Poison DUst: Depleted Uranium Kills

page: 3
14
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by seattlelaw

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
It funny how some people make DU seem like weapons grade uranium



What an oxymoron! It is IN FACT uranium and it is IN FACT used as a weapon. Do you mean it must be fissionable in order to be considered by you to be a threat to human health?



You cant be serious do you even understand what Weapons grade Uranium means? Using your logic your trying to make that claim its Uranium and its used as a Weapon LOL

If you call DU weapons grade uranium its not going to be a oxymoron its just going to make you sound like a moron.





And the good news is that this wonderful stuff the Pentagon calls 'depleted' uranium with that 4.5 billion year shelf-life is now assailing the British Isles all the way from Iraq! Enjoy your kippers everyone.


LOL this has already been proven to be a fantasy on ATS

www.abovetopsecret.com...'

If you think DU is going to travel thousands of miles
Just keep grabbing at those fantasies they really help your case.


[edit on 2-3-2006 by ShadowXIX]




posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Army shells pose cancer risk in Iraq -The Observer
Readings taken from destroyed Iraqi tanks in Basra reveal radiation levels 2,500 times higher than normal. In the surrounding area researchers recorded radioactivity levels 20 times higher than normal.

Dr Chris Busby, who is a member of a government committee examining radia tion risks, expressed concern. 'There is no question that inhaling this radioactive dust can increase the risk of lymphomas,' he said.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Iraqi cancers, birth defects blamed on U.S. depleted uranium -seattlepi
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.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Remains of toxic bullets litter Iraq -CSMonitor
But when the DUmaterial burns (usually on impact; or as a dust, it can spontaneously ignite) protective shields disappear, and dangerous radioactive oxides are created that can be inhaled or ingested.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

More DU is better if you plan to kill them off.

ATK bags $38 million tank ammo order -UPI
The Army has placed a $38 million order with Alliant Techsystems (ATK) for 120-mm ammunition for its main battle tank.

Based on a depleted-uranium penetrator, the West Virginia-produced round is billed as the most advanced armor-piercing kinetic-energy ordnance available.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Any fool that says radiation levels 100 to 2500 times normal doesn't pose a risk lacks the intelligence to make descisions beyond buying a soda at 7/11, and that's not even considering ground water contamination from heavy metal.

They don't call their haboobs "winds of death" for kicks and grins. Iraq is an ecological disaster and an industrial waste dump that I wouldn't even let feral dogs live in. I suggest you all look at unranium mine workers health profiles to see what happens in just long term exposure to yellow cake.

Direct experience dictates reality above all this bs propaganda. As Gulf War survivor my lungs are trashed, so go tell your "it's safe" crap to the circus. Erroneous disinfo crap funded by the arms industries and only an inexperienced fool would believe it's okay to inhale in a sandstorm with no protection.

Gulf War syndrome (GWS)

As for desert dust, it's well studied phenom that it can travel 1000 of miles across oceans:


Half a world away, an ocean apart, the wind is picking up particles of dust. Why is that our problem?

African dust is already known to carry radioactive beryllium, which forms naturally in the atmosphere and probably builds up as the dust travels. "We couldn't believe how high the beryllium-7 was" in the Virgin Island samples, says USGS geologist Gene Shinn. "One sample was three times the upper limit for the workplace." Then there's radioactive lead, a product of the natural decay of radon in rocks. The dust also ferries toxic mercury in concentrations a thousand times higher than are typical in U.S. soils. source


Dust from Africa Leads to Large Toxic Algae Blooms in Gulf of Mexico, Study Finds -NASA


China Dust Disaster Imaged by NASA Spacecraft -NASA
Dust originates from the desert and travels east across northern China toward the Pacific Ocean. For especially severe storms, fine particles can travel as far as North America.


[edit on 2-3-2006 by Regenmacher]



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 10:44 AM
link   
There's a lot of fancy talk in this thread, but quite simply: it's radioactive and it's a weapon.
Go figure.



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Regenmacher

Any fool that says radiation levels 100 to 2500 times normal doesn't pose a risk lacks the intelligence to make descisions beyond buying a soda at 7/11, and that's not even considering ground water contamination from heavy metal.



Anyone that believes those stats is a fool. 2,500 times normal
Radiation levels were 2,500 times above normal in the immediate vicinity after the Chernobly accident. Radiation hundreds of times greater than Hiroshima, Its absurd!

link

link

These are radiation levels that kill you in minutes anyone that was ever next to DU would be dead if it created radiation levels that high.



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Originally posted by Regenmacher

Any fool that says radiation levels 100 to 2500 times normal doesn't pose a risk lacks the intelligence to make descisions beyond buying a soda at 7/11, and that's not even considering ground water contamination from heavy metal.




2,500 times normal
Radiation levels were 2,500 times above normal in the immediate vicinity after the Chernobly accident.

These are radiation levels that kill you in minutes anyone that was ever next to DU would be dead if it created radiation levels that high.



So let's talk about the risk from 100 times above normal. Is this what creates chronic illness? What levels result in birth defects?

Also, is DU contamination cumulative? Or are we counting on the old "dilution removes pollution" maxim?


.



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow

So let's talk about the risk from 100 times above normal.


So people are citing fantasy radiation levels as fact and now Im suppose to swallow numbers from the same people as fact


I have to give it too the people that came up with 2,500 times sounds scary and the sheeple will not know the difference.

Oh look at this DU article I just found

Seems they measured radiation levels 4,000 times normal in Iraq now too
amazing
www.japanfocus.org...



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by IAF101
Despite numerous assertions of congenital deformities in babies being caused by DU the very nature of such radiation and its properties would defy the science behind DU radiation which being primarily alpha in nature.

As for the influence of radiation in the progeny of those effected, the effects that this would have on the fetus are varied and sometimes the effects of genetic damage do not present themselves until a few generations later. The entire assumption that DU trapped in the lungs would somehow get into the blood stream and deposit itself into the bones, altering the genetic makeup of blood is far fetched to say the least. Medical Science has little evidence of such behavior of DU in its study of Radiation on both man and animals. The Effect of radiation on genetic material is also dose-related, with the dose range depending on the rate of damage and the sensitivity of individual genetic material respectively.

IAF


Where's your authority for these propositions? Or shall we simply believe you because ... ?

The difference with DU is that it has both characteristics of radiation AND chemical toxicity which, when inhaled (or entering a break in epidermal layers), enters the body as opposed to the body simply being irradiated externally and temporarily by transient radiation source.

Thus, although the degree of exposure via rads is perhaps lower than say U 235 over the short term, DU provides a constant bombardment of the tissues and cells. I'm no scientist but my guess is that this stuff is maybe slightly worse for you to breath in than some cigarette smoke.

[edit on 2-3-2006 by seattlelaw]



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
It funny how some people make DU seem like weapons grade uranium




Originally posted by seattlelaw
What an oxymoron! It is IN FACT uranium and it is IN FACT used as a weapon. Do you mean it must be fissionable in order to be considered by you to be a threat to human health?



Originally posted by ShadowXIX
You cant be serious do you even understand what Weapons grade Uranium means? Using your logic your trying to make that claim its Uranium and its used as a Weapon LOL.

If you call DU weapons grade uranium its not going to be a oxymoron its just going to make you sound like a moron.


We all appreciate that you're enjoying the discussion amidst much chuckling and self congratulations. You have, however, failed to indicate why and how DU is not (1) a weapon, and (b) uranium. Perhaps it is the definition of the term "grade" which saves your argument?

It is a Neocon tactic to avoid the salient issue in any argument by attempting to distract others with rhetorical side shows usually by delving into semantical hoo-ha while deriding and belittling those who don't agree with them. Sound familiar?

Or, to put it in terms you might comprehend, where's the beef?




posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by seattlelaw
Where's your authority for these propositions? Or shall we simply believe you because ... ?

Please peruse the previous page carefully and you shall have your answer.


The difference with DU is that it has both characteristics of radiation AND chemical toxicity which, when inhaled .................
Thus, although the degree of exposure via rads is perhaps lower than say U 235 over the short term, DU provides a constant bombardment of the tissues and cells.

Though this might seem educational, I have already stressed upon the more basal of details regarding DU in my previous posts with due care.
Going further, I have presented an objective picture of DU with respect to its many intricacies that shows the very real constraints in making such generalizations about the topic.



I'm no scientist but my guess is that this stuff is maybe slightly worse for you to breath in than some cigarette smoke.

Had you been a scientist who proved this claim, it would indeed be most revealing. Till then, extrapolation of past data can be the only logical recourse as statistical inferences are subjective at best.

[edit on 2-3-2006 by IAF101]



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by seattlelaw

We all appreciate that you're enjoying the discussion amidst much chuckling and self congratulations. You have, however, failed to indicate why and how DU is not (1) a weapon, and (b) uranium. Perhaps it is the definition of the term "grade" which saves your argument?



I never said DU wasnt a weapon it clearly is but it is not Weapon Grade uranium and theres a huge difference anyone with a IQ over 70 would see.

