More On DU (Two Graphic Images Linked)

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 11 2005 @ 05:46 PM
link   
This is a very serious situation. Things need to be done, and people should be arrested.




posted on May, 11 2005 @ 06:18 PM
link   
I only looked at one of the pics for a split-second and even so I saw the terrible effects.


A product of my red white and blue...



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 06:41 PM
link   
DU...horrible.

Pardon me if this is somewhat off-topic, but we dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Today these are highly populated areas after 60 years. Is DU THAT much more potent than an A-bomb?



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by BadMojo
DU...horrible.
Pardon me if this is somewhat off-topic, but we dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Today these are highly populated areas after 60 years. Is DU THAT much more potent than an A-bomb?


With an atomic bomb you know the target area, you clean up (which we did), by bulldozing the radiated ground under cement (sweeping under the rug) containtments, barrel it up and ship it someplace out of sight.

With DU, most of it turns into micoscopic particles on impact, irradiating everything it touches, entering the blood stream through breathing and skin contact, and traveling on the wind to anywhere. It irradiates its targets as well, targets we don't clean up.



There are more DU weapons in product, rifle rounds, and such like that.


DU represents an unlimited supply of ultra destructive weapons for the United States.

DU report from U. of Wisconsin

The reactors keep pumping it out and we really have no safe place to stick it accept inside the bodies of other people.


[edit on 11-5-2005 by Legalizer]



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 07:22 PM
link   
I've just seen more pictures of the effects of DU. I am totally speechless.



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 09:30 PM
link   
Its quite a handful to swallow. Im been a bit of a supporter of this war, but now im heartbroken.



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 09:38 PM
link   
"DU munitions (in the form of tank and naval artillery rounds) are also deployed by the armed forces of the UK, Israel, France, Japan, China, Russia, Pakistan, and many more. DU rounds are manufactured in 18 countries."

Apparently many countries are involved in this silent killer.

en.wikipedia.org...


DU is very new to me, i've heard bits of it before, but never really seen its full potential.



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by evanfitz
"DU munitions (in the form of tank and naval artillery rounds) are also deployed by the armed forces of the UK, Israel, France, Japan, China, Russia, Pakistan, and many more. DU rounds are manufactured in 18 countries."

Apparently many countries are involved in this silent killer.

en.wikipedia.org...


DU is very new to me, i've heard bits of it before, but never really seen its full potential.


I am not aware of any country except the United States that hasn't joined the international moratorium on depleted uranium weapons. Google the term "European Parliament demands moratorium for depleted uranium weapons". To the best of my knowlege we are the only nation which continues to use these weapons, and the really sad thing is that we are completely aware of the effects.

Here's some more terms to google while your at it...
"Chromosome aberrations found in Gulf and Balkans Wars' veterans"
"NRC denies petition against use of depleted uranium munitions"
"UN Subcommission condemns DU weapons"
"Depleted Uranium in Urine of Soldiers"

And the stupendous "U.S. DOD Briefing on Depleted Uranium Weapons: No Health Risk" right before "Bill requiring suspension of depleted uranium munitions introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives"

www.antenna.nl...
www.antenna.nl...
www.antenna.nl...
www.antenna.nl...
www.antenna.nl...

Dig Around, the information is out there, but it isn't likely to make the six o'clock news, you have to find it...
www.google.com...

Edit:
Maybe I was wrong about the US being the only country using them...


www.converge.org.nz...
France, the United Kingdom and the United States all firmly rejected removing the munitions from alliance arsenals, despite pleas from Italy, Germany, Greece and Norway. US officials said a moratorium would be perceived as an admission of guilt that could later be exploited to pin allegations of war crimes on allied leaders (William Drozdiak, Washington Post, 11 Jan).



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 12:25 AM
link   
How ironic. Remember the U.S. government sounding the alarm about possible "dirty bomb" attacks? Well aren't these weapons saturated with DU basically small dirty bombs???


Not cool at all. They talk about "Weapons of Freedom," how we're helping people. Yet these photos show the exact opposite.



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 02:03 AM
link   
I'm no expert but my guess is that the problem with DU is not the radioactivity associated with the 'exposure' but the toxicity. DU is depleted hence no or very little radiation. I think the problem with DU is the toxocoty inherent in Uranium dust. Chemical materials can be just as carcinogenic and mutagenic as radioactivity. So, in my view, you cannot compare DU to a dirty bomb.



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 02:08 AM
link   
Depleted is a misnomer. Yes it is still highly radioactive. It is cheap and unfortunately common enough that it is quite literally given to arms manufacturers. I have provided a decent starting point for research on DU, try some.



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 09:12 AM
link   
Twitchy is right, depleted is just a term used to describe uranium that can't be used in a reactor anymore. There is a difference. Depleted Uranium is still highly radioactive, considering it takes 45 billion years just to lose half it's radioactivity.

So yeah, depleted uranium is as radioactive as ever.



