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.


Uranium Weapons - Does Anyone Care About Our Soldiers?

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 07:50 PM
Folks, the article has some fairly graphic pictures, but the information is excellent. It's a topic which needs serious attention. Look back in recent history. We had Agent Orange in Vietnam; of course, that took years to acknowledge. What people don't understand is that Agent Orange causes lasting hereditary DNA damage. There are several good documentaries out showing the body abnormalities of Vietnamese; due to the chemicals from the 60's, and 70's. What about the US GI's families?

Currently we've got the allusive Gulf War Syndrome. Yep, it's apparently a massive amount of whine bags who are imagining things, or at least that's what the PTB will have us all believe.

"Support Our Troops"; till they come home all messed up; 'wink'!!!

Now, this article with graphics, and all lays out how the troops along with many, many cultures are having their DNA destroyed by Uranium. Of note Depleted Uranium is around 60% the strength of the good stuff. Wonder how long till we really start hearing about this; of course We "Support Our Troops"; until they come home sick.

Huh, that's a heck of a mind warp for me....... No no no, I've got it. Hypocrites="Support Our Troops" while the Private Industrial Military Complex feeds us lies needed for wars of profit; when the GI's come home??? BURY THEM INTO OBSCURITY!!!

USA, August 14, 2009 (Pal Telegraph)- We have seen governments and military refuse to accept that uranium based weapons have been used in all the theatres of war. Only when independent tests and conclusive evidence is provided do these authorities back down. We have seen this in the Balkans, Kuwait, and Iraq. We now have good evidence from Afghanistan, with further news of a leaked German document. Now we only have three more to go, Lebanon, Gaza and Pakistan. We already know what the final outcome will be but it takes time for such authorities to admit to their cover-ups and lies.

Once the cat is out of the bag we see a rush of activity by those governments to apply pressure to the UNEP and WHO to go out into the field to check the levels of contamination (as if they don't know already). The respective teams return to their headquarter and in conjunction with the governments, ICRP and IAEA prepare a well worded document declaring that there were no significant findings and that the levels found met with normal background radiation. They then repeat that the traces of depleted uranium or enriched uranium found were insignificant and all fall within permitted levels and do not pose any risk to troops or the civilian population. What they don't tell you is that the figures are all unrealistic and that their methodology of using the ICRP model is totally flawed and outdated when dealing with DU or Low Level Radiation (LLR), especially when it has been inhaled.

Leuren Moret raised awareness in one of her reports regarding the ICRP Model. Based on 550 epidemiological studies of exposed populations, an independent low-level ionizing radiation report for the European Parliament, the European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR) report has stated that chronic exposure to low-level ionizing radiation is: "...up to 1000 times more biologically damaging than the International Committee on Radiation Protection (ICRP) standards and risk model predict". The ICRP standards and risk model are based on the Hiroshima and Nagasaki Atomic Bomb studies, which were deceptively conducted by the U.S. Government, in order to protect the future development of a nuclear weapons program.

Bring Our Troops Back!

[edit on 15-8-2009 by sanchoearlyjones]

posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 08:31 PM
Well most of the scientists are idiots back then, they didn't think to check if there would be any long lasting effects to the weapons. They shold be ashamed.

posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 08:46 PM
The wordage in the article lumps depleted uranium and enriched uranium together and states that they have been proving that uranium has been used.

Depleted uranium is used primarily in ballistic anti armor rounds and is not denied to be in use at all.

Enriched uranium is not used in any conventional warhead whatsoever. Possibly in nuclear explosive devices which have not been proven or even alledged to be used.

The wordage in the article is misleading and implies that the depleted uranium has been denied and that enriched uranium has been discovered. Neither implication is in, and of its' self, true.

The rest is not in contention in my book but is suspect due to the obvious intention to obfuscate the specifics of the story.

[edit on 083131p://f53Saturday by badgerprints]

posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 09:10 PM
reply to post by badgerprints

I'm no expert on the subject. However, DU is around 60% of regular enriched Uranium from what I understand.

I cannot tell what is being used over there, as I don't think even the average US soldier could; as I just read one bitching about need to knows based on pay you don't need to know anything except do as I say.

The evidence not just from this one article, but several documenting deformities is immense. You can knock this article, and it might not fit your book, but I guess I don't understand what you will except. I personally feel with the US Govt., and all mainstream PTB controlled venues, it is hard to take their word for it.

As I pointed out with the Agent Orange, it causes lasting hereditary changes/abnormalities to DNA... I forget how many US Vet's were exposed to it???? Remember up through the early 80's the Govt. denied, denied, denied. The same agencies you can site now, are the same ones that LIED LIED LIED, then.

posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 09:47 PM

Originally posted by sanchoearlyjones
reply to post by badgerprints

You can knock this article, and it might not fit your book, but I guess I don't understand what you will except.

As I stated in my earlier post , the rest of the article is not in contention in my book. The fact is that the article loses credibility due to the fact that it lumps two different forms of uranium together and makes implications which in essence are false.

It would be much more effective to make clear the case that the majority of uranium on these battlefields, if not all of it, consists of depleted uranium rounds typically used for anti armor purposes. 20 and 30 mm anti armor as well as 105 and 120mm sbot rounds. There will be others but these are likely the bulk of depleted uranium rounds being used. None of these uses is denied by the US government.

As a Gulf war Vet who served 8 years in the infantry with some time in armor later and also working in Iraq as recently as 3 years ago I do have an interest in these issues.

It just makes more sense and better progress for the veterans when the actual facts are presented. Even well intentioned muddying of the waters can slow down proper redress of damages.

Even even nineteen years ago we knew enough to stay clear of the equipment destroyed with these rounds. It was never a secret to us that depleted uranium still was uranium in another form. The dust that was created by impact with these weapons when breathed or ingested obviously had potential to be a long term health threat so we avoided contact with it as much as possible.

The fact that there are now long term issues is no suprise whatsoever.

posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 09:52 PM
reply to post by badgerprints

Oh, I am so sorry. I miss read what you wrote.

not in contention

I was looking at your avatar laughing. I loved that movie is all. I should have had my head in the ball game.

Have you, or your friends noticed any difficulties?? How has the VA been ??

new topics

top topics

log in