Im not going to argue the definition of the term "grade" or the difference in between DU being used as a weapon and Weapon grade uranium further because anyone that cant see the difference isnt worth anymore of my time.



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

I never said DU wasnt a weapon it clearly is but it is not Weapon Grade uranium and theres a huge difference anyone with a IQ over 70 would see.




So it's used as a weapon even though it';s not waepons grade. Meaning it can't be used for a fission bomb?

Also, are you saying DU is not cumulative? Repeated exposures do not accummulate in the body and add up?

Or do they?

If they do, how does that work? Does 100 become 200 with a second exposure? Does it depend on the level of exposure? The point of entry? Is it worse if it's inhaled, or ingested?

How does DU interract with common chemicals or other exposures? Like vaccines for example? Or heavy metals like lead?



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow

So it's used as a weapon even though it';s not waepons grade. Meaning it can't be used for a fission bomb?



Thats basically right Weapons grade (HEU) is a highly enriched uranium. The the fissile isotope of uranium, has been increased to over 90%. About 93.3 percent uranium-235 in most cases.

Natural uranium mined from the earth consists of about 0.7% uranium-235 (U-235), and about 99.3% uranium-238 (U-238)

It takes a whole lot of natural uranium to create a small amount of Weapons grade uranium.

(DU), typically contains only 0.2 to 0.3 percent uranium-235. Less 235 then even natural uranium.

U235 is the nasty stuff U238 itself is primarily a low-level alpha emitter which can easily be stopped by a piece of paper!

Try that protection near a nuclear reactor and your not going to have a good day.

Different versions of Uranium are like apples and oranges. If DU was even close to Weapon grade every person that ever sat inside a M1A1 incased in depleted uranium armour would be dead in short order.



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Is it that unfeasible to think that before DU becomes DU, the Uranium has come from somewhere? What happens when these munitions are used? They hit something, go "BOOM" and particulate into the air. Now think about this aspect. Asbestos is a heavy substance, which when particulates, forms cysts on the inside of the lung passages. Which in turn become tumors. Everyone knows this causes cancer. Why is it so crazy to think that a heavy metal substance such as DU would indeed do the same damage? But to a greater degree? It has a very long half life, and the molecular structure of it is unstable.



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by denial28
. Now think about this aspect. Asbestos is a heavy substance, which when particulates, forms cysts on the inside of the lung passages. Which in turn become tumors. Everyone knows this causes cancer. Why is it so crazy to think that a heavy metal substance such as DU would indeed do the same damage?


Asbestos isnt even close to as heavy as Uranium

Asbestos, solid has a Specific Gravity of 2.45
Uranium has a specific gravity of about 18.9

Thats nearly twice as heavy as Lead

Im not trying to say DU is good for you not much is in this world is.

Look at all the tons off lead thrown around battlefields that some nasty stuff. Lead dust is produced from abrasion of bullets as they pass through the gun barrel and from fragments created when bullets strike a target. Breath that stuff in and it aint good for you at all. The lead Seeps into the soil and water poisons people all nasty things like birth defects etc..

DU aint good but its not this deadly scurge 2,500 times more radioactive some people would try to make you believe.

[edit on 2-3-2006 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Shadow - Thanks for your answers earlier - but you did skip all my questions except one.




Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Im not trying to say DU is good for you not much is in this world is.




IMO - Most of our world did used to be good for us. The problem is that we've isolated the bad stuff, and concentrated it in ways and places nature never would have done.





DU aint good but its not this deadly scurge 2,500 times more radioactive some people would try to make you believe.




The 2500 number was at the end of a range that began with 100. So the issues are long term health effects and more invisible stuff than you normally see with radiation poisoning.

...We're looking at real health impacts - no, they're not always acute or immediate - but they are real. What used to be called formes frustes.

IMO - the official positions are just more bad science - dancing to avoid liability. It's not responsible.

If some of the claims here are so extreme as to be inaccurate - the same can be said about "full deniability" - it's not true.







[edit on 2-3-2006 by soficrow]



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by IAF101
Had you been a scientist who proved this claim, it would indeed be most revealing. Till then, extrapolation of past data can be the only logical recourse as statistical inferences are subjective at best. [edit on 2-3-2006 by IAF101]


Extrapolation of past data requires determining a source for valid data. I propose that the data provided by the Pentagon is fraudulent and should be disregarded as the obvious conflict of interest is only made more clear by their denunciation of anyone who proposes a link between the use of uranium as a weapon in this undeclared nuclear war and illness. If it's data you enjoy perusing, here's some for you.


