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: 2398
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

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 329.

#262. To: tom007, ALL (#0)

Explaining How Depleted Uranium
Is Killing Civilians, Soldiers, Land

Nano-particles pinpointed

By Christopher Bollyn
January 7, 2004, American Free Press

Depleted uranium weapons, and the untold misery they wreak on mankind, are taboo subjects in the mainstream media. This exclusive report should break the media embargo imposed on the American people.

Despite being a grossly under-reported subject in the mainstream, there is intense public interest in depleted uranium (DU) and the damage it inflicts on humankind and the environment.

While American Free Press is actively investigating DU weapons and how they contribute to Gulf War Syndrome, the corporate-controlled press ignores the illegal use of DU and its long-lasting effects on the health of veterans and the public.

In August 2004 American Free Press published a ground-breaking four- part series on DU weapons and the long-term health risks they pose to soldiers and civilians alike. Information provided to AFP by experts and scientists, some of it published for the first time in this paper, has increased public awareness of how exposure to small particles of DU can severely affect human health.

Leuren Moret, a Berkeley-based geo-scientist with expertise in atmospheric dust, corresponds with AFP on DU issues. Recently Moret provided a copy of her letters to a British radiation biologist, Dr. Chris Busby, about how nanometer size particles — less than one-tenth of a micron and smaller — of DU once inhaled or absorbed into the body, can cause long-term damage to one’s health.

Busby is one of the founders of Green Audit, a British organization that monitors companies “whose activities might threaten the environment and health of citizens.”

Moret’s writings were meant to assist Busby in a legal case being heard in the High Court in London where a former defense worker, Richard David, 49, is suing Normal Air Garrett, Ltd., an aircraft parts company now owned by Honeywell Aerospace, claiming exposure to DU on the job has made his life a “living hell.”

David worked as a component fitter on fighter planes and bombers but had to quit due to health problems. He says he developed a cough within weeks of starting work.

Today, David suffers from a variety of symptoms like those known as Gulf War Syndrome, including respiratory and kidney problems, bowel conditions and painful joints. Medical tests reveal mutations to his DNA and damage to his chromosomes, which, he says, could only have been caused by ionizing radiation. He has also been diagnosed with a terminal lung condition.

Honeywell denies DU was ever used at the plant in Yeovil, Somerset, where David worked for 10 years until 1995. David claims that DU’s existence at the plant was denied because it is an official secret.

David has asked the High Court for more time to gather evidence. The hearing is due to resume in April. “I don’t have any legal representation,” David said, “so I am representing myself. It is a real David versus Goliath case.

“I am confident I will win. I hope to set a precedent for other cases of people who have suffered from the effects of depleted uranium,” he said.

Moret’s letters on the particle effect of DU is based on research done by Marion Fulk, a nuclear physical chemist and former scientist with the Manhattan Project and the National Laboratory at Livermore, Calif. Fulk, who has developed a “particle theory” about how DU nano-particles affect human DNA, donates his time and expertise to help bring information about DU to the public.

Asked about Fulk’s particle theory, Busby said it is “quite sound.”

“DU is much more dangerous than they say,” Busby added. “I’ve always said that it contributes significantly to Gulf War Syndrome.”

When Moret’s correspondence to Dr. Busby was posted on the Internet over the New Year’s holiday under the title “How Depleted Uranium Weapons Are Killing Our Troops,” some 6,000 people read the letter in the first two days. The following Monday, a producer from BBC’s Panorama program contacted Moret to arrange an interview.

If the BBC follows up with an investigation on the health effects of DU, it may be hard for the U.S. media to maintain their cover-up. More than 500,000 “Gulf War Era” vets currently receive disability compensation, many of them for a variety of symptoms generally referred to as Gulf War Syndrome. Experts blame DU for many of these symptoms.

“The numbers are overwhelming, but the potential horrors only get worse,” Robert C. Koehler of the Chicago-based Tribune Media Services wrote in an article about DU weapons entitled “Silent Genocide.”

“DU dust does more than wreak havoc on the immune systems of those who breathe it or touch it; the substance also alters one’s genetic code,” Koehler wrote. “The Pentagon’s response to such charges is denial, denial, denial. And the American media is its moral co-conspirator.”

U.S. GOVERNMENT KNOWS

The U.S. government has known for at least 20 years that DU weapons produce clouds of poison gas on impact. These clouds of aerosolized DU are laden with billions of toxic sub-micron sized particles. A 1984 Department of Energy conference on nuclear airborne waste reported that tests of DU anti-tank missiles showed that at least 31 percent of the mass of a DU penetrator is converted to nano-particles on impact. In larger bombs the percentage of aerosolized DU increases to nearly 100 percent, Fulk told AFP.

DU is harmful in three ways, according to Fulk: “Chemical toxicity, radiological toxicity and particle toxicity.”

Particles in the nano-meter (one billionth of a meter) range are a “new breed of cat,” Moret wrote. Because the size of the nano-particles allows them to pass freely throughout the organism and into the nucleus of its cells, exposure to nano-particles causes different symptoms than exposure to larger particles of the same substance.

Internalized DU particles, Fulk said, act as “a non-specific catalyst” in both “nuclear and non-nuclear” ways. This means that the uranium particle can affect human DNA and RNA because of both its chemical and radiological properties. This is why internalized DU particles cause “many, many diseases,” Fulk said.

Asked if this is how DU causes severe birth defects, Fulk said, “Yes.”

MILITARY AWARE

The military is aware of DU’s harmful effects on the human genetic code. A 2001 study of DU’s effect on DNA done by Dr. Alexandra C. Miller for the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute in Bethesda, Md., indicates that DU’s chemical instability causes 1 million times more genetic damage than would be expected from its radiation effect alone, Moret wrote.

Dr. Miller requested that questions be sent in writing and copied to a military spokesman. She did tell AFP that it should be noted that her studies showing that DU is “neoplastically transforming and genotoxic” are based on in vitro cellular research.

Studies have shown that inhaled nano-particles are far more toxic than micro- sized particles of the same basic chemical composition. British toxicopathologist Vyvyan Howard has reported that the increased toxicity of the nano-particle is due to its size.

For example, when mice were exposed to virus-size particles of Teflon (0.13 microns) in a University of Rochester study, there were no ill effects. But when mice were exposed to nano-particles of Teflon for 15 minutes, nearly all the mice died within 4 hours.

“Exposure pathways for depleted uranium can be through the skin, by inhalation, and ingestion,” Moret wrote. “Nano-particles have high mobility and can easily enter the body. Inhalation of nano-particles of depleted uranium is the most hazardous exposure, because the particles pass through the lung-blood barrier directly into the blood.

“When inhaled through the nose, nano-particles can cross the olfactory bulb directly into the brain through the blood brain barrier, where they migrate all through the brain,” she wrote. “Many Gulf era soldiers exposed to depleted uranium have been diagnosed with brain tumors, brain damage and impaired thought processes. Uranium can interfere with the mitochondria, which provide energy for the nerve processes, and transmittal of the nerve signal across synapses in the brain.

“Damage to the mitochondria, which provide all energy to the cells and nerves, can cause chronic fatigue syndrome, Lou Gehrig’s disease, Parkinson’s disease and Hodgkin’s disease.”

Eternal Vigilance

BTP Holdings  posted on  2005-04-28   23:46:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   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   Untrace   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   Untrace   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   Untrace   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   Untrace   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   Untrace   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   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 329.

#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   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 329.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest