US War Crimes: Cancer rate in Fallujah worse than Hiroshima

Originally posted by Hudson

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by teashades

 

Is there any proof besides this website? Any other sources?

According to the World Health Organizations, its all bullocks. DU is dangerous if you're in the immediate area and inhale the dust, but even then its expelled within a couple days. Lethal levels would require you to have been in the blast radius, which means you're dead anyway.

www.who.int...

I have some nice ocean front property right here in New Mexico I could sell you. 80 acres just south of the old W.A.F.B.

reply to post by Mr. Tinkertrain


I think that one of the reasons that a conflict has not begun in Iran is because Russia (Putin) does not want DU used so close to the Caspian Sea, let alone mini nukes. The Caspian sea is very important to Russia. If DU was used against Iran it would contaminate that large body of water.

Sometimes a White Swan is seen close to British airspace as a reminder.

reply to post by chorizo4


um Ok.

Thanks for that insight?

Originally posted by Mr. Tinkertrain
reply to post by chorizo4

 

um Ok.

Thanks for that insight?

The host on radio late at night is a fan of my writing (no name dropping). I had an interesting tag line. But the man is very busy, posting here gets very quick replies.

But if someone chooses to believe that DU is relatively safe, then they are entitled to their opinion.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
Article says DU is used because it is twice as dense and volatile as lead cores... I thought it was a warcrime to intentionally use a toxic substance such as lead in ammo intended to kill humans

Dude (or Dudette), I usually don't agree with your postings, but I have your back on this 100%. You're right.

DU is used to kill armor, bunkers, etc. It's not like the US was sitting in a lab saying, "I know! We'll use DU to poison everyone! It's simple!"

reply to post by Mr. Tinkertrain

When were you in Fallujah, and did they tell you the whole story? Anything you can share?

Originally posted by SassyCat
Lead and mercury were used, there was some kind of "green bullet" testing of some sort, without lead. Don't know where that ended up.

I know they wanted to use a different type of round because some were just passing thru the person and not killing him right then (unless is was a head or spinal shot). Sure, he probably died later, but until then, he was still alive to engage troops.

reply to post by Hudson


Well that's what I was thinking, considering madame Curie held full grain uranium with her bare hands and carried it around for over a decade and all she got was a collapse of bone barrow. Not even Cancer. I know uranium is dangerous and all, but you get far worse from high powered gamma waves, cell phones, and other crap. Whatever is causing this in Fallujah, and I've not yet seen any actual sources, is probably something else. Besides, Uranium is to big and unstable to be used by the body. It is excreted and can't be digested into the blood supply. Your biggest worry is arse-cancer.

[edit on 23-7-2010 by Gorman91]

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
reply to post by fleetlord

 

Data has been avaliable for years on this. There was an article (2006, I think) that stated the radiation levels in Fallujah were 100,000 times as much as those in post-war Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

Who took the readings what was the RAD reading?

100,000 times? This is simply not possible.

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by Mr. Tinkertrain

 

When were you in Fallujah, and did they tell you the whole story? Anything you can share?

I was there during the surge.

Are they suppose to tell me what I was suppose to have seen? Trust me I saw a lot worse then what you think they supposedly didn't tell us.

Anything I can share?

Sure since you like details of a horrible place at a horrible time.

Here is a nice detail for you.

I was a medic and I couldn't save my friends life. Would you like any other details about fallujah?

No? Good, mind your buisness.

reply to post by Mr. Tinkertrain

I'm very sorry about your friend. And I know you saw horrible things there. I saw many of the photos myself, which I know can't come anywhere near describing the horror of being there. In the military, you know exactly what they want you to know. Nothing more or less.

Oh, and this is my business because it's everybody's business to remain vigilant and to get the whole story, which is why I intruded on you and asked you when you were there and IF you cared to share. You seem to be reluctant to do so for some reason. And I can respect that too.

I haven't heard anything about DU being easily excreted from the body. More than likely it would stick around for awhile. The radiation isn't strong enough to pass through a sheet of paper last I read, but in contact with skin and you'll have trouble.

This is disinformation and the anti DU people are at it again.

They will not tell you that fallujah was one of saddam's chemical weapons production areas.
Fallujah was one of Iraq's principal CW precursor production facilities before the Gulf war.
www.globalsecurity.org...
www.globalsecurity.org...

There was no safeguards for disposal of the waste from these plants.
the ruling party in Iraq was Sunnis.
The city of fallujah was the headquarters if Muqtada al-Sadr and the Mahdi a Shi’a religious hierarchy.

The insurgents want you to believe it was DU.
The sunnis want the blame shifted to the US.
The shi's want the blame shifted to the US because they can not get any money from the old Saddam government.
the Iraqi government now would like to blame it on the US so they can get more money.
The US has become the deep pockets to go after for anything.

