Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart
If we believe what they say in the quote then:
a) Inhaling DU dust is causing kidney damage in US veterans.
b) Inhaling DU dust is causing fatal cancer in US veterans.
Of interest to Roy Robinson Stewart, in relation to the above mentioned?
For the first time, a study has found an increase in brain-cancer deaths among Gulf War veterans who might have been exposed to the nerve agent Sarin
by the destruction of Iraqi weapons in 1991.
About 100,000 of the 350,000 Army soldiers in the Persian Gulf could have been exposed to Sarin after soldiers blew up two large ammunition caches in
Khamisiyah, Iraq, in March 1991, according to a study commissioned by the military and performed by the Institute of Medicine. The institute advises
the government on health policy.
Goes onto mention:
Later, however, United Nations inspectors found that some of the weapons contained Sarin, which can cause convulsions and death. The military has
since contacted about 300,000 veterans who were in or near areas that might have been affected. The potential "hazard area," where shifting winds
could have carried traces of chemicals, extended at times as far as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
Did you serve over there, Roy Robinson Stewart?
Anyhow, this is then mentioned:
The study did not address "Gulf War syndrome," as some have called the collection of ailments experienced by returning veterans. It examined whether
soldiers possibly exposed to the destruction of Iraqi weapons were more likely to die for any reason. The study also singled out specific diseases:
breathing problems, infections, circulatory problems, digestive ailments, accidents and suicides, as well as four types of cancer.
Cancer Linked to Nerve Agent
You, as with others, AceOfBase, etc,
are aware that when a DU round is fired and contacts a armored target, that the DU rounds melts and has a
self-sharpening process for continued increased penetration? You, as with others,
are aware that this self-sharpening process produces DU dust?
That this DU dust mostly falls to the ground within a 50+/- yard radius of the penetration site? This 2 year study is quite similiar to the one
performed by
RAND in 1999:
RAND Review Indicates NO Evidence of Harmful Health Effects From Depleted
Uranium, where it mentions:
....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.
Yes, I understand that many do not believe anything that may be remotely connected to the Defense Department or the government, but what you, as with
others,
are ignoring is that various
independent organizations and scientists have studied and found the very same that is being
asserted by the Sandia Study. Interesting, no?
But alas, they will be ignored as being "paid off," as well, correct? Why? Because they do not fit your view of how you have interpreted depleted
uranium? Some are aware of that the European Union, in 2001, released a study that asserted that 98%+ of inhaled and ingested depleted uranium would
be immediately discharged when one took a number 2/faeces and that the amount left would be neutralized from the blood system in a matter of weeks?
That the EU study concluded the same as this Sandia Study?
Or how about
54 page 2001 report to the European Parliament comparing those
exposed to DU versus uranium miners that stated:
The fact that there is no evidence of an association between exposures—sometimes high and lasting since the beginning of the uranium industry—and
health damages such as bone cancer, lymphatic or other forms of leukemia shows that these diseases as a consequence of an uranium exposure are either
not present or very exceptional.
Other article related:
2001: Hysteria Over Depleted Uranium
You, as with others, are aware that the
World Health Organization (WHO) agreed that DU
posed no great health threat?
WHO asserted:
....because DU is only weakly radioactive, very large amounts of dust (on the order of grams) would have to be inhaled for the additional risk of lung
cancer to be detectable in an exposed group. Risks for other radiation-induced cancers, including leukaemia, are considered to be very much lower than
for lung cancer.
Another
WHO report mentions:
The radiological hazard is likely to be very small. No increase of leukemia or other cancers has been established following exposure to uranium or
DU.
Related:
Reason: Nuclear Genocide? Piercing through the depleted uranium myths.
Question: What does the word depleted imply and mean?
Personally and IMHO, I would be very careful on who one asserted was a
troll, k?
seekerof
[edit on 26-7-2005 by Seekerof]
