It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

The United States Takes the Matter of Three-headed Babies Very Seriously

page: 6
35
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by antonia
 


Very, very wrong. The most common isotope of uranium is U-238. That makes up 99.284% of the naturally occurring element. That has a half-life of 4.468 billion years. The background radiation sources such as cosmic rays and radioisotopes such as C14 are more important than the small amount of radiation given by U238. The problem with U238 is the toxicity, a problem with many heavy metals.




posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Also no-body is denying the material is radioactive. It seems that people blame the toxicity of Uranium on its radioactivity rather than its primary reason - it's a heavy metal, and when ingested it will cause heavy metal poisoning. Imagine if people blamed Bismuth poisoning on its radioactivity (which was only detectable in 2003) furthermore, it's not like a material with a half-life of 4.5 billion years is going to be significantly active (and it's not like alpha particles can penetrate the skin). It's semantics anyway. All we need to know is it's VERY TOXIC IF INGESTED.

JBA2848, when there is an accident with Uranium in the United States it is cleaned up and if that is not possible it's diluted. People in the US also have much better water supplies than Iraq.

[edit on 11/4/2010 by C0bzz]



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by C0bzz
 


Maybe you misread what I posted.


Another UF6 accident involving a cylinder rupture occurred at a commercial uranium conversion facility (Sequoyah Fuels Corp., Gore OK) in 1986. The accident occurred when an over-loaded shipping cylinder was reheated to remove an excess of UF6. The cylinder ruptured, releasing a dense cloud of UF6 and its reaction products. This accident resulted in the death of one individual from HF inhalation. An additional 31 workers were exposed to the released cloud. Although some of the more highly exposed workers showed evidence of short-term kidney damage (e.g., protein in the urine), none of these workers had lasting kidney toxicity from the uranium exposure.


That was 32 workers exposed to 29,500 pounds of DU. Thats one very large dose and the one worker was killed while the worst the other 31 workers got was short-term kidney damage. Thats a big difference than a couple of ounces a bullet would have.

[edit on 11-4-2010 by JBA2848]



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


You said it wasn't radioactive. All sources do say it's radioactive. You can argue all day over if radiation is the problem but, to sit there and deny it's radioactive is stupid.



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by antonia
 


Why do you think they call it depleted?

Deplete mean to deprive of something essential to existence or potency. deplete implies a reduction in number or quantity so as to endanger the ability to function .

[edit on 11-4-2010 by JBA2848]



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by JBA2848
reply to post by antonia
 


Why do you think they call it depleted?


LOL, certainly NOT because it is not radioactive.


Depleted uranium

* The uranium remaining after removal of the enriched fraction contains about 99.8% 238U, 0.2% 235U and 0.001% 234U by mass; this is referred to as depleted uranium or DU.
* The main difference between DU and natural uranium is that the former contains at least three times less 235U than the latter.
* DU, consequently, is weakly radioactive and a radiation dose from it would be about 60% of that from purified natural uranium with the same mass.
* The behaviour of DU in the body is identical to that of natural uranium.
* Spent uranium fuel from nuclear reactors is sometimes reprocessed in plants for natural uranium enrichment. Some reactor-created radioisotopes can consequently contaminate the reprocessing equipment and the DU. Under these conditions another uranium isotope, 236U, may be present in the DU together with very small amounts of the transuranic elements plutonium, americium and neptunium and the fission product technetium-99. However, the additional radiation dose following intake of DU into the human body from these isotopes would be less than 1%.


WHO source
Depleted Uranium is still radioactive, just less radioactive.

[edit on 11-4-2010 by K J Gunderson]



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by JBA2848
 


en.wikipedia.org...\

It's still radioactive.



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by antonia
 


en.wikipedia.org...
Same link you used.

External exposure to radiation from pure depleted uranium is less of a concern because the alpha particle emitted by its isotopes travel only a few centimeters in air or can be stopped by a sheet of paper.

