It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Depleted uranium--covert genocide

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 03:08 PM

The ruling elite have been carrying out secret nuclear wars for the purpose of depopulation since World War II under the guise of atmospheric testing “for national security,” nuclear power “too cheap to meter” and depleted uranium “kinetic energy” bullets. It seems undeniable now that the decision to move nuclear weapons testing from the Pacific region to the continental United States in the early 1950s had a hidden purpose..... It is hard to avoid the conclusion that atmospheric nuclear weapons testing at the Nevada Test Site had the hidden benefit of depopulating the United States in the short and the long term. The U.S. government was well aware of the damage it would do and the outrage of the public if they found out. So, in order to avoid this, the Atomic Energy Commission and the military together formed the Environmental Protection Agency to hide the environmental effects, the National Institutes of Health, the National Cancer Institute, and the Centers for Disease Control. These governmental agencies served as a cover of deception and lies to the public as cancer – including skyrocketing rates of breast cancer – infant mortality and other radiation related illnesses killed, maimed and sickened Americans. Because of the large number of nuclear tests – nearly 1,000 – at the Nevada Test Site, more than in any other country, testing has affected public health in the U.S. The long term effects are still emerging, such as a diabetes epidemic in the U.S., which has grown into a global diabetes pandemic. From Hiroshima to Iraq, 61 years of uranium wars

posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 07:25 AM
Aaaah! Do you feel it in the air? The smell of... "scientific" fallout.

posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 07:36 AM
Firstly, most of our nuclear explosive tests are air-bursts, what this means is that there is a very minimal radiation footprint, but instead a mass dispersal:relatively harmless in low numbers.
Secondly, why do you think ANY government would choose to deplete it's own population?
Thirdly, breat cancer rates are easily shown to be caused by the increased use of anything that increases the number of periods a woman experiances, with the lifestyles of today this becomes many, many items. There is even recent evidence that the tonsils actual attribute greatly to this. As far as infant mortality goes, there are many, many diseases that are caused by other things we have today that we didn't have before: a crumbling atmoshpere, large amounts of addictions...even soda drinks have been accused (however, I will not say that that is true).
Finally, a nuclear explosion is a BIG explosion. Even a nuclear air-burst would measure on the various scales that are maintained by all the large governments. If we were testing 1000 nukes, they would know, and they would not be happy.

posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 04:07 PM
reply to post by dolphin23[/url]

As a former Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Warfare Instructor with over 30 years experience, I am afraid Dolphin that I find your post both
ill-informed and ill-advised.

Where is the test data and physical evidence to support your claim that radiation - by this I assume you mean residual radiation or fallout - has caused any depopulation of the Continental U.S?

Again I would ask you to supply test data and physical evidence to support your claim that the use of DU ammunition can lead to cancers of any kind.

Dolphin may I respectfully suggest you research the disaster at Chernobyl and research it thoroughly. The outcome may surprise you - as it did me.

I have to tell you Dolphin, that Air Pollution in the USA has caused more cancer and illnesses indirectly than any of the 1000 tests conducted in the test ranges at Nevada.

With regards to an airburst Wightknight, the detonation does produce a massive burst of initial nuclear radiation and local area Neutron Induced Activity.

Having said that, the Effects - Thermal Radiation, Blast and Heat can be varied by raising or lowering the height of the airburst.

The optimum height of an airbrust - militarily speaking - is between 18kms to 30 kms in height, depending on the effects you wish to create.

Incidentally, if you detonate a device below the cloud cover, all direct effects are magnifyed.

In laymans terms the optimum weather for the detonation of a device in an airburst configuration would be a hot, humid and overcast day with little or no breeze.

posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 04:12 PM
More to the point: If you were hell bent on depopulation, there are far more subtle and effective agents than having your depopulation vector spread bu expended DU rounds.

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 12:48 PM
reply to post by fritz

I'm sorry, I must not have been clear. Yes, I do know that an airburst does creat a much more intense effect at the area of detonation. However, compared to a ground detonation, the overall spread (at least as far as I know) is very much decreased.

posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 03:24 AM
reply to post by thewightknight[/url]

Sorry for the delay in replying my friend. Again, the answer is NO.

A weapon detonated in a subterranian burst, will create no militarily significant fallout or debris - provided the explosion does not rupture the surface at ground zero.