All uranium is a toxic radiological element. If DU oxides are inhaled, there is a high probability that residual alpha particles will be distributed throughout the organs of the body and are potential sources of radiation emission. This fact was not thoroughly researched prior to the 1991 Gulf War. Once inside the lungs these particles pass through the lung-blood barrier and circulate freely throughout the body. At this point they act as a heavy-metal poison as well as cause low-level cell irradiation in the bone marrow, brain, kidneys, and reproductive organs. The more immediate heavy-metal oxide damage, i.e. kidney failure, brain damage, is well documented in the scientific literature and the potential for radioactive damage leading to carcinogenic disease is ever present ( Dr Durakovic, et. al. 2002 ).

697,000 American military personnel were deployed in 1991 to Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. According to the official Gulf War Veterans (GWV) briefing, the total casualty count for the 100 hour war was 760: 294 dead and approximately 400 wounded or ill. In the decade following the war, 30,000 Gulf War Vets are dead and 221,000 are receiving medical disability benefits for war related causes (May2002 GWV Report). Dr Durakovic's findings reveal high DU levels in urine and bone samples in GWVets ten years after the war.

Major Doug Rokke (Rantoul, Illinois) advocates an international ban against DU based upon what happened to many GWVets as well as those assigned to clean up highly selected DU contaminated areas after the Gulf war in Kuwait. He reports on the incidence of throat and lung cancer among members of his own team. Some are dead, others seriously ill. The number of deaths by cancer recorded on various GWVets Internet sites leads one to question the official position of the Department of Defense that DU is a safe weapon.

DU half-life is 4.5 billion years.

birth defects in southern Iraq, 1989, 11/100,000, 2001, 116/100,000 *

cancer deaths in southern Iraq, 1988, 34, 1998, 450,
2001, 603 *


Or here's some different data that might help.


“Sixty-seven percent of babies born to the 400,000 vets who suffer from Gulf War Syndrome have birth defects,” said Joyce Riley, a former nurse who flew in Iraq and the founder and spokesperson of the American Gulf War Veterans Association. “But the Department of Defense and Veterans Affairs do not want America to know the number of sick, dead and deformed kids that vets are having. It’s another cover-up.”

Mrs. Riley served in the Gulf War as a captain in the Air Force Reserve and flew C-130 missions with a medical team in support of the war.

“A lot of the babies are being born with organs out of place—kidneys in the wrong place, hearts out of the body,” Riley told AFP. “The most [common birth defect] is failure to thrive, where they could not keep weight on and just didn’t make it.”

Though the government refuses to acknowledge that many children of vets are suffering, Mrs. Riley says the evidence linking the ghastly birth defects to Iraq is overwhelming.

“One nurse who served over there—all three of her children were born autistic,” she said. “We’ve also seen a lot of what is known as ‘Goldenhar Syndrome,’ that is where there is a missing left eye and left ear. It’s very strange. A lot of people believe this has something to do with the radiological problem related to the use of depleted uranium.”


www.americanfreepress.net...

The Pentagon would have us believe that Gulf War Syndrome (GWS) and all the diseases and death it purports to dispose of as nothing more than post ttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) brought on by battle. Others suggest that Saddam did use some chemicals or gas during the first war, although none was ever confirmed detected despite the fear it would be used. Still others suggest GWS was caused by the chemical and biological cocktails ordered injected into the grunts ostensibly to protect them from chemical or gas weapons.

Since the Pentagon refuses to properly test returning military personnel for DU poisoning it is difficult to track the problem precisely. A proper examination can be had in Canada for about $1,000 US. Considering that there are no treatment options it's sort of like asking a high risk male to pay to take an expensive trip and pay for an HIV test in the late '80's, before any treatment was available, and make him pay for the pleasure of knowing he was a dead man.

Data. It's out there for the gathering but few people have any incentive to add it up. We have a government which prefers to react to developing problems with finger pointing and 'the blame game,' a term they used with limited success against their detractors, but it is only once the white elephant is lying dead on the sofa that they resort to finger pointing. Until the elephant is down on the sofa and the vultures are digging in it's all about denial.

In my opinion we know enough about the destructive nature of uranium to know (as it cannot be controlled and cannot be disposed of) that, in spite of the fact that it is provided freely to maufacturers, it should not be used as a weapon anywhere at anytime. I also believe it is cowardly to use and it clearly violates treaties signed by the US. Additionally, our failure to clean it up and treat those contaminated by it violates Army code. This willingness to disregard the rule of law undermines our democracy while we purport to export it to other nations. It is hypocrisy of the first order. It has and will continue to come back to haunt us as a nation in more ways than anyone currently alive can imagine. Finger pointing is irrelevant. Politics is irrelevant. Only the behavior itself and the results it gives rise to are relevant.