Then you have the out side anti DU crowd that is run by countries that also have DU weapons. China and Russia.


Depleted Uranium (DU)

Natural uranium ore is made up mostly of Uranium 238 (DU)(99.2745% by atom percent )
www.physics.isu.edu...

Large amounts if uranium was mined on the Diné(Navajo) reservation and there are still areas there that are contamanated with high levels of DU 10s to 100s of time higher levels then in Iraq.

Yet you do not see the birth defects that are claimed in IRAQ

On the Diné (Navajo)reservation you see disorders like cancer that takes years to show up.
en.wikipedia.org...

Not one of the anti DU people will answer you when you bring up this important flaw in there disinformation.

And i expect to be attack for bring it up by the ANTI DU crowd.

Or they will have some non scientific BS why the Diné people seam to be immune to the effects that are claimed to be caused by DU in other countries.

Originally posted by danielhanson420
no one will ever be held responsible. no one will be brought to justice and further more it will happen again!

...it has never stopped happening...

...thousands of our soldiers came home from vietnam contaminated by usofa approved chemicals... it was denied that agent orange caused cancer and birth defects... so, here we are, all these years later with a different "conflict" but the same denial for the umpteenth time...

Originally posted by Hudson

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by teashades

 

Is there any proof besides this website? Any other sources?

According to the World Health Organizations, its all bullocks. DU is dangerous if you're in the immediate area and inhale the dust, but even then its expelled within a couple days. Lethal levels would require you to have been in the blast radius, which means you're dead anyway.

www.who.int...

You should have actually read what you so flippantly posted from.
Actually the report only deals with depleted Uranium in Kosovo and the Balkans conflict - which were infinitesimal relative to the Fallujah massacre.

Depleted Uranium is used to harden normal ammunition - including bullets - it is not used as an explosive as you imply with your comments regarding blast radius.

The bullets are capable of piercing tanks and in one report on Fallujah a squad was being fired upon by a squad on the other side of several city blocks - the bullets were passing straight through the walls.

The point regarding Iraq is that the sheer quantity used is causing the problems - it is not something which is an arbitrary possibility which is being looked into - far from it - it is a well documented, well known and well accepted fact.

For your own reputation I suggest you read your sources before posting things.

reply to post by ~Lucidity


Keep your sorries, I don't need or want them. If seeing pictures doesn't compare then why even bring them up, was you trying to relate to me on some emotional field?

My personal experiance is none of your buisness and since the first time didn't take with you let me tell you again. It is none of your buisness.

If you want to find an ex soldier that wants to run around spreading lies so he can be important then by all means jump his bones. Let him feed your little machine, my experiance will not be your fuel.

reply to post by Aristophrenia


Again I have to ask. Madame Curie was one of the most radioactive exposed people on Earth. She never got Cancer. The people who worked in the Manhattan project got higher cancer rates then her. Why is this?

There is something besides Uranium at work here. That might be a conspiracy in and of itself. Uranium is pumped out of the body and cannot be absorbed because of its sheer size. Mucus collects and deposits wastes out.

In fact, if we correlate wind currents to the situation, all this massive depository of radioactive sand should find its way into nations like Eritrea, a la how Chernobyl radioactivity made its way to Scotland and affected people there . But instead, we see a vast increase in life expectancy in said places.

WTF?

www.capitaleritrea.com...

Originally posted by Gorman91
Madame Curie was one of the most radioactive exposed people on Earth. She never got Cancer.

She died in 1934. How many new cancers have been discovered since then? How many new methods of cancer detection since then?

Just sayin'



[edit on 23-7-2010 by Aggie Man]

Originally posted by Mr. Tinkertrain
reply to post by ~Lucidity

 

Keep your sorries, I don't need or want them. If seeing pictures doesn't compare then why even bring them up, was you trying to relate to me on some emotional field?

My personal experiance is none of your buisness and since the first time didn't take with you let me tell you again. It is none of your buisness.

If you want to find an ex soldier that wants to run around spreading lies so he can be important then by all means jump his bones. Let him feed your little machine, my experiance will not be your fuel.

Jump his bones? Wow just charming.

If you don't want people to respond to you, then keep your bitterness and your anger to yourself and consider not posting in public forums. I asked politely. You responded rudely. And I apologized politely.

As for the horror of Fallujah, plenty out there were there too and know exactly what happened and aren't in denial about it.

reply to post by Aggie Man


Too true. But most of those cancers? They sure kill you young. She died at age 66. A time when the average life span for women was 63. She was, on all accords, average in her life span. If she had any sort of cancer, why wasn't she dead by years earlier? I mean, the average life span in 68. It dropped during the aggressions, but now as life returns to normal it's hit a minimum ans will head up soon. If these claims were true, we should see a drastic fall from life spans somewhere. Instead we see a slight drop due to the fact one million people died in this war, and now it's returning to normal.