If the explosion breaches the surface at GZ or is detonated as a surface burst, then Size of your weapon does [in this case] count. The bigger the weapon or warhead, the greater the effects and Yield.

Yield in this case, is the amount of radiation produced at the instant of detonation [Initial Nuclear Radiation] or the amount of Fallout
[Residual Nuclear Radiation] that falls to earth as the doughnut or mushroom shaped cloud [air or ground burst] or cauliflower cloud [surface or air burst over water] rises.

Depending on the size of the weapon detonated, nuclear clouds will rise as high as 80-90,000 feet and depending on the prevailing wind could, in theory at least, travel round the world.

Whatever is the case, you have to remember that a nuclear cloud is formed by highly radioactive and very fine dust-like particles which will, eventually, fall to the ground or in the sea.

Therefore, the higher the cloud rises, the more likely it is to be driven by the wind and obviously the greater the range of residual radiation as it falls to the ground.

posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 07:40 PM
I worked in the 2w0x1 career field for the Air Force. The only ammunition I worked with directly that contained depleted uranium are 30mm rounds (It was used in the A-10's Gau-8 gatling gun). Combat mix 30mm rounds come in a steel container that can hold 575 rounds of these heavy 30mm shells. (each steel container weighs over 500 pounds I believe).
In what we referred to as "combat-mix" the rounds are alternated between high explosive incendiary and armor piercing rounds (which contain the depleted uranium in the tips).

We were trained to understand that the depleted uranium within the tips of these 30mm rounds is not dangerous (since it is depleted). The only odd thing that I did notice is that some structures containing this 30mm combat mix still had the radiation sign on the door of the building (as a notice), as well as text at the bottom of the sheet telling you not to eat or drink anything while you are in the building. This may be standard practice as far as I know, but I thought it was odd that this sign was posted on a door where no radiated items were being held. If, indeed, the rounds are depleted and not dangerous, why would this sign be on the door telling you it was. I never was able to figure out why. I asked my supervisor once about it and even he didn't know.

I'm not saying there's a conspiracy going on. But I did find it odd. Although I never worked with anything nuclear, we were trained to understand that the military has strict guidelines and limits as to how much radiation an individual can be exposed to per year. However, this structure with the sign on the door did not house any nuclear components or weapons. I never worked with anything nuclear (as far as I know), nor did I want to.


posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 04:23 AM

Originally posted by BlasteR This is may be standard practice as far as I know, but I thought it was odd that this sign was posted on a door where no radiated items were being held. If, indeed, the rounds are depleted and not dangerous, why would this sign be on the door telling you it was. I never was able to figure out why. I asked my supervisor once about it and even he didn't know.

It's called a Health & Safety 'Umbrella' mate. It relates to any and all eventualities, real or imaginary, whereby a serviceman or woman or civilian contractor could be able sue your government for any future illness or illnesses after they deliberately or inadvertantly came into direct contact with a radiological sourse by inhalation, ingestion and absorbtion.

By warning you [with bright, pretty, eye-catching colours] they have discharged their legal obligations under Health & Safety Regulations and the Control of Stores, Hazourdous to Health Regulation [COSHH] here in the UK or whatever regulations you have elsewhere in the world.

posted on Mar, 9 2008 @ 06:30 PM
reply to post by BlasteR

In addition to what fritz just said, you will find the same symbol on silva compasses as used by the UK armed forces. The glow paint used on the compass is slightly radioactive, but not enough to cause any problems. These same compasses are available to the public (silva 25).

Just because something has a radiation sign on it, its no reason to overly worry. If the DU rounds were a health hazard, you'd be given the correct PPE and a dose meter to go with it. As a general rule, DU is only dangerous to your health when its travelling towards you at a few hundred meters per second.

In response to the OP, the diabetes epidemic will most likely be caused by the worsening diet of the USA. As the years progressed, convenience food became more popular, and full of more sugars and fats. I believe doctors check someone's diet when diagnosing diabetes (as well as blood etc), rather than how much radiation they have been exposed to.

posted on Mar, 9 2008 @ 06:48 PM
reply to post by fritz

Where is the test data and physical evidence to support your claim that radiation - by this I assume you mean residual radiation or fallout - has caused any depopulation of the Continental U.S? ndex.htm&link=reports/home.php&c_check=1

The research shows that the most likely cause for thyroid cancer is from radiation (Hanford Thyroid Disease Study, 1997), which would support the data showing that the rise in thyroid cancer in Mt from 1980, 90, 2000 was due to the government nuclear testing done at the NTS. In conclusion, the main pathway for I-131 is milk, I-131 is then taken in, to the thyroid gland, and the thyroid gland cannot control the unstable isotope. I-131 is beta radiation and becomes extremely hazardous when ingested. Therefore, the U.S. military tested nuclear weapons at the NTS during the 1950's and 60's and 10 to 40 years later the American people were diagnosed with thyroid cancer. In exposing the United States to an unstable isotope, Iodine-131, an increasing amount of thyroid cancer was located in the public.