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 09:24 AM
link   
There is no evidence that DU caused any of these poor childrens illness. There is significant evidence of a number of other possible sources of toxins that could cause the defects.

Link to DU studies.

www.fas.org...



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 10:20 AM
link   

as posted by twitchy
To the best of my knowlege we are the only nation which continues to use these weapons, and the really sad thing is that we are completely aware of the effects.


And to the "best of my knowledge", you are simply doing selective research. You want to make others aware of this issue by telling them to research the issue, and yet, you assert "to the best of my knowledge," the US is the only one who "continues" to use DU laced weaponry? Typical. I assume your taking this stance because the US is supposedly the only ones who have used such weaponry? NATO used it in Kosovo. Which nations that make up NATO were present and active in conflict operations in Kosovo? Which of those nation were involved in the 1st Gulf War? Hello?

Take your own advice, and research a bit more objectively yourself, maybe?

The link given below indicates that The Nuclear Policy Research Institute states:


The Nuclear Policy Research Institute estimates that 12 countries currently possess DU weapons in their arsenals: the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Thailand, Israel, France, China, Jordan, and Taiwan.

Depleted Uranium

You do understand what the definition of "currently" is, correct? As such, I have to ask how in all that research you profess to have done that you can simply assert: "to the best of my knowledge"? Selective agenda-driven researching, maybe?

Twitchy, this issue over DU is a significant issue. It requires no politicizing. A solid and objective research would have greatly increased the effectiveness of your topic on this issue.






seekerof

[edit on 12-5-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xenersys
There is no evidence that DU caused any of these poor childrens illness. There is significant evidence of a number of other possible sources of toxins that could cause the defects.

Link to DU studies.

www.fas.org...


It's true there can't be a conclusive link. It's often impossible to tell why the mutation or cancer happened.

The statistics of such occurencies can be a major indication that there is a factor out there, and the DU is a probable a suspect as any, if not more.

Technical detail:

Once DU is airborne in the form of dust, it's likely to be deposited in the lungs or on skin. Alpha particles that are normally blocked from leaving the bulk DU (because it's coated) are then free to inflict damage on contact. Since they are doubly charged, and the energy deposition per unit length goes as square of the charge, the density of the enerfy deposited in the tissue is roughly 4 times more than with other types of radiation. As such, the probability of cancer and other malaise is alsi much increased.



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
You do understand what the definition of "currently" is, correct? As such, I have to ask how in all that research you profess to have done that you can simply assert: "to the best of my knowledge"? Selective agenda-driven researching, maybe?

Twitchy, this issue over DU is a significant issue. It requires no politicizing. A solid and objective research would have greatly increased the effectiveness of your topic on this issue.






seekerof

[edit on 12-5-2005 by Seekerof]


Seeker, from the best of my knowledge, one of your favorite past-times seems to be selective research.


And why is he jumping on our good ol' American government? You guessed it: we use it the most.



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 10:56 AM
link   
Your countering with what, sweatmonicaIdo?
Nada, as par, I see.
Nothing but continued drivel.
Nice....





seekerof

[edit on 12-5-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xenersys
There is no evidence that DU caused any of these poor childrens illness. There is significant evidence of a number of other possible sources of toxins that could cause the defects.

Link to DU studies.

www.fas.org...


I read that report a while back and it's apparent to me RAND either has incompetent researchers or they purposely muffed it up.

How does exposure to highly radioactive material not cause serious health anomalies? If you throw somebody into the room of an active nuclear reactor, what happens? They die. Same case here. This is highly radioactive material and when a living organism is exposed to high amounts of radiation, bad things happen.

I also found this statement in the "report" very interesting:

"The report states that there are no peer reviewed published reports of detectable increases of cancer or other negative health effects from radiation exposure to inhaled or ingested natural uranium at levels far exceeding those likely in the Gulf."

This RAND statement seems to be very inconclusive. There are no PEER-REVIEWED published reports, which means that there are such reports, just that they have not been reviewed. Overall, this report just seems to contradict every bit of knowledge in the scientific community.

BTW, the report was in regards to the Gulf War Illness specifically, which can be quite different from what these poor babies are going through.



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Your countering with what, sweatmonicaIdo?
Nada, as par, I see.
Nothing but continued drivel.
Nice....



I don't feed people like you. You'll have to do that yourself.



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 11:43 AM
link   
Has anyone else here actually handled DU?

I handled DU for three years in the Navy loading and unloading the Phallanx CIWS system. It fires DU bullets at incoming missiles.

I have never had a side effect from DU. I have two perfectly healthy children, one was born when I was still in the Navy and actively handling DU and one was born after. I know people who have handled the stuff for more than 15 years and have no side effect from it.


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).


Source

The longer an isotope's half life, the less radioactive it is. Gold is more radioactive than DU, and normal, everyday Carbon 14, the stuff we're made out of, is more radioactive than DU. DU is no more of a health risk than lead:


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.


Same Source.

Learn some more about chemistry and then make an educated decision for yourself before you go believing everything you read on the internet.






top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join