[edit on 11-4-2010 by JBA2848]



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by JBA2848
reply to post by antonia
 


External exposure to radiation from pure depleted uranium is less of a concern because the alpha particle emitted by its isotopes travel only a few centimeters in air or can be stopped by a sheet of paper.


Nice job going back and editing your post now that you have been corrected twice. Too bad you cannot edit antonia's post to you or the context. Now it just looks like you cannot keep your own points straight. At least you are learning and for that, good job.



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by JBA2848
 


The problem in Iraq is not simply exposure. It is inhalation and drinking/eating of the said toxin. Furthermore, low-level persistent radiation exposure is as dangerous as short term high exposure situations.



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


I haven't changed any post with the exception of adding or correcting spelling nice try though.



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by antonia
 


The 29,500 pounds that was leaked was a matter of inhaltion due to the solid in the tank turns to fumes when mixed with air.



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 01:56 PM
link   
If your watch has glow in the dark dials on them that is about the same as DU. Is every body with a watch on that glows in the dark going to have three headed babies?



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by JBA2848
reply to post by antonia
 


The 29,500 pounds that was leaked was a matter of inhaltion due to the solid in the tank turns to fumes when mixed with air.


And? What are you trying to prove? Would you like to go to Iraq and drink some DU water?

www.independent.co.uk...
www.thewe.cc...
VERY GRAPHIC PHOTOS IN 2nd LINK. Also useful news stories though.

This is not simply a few ounces of dust. It is TONS of toxin persistently being dumped into the country.



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by antonia
 


I don't want to drink the water from South America either.
And the amount you are talking about being dumped is spread over Iraq not in one spot like the spill I posted earlier. And the study of the cows was from direct exposure from a leak and the cows lived in the pasture with the spill even eating the grass it was spilled on and drinking the water with no effects.



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by JBA2848
If your watch has glow in the dark dials on them that is about the same as DU. Is every body with a watch on that glows in the dark going to have three headed babies?


This is just silly. This type of material hasn't been used in the last 40 years. It's a paint made of crushed fluorescent rock. Radiolumscient material is not used in consumer goods anymore. Note you have to expose a glow in the dark toy-watch to light and as time goes in it lessens in intensity. If it had anything it would be tritium which emits far less than DU does. If you are going to make comparisons at least pick the right material.

Some older and, I mean pre-60's goods contain a radium material which can be hazardous in the object breaks and the material is inhaled.



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Here is a link to a pdf so people can learn some info on radiation.
Have fun!!

www.nsc.org...



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chevalerous

May all warmongers of this world rot in hell!

[edit on 11-4-2010 by Chevalerous]


This is what gives me a little faith in humanity.
To know that outside America, there are people who think like many in America do.

Maybe if we all survive, one day we can get enough to agree that we can push mankind forward in meaningful steps.



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 02:20 PM
link   
nevada-outback-gems.com...
And how about those beautiful diamonds. Did you know that most gemstones are irradiated to make them better.
en.wikipedia.org...

This is a good read.
lgdl.gia.edu...

[edit on 11-4-2010 by JBA2848]



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by JBA2848
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


I haven't changed any post with the exception of adding or correcting spelling nice try though.


That is a blatant lie. I quoted it exactly as it was when I replied to it. Antonia said it was radioactive after you tried to say it was not. You replied with -


Originally posted by JBA2848
reply to post by antonia


Why do you think they call it depleted?


That was it. That was your snarky response to her pointing out to you that it was indeed radioactive.

AFTER each of us pointed out that you were wrong, you edited your post and suddenly it looked like this -


Deplete mean to deprive of something essential to existence or potency. deplete implies a reduction in number or quantity so as to endanger the ability to function .

[edit on 11-4-2010 by JBA2848


That is a little more than spelling but thanks for demonstrating what petty things you are willing to lie about just to argue.

I replied to it exactly as it was posted before it was edited so um...kinda gotcha there. Feel free to go back and look for yourself.

[edit on 11-4-2010 by K J Gunderson]



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join