  2005-04-29   15:47:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#323. To: Kyle (#321)

So what are you saying, Jethro?

I'm saying that your 8 year old material is refuted by current data. Take the time to read what folks posted to you.

BTW, can you say Bahhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaa?

Jethro Tull  posted on  2005-04-29   15:49:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#324. To: Kyle (#319)

It looks like the numbers change a bit when we aren't depending upon the Veterans Administration to provide the data. Source

Prevalence of birth defects among infants of Gulf War veterans in Arkansas, Arizona, California, Georgia, Hawaii, and Iowa, 1989-1993.

Araneta MR, Schlangen KM, Edmonds LD, Destiche DA, Merz RD, Hobbs CA, Flood TJ, Harris JA, Krishnamurti D, Gray GC.

Department of Defense Center for Deployment Health Research, Naval Health Research, Center, San Diego, California, USA. haraneta@ucsd.edu

BACKGROUND: Epidemiologic studies of birth defects among infants of Gulf War veterans (GWV) have been limited to military hospitals, anomalies diagnosed among newborns, or self-reported data. This study was conducted to measure the prevalence of birth defects among infants of GWVs and nondeployed veterans (NDV) in states that conducted active case ascertainment of birth defects between 1989-93. METHODS: Military records of 684,645 GWVs and 1,587,102 NDVs were electronically linked with 2,314,908 birth certficates from Arizona, Hawaii, Iowa, and selected counties of Arkansas, California, and Georgia; 11,961 GWV infants and 33,052 NDV infants were identified. Of these, 450 infants had mothers who served in the Gulf War, and 3966 had NDV mothers.

RESULTS: Infants conceived postwar to male GWVs had significantly higher prevalence of tricuspid valve insufficicieny (relative risk [RR], 2.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-6.6; p = 0.039) and aortic valve stenosis (RR, 6. 0; 95% CI, 1.2-31.0; p = 0.026) compared to infants conceived postwar to NDV males. Among infants of male GWVs, aortic valve stenosis (RR, 163; 95% CI, 0. 09-294; p = 0.011) and renal agenesis or hypoplasia (RR, 16.3; 95% CI, 0.09-294; p = 0.011) were significantly higher among infants conceived postwar than prewar. Hypospadias was significantly higher among infant sons conceived postwar to GWV women compared to NDV women (RR, 6.3; 95% CI, 1.5-26.3; p = 0.015).

CONCLUSION: We observed a higher prevalence of tricuspid valve insufficiency, aortic valve stenosis, and renal agenesis or hypoplasia among infants conceived postwar to GWV men, and a higher prevalence of hypospadias among infants conceived postwar to female GWVs. We did not have the ability to determine if the excess was caused by inherited or environmental factors, or was due to chance because of myriad reasons, including multiple comparisons. Although the statistical power was sufficient to compare the combined birth defects prevalence, larger sample sizes were needed for less frequent individual component defects.

PMID: 12854660 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-29   15:58:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#325. To: Jethro Tull (#323)

I'm saying that your 8 year old material is refuted by current data. Take the time to read what folks posted to you.

Children can't retroactively have birth defects. What are you saying? Is the NEJM lying? Is whatever looney you're refering to more credible than the NEJM?

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-29   15:59:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#326. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#324)

CONCLUSION: We observed a higher prevalence of tricuspid valve insufficiency, aortic valve stenosis, and renal agenesis or hypoplasia among infants conceived postwar to GWV men, and a higher prevalence of hypospadias among infants conceived postwar to female GWVs. We did not have the ability to determine if the excess was caused by inherited or environmental factors, or was due to chance because of myriad reasons, including multiple comparisons. Although the statistical power was sufficient to compare the combined birth defects prevalence, larger sample sizes were needed for less frequent individual component defects.

Not exactly earth shattering. The sample size was too small to compare most individual defects and the increase in overall defects was barely statistically significant. They can't conclude that it wasn't other factors or chance. That's a long way from 2/3 having gross defects.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-29   16:04:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#327. To: Kyle (#326)

I figured you would jump on that sentence and misunderstand what it was saying. That's not uncommon for an uneducated immature kid like yourself. Try reading it again to see if you can sleuth out what it really means. If you get stuck and give up, I might even help you with the big words.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-29   16:05:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#328. To: Kyle (#319)

Correction: " It is duly noted that you made no attempt to defend the claims that I skewered skewed.'