This is why, in my opinion, the past use of DU is the biggest present and future threat created from the exclusively ignorant US actions abroad since 2001. I don't know whether the Neocons were involved in 9/11 but it is most unfortunate that they have been at the helm since that time.

Thus, the denigration of the arguments against the continued use of DU are, for me, akin to the arguments of supporters of the Third Reich in 1941 - very dangerous and ill-informed.

It must be truly painful for the brave veterans who volunteered to serve who are either ill themselves or have deformed or ill children to be told that it's all in their heads. For those of you vet's so afflicted who read this post, I apologize for my failure to do more for you than simply spread the evil news. And I apologize for our national failure to do more to care for you and yours by preventing the use of DU and by failing to acknowledge your disease and care for you now. It is an unfolding national tragedy.

This is the Neocon mushroom cloud. Can't you see it?



[edit on 3-3-2006 by seattlelaw]



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 01:27 AM
link   
"A U.S. government study found that 67% of post-Gulf War babies have serious birth defects or serious illnesses"

Ok, Sofi; where'd you get this particular stat?
I'm beginning to pay attention to this, now.



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 02:32 AM
link   
The really sad thing is that our history of mistakes with radioactive materials from dropping nukes accidentally to uranium mining in the US has us so freaking contaminated here that it can be hard to care about what happens elsewhere.

Here's a great and comprehensive article about our history with this stuff. It will not make you happy. But the really bad news is that the politicians have big plans to increase the use of nuclear plants and the building of an entire new arsenal of nukes to replace our old and apparently worn out nukes.

Thanks for that, George.

ratical.com...

[edit on 3-3-2006 by Thomas Crowne]



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 02:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
"A U.S. government study found that 67% of post-Gulf War babies have serious birth defects or serious illnesses"

Ok, Sofi; where'd you get this particular stat?
I'm beginning to pay attention to this, now.


We wern't tested for exposure to other toxic substances that also cause a variety of nasty things. Buring fuels/plastics/oils/rubbers/munitions/paints, very large amounts of lead especially in CQB, not to mention the stress of long periods in "indian country" that take one hell of a physical toll on the human body. As of this moment I haven't suffered any ill effects, but everyones body is different.

The sad reality is in combat there's no way to make it environmentally safe, no matter what very bad things will go airborne. Everyones talking about getting rid of DU yet have no other suggestions on what else to use that has the same effect. Steel core 7.62 has amazing penetration, but it's still nothing compared to a DU round and in a urban environment you don't always have the convience of shooting an enemy through a window, sometimes you just go right thourgh the wall. Cement, brick, clay, doesn't matter, DU will get through.

The taxpayers don't want to pay for the testing. It's the same crap, different day. We ask people to go to war, just to turn our backs when they need us.



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 02:51 AM
link   
If there is anything worse than the significant harm that depleted uranium causes it is the fact of broad based informed electorate support for its elimination from combat as too hazardous for our own troops, and no significant progress in this task. Even in the face of military regulations on it that are ignored, it is indeed on the order of a delayed suicide weapon for our troops abandoned. Does it underscore leaders as no longer ours, neither having any of the larger social structure of people in mind, nor having any honor, heart and soul? Please tell me it is all not so.

Rules of engagement for depleted uranium were for last ditch NATO combat scenarios with the Soviet Union invading Europe under conditions of nuclear war where the difference in radiation fallout would be far less a concern than the decision counterbalance of DU effectiveness. Despite that point of understanding, the initial Gulf War engaged DU ordnance and ignored protocols on its handling. As a direct consequence our troops suffered then and even moreso now due to increased quantities of it. Basically the current river of depleted uranium flowing out of arms is the disposal of radioactive waste at a very very high price.

Are we talking about more or less than a million former troops coming home contaminated?

Should one forget that residual background radiation around the world is comparable or greater than that of the 1950s and early sixties prior to the test ban treaty? Despite the misleading label of "depleted uranium," it is quite radioactive to require special handling as stated above, under military law and regulations requiring specific disposal protocols after use. The exact figures and statistics are worthy of further serious research.

The outrage of all this which can readily be proved is considerable, but the remedies are quashed by superficial and unscientific propaganda. The heartlessness of corporate profit appears the only motivating factor, as well as an obsession for "victory," at all costs. This issue is not only a great shame to the United States, but also a reality that weakens our genuine National Security and preparedness.

[edit on 3-3-2006 by SkipShipman]





new topics
top topics
 
14
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join