Although I certainly wouldn't call it de-population, it certainly means that the military above ground testing did cause cancer. As most of the studies show, it takes about 40 years for thyroid cancer to develop, so as time goes on, I am afraid that the statistics will only get worse.

posted on Mar, 10 2008 @ 06:04 AM
All very well and good ProfEmeritus, but the original poster stated this was due in no small part to DU ammunition.

I tried to read your link, only to find the site has closed or is in the process of closing and that the articles within the site, were written by schoolkids and students. Not very inspiring, to say the least.

Dolphin said a few things and I quote 'depleted uranium “kinetic energy” bullets' and, by stating that, one can only assume that he is saying the dust caused at the moment of impact, has caused this 'cancer'.

Absolute rubbish!

To have the remotest chance of being exposed to the dust from a DU round, you would have to be standing on or near the impact area when the round strikes and let's face it, that's not going to happen. Ever!

The ammount of dust created by a DU round at the moment and point of impact is tiny. Why? Because the hardened metal vapourises as it punches through armour.

As I previously stated, a volcano throws out more radioactive materiel than all the nuclear weapons in the world.

I can only suggest to Dolphin that he researches THAT instead of posting threads based on the research of people who have their own agendas.

posted on Mar, 10 2008 @ 12:10 PM
Here's what the World Health Organization has to say about DU:

posted on Mar, 10 2008 @ 02:31 PM
If you google "depleted uranium side effects", you'll get 51,700 hits. I've looked through the first pages and have found nothing that says that DU is harmless. In fact, they all talk about harmful DU is. It apparently emits miniscule pieces of lead particles, which stay in the body even after the DU is eliminated. This causes death by metal poisoning. Dr. Helen Caldicott, a person with impeccable credentials, has talked frequently about how dangerous it is. Lauren Moret also says the same thing and she also has impeccable credentials.

Here's just one excerpt from an article:

"Dr. Doug Rokke, a health physicist at the University of Illinois who headed up a Pentagon study of depleted uranium weapons in the mid ’90s after concerns were raised during the Gulf War, concluded there was no safe way to use the weapons. Rokke says the Pentagon responded by denouncing him, after earlier commending his work...

No one knows how many U.S. soldiers have been contaminated by DU residue. Despite regulations authorizing tests for any military personnel who suspects exposure, the U.S. military is avoiding doing those tests—or delaying them until they are meaningless...

When we asked to be tested at Ft. Dix, they wrongly told us we didn’t have to worry unless we had DU fragments in our body,” says Matthew. His buddy, Sgt. Ramos, who exhibits symptoms resembling radiation sickness and heavy metal poisoning, adds that at Walter Reed Medical Center he was grilled for hours about why he wanted to be tested and was then branded a troublemaker by his own unit. Matthew says Walter Reed “lost” his sample."

[edit on 10/3/08 by forestlady]

posted on Mar, 10 2008 @ 03:10 PM
reply to post by BlasteR

DU isn't dangerous externally. If you ingest it, or breath DU residue, then that is hazardous.

posted on Mar, 10 2008 @ 06:21 PM
reply to post by BlueRaja[/url]

Exactly Blue Raja. You've hit the nail on the head!

What a pity that those who constantly prop up ill-founded arguments about DU rounds and their 'alleged' side effects do not stop to consider how the [American] civilian population has been [to use an Americanism] been downsized' as described by Dolphin.

When and more to the point, where does the average 'John or Jane Doe' come into direct contact with the residue of DU rounds?

They don't - pure and simple!

It is Dolphin's assertion that the American population has been deliberately reduced by nuclear testing carried out in the Nevada desert & in particular, the testing of DU ammunition.

As to soldiers coming in to direct contact with destroyed enemy vehicles and becomming ill as a direct result well I am sorry to offend anybody, but tough!

You are in a combat zone, taking part in combat operations. I know for a fact that troops were prohibited from entering partially destroyed enemy vehicles or buildings once they had been 'cleared'. Apart from the safety angle due to unexploded ordnance, one of the reasons - allbeit a flimsy one, was to stop trophy hunting by REMFs.

If these people chose to disregard written and oral orders, then they only have themselves to blame if they fall ill.

I have no sympathy for them, whatever their country of origin or arm. They chose to disobey unit orders!

Other than that, I cannot see how non combatants [civilians] can come into direct contact with expended DU rounds.

Do you people not understand what happens to this type of ammunition on impact with its intended targets?

posted on Mar, 10 2008 @ 10:26 PM

Soon after the Iraq War, the World Health Organisation and other leading scientific organisations began to warn that children who come into contact with DU-contaminated shells faced health risks. Their warnings were based on expert analysis. "Children playing with soil may be identified as the critical population group, with inhalation and/or ingestion of contaminated soil as the critical pathway," the scholarly peer-reviewed Journal of Environmental Radioactivity reported in February 2003.

Well, your comments concerning soldiers staying away, may be ok, but what about innocent children that come in contact, as above?

The bottom line is that governments such as the US, the UK and Italy have stonewalled any attempt at valid study of DU's effects.

Since the Gulf War, the US military has denied that DU poses any health risks and has even tried to suppress the growing evidence that DU is a toxic killer that should be banned. As Ed Ericson, wrote in the May-June 2003 issue of E: The Environmental Magazine, the Pentagon, "has cashiered or attempted to discredit its own experts, ignored their advice, impeached scientific research into DU's health effects and assembled a disinformation campaign to confuse the issue."

The stonewalling began after the 1991 Gulf War, in which the US and British military forces fired about 350 tons of DSU at Iraqi tanks and other targets. After the war, Iraqi doctors began reporting shrapnel increases in cancer and birth defects in southern Iraq. The suspicion has been that DU may have caused the problems, but the Pentagon has claimed that the charge is unsubstantiated. During Saddam Hussein's regime, Iraqi medical researchers wanted to present their findings at international conferences but were prevented by the economic embargo of Iraq.

The US military insists that studies from the Gulf War have shown no long term problems from DU, It claims that its studies show that only soldiers who had shrapnel wounds from DU or who were inside tanks shot by DU shells and accidentally breathed radioactive dust were at risk. This would exclude any of the soldiers from the 42nd who have gotten sick after their Iraq tour.

But independent organisations say studies show DU can pose a health risk. In April, 2003, the Royal Society, Britain's leading scientific organisation, said that some soldiers could suffer from "kidney damage and an increased risk of lung cancer," depending on level of exposure.

The problem is no real studies of DU's long-term effects have been done. Scientists, in effect, have just begun to measure how much uranium is actually released when uranium-tipped ammunition hits its targets. Without these studies, no way can it be determined how much uranium dust soldiers are exposed to.

posted on Mar, 11 2008 @ 04:35 AM
reply to post by ProfEmeritus[/url]

Fine, but you are missing the point entirely!

Dolphin said that the US government have systematically carried out genocide on the American people through the testing of nuclear weapons in general and the testing of DU rounds at the various Nevada testing ranges.

How this directly relates to what is happening in Iraq or Afghanistan is quite beyond me.

I respond to facts and figures, not the ramblings of misguided fools who sit in the safety of glass offices and have never set foot on the battlefield.

These people are now banging a differant skin of the same old drum. Long gone are the visions of a nuclear winter as a result of a mass nuclear exchange.

For the record:

1. Once expended [used], DU ammunition emits alpha, beta, and gamma particles.

2. Alpha Particles are very slow and very heavy. They have a low penetrating power range life of about half to 1 inch and CANNOT penetrate the naked skin and therefore can be stopped with normal clothing. The danger is from eating or drinking contaminated foodstuffs;

3. Beta Particles on the other hand, are the opposite. They are extremely fast and incredibly light. They have a penetrating power range of 2 to 3 inches and can easily penetrate the bare skin. However, they can be stopped by clothing containing amongst other products cotton and plastic by-products;

4. Gamma Rays are not particles but are very fast, agile waves of electromagnetic light. Gamma Rays act in the same manner as X-Rays and because of this, have a very long penetrating power range and can penetrate most materiels easily, excepting lead and concrete.

5. This type of Residual Radiation is not affected by external weather sources but personnel can be protected by Time, Distance and Shielding.

5a. Time: The 7 & 10 Rule applies - as Time increases by a factor of 7, Radiation decays by a factor of 10;

5b. Distance: Personnel are best protected by staying away from contamination sites. However, when this is impossible, protectiion in the form of loosely layered clothing is sufficient to stop both Alpha & Beta Particles and Gamma Rays;

5c. Shielding: All personnel can be protected from Residual Radiation by keeping them under cover for as long as possible.

6. Half Lives. This is in effect a 'trick' explanation, because science cannot guarantee absolutely, the Life of any given nuclear element. They simply do not know.

Some nuclear elements decay in a matter of seconds [Alpha & Beta Particles] whilst Gamma & X-Rays decay over many days or years depending on the isotope used and its Atomic Weight.

Half Lives are, at best, a 'SWAG' - or Stupid Wild Arsed Guess, arrived at via computer programmes fed with what is 'currently' known about a given element.

7. Doseage: The human body is a truely wonderful thing. It can defend itself against all manner of illnesses and poisons and can also protect itself against radiation.

An average healthy man or woman can withstand an average doserate activity of about 4,000 Becquerels per day without any side effects. Here in the UK, that is the daily dose most of us are exposed to without realising it and on average, Uk residents have a total radiation count of 2.5 millisieverts per year.

[A Becquerel (Bq) is the term given to radiation decay per second; The radiation your Body Cells absorb are measured in Grays (Gys) and is the Doserate you receive. A Gy is one Joule of energy absorbed by 1kg of the body and is the Dose you physically receive. Dose equivalent is measured by using Sieverts (Sv).

Because Sieverts are known to be very large and complicated to work with, the WHO uses the millisieverts (mSv) as a Unit of Measurement when calculating radiation doses.]

posted on Mar, 11 2008 @ 08:15 AM
Another thing that is never taken into consideration in these depopulation conspiracies is-

Do they want to depopulate indescriminately(i.e take out doctors, engineers, scientists, computer experts, etc... along with n'er do wells?)
How do they avoid taking themselves out in the process, of this nuclear testing or chemtrails? Those involved in these conspiracies would be exposed to the agents that they're supposedly using on the populations at large, which is an inconvenient truth, for this proposition.

posted on Mar, 11 2008 @ 05:57 PM

Originally posted by BlueRaja
reply to post by BlasteR

DU isn't dangerous externally. If you ingest it, or breath DU residue, then that is hazardous.

No I understand that. It is safe because the radiocativity is "depleted" from that material before it is used. I worked with 30mm rnds almost every day towards the time I got out because I worked in conventional munitions maintenance and processed 30mm rnds that the A-10's would come back with. Fresh batches never had to even be touched. The loaders load it on the aircraft and it's done. The only time it actually got touched at all was when we would process the rounds after they were downloaded from the aircraft by the loaders.

Even then we don't really need to touch the rounds unless you find some with discrepancies/damage that need to be inspected by hand. Sometimes the GAU-8 gatling gun has problems. The gun feeds rounds in so quickly (around 6500 rounds fired per min.) that when something goes wrong, usually if there is one bad round there is a whole bunch. I've seen 30mm rounds ripped open and cut in half by the loaders on the flightline because they download them too quickly while the gun was damaged/having problems.

The reason I thought the sign on the building was strange was because this was depleted uranium. None of the other storage structures housing 30mm combat mix ammunition had this radiation sign anywhere. The sign is a warning not to eat or drink anything inside the building. Doesn't make sense if it is depleted.. The military has strict limits on how many REMS of radiation a military member can be exposed to per year (it is 5 rems for a healthy/non-pregnant service member per the Air Force TO's). Because of this, radiation levels that people are exposed to at nuke bases are closely monitored and calculated so that they don't go over that 5 REM limit. 5 rems is actually pretty high and servicemember usually don't get to that level of radiactive exposure.

My supervisers in munitions were extreme about following the TO and following safety procedures and guidelines. It was important! But why, then, would they put this sign on one building that only had a couple of cans of combat mix ammunition. Some buildings were jam packed to the roof with this stuff but there was no sign to be seen. Only thing that comes to mind is perhaps there was something else stored in that building in the past and they forgot to take down the sign. The problem with that though is that the base I was at in S. Korea never had nuclear weapons. At least to my knowledge. Everyone I asked told me that they never existed on this base..


new topics

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in