AND also I referenced Dr. Rokke several times and you attempted to demonize him and then totally ignored my references to him and what he has said on DU.

Zipporah  posted on  2005-04-29   16:06:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#329. To: Kyle (#326)

Infertility among male UK veterans of the 1990-1 Gulf war: reproductive cohort study

Noreen Maconochie, senior lecturer in epidemiology and medical statistics1, Pat Doyle, reader in epidemiology1, Claire Carson, research assistant1

1 Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, University of London, London WC1E 7HT

Correspondence to: N Maconochie noreen.maconochie@lshtm.ac.uk

Abstract

Objectives To examine the hypothesis that, theoretically at least, exposure to toxicants of the type present in the Gulf war could affect spermatogenesis, which might be observed as increased levels of infertility.

Design Retrospective reproductive cohort analysis.

Setting Male UK Gulf war veterans and matched comparison group of non-deployed servicemen, surveyed by postal questionnaire.

Participants 42 818 completed questionnaires were returned, representing response rates of 53% for Gulf veterans and 42% for non-Gulf veterans; 10 465 Gulf veterans and 7376 non-Gulf veterans reported fathering or trying to father pregnancies after the Gulf war.

Main outcome measures Failure to achieve conceptions (type I infertility) or live births (type II infertility) after the Gulf war, having tried for at least a year and consulted a doctor; time to conception among pregnancies fathered by men not reporting fertility problems.

Results Risk of reported infertility was higher among Gulf war veterans than among non-Gulf veterans (odds ratio for type I infertility 1.41, 95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.89; type II 1.50, 1.18 to 1.89). This small effect was constant over time since the war and was observed whether or not the men had fathered pregnancies before the war. Results were similar when analyses were restricted to clinically confirmed diagnoses. Pregnancies fathered by Gulf veterans not reporting fertility problems also took longer to conceive (odds ratio for > 1 year 1.18, 1.04 to 1.34).

Conclusions We found some evidence of an association between Gulf war service and reported infertility. Pregnancies fathered by Gulf veterans with no fertility problems also reportedly took longer to conceive.

full text

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-29   16:07:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#330. To: Kyle (#325)

Children can't retroactively have birth defects

Duh...

Current material on this thread connects DU and birth defects.

Spin dreidel spin.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2005-04-29   16:09:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#331. To: Jethro Tull (#330)

Nearly every study I've read that evaluates the health of babies born to Gulf War Vets versus Non Gulf War Vets shows a significantly high rate of renal abnormalities. Hmmmm... I wonder why that might be?

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-29   16:17:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#332. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#329)

Results Risk of reported infertility was higher among Gulf war veterans than among non-Gulf veterans (odds ratio for type I infertility 1.41, 95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.89; type II 1.50, 1.18 to 1.89). This small effect was constant over time since the war and was observed whether or not the men had fathered pregnancies before the war. Results were similar when analyses were restricted to clinically confirmed diagnoses. Pregnancies fathered by Gulf veterans not reporting fertility problems also took longer to conceive (odds ratio for > 1 year 1.18, 1.04 to 1.34).

Conclusions We found some evidence of an association between Gulf war service and reported infertility. Pregnancies fathered by Gulf veterans with no fertility problems also reportedly took longer to conceive.

Slight. Minimal. No causation.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-29   16:45:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#333. To: Jethro Tull (#330)

Current material on this thread connects DU and birth defects.

Give me a link to something verifable. Anything referencing back to Moret, Busby, etc. does not qualify. Peer reviewed scientific or medical journals prefered.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-29   16:46:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#334. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#331)

Nearly every study I've read that evaluates the health of babies born to Gulf War Vets versus Non Gulf War Vets shows a significantly high rate of renal abnormalities. Hmmmm... I wonder why that might be?

You haven't posted a source. Hmmmm... I wonder why that might be? Anything referencing back to Moret, Busby, et al, is unnacceptable.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-29   16:48:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#335. To: Kyle (#332)

Slight. Minimal. No causation.

Yeah. Fuck'em. Right, Kyle? That IS your attitude. They're just scum sucking military anyway, so who cares if they have medical problems. It sure doesn't bother Kyle. No way, man. He's too educated to care about the military or the civilians in those other countries where the sub-humans live. Yeah, Kyle, you're a real man's man. A macho piece of fecal matter.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-29   16:50:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#336. To: Kyle (#333)

Give me a link to something verifable. Anything referencing back to Moret, Busby, etc. does not qualify. Peer reviewed scientific or medical journals prefered.

I see you're still here denying ..spinning..like a whirling dervish.. My question .. how do YOU benefit from playing the role of a disinformationalist? Hmm you mentioned grandchildren.. are they serving in Iraq.. ?

Zipporah  posted on  2005-04-29   16:53:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#337. To: Kyle (#334)

You haven't posted a source.

You don't read them anyway. You just pick through until you run across a word that you think might discredit it and then you post it like some kind of trump card, not even realizing that you're making a fool of yourself.

If you care even one little tiny bit about the lives of vets or their children, then how about you look up the studies and find the level of renal abnormalities in GWV offspring. No, you won't, because you don't give a shit. They're just meat machines to your kind of punk.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-29   16:53:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#338. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#335)

Slight. Minimal. No causation.

Yeah. Fuck'em. Right, Kyle? That IS your attitude.

I don't know if your response is out of ignorance or if you are being intentionally obtuse. 'Slight' and 'minimal' mean that they are of limited statistical significance and/or may be caused by other factors not accounted for in the study. 'No causation' states the obvious - The effect, if real, could be caused by something else entirely, since they made no conclusions.

I'm not heartless. If the proof were there, I'd be all over it, but it's not. I know - You're probably a braindead Lefty that thinks the seriousness of the charge takes precedence over whether there is any evidence or not.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-29   17:00:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#339. To: Kyle (#338)

You're probably a braindead Lefty

Now.. arent these choice of words interesting..

Zipporah  posted on  2005-04-29   17:02:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#340. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#337)

You haven't posted a source.

You don't read them anyway.

I not only read them, but I follow links and do extensive web searches. That's how I find out that these 'experts' are tight little circles of self- referencing charlatans.

You just pick through until you run across a word that you think might discredit it and then you post it like some kind of trump card, not even realizing that you're making a fool of yourself.

As I explained above, I do a lot more than you. You're the fool for being suckered by these charlatans.

If you care even one little tiny bit about the lives of vets or their children, then how about you look up the studies and find the level of renal abnormalities in GWV offspring. No, you won't, because you don't give a shit. They're just meat machines to your kind of punk.

Why should I look up your claims? If you've got something, give me a lead. If you don't, or you know that it's BS, then admit it, and STOP CLAIMING I DON'T CARE BECAUSE I'M RATIONAL ABOUT IT.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-29   17:04:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#341. To: Zipporah (#339)

You're probably a braindead Lefty

Now.. arent these choice of words interesting..

Not really. They go together so often as to be mundane.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-29   17:05:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#342. To: Kyle (#340)

I not only read them, but I follow links and do extensive web searches.

Uh-huh. That's how you got caught presuming to post a research conclusion that in fact was not even from the study the posted abstract referenced. That's also why you got caught failing to even read anything but the teaser on an article that you posted from and didn't realize the article contradicted what you were claiming. Face it Kyle. Everybody here sees right through your little charade.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-29   17:08:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#343. To: Kyle (#341)

yes they are mundane.. same old same old same propaganda technique.. If someone doesnt buy into the official BS .. they are either an evil leftist or a kook.. according to the propagandists.. so it was expected.

Zipporah  posted on  2005-04-29   17:08:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#344. To: Kyle (#340)

You're the fool for being suckered by these charlatans.

Charlatans? What charlatans, Kyle? You don't even have the slightest clue who you are calling a charlatan because you haven't looked up the research on renal abnormalities in the offspring of Gulf War Vets. If you did, you might be embarrassed, but that's why you won't. You're too much of a lying coward.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-29   17:09:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (345 - 488) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest