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: 1998
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

#1. To: All, christine, ziporrah, red jones, OKCsubmariner, wakeup, crack monkey, diana, jhoffa, arator, arete, its1allmosttoolate, (#0)

ping

tom007  posted on  2005-04-27   22:14:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: tom007 (#0)

I'm not sure what to make of the whole DU thing, but how do they actually split an atom to make an atomic explosion???

By smashing an atom from a material such as plutonium, or Uranium. If you have depleted Uranium, you have atoms that would create a similar blast, and seeing how it is depleted, as well as probably not focused it might make the same kind of minature explosion.

TommyTheMadArtist  posted on  2005-04-27   22:21:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: tom007, robin, justlurking, Jethro Tull, Arator, Aric2000, cruisinaround, SKYDRIFTER, ALL (#1)

whoa, tom, great post. i'm not one bit surprised. dammit, BRING 'EM HOME!

christine  posted on  2005-04-27   22:28:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: tom007 (#0)

Hell of a post, Tom.

I can only conclude (once again) that we are being ruled by madmen.

Arator  posted on  2005-04-28   0:01:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: All, *Restore the Republic* (#4)

ping!

Arator  posted on  2005-04-28   0:02:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: tom007 (#1)

DU Death Toll Tops 11,000

Nationwide Media Blackout Keeps U.S. Public Ignorant About This Important Story

http://americanfreepress.net/html/du_death_toll.html

By James P. Tucker Jr.

The death toll from the highly toxic weapons component known as depleted uranium (DU) has reached 11,000 soldiers and the growing scandal may be the reason behind Anthony Principi’s departure as secretary of the Veterans Affairs Department.

This view was expressed by Arthur Bernklau, executive director of Veterans for Constitutional Law in New York, writing in Preventive Psychiatry E-Newsletter.

“The real reason for Mr. Principi’s departure was really never given,” Bernklau said. “However, a special report published by eminent scientist Leuren Moret naming depleted uranium as the definitive cause of ‘Gulf War Syndrome’ has fed a growing scandal about the continued use of uranium munitions by the U.S. military.”

The “malady [from DU] that thousands of our military have suffered and died from has finally been identified as the cause of this sickness, eliminating the guessing. . . . The terrible truth is now being revealed,” Bernklau said.

Of the 580,400 soldiers who served in Gulf War I, 11,000 are now dead, he said. By the year 2000, there were 325,000 on permanent medical disability. More than a decade later, more than half (56 percent) who served in Gulf War I have permanent medical problems. The disability rate for veterans of the world wars of the last century was 5 percent, rising to 10 percent in Vietnam.

“The VA secretary was aware of this fact as far back as 2000,” Bernklau said. “He and the Bush administration have been hiding these facts, but now, thanks to Moret’s report, it is far too big to hide or to cover up.”

Terry Johnson, public affairs specialist at the VA, recently reported that veterans of both Persian Gulf wars now on disability total 518,739, Bernklau said.

“The long-term effect of DU is a virtual death sentence,” Bernklau said. “Marion Fulk, a nuclear chemist, who retired from the Lawrence Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab, and was also involved in the Manhattan Project, interprets the new and rapid malignancies in the soldiers [from the second war] as ‘spectacular’—and a matter of concern.’ ”

While this important story appeared in a Washington newspaper and the wire services, it did not receive national exposure—a compelling sign that the American public is being kept in the dark about the terrible effects of this toxic weapon. (Veterans for Constitutional Law can be reached at (516) 474- 4261.)

Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute - as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003

Itisa1mosttoolate  posted on  2005-04-28   0:15:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: TommyTheMadArtist, All (#2)

DU is actually less radioactive than U refined at it's natural isotope concentrations. I'd venture the critters around the tanks are killed mainly by kinetic effects. The finely divided metal is toxic merely from the standpoint of it's being a heavy metal, most are (like lead, chrome, cadmium, etc...)

If a geiger counter is set to detect any amount of radiation that's, say, 2X background, you're going to have it set so it'll "chatter" around something like a tank, because the sheer mass of the object incorporates far more radioisotopes than stuff like wood, dirt and other less dense items. The M1, IIRC, also has 10 tons of DU armor on it these days and while "depleted" of the more (relatively speaking) unstable 235 isotope, it'll still have enough to work that counter.

I sometimes carry around the Troxler nuclear density gauge, and get to wear a little badge because it has a Cesium and Americium source in it (one emits gamma and quantifies soil density, the other emits neutrons which are preferentially absorbed by the hydrogen in water and returns a moisture content). I'll bet dollars to donuts that less than 1 meter from that gauge with the probe retracted (it retracts back inside a lead enclosure with a tungsten sliding block to cover the opening) is probably the same or greater reading than one would find inside the tank.

Now, I'm not belittling the possibility that DU has screwed up folks, you'll be prettey well roasted if you inhale a few lungfulls of finely divided lead, and I'm willing to bet DU is going to be in the same neighborhood for unpleasantness unless and until the elemental metal is sequestered by processes such as further oxidation and binding with clays and such when it's dispersed in the environment. It's just that I don't believe that the toxicity is in any way related to any type of radioactve properties of the element.

Axenolith  posted on  2005-04-28   0:34:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: tom007 (#0)

My best guess is that the DU dust is physically toxic metal, similar to inhaling cyanide dust. It's not that much to do with the radiation.


SKYDRIFTER  posted on  2005-04-28   1:53:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: SKYDRIFTER (#8)

My best guess is that the DU dust is physically toxic metal, similar to inhaling cyanide dust. It's not that much to do with the radiation.

OMG!!

Something that Sky says I agree with because it is actually factual!!

No, Skydrifter, that is EXACTLY right..

No guessing involved.

DU has the half the radioactivity of NATURAL Uranium.

There is NO possible way that it could ever create a nuclear reaction of ANY sort.

It is a heavy metal, and like any heavy metal, if ingested, like lead, it can lead to sickness, if too much is ingested. But radioactivity? Forget about it, and Nuclear reaction, totally, and completely IMPOSSIBLE.....

Aric2000  posted on  2005-04-28   2:14:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: SKYDRIFTER (#8)

The basic gist of this is...

Lead used as a projectile is JUST as big a deal as DU being used as a projectile.

The only reason that DU is such a big deal, is because it has Uranium in the name, and they can create a huge public problem with it.

It is just as dangerous as lead is, BUT, that is it....

SO, if you are going to freak out about DU, then you had better freak out about lead as well, otherwise, forget about it.....

Aric2000  posted on  2005-04-28   2:17:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: tom007 (#1)

This is one of the MANY issues that are being totally ignored by the media and worse, the military and congress etc. It's a national and international disgrace.. what is happening to our soldiers and what we're doing to the countries where DU is being used.. Have you seen the film by Dr. Rokke? Here is a link to the Dr. Rokke video as well as others on DU:

Snowshoe Films: DU

Zipporah  posted on  2005-04-28   9:05:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: Aric2000 (#10)

The only reason that DU is such a big deal, is because it has Uranium in the name, and they can create a huge public problem with it.

It is just as dangerous as lead is, BUT, that is it....

SO, if you are going to freak out about DU, then you had better freak out about lead as well, otherwise, forget about it.....

On this you are SO wrong.. why not defer to an expert like Dr. Doug Rokke rather than just reguritating the official BS?

Zipporah  posted on  2005-04-28   9:09:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: Aric2000, Zipporah (#10)

According to Dr. Rokke, DU is not purely DU, but is chocked full of other byproducts from nuclear fission, including highly radioactive elements.

It's basically low grade radioactive waste. Nothing to worry about, I'm sure. < /sarcasm >

Arator  posted on  2005-04-28   9:13:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: Aric2000, tom007 (#10)

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

Poisoned? Shocking report reveals local troops may be victims of america's high-tech weapons

HOW DEPLETED URANIUM WEAPONS ARE KILLING OUR TROOPS *PIC* Posted By: ChristopherBollyn <Send E-Mail>
Date: Friday, 31 December 2004, 12:00 a.m.

The following document by Marion Fulk, a nuclear physical chemist, and Leuren Moret, a geo-scientist, provides a concise and essential explanation of the biological response to depleted uranium (DU) particulate internal exposure.

Military research laboratories report that the particulate effect of DU causes 1 million times more damage than the expected damage from the radiation effect alone - genetic damage. Cancer starts with a single alpha particle under the right conditions.

The following letter was written by Marion Fulk, former scientist with the Manhattan Project and nuclear physical chemist at the National [nuclear weapons] Laboratory at Livermore, California.

The letter is addressed to Dr. Chris Busby, a radiation expert who has written independent reports on low level radiation exposure for the British government and the European Parliament.

The use of depleted uranium weapons is causing a nuclear holocaust, with a global effect.

Leuren Moret,
Berkeley, California

December 14, 2004

Dr. Chris Busby
Green Audit
9 Prospect Street
Aberystwyth, Wales SY23 1JJ
United Kingdom

Dear Dr. Busby,

At your request, Marion Fulk and I are providing information and details on internal exposure to depleted uranium particulates.

Mr. Fulk is a nuclear physical chemist, retired from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, California. He conducted research on rainout of very fine radioactive particulates generated by atmospheric testing for the Nuclear Weapons Program. He holds a high level US Govt. clearance, and is an international expert on radiation and the biological effects from internal exposure.

I am the Past President of the Association for Women Geoscientists, with a background in the Geosciences. I have conducted extensive scientific research on atmospheric dust, the transport and cycling of radionuclides through the environment and through biological systems. I am recognized as an international expert, on the impact on global public health and the health of the environment, from radiation caused by atmospheric testing, nuclear power plants and depleted uranium.

Mr. Fulk and I are actively conducting research on the particulate effect, and internal radiation exposure. The particulate effect is newly recognized as a result of studies on the biological and medical effects of depleted uranium internal exposure.

THREE EFFECTS OF DEPLETED URANIUM INTERNAL EXPOSURE


Internal exposure to depleted uranium is known to have three separate effects which may or may not act together, which may occur at different times, or have delayed effects:

1. Chemical – changes in a substance due to an alteration of its chemical composition caused by changes in its atoms or molecules;

2. Radiological – changes when the nucleus of an isotope undergoes disintegration and releases energy in the form of alpha or beta particles and/or gamma rays. About 30% of radiation damage to cells is caused by the “bullet effect” of the alpha and beta particles tearing through the cells. About 70% of the damage is caused by changes in the cells and biological molecules from the energy dissipated along the pathway of the alpha and beta particles, and gamma rays;

3. Particulate – changes caused by the particle size, the most harmful being nano-particles which are defined as particles with a diameter of 0.1 micron and smaller.

Because you have already provided information about the chemical and radiological effects detailed in the ECRR Report (2003) and the CHERRIE Report (2004), this letter will primarily address the particulate effect.

THE PARTICULATE EFFECT

The “particulate effect” is a new phenomenon. It is now being recognized from research on nano-particles and from the effects of battlefield and downwind exposure to depleted uranium.

The resulting complex of diseases caused by depleted uranium and possible chemical exposure is known as Gulf War Syndrome (Table
1).

Depleted uranium gas and dust, formed on the battlefield, produces large numbers of extremely fine particles. The greatest number by mass on the battlefield are formed in the nano-particle range – 0.1 microns and smaller (1). Coincidentally, international funding and research in the new field of nano-technology has also provided details from studies on the effects of nano-particles, which until now have not been well studied. Recently discoveries have revealed that there is a particulate effect caused by these nano-particles in living tissues. There are now 16 peer-reviewed journals devoted to the new field of nano-technology.

In a normal air sample there are billions of dust particles in a range of sizes. For example there are 1 billion dust particles with a diameter of 0.1 micron per cubic meter. A diameter of 0.1 micron is about 100 times smaller than a blood cell. An average man breathes about 28 cubic meters of air per day, inhaling approximately 28 billion 0.1 micron particles.

This is also the peak population size of invisible atmospheric dust particles, which are transported around the world and remain permanently suspended until they are rained or snowed out of the atmosphere. Nano-particles remain suspended by Brownian motion, and do not behave like larger sized particles. They behave according to the rules of quantum mechanics.

Some nano-particles have catalytic and extraordinary electronic properties, like oxides of uranium, which behave in non-stoichiometric ways. Uranium is a very large and complex atom, with a large cloud of many electrons around the nucleus as well as in the outer shells. Uranium can act as a reducer, donating electrons, or as an oxidizer, scavenging or accepting electrons. Because uranium compounds are unpredictable in the way they behave, uranium is also biologically unpredictable. In this atmosphere of unpredictability characteristic of uranium, anything can happen.

Because uranium and phosphate have an interaction, uranium can interfere with biological processes where the phosphate structure is present. Examples are in the DNA, the histone or Master Code (2) which controls part of the _expression of the DNA, and fragments of the RNA which control part of the _expression of the DNA.

TRANSPORT AND EXPOSURE PATHWAYS

Exposure pathways for depleted uranium can be through the skin, by inhalation, and ingestion. 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. In the blood they are transported throughout the body and may be filtered out by the tissues. Delivery to the cell systems is expedited by transport in the liposomes, and probably in cholesterol.

Because the depleted uranium particles are much smaller than the liposomes or cholesterol, their presence is masked or hidden from the cell defenses, and therefore can end up any place in the cell and tissues. Mild electric shocks can also transport things into cells, as was demonstrated in early lab experiments to modify genes, and the reported mixing of bacterial DNA from lightning strikes (3).

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 (4). 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 (5).

SIZE DETERMINES TOXICITY MORE THAN COMPOSITION

A limited number of animal studies have shown that inhaled nano-particles are more toxic than micro-sized particles of the same basic chemical composition (4). Top UK toxicopathologist Vyvyan Howard has reported that nano-particle toxicity is more related to their size than to the material they are made from (6). A good example is gold which is usually inert, but highly reactive at the nano-scale. Dr. Howard has claimed that nano-particles can move across the placental barrier from mother to fetus.

In a study on fish exposed to nano-particles reported by Jim Thomas in The Ecologist, “buckyballs” caused brain damage and genetic changes in fish (7). Prof. Guenter Oberdoester at the Univ. of Rochester Dept. of Environmental Medicine, reported that Teflon particles that were 0.13 microns in diameter (the size of a virus) caused no ill effects in mice. But when mice were exposed to nano-particles 0.02 microns in diameter for just 15 minutes, nearly all the mice were dead within 4 hours.

The exposure to nano-particles below a threshold size killed the mice, but there is no “dictionary disease” to explain the deaths, however the exposure had the effect of a disease.

Particles in the nano-particle range are a “new breed of cat”. They can get into vital process centers of the cell which larger diameter particles cannot reach. The processes are not fully understood.

Sincerely yours,

Leuren Moret and Marion Fulk
Berkeley & Livermore, California

REFERENCES:

1. “Characteristics of Particles and Particle Dispersoids”, HANDBOOK OF CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS 53rd Edition (1961).
http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/Particle-Dispersoids-TableSep61.htm

2. “Preferential Staining of Nucleic Acid-Containing Structures For Electron Microscopy” H. E. HUXLEY, Ph.D., and G. ZUBAY, Ph.D., Biophysical and Biochemical Cytology 11 (2): 273. (Nov 1961)


http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/Huxley-Zubay-Staining1nov61.htm

3. “Isolation of Lightning-Competent Soil Bacteria” Hélène Cérémonie, François Buret, Pascal Simonet, and Timothy M. Vogel, Applied and Environmental Microbiology Journal (2004) V. 70 (10) p. 6342-6346.[link]

4. AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY MEETING: “Nanomaterials Show Signs of Toxicity” by Robert F. Service, Science 11 April 2003; 300: 243
US Congress. 2003. House of Representatives. Committee on Science Hearing: The Societal Implications of Nanotechnology. April 9, 2003, 2318 Rayburn House Office Building.

5. “Sandia nanolaser may help extend life-spans by rapidly analyzing possible neuroprotectant drugs” by Neal Singer, Sept. 19, 2003, p.1.

http://www.sandia.gov/LabNews/LN09-19-03/key09-19-03_stories.html#nano

6. “Dangers come in small particles” Hazards Magazine August 2004.http://www.hazards.org/nanotech/safety.htm

7. “Ten Toxic Warnings” by Jim Thomas, The Ecologist January 2004 p. 13.

robin  posted on  2005-04-28   9:49:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: Aric2000, tom007 (#10)

Depleted Uranium: The Trojan Horse of Nuclear War

Depleted Uranium:
The Trojan Horse of Nuclear War

LEUREN MORET / World Affairs – The Journal of International Issues 1jul04

Heat not a furnace for your foe so hot that it do singe yourself.
William Shakespeare (1564-1616)

The use of depleted uranium weaponry by the United States, defying all international treaties, will slowly annihilate all species on earth including the human species, and yet this country continues to do so with full knowledge of its destructive potential.

LEUREN MORET

Since 1991, the United States has staged four wars using depleted uranium weaponry, illegal under all international treaties, conventions and agreements, as well as under the US military law. The continued use of this illegal radioactive weaponry, which has already contaminated vast regions with low level radiation and will contaminate other parts of the world over time, is indeed a world affair and an international issue. The deeper purpose is revealed by comparing regions now contaminated with depleted uranium — from Egypt, the Middle East, Central Asia and the northern half of India — to the US geostrategic imperatives described in Zbigniew Brzezinski’s 1997 book The Grand Chessboard.

Fig. 1: Brzezinski’s map of the Eurasian Chessboard

SOUTH REGION:

“This huge region, torn by volatile hatreds and surrounded by competing powerful neighbors, is likely to be a major battlefield, both for wars among nation-states and, more likely, for protracted ethnic and religious violence. Whether India acts as a restraint or whether it takes advantage of some opportunity to impose its will on Pakistan will greatly affect the regional scope of the likely conflicts. The internal strains within Turkey and Iran are likely not only to get worse but to greatly reduce the stabilizing role these states are capable of playing within this volcanic region. Such developments will in turn make it more difficult to assimilate the new Central Asian states into the international community, while also adversely affecting the American-dominated security of the Persian Gulf region. In any case, both America and the international community may be faced here with a challenge that will dwarf the recent crisis in the former Yugoslavia.” Brzezinski

The fact is that the United States and its military partners have staged four nuclear wars, "slipping nukes under the wire" by using dirty bombs and dirty weapons in countries the US needs to control. Depleted uranium aerosols will permanently contaminate vast regions and slowly destroy the genetic future of populations living in those regions, where there are resources which the US must control, in order to establish and maintain American primacy.

Described as the Trojan Horse of nuclear war, depleted uranium is the weapon that keeps killing. The half-life of Uranium-238 is 4.5 billion years, the age of the earth. And, as Uranium-238 decays into daughter radioactive products, in four steps before turning into lead, it continues to release more radiation at each step. There is no way to turn it off, and there is no way to clean it up. It meets the US Government’s own definition of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

After forming microscopic and submicroscopic insoluble Uranium oxide particles on the battlefield, they remain suspended in air and travel around the earth as a radioactive component of atmospheric dust, contaminating the environment, indiscriminately killing, maiming and causing disease in all living things where rain, snow and moisture remove it from the atmosphere. Global radioactive contamination from atmospheric testing was the equivalent of 40,000 Hiroshima bombs, and still contaminates the atmosphere and lower orbital space today. The amount of low level radioactive pollution from depleted uranium released since 1991, is many times more (deposited internally in the body), than was released from atmospheric testing fallout.

A 2003 independent report for the European Parliament by the European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR), reports that based on Chernobyl studies, low level radiation risk is 100 to 1000 times greater than the International Committee for Radiation Protection models estimate which are based on the flawed Atomic and Hydrogen Bomb Studies conducted by the US Government. Referring to the extreme killing effects of radiation on biological systems, Dr. Rosalie Bertell, one of the 46 international radiation expert authors of the ECRR report, describes it as:

"The concept of species annihilation means a relatively swift, deliberately induced end to history, culture, science, biological reproduction and memory. It is the ultimate human rejection of the gift of life, an act which requires a new word to describe it: omnicide."

1943 MANHATTAN PROJECT BLUEPRINT FOR DEPLETED URANIUM

In a declassified memo to General Leslie R. Groves, dated October 30, 1943, three of the top physicists in the Manhattan Project, Dr James B Conant, A H Compton, and H C Urey, made their recommendation, as members of the Subcommittee of the S-1 Executive Committee, on the ‘Use of Radioactive Materials as a Military Weapon’:

"As a gas warfare instrument the material would be ground into particles of microscopic size to form dust and smoke and distributed by a ground-fired projectile, land vehicles, or aerial bombs. In this form it would be inhaled by personnel. The amount necessary to cause death to a person inhaling the material is extremely small … There are no known methods of treatment for such a casualty … it will permeate a standard gas mask filter in quantities large enough to be extremely damaging."

As a Terrain Contaminant:

"To be used in this manner, the radioactive materials would be spread on the ground either from the air or from the ground if in enemy controlled territory. In order to deny terrain to either side except at the expense of exposing personnel to harmful radiations … Areas so contaminated by radioactive material would be dangerous until the slow natural decay of the material took place … for average terrain no decontaminating methods are known. No effective protective clothing for personnel seems possible of development. … Reservoirs or wells would be contaminated or food poisoned with an effect similar to that resulting from inhalation of dust or smoke."

Internal Exposure:

"… Particles smaller than 1µ [micron] are more likely to be deposited in the alveoli where they will either remain indefinitely or be absorbed into the lymphatics or blood. … could get into the gastro-intestinal tract from polluted water, or food, or air. … may be absorbed from the lungs or G-I tract into the blood and so distributed throughout the body."

Both the fission products and depleted uranium waste from the Atomic Bomb Project were to be utilised under this plan. The pyrophoric nature of depleted uranium, which causes it to begin to burn at very low temperatures from friction in the gun barrel, made it an ideal radioactive gas weapon then and now. Also it was more available because the amount of depleted uranium produced was much greater than the amount of fission products produced in 1943.

Britain had thoughts of using poisoned gas on Iraq long before 1991:

"I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes. The moral effect should be good... and it would spread a lively terror..." (Winston Churchill commenting on the British use of poison gas against the Iraqis after the First World War).

GUIDED WEAPONS SYSTEMS

Depleted uranium weapons were first given by the US to Israel for use under US supervision in the 1973 Sinai war against the Arabs. Since then the US has tested, manufactured, and sold depleted uranium weapons systems to 29 countries. An international taboo prevented their use until 1991, when the US broke the taboo and used them for the first time, on the battlefields of Iraq and Kuwait.

The US military admitted using depleted uranium projectiles in tanks and planes, but warheads in missiles and bombs are classified or referred to as a ‘dense’ or ‘mystery metal’. Dai Williams, a researcher at the 2003 World Depleted Uranium Weapons Conference, reported finding 11 US patents for guided weapons systems with the term ‘depleted uranium’ or ‘dense metal’, which from the density can only be depleted uranium or tungsten, in order to fit the dimensions of the warhead.

Figure 2 - Hard target guided weapons in 2002: smart bombs

& cruise missiles with "dense metal" warheads (updated September 2002)

Warhead weight

Hard
target guided weapons
in 2001: smart bombs & cruise missiles with

Warhead weights include explosives (~20%) and casing. Dense metal ballast or liners (suspected to be DU) estimated to be 50-75% of warhead weight - necessary to double the density of previous versions. AUP = Advanced penetrators. S/CH

= Shaped Charge. BR = BROACH Multiple Warhead System (S/CH+AUP). P = older 'heavy metal' penetrators. © Dai Williams 2002

source: Depleted Uranium weapons in 2001-2002: Occupational, public and environmental health issues - Mystery Metal Nightmare in Afghanistan? Collected studies and public domain sources compiled by Dai Williams, first edition 31 January 2002

Extensive carpet bombing, grid bombing, and the frequent use of missiles and depleted uranium bullets on buildings in densely populated areas has occurred in Iraq, Yugoslavia, and Afghanistan. The discovery that bomb craters in Yugoslavia in 1999 were radioactive, and that an unexploded missile in 1999 contained a depleted uranium warhead, implies that the total amount of depleted uranium used since 1991 has been greatly underestimated. Of even greater concern, is that 100 per cent of the depleted uranium in bombs and missiles is aerosolized upon impact and immediately released into the atmosphere. This amount can be as much as 1.5 tons in the large bombs. In bullets and cannon shells, the amount aerosolized is 40-70 per cent, leaving pieces and unexploded shells in the environment, to provide new sources of radioactive dust and contamination of the groundwater from dissolved depleted uranium metal long after the battles are over, as reported in a 2003 report by the UN Environmental Program on Yugoslavia. Considering that the US has admitted using 34 tons of depleted uranium from bullets and cannon shells in Yugoslavia, and the fact that 35,000 NATO bombing missions occurred there in 1999, potentially the amount of depleted uranium contaminating Yugoslavia and transboundary drift into surrounding countries is staggering.

Because of mysterious illnesses and post-war birth defects reported among Gulf War veterans and civilians in southern Iraq, and radiation related illnesses in UN Peacekeepers serving in Yugoslavia, growing concerns about radiation effects and environmental damage has stirred up international outrage about the use of radioactive weapons by the US after 1991. At the 2003 meeting of parties to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, discussing the U.S. desire to maintain its nuclear weapons stockpile, the Hiroshima Mayor Tadatoshi AKIBA stated,

"It is incumbent upon the rest of the world ... to stand up now and tell all of our military leaders that we refuse to be threatened or protected by nuclear weapons. We refuse to live in a world of continually recycled fear and hatred".

ILLEGAL UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW

Four reasons why using depleted uranium weapons violates the UN Convention on Human Rights:

LEGALITY TEST FOR WEAPONS UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW

TEMPORAL TEST – Weapons must not continue to act after the battle is over.

ENVIRONMENTAL TEST – Weapons must not be unduly harmful to the environment.

TERRITORIAL TEST – Weapons must not act off of the battlefield.

HUMANENESS TEST – Weapons must not kill or wound inhumanly.

International Human Rights and humanitarian lawyer, Karen Parker, determined that depleted uranium weaponry fails the four tests for legal weapons under international law, and that it is also illegal under the definition of a ‘poison’ weapon. Through Karen Parker’s continued efforts, a sub-commission of the UN Human Rights Commission determined in 1996 that depleted uranium is a weapon of mass destruction that should not be used:

RESOLUTION 1996/16 ON STOPPING THE USE OF DEPLETED URANIUM - DU

The military use of DU violates current international humanitarian law, including the principle that there is no unlimited right to choose the means and methods of warfare (Art. 22 Hague Convention VI (HCIV); Art. 35 of the Additional Protocol to the Geneva (GP1); the ban on causing unnecessary suffering and superfluous injury (Art. 23 §le HCIV; Art. 35 §2 GP1), indiscriminate warfare (Art. 51 §4c and 5b GP1) as well as the use of poison or poisoned weapons.

The deployment and use of DU violate the principles of international environmental and human rights protection. They contradict the right to life established by the Resolution 1996/16 of the UN Subcommittee on Human Rights.

FOUR NUCLEAR WARS

"Military Men Are Just Dumb,
Stupid, Animals To Be Used
As Pawns In Foreign Policy"

Henry Kissinger

Although restricted to battlefields in Iraq and Kuwait, the 1991 Gulf War was one of the most toxic and environmentally devastating wars in world history. Oil well fires, the bombing of oil tankers and oil wells which released millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Arabia and desert, and the devastation from tanks and heavy equipment destroyed the desert ecosystem. The long term and far reaching effects, and dispersal of at least 340 tons of depleted uranium weapons, had a global environmental effect. Smoke from the oil fires was later found in deposits in South America, the Himalayas and Hawaii. Large annual dust storms originating in North Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia will quickly spread the radioactive contamination around the world, and weathering of old depleted uranium munitions on battlefields and other areas will provide new sources of radioactive contamination in future years. Downwind from the radioactive devastation in Iraq, Israel is also suffering from large increases in breast cancer, leukemia and childhood diabetes.

RADIATION RESPECTS NO BORDERS, NO SOCIOECONOMIC CLASS, AND NO RELIGION

The expendability of the sanctity of life to achieve US political ends was described by US soldiers on the ground, and from the air, along the Highway of Death in Iraq in 1991:

"Iraqi soldiers [whether they] be young boys or old men. They were a sad sight, with absolutely no fight left in them. Their leaders had cut their Achilles’ tendons so they couldn’t run away and then left them. What weapons they had were in bad repair and little ammunition was on hand. They were hungry, cold, and scared. The hate I had for any Iraqi dissipated. These people had no business being on a battlefield."
(S Hersh, New Yorker, May 22, 2000)

American pilots bombing and strafing, with depleted uranium weapons, helpless retreating Iraqi soldiers who had already surrendered, exclaimed:

"We toasted him…. we hit the jackpot….a turkey shoot….shooting fish in a barrel….basically just sitting ducks… There’s just nothing like it. It’s the biggest Fourth of July show you’ve ever seen, and to see those tanks just ‘boom’, and more stuff just keeps spewing out of them… they just become white hot. It’s wonderful."

(L A Times and Washington Post, both February 27, 1991)

Nearly 700,000 American Gulf War Veterans returned to the US from a war that lasted just a few weeks. Today more than 240,000 of those soldiers are on permanent medical disability, and over 11,000 are dead. In a US Government study on post-Gulf War babies born to 251 veterans, 67 per cent of the babies were reported to have serious illnesses or serious birth defects. They were born without eyes, ears, had missing organs, fused fingers, thyroid or other malfunctions. Depleted uranium in the semen of the soldiers internally contaminated their wives. Severe birth defects have been reported in babies born to contaminated civilians in Iraq, Yugoslavia, and Afghanistan and the incidence and severity of defects is increasing over time. Women in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq are afraid now to have babies, and when they do give birth, instead of asking if it is a girl or a boy, they ask ‘is it normal?’.

KNOWN ILLNESSES INFLICTED BY INTERNALIZATION OF DEPLETED URANIUM PARTICLES

Table 1: Compiled by Leuren Moret from Interviews with Gulf War Vets and their families

GENERAL

abnormal births and birth defects
abnormal metabolism of semen: contains

amine & ammonium alkaline
acute autoimmune symptoms
(lung-, liver-, kidney failure)
acute myeloid leukemia
(deadly within days or weeks)

acute immune depression
acute respiratory failure
asthma
auto-immune deficiencies
Balkan-syndrome
blood in stools and urine

body function control loss
bone cancer
brain damage
brain tumors
burning semen
burning sensations

calcium loss in body
cardiovascular signs or symptoms
chemical sensitivities
Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
chronic kidney and liver disorders
chronic myeloid leukemia

chronic respiratory infections
colon cancer
confusion
diarrhea
digestive problems
dizziness

Epstein Barr Syndrome
fluid buildup
fibromyalgia

gastrointestinal signs/symptoms
general fatigue

genetic alterations
glandular carcinoma
Gulf war-syndrome
headaches (severe)
heart attack/disease
high blood pressure

high frequency of micturition
Hodgkin lymphoma
immune system deficiency
infections
insomnia
involuntary movements

joint/muscle/leg pain
kidney failure/damage
leukemia
liver carcinoma
loss of feeling in fingers
Lou Gehrigs Disease -ALS

low blood oxygen saturation
( low HbO2)
low lung volume
lung damage
lung cancer
lymph cancer

lymphoma
melanoma
memory loss
metallic taste
Microplasma fermentans/
incognitis infections

mood swings – violence
homicide/
suicide

multiple cancers
multiple myeloma
myeloma

muscle pain
nerve damage
neuro-muscular degenerative
disease
non-Hodgkin lymphoma
other malignancies

pancreas carcinoma
Parkinsons disease
petit & grand mal fits
rashes
reactive airway disease

reduced IQ
respiratory ailments
shortness of breath
sinus diseases
skin cancer
skin damage: sweat glands

with trapped du-particles
skin infections
skin spotting
smell, loss of
sleep disturbances
stiffening of fingers

teeth crumbling
thyroid cancer
thyroid disease
unable to walk
unusual fevers/night sweats
unusual hair loss

vision problems
weight loss

CHILDREN

alimentary disorders
asthma
bladder & sphincter paralysis
blindness
complete range of known and

unknown Congenital Defects
deafness
dyspraxia
headache
kidney disease
leukemia

lymphoma
malformations of legs, arms,
toes & fingers
respiratory disorders
stillbirth

neural tube defects

FEMALE

abdominal pain
breast cancer
breast cancer at very young

age (20)
cervix cancer
endometriosis
headaches
incontinence
joint pain

lung cancer at age 20 and
non-smoker
menstrual problems
miscarriages
nausea
ovarian cancer

paralysis of digestive system
thyroid problems
uterine cancer

MALE

(acute) headache
acute myeloid leukemia
arthritis
avoiding people
breathing problems
(stridor)

chemical sensitivity
chronic myeloid leukemia
endometriosis in partners
gastrointestinal disorder
hip and leg pain
joint pain

lung cancer at young age
lymphoma
skin cancer
skin eruptions
stomach pain
suicide

testicular cancer
unable to walk

VISIE: http://www.xs4all.nl/~stgvisie/VISIE/du-diagnosis.html
DESERT SHIELD/DESERT STORM website: http://www.ushostnet.com/gulfwar/articles.htm 04/1504

Soldiers who served in Bradley fighting vehicles, where it was common to sit on ammunition boxes where depleted uranium ammunition was stored, are now reporting that many have rectal cancer.

For the first time, medical doctors in Yugoslavia and Iraq have reported multiple in situ unrelated cancers developing in patients, and even in families who are living in highly contaminated areas. Even stranger, they report that cancer was unknown in previous generations. Very rare and unusual cancers and birth defects have also been reported to be increasing above normal levels prior to 1991, not only in war torn countries, but in neighbouring countries from transboundary contamination.

Dr. Keith Baverstock, a senior radiation advisor who was on the staff of the World Health Organization, co-authored a report in November 2001, warning that the long-term health effects of depleted uranium would endanger Iraq’s civilian population, and that the dry climate would increase exposure from the tiny particles blowing around and be inhaled for years to come. The WHO refused to give him permission to publish the study, bowing to pressure from the IAEA. Dr. Baverstock released the damning report to the media in February 2004. Pekka Haavisto, Chairman of the UN Environment Program’s Post-Conflict Assessment Unit in Geneva, shares Baverstock’s anxiety about depleted uranium but UNEP experts have not been allowed into Iraq to assess the pollution.

"DEPLETED URANIUM SCARE" - Claimed by President George W. Bush on the official White House website:

"During the Gulf War, coalition forces used armor-piercing ammunition made from depleted uranium, which is ideal for the purpose because of its great density. In recent years, the Iraqi regime has made substantial efforts to promote the false claim that the depleted uranium rounds fired by coalition forces have caused cancers and birth defects in Iraq. Iraq has distributed horrifying pictures of children with birth defects and linked them to depleted uranium. The campaign has two major propaganda assets:"

"Uranium is a name that has frightening associations in the mind of the average person, which makes the lie relatively easy to sell; and Iraq could take advantage of an established international network of antinuclear activists who had already launched their own campaign against depleted uranium."

"But scientists working for the World Health Organization, the UN Environmental Programme, and the European Union could find no health effects linked to exposure to depleted uranium."

The US war in Afghanistan made it clear that this was not a war IN the third world, but a war AGAINST the third world. In Afghanistan where 800 to 1000 tons of depleted uranium was estimated to have been used in 2001, even uneducated Afghanis understand the impact these weapons have had on their children and on future generations:

"After the Americans destroyed our village and killed many of us, we also lost our houses and have nothing to eat. However, we would have endured these miseries and even accepted them, if the Americans had not sentenced us all to death. When I saw my deformed grandson, I realized that my hopes of the future have vanished for good, different from the hopelessness of the Russian barbarism, even though at that time I lost my older son Shafiqullah. This time, however, I know we are part of the invisible genocide brought on us by America, a silent death from which I know we will not escape."
(Jooma Khan of Laghman province, March 2003)

In 1990, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) wrote a report warning about the potential health and environmental catastrophe from the use of depleted uranium weapons. The health effects had been known for a long time. The report sent to the UK government warned "in their estimation, if 50 tonnes of residual DU dust remained ‘in the region’ there could be half a million extra cancers by the end of the century [2000]." Estimates of depleted uranium weapons used in 1991, now range from the Pentagon’s admitted 325 tons, to other scientific bodies who put the figure as high as 900 tons. That would make the number of estimated cancers as high as 9,000,000, depending on the amount used in the 1991 Gulf War. In the 2003 Gulf War, estimates of 2200 tons have been given — causing about 22,000,000 new cancer cases. Altogether the total number of cancer patients estimated using the UKAEA data would be 25,250,000. In July of 1998, the CIA estimated the population of Iraq to be approximately 24,683,313.

Ironically, the UN Resolution 661 calling for sanctions against Iraq, was signed on Hiroshima Day, August 6, 1990.

THE PARALLELS

War can really cause no economic boom, at least not directly, since an increase in wealth never does result from destruction of goods.
– Ludwig von Mises

The parallels between Iraq, Yugoslavia and Afghanistan are startlingly similar. The weapons used, the unfair treaties offered by the US, and the bombing and destruction of the environment and entire infrastructure. In every city of Iraq and Yugoslavia, the television and radio stations were bombed.

Educational centres were targeted, and stores where educational materials were sold were destroyed on nearly the same day. Under UN sanctions, Iraq was not even allowed pencils for schoolchildren. Cultural antiquities and historical treasures were targeted and destroyed in all three countries, a kind of cultural and historical cleansing, a collective national psychic trauma.

The permanent radioactive contamination and environmental devastation of all three countries is unprecedented, resulting in huge increases in cancer and birth defects following the attacks. These will increase over time from unknown effects due to chronic exposure, increasing internal levels of radiation from depleted uranium dust, and permanent genetic effects passed on to future generations. Clearly, this has been a genocidal plan from the start.

Fig. 3: Map of regions within a 1000 mile radius of Baghdad and Afghanistan which have been contaminated with depleted uranium since 1991. Depleted uranium dust will be repeatedly recycled throughout this dry region, and also carried around the world. More than ten times the amount of radiation, released during atmospheric testing, has been released from depleted uranium weaponry since 1991. In 2002 the US government admitted that every person living in the US between 1957 and 1963 was internally contaminated with radiation. Note that the contaminated region corresponds with the "South" region on the Eurasian chessboard in Fig. 1.

What has happened to Human Rights, to the Rights of the Child, to civil society, and to common humanity?

It is up to the citizens of the world to stop the depleted uranium wars, and future nuclear wars, causing irreversible devastation. There are just a few generations left before the collapse of our environment, and then it will be too late. We can be no healthier than the health of the environment — we breathe the same air, drink the same water, eat food from the same soil.

"Our collective gene pool of life, evolving for hundreds of millions of years has been seriously damaged in less than the past fifty. The time remaining to reverse this culture of ‘lemming death’ is on the wane. In the future, what will you tell our grandchildren about what you did in the prime of your life to turn around this death process?" (Rosalie Bertell, 1982)

THE DEEPER PURPOSE: G*O*D* [Gold, Oil, and Drugs]

"We must become the owners, or at any rate the controllers at the source, of at least a proportion of the oil which we require."

(British Royal Commission, agreeing with Winston Churchill's policy towards Iraq 1913).

"It is clear our nation is reliant upon big foreign oil. More and more of our imports come from overseas."
(US President George W. Bush, Beaverton, Oregon, Sep. 25, 2000).

"If they turn on the radars we're going to blow up their goddamn SAMs (surface-to-air missiles). They know we own their country. We own their airspace... We dictate the way they live and talk. And that's what's great about America right now. It's a good thing, especially when there's a lot of oil out there we need."


(US Brig. General William Looney in 1999, referring to Iraq).

Millions of years ago, before India crashed into the Eurasian continent and uplifted the Himalayas, the ancient shallow Tethys sea stretched from the Atlantic across what is now the Mediterranean, Black, Caspian and Aral seas. Rich oil deposits are now located where ancient life accumulated and ‘cooked’ under just the right conditions to form large oil deposits in the ancient sediments. Long before 1991, Unocal in Afghanistan, Amoco in Yugoslavia, and various oil companies interested in Iraq oil deposits, had conducted extensive exploration and characterisation of oil deposits in the Middle East and Central Asian regions, including the northern half of India.

Britain has maintained an interest in Middle Eastern oil deposits for a century, and has been the staunchest military partner of the US since the first depleted uranium war in 1991 in Iraq. Germany, another military partner in Yugoslavia with forces now in Afghanistan, was one of the major economic beneficiaries of the breakup of Yugoslavia and the colonisation of the Balkans. US interest in Yugoslavia had much to do with building pipelines from Central Asia to the Mediterranean warm water ports in Yugoslavia. A silent and hidden partnership between the US and Japan provided large amounts of cash from Japan to finance the 1991 Iraq and 1995/1999 Yugoslavian wars, with additional help in Afghanistan by providing not only cash, but fuel for the war, from Aegis warships of the Japanese Self Defense Forces in the Indian Ocean. Nippon Steel, Mitsubishi, and Halliburton are now partners in a Central Asian oil pipeline project. In 2004, despite much citizen opposition in Japan, the Japanese government has sent Self Defense Forces to Iraq for ‘reconstruction’. This action taken by the Japanese government, of placing troops on the ground in a war zone, will lead to rescinding Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution, which forever prohibits military aggression by Japan.

THE IRON TRIANGLE (all under one roof): MILITARY, BIG BUSINESS, POLITICS

The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power.

- Franklin Delano Roosevelt

But what do oil, military partners, depleted uranium wars, and US foreign policy have to do with nuclear weapons? The answer came to me in 1991 when I became a whistleblower at the Livermore Nuclear Weapons Laboratory near San Francisco, California. Richard Berta, the Western Regional Inspector for the Department of Energy, told me "The Pentagon exists for the oil companies… and the nuclear weapons labs exist for the Pentagon."

Depleted uranium was used beginning in 1991 for three reasons:

  • To test the radiobiological effects of 4th generation nuclear weapons, which are still under development

  • To blur and break down the distinction between conventional and nuclear weapons
  • To make it easier to reintroduce nuclear weapons into the US military arsenal

Today, the US is number one in 4th generation nuclear weapons research and development, followed by Japan and Germany tied for number two, and Russia and other countries follow.

Figure 4: Depleted uranium and 4th generation nuclear weapons

Map by Mika TSUTSUMI 12/12/03

The Carlyle Group, a private massive equity firm, the 12th largest defense business with an obscenely high profit margin, is a business "arrangement" between the Bush and Bin Laden families, wealthy Saudis, former British Prime Minister John Major, James Baker III, Afsaneh Masheyekhi, Frank Carlucci, Colin Powell, other former US Government administrators, and Madeleine Albright’s daughter. The Carlyle Group is the ‘gatekeeper’ to the Saudi investment community. It owns 70 percent of Lockheed Martin Marietta, the largest military contractor in the US, and because Carlyle is privately owned, has no scrutiny or accountability whatsoever. A journalist who calls himself ‘a skunk at the garden party’ described investigating the Carlyle Group, he said ‘it’s like shadow boxing with a ghost’. The Group hires as lobbyists the best known politicians from around the world, in order to influence the politics of war, and privately profit from their previous public policies. The conflict of interest is obvious: President George W. Bush is creating wars as his father, former President George Bush, is globally peddling weapons and "protection". Lockheed Martin Marietta now owns Sandia Laboratories, a private contractor that makes the trigger for nuclear weapons, with a Sandia laboratory facility across the street from Los Alamos and Livermore National Laboratories, where the nuclear bombs are made.

At the May 2003 University of California Regents meeting which I attended, Admiral Linton Brooks was present and newly in charge of the nuclear weapons programme under the Department of Energy. Admiral Brooks informed California Lt. Governor Cruz Bustamante and the UC Regents that the management contract for the nuclear weapons laboratories, held unchallenged by the University of California for over 60 years, will be put up for competitive bid in 2005. The favoured institution, with a faculty member on the ‘blue ribbon committee’ making the contract award, is the University of Texas. This privatisation and management contract transfer of the US nuclear weapons programme will put control of the US nuclear weapons programme close to the Carlyle Group. The incestuous relationship between the US government, private companies, and the Bush and Bin Laden families in a way answers many of the lingering questions in everyone’s minds about many of the ill fated decisions and policies that have been implemented.

But who is Osama bin Laden really?
Let me rephrase that. What is Osama bin Laden?

He’s America’s family secret. He is the American President’s dark doppelganger.

The savage twin of all that purports to be beautiful and civilised. He has been sculpted from the spare rib of a world laid to waste by America’s foreign policy; its gunboat diplomacy, its nuclear arsenal, its vulgarly stated policy of "full spectrum dominance," its chilling disregard for non-American lives, its barbarous military interventions, its support for despotic and dictatorial regimes, its merciless economic agenda that has munched through the economies of poor countries like a cloud of locusts. Its marauding multinationals who are taking over the air we breathe, the ground we stand on, the water we drink, the thoughts we think.

Arundhati Roy
The Algebra of Infinite Justice

Leuren Moret has worked at two US nuclear weapons laboratories as a geoscientist. In 1991 she became a whistleblower at the Livermore nuclear weapons lab, and since then has worked as an independent citizen scientist and radiation specialist in communities around the world, and contributed to the UN subcommission investigating depleted uranium. Her research on the environmental and public health effects of low level radiation from atmospheric testing fallout, nuclear power plants, and depleted uranium weaponry, is available on the internet and at http://www.mindfully.org. In 2003, she testified at the International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan held in Japan, and presented at the World Depleted Uranium Weapons Conference in Hamburg, Germany, and at the World Court of Women at the World Social Forum in Bombay, India in January 2004. She is a Contributing Editor to GLOBAL OUTLOOK, a City of Berkeley Environmental Commissioner, and the Past President of the Association for Women Geoscientists.

More on Mindfully.org by Leuren Moret

Websites:

  • International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan written opinion of Judge N. Bhagwat: also at http://www.traprockpeace.org/tokyo_trial_13march04.doc

  • Question 11: What does the US Government know about depleted uranium: http://traprockpeace.org/moret_25nov03.pdf

  • World Depleted Uranium Weapons Conference: http://www.uraniumweaponsconference.de

  • Radiation and Public Health Project: http://www.radiation.org

  • "A comparison of delayed radiobiological effects of depleted-uranium munitions versus fourth-generation nuclear weapons"

    by A. Gsponer, J.-P. Hurni, and B. Vitale, 4th International Conference of the Yugoslav Nuclear Society, Belgrade, September 30-October 4, 2002. http://arXiv.org/abs/physics/0210071

  • "Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: The Physical Principles Of Thermonuclear Explosives, Inertial Confinement Fusion, And The Quest For Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons" by Andre Gsponer and Jean-Pierre Hurni http://www.inesap.org/publ_tech01.htm

  • 54 minute VPRO Dutch TV "Carlyle Group" documentary on internet: http://www.vpro.nl/info/tegenlicht/index.shtml?7738514+7738518+7738520+11838857

    • Real Player Video Documentary on the Carlyle Group, by VPRO Dutch television [500 kbps real video]

    • Real Player Video Documentary on the Carlyle Group, by VPRO Dutch television [100 kbps real video]

    • Overview of documentary - Interactive Flash Animation - with links to biographies and articles (Dutch) and specific sections of video.

    • English translation of Dutch introduction Translation of the first one minute forty seven seconds of this program.

      The war in Iraq is over.

      The rubble is still smoking While the first dozers are already entering the country.
      After the coalition forces destroyed Baghdad it is now primarily American companies who are to rebuild Iraq.

      An interesting point is that these companies usually have people on the payroll who have been politicians. Is this a conflict of interests or a new (global) way of doing business?

      One of the corporations that work this way is the Carlyle Group. On their payroll are people like : George Bush (Sr.), James Baker III and old premier John Major.

      The Carlyle Group is a private investment bank which doesn't come to the publics attention very often but it is one of the biggest American (ed: USA) investors of the defense industry, telecom, property and financial services.

      What is the Carlyle Group? Who are the people behind the name? And how much power does Carlyle have?

  • Global Outlook: http://www.globalresearch.de

  • An interesting response. . .

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Leuren Moret" <leurenmoret@yahoo.com>
    To: < [US Army Col Special Ops Green Beret] >

    Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 12:56 AM
    Subject: Re: Treachery And Treason

    Hi John - Here is an article coming out in July in World Affairs Journal. Can you please tell me what you think and whose decision it could have been to use DU on the Arab world? It looks to me like it was in the 1970s.

    Leuren

    -------- Response ---------

    From: < [US Army Col Special Ops Green Beret] >
    To: "Leuren Moret" <leurenmoret@yahoo.com>
    Subject: Re: Treachery And Treason

    Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 11:10:01 -0700

    Hi Leuren,

    Your report is very comprehensive and compelling.

    It begs the question WHO and WHY re the responsibility for the decision to create an area of deniability that covers the Arab world.


    It seems credible that the decision to isolate the Arab occupied areas of the world was and is intentional for the express purpose of controlling the flow of oil from Russia, through the mid-east countries of Afghanistan and Iraq (with eventual expansion to Syria and Iran and North Africa, and Saudi Arabia) while simultaneously destroying the current population to preclude resistance.

    Deaths in the contested area as a direct result of DU is, in my opinion, the covert means by which CONTROL over these lands will be accomplished.

    Systems must be in development to eventually provide automated CONTROL of the oil production mechanisms with minimum human exposure for maintenance. High altitude observation will CONTROL the threat of sabotage in ways perfected to secure Area 51 in Nevada.

    Whose Idea was this scenario? Henry Kissinger's fingerprints are all over this project. The Carlyle Group is in perfect position to carry out Henry's design.

    Take for example the exposure of Kissinger's genocidal action by configuring over 3000 secret B-52 strikes (using multiple aircraft) on Cambodia (1969-72) as written in the book "Side Show". B-52's would take off from Guam with assigned targets in North and South Vietnam only to receive in-flight changes of the coordinates to targets in Cambodia. Only the Command Pilot and the Navigator were aware of the changes, by design, to keep the bombing of Cambodia compartmentalized from other crew members to minimize compromising the illegal acts of war on a neutral country. This dovetails with the covert DU attack on the Arab World. It also provides the reason the US. Air Force ran out of 750 bombs during the Vietnam War. This also provides insight as to the diversion of the war on terrorism which began in Afghanistan only to be shifted, without justification, to Iraq, thereby cutting off the available resources to go after bin Laden and al Qaeda strongholds in Afghanistan. It is now apparent that the United States only wanted the appearance of going after bin Laden since he is an integral part of the Carlyle Group. These are the "sources and methods" which must be kept compartmented from the clueless.

    Henry's other quote re military is; "they are mindless cattle". But, then again, the military leadership excepts it's existence as "expendable assets".

    He would have made a wonderful Nazi. Right up there with Goebbels, Eichmann, Erlichman, Haldeman, und Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz.


    We have definitely become the Aggressor Nation. I fear we will pay dearly for the criminal greed of those responsible.

    I will wait until your material is published before passing it on to interested parties.

    Strangely enough, the Trojan Horse inside a shield was the Green Beret emblem of the 10th Special Forces Group in Germany in the fifties and sixties....that was my first exposure to diabolical thinking and the "sources and methods" of the Agency.

    Best,
    John

robin  posted on  2005-04-28   10:05:42 ET  (5 images) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: Arator, Aric2000, Zipporah, SKYDRIFTER (#13)

According to Dr. Rokke, DU is not purely DU, but is chocked full of other byproducts from nuclear fission, including highly radioactive elements.

It's basically low grade radioactive waste.

Whoever this Dr. Rokke is, their wrong. Aric2000 has it right, but actually overstated the problem. Lead is more chemically toxic than DU and DU is far less than 1/2 as radioactive as natural (3% U235) uranium. The half life of U238 is in the billions of years, so its decay rate is extremely low.

The radioactive waste remark is ludicrously off base. Even if the DU were made from radioactive waste (which it isn't; it's made from natural uranium ores as a byproduct of enrichment), other radioative isotopes could not be present because of the process used.

Uranium is reacted with fluorine to produce uranium hexafluoride gas. At this point, most other radioactive elements are exclude because they don't react with fluorine under the same conditions.

Then the gas is centrifuged over and over and over to separate the U238 and the U235 based on the slight difference in density. Any other gaseous radioactive compounds that MIGHT be present would have densities so low that they would all be separated out with the U235. This is purely theoretical because, in practice, they don't exist.

The gas is converted back into nearly pure U238. The only contaminate possible is residual U235, but the level is monitored closely.

Because DU comes from natural uranium and because of the production process and the monitoring of U235 levels, the resultant DU poses less of a radioactive risk than other natural and man-made sources.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   10:08:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: Kyle (#16)

the resultant DU poses less of a radioactive risk than other natural and man-made sources.

me-thinks you are in denial Mr. Kyle. I've read and heard from several experts who were paid by the US government to look into this, and they concluded that DU is deadly. There's also people paid by the UN to study this and they've concluded the same.

My goodness, a VA sponsored scientist concluded that DU killed 11,000 US soldiers from Gulf War 1 and you are still in denial over this.

I guess you can't handle the truth.

Red Jones  posted on  2005-04-28   10:16:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: tom007 (#0)

It is a HUGE irony that the propaganda those who rule over us used to justify their war on Iraq prominently claimed that Iraq represented a WMD threat, and then we invaded, and then we left behind DU which is upon close examination a WMD.

There are many among the regime that rules who will lie blatantly on this issue. The experts that our government has paid to look at this and have then concluded that DU is extremely bad news are just pushed to the side and not funded anymore. But these people have spoken. Only a few Americans will even hear them. Such is the nature of the propaganda coming down on the Americans.

Red Jones  posted on  2005-04-28   10:23:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: Red Jones, christine, Zipporah, Arator, Kyle, Aric 2000 (#17)

Hey you guys--why would two people who regularly drink the poisoned Kool-aid of the repukelican propaganda machine be worried about the poisonousness of DU?

Any points you make with these shills, no matter how rational the points, will not be absorbed. They just aren't programmed to think independently. They are only programmed to regurgitate what their masters tell them to spew.

h-a-l-f-w-i-t-t  posted on  2005-04-28   10:30:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: Red Jones (#17)

I guess you can't handle the truth.

I know that he's never passed a Geiger counter over a piece of the stuff. Compared to anything you'll encounter in normal life, the stuff is hot as hell, many, many times what normal background radiation is. I wonder what he thinks he's getting out of spreading this bullshit.

Esso  posted on  2005-04-28   10:36:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: Esso (#20)

I know, I read some comments above, they seem surreal. People are saying that because DU has only half or some portion of the radiation of refined uranium, then it is OK. I guess we should sprinkle it on cereal in the morning because it is only half the health problem as refined uranium.

Look DU is the stuff they use to actually create the material that goes in bombs. But they're unable to take all the radiation out of the DU, a lot still remains in it. After it is exploded and made a very fine dust it travels in the air, people who breathe it die, they get cancer, they produce birth-defect kids.

For crying out-loud there's been hundreds of thousands of American children born with birth-defects in the last 15 years whose daddies were exposed to this while in the military. and the bush-bots just can't face this reality.

Red Jones  posted on  2005-04-28   10:43:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: Zipporah (#12)

Zipporah, I am NOT wrong.

DU has HALF the radioactivity of NATURAL Uranium, in other words very low, natural uranium is NOT toxic, except when swallowed, and again, ONLY because it is a heavy metal.

So please, get a grip on reality, DU is as dangerous as lead, PERIOD, end of story, it is just as dangerous as ANY OTHER heavy metal, the radioactivity is so far below TOXIC levels that it is NOT even worth discussing.

So, PLEASE, quit with the propaganda crap and listen to science, and COMMON SENSE!!!

Aric2000  posted on  2005-04-28   10:48:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: Red Jones (#21)

Oh please, get a GRIP, it would NOT be the radioactivity, DU is NOT that hot, it has HALF the radioactivity of NONREFINED NATURAL URANIUM!!!

SO please, ALL of you, GO GET A FRICKING EDUCATIONS.......

PLEASE!!!

Aric2000  posted on  2005-04-28   10:50:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: Aric2000 (#23)

Have you read what the physicists have to say? Or are you just way smarter than those guys. Yeah, that's it.

robin  posted on  2005-04-28   10:52:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: Aric2000 (#22)

like I said, medical doctors and scientists hired by the US Army, hired by the VA, hired by the UN, hired by UN associated NGOs, and others working for private charities have investigated this stuff and found it to be extremely harmful.

They use this DU material to make nuclear bombs. But it is not radioactive, and it is not dangerous you say.

Red Jones  posted on  2005-04-28   10:53:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: Red Jones (#25)

It is just as toxic as any other heavy metal......

Please, I have worked with this crap for years, it is NOT harmful unless A: you are sniffing it like Coke, or are sprinkling it on your breakfast cereal.

M-1 armour uses Depleted Uranium, and has for over 20 years, so for you to start hoppiong up and down about HOW radioactive it, when in fact IT IS NOT, and how dangerous it is, WHEN in fact it is just as dangerous as ANY OTHER heavy metal is beyond me.

Go ahead, get suckered, I don't care, but I have worked with the stuff, I have fired the stuff, and it is just as dangerous as ANY OTHER HEAVY METAL.

It has URANIUM in the name, so these people you quote can make a BIG deal out of it.

It is NOT that big a deal, I wouldn't want to breathe the dust, because just like lead, it can be toxic, but the radioactivity of DU is NIL, you'd need to bathe in the shit for a year before getting the eqivalent of an X-ray.

Aric2000  posted on  2005-04-28   11:00:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: Red Jones (#25)

They use this DU material to make nuclear bombs. But it is not radioactive, and it is not dangerous you say.

ROFLMAO!!!

Oh please!! Get a grip on reality, if you used DU in a nuclear weapon it would NOT go off, DU is NOT a fissile material.

No matter what you did to DU, it could NEVER, EVER explode in a nuclear reaction, NEVER. It is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

It would be just like using LEAD as the fissile material.

You're NUTS, totally and absolutely NUTS.

DU used in nuclear weapons.....ROFLMAO!!!

Aric2000  posted on  2005-04-28   11:03:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: Aric2000 (#27)

DU is a by-product of the process that is used to create the material that is used in nuclear weapons. and the majority of the radioactivity remains in the DU after this process is done. It may be a weaker concentration, but it is still there. And regardless, actual experience with this material shows it to be a very bad killer. Many people have confirmed this.

Red Jones  posted on  2005-04-28   11:10:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: Aric2000 (#22)

So, PLEASE, quit with the propaganda crap and listen to science, and COMMON SENSE!!!

I could very well tell you the same thing.. as I sugguested, read or watch the video from Dr. Rokke and then let me know your thoughts on what he has to say..

Zipporah  posted on  2005-04-28   11:15:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: Esso (#20)

the arrogance is astounding, isn't it?

christine  posted on  2005-04-28   11:20:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: Aric2000 (#22)

Aric shutting down and not taking in any information.. from BOTH sides of an issue.. not looking at primary documentation is more than foolish and more than closeminded... Seems your ranting has caused you to ignore the info that robin and others have posted.. not propaganda but science.. so if you chose to ignore the facts then so be it but to tell others that they are not using common sense is absolutely ridiculous.

here is an entire plethora of links on DU..

The Trail of a Bullet series

Also.. this is from the military.. :

Zipporah  posted on  2005-04-28   11:28:42 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: h-a-l-f-w-i-t-t (#19)

They just aren't programmed to think independently. They are only programmed to regurgitate what their masters tell them to spew.

Independent thinkers they are not.. and the use of critical thought is apparently a foreign concept. What is astounding
is that they totally shut down.. how dare anyone believe anything other than the official BS?
Of course the government would NEVER do anything other than be benevolent.. LOL!

Zipporah  posted on  2005-04-28   11:38:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: h-a-l-f-w-i-t-t, Red Jones, christine, Zipporah, Arator, Aric 2000 (#19)

h-a-l-f-w-i-t-t: Hey you guys--why would two people who regularly drink the poisoned Kool-aid of the repukelican propaganda machine be worried about the poisonousness of DU?

Red Jones: me-thinks you are in denial Mr. Kyle. I've read and heard from several experts who were paid by the US government to look into this, and they concluded that DU is deadly. There's also people paid by the UN to study this and they've concluded the same.

My goodness, a VA sponsored scientist concluded that DU killed 11,000 US soldiers from Gulf War 1 and you are still in denial over this.

1) I've never read anything from the administration on this subject. My information is based purely on my knowledge of the subject matter from independent sources.

2) I've yet to see anything purporting to 'prove' that DU is deadly, or that it has killed any significant number of people (except in the intended manner), that didn't have all the earmarks of crackpottery.

Do you deny any of the facts that I posted? That the half-life of U238 is in the order of billions of years and therefore has very, very low radioactivity? That DU contains virtually nothing except U238 and trace amounts of U235 and cannot contain other radioactive isotopes by virtue of the manufacturing process? That the chemical toxicity of U238 is much lower than that of the the principle alternative, lead?

Name calling and charges of brainwashing aren't an argument. I gave you facts.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   11:41:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: Kyle (#33)

Do you deny any of the facts that I posted? That the half-life of U238 is in the order of billions of years and therefore has very, very low radioactivity? That DU contains virtually nothing except U238 and trace amounts of U235 and cannot contain other radioactive isotopes by virtue of the manufacturing process? That the chemical toxicity of U238 is much lower than that of the the principle alternative, lead?

Name calling and charges of brainwashing aren't an argument. I gave you facts.

Reading the thread, I think what you are giving these people is your half baked unsupported opinion. Like the other times you have argued on this forum, you present NOTHING to back up the shit that spews from your mouth.

No facts.

No figures.

No supporting documents,

No logic.

Just spew from the mind of a 14 year old.

You stated above that lead is much more poisonous than DU. Why should anyone believe you? You are not qualified to make this statement. You have no facts to defend it. Lead has been in the environment for centuries. It's very common. A great deal is known about the toxic properties. DU on the other hand is not common, studies have only just begun and the sample group is still small.

Can you give us a basis for your childish opinion that doesn't come from Newsmax or some other equally silly piece of propaganda?

crack monkey  posted on  2005-04-28   12:42:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: Red Jones, Aric2000 (#28)

DU is a by-product of the process that is used to create the material that is used in nuclear weapons.

True.

...and the majority of the radioactivity remains in the DU after this process is done.

Unadulterated BS. It is virtually all removed, because virtually all of the U235 is removed. U238 has a half-life in billions of years.

It may be a weaker concentration, but it is still there.

In trace amounts

And regardless, actual experience with this material shows it to be a very bad killer. Many people have confirmed this.

Many flakes. This is almost entirely a politicized issue.

Aric - Your statement that DU is not used in nuclear warheads is not technically true. It is not used in the fissile core, because it cannot sustain a chain reaction. It is used in the shell of thermonuclear devices because it will 'fast fission' under the bombardment of neutrons from the fusion reaction. In fact, this fast fission represents most of the yield of what are commonly referred to as fusion devices. This is just a technical corection and does not refute your absolutely correct position that DU is not capable of chain reaction and has very, very low radioactivity.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   12:49:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: Kyle (#33)

Name calling and charges of brainwashing aren't an argument. I gave you facts.

Where did I call you any names?? Seems that crap was started not by me ..

Zipporah  posted on  2005-04-28   12:52:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: crack monkey, h-a-l-f-w-i-t-t, Red Jones, christine, Zipporah, Arator, Aric 2000 (#34)

Can you give us a basis for your childish opinion that doesn't come from Newsmax or some other equally silly piece of propaganda?

Suck on this:

http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jdw/dutoxic010112_1_n.shtml

A short review of depleted uranium toxicity

By Prof Otto G Raabe PhD, CHP Institute of Toxicology & Environmental Health University of California

There are several reports in the news about the implied toxicity of depleted uranium used for projectiles and shielding material in modern warfare. It has been suggested to be a potent carcinogen and leukemia inducer.

The toxicity of uranium has been under study for at least 50 years including life span studies in small animals. Depleted uranium is only very weakly radioactive, and virtually all of the observed or expected effects are from nephrotoxicity associated with deposition in the kidney tubules and glomeruli damage at high doses. The radiation doses from depleted uranium (specific activity only 15 Bq/mg)(U-238 has a 4.5 billion year half life) are very small compared to potential toxic effects from uranium ions in the body (primarily damage to kidney tubules). The main route of potentially hazardous exposure is inhalation since gastrointestinal uptake is very small (<1/10,000).

Consider, for example the deposition of a respirable particle of depleted uranium dioxide in the human lung. If that particle is approximately spherical and has a diameter of 1 micrometer (aerodynamic diameter about 3 micrometer), it will emit an average of only one alpha particle every 100 days. Meanwhile the cells of the lung are being irradiated in a milieu of even more energetic alpha particles from natural radon and its decay products that are present in all the air on the surface of the earth. The total radiation dose to the lung from even relatively high exposures to airborne depleted uranium particles is not remarkable. The TLV is 0.2 mg/cubic-meter based on chemical toxicity.

After inhalation, uranium will be slowly mobilized and enter the systemic circulation. The uranyl ion is the form of mobile uranium within the body. It deposits at bone surfaces and remains in the bone matrix with a half time of up to one year. It is slowly cleared to the blood and excreted via the kidneys. While in the bone, alpha radiation is emitted, but with very low intensity since depleted uranium is not very radioactive. The range of alpha radiation in the bone is about 30 micrometer and the radiation is very diffuse, so the bone marrow is not effectively irradiated by uranium in the bone. Radiation induction of leukemia requires effective high dose-rate irradiation of the bone marrow. There is no known or expected leukemia risk associated with small amounts of U-238 in the bone because the marrow is not efficiently irradiated. [The same is true for much more highly radioactive radium-226 and plutonium- 239.]

As to its "heavy metal" toxicity, the closest analogy is lead. However, metallic lead has considerably higher toxicity than metallic uranium. Compounds of lead are much more hazardous than compounds of uranium since uranium tends to form relatively insoluble compounds which are not readily absorbed into the body. Also, lead within the body affects the nervous system and several biochemical processes, while the uranyl ion does not readily interfere with any major biochemical process except for depositing in the tubules of kidney where damage occurs if excess deposition occurs. Glomeruli damage has been reported at high doses as well. The kidney damage is dosage dependent and somewhat reversible. Lead bullets are probably more dangerous than uranium bullets.

References: "Handbook of the Toxicology of Metals", Friberg et al.(1990), "Uranium, Plutonium, Transplutonium Elements", Hodge et al. (1973),

"A five-year inhalation study with natural uranium dioxide", HEALTH PHYS 25, 230-258 (1973),

"Depleted Uranium In The Gulf": http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du_ii/

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   12:54:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: christine (#30)

the arrogance is astounding, isn't it?

I don't know what's going on here or why, but what I do know is that when I was trained in the use of radiation detection equipment over 20 years ago, the source that was used for practice detection was depleted uranium plates about 1/4" thick and 2" by 10" long. The Geiger counters would detect this with no problem. I no longer remember the exact ranges that we used, but to say that it is not a radiation source is ludicrous. The instructor explained that even though it was a low level radiation source, exposure to it should be kept to a minimum.

As far as this BS about "natural uranium", it doesn't occur naturally anymore than steel does. It has to be refined, processed and enriched.

The next thing we'll be hearing is that the "spent" fuel rods from nuke plants can be used as swizzel sticks. Sheesh.

Esso  posted on  2005-04-28   12:55:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: Zipporah (#36)

Do you deny any of the facts that I posted?

Apparently not.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   12:56:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: Kyle, robin (#39)

Apparently not.

Nor did you address any of the facts that robin posted ..so lets see you address those.. then I'll address those..

Zipporah  posted on  2005-04-28   12:58:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#41. To: Esso (#38)

i don't know what's going on either, but i can guess. it's spelled s-h-i-l-l.

christine  posted on  2005-04-28   13:02:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#42. To: Kyle (#37)

http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jdw/dutoxic010112_1_n.shtml

A short review of depleted uranium toxicity

I asked if you could give us a basis for your childish, over the top opinion that wasn't based on some propaganda journal like Newsmax or Janes or somebody else who works hand in glove with the international weapons cartel.

In response, you cite Janes, the journal of the international weapons cartel.

YOU ARE FULL OF BULLSHIT.

Give us a source.

Try again.

crack monkey  posted on  2005-04-28   13:02:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#43. To: Kyle (#37)

Suck on this:

OK.

So the people who make millions manufacturing and selling DU think it's great stuff.

Do you have a source that doesn't make us laugh at you? Or is Janes the best you can do?

crack monkey  posted on  2005-04-28   13:04:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#44. To: Zipporah, robin (#40)

Nor did you address any of the facts that robin posted ..so lets see you address those.. then I'll address those..

2 words: LEUREN MORET

That is the ultimate source for most of it. Besides Moret's OBVIOUS conspiracy theorist biases that are revealed in Robin's posts, you might be interested to know that Moret claims that DU will wipe out all life on the planet. Moret has zero credibilty. Zero.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   13:10:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#45. To: Axenolith, AdamSelene (#37)

Chemist/Physicist ping.....review and feedback requested?

Starwind  posted on  2005-04-28   13:13:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#46. To: Aric2000 (#10)

SO, if you are going to freak out about DU, then you had better freak out about lead as well, otherwise, forget about it.....

That's like comparing coffee to heroin.

Get real.

The problem is that the effects of DU have been propagandized - not revealed.


SKYDRIFTER  posted on  2005-04-28   13:14:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#47. To: Kyle (#35)

...and the majority of the radioactivity remains in the DU after this process is done.

Unadulterated BS. It is virtually all removed, because virtually all of the U235 is removed. U238 has a half-life in billions of years.

I heard a discussion of this on the radio. There was 1 fellow representing peole who'd studied this. Another fellow was a worker at Livermore Labs who actually made the bomb making material from what is DU after this process is done. They both agreed that about 85% of the radioactivity remains in the DU after the rest is extracted.

Red Jones  posted on  2005-04-28   13:14:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#48. To: Kyle (#44)

You havent addressed Dr. Rokke's position on DU nor why the UN called for a ban:

Also in 1999, a United Nations subcommission considered DU hazardous enough to call for an initiative banning its use worldwide. The initiative has remained in committee, blocked primarily by the United States, according to Karen Parker, a lawyer with the International Educational Development/Humanitarian Law Project, which has consultative status at the United Nations.

And if DU is not harmful, then explain the high radioactive levels on the Highway of Death:

"DU shell holes in the vehicles along the Highway of Death are 1,000 times more radioactive than background radiation, according to Geiger counter readings done for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer by Dr. Khajak Vartaanian, a nuclear medicine expert from the Iraq Department of Radiation Protection in Basra, and Col. Amal Kassim of the Iraqi navy.

The desert around the vehicles was 100 times more radioactive than background radiation; Basra, a city of 1 million people, some 125 miles away, registered only slightly above background radiation level.

But the radioactivity is only one concern about DU munitions.

A second, potentially more serious hazard is created when a DU round hits its target. As much as 70 percent of the projectile can burn up on impact, creating a firestorm of ceramic DU oxide particles. The residue of this firestorm is an extremely fine ceramic uranium dust that can be spread by the wind, inhaled and absorbed into the human body and absorbed by plants and animals, becoming part of the food chain."

And the research and links from the National Gulf War Resource Center, Inc.

Zipporah  posted on  2005-04-28   13:21:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#49. To: Kyle (#16)

It's not necessarily about radiation, dip-shit! It's about metabolizing the ingested material. Similar to the ingestion of minute quantities of Cyanide.

Who are you to question an MD? I thought you lived & breathed for authority?


SKYDRIFTER  posted on  2005-04-28   13:22:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#50. To: christine (#41)

i don't know what's going on either, but i can guess. it's spelled s-h-i-l-l.

Looking at the support Kyle offers for his arguments, my guess is that Kyle's primary purpose here is to punish people who dare voice opinions that diverge from the RNC party line.

Sort of an FR enforcer on loan from FR.

I think if you could pin him down on his political position he would claim to be an "independent" who often criticises Bush.

If you looked a little harder you would find that he has never cast a non-RNC vote in his life and that his "critique" of Bush consists of an unvoiced objection to a few aspects of Bush's immigration policy.

I don't think you'll ever see him present a useful or well supported piece of knowledge on the forum.

I do think you'll see him use intimidation tactics to keep others from voicing opinions that don't conform to the bot orthodoxy.

crack monkey  posted on  2005-04-28   13:28:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#51. To: crack monkey (#43)

So the people who make millions manufacturing and selling DU think it's great stuff.

LOL.. 'the love of money is the root of all evil'.. is apripos here..

Zipporah  posted on  2005-04-28   13:30:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#52. To: SKYDRIFTER (#49)

It's not necessarily about radiation, dip-shit! It's about metabolizing the ingested material. Similar to the ingestion of minute quantities of Cyanide.

This is true. I was told in chemestry class that all heavy metals are poisonous in a similar manner. Mercury, lead, etc. The explanation I heard is that we have no good mechanism for cleaning them from our system and that they destroy emzines necessary for life. Constant low level exposure to anything from that region of the periodic table builds up in our systems and is eventually toxic.

crack monkey  posted on  2005-04-28   13:32:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#53. To: Kyle (#35)

    ...and the majority of the radioactivity remains in the DU after this process is done.

Unadulterated BS. It is virtually all removed, because virtually all of the U235 is removed. U238 has a half-life in billions of years.

Kyle,

You dumb-shit! U-238 is a variant of U-235 - and radioactive! What does the term "Half-life" tell you about U-238? You can't even comprehend what you write!

You may as well argue that U-239 isn't radioactive! Jesus jumpin'-up-Christ. How stupid do you want to portray yourself as?

I keep telling you how freakin' stupid you are, but you just won't listen!


SKYDRIFTER  posted on  2005-04-28   13:36:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#54. To: crack monkey (#52)

The problem is that if the DU is as dangerous as I fear it is; there are going to be about 150,000 GIs waiting to die a horrible death; with the rest living in terror of delayed symptoms.

That with Bush cutting the VA benefits.


SKYDRIFTER  posted on  2005-04-28   13:38:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#55. To: SKYDRIFTER (#54)

with the rest living in terror of delayed symptoms

This is what you get with lead and mercury and some of the more exotic heavy metals.

Another problem is that the symptoms arn't well quantified for anything except lead and mercury. Here the variation in symptoms are understood because large numbers of people have been exposed and studied over long periods of time.

With DU, some of the effects might not even be recognized yet. The stuff has only been used for a very short time. For all we know it could be similar to asbestos - everyone gets sick after a certain minimum exposure, but sometimes the symptoms take 20 years to appear.

I think this danger to our troops and to the population should be balanced against the fact that we really don't need the stuff in Iraq. I recall the Uranium shells and sabots being developed for long range tank battles with the Russians. Nothing like that is taking place in Iraq. I would like to know what the uranium shells accomplish that can't be accomplished with normal ammo?

crack monkey  posted on  2005-04-28   13:46:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#56. To: SKYDRIFTER (#54)

The most serious problem IMO is that it's "genotoxic"..chemically altering DNA, switching on genes that would otherwise not be expressed. Also Alexandria Miller (radiobiologist with the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute in Bethesda, Maryland):

"Miller has found one way this may happen. She has discovered the first direct evidence that radiation from DU damages chromosomes within cultured cells. The chromosomes break, and the fragments reform in a way that results in abnormal joins (Military Medicine, vol 167, p 120). Both the breaks and the joins are commonly found in tumour cells."

More crucially, she has recently found that DU radiation increases gene activity in cultured cells at doses of DU not known to cause chemical toxicity (Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry, in press). The possible consequences are made all the more uncertain because no one knows if genes switched on by DU radiation enhance the damage caused by genes switched on by DU's toxic effects, or vice versa. "I think that we assumed that we knew everything that we needed to know about uranium," says Miller. "This is something we have to consider now when we think about risk estimates."

Zipporah  posted on  2005-04-28   13:54:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#57. To: crack monkey (#55)

Oh and btw they're looking at replacing DU shells with an alternative.. sounds like a great idea?? uh huh..

'Safe' alternative to uranium shells

CONTROVERSIAL anti-tank shells tipped with depleted uranium may be phased out if an alternative material proves its worth. The US Army is expected to award a contract this week for the manufacture of prototype ammunition incorporating a "liquid metal" alloy. The new rounds could be in service within two years.

Campaigners have complained for years about the potential health effects of DU - it has been linked to everything from Gulf War syndrome to birth defects. But the health connection is disputed and the military defends its use of DU. All the same, the US Army's Tank-automotive and Armaments Command is looking for alternatives in case political pressures force it to abandon DU.

DU has been the material of choice for anti-tank ammunition since the 1970s because it has twice the density of lead. And it has two key advantages over pure tungsten, which has a similar density. Tungsten shells ...

Zipporah  posted on  2005-04-28   13:55:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#58. To: crack monkey (#42)

YOU ARE FULL OF BULLSHIT.

Give us a source.

Try again.

Are you saying that the "Handbook of the Toxicology of Metals", is part of the CONSPIRACY, too?

How abou these?:

http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q611.html

Health Physics Society

Specialists in Radiation Safety

Answer to Question #611 Submitted to "Ask the Experts"

Category: Radiation Effects — Effects by Radionuclides

The following question was answered by an expert in the appropriate field:

Q: I'm an environmental reporter in Portugal and I'm writing an article on the possible health effects both from radiation and chemical toxicity of depleted uranium. Which one is the most problematic danger? Why?

A: Recently, there has been much concern expressed in the media and among the general public with respect to the hazardous nature of depleted uranium, including allegations of leukemias, cancers, and other deaths caused by this material. While it is in fact true that depleted uranium is weakly radioactive, it is also a heavy metal and, except in certain very unusual situations, it is the chemical toxicity and not the radioactivity that is of concern. And, from a chemical toxicity standpoint, uranium is on the same order of toxicity as lead. Largely from work with animals, along with a few instances in which humans inhaled very large amounts of uranium, the chemical toxicity of uranium is known to produce minor effects on the kidney, which in humans who have suffered large acute exposures have been transitory and wholly reversible. Because depleted and natural uranium are only weakly radioactive, radiological effects from ingested or inhaled uranium have not been detected.

Human experience with uranium has spanned more than 200 years. In the early part of the 20th century, uranium was used therapeutically as a treatment for diabetes, and persons so treated were administered relatively large amounts of uranium by mouth. Tens of thousands of persons have worked in the uranium industry over the past several decades and have been followed up and studied extensively, as have populations in Canada and elsewhere who have high levels of uranium in their drinking water. The types of illness apparently suffered by those exposed to depleted uranium from weapons have never been observed in these groups. This is not surprising as the radiation dose from uranium is far overshadowed by its potential chemical toxicity, and intakes of uranium of sufficient magnitude to produce chemotoxic effects are unlikely in and of themselves. That notwithstanding, any such effects from ingestion or inhalation of uranium would likely manifest themselves first in the form of minor effects associated with the kidneys. That military personnel and others who may have had contact with depleted uranium from munitions are suffering from various illnesses is not in dispute. That their illnesses are attributable to their exposure to uranium is very, very unlikely. A truly enormous body of scientific data shows that it is virtually impossible for uranium to be the cause of their illnesses.

Health physicists are deeply concerned with the public health and welfare and, as experts in radiation and its effects on people and the environment, are quite aware that something other than exposure to uranium is the cause of the illnesses suffered by those who have had contact with depleted uranium from munitions. If we are to offer any measure of relief or solace to suffering people, and to gain some important additional knowledge in the process, we should not squander our valuable and limited energies, resources and time, traveling down a road that has already been well traveled and which has already shown us that uranium, either by itself or in combination with other materials, is almost certainly not the culprit. Rather we should put politics and political correctness, personal agendas, media coverage, and posturing aside and instead focus on scientifically determining what is in fact the cause of these illnesses. This would provide a true benefit to mankind; pointing accusing fingers at depleted uranium in the face of scientific evidence to the contrary is clearly wrong and counterproductive.

Ronald L. Kathren Professor Emeritus Washington State University Past President, Health Physics Society Past President, American Academy of Health Physics

There are several articles at:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3912/is_200403/ai_n9397845

Another:

http://www.pdhealth.mil/downloads/Chem-Rad-DU.pdf

Conclusions

Despite nearly 50 years of accrued information on the health effects of natural uranium, concern still exists regarding its potential hazard as a radiotoxicant.13.26 Reports linking DU to the Gulf War syndrome and leukemia in Balkans peacekeeping forces have been widely disseminated in the lay press. Although in vitro and rodent data suggest the potential for uraniuminduced carcinogenesis, cohort studies assessing the health effects of natural and DU have failed to validate these findings in humans.20,24.30.33-36 Recent reports have explicitly stated the lack of an association between DU and malignancy.8-11 Even the Royal Society report, which suggested a small link between DU, stated that "except in extreme circumstances any extra risks of developing fatal cancers as a result of radiation from internal exposure to DU arising from battlefield conditions are likely to be so small that they would not be detectable above the general risk of dying from cancer over a normal lifetime."12 Whereas much of the fear surrounding DU has focused upon its radiation properties, its principal toxicological effects stem from its properties as a heavy metal.8.11 Studies with natural uranium have demonstrated dose-dependent nephrotoxicity.29 However, both animal studies and a continuing cohort study performed by the U.S. Army Department of Veterans Affairs has documented normal renal function despite markedly elevated urinary uranium excretion.24.30.33 Environmental sampling of the Balkans, where more than 10 tons of DU was employed during the military conflict, has demonstrated no evidence of residual contamination in soil. water, or milk.18.54 As such, although continued surveillance of exposed cohorts and environments (particularly water sources) is recommended, current data would support the position of the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute that "DU is neither a radiological nor chemical threat."6

From the Australasian Radiation Protection Society:

http://www.arps.org.au/DU.htm

From:

http://www.cpeo.org/lists/military/2001/msg00029.html

From: Susan Gawarecki Date: 11 Jan 2001 18:39:21 -0000 Reply: cpeo-military Subject: [CPEO-MEF] Known properties and health impacts of DU

There have been a number of postings to the CPEO list regarding depleted uranium ammuntion and the potential environmental and health side effects. Below are two messages regarding known properties and health impacts of DU. These were posted on January 10 to the RadSafe list, which is a forum for radiation safety professionals. References and contacts of the authors are given.

--Susan Gawarecki

Message 1:

There are several reports in the news about the implied toxicity of depleted uranium used for projectiles and shielding material in modern warfare. It has been suggested to be a potent carcinogen and leukemia inducer.

The toxicity of uranium has been under study for at least 50 years including life span studies in small animals. Depleted uranium is only very weakly radioactive, and virtually all of the observed or expected effects are from nephrotoxicity associated with deposition in the kidney tubules and glomeruli damage at high doses. The radiation doses from depleted uranium (specific activity only 15 Bq/mg)(U-238 has a 4.5 billion year half life)are very small compared to potential toxic effects from uranium ions in the body (primarily damage to kidney tubules). The main route of potentially hazardous exposure is inhalation since gastrointestinal uptake is very small (<1/10,000).

Consider, for example the deposition of a respirable particle of depleted uranium dioxide in the human lung. If that particle is approximately spherical and has a diameter of 1 micrometer (aerodynamic diameter about 3 micrometer), it will emit an average of only one alpha particle every 100 days. Meanwhile the cells of the lung are being irradiated in a milieu of even more energetic alpha particles from natural radon and its decay products that are present in all the air on the surface of the earth. The total radiation dose to the lung from even relatively high exposures to airborne depleted uranium particles is not remarkable. The TLV is 0.2 mg/cubic-meter based on chemical toxicity.

After inhalation, uranium will be slowly mobilized and enter the systemic circulation. The uranyl ion is the form of mobile uranium within the body. It deposits at bone surfaces and remains in the bone matrix with a half time of up to one year. It is slowly cleared to the blood and excreted via the kidneys. While in the bone, alpha radiation is emitted, but with very low intensity since depleted uranium is not very radioactive. The range of alpha radiation in the bone is about 30 micrometer and the radiation is very diffuse, so the bone marrow is not effectively irradiated by uranium in the bone. Radiation induction of leukemia requires effective high dose-rate irradiation of the bone marrow. There is no known or expected leukemia risk associated with small amounts of U-238 in the bone because the marrow is not efficiently irradiated. [The same is true for much more highly radioactive radium-226 and plutonium-239.]

As to its "heavy Metal" toxicity, the closest analogy is lead. However, metallic lead has considerably higher toxicity than metallic uranium. Compounds of lead are much more hazardous than compounds of uranium since uranium tends to form relatively insoluble compounds which are not readily absorbed into the body. Also, lead within the body affects the nervous system and several biochemical processes, while the uranyl ion does not readily interfere with any major biochemical process except for depositing in the tubules of kidney where damage occurs if excess deposition occurs. Glomeruli damage has been reported at high doses as well. The kidney damage is dosage dependent and somewhat reversible. Lead bullets are probably more dangerous than uranium bullets.

References: "Handbook of the Toxicology of Metals", Friberg et al.(1990), "Uranium, Plutonium, Transplutonium Elements", Hodge et al. (1973), "A five year inhalation study with natural uranium dioxide", HEALTH PHYS 25, 230-258 (1973), "Depleted Uranium In The Gulf": http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du_ii

********************************************** Prof. Otto G. Raabe, Ph.D., CHP Institute of Toxicology & Environmental Health (Street Address: Bldg. 3792, Old Davis Road) University of California, Davis, CA 95616 E-Mail: ograabe@ucdavis.edu Phone: (530) 752-7754 FAX: (530) 758-6140 *********************************************** END Message 1

-----

Message 2:

A hot question now in Europe is depleted uranium in Kosowo. I prepared a text on this subject for the Polish government. ... _____________ Zbigniew Jaworowski Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection ul. Konwaliowa 7, 03-194 Warszawa, Poland voice: (48-22)717-6250; fax: 717-5324; e-mail: jaworo@clor.waw.pl [Dr. Jaworowski is the retired Head of the Central Lab, and member and former chairman of UNSCEAR.] -------------------------------------

MEDICAL EFFECTS OF DEPLETED URANIUM IN KOSOVO Zbigniew Jaworowski Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland

Between March and June 1999 about 3000 to 30 000 35 mm - caliber rounds, fitted with depleted-uranium, were fired over Kosovo and to a lesser extent over Serbia, mainly by American A-10 assault aircraft. The core of each round contained about 0.80 kg of almost pure uranium-238, from which its 14 radioactive daughters and uranium-235 were separated. This depleted uranium is much less radioactive than natural uranium normally present in the soil and rock, where it has since time immemorial been in equilibrium with radioactive isotopes of radium, radon, thorium, protoactine, polonium, lead and bismuth. During its decay it emits energetic alpha particles (4.26 MeV) and very weak beta (0.01 MeV) and gamma (0.001 MeV) radiation. However, its immediate short lived daughters emit a more energetic beta (2.29 MeV) and gamma (1.00 MeV) radiation. Alpha particles penetrate to a rather short distance in the air and in human tissues.

The total mass of depleted uranium dispersed over Kosovo ranged between 2.5 and 25 tons. The radioactivity of one round was about 10 megabecquerels (MBq). Assuming that 30 000 rounds were fired, one can easily calculate that a total activity of about 300 000 MBq of uranium-238 activity was dispersed over the environment of Kosovo. In a 1 cm thick layer of soil in Kosovo (area: 10 887 km2) the radioactivity of natural uranium-238 in equilibrium with its daughters amounts to about 100 000 000 MBq. Thus, a 1-cm thick layer of soil in Kosovo contains about 300 times more natural uranium than that dispersed there by American forces. However, at the target sites, the local concentrations of depleted uranium may be higher than the average concentration of natural uranium in the soil. From these patches of activity depleted uranium may be resuspended into the air, and also enter the food chain. This, however, should not lead to any observable medical consequences.

The weak beta and gamma radiation does not pose any serious radiation protection problems. For example, radiotoxicity of inhaled uranium-238 (in terms of Sv per Bq) is over 1000 times lower than radiotoxicity of cesium-137. Because of these features of depleted uranium, its radiation protection standards are based not on its radioactivity but on its chemical toxicity. Like other heavy metals (lead, cadmium, or mercury) uranium is a toxic agent. Experimental and epidemiological studies, carried out over half a century, suggest that the main adverse effect of uranium-238 is chemical impairment of the renal function. Secondary protection standards for uranium-238 (for example concentration limits in air and food) are based on a limit of 3 micrograms of uranium per gram of kidney.

In epidemiological studies of over 32 000 workers, exposed to uranium between 1943 and 1986 in nuclear installations in the USA and UK, except for renal problems, no other health impairment was observed, which could be related to this metal. Among this worker cohort mortality due to all diseases was lower than in the general population, and mortality due to all cancers and leukemia was also lower.

Among about 150 000 soldiers, who for various periods of time were stationed in Kosowo between March 1999 and the end of 2000, up to now 17 died due to leukemia. This corresponds to about 11 deaths per 100 000 soldiers. The annual leukemia death rate in the United Kingdom is 11 per 100 000. Thus, the rate of soldiers dying due to leukemia appears to agree with European norms.

Some years ago "clusters" of leukemia were found in several countries, in which the morbidity of leukemia was higher (up to ten times) than that in the general population. The first of such clusters was discovered in the village of Seascale, near Sellafield, which is the site of the main nuclear fuel reprocessing plant in the United Kingdom. The excess was reported in a television program in November 1983, and later similar clusters were found in other places in the UK and later in Germany, France, Canada and the USA. At first it was suspected that the cause of clusters are radioactive emissions from nuclear installations. However, it was soon realized that they also appear at other non-nuclear sites where migration of large number of people occurred. In an extensive review of these findings in its 1994 report UNSCEAR concluded that a possible explanation is that these excesses are due to a spread of infection resulting from the mixing of populations from urban and rural areas. One might expect that this phenomenon could also occur among large military formations. But this may not be the case in Kosovo, where the incidence of leukemia fits the European norm rather well. The shortest latency time for leukemia induced by ionizing radiation is two years. As this disease began to appear among the soldiers much earlier, and since no reports on a dramatic increase of renal problems were filed, the cause of leukemia in Kosovo, does not seem to be radiation from depleted uranium, but rather a natural one. This is supported also by the fact that no increase in diseases of kidneys, which are a critical organ for uranium, occurred among the soldiers in Kosovo.

Professor T. Domanski from Poland before few years served as a head of a study group of the Ministry of Health of Kuwait responsible for estimation of health effects depleted-uranium munition in this desert country. He recently reported that according to estimate of this group about 100 000 rounds with depleted uranium were fired over Kuwait during the Gulf War, what corresponds to about 300 tons of uranium dispersed in the environment. Unexploded munition, splinters and military equipment destroyed with uranium munition are stored at depots in the desert. Uranium contamination of the ground, up to a level 10 to 20 times higher than average natural level, was found only to a distance of up to 100 meters from the depots, and no contamination of local vegetation was observed. Professor Domanski reported that until 1998 no increase of leukemia and other cancers was observed in Kuwait, that might be related to depleted uranium.

So, is this just much ado about nothing, or is it merely an expression of a negative feeling towards a new type of ammunition or towards Americans?

From:

http://arc.cs.odu.edu:8080/dp9/getrecord/oai_dc/alsos.wlu.edu/oai:alsos.wlu.edu: 1763

Dublin Core Metadata

Title Toxicity of Depleted Uranium

Creator Priest, N. D.

Subject Chemistry

Subject Medical/Biological Effects of Radiation

Description This article examines the chemical and radiological effects of depleted uranium (DU) on human health. N. D. Priest asserts that depleted uranium, U-235, poses a negligible health risk to those exposed to it and that only in situations in which individuals receive large inhaled or ingested doses of it do chances exist for health complications. He cites medical studies that indicate that the risks posed by DU, under realistic estimations of exposure levels, are insignificant. Priest also points to supporting evidence provided by 22 American Gulf War veterans who have DU shrapnel present in their bodies and have shown no ill effects. He dismisses the claims by servicemen who were exposed to DU in the former Yugoslavia that they are suffering from medical complications caused by DU radiation exposure; he argues that DU radiation levels are so low that complications would not arise for several decades in those veterans. The issue of the health hazards associated with depleted uranium is highly controversial; this article represents one side of the controversy.

Publisher The Lancet

Date 27 January 2001

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   14:09:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#59. To: Kyle (#33)

I've never read anything from the administration on this subject.

I don't believe you. It is very clear from your many posts on LP, and your posts here, that you have read plenty of propaganda, talking points, etc., from your administration. So there is no reason to suppose that you did not read about this subject.

What I do believe is: the persistent reports of illness among Gulf War I veterans, and birth defects among their offspring. Your telling us that depleted uranium is "less toxic than lead" (which is pretty toxic) is a weak, limp-wristed argument. But then, you administration shills are always doing weak, limp-wristed things.

You have never been convincing, in any of your many posts on LP, nor in your posts here, because your drive to defend your administration, above all else, makes your bias glaringly obvious. If you are receiving any compensation of any kind (monetary or otherwise, including inward feelings of self-satisfaction), you are getting this reward for free--because your strenuous defenses of Bush & Co. are completely ineffectual. One might even speculate that you do Bush more harm than good, by being so obvious a shill.

And your continued overblown support of this mal-administration makes you, in my opinion, as bloody-handed as is the administration itself. The blood of every American and Iraqi and Afghan needlessly killed in Bush's fraudulent war is on your hands. May you pay for it for all eternity, murderer.

h-a-l-f-w-i-t-t  posted on  2005-04-28   14:10:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#60. To: tom007 (#0)

One wonders why this was done intially.

Could it have been a relatively easy way to utilise the vast amounts of nuclear material left over from the frantic pace of nuclear weapons building in the ColdWar.

At least they're going to be looking for an alternative.

swarthyguy  posted on  2005-04-28   14:12:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#61. To: Zipporah (#48)

You havent addressed Dr. Rokke's position on DU nor why the UN called for a ban:

Who is Dr. Rokke? I submit that they are either looney or have a political axe to grind, as they are running counter to the good science that has been donr for half a century.

The UN's position is obvious - pure, unadulterated pandering to anti-US elements and crazed conspiracy theorists- happens ALL the time.

As for the rest of your post - it's BS (consider the sources) or has already been dealt w/ in my other posts.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   14:14:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#62. To: SKYDRIFTER (#49)

Who are you to question an MD? I thought you lived & breathed for authority?

Read my other posts - I quote tons of experts who say the diameteric opposite. Why do you insist that the one looney is correct and ther vasdt majority are wrong? I know, it's the CONSPIRACY.

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


#63. To: crack monkey, christine (#50)

i don't know what's going on either, but i can guess. it's spelled s-h-i-l-l.

Looking at the support Kyle offers for his arguments, my guess is that Kyle's primary purpose here is to punish people who dare voice opinions that diverge from the RNC party line.

Read my other posts. My bias is toward facts and logic. Your attempt to discredit me by labeling me is lame. Deal w/ the substance or remain quite.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   14:18:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#64. To: crack monkey, SKYDRIFTER (#52)

This is true. I was told in chemestry class that all heavy metals are poisonous in a similar manner. Mercury, lead, etc. The explanation I heard is that we have no good mechanism for cleaning them from our system and that they destroy emzines necessary for life. Constant low level exposure to anything from that region of the periodic table builds up in our systems and is eventually toxic.

In spite of your memory of chemistry class, the truth is in my posts. Most is excreted rather quickly and studies have found that there is no evidence of significant hazard.

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


#65. To: Red Jones (#47)

They both agreed that about 85% of the radioactivity remains in the DU after the rest is extracted.

Taken in the context of a substance, both of who's isotopes have half lives measured in billions of years, it's next to nothing.

And, the substance is an Alpha emitter. A sheet of paper stops Alpha radiation because an Alpha "ray" is actually a helium nucleus.

Where DU simulation cores are used in testing at Livermore's site 300, the main issue is it's heavy metal toxicity from a materials management standpoint...

Axenolith  posted on  2005-04-28   14:23:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#66. To: SKYDRIFTER (#53)

You dumb-shit! U-238 is a variant of U-235 - and radioactive! What does the term "Half-life" tell you about U-238? You can't even comprehend what you write!

You may as well argue that U-239 isn't radioactive! Jesus jumpin'-up-Christ. How stupid do you want to portray yourself as?

I keep telling you how freakin' stupid you are, but you just won't listen!

You obviously no nothing about radioactivity. U238 is not a 'variant' of U235. They are separate isotopes with entirely different decay properties. The term 'half-life' means the time for half of the material to decay. the FACT that the HL of U238 is 4.5 billion years means that it emits radiation at VERY low levels!

You are calling me stupid while displaying your ignorance. Priceless.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   14:23:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#67. To: Kyle (#61)

I submit that they are either looney or have a political axe to grind, as they are running counter to the good science that has been donr for half a century.

You profess to be an expert on DU and don't know who Dr. Rokke is?? I submit that your posts are BS since you claim to be such an expert and have no knowledge of Dr. Rokke.

Zipporah  posted on  2005-04-28   14:25:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#68. To: SKYDRIFTER (#53)

The longer a half-life a substance has, the more stable and less radioactive it is.

Axenolith  posted on  2005-04-28   14:25:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#69. To: h-a-l-f-w-i-t-t (#59)

I've never read anything from the administration on this subject.

I don't believe you. It is very clear from your many posts on LP, and your posts here, that you have read plenty of propaganda, talking points, etc., from your administration.

Don't call me a liar, asshole.

I have the views I have for two reasons:

1) I'm educated.

2) I'm rational.

If you are receiving any compensation of any kind...

This is inevitable. Everytime I post the truth and it conflicts with the conspiracy theorist rantings on these boards, I am immediately labeled as a paid shill. That is a lame comeback - You can't support your position so you label me as part of the 'CONSPIRACY'.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   14:32:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#70. To: Kyle (#63)

Hi Kyle..

Here's Page Three of the DU MSDS Sheet. MSDS Sheet

Isn't the FIOA wonderful? The Navy sent this in response.

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

Jhoffa_  posted on  2005-04-28   14:34:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#71. To: Zipporah (#67)

You profess to be an expert on DU and don't know who Dr. Rokke is?? I submit that your posts are BS since you claim to be such an expert and has no knowledge of Dr. Rokke.

So let me see if I understand your reasoning. Every thing I've posted from experts worldwide is BS because I don't know who your looney is. Is that your reasoning?

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   14:36:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#72. To: Jhoffa_ (#70)

Here's Page Three of the DU MSDS Sheet. MSDS Sheet

Isn't the FIOA wonderful? The Navy sent this in response.

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

ROTFL!!!!

If that's what you're down to, I guess you are about to concede. I can show you and MSDS on the hazards of air!

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   14:38:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#73. To: Kyle (#71)

    "8. Should DU be handled in powdered form [DU munitions create a fine powder when fired due to their pyrophoric nature] or should a DU penetrator oxidize resulting from a penetrator's involvement in an accident such as a fire, then the intake of DU aerosol or ash via inhalation, ingestion or absorption pesents an internal radiation hazard.

    9. Depending on the solubility of the particular DU compound in body fluids, it may also be toxic, particular to the kidney."

Holy Makral, Kyle.. this stuff sounds dangerous!

Then again, it's probably just those conspiracy kooks over at the US NAVY pulling everyones chain again, eh?

Jhoffa_  posted on  2005-04-28   14:41:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#74. To: Kyle (#69)

Since you are so educated and rational, I know you are going to want to consult this information.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-28   14:41:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#75. To: Kyle (#72)

I can show you and MSDS on the hazards of air!

Okay do it. Or, maybe you are just a liar.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-28   14:42:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#76. To: Kyle (#72)

    If that's what you're down to, I guess you are about to concede.

But, I thought you liked authoritative sources, Kyle?

In an effort to accomidate this, I give you the US Navy themselves, and you choke.

Tsk, Tsk, Kyle.. For shame!

Jhoffa_  posted on  2005-04-28   14:43:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#77. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#75)

I agree with Kyle. Under certain cnditions, AIR may indeed be harmful.

Regardless however, it does nothing to prove DU is not.

If you read the link, they seem to be concerned aith fine particulates. They're a "radiation hazzard" Explosive and may be toxic, especially to the Kidney.

This ain't fucking Nerf balls we're shooting, regardless of Kyles (well intentioned, I'm sure..) arguements to the contrary.

Jhoffa_  posted on  2005-04-28   14:45:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#78. To: Kyle (#71)

Every thing I've posted from experts worldwide is BS because I don't know who your looney is. Is that your reasoning?

Dr. Doug Rokke was a U.S. Army health physicist assigned to 12th Preventive Medicine AM theater (Gulf War) and was with University of Illinois Physics Department and was "sent to the Gulf to ensure that all military and civilian personnel were prepared for the anticipated nuclear, biological, chemical, and environmental exposures. and was assigned to two equally vital special operations teams: Bauer's Raiders and the Depleted Uranium Assessment team."..so I suppose if he's loony then the military are the loons since they sent him there .. thus you are loony since you support the military and their use of DU.

Zipporah  posted on  2005-04-28   14:56:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#79. To: Jhoffa_ (#77)

An intact DU shell is not that big of a hazard - assuming the manufacturer uses ONLY depleted uranium. Unfortunately, studies have proven that the shells often have excessive concentrations of non-depleted uranium as well as other radioactive isotopes.

But the real issue, as you point out, is that a high percentage of the DU penetrator is gasified on impact. It becomes an aerosol. Consequently, you get high levels of internal contamination.

Kyle knows this. He knows damn well it is dangerous. He just doesn't care. Military be damned, civilians be damned, just so long as he gets to revel in the deaths of muslims.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-28   15:03:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#80. To: Jhoffa_ (#73)

"8. Should DU be handled in powdered form [DU munitions create a fine powder when fired due to their pyrophoric nature] or should a DU penetrator oxidize resulting from a penetrator's involvement in an accident such as a fire, then the intake of DU aerosol or ash via inhalation, ingestion or absorption pesents an internal radiation hazard.

9. Depending on the solubility of the particular DU compound in body fluids, it may also be toxic, particular to the kidney."

Already addressed in previous posts. Hazards are minimal.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   15:04:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#81. To: Kyle (#80)

Hazards are minimal.

Nobody is as fucking stupid as you present yourself.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-28   15:09:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#82. To: Kyle (#80)

From the loonies at the Health Physics Radiation Safety Journal

DEPLETED URANIUM DUST FROM FIRED MUNITIONS: PHYSICAL, CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL PROPERTIES.

Health Physics. 87(1):57-67, July 2004.
Mitchel, R. E. J. *; Sunder, S.

Abstract: This paper reports physical, chemical and biological analyses of samples of dust resulting from munitions containing depleted uranium (DU) that had been live-fired and had impacted an armored target. Mass spectroscopic analysis indicated that the average atom% of 235U was 0.198 +/- 0.10, consistent with depleted uranium. Other major elements present were iron, aluminum, and silicon. About 47% of the total mass was particles with diameters <300 [mu]m, of which about 14% was <10 [mu]m. X-ray diffraction analysis indicated that the uranium was present in the sample as uranium oxides-mainly U3O7 (47%), U3O8 (44%) and UO2 (9%). Depleted uranium dust, instilled into the lungs or implanted into the muscle of rats, contained a rapidly soluble uranium component and a more slowly soluble uranium component. The fraction that underwent dissolution in 7 d declined exponentially with increasing initial burden. At the lower lung burdens tested (<15 [mu]g DU dust/lung) about 14% of the uranium appeared in urine within 7 d. At the higher lung burdens tested (~80-200 [mu]g DU dust/lung) about 5% of the DU appeared in urine within 7 d. In both cases about 50% of that total appeared in urine within the first day. DU implanted in muscle similarly showed that about half of the total excreted within 7 d appeared in the first day. At the lower muscle burdens tested (<15 [mu]g DU dust/injection site) about 9% was solubilized within 7 d. At muscle burdens >35 [mu]g DU dust/injection site about 2% appeared in urine within 7 d. Natural uranium (NU) ore dust was instilled into rat lungs for comparison. The fraction dissolving in lung showed a pattern of exponential decline with increasing initial burden similar to DU. However, the decline was less steep, with about 14% appearing in urine for lung burdens up to about 200 [mu]g NU dust/lung and 5% at lung burdens >1,100 [mu]g NU dust/lung. NU also showed both a fast and a more slowly dissolving component. At the higher lung burdens of both DU and NU that showed lowered urine excretion rates, histological evidence of kidney damage was seen. Kidney damage was not seen with the muscle burdens tested. DU dust produced kidney damage at lower lung burdens and lower urine uranium levels than NU dust, suggesting that other toxic metals in DU dust may contribute to the damage.

(C)2004Health Physics Society

Click here for fulltext.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-28   15:16:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#83. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#81)

Hazards are minimal.

Nobody is as fucking stupid as you present yourself.

Apparently you are too fucking stupid to read what I've posted.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   15:16:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#84. To: Kyle (#83)

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

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-28   15:17:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#85. To: Kyle (#80)

    Already addressed in previous posts. Hazards are minimal.

Kyle.. You're not supposed to breathe this stuff. The dust can explode and it is toxic to your kidneys.

The instructions are clear: You have to be surveyed, your clothing trashed and be completely washed clean.

You are not supposed to: Eat, Drink, Smoke, Apply cosmetics (IOW do ANYTHING that could, potentially allow you to injest this stuff) prior to being decontaminated.

Given this, I must ask.. Are you aware what the word "hazzard" means?

Jhoffa_  posted on  2005-04-28   15:19:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#86. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#82)

From the loonies at the Health Physics Radiation Safety Journal

That was the abstract. Here is the conclusion (already posted once, but you don't read):

That military personnel and others who may have had contact with depleted uranium from munitions are suffering from various illnesses is not in dispute. That their illnesses are attributable to their exposure to uranium is very, very unlikely. A truly enormous body of scientific data shows that it is virtually impossible for uranium to be the cause of their illnesses.

Health physicists are deeply concerned with the public health and welfare and, as experts in radiation and its effects on people and the environment, are quite aware that something other than exposure to uranium is the cause of the illnesses suffered by those who have had contact with depleted uranium from munitions. If we are to offer any measure of relief or solace to suffering people, and to gain some important additional knowledge in the process, we should not squander our valuable and limited energies, resources and time, traveling down a road that has already been well traveled and which has already shown us that uranium, either by itself or in combination with other materials, is almost certainly not the culprit. Rather we should put politics and political correctness, personal agendas, media coverage, and posturing aside and instead focus on scientifically determining what is in fact the cause of these illnesses. This would provide a true benefit to mankind; pointing accusing fingers at depleted uranium in the face of scientific evidence to the contrary is clearly wrong and counterproductive.

Ronald L. Kathren Professor Emeritus Washington State University Past President, Health Physics Society Past President, American Academy of Health Physics

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   15:19:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#87. To: Kyle (#86)

Kyle, you might want to slow down, take a breath and pull your head out of your arse. Ronald Kathren is not saying that DU is safe. What he is saying is that some of the maladies attributed to "Gulf War Syndrome" are not directly caused by depleted uranium.

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

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-28   15:25:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#88. To: Kyle (#86)

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

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-28   15:26:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#89. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#84)

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

He DID promise this, didn't he?

Perhaps he's full of molarkey?

Jhoffa_  posted on  2005-04-28   15:30:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#90. To: Kyle (#86)

Maybe you'd like to try this one?

Compendium of Uranium

and Depleted Uranium Research

1942 to 2004


Table of Contents

Index of Additions since original publication

Preface

Introduction

I. Cellular and Molecular Response to Uranium and Depleted Uranium Exposure

II. Organ and Organism Response to Uranium and Depleted Uranium Exposure (Including Reproductive Effects)

III. The Effects of Low Level Ionizing Radiation Exposure on Living Tissue, Cells, Chromosomes and DNA

IV. Epidemiological and Population Studies I: Exposure to Uranium, Depleted Uranium and Low Level Ionizing Radiation

V..... Epidemiological and Population Studies II: Gulf War Veterans and Gulf War Syndrome

VI.... Epidemiological and Population Studies III: Uranium Miners and Mill Workers

VII... Uranium, Depleted Uranium and the Environment

VIII.. Testing and Analysis Procedures for Uranium and Depleted Uranium

IX.... Civil and Military Uses of Depleted Uranium

X. .. Biological and Environmental Remediation Techniques for DU Contamination

XI. Biochemical Studies - DNA and Protein Binding

Appendices

A. Author Index

B...... Journal Index

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-28   15:37:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


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

Maybe you'd like to try this one?

Compendium of Uranium and Depleted Uranium Research

1942 to 2004

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

International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons (ICBUW)

Do you think they have an axe to grind?

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


#94. To: Kyle (#91)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


#95. To: Kyle (#93)

You see, the link you gave required a password.

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

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


#96. To: Kyle (#92)

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

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

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


#97. To: Jhoffa_ (#89)

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

He DID promise this, didn't he?

Perhaps he's full of molarkey?

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

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

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


#98. To: Kyle (#97)

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

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


#99. To: Kyle (#97)

    Hazard Identification: Not Hazardous..

    No effect on living tissue.

Thanks for the sheet, Kyle.

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

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


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

You see, the link you gave required a password.

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

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

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

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


#101. To: Kyle (#93)

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

Gulf War Syndrome/Depleted Uranium

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

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


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

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

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

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


#103. To: christine (#101)

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


#107. To: Kyle (#102)

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

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

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

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

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

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


#108. To: Kyle (#100)

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

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

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

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


#109. To: Kyle (#105)

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

Well, you're half right.

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

This arguement isn't lost by a long shot.

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


#110. To: Kyle (#106)

Raving lunatic rantings.

U.S. Government numbers, Asshole.

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


#111. To: Kyle (#102)

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

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

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


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

Bad link? Hardly.

Try it buttmunch. It asks for a password.

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

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

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

You're not a very convincing liar.

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

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

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

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

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


#113. To: Kyle (#103)

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

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

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


#114. To: Jhoffa_ (#70)

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

Dust of nearly anything is explosive.

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


#115. To: Jhoffa_ (#109)

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

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

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


#116. To: Kyle (#105)

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


#118. To: Kyle (#112)

Try it buttmunch. It asks for a password.

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

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


#119. To: Kyle (#112)

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

Then quit lying.

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

Then quit lying.

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

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


#122. To: Kyle (#115)

I am.

One of his excerpts is from the Ministry of Defence.

Cool, eh?

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

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

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


#123. To: Kyle (#103)

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

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


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

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

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

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


#125. To: Kyle (#112)

I never said it wasn't hazardous at all.

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

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

Hazards are minimal.

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


#126. To: christine (#123)

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

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

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


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

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

Hazards are minimal.

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

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


#128. To: Kyle (#126)

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

The Atlanta Journal and Constitution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That rankles some veterans' advocates.

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

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

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

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


#129. To: Kyle (#127)

MoD knew of depleted uranium risks four years ago.

The Daily Mail (London, England)

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

Byline: DUNCAN GARDHAM;MICHAEL CLARKE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


#130. To: Kyle (#117)

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

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

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

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

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


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

Maybe Kyle is a UN shill:

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

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


#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  


#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  


#199. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#178)

As I said before, and I will say again, DU is LESS dangerous then lead...

I would MUCH rather be shooting DU out of the barrel of a gun then lead, the powder and residue of lead is MUCH more dangerous when breathed in or touched then DU will EVER be.

DU is a heavy metal, of course there is a danger, but the danger is less then lead.

If you are going to freak out about DU, then you had better freak out about lead as well.

Aric2000  posted on  2005-04-28   20:23:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#200. To: Aric2000 (#199)

Is someone shooting lead through your tent? That's crazy talk!

Dakmar  posted on  2005-04-28   20:27:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#201. To: Dakmar (#200)

crazy talk!

I personally think we're witnessing a propaganda campaign of powerful proportions.

Red Jones  posted on  2005-04-28   20:29:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#202. To: Red Jones (#201)

I personally think we're witnessing a propaganda campaign of powerful proportions.

Why, are you convinced that Kyle/Aric are right?

Dakmar  posted on  2005-04-28   20:31:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#203. To: Dakmar (#200)

What do you mean? Crazy talk?

DU is not readily taken in by the body, it will pass out of the body if breathed, in swallowed etc, with little if ANY ill effects, BUT the same amount of lead will do FAR more serious damage, and lead vaporizes FAR more then DU does when it impacts.

The physiological danger from lead is FAR and away more then any physiological damage that might occur with DU.

Why is that crazy?, I have NO idea, because unlike you guys and your freaking out about DU, I have actually worked with the munitions, and M-1's etc, and am fully cognizant of any and all dangers of DU, and I am telling you that lead is FAR more dangerous then DU will EVER be...

And again, OF course there is a danger, it is a heavy metal, but this whole thread has blown it way out of proportion to the actual danger.

Aric2000  posted on  2005-04-28   20:34:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#204. To: Dakmar (#202)

are you convinced that Kyle/Aric are right?

no, the opposite.

I think some who are arguing with Kyle/bush-bots are doing so in good faith. they've fallen victim to horrible and evil propaganda.

Red Jones  posted on  2005-04-28   20:35:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#205. To: Aric2000 (#203)

DU is not readily taken in by the body, it will pass out of the body if breathed, in swallowed etc, with little if ANY ill effects, BUT the same amount of lead will do FAR more serious damage, and lead vaporizes FAR more then DU does when it impacts.

The physiological danger from lead is FAR and away more then any physiological damage that might occur with DU.

Why is that crazy?, I have NO idea, because unlike you guys and your freaking out about DU,

freaking out.....me?

Dakmar  posted on  2005-04-28   20:36:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#206. To: Red Jones (#201)

I personally think we're witnessing a propaganda campaign of powerful proportions.

If true, they are overpaid.

It only takes 10 minutes to read and understand the facts from a reputable source.
I've watched coworkers and family read and understand immediately. People of differing ages, politics and religions.

The denials from the propaganda campaign will only buy the Regime a little more time.

robin  posted on  2005-04-28   20:38:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#207. To: Aric2000 (#199)

DU is LESS dangerous then lead

But how do you know this? It's only been used since the 1970s. It sometimes takes that long for the effects to manefest. Not that many people have been exposed so there is not a good sample to study. Detailed studies of the problem have just started in the past few years. This is no time at all for a problem such as this. How long did it take to determine that cigarettes were dangerous?

crack monkey  posted on  2005-04-28   20:39:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#208. To: Aric2000 (#203)

DU is not readily taken in by the body, it will pass out of the body if breathed, in swallowed etc, with little if ANY ill effects ...

I don't beleive this. Are you suggesting that people have ingested measured amounts of DU and the levels in the body have been measured?

If you're talking about some quicky studies using approximated data, the results arn't necssarily accurate. We had a client who pumped out these studies for the bio work in San Antonio. The results provide data to publications like Janes to support the status quo, but they don't constitute serious research.

crack monkey  posted on  2005-04-28   20:45:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#209. To: crack monkey (#208)

OK, so, are you worried about lead then as well?

Does this mean that you also support the military taking lead out of their bullets as well?

If not, because it would be stupid, then your freaking out about DU is just as stupid.

We have had DU for over 50 years, experimented with it, worked with it, etc.

MANY experiments have been done on it.

It is DENSER then lead, therefore it is BETTER for the military.

I will repeat it again, and again, and again, DU is SAFER then lead, because it is NOT readily absorbed into the body as lead is.

Aric2000  posted on  2005-04-28   21:15:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#210. To: Aric2000 (#199)

DU is a heavy metal, of course there is a danger, but the danger is less then lead.

If you are going to freak out about DU, then you had better freak out about lead as well.

I haven't seen any studies showing our troops heavily contaminated with lead while there is ample evidence that they are loaded up with internal DU contamination at levels far beyond what the "studies" projected was possible.

Nevertheless, I'm much less worried about DU than I am another substance that we are now commonly using - namely NON-Depleted Uranium in the bunker buster bombs.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-28   21:20:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#211. To: crack monkey (#207)

But how do you know this? It's only been used since the 1970s. It sometimes takes that long for the effects to manefest. Not that many people have been exposed so there is not a good sample to study. Detailed studies of the problem have just started in the past few years. This is no time at all for a problem such as this. How long did it take to determine that cigarettes were dangerous?

And the places where we've used it heavily are still heavily laden with political baggage that prevents meaningful study of the effect on the local populations.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-28   21:25:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#212. To: Aric2000 (#209)

    Does this mean that you also support the military taking lead out of their bullets as well?

    If not, because it would be stupid, then your freaking out about DU is just as stupid.

Hey, assface.. Just because Lead is dangerous doesn't mean Du isn't or that our servicemen don't require protection from either.

Jhoffa_  posted on  2005-04-28   21:26:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#213. To: Aric2000 (#209)

My gosh you're a fucking moron..

Which would you prefer I burn you to death with? Gasoline or alcohol?

Both are flammable, but the BUT's differ.

God you're a dope.. Please go crawl back between your mothers legs and spare us the rest of your "arguement"

Jhoffa_  posted on  2005-04-28   21:28:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#214. To: Aric2000 (#209)

I will repeat it again, and again, and again, DU is SAFER then lead, because it is NOT readily absorbed into the body as lead is.

That's very interesting. I'm sure the health physics techs at the plant will be very interested in your super scientific expose - considering that they are still wearing lead aprons to shield them from the effects of uranium. Doh!

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-28   21:29:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#215. To: Jhoffa_ (#213)

Which would you prefer I burn you to death with? Gasoline or alcohol?

Next he'll be telling us that DU is safe because bullet primers have mercury in them and it is bad for you.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-28   21:32:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#216. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#211)

And the places where we've used it heavily are still heavily laden with political baggage that prevents meaningful study of the effect on the local populations.

Also, as I said above, it was originally used as a long range tank killer round. As you probably know, it's a long needle looking thing inside a sabot that falls off after leaving the barrel. The sabot increases the diameter so that it fits in the gun barrel. After leaving the barrel, the very heavy needle travels better through the air. Hence longer range and more punch for killing tanks.

I don't see why we even need it in Iraq. We're not having long range tank battles with heavy Russian tanks there. I would feel different if there was some critical need for the round - but this doesn't seem to be the case.

crack monkey  posted on  2005-04-28   21:32:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#217. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#215)

It's statistically safer to shoot yourself in the face with a a .22 than a shotgun slug.

Therefore, it is safe to shoot yourself in the face with a .22

Jhoffa_  posted on  2005-04-28   21:34:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#218. To: Jhoffa_ (#217)

It's statistically safer to shoot yourself in the face with a a .22 than a shotgun slug.

Therefore, it is safe to shoot yourself in the face with a .22

Are you becoming a bot? You're starting to sound like Kyle.

crack monkey  posted on  2005-04-28   21:36:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#219. To: crack monkey (#218)

But, I thought it was a good arguement.. ?

I'm higher than shit on cold medicine.. Maybe that's why?

Jhoffa_  posted on  2005-04-28   21:37:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#220. To: Aric2000 (#197)

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....

And how and why do you know so much about lead? Thanks in advance.

tom007  posted on  2005-04-28   21:38:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#221. To: Aric2000, Kyle (#209)

We have had DU for over 50 years, experimented with it, worked with it, etc.

Yet you and/or Kyle bitch that an anti-DU group might be biased? You funny goon, make me laugh :)

Dakmar  posted on  2005-04-28   21:38:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#222. To: Jhoffa_ (#219)

I'm higher than shit on cold medicine.. Maybe that's why?

It is possible to reach a version of bot consciousness by selectively shutting down certain brain functions with drugs. This is probably what you are experiencing.

True bot consciousness however requires an active effort to mislead those around you. Simply shutting down brain functions doesn't produce the requisite dishonesty needed for true bot consciousness.

crack monkey  posted on  2005-04-28   21:41:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#223. To: Aric2000 (#199)

I would MUCH rather be shooting DU out of the barrel of a gun then lead, the powder and residue of lead is MUCH more dangerous when breathed in or touched then DU will EVER be.

Hummm. Quite a bold statement. You must know alot about lead. And DU. I qould guess you work in the field, or wrote a dissertaion on these arcane subjects?

Quite impressive.

"Lead is MUCH more dangerous when...."

tom007  posted on  2005-04-28   21:41:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#224. To: Dakmar (#221)

We have had DU for over 50 years, experimented with it, worked with it, etc.

robin  posted on  2005-04-28   21:42:21 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#225. To: Jhoffa_ (#217)

Therefore, it is safe to shoot yourself in the face with a .22

I'll have to try that some time, thanks....

Dakmar  posted on  2005-04-28   21:42:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#226. To: crack monkey (#222)

    True bot consciousness however requires an active effort to mislead those around you. Simply shutting down brain functions doesn't produce the requisite dishonesty needed for true bot consciousness.

Okay, okay.. how's this?

"Atomized DU is wonderful, because Lead is bad.. "

Catchy, eh?

Jhoffa_  posted on  2005-04-28   21:43:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#227. To: robin (#224)

That's creepy, what's the deal?

Dakmar  posted on  2005-04-28   21:43:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#228. To: Dakmar (#225)

    I'll have to try that some time, thanks....

Your humble servant..

:)

Jhoffa_  posted on  2005-04-28   21:44:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#229. To: Dakmar (#227)

http://kungfugrip.adventureteam.com/radiation_detection.jpg

That's all Kyle and Aric know about DU, from kids toys. And, it never harmed them.

robin  posted on  2005-04-28   21:45:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#230. To: Dakmar (#227)

I think it's the new "Pit Bull, Gannon" action Figure.. With optional, articulated, jackoff action..

(Some assembly required, offer not valid in all states.. Check your local listings. No step!)

Jhoffa_  posted on  2005-04-28   21:46:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#231. To: Aric2000 (#209)

OK, so, are you worried about lead then as well?

We have had DU for over 50 years, experimented with it, worked with it, etc.

No, lead has been around in bullets for hundreds of years. Hundreds of thousands of people have been exposed in every way shape and form. The effects are well understood.

DU has been around in useable quantities for about thirty years and only used on a few rare occasions, e.g., the Gulf war, a few exercises, and our current situation. The sample size is tiny and the time for study is non-existent.

Furthermore, it's a type of round that really isn't needed in Iraq. We're fighting insurgents similar to the Viet Cong. They don't have armor. Hence, the troops are being endangered for an armor piercing round that isn't even needed.

crack monkey  posted on  2005-04-28   21:48:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#232. To: robin (#229)

I see, since you can't fight me with evidence, you will try to discredit me with BULLSHIT....

Quite amusing, to say the least.

You guys are CLUELESS about DU and it shows, BIG time.

Bunch of paranoid KOOKS.

DU has Uranium as part of it's name, it MUST be dangerous...

ROFLMAO!!

You ignorant KOOKS are a trip and a half....

Aric2000  posted on  2005-04-28   21:50:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#233. To: Aric2000 (#232)

You seem overstimulated, take a deep breath...

You seem lonely, confused. Are you in need of a friend?

Dakmar  posted on  2005-04-28   21:53:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#234. To: Aric2000 (#232)

    DU has Uranium as part of it's name, it MUST be dangerous...

Who said that?

    ROFLMAO!!

And why are you posting naked, in front of a mirror?

Jhoffa_  posted on  2005-04-28   21:53:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#235. To: Aric2000 (#232)

okay discredit what Dr. Rokke has to say about DU.. rather than revert to two contridictory thoughts which is a sign of thoughtlessness..This is total nonsense..a silly tactic that is a waste of time.

Zipporah  posted on  2005-04-28   21:56:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#236. To: Aric2000 (#232)

You guys are CLUELESS about DU and it shows, BIG time.

Bunch of paranoid KOOKS.

DU has Uranium as part of it's name, it MUST be dangerous...

ROFLMAO!!

You ignorant KOOKS are a trip and a half....

You're losing it.

Get a grip.

crack monkey  posted on  2005-04-28   21:57:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#237. To: crack monkey (#236)

Shut up, I want people for my cult...

Dakmar  posted on  2005-04-28   21:59:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#238. To: Aric2000 (#232)

    DU has Uranium as part of it's name, it MUST be dangerous...

We use it to counter balance commercial airplanes, you raving dumbass. It's all around us.

No one is questioning it's use there.

Get a grip.

Jhoffa_  posted on  2005-04-28   22:00:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#239. To: Dakmar (#237)

Shut up, I want people for my cult...

He's not very good. He forgot to call everyone butt munchers and doo-doo heads.

crack monkey  posted on  2005-04-28   22:00:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#240. To: Dakmar (#237)

Back off.. He's mine.

Jhoffa_  posted on  2005-04-28   22:00:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#241. To: crack monkey (#236)

It's nonsense.. utter nonsense.. BTW have you viewed the film of Dr. Rokke? Very interesting..on DU..rather long but lots of info:

Major Doug Rokke, D.U. expert

Also, this portion is quite interesting:

Part Three: THEY TOLD ME TO LIE: Major Doug Rokke, D.U. expert Maj. Doug Rokke blows the whistle on the Pentagon, exposing the "willful neglect, dereliction of duty and abandonment of the warrior" and crimes "against God and humanity" posed to all life by the use of depleted uranium by the US. 160,000 Gulf War vets are classified permanently disabled; 8000 have died-VA documents.

Zipporah  posted on  2005-04-28   22:02:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#242. To: Jhoffa_ (#240)

Fight you for him, in the alley behind the liquor store

Dakmar  posted on  2005-04-28   22:02:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#243. To: Dakmar (#242)

You always want all the good ones..

:(

How will I ever gain domination over the pizza-delivery/military-industrial complex without loyal, and easily brainwashed, followers?

It's free market at it's best.. Supply and Demand..

So, lower your opening wage and stuff.

Jhoffa_  posted on  2005-04-28   22:07:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#244. To: Jhoffa_ (#243)

How will I ever gain domination over the pizza-delivery/military-industrial complex without loyal, and easily brainwashed, followers?

Tattoos?

Dakmar  posted on  2005-04-28   22:09:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#245. To: Dakmar (#244)

I considered that... but figured it was a Zionist® plot.

Jhoffa_  posted on  2005-04-28   22:11:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#246. To: Dakmar (#237)

I want people for my cult...

I gotta give you credit...That was good thinkin' going for the cultists who are already dosed on the Kool-Aid, that should save you a lot of money in the long run.

Esso  posted on  2005-04-28   22:12:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#247. To: Aric2000 (#232)

I see, since you can't fight me with evidence, you will try to discredit me with BULLSHIT....

Quite amusing, to say the least.

You guys are CLUELESS about DU and it shows, BIG time.

Bunch of paranoid KOOKS.

DU has Uranium as part of it's name, it MUST be dangerous...

ROFLMAO!!

You ignorant KOOKS are a trip and a half....

Aric2000 posted on 2005-04-28 21:50:29 ET Reply Trace Private Reply

Aric, You and others have presented alot of info that I have found interesting. The long half life certainly shows the rate of radiation is low, and w/o much energy. And mainly alpha particles, which are easily blocked by clothes or skin. In the lungs, that maybe a different concern.

And this is where I feel the concerns have always been. The DU round is pyrophoric, I believe. It is not entirely a Kentic Energy weapon, though that aspect is not inconsiderable. From what I understand, it ignites upon the tremendous pressure contact it has with it's target.

The vaporization of the U, combining with the assorted "debris" into something approaching an aresol, is where a real health problem may exist.

As you are aware, debris emitting alpha particles caught in the lungs do, from what I've read, pose a very real health threat. You may be much better off eating 2 grams of DU, than breathing in 0.02 grams and having some amount caught in the delicate lung tissue, and being exposed to the low level radiation for a long period of time.

We will know ten years from now, in any event. It may be that the real culprit of the awful conditions being experienced by the GW1 vets is a toxic brew of insect vectored parasites, alond with the experimental vaccines given the the soldiers, and a bit of DU in the lungs. Stir and let sit in the sun for a few years, and see what developes.

tom007  posted on  2005-04-28   22:49:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#248. To: Aric2000 (#232)

DU has Uranium as part of it's name, it MUST be dangerous...

I worked in a commercial nuclear plant for quite a few years and have no phobic reaction to the thought of radiological substances like uranium. Nevertheless, I know enough about the subject to know that aerosolized DU is nasty shit. No doubt there are plenty of other substances that are contributing to Gulf War Syndrome, but DU is a proven agent in certain maladies that our troops and the civilian populations we've attacked are suffering.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-28   23:00:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#249. To: tom007 (#247)

As you are aware, debris emitting alpha particles caught in the lungs do, from what I've read, pose a very real health threat.

I once read something about smoking and lung cancer that had to do with this. Apparently there are some paritcles in cigarette smoke that are mildly radioactive. These lodge in the lungs and it was suspected they caused the cancer. This would explain some of the random variation that was seen in the link.

crack monkey  posted on  2005-04-28   23:10:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#250. To: crack monkey (#249)

From a distant study I remember, tobacco has low level alpha radiation as well, and it is one of the vectors of cancer of the lungs.

tom007  posted on  2005-04-28   23:14:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#251. To: crack monkey, tom007 (#249)

"It's not tobacco's tar which kills, but the radiation!"

Dakmar  posted on  2005-04-28   23:16:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#252. To: crack monkey (#52)

The explanation I heard is that we have no good mechanism for cleaning them from our system and that they destroy emzines necessary for life.

I shit you not, Crack, beer is an excellent remover of small amounts of heavy metals from the system. Good chelation activity.

Axenolith  posted on  2005-04-28   23:19:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#253. To: Axenolith (#252)

is it the fizzy lifting action that does it?

Dakmar  posted on  2005-04-28   23:21:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#254. To: Dakmar, chriatine, crack monkey, zipporah (#251)

Conservative estimates put the level of radiation absorbed by a pack-and-a-half a day smoker at the equivalent of 300 chest X-rays every year.5 The Office of Radiation, Chemical & Biological Safety at Michigan State University reports that the radiation level for the same smoker was as high as 800 chest X-rays per year.6 Another report argues that a typical nicotine user might be getting the equivalent of almost 22,000 chest X-rays per year.7

US Surgeon General C Everett Koop stated on national television in 1990 that tobacco radiation is probably responsible for 90% of tobacco-related cancer.8 Dr RT Ravenholt, former director of World Health Surveys at the Centers for Disease Control, has stated that "Americans are exposed to far more radiation from tobacco smoke than from any other source."9

OK THAT DOES IT FOR ME- where the heck did I hide that bong.

This reminds me of a true story - I do alot of work for my employees, cause they don't know how to and the cost of a tradesman is SO high.

So one of them has some plumbing problems - well I go diging around the the B/R sink pipes and am feeling for, in the dark, for pipe like things. Well I find one!

And I pull it out, and my employee says "Wow we've been wondering where that has been for YEARS"!!

tom007  posted on  2005-04-28   23:26:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#255. To: Axenolith (#252)

The explanation I heard is that we have no good mechanism for cleaning them from our system and that they destroy emzines necessary for life. I shit you not, Crack, beer is an excellent remover of small amounts of heavy metals from the system. Good chelation activity.

YEAH FOR CHELATION!!

From here on, you are DR.Axenolith!!, MD.

tom007  posted on  2005-04-28   23:28:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#256. To: tom007 (#254)

lol

christine  posted on  2005-04-28   23:28:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#257. To: All (#255)

Come to think of, I must be Heavy Metal free. And I'm going to keep it that way.

tom007  posted on  2005-04-28   23:31:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#258. To: Dakmar (#251)

"It's not tobacco's tar which kills, but the radiation!"

And the radiation in cigarettes comes from a pesticide that it used on the tobacco, not the tobacco itself.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-28   23:31:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#259. To: Axenolith (#252)

I shit you not, Crack,

lol...hey, do beer breath fumes chelate...i don't like to drink beer, but...i love to kiss a man with beer breath.

christine  posted on  2005-04-28   23:31:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#260. To: tom007 (#254)

"Attorney Amos Hausner, son of the prosecutor who sent Nazi Adolf Eichmann to the gallows, is using these memos as evidence to fight the biggest lawsuit in Israel's history, to make one Israeli and six US tobacco companies pay up to $8 billion for allegedly poisoning Israelis with radioactive cigarettes."

"Radioactive" cigarettes cited in Israeli lawsuit

Dakmar  posted on  2005-04-28   23:32:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#261. To: Dakmar (#260)

Ya can't make it up on a good day.

tom007  posted on  2005-04-28   23:34:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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   Trace   Private Reply  


#263. To: BTP Holdings (#262)

Don't worry, though. Kyle assures us that it is not a hazard.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-28   23:51:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#264. To: Aric2000 (#232)

You have not replied to the postings of the articles by scientists on this subject. Perhaps you should write them letters telling them how wrong they are.

robin  posted on  2005-04-29   0:01:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#265. To: crack monkey (#55)

I would like to know what the uranium shells accomplish that can't be accomplished with normal ammo?

Tungsten has been used since the second world war as a penetrator, it's a little less dense and I don't think it has the pyrophoric properties. It's as toxic, or more so, than DU in a finely divided state and it's what everyone else in the world uses...

Axenolith  posted on  2005-04-29   0:08:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#266. To: Axenolith (#265)

Tungsten has been used since the second world war as a penetrator, it's a little less dense and I don't think it has the pyrophoric properties. It's as toxic, or more so, than DU in a finely divided state and it's what everyone else in the world uses...

But they're not fighting armor over there. Why do they need to use large quantities of armor piercing shells?

crack monkey  posted on  2005-04-29   0:11:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#267. To: BTP Holdings (#262)

bah..doncha know everyone other than kyle and aric are ignorant kooks?

christine  posted on  2005-04-29   0:12:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#268. To: Axenolith (#265)

Tungsten has been used since the second world war as a penetrator

I am going from memory here -- It's abundent only in Russia. The US does not want to have a major munitions supply being dependent on a potentially hostile entity.

Tungsten works great, but it is not in our power.

tom007  posted on  2005-04-29   0:14:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#269. To: Jhoffa_ (#77)

I agree with Kyle. Under certain cnditions, AIR may indeed be harmful.

Regardless however, it does nothing to prove DU is not.

If you read the link, they seem to be concerned aith fine particulates. They're a "radiation hazzard" Explosive and may be toxic, especially to the Kidney.

I missed anyone saying is was not harmful. It's the degree of risk, otherwise we'd all be screwed seeing's as how there's about an average of 4 tons of uranium in the top 1 foot of every square mile of soil on the planet...

Axenolith  posted on  2005-04-29   0:24:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#270. To: christine (#101)

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

Criminy! 2003?!?! When is that old bag of shit gonna die?!?!

Axenolith  posted on  2005-04-29   0:31:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#271. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut, Kyle (#263)

Don't worry, though. Kyle assures us that it is not a hazard.

Hey Kyle, go to Fallujah and breathe deeply during a dust storm. Then we can watch as your lungs glow in the dark. ;^)

BTP Holdings  posted on  2005-04-29   0:35:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#272. To: tom007 (#247)

We will know ten years from now, in any event. It may be that the real culprit of the awful conditions being experienced by the GW1 vets is a toxic brew of insect vectored parasites, alond with the experimental vaccines given the the soldiers, and a bit of DU in the lungs. Stir and let sit in the sun for a few years, and see what developes.

You have probebly hit the nail squarely upon the head...

Axenolith  posted on  2005-04-29   0:44:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#273. To: crack monkey (#249)

According to this, (Blurb on natural exposures) you get about 16,000 mrem per year from smoking as opposed to ~360 from normal exposures...

Axenolith  posted on  2005-04-29   0:47:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#274. To: robin (#264)

You have not replied to the postings of the articles by scientists on this subject. Perhaps you should write them letters telling them how wrong they are.

And why should I?

This is the same thing as Global warming.

There are thousands of scientists that say we are ALL GOING TO DIE, but there are hundreds that say, NO, we're NOT, because Global warming is NOT happening because of manmade reasons. It is a NATURAL occurence, and will happen, NO MATTER what we do, others say the whole thing is BULLSHIT, and it is nothing more then a boogeyman to scare the misinformed.

The DU thing is the same thing, Natural uranium will NOT hurt you in the short term, it's radiation level is TOO low, Depleted Uranium has about HALF of that radiation, it will NOT hurt you in any way shape or form via radiation, it is NOT radioactive enough to do a damned thing.

It is a HEAVY metal, so, just like lead, there are some Toxic effects from ingesting it, although, UNLIKE lead, DU passes through the body rather quickly, and will not be absorbed and do major physiological damage.

I can repeat these FACTS, until I am BLUE in the face, but because you wish it to be harmful, you will believe that it is, NO matter what I tell you.

So, again, why should I respond to a bunch of scaremongering, the sky is falling bullshit?

Aric2000  posted on  2005-04-29   0:48:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#275. To: Dakmar (#253)

ARF!

Probably the alcohol. Worked with an engineer who told me about the chelation value of good beer, and had the blood tests to support it after coming up positive for chrome exposure after a big plating shop job we did at a Naval facility. He just drank one or two an evening and retested ( I forget the time factor but it was a month or two at most) to normal levels afterwards.

Axenolith  posted on  2005-04-29   0:52:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#276. To: Aric2000 (#274)

This is the same thing as Global warming.

Not Quite. PING to #262.

This is all very well founded in research. Read it and perhaps you will change your mind.

BTP Holdings  posted on  2005-04-29   0:53:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#277. To: tom007 (#255)

From here on, you are DR.Axenolith!!, MD. Nah, just registered PG ;-)

Axenolith  posted on  2005-04-29   0:55:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#278. To: SKYDRIFTER (#262)

PING!

BTP Holdings  posted on  2005-04-29   0:55:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#279. To: christine (#259)

If it's the alcohol, wine is probably just as good.

Liquor is antidotal to glycol poisoning BTW...

Axenolith  posted on  2005-04-29   0:57:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#280. To: Axenolith (#279)

Liquor is antidotal to glycol poisoning BTW...

OMG, I just accidently drank a quart of antifreeze!!! What should I do???.

O well, Ok some warm Schafer lite, with rat droppings on the top of the cans, that's the antidote!

Thanks Dr Anenolith!

(saved my life, once again)

tom007  posted on  2005-04-29   1:10:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#281. To: tom007 (#268)

Pine Creek, Strawberry, Tungsten Hills, et. al. are all mines in California shut down primarily due to cheaper sources, mainly China dumping the concentrate on the US market at ridiculously low prices in the late 80's-90's. You could have bought the Strawberry (and I tried to figure out some way I could afford it because it was a kick ass property and an insanely good hedge in case of trouble with China) for ~$800,000, owner financed a couple of years ago. Way cool place and it was all practically new (1980's).

Shot of Pine Creek Mine

What's really neat about the Pine Creek and some of the other Skarn deposit mines is that the shafts go up .

Axenolith  posted on  2005-04-29   1:13:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#282. To: tom007 (#280)

If you drank a quart of antifreeze you'd better hit the JD...

Axenolith  posted on  2005-04-29   1:18:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#283. To: Kyle, Aric2000 (#262)

PING!

Don't say I never gave you anything. Here is the gift of REAL knowlegde.

BTP Holdings  posted on  2005-04-29   1:21:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#284. To: BTP Holdings (#276)

Oh please, get a better grip, your grip on reality is SLIPPING......

Aric2000  posted on  2005-04-29   1:22:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#285. To: Kyle (#63)

You haven't figured out that radioactive U-238 is radioactive - what "facts" are you trying to refer to - fool?

(God, but you're stupid Kyle!.) {Still won't commit to your gender, eh?}

The FACT is that the Afghan & Iraq invasions were War Crimes. Where do you stand on those "facts?"

You're an idiot, Kyle!


SKYDRIFTER  posted on  2005-04-29   1:24:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#286. To: Aric2000 (#284)

Oh please, get a better grip, your grip on reality is SLIPPING......

Not me, buddy boy.

BTP Holdings  posted on  2005-04-29   1:30:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#287. To: Aric2000 (#284)

You're in denial. Look in the mirror.

BTP Holdings  posted on  2005-04-29   1:30:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#288. To: BTP Holdings (#286)

ANY heavy metal in Nano as they put it, will sicken a person, Lead will do this, tungsten will do this, ANY heavy metal will do it.

DU happens to be the densest material for projectiles etc, therefore we use it.

If it sickens someone because of the Nano, as they put it, then it is because they breathed in the nanoparticles due to war.

After impact, DU does NOT become MORE readioactive, it does NOT create birth defects etc.

It is QUITE impossible....

Yes, it may sicken a person, but ANY heavy metal will do the same.

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

Shit, breathing in paint fumes will sicken you far more and far faster then DU ever will, and the chances of breating in paint fumes is MUCH greater then ever getting the chance of breathing in nanoparticles of DU, or any other heavy metal.

Aric2000  posted on  2005-04-29   1:40:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#289. To: Kyle, crack monkey (#64)

Kyle, you're still an idiot!


Yes, there is a soluable form of DU, which can be readily excreted - then, there's a ceramic dust version - that hangs around.

DU’s radioactivity is in the form of Alpha particles. Alpha particles are described by the military as the ‘weakest’ form of radiation, they can be stopped by skin. However, when aerosolized into ceramic dust they are easily inhaled and can stay in the lungs for years, irradiating lung tissues causing emphysema or fibrosis. In addition to being inhaled, DU dust can settle on plants where it can be eaten and on open wounds, common in a war zone, where there is no skin to block the alpha radiation from irradiating soft body tissues. In the USA particles of DU have been found in the filters of air- conditioning units over 20 miles from any known source.

In addition to its radioactivity, Depleted Uranium is also chemically toxic as a heavy metal. DU dissolves in water. This heavy metal toxicity can be absorbed byplants and pollute ground water reserves. DU ends up in the kidneys and gastro intestinal tract causing a host of illnesses in a similar way to lead poisoning.


SKYDRIFTER  posted on  2005-04-29   1:41:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#290. To: SKYDRIFTER (#285)

Excuse me Sky, but DU is as radioactive as the earth itself, gamma and beta particles are an EVERYday thing, you are bombarded with these particles EVERY FRICKING DAY.

Are you dying Sky, have those radioactive particles sickened you?

Please, quit attacking Kyle for telling you the truth, you may NOT like the truth, but it is STILL THE TRUTH.

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....

Aric2000  posted on  2005-04-29   1:43:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#291. To: Kyle (#66)

Kyle, the "U" metals are variants of each other. Some are fisionable - U235 & 239 - some are not; U-238. It all goes to atomic chemistry, as the numbers imply.

You don't know shit about chemistry, either. Yes, they are considered seperate elements; that's moot.

When it comes to Uranium, "half-Life is a radioactivity measure! You dumb shit!


SKYDRIFTER  posted on  2005-04-29   1:48:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#292. To: Axenolith (#282)

If you drank a quart of antifreeze you'd better hit the JD...

Hah, Doctors orders!!

tom007  posted on  2005-04-29   1:58:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#293. To: Aric2000, crack monkey, Kyle, Christine (#290)

DU is HALF as radioactive as NATURAL Uranium,

Aric, you're dumb as a rock, as well! (Or, are you just doing disinformation?)

U-238 is the most common form of Uranium - it's "natural!" Given mined Uranium ore, U-235 has to be processed out, as it's in radically smaller proportion.

Yes, DU is 40% LESS radioactive than the common in-the-dirt variant. Yes, that's why it's called "depleted." It's still radioactive - and toxic. It still has a radioactive "half-life." Yes, God will one day see it turn to lead.

Until that day, it's still radioactive, still emitting dangerous alpha particles, and it's still a heavy-metal toxin to the body. Inhaled DU dust has a high probability of staying in the lungs, poisoning the hell out of the body. If the lungs were to be so lucky as to only inhale the soluable variant, you might not have any appreciable affects. If the ceramic variant is inhaled; different story. How lucky do you think one can get, when dealing with weaponized DU?

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."


SKYDRIFTER  posted on  2005-04-29   2:07:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#294. To: Aric2000 (#290)

you may NOT like the truth, but it is STILL THE TRUTH.

Why do you count yourself among the legions of professional disinformationalists that fight tooth and nail to pimp the patently untrue?

What do you get out of it? Warm fuzzies?

Dude Lebowski  posted on  2005-04-29   2:13:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#295. To: SKYDRIFTER (#293)

Then why aren't you bitching about all the above ground Nuke testing in the 40's & 50's also

Despot of the Delta  posted on  2005-04-29   2:40:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#296. To: SKYDRIFTER (#291)

t all goes to atomic chemistry, as the numbers imply.

You don't know shit about chemistry, either. Yes, they are considered seperate elements; that's moot.

Maybe atomic physics, not chemistry...

And they aren't "separate elements", they're isotopes and there's 14 (92U227 to 92U240) of them + an upper state isomer of 92U235...

Axenolith  posted on  2005-04-29   2:49:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#297. To: Kyle (#69)

I'll call you what I wish to call you, you malignant, traitorous, republican asshole.

Your so-called education didn't enable you to understand this:

"I don't believe you. It is very clear from your many posts on LP, and your posts here, that you have read plenty of propaganda, talking points, etc., from your administration. So there is no reason to suppose that you did not read about this subject."

In sum, I said I don't believe you, and I said why. But if that's not enough for you, then I will tell you that after reading your posts here and on LP, I conclude that you are a LIAR. You have, or think you have, some stake in the Bush administration, and as a result you jump through hoops like a trained monkey to defend it. Your bias is legendary here and on LP. That's why you are considered a LIAR.

We're not all that impressed with your so-called education. Is that what they call brainwashing nowadays--"education"? Because your main attribute is that you seem to be entirely brainwashed. Brainwashing = education, in your Orwellian Bushworld. Why not? To Bushistas like yourself, was is peace, freedom is slavery.

AS IF others here were not educated. We are.

You are irrational: you cling to your bias without even considering the mountains of evidence to the contrary which people here have wasted good hours putting before you.

This is inevitable. Everytime we post the truth and it conflicts with the pre- packaged administration propaganda on these boards, we are immediately labeled as "conspiracy theorists". That is a lame comeback - You can't support your position so you try to label us "conspiracy theorists".

You're not important enough to be part of any "conspiracy". You are just another "good German" who refuses to believe that evil is in power in our country. I doubt you care about dead Iraqi or Afghan civilians, so I will simply reiterate that the blood of over 1500 Americans is on your complicit hands, murderer. At the moment when you finally expire, remember that you sold out your own fellow Americans for the financial gain which you imagine you are getting from this fraudulent administration.

h-a-l-f-w-i-t-t  posted on  2005-04-29   7:14:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#298. To: Kyle (#71)

your looney

Your extreme bias is showing. Experts who disagree with the shit you're peddling are "loonies". You can't see your own mental illness: rigidity, refusal to listen to reason, extreme bias. You're like a Moonie. Makes sense; the Moonies are good friends of your administration.

h-a-l-f-w-i-t-t  posted on  2005-04-29   7:17:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#299. To: Jhoffa_, Kyle (#76)

In an effort to accomidate this, I give you the US Navy themselves, and you choke.

Oh, the U.S. Navy are "conspiracy theorists"?

Kyle's paranoid--sees conspiracy theorists everywhere. Seek professional help, Kyle.

h-a-l-f-w-i-t-t  posted on  2005-04-29   7:19:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#300. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut, Kyle (#79)

Kyle knows this. He knows damn well it is dangerous. He just doesn't care. Military be damned, civilians be damned, just so long as he gets to revel in the deaths of muslims.

...and to revel in the deaths of Americans. Kyle is complicit to murder.

h-a-l-f-w-i-t-t  posted on  2005-04-29   7:21:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#301. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut, Kyle (#88)

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

Whaddya know. Kyle's been caught lying.

Is there no end to what the True Believers will do to support this murderous, traitorous, fraudulent administration and its false positions?

But then, the administration has been caught lying about WMD's, so it's not surprising that its supporters would be liars.

h-a-l-f-w-i-t-t  posted on  2005-04-29   7:24:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#302. To: Kyle, Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#91)

Do you think they have an axe to grind?

I think you have an axe to grind.

h-a-l-f-w-i-t-t  posted on  2005-04-29   7:25:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#303. To: Kyle, christine (#103)

the Gulf War 1 veterans who, btw, your "Help is on the way" administration has pretty much told to STFU and go away.

I know this government has a long, long history of lying to the American people.

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

Do you deny the above? I know I'll never get a straight answer. That's not what you shills--whether paid or unpaid--are about.

You are complicit to murder and torture.

h-a-l-f-w-i-t-t  posted on  2005-04-29   7:30:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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  


#345. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#342)

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.

Kyle didn't even read the teaser. The first sentence of the Teaser blew him out of the water. If he had read that, he never would have referenced the article. Kyle simply told a bald faced lie about having sources to back him up.

crack monkey  posted on  2005-04-29   17:12:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#346. To: crack monkey (#345)

Kyle simply told a bald faced lie about having sources to back him up.

Go figure. He's in the rarified air of the neo-con empire and we're stuck here in the reality based community.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-29   17:17:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#347. To: crack monkey (#345)

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.

Kyle didn't even read the teaser. The first sentence of the Teaser blew him out of the water. If he had read that, he never would have referenced the article. Kyle simply told a bald faced lie about having sources to back him up.

Just keep saying it; but it won't change the facts. The article quoted Pollack saying precisely what I said he said. The 'teaser' was the opinion of the unnamed person who posted the article. Really lame guys. Your reaching back for it yet again smells of flop sweat ;o)

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-29   17:33:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#348. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#344)

because you haven't looked up the research on renal abnormalities in the offspring of Gulf War Vets.

Post a link or shut up about it.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-29   17:34:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#349. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut, crack monkey (#346)

we're stuck here in the reality based community.

Antiwar.com? Reality based? ROTFLOL!!!!!!!!!!

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


#350. To: Kyle (#348)

Post a link or shut up about it.

No, Kyle. I don't think you are in any position to make me shut up about it. You can't make the medical researchers shut up about it either. The best you can do is ignore it or plug your ears and chant while hoping it goes away.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-29   17:41:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#351. To: Kyle (#349)

Antiwar.com? Reality based? ROTFLOL!!!!!!!!!!

See, here's another example of Kyle making a fool of himself by ignoring information because it came from a source he's scared of. You do realize that in actual fact you are making fun of a senior Bush Administration official, don't you? No, you don't realize it. You're too willfully ignorant to understand the context of what I referred to.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-29   17:43:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#352. To: Kyle (#333)

Give me a link to something .

Here's something verifiable. We're getting our asses kicked and it's well deserved. There was a time I actually wanted these guys home, but now I say to those who continue to fight for Bush, stay where you are, your day is coming. The Iraqis have us tied down and the all volunteer military is showing signs of severe strain. I recently read where a 55 year old grandmother is being returned to active duty. This is good. I pray we continue to lose these young and old warmongers. If they want to be in Iraq, they’re brain dead anyway. Good riddance.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2005-04-29   17:58:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#353. To: Kyle (#348)

Kyle, welcome to the past, and our future.

An audio and pictorial display for your delight.

Peace.

The Doors - The End

Jethro Tull  posted on  2005-04-29   19:04:40 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#354. To: Kyle (#347)

The article quoted Pollack saying precisely what I said he said. The 'teaser' was the opinion of the unnamed person who posted the article.

The Atlantic article you quoted refutes your position. The link is up and everyone can read it and decide for themselves. / chuckle!

I don't blame you for trying to spin it however. What else can a person do when they get caught out as a bald faced liar and bullshitter -- like you did. /grin.

There is no changing the fact that you are a moron who referenced an article you hadn't read and which blew your position out of the water.

Here is the link in case anyone missed the show:

Kyle Lies Like a Rug and Gets Busted For It.

crack monkey  posted on  2005-04-29   19:12:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#355. To: Kyle (#348)

Kyle, Kyle....more linkies....

Stop, children, what's that sound, everybody look what's going down

Jethro Tull  posted on  2005-04-29   19:23:53 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#356. To: Jethro Tull (#330)

Current material on this thread connects DU and birth defects.

Actually, current material on this thread notes the existence of a statistically detectable elevation in numbers of certain defects among a cohort composed of Gulf War veterans without positing a cause.

Personally, I think they're on the rats ass edge of variance and relative risk versus their 95% UCL too, based on having a lot of experience having to derive 90% and 95% UCL values for lead in soil (of which, the fact that it is soil or people is irrelevant since the whole shebang is being broken down into numbers). I'll try to remember to run those figures by someone else here next week who specialized in it...

Axenolith  posted on  2005-04-29   21:41:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


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

significantly high rate

The relative risk number is probably based on a per million CFR or EPA type threshold. If this is true, the relative risk numbers derived would infer the nuber of cases versus 1 per million, i.e. if the factor is 6 there would be 6 per million as opposed to the normal background of 1.

"Significantly high rate" as a term, is not something statisticians should be throwing around in "for public consumption" stuff without a bit of clarification. Many times a "significantly high rate" to the statistician is a rate that determines that a particular effect, defect, illness etc... may be connected to an identifiable cause and thus warrants further study (and grant money, for the cynical).

Axenolith  posted on  2005-04-29   21:48:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#358. To: Kyle, Mr Nuke Buzzcut, All (#338)

I'll grant that the numbers in and of themselves probably warrant a lot further close study to see if there is a linkable effect. That's basically the level of conclusion that those numbers draw.

The BIG thing here though that some folks might want to think about is that, if you take these statistical derivations on their face as a conclusion that fits either side of the issues conception of it, you are opening yourselves to accepting these very same methods and levels of statistical certainty for other issues that you may be 180 degrees from the conclusion of.

Think about that, the same method may eshew further studies, because most of the people the "conclusion" is aimed at swaying accept it on its face. That could get ugly when you're fighting gun control, welfare, crime, drug use and other "statistics".

Axenolith  posted on  2005-04-29   21:58:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#359. To: Kyle (#334)

Spend some time here

Check back in a few weeks.

Lod  posted on  2005-04-29   22:01:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#360. To: Kyle (#314)

collected data on all live births at 135 military hospitals in 1991, 1992, and 1993.

Nice try. Close, but no cigar. That time period is when there was still the possibility of plausible deniability. The same way they denied Agent Orange had adverse effects for so many years. I will not repeat what other have posted already on this obvious disinfo ploy of yours.

JT sad it best. Here's a dollar, buy a clue. ROTFLMAO!

BTP Holdings  posted on  2005-04-29   22:20:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#361. To: Jethro Tull (#353)

Oooooh; talk about nostalgia!

Am I really that old?

Ouch!

{Hey, the lyrics are still valid!}


SKYDRIFTER  posted on  2005-04-29   22:50:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#362. To: Jethro Tull (#353)

Hey thanks JT for the music links! :)

Zipporah  posted on  2005-04-29   22:59:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#363. To: Kyle, FormerLurker, sfvgto, tom007, duckhunter, BrerRabbit, swarthguy, xUSMC0311, Bill D Berger, honway, Aric2000, BeAChooser (#348)

The Real Casualty Rate from America's Iraq Wars
Chalmers Johnson


Most young Americans who enlist in our all-volunteer armed forces -- roughly four out of five -- specifically choose non-combat jobs, becoming computer technicians, personnel managers, shipping clerks, truck mechanics, weather forecasters, intelligence analysts, cooks, or forklift drivers, among the many other duties that carry a low risk of contact with an enemy. They often enlist because they have failed to find similar work in the civilian economy and thus take refuge in the military's long-established system of state socialism -- steady paychecks, decent housing, medical and dental benefits, job training, and the possibility of a college education. The mother of one such recruit recently commented on her 19-year-old daughter, who will soon become an Army intelligence analyst. She was proud but also cynical: "Wealthy people don't go into the military or take risks because why should they? They already got everything handed to them."

These recruits do not expect to be shot at. Thus it was a shock to the rank-and-file last month when Iraqi guns opened up on an Army supply convoy, killing eight and taking another six prisoner, including supply clerk Jessica Lynch of Palestine, West Virginia. The Army's response has been, "You don't have to be in combat arms [branches of the military] to close with and kill the enemy." But what the Pentagon is not saying to the Private Lynches and their families is that they stand a very good chance of dying or being catastrophically disabled precisely because they chose the U.S. military as a route of social mobility.

There are serious unintended consequences to our most recent "no contact" or "painless dentistry" wars that contradict the Pentagon's claims of low casualties. The most important is the malady that goes by the name "Gulf War Syndrome," a potentially deadly medical disorder that first appeared among combat veterans of the 1990-1991 Gulf War. Just as the effects of Agent Orange during the Vietnam War were first explained away by the Pentagon as "post-traumatic stress disorder," "combat fatigue," or "shell shock," so the Bush administration is now playing down the potential toxic side effects of the ammunition now being widely used by its armed forces. The implications are devastating, not just for America's adversaries, or civilians caught in their country-turned-battlefield, but for American forces themselves (and even possibly their future offspring).

The first Iraq War produced four classes of casualties -- killed in action, wounded in action, killed in accidents (including "friendly fire"), and injuries and illnesses that appeared only after the end of hostilities. During 1990 and 1991, some 696,778 individuals served in the Persian Gulf as elements of Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm. Of these 148 were killed in battle, 467 were wounded in action, and 145 were killed in accidents, producing a total of 760 casualties, quite a low number given the scale of the operations.

However, as of May 2002, the Veterans Administration (VA) reported that an additional 8,306 soldiers had died and 159,705 were injured or ill as a result of service-connected "exposures" suffered during the war. Even more alarmingly, the VA revealed that 206,861 veterans, almost a third of G eneral Schwarzkopf's entire army, had filed claims for medical care, compensation, and pension benefits based on injuries and illnesses caused by combat in 1991. After reviewing the cases, the agency has classified 168,011 applicants as "disabled veterans." In light of these deaths and disabilities, the casualty rate for the first Gulf War is actually a staggering 29.3%.

Dr. Doug Rokke, a former Army colonel and professor of environmental science at Jacksonville University, was in charge of the military's environmental clean-up following the first Gulf War. The Pentagon has since sacked him for criticizing NATO commanders for not adequately protecting their troops in areas where DU ammunition was used, such as Kosovo in 1999. Dr. Rokke notes that many thousands of American troops have been based in and around Kuwait since 1990, and according to his calculations, between August 1990 and May 2002, a total of 262,586 soldiers became "disabled veterans" and 10,617 have died. His numbers produce a casualty rate for the whole decade of 30.8%.

A significant probable factor in these deaths and disabilities is depleted uranium (DU) ammunition, although this is a hotly contested proposition. Some researchers, often paid for by the Pentagon, argue that depleted uranium could not possibly be the cause of these war-related maladies and that a more likely explanation is dust and debris from the blowing up of Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons factories in 1991 in the wake of the first Gulf War, or perhaps a "cocktail" of particles from DU ammunition, the destruction of nerve gas bunkers, and polluted air from burning oil fields. But the evidence -- including abnormal clusters of childhood cancers and deformities in Iraq and also evidently in the areas of Kosovo where, in 1999, we used depleted-uranium weapons in our air war against the Serbians -- points primarily toward DU. Moreover, simply by insisting on using such weaponry, the Pentagon is deliberately flouting a 1996 United Nations resolution that classifies DU ammunition as an illegal weapon of mass destruction.

DU, or Uranium-238, is a waste product of power-generating nuclear reactors. It is used in projectiles like tank shells and cruise missiles because it is 1.7 times denser than lead, burns as it flies, and penetrates armor easily, but it breaks up and vaporizes on impact --which makes it potentially very deadly. Each shell fired by an American tank includes ten pounds of DU. Such warheads are essentially "dirty bombs," not very radioactive individually but nonetheless suspected of being capable in quantity of causing serious illnesses and birth defects.

In 1991, U.S. forces fired a staggering 944,000 DU rounds in Kuwait and Iraq. The Pentagon admits that it left behind at a bare minimum 320 metric tons of DU on the battlefield. One study of Gulf War veterans showed that their children had a higher possibility of being born with severe deformities, including missing eyes, blood infections, respiratory problems, and fused fingers. Dr. Rokke fears that because the military relied more heavily on DU munitions in the second Iraq War than in the first, postwar casualties may be even greater. When he sees TV images of unprotected soldiers and Iraqi civilians driving past burning Iraqi trucks destroyed by tank fire or inspecting buildings hit by missiles, he suspects that they are being poisoned by DU.

Young Americans being seduced into the armed forces these days are quite literally making themselves into "cannon fodder," even if they have been able to secure non-combat jobs. Before we begin to celebrate how few American casualties there were in the brief Iraq war, we might pause to consider the future. The numbers of Americans killed and maimed from Gulf War II are only beginning to be toted up. The full count will not be known for at least a decade. The fact that the U.S. high command continues to rely on such weaponry for warfare is precisely why the world needs an International Criminal Court and why the United States should be liable under its jurisdiction. Because of its potential dangers and because the alarm has been raised (even if the Pentagon refuses to acknowledge this), the use of DU ammunition should already be considered a war crime one that may also destroy the user in a painfully crippling way.

Sources:

* David Wood, "Shaky Economy Alters Equations of Risk in Today's Military," San Diego Union-Tribune, April 27, 2003; * Doug Rokke, "Gulf War Casualties," September 30, 2002, on line at ; * UK to Aid DU Removal," BBC News, April 23, 2003; * Frances Williams, "Clean-up of Pollution Urged to Reduce Health Risks" and Vanessa Houlder, "Allied Troops 'Risk Uranium Exposure,'" Financial Times, April 25, 2003; * Steven Rosenfeld, "Gulf War Syndrome, The Sequel," TomPaine.com, April 8, 2003; * Susanna Hecht, "Uranium Warheads May Leave Both Sides a Legacy of Death for Decades," Los Angeles Times, March 30, 2003; and * Neil Mackay, "U.S. Forces' Use of Depleted Uranium Is 'Illegal,'" Glasgow Sunday Herald, March 30, 2003.

Chalmers Johnson is author of Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire and, forthcoming, The Sorrows of Empire: How the Americans Lost Their Country.

Copyright Chalmers Johnson

[This article first appeared on http://www.tomdispatch.com, a weblog of the Nation Institute, which offers a steady flow of alternate sources, news and opinion from Tom Engelhardt, long time editor in publishing and author of The End of Victory Culture.] http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=3564

Last updated 14/05/2003

SKYDRIFTER  posted on  2005-04-29   23:13:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#364. To: Jethro Tull (#352)

We're getting our asses kicked and it's well deserved. There was a time I actually wanted these guys home, but now I say to those who continue to fight for Bush, stay where you are, your day is coming. The Iraqis have us tied down and the all volunteer military is showing signs of severe strain. I recently read where a 55 year old grandmother is being returned to active duty. This is good. I pray we continue to lose these young and old warmongers. If they want to be in Iraq, they’re brain dead anyway. Good riddance.

You are a sick fuck.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-29   23:15:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#365. To: Jethro Tull, kyle (#352)

This is good. I pray we continue to lose these young and old warmongers. If they want to be in Iraq, they’re brain dead anyway. Good riddance.

Jethro Tull posted on 2005-04-29 17:58:52 ET Reply Trace Private Reply

I do not suppose most of them have much of a desire to be in Iraq. They are compelled.

"They Hate Us Because We're Free".

tom007  posted on  2005-04-29   23:20:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#366. To: Kyle (#364)

Bullies need a good beating, Kyle. Get used to it :)

Jethro Tull  posted on  2005-04-29   23:23:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#367. To: SKYDRIFTER, FormerLurker, sfvgto, tom007, duckhunter, BrerRabbit, swarthguy, xUSMC0311, Bill D Berger, honway, Aric2000, BeAChooser (#363)

Even more alarmingly, the VA revealed that 206,861 veterans, almost a third of G eneral Schwarzkopf's entire army, had filed claims for medical care, compensation, and pension benefits based on injuries and illnesses caused by combat in 1991.

TRANS: Saw a VA doctor for ANY reason at all.

After reviewing the cases, the agency has classified 168,011 applicants as "disabled veterans."

Post the link. This is BS. However, if true, it's WAY less than the 500,000 that your sources claimed. Oops! There goes their credibility. Thanks Skyboy.

DU, or Uranium-238, is a waste product of power-generating nuclear reactors.

BS. It is a byproduct of enrichment of natural uranium.

One study of Gulf War veterans showed that their children had a higher possibility of being born with severe deformities, including missing eyes, blood infections, respiratory problems, and fused fingers.

Let's see the study, w/ a link. I'll guarantee it's BS. Remember that I posted a New England Journal of Medicine study, from 6 years after GWI, with a sample size of 34,000 births, that found NOTHING.

...the world needs an International Criminal Court and why the United States should be liable under its jurisdiction.

That, and the author (Chalmers Johnson) should be two strong clues as to the bias of this article.

BTW, why bother pinging Lurker? He knows if he comes back, he'll have to face up to his utter failure.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-29   23:32:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#368. To: Jethro Tull, FormerLurker, sfvgto, tom007, duckhunter, BrerRabbit, swarthguy, xUSMC0311, Bill D Berger, honway, Aric2000, BeAChooser (#352)

We're getting our asses kicked and it's well deserved. There was a time I actually wanted these guys home, but now I say to those who continue to fight for Bush, stay where you are, your day is coming. The Iraqis have us tied down and the all volunteer military is showing signs of severe strain. I recently read where a 55 year old grandmother is being returned to active duty. This is good. I pray we continue to lose these young and old warmongers. If they want to be in Iraq, they’re brain dead anyway. Good riddance.

In case you missed it - Jethro posted the above. Are any of the rest of you guys willing to defend this sick fuck?

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-29   23:34:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#369. To: Jethro Tull (#366)

Bullies need a good beating, Kyle. Get used to it :)

LOL!

Of course its just the loving thing to do

Zipporah  posted on  2005-04-29   23:34:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#370. To: Kyle (#364)

You are a sick f**k.

Kyle, after much thought, and given the state of this current government, I’ve reached the conclusion that I’m anti-American. Therefore, I'm not a sick f**k as you suggest, but rather a patriot in the mold of our founders. Please, my hand is extended, won't you join me in my struggle to take this nation back?

Thank you.

cc: Alberto Gonzalez c/o La Raza

Jethro Tull  posted on  2005-04-29   23:34:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#371. To: Kyle, Jethro Tull, christiene, zipporah, crack monkey, arator (#364)

There was a time I actually wanted these guys home, but now I say to those who continue to fight for Bush, stay where you are, your day is coming. T

JT,

I think you need to realize that most of the fellow citizens have little objective understanding of the war's "big picture".

They are put into to groups of men and women, and almost all will quickly adopt the attitudes of the group. This "instinct" to fit in has been explored for thousands of years. When there is not much physical danger or hardship, thinking differently occurs frequently.

When the group is under stress, nearly all will follow the group think, no matter how boneheaded it is.

Very few amoungst us will have the knowledge, vision and then the gumption to tell the group, the course of action they are taking is wrong.

This is not history, it is the human condition, to understand it will illuminate human history.

This is why the girl in the prison in Iraq gleefully tourtured the Iraqi's, her group said it was the thing to do.

Some one said, "If the entire mass of Humanity was to be buried in a colossial grave, the tremendous gravestone would bear the epitath "IT SEEMED LIKE A GOOD IDEA AT THE TIME"

tom007  posted on  2005-04-29   23:35:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#372. To: Kyle (#364)

You are a sick fuck.

Naw. The sick fucks are the ones cheerleading the war. That would be you.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-29   23:36:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#373. To: Kyle (#367)

Remember that I posted a New England Journal of Medicine study, from 6 years after GWI, with a sample size of 34,000 births, that found NOTHING.

Remember that I posted a follow-on study with an even larger sample size that didn't limit itself to self-reporting by the VA and the results were somewhat different than what you champion.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-29   23:39:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#374. To: tom007 (#371)

Very few amoungst us will have the knowledge, vision and then the gumption to tell the group, the course of action they are taking is wrong.

I totally agree Tom. Personally, I can no longer stand by and ignore the mindless flag wavers. The country they support has become an evil empire, with designs of global hegemony. I detest it and all those who support it. Let them lose this war, and all other wars they chose to start. That, my friend, will be justice.

cc: Bush #41 & #43

Jethro Tull  posted on  2005-04-29   23:42:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#375. To: Jethro Tull (#370)

Please, my hand is extended, won't you join me in my struggle to take this nation back?

If you still insist that our troops deserve to be killed, I'll take your hand alright. I'll take it off and beat you to death w/ it.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-30   0:00:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#376. To: Kyle (#375)

Kyle, the ass kicking continues....

*** ********

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Insurgents set off at least 17 bombs in Iraq on Friday, killing at least 50 people, including three U.S. soldiers, in a series of attacks aimed at shaking Iraq's newly formed government. An audio tape by one of America's most-wanted insurgents, Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi, warned President Bush there was more bloodshed to come

Jethro Tull  posted on  2005-04-30   0:02:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#377. To: tom007, Jethro Tull, christiene, zipporah, crack monkey, arator (#371)

I think you need to realize that most of the fellow citizens have little objective understanding of the war's "big picture".

That was a nice inocuous post, but it totally ignored the fact that this asshole likes seeing our troops killed.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-30   0:02:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#378. To: Kyle (#375)

you are special

Dakmar  posted on  2005-04-30   0:03:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#379. To: Kyle (#375)

I'll take it off and beat you to death w/ it.

You couldn't beat your tallywacker, you pos :)

Jethro Tull  posted on  2005-04-30   0:03:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#380. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#372)

Naw. The sick fucks are the ones cheerleading the war. That would be you.

So you like seeing our troops killed too. Mind if I bring some parents of soldiers to this thread, scum?

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-30   0:03:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#381. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#373)

Remember that I posted a follow-on study with an even larger sample size that didn't limit itself to self-reporting by the VA and the results were somewhat different than what you champion.

Oh, you mean the one that found slight statistical significance but no causation? ;o)

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-30   0:05:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#382. To: Jethro Tull (#374)

Personally, I can no longer stand by and ignore the mindless flag wavers.

I am far from mindless or a flag waver. Apparently you find it necessary to peg me as both to discredit me. You would do better to discredit my facts and argument. Oh, you can't.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-30   0:07:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#383. To: Kyle (#377)

That was a nice inocuous post, but it totally ignored the fact that this asshole likes seeing our troops killed.

Kyle posted on 2005-04-30 00:02:44 ET Reply Trace Private Reply

And you, Kyle, became my thoughtmaster, exactly when?

tom007  posted on  2005-04-30   0:08:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#384. To: Jethro Tull (#376)

Kyle, the ass kicking continues....

And you revel in it. SICK FUCK! Get out of the country.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-30   0:08:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#385. To: Kyle (#380)

Mind if I bring some parents of soldiers to this thread, scum?

Ahhh...I consider our troops akin to bungee jumpers. They both know the dangers they face, but do it anyway. Sure, bring the parents here. Let me tell them that Bush killed their kid by lying to the nation. They deserve the truth.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2005-04-30   0:10:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#386. To: All (#383)

Dont bother to reply. I say this as it does nothing to further the illumination.

tom007  posted on  2005-04-30   0:10:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#387. To: Kyle (#384)

Get out of the country.

Nope. I'm staying. It's you neocon bastards who will be driven out.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2005-04-30   0:11:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#388. To: Kyle (#384)

And you revel in it. SICK FUCK! Get out of the country.

Which country you mean, weirdo?

Dakmar  posted on  2005-04-30   0:13:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#389. To: tom007 (#383)

Kyle is one of those people that reminds me there is a reason doors have locks.

Dakmar  posted on  2005-04-30   0:14:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#390. To: Dakmar (#388)

And you revel in it. SICK FUCK! Get out of the country.

Which country you mean, weirdo?

Hmm maybe hes just confused and thinks JT lives in the country and wants him to move and become a city dweller?? :P

Zipporah  posted on  2005-04-30   0:18:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#391. To: Jethro Tull, FormerLurker, sfvgto, tom007, duckhunter, BrerRabbit, swarthguy, xUSMC0311, Bill D Berger, honway, Aric2000, BeAChooser (#385)

Sure, bring the parents here. Let me tell them that Bush killed their kid by lying to the nation.

That's a furious backpedal you're doing. Now, you want to commiserate w/ them over what Bush is doing to their kids. A few minutes ago, you were reveling in their death:

"...but now I say to those who continue to fight for Bush, stay where you are, your day is coming."

"I pray we continue to lose these young and old warmongers. If they want to be in Iraq, they’re brain dead anyway. Good riddance."

Apparently you don't have the balls to stick w/ your initial position or the balls to change it. So you weasel. What a pathetic punk you are.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-30   0:21:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#392. To: Dakmar, tom007 (#389)

Kyle is one of those people that reminds me there is a reason doors have locks.

But you have no problem w/ Jethro's post #?

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-30   0:23:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#393. To: Kyle (#391)

I love it when you get mad :)

Let me be clear.

Bad shit happens to invaders.

We are the invaders.

That said, the Iraqis are doing what nationalists do. They are defending their nation.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2005-04-30   0:24:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#394. To: Kyle (#392)

But you have no problem w/ Jethro's post #?

Jethro isn't promoting statism, you are.

Dakmar  posted on  2005-04-30   0:25:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#395. To: Kyle (#391)

Kyle, I have a question for you. If you've already answered it I apologize, since I have not read all 400 postings in this thread. My question has to do with the pictures I've seen of horribly deformed babies in Iraq. The claim that has been made is that

1) these births are extremely abnormal and out of the range of statictical normalcy, i.e. there are way more babies being born defective than could ever be explained by natural causes, and that

2) The cause of these birth defects is depleted uranium.

I'd like to know what you think of the birth defects that have been reported, and the reputed cause of these defects. The reason I'm asking is because the pictures I've seen are extremely horrifying, these defects seem to be well outside the realm of anything that could happen naturally in anything more than 1 in 100,000 births, and apparently the rate of these hideously deformed children is much, much higher than that.

Elliott Jackalope  posted on  2005-04-30   0:29:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#396. To: Kyle (#380)

So you like seeing our troops killed too. Mind if I bring some parents of soldiers to this thread, scum?

No, once again, as usual, you are 100% wrong. I don't like seeing them killed. I would much prefer that they came home and actually started honoring the oath they took to defend the United States.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-30   0:45:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#397. To: Kyle (#381)

Oh, you mean the one that found slight statistical significance but no causation?

Go ahead. Play your word games. I'm sure the parents of those troops you mentioned will appreciate your spin when their son or daughter or grandchild is dying. You are one sick fuck.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-30   0:46:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#398. To: Elliott Jackalope (#395)

these defects seem to be well outside the realm of anything that could happen naturally in anything more than 1 in 100,000 births, and apparently the rate of these hideously deformed children is much, much higher than that.

Actually 'Lope, the norm is a LOT higher than that. Additionally, a lot of that stuff was being purported to be caused by the "sanctions" in the intervening years. I'm willing to believe that any number over the "norm" for Iraq is generally due to malnutrition (lack of stuff like folic acid), which was rampant in areas of Iraq pre war and probably continues to this day.

The test of this will be when, if a semblance of normalcy comes around, these defects taper off rapidly (from the increasing dietary stability), or linger further into the future (which would indicate a persistent environmental factor.

Axenolith  posted on  2005-04-30   0:49:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#399. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#397)

No Buzzcut,

We wait for OVERWHELMING scientific evidence, before we jump on the bandwagon.

You guys hear a sniff of something, and you're ALL over it...

We try to talk sense into you, because the scientific evidence DOES NOT EXIST, but NO, we have to be KOOKS, or sick fucks, because we don't jump at every little red herring that would feed our paranoia.

What is it with you people?

Not happy unless you're afraid of something?

OMG, talk about nuts.....

Wait for ACTUAL OVERWHELMING scientific evidence.

You do the SAME for global warming, and there are HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people on that bandwagon, what is it about DU that makes it different?

Aric2000  posted on  2005-04-30   0:57:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#400. To: Axenolith (#398)

OMG, where did you come from? and why do you post on this forum?

You seem to know what you are talking about, didn't you know that that is against the rules here?

Aric2000  posted on  2005-04-30   0:58:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#401. To: Aric2000 (#399)

Hmm yeah talk about nuts.. you want to explain to me why you nor your friend would EVER address Dr. Rokke? Hmm?

Zipporah  posted on  2005-04-30   0:59:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#402. To: Aric2000 (#399)

What is it with you people?

************

You do the SAME for global warming

Your sure you reading from the right set of notes, agent orange?

Dakmar  posted on  2005-04-30   1:02:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#403. To: Axenolith (#398)

Actually 'Lope, the norm is a LOT higher than that. Additionally, a lot of that stuff was being purported to be caused by the "sanctions" in the intervening years. I'm willing to believe that any number over the "norm" for Iraq is generally due to malnutrition (lack of stuff like folic acid), which was rampant in areas of Iraq pre war and probably continues to this day.

Malnutrition could be part of the cause.. due to the sanctions as well as malnutrition since the invasion which has worsened.. but would it cause 3 Xs the number of deformaties since the Gulf War as prior?

Zipporah  posted on  2005-04-30   1:04:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#404. To: Axenolith (#398)

I'm willing to believe that any number over the "norm" for Iraq is generally due to malnutrition (lack of stuff like folic acid), which was rampant in areas of Iraq pre war and probably continues to this day.

On that point I have to disagree, because I've seen tons and tons of pictures of starving children in Africa, and while they look tragic, they don't look like visions of Dante's Inferno as filtered through a bad acid trip. Children who are starving or who are born to starving people look thin and/or bloated. The Iraqi children I've seen are missing little things like their faces, or they have one big eye in the center of their forehead, or just a big hole in the middle of their head where a face should be, or their guts grew on the outside of their bodies. That's not malnutrition, that's something far more sinister.

Elliott Jackalope  posted on  2005-04-30   1:04:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#405. To: Elliott Jackalope (#404)

According to Dr. Rokke:

"The use of DU has also led to birth defects in the children of Allied veterans and is believed to be the cause of the 'worrying number of anophthalmos cases -- babies born without eyes' in Iraq.

Only one in 50 million births should be anophthalmic, yet one Baghdad hospital had eight cases in just two years. Seven of the fathers had been exposed to American DU anti-tank rounds in 1991.

A study of Gulf War veterans showed that 67% had children with severe illnesses, missing eyes, blood infections, respiratory problems and fused fingers."

Zipporah  posted on  2005-04-30   1:07:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#406. To: Aric2000 (#399)

We wait for OVERWHELMING scientific evidence, before we jump on the bandwagon.

Yeah, heck why not? It's only the lives of people that are sacrificed to your lust for war. And that agent orange thing worked out okay after all, right?

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-30   1:12:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#407. To: Aric2000 (#400)

OMG, where did you come from? and why do you post on this forum?

You seem to know what you are talking about, didn't you know that that is against the rules here?

OMG maybe I should ask you the same question.. why do you post on this forum? Hmm well if you think not knowing what you are talking about is a criteria for being here..then that must be why you're here..

Zipporah  posted on  2005-04-30   1:14:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#408. To: Elliott Jackalope (#404)

I'm talking malnutrition in-utero. An example, lack of folic acid is a big cause of birth defects (Neural Tube Defects - Spina bifida and anacephalopy), so much so that it's inclusion in some foods as a suppliment is mandatory here I believe.

Those defects from that specific deficiency are also some of the most visually disturbing. The general nutritional situation in Iraq has not been good for a long time for many groups, it stands to reason that the generally higher rate there is most probably due to this.

Axenolith  posted on  2005-04-30   2:26:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#409. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#406)

Yeah, heck why not? It's only the lives of people that are sacrificed to your lust for war. And that agent orange thing worked out okay after all, right?

NOT EVEN worth a response...

Aric2000  posted on  2005-04-30   2:42:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#410. To: Zipporah (#407)

See 409.... OMG, you people are just nuts...

That is probably why I am here, just like a car wreck, it is just hard not to look....

Aric2000  posted on  2005-04-30   2:43:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#411. To: Zipporah (#403)

but would it cause 3 Xs the number of deformaties since the Gulf War as prior?

That would be dependant on a number of factors that need to be determined. The before and after rate, the general pollutant load over X time in an area that appears to be suffering from an increase, even the amount of stress that expectant mothers are exposed to.

It's entirely possible that something like DU could add, say, a case or two to a tally in the hundreds, but there are to many nasty things floating around industrial civilization (especially when you blow them up, burn them, or stir a lot of people up and they end up poking around in it where they normally wouldn't be) that would really create birth mayhem if you exposed a lot of people to them.

Generally, there are three chromosomal or cellular effects of chemicals; Mutagenic (causes genetic damage to egg and sperm that manifests itself in subsequent generations), Teratogenic (causes damage-defects in the foetus during the developement) and Carcinogenic (causes cellular damage resulting in tumors-cancer).

If I had to rank DU in terms of it's greatest potential threat out of those 3, I'd pick cancer.

Something did just come to mind with respect to mutations and defects, If any of those people lived around an area destroyed which had any type of biological research facility, the shit they use to chop DNA could have been released in small quantities and it would probably present defects and physical manifestations in mature people. My wife used to work at Cetus (pre-Chiron) and she said they had outrageous chemicals for PCR and gene sequencing, shit that, if ou got it on you, you WERE going to get cancer or tumors, no ifs-ands or buts about it...

Axenolith  posted on  2005-04-30   3:04:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#412. To: Aric2000 (#400)

The Market Wrapup Crew is in effect here now ;-)

Axenolith  posted on  2005-04-30   3:05:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#413. To: All (#412)

BTW

Gotta work tomorrow... Must sleep... Back soon...

Axenolith  posted on  2005-04-30   3:06:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#414. To: Aric2000 (#409)

NOT EVEN worth a response...

Because you have no response. You are convicted. The lives of the dead stand as a testament to your putrid blood lust.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-30   3:20:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#415. To: Kyle, FormerLurker, sfvgto, tom007, duckhunter, BrerRabbit, swarthguy, xUSMC0311, Bill D Berger, honway, Aric2000, BeAChooser (#367)

Let's see the study, w/ a link. I'll guarantee it's BS.

Kyle,

If you're stupid enough to state that the radiation was all removed from the U-238 DU, and ignorant enough to NOT understand the term "Half-life;" your opinion is shit!

(Old news, of course.)


SKYDRIFTER  posted on  2005-04-30   9:56:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#416. To: Axenolith (#411)

Generally, there are three chromosomal or cellular effects of chemicals; Mutagenic (causes genetic damage to egg and sperm that manifests itself in subsequent generations), Teratogenic (causes damage-defects in the foetus during the developement) and Carcinogenic (causes cellular damage resulting in tumors-cancer).

If I had to rank DU in terms of it's greatest potential threat out of those 3, I'd pick cancer.

Something did just come to mind with respect to mutations and defects, If any of those people lived around an area destroyed which had any type of biological research facility, the shit they use to chop DNA could have been released in small quantities and it would probably present defects and physical manifestations in mature people. My wife used to work at Cetus (pre-Chiron) and she said they had outrageous chemicals for PCR and gene sequencing, shit that, if ou got it on you, you WERE going to get cancer or tumors, no ifs-ands or buts about it...

Thanks..for the explanation, particularly from someone who is a scientist and is not in the industry and doesn't have some self serving interest.

Now according to this study re Desert Storm "350 metric tons of DU were used in Operation Desert Storm as armor-penetrating ammunition with an estimated amount of 3-6 million grams of DU released into the atmosphere".. Mutagenic properties of DU is what Dr. Rokke and others have addressed regarding both Iraqis and soldiers w/Gulf War syndome and Balkan syndrome, that being said you had mentioned malnutrition i.e. folic acid causing birth defects which typically are defects such as cleft palate and spina bifida but seems the Iraqi children being born with deformaties are much more severe.. and secondly, the children of soldiers returning from the war are showing similar deformaties.. which would discount the malnutrition factor. Also.. in regard to the sanctions being a part of the problem re malnutrition:

"According to Dr Nawar Ali, at the University of Baghdad, who works in the newborn babies research department, a significant number of cases of deformed babies had been reported since 2003.

“There have been 650 cases in total since August 2003 reported in government hospitals - that is a 20 percent increase from the previous regime. Private hospitals were not included in the study, so the number could be higher,” Ali warned."

So.. taking this into consideration, would this not point to mutagenic properties of DU or is my conclusion incorrect?

Zipporah  posted on  2005-04-30   11:14:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#417. To: Aric2000 (#410)

See 409.... OMG, you people are just nuts...

That is probably why I am here, just like a car wreck, it is just hard not to look....

You know.. there are fools and there are damned fools and you can be catagorized as the latter.

Zipporah  posted on  2005-04-30   11:15:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#418. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut, All (#396)

So you like seeing our troops killed too. Mind if I bring some parents of soldiers to this thread, scum?

That statement is an OUTRAGE. I am SICK AS HELL of hearing Bushistas telling the rest of us that we "hate Americans" or are "blood dancers". It is so obvious that those who are against the war are against it because we DON'T want to see Americans (and others) die. This is typical Bush-speak: black is white, up is down, patriots are traitors, conservatives are liberals, war is peace, freedom is slavery.

Bush supporters are the true anti-Americans!!

h-a-l-f-w-i-t-t  posted on  2005-04-30   12:45:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#419. To: Kyle (#375)

I'll take it off and beat you to death w/ it.

Bush supporters are not just stupid and sheeplike; apparently they are dangerous, too. Sick, dumb, animals.

h-a-l-f-w-i-t-t  posted on  2005-04-30   12:48:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#420. To: h-a-l-f-w-i-t-t, Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#418)

Kyle: So you like seeing our troops killed too. Mind if I bring some parents of soldiers to this thread, scum?

Quite a non-sequitur.

Bush supporters are the true anti-Americans!!

BRING 'EM HOME!

robin  posted on  2005-04-30   12:49:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#421. To: Aric2000 (#410)

OMG, you people are just nuts...

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"

After a while, your desperation to keep people from seeing the truth just becomes tawdry and sad. "Nuts"... better look to your own mental health before you start worrying about others'.

h-a-l-f-w-i-t-t  posted on  2005-04-30   12:53:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#422. To: robin (#420)

Yeah, and we KNOW what the parents of many of the soldiers really think of this fraudulent war. Typical of Kyle to want to use them, instead of trying to understand the horrible position this administration has put them in, after killing their children.

DRAFT THE TWINS!!!

h-a-l-f-w-i-t-t  posted on  2005-04-30   12:56:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#423. To: h-a-l-f-w-i-t-t (#418)

That statement is an OUTRAGE. I am SICK AS HELL of hearing Bushistas telling the rest of us that we "hate Americans" or are "blood dancers".

Kyle doesn't give a shit about America.

He's a goober who got suckered in by Bush's propaganda a couple of years ago and he's made a fool of himself marching to the party drum.

Kyle really doesn't give a shit about America, Kyle's main goal is to obscure the hard facts that make his prior statements look idiotic.

Kyle doesn't care if a large number of American soldiers get killed in the process. What is important to Kyle is Kyle's silly little ego.

crack monkey  posted on  2005-04-30   13:08:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#424. To: h-a-l-f-w-i-t-t (#422)

Something along those lines would make a good bumper sticker.

"Bring 'em home! Send the Twins"

At the very least they could provide some OSO entertainment as dancers.
Especially after having made the video disappear (from the NYPost):
The White House can relax. You may have heard about the videotape that allegedly showed thong-baring Jenna Bush down on all fours and doing Da Butt dance at club NerveAna. We're told that the tape, which every print and electronic tabloid wanted, has mysteriously disappeared...

robin  posted on  2005-04-30   13:14:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#425. To: All (#424)

Oh, and in case someone runs across that that video, we do have an extra $30K laying around ... tips@washingtonsocialites.com.
This posted by Kelly Ann Collins at 3:00 PM

robin  posted on  2005-04-30   13:21:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#426. To: robin (#424)

We're told that the tape, which every print and electronic tabloid wanted, has mysteriously disappeared...

Whaddya want to bet Mary and Lynne Cheney bought up every copy?

h-a-l-f-w-i-t-t  posted on  2005-04-30   13:22:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#427. To: crack monkey (#423)

Kyle doesn't care if a large number of American soldiers get killed in the process. What is important to Kyle is Kyle's silly little ego.

And after all, what importance do the lives of those nobodies have, in comparison with the preservation of the mighty egos of Kyle and Trash-zipcode?

h-a-l-f-w-i-t-t  posted on  2005-04-30   13:25:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#428. To: h-a-l-f-w-i-t-t (#419)

Bush supporters are not just stupid and sheeplike; apparently they are dangerous, too. Sick, dumb, animals.

A little bird has told me that Kyle has gone the way of all integrity challenged lying little shitballs.

Given this, he won't be able to answer you.

But I'm sure he's reading this however, so I wouldn't want to discourage you from taking a pot shot at him.

crack monkey  posted on  2005-04-30   13:26:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#429. To: h-a-l-f-w-i-t-t (#426)

We're told that the tape, which every print and electronic tabloid wanted, has mysteriously disappeared...

Whaddya want to bet Mary and Lynne Cheney bought up every copy?

Note post 425's link, Kelly Ann appears to be offering another reward, like the one for Gannon.

robin  posted on  2005-04-30   13:33:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#430. To: crack monkey (#428)

A little bird has told me that Kyle has gone the way of all integrity challenged lying little shitballs.

Kneeling in a ditch sniveling while awaiting the inevitable bullet to the back of the head?

Esso  posted on  2005-04-30   13:44:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#431. To: Zipporah (#417)

You know.. there are fools and there are damned fools and you can be catagorized as the latter.

I am neither, but I watch quite a few of both here....

So, money is not a motivation for me when I say the DU scare is a load of shit.

Dr. Rokke has MUCH money to be made if he can convince enough people that INDEED, DU is dangerous. LOADS of it, because the US government will get blamed, will be sued, and some stupid idiots on a Jury will declare them guilty and a massive amount of money will be awarded, and guess who will get a piece of that action?

The doctor that made it ALL possible.

So to say that your "expert" is some lily white, neutral man with a professional opinion, tells me that you are blind to such things as long as it matches your prejudices.

Aric2000  posted on  2005-04-30   21:26:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#432. To: Zipporah (#417)

You know.. there are fools and there are damned fools and you can be catagorized as the latter.

And what does that make me???????

=0)

CAPPSMADNESS  posted on  2005-04-30   21:29:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#433. To: Aric2000 (#431)

am neither, but I watch quite a few of both here....

So, money is not a motivation for me when I say the DU scare is a load of shit.

Dr. Rokke has MUCH money to be made if he can convince enough people that INDEED, DU is dangerous. LOADS of it, because the US government will get blamed, will be sued, and some stupid idiots on a Jury will declare them guilty and a massive amount of money will be awarded, and guess who will get a piece of that action?

The doctor that made it ALL possible.

So to say that your "expert" is some lily white, neutral man with a professional opinion, tells me that you are blind to such things as long as it matches your prejudices.

Oh really? Your 'friend' certainly has prejudices and they are tied to money.. have you taken the time to see WHO Dr. Rokke is.. and if you think it's about money for him you are sadly mistaken..

You believe I have prejudices regarding DU or anything else.. you dont know jack shit about me.. I was blind to all the bullshit you are blind to.. and I wised up.. something you may think about trying to do.. instead of calling people on this site NUTS.. well guess what if you think everyone here is nuts..and want to watch as you put it a 'train wreck'.. and that is all the input you have maybe that is what you should do.. just watch..

Zipporah  posted on  2005-04-30   21:33:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#434. To: h-a-l-f-w-i-t-t (#421)

Desperation?

I am desperate to convince a bunch of paranoid fools without a clue that what they are dioung is scaremongering, and NOT scientifically valid in any way shape or form.

You are in more danger from Radon gas in your own fricking house, then you are from DU on a battlefield, unless of course you are the intended target of such munitions.

You people are scaremongering on NO evidence, and the words of a doctor who is bound and determined that he is going to create a class action lawsuit that will make he and the lawyers a SHITLOAD of money, and the sad thing is, it's ALL BULLSHIT. The US government, which means US, because it is our tax money that will pay for it, is going to put out a shitload of money, to a bunch of victims that are NOT the victims of what they claim to be victims of.

DU is NOT the problem, something else is creating the Birth defects etc, and as long as they are concentrating so hard on DU, then they fail to find the TRUE cause and possibly fix it.

They fixate on DU, because the US government can be blamed, and has DEEP pockets.

How will you sue the Saddam government for releasing dangerous chemicals into the environment via their chemical and biological programs, that government no longer exists.

YOU MUST FIND A BOOGEY MAN THAT CAN BE USED TO COUGH UP CASH.

You ALL have been suckered, just as millions more will be by a propaganda machine that wants Our tax dollars, and will do and say anything, INCLUDING BS THAT DU WILL CAUSE BIRTH DEFECTS ETC, to get their hands on that cash.

Aric2000  posted on  2005-04-30   21:33:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#435. To: Esso (#430)

Kneeling in a ditch sniveling while awaiting the inevitable bullet to the back of the head?

Banished to the great beyond for unethical posting.

crack monkey  posted on  2005-04-30   21:39:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#436. To: CAPPSMADNESS (#432)

And what does that make me???????

=0)

Its not a either or .. LOL.. just applies to a select few.. :P

Zipporah  posted on  2005-04-30   21:40:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#437. To: Zipporah (#433)

Oh please, study up on the ACTUAL qualities of DU, PLEASE....

Because if you do, it becomes GLARINGLY obvious that it CANNOT do what these people claim that it does.

It is as dangerous as lead, it's radioactivity levels are less dangerous then the material used in glow in the dark markings on your watch.

It is a heavy metal, of course it can be dangerous, and must be used with care, just as lead etc is used with care. BUT, it will not and CANNOT create birth defects of any sort, it will NOT change DNA strands, it cannot and will NOT cause birth defects, the radioactivity is just NOT high enough, and the tetrogenic damage it can cause, DOESN'T HAPPEN. Lead is FAR more dangerous to a fetus then DU ever thought of being.

You're all being paranoid nutcases on this, and it is ALL because the US government is big and EVIIIL in your eyes, and if someone says that DU is dangerous, and it is used by the US government, and therefore they use it when they KNOW it is dangerous, etc, etc ad nauseum, you fruitloops are gonna eat it up.

Aric2000  posted on  2005-04-30   21:40:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#438. To: Aric2000 (#437)

You're all being paranoid nutcases on this, and it is ALL because the US government is big and EVIIIL in your eyes, and if someone says that DU is dangerous, and it is used by the US government, and therefore they use it when they KNOW it is dangerous, etc, etc ad nauseum, you fruitloops are gonna eat it up.

Cya Aric..

Zipporah  posted on  2005-04-30   21:43:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#439. To: Aric2000 (#437)

It is as dangerous as lead, it's radioactivity levels are less dangerous then the material used in glow in the dark markings on your watch.

That stuff will kill you quick if you injest it. A lot of women who painted clock faces at the turn of the century found this out the hard way. They would moisten the tip of the bruch with thier lips. Doctoroh talks about the incident in Ragtime.

crack monkey  posted on  2005-04-30   21:44:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#440. To: Aric2000 (#437)

It is a heavy metal, of course it can be dangerous, and must be used with care, just as lead etc is used with care. BUT, it will not and CANNOT create birth defects of any sort, it will NOT change DNA strands, it cannot and will NOT cause birth defects, the radioactivity is just NOT high enough, and the tetrogenic damage it can cause, DOESN'T HAPPEN. Lead is FAR more dangerous to a fetus then DU ever thought of being.

It's odd the way you offer up all of these wild claims but never provide a shred of proof for anything. Are you an oracle that simply must be believed? A lot of stuff you offer up is transparently false on its face.

crack monkey  posted on  2005-04-30   21:47:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#441. To: Zipporah (#438)

Cya Aric..

May I assume that Aric2000 has joined kyle in asshole heaven?

I guess it's a waste of time to post to him then.

But of course, it was also a waste of time to post to him when he was here. Same difference I guess.

crack monkey  posted on  2005-04-30   21:49:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#442. To: Aric2000 (#437)

Long time no read. Remember me (braddueringer), It's Saturday and some of us are trying not to venture forth from the state of euphoria. At least not with out a road map. So please try and contain the vitriol and venom for the proper outlets. Aren't we all fighting the same foe here or am I just drunk.... OK... Don't answer that but you know what I am saying.

timetobuildaboat  posted on  2005-04-30   21:50:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#443. To: crack monkey (#441)

May I assume that Aric2000 has joined kyle in asshole heaven?

It really would be a sad turn of events....

timetobuildaboat  posted on  2005-04-30   21:52:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#444. To: timetobuildaboat (#443)

It really would be a sad turn of events....

I don't know. He has Kyle up there with him. I got the impression the two were sort of butt buddies.

crack monkey  posted on  2005-04-30   21:54:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#445. To: crack monkey (#441)

May I assume that Aric2000 has joined kyle in asshole heaven?

I guess it's a waste of time to post to him then.

But of course, it was also a waste of time to post to him when he was here. Same difference I guess.

Yep.. safe to assume that.. if anyone wants to contribute here.. great.. fine ..no problem but when they start calling everyone here nuts.. and say that they're here to watch a 'train wreck' hey fine ..let them 'watch'.. since that is what they want..hey I'll be glad to cooperate.. :P

Zipporah  posted on  2005-04-30   21:55:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#446. To: Zipporah (#445)

Yep.. safe to assume that.. if anyone wants to contribute here.. great.. fine ..no problem but when they start calling everyone here nuts.. and say that they're here to watch a 'train wreck' hey fine ..let them 'watch'.. since that is what they want..hey I'll be glad to cooperate.. :P

Well .... his honest opinion seemed to be that he was too good to be here. Maybe you did him a favor.

crack monkey  posted on  2005-04-30   21:56:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#447. To: crack monkey (#446)

Well .... his honest opinion seemed to be that he was too good to be here. Maybe you did him a favor.

Well then good if that was his opinion.. then I solved a problem for him .. did I not? :P

Zipporah  posted on  2005-04-30   21:58:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#448. To: Zipporah (#445)

Yep.. safe to assume that.. if anyone wants to contribute here.. great.. fine ..no problem but when they start calling everyone here nuts.. and say that they're here to watch a 'train wreck' hey fine ..let them 'watch'.. since that is what they want..hey I'll be glad to cooperate.. :P

I still say you are a sweety....

timetobuildaboat  posted on  2005-04-30   22:00:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#449. To: All (#448)

Then again it could be alcohol induced..... Naaahh!

timetobuildaboat  posted on  2005-04-30   22:01:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#450. To: timetobuildaboat (#448)

I still say you are a sweety....

Hey it was out strictly out of kindness.. ;P

Zipporah  posted on  2005-04-30   22:02:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#451. To: Aric2000 (#431)

Dr. Rokke has MUCH money to be made if he can convince enough people that INDEED, DU is dangerous. LOADS of it, because the US government will get blamed, will be sued, and some stupid idiots on a Jury will declare them guilty and a massive amount of money will be awarded, and guess who will get a piece of that action?

The doctor that made it ALL possible.

So to say that your "expert" is some lily white, neutral man with a professional opinion, tells me that you are blind to such things as long as it matches your prejudices.

What a load of bullshit!

You should have enough sense to know that only pettifogger shyster attorneys and BAR lawyers benefit from others' iniquities and troubles. They are the lowest form of life on the Earth.

BTP Holdings  posted on  2005-04-30   22:05:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#452. To: Zipporah (#450)

His comments smacked of government cohort... or am I just off base considering my inebriated state?

timetobuildaboat  posted on  2005-04-30   22:06:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#453. To: BTP Holdings (#451)

Aric2000 has followed Kyle into the great beyond. He can't answer you.

crack monkey  posted on  2005-04-30   22:08:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#454. To: BTP Holdings (#451)

What a load of bullshit!

Just a word of advice....

Don't beat around the bush.

Tell him what you really think.

timetobuildaboat  posted on  2005-04-30   22:08:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#455. To: timetobuildaboat (#452)

His comments smacked of government cohort... or am I just off base considering my inebriated state?

Hmm well not sure about that.. it may be your inebriated state.. I think it could be better catagorized as your basic marching moron.. :P

Zipporah  posted on  2005-04-30   22:08:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#456. To: crack monkey (#453)

Aric2000 has followed Kyle into the great beyond. He can't answer you.

Being a free-um we may need to tolerate the likes of Aric2000 to "walk the talk" but Oh well! Who am I to inject policy in my pickled state of mind.

timetobuildaboat  posted on  2005-04-30   22:12:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#457. To: crack monkey (#453)

He can't answer you.

So I found out.

BTP Holdings  posted on  2005-04-30   22:12:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#458. To: timetobuildaboat (#452)

or am I just off base considering my inebriated state?

Oh, that explains your fiendishness tonight. LOL

BTP Holdings  posted on  2005-04-30   22:14:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#459. To: Zipporah (#455)

Marching lockstep? yes.... I see it now....

timetobuildaboat  posted on  2005-04-30   22:14:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#460. To: timetobuildaboat (#456)

Being a free-um we may need to tolerate the likes of Aric2000 to "walk the talk" but Oh well! Who am I to inject policy in my pickled state of mind

I don't think he got pronged for his views. It was more the way he was presenting them.

crack monkey  posted on  2005-04-30   22:15:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#461. To: All (#456)

Being a free-um we may need to tolerate the likes of Aric2000 to "walk the talk" but Oh well! Who am I to inject policy in my pickled state of mind.

free-um?

What the hell! Is this guy drunk, and do you tolerate this on your site? If so I will go somewhere else to vent my dislike for the status quo.

timetobuildaboat  posted on  2005-04-30   22:16:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#462. To: crack monkey (#460)

I don't think he got pronged for his views. It was more the way he was presenting them.

Attacking others personally is a sign of serious insecurity in the humble and drunk oppinion of this poster.

I hate to say it but... Good God Craig Chaquico's midnightnoon is absolutely brilliant. Needless to say it is playing right now with Third Force's Richard Elliott on sax.

timetobuildaboat  posted on  2005-04-30   22:22:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#463. To: Zipporah (#455)

You really are a sweet thing and I hop your husband does'nt know where I live.

timetobuildaboat  posted on  2005-04-30   22:24:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#464. To: All (#463)

hop = hope

timetobuildaboat  posted on  2005-04-30   22:24:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#465. To: All (#464)

Not bad just 30 seconds to a correction!!!

timetobuildaboat  posted on  2005-04-30   22:25:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#466. To: Zipporah (#416)

I'm working on this, I'm not ignoring it! Follow up soon...

Axenolith  posted on  2005-05-01   2:33:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#467. To: Zipporah (#438)

Cya Aric..

(Harrrrumphh)

Aric and Kyle,

A real steaming pile,

Hung out and spewed on the 4um a while.

Zipporah got pissed,

When the two smirked and dissed,

And booted their asses in style.

crack monkey  posted on  2005-05-01   9:39:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#468. To: h-a-l-f-w-i-t-t (#418)

That statement is an OUTRAGE. I am SICK AS HELL of hearing Bushistas telling the rest of us that we "hate Americans" or are "blood dancers". It is so obvious that those who are against the war are against it because we DON'T want to see Americans (and others) die. This is typical Bush-speak: black is white, up is down, patriots are traitors, conservatives are liberals, war is peace, freedom is slavery.

Bush supporters are the true anti-Americans!!

I just saw this post, halfwitt. It's awesome.

christine  posted on  2005-05-01   19:26:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#469. To: crack monkey (#467)

Zipporah got pissed,

correction: Christine and Zipporah got pissed ;)

christine  posted on  2005-05-01   19:27:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#470. To: Zipporah (#416)

Thanks..for the explanation, particularly from someone who is a scientist and is not in the industry and doesn't have some self serving interest.

What's kind of ironic is that I started out in the environmental industry somewhat on the "save the earth" camp. After a while I came to realize that, in the US in particular, the regulatory environment has evolved to the point where even without further rule making or "tweaking", the improvements will continue merely due to the fact that obsolescence and efficiency are doing the heavy lifting. Most new rules or regulations are, IMHO, solely to ass rape anybody who isn't either bureaucratically connected or able to afford in house legal revue.

Now according to this study re Desert Storm "350 metric tons of DU were used in Operation Desert Storm as armor-penetrating ammunition with an estimated amount of 3-6 million grams of DU released into the atmosphere"..

Stepping aside from the DU debate itself for a minute, the way this is worded automatically started the numeric shenanigans meter. Why use the 3-6 million grams released to air as a figure when they already started with metric tons? (1 metric ton = ~1.10 short tons, a "short" ton being the 2000 pound kind). Generally it would be because 3-6 million grams carries far more dramatic weight than saying 3-6 metric tons released to air. When I see that number, and I look at it versus the releases of other common atmospheric pollutants (metals included), I'm starting to get the "Ho Hum" because when you start extrapolating that amount over any significant surface area, you quickly start to see that the resultant concentrations are going to go asymptotically small.

We'll take the largest figure in any instance, to give the benefit of the doubt. We'll keep figures to metric (that's how I always get lab results, but if you want conversions I'll put a neat converter utility on my web space for a while that people can DL).

Assumptions:
1) The soil in the area in question is predominantly sand and fine silty sands. We'll assign an unconsolidated weight for this soil of 70lbs per cubic foot (on the conservative side) or 1121kg per cubic meter.
2) For the sake of exercise, we'll assume our aerosolized DU was released along stretches of the "Highway of Death" road (So I can gander shots of the road and get lane widths and the general look of the surrounding area).
3) I'm going to limit the dispersal to 45.72 meters (150 feet) of soil surface with the inferred pavement area (impermiable) taken out, both sides of road (half each side) for 1 kilometer (1000 meters).

Given the maximum airborne release, distributed within the top 15.24 cm (6 inches) of soil in our area (1000m x 45.72 meters), we would get 769 parts per million (ppm) DU in soil (6 million grams over nearly 8 billion grams of soil).

Now, there's a lot of stuff that starts raising flags at 100's of ppm, but for perspective, Lead is considered hazardous at 1000 ppm total lead and 5 ppm soluble. The thing is though, we've seriously narrowed our possible contamination area. If we head towards more realistic areas of dispersal and length of highway, we quickly are into quantities of mass and area that make contamination by 6 metric tons of material essentially meaningless.

If we go to a 1 square kilometer area, we drop to 35ppm, 10 square kilometers, 0.35ppm (or 350 parts per billion (ppb)).

Now, the TWA (Time Weighted Average, 8 hour) for exposure to Uranium metal (the NIOSH gives it as such, but if it's for un-depleted, then it's worse anyway) is 0.2 mg/m3 (This means that it's safe to work in levels of the substance in air up to this value for 8 hour periods and that's the California limit which is stricter than Federal). To achieve this quantity in air starting from soil with 769ppm in it you would need to mobilize 0.26g/m3, and while that's small looking number wise, you're talking approaching "can't see hand in front of face" dust levels for that and we're at the highest, most conservative, smallest area, of our calculation.

In any instance where I was unsure here I fudged toward giving DU the advantage in mass, concentration, and area. After having actually worked through this and seeing what comes out, there has to be some other cause, or combination of causes for the effects mentioned. Even if we assume an order of magnitude greater release of airborne (60 metric tons as opposed to 6) contaminant, in order to maintain an even remotely reasonable exposure level, the material has to be limited to an approximately 10 square kilometer area, and every person who is claimed to be affected by it has to have spent a LONG period of time in that particular area AND it had to be insanely dusty during their entire exposure time.

I realize that at the conclusion of running through this, the arguement for DU as a significant cause of war related maladies is effectively destroyed by the quantities given within the paper. There may be specific instances where succeptible people have been severely affected by heavy exposure to inordinantly high concentrations caused by being around direct hit areas, or burning vehicles but the numbers cited as sickened in claims are just not physically possible at the release level and area.

That said, if there are really large numbers of Veterans and or Iraqi's who are exhibiting large numbers and types of severe maladies outside of the statistical norm then I would highly suspect that this debate (in general, not amongst the folks here) is a red herring to throw people off the trail of something a LOT worse than DU.

Axenolith  posted on  2005-05-01   22:08:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#471. To: All (#470)

P.S. The handy unit converter is

HERE

Hollar if it's not DLing right, I'll leave it up for a few days...

Axenolith  posted on  2005-05-01   22:11:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#472. To: Zipporah (#416)

“There have been 650 cases in total since August 2003 reported in government hospitals - that is a 20 percent increase from the previous regime. Private hospitals were not included in the study, so the number could be higher,” Ali warned."

BTW, I'd far sooner consider VOCs (Volatile Organic Compounds and PNAs (Poly Nuclear Aromatics) generated from all of the uncontrolled petroleum and other items burning for that increase. I'd like to see if they [defect numbers] rose, dropped and rose again from GWI to post GWII.

Axenolith  posted on  2005-05-01   22:17:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#473. To: Axenolith (#471)

Thanks, that is handy.

robin  posted on  2005-05-01   22:21:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#474. To: Axenolith (#470)

or burning vehicles but the numbers cited as sickened in claims are just not physically possible at the release level and area.

That said, if there are really large numbers of Veterans and or Iraqi's who are exhibiting large numbers and types of severe maladies outside of the statistical norm then I would highly suspect that this debate (in general, not amongst the folks here) is a red herring to throw people off the trail of something a LOT worse than DU.

Impressive work, Axe, and intresting as well.

I'm beginning to suspecting the dreaded "combination of experimential vaccines, insect parasites, suspended HC, plastics and other vaporized materials unknown" as being a likely culprit-; and much harder to quantify.

Thanks for your reasoned approach.

tom007  posted on  2005-05-01   22:26:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#475. To: Axenolith (#470)

I realize that at the conclusion of running through this, the arguement for DU as a significant cause of war related maladies is effectively destroyed by the quantities given within the paper. There may be specific instances where succeptible people have been severely affected by heavy exposure to inordinantly high concentrations caused by being around direct hit areas, or burning vehicles but the numbers cited as sickened in claims are just not physically possible at the release level and area.

That said, if there are really large numbers of Veterans and or Iraqi's who are exhibiting large numbers and types of severe maladies outside of the statistical norm then I would highly suspect that this debate (in general, not amongst the folks here) is a red herring to throw people off the trail of something a LOT worse than DU.

Hmm.. interesting.. food for thought. Considering that there are according to the studies.. the maladies seen are very much outside the statistical norm and you are saying that the effect apparently is not from DU.. I wonder what other substance could be being used that could be the cause? Thanks for your time, I appreciate the explanation.

Zipporah  posted on  2005-05-01   22:37:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#476. To: Axenolith (#472)

BTW, I'd far sooner consider VOCs (Volatile Organic Compounds and PNAs (Poly Nuclear Aromatics) generated from all of the uncontrolled petroleum and other items burning for that increase. I'd like to see if they [defect numbers] rose, dropped and rose again from GWI to post GWII.

I'll see if I can find any data .. thanks again.

Zipporah  posted on  2005-05-01   22:38:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#477. To: Axenolith (#471)

P.S. The handy unit converter

Hmmmm.... any chance of adding a furlongs per fortnight conversion to the Speed tab? I find I'm frequently needing to express the acceleration of disk drive stepper motors in furlongs/fortnight2 :-/

Starwind  posted on  2005-05-02   1:41:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#478. To: Starwind (#477)

Square root of negitive two, usually works on these sorts of problems.

tom007  posted on  2005-05-02   1:42:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#479. To: tom007 (#478)

Square root of negitive two, usually works on these sorts of problems.

Or so you imagine.

Starwind  posted on  2005-05-02   1:45:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#480. To: Starwind (#479)

Yep, usually works, as you can imagine.

tom007  posted on  2005-05-02   1:55:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#481. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#308)

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.

Do you have any good links on this? I recently had my house tested for radon and the results came back at 4.0 pCi/l.

justlurking  posted on  2005-05-02   6:31:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#482. To: justlurking (#481)

Do you have any good links on this?

This one has some good information. There's tons of others to be found on Google. Fortunately, radon is fairly easy to remediate in most homes - especially if you have a crawl space.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-05-02   10:18:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#483. To: christine (#468)

Thanks, christine! Hey, wait'll you see the great quote I have from a certain bot, from 2 years ago (the first fall of Baghdad):

200. To: SKYDRIFTER (#198)

(Skydrifter:)When people such as Arator, Malador, Christine, Palo, et al get put down for their Constitutional stand

(Butteye:)They get "put down" as you call it, for being intellectually dishonest, or for "bird talking" the latest liberal "talking points memo"...or for just not having the strength of their own convictions, IMHO.

Basically, when challenged, they run and hide. Note the dead silence from them in the wake of Baghdad falling. It was very obvious to all.

And thats why they are the minority viewpoint in this country.

Badeye posted on 2003-04-15 10:23:16 ET Reply Trace

For full context, see the thread on "Two Years Later, Mission Still Not Accomplished".

h-a-l-f-w-i-t-t  posted on  2005-05-02   16:05:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#484. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#482)

Radon is a natural gas that comes out of the ground. The way you deal with it is you open the window, it goes out when you do that. You have to perform this procedure maybe once a year to keep the radon levels low enough to be completely safe.

Very rarely is there a piece of land that produces a lot of radon. For those places you rig a system where the gas can go into pipes from below the slab and it goes up through the roof and is released.

Red Jones  posted on  2005-05-02   16:11:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#485. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#482)

radon is fairly easy to remediate in most homes - especially if you have a crawl space.

Thanks for the link. I usually do google, but I have no idea regarding radon what is good advise and what is not. I'll check out your link. I have a log house, the first floor is completely underground (this is also where the test took place). It's also where the master bedroom is and the den where the computer is, so it's where I spend a majority of my time.

justlurking  posted on  2005-05-02   19:01:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#486. To: justlurking (#485)

You will probably find that the best solution will be good ventilation.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-05-02   21:56:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#487. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#486)

That's what I read from your site (very good one too). There is only one door that comes in from the outside down here, no windows at all since this floor is underground. I am thinking now of adding a screen door on and letting it ventilate that way. Just not sure if it will be enough. But the wind does come in from that direction most of the time, so it might be.

Thanks again for the site.

justlurking  posted on  2005-05-02   22:02:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#488. To: justlurking (#487)

I suspect there are some good monitors available. It might be worth checking them out to see if they're cost effective. At least that way you will know how long it takes for it to build up and how often to air the place out.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-05-02   23:08:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest