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.

 

US War Crimes: Cancer rate in Fallujah worse than Hiroshima

page: 5
27
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sri Oracle
I'm not "hoping" anything happens. I'm simply pointing out how ridiculous it was to come to a thread with scientific evidence supporting atrocity and to say, neener neener neener... I did it... "come and get me".


I don't think he was bragging about using DU, just that he was in Iraq. I was there, too. I'm not hiding the fact.


Originally posted by Sri Oracle
and at the end of the day... a few human shields were killed... and a many mosques and civilians killed as well...

... and then the next day came... and the situation had past; it was over.


So, it's OK for insurgents to use human shields and completely violate the LOAC, GC, etc.


Originally posted by Sri Oracle
What the US has done throughout the middleast with its DU tipped bullets will last for generations and generations to come, causing neonatal deformities for as far as you can imagine into the future.


They aren't bullets, they are tank rounds.


Originally posted by Sri Oracle
That is an entirely different scale of travesty... and to commit such travesty while claiming to have international "moral high ground" is disgraceful.


Why is it different? Dead kids are dead kids. I didn't know there was a difference.


Originally posted by Sri Oracle
The insurgents may have not been "right", however the forewarned evil of US use of WP and DU going unheard is clearly and unequivocally wrong.


So the US is evil for the use of DU, and the insurgents, once again, get a pass when they set off a car bomb and blow some kids legs off???




posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by jerico65
 


From my experience they looked deformed even before the DU was used.
Driving through east jerusalem makes walmart look like a beauty pagent venue by comparison



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by teashades
 



A week or two ago I spoke with a cold war military officer (now retired) who would regularly fly near the Soviet Union ready to drop nukes on it, and he told me the Hiroshima bombs were toys compared to what he was carrying, which he said in response to my wondering why those who were exposed to the Hiroshima radioactive rain weren't all killed.



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sri Oracle
I'm simply pointing out how ridiculous it was to come to a thread with scientific evidence supporting atrocity
What scientific evidence supporting what atrocity? I haven't seen any scientific evidence linking DU usage to birth deformities etc.


Originally posted by Keyhole
I think it may be a LITTLE premature to start saying that DU ammunition is the definite reason why this is happening.

There COULD also be another explanation as to why this is happening, ...
Exactly. In fact, there could be several other explanations. I'm not sure that it isn't DU or that DU may not be a contributor, but I AM saying it's premature to conclude that's the cause or even A cause with the evidence we have right now.


Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
When will people stop listening to the agenda driven science of the military? Of course they will say it is harmless.
The WHO report cited earlier in the thread here: www.abovetopsecret.com... doesn't say it's harmless. It talks about health effects, maximum exposure levels, treatment of exposed individuals, etc.

Health effects:

Potential health effects of exposure to depleted uranium
-In the kidneys, the proximal tubules (the main filtering component of the kidney) are considered to be the main site of potential damage from chemical toxicity of uranium. There is limited information from human studies indicating that the severity of effects on kidney function and the time taken for renal function to return to normal both increase with the level of uranium exposure.


Maximum exposure:

The general public's intake via inhalation or ingestion of soluble DU compounds should be based on a tolerable intake value of 0.5 µg per kg of body weight per day. This leads to an air concentration of 1 µg/m3 for inhalation, and about 11 mg/y for ingestion by the average adult.
So any exposures above that level would be considered unsafe.

treatment of exposed individuals:

When an individual is suspected of being exposed to DU at a level significantly above the normal background level, an assessment of DU exposure may be required. This is best achieved by analysis of daily urine excretion. Urine analysis can provide useful information for the prognosis of kidney pathology from uranium or DU. The proportion of DU in the urine is determined from the 235U/238U ratio, obtained using sensitive mass spectrometric techniques.


If a DU shell was fired at a tank and a soldier walked right up to the hit tank immediately after the explosion and inhaled the DU particles deeply, I suspect this would create a potentially unsafe exposure level. However I would suspect this type of action is rare.

It's fine to disagree with the opposing viewpoint but if you think the WHO document says it's harmless, I'm not sure you've really read it.

I had to take special training and get a license to handle radioactive materials and one of the shocking things you learn in that training is how high the background levels of naturally occurring radiation can be. There's radioactivity in the soil, in the rocks in the ground, in the food we eat, it's everywhere, though stronger in some places than others. Radon gas is probably one of the biggest health threats from naturally occurring radiation. Anyway my point is that those elevated radiation levels caused by DU allowed by WHO aren't a huge increase over naturally occurring background radiation. But I won't argue that any radiation increase is good for you, just that it's a small risk if the exposure is small. I take a small risk every time I get in a car or a plane and probably much larger than the radiation risk I've been exposed to since tens of thousand of people die in car accidents every year.



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I'd like to contribute to the discussion additionally the concept that if you dont want DU thrown at you at high velocuty, you can just fool occupying forces into going home by pretending everything is just fine now, and , by the way thanks guys!
Probably the very very worst thing you can do is shoot at tanks, convoys and soldiers cleaning up and rebuilding the stinking filthy country from behind cover.
Just a thought



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 01:31 PM
link   


[edit on 30-7-2010 by stephinrazin]



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by stephinrazin
 


I have a two headed turtle that I assure you has never been to iraq.
Facts are tricky things and in a world of possibilities assuming that the one thing you want to focus on out of literally thousands takes more of something called proof. In the west, the spontaneous birth defect rate is 3%. Other than laywers convincing the ignorant, one cannot prove any particular cause for any particular event. Proof, at least to the objective adults that sometimes visit is a matter of EXCLUSION of all other possibilities, even the ones you dont want to admit exist, and that sometimes only increases the PROBABILITY anad not proof of cause and effect. Yes, Adult logic get that way sometimes and it really mucks up some dang fine preconcieved notions.
On the other hand how do we know it wasnt simply Mr ulluh, such as in inch ulluh? Didnt mr ulluh will it? Cant be nuch of an illah if he willed it, or couldnt stop it, Hmmm?
Should be proud then, no? Dont want to appear ungrateful or you might not get a crack at those virgins

[edit on 30-7-2010 by mordant1]



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by mordant1
one cannot prove any particular cause for any particular event.
While that may be true to some extent, the civil courts don't require 100% proof, merely a preponderance of evidence, and there are ways to produce that, none of which I have seen yet in this case.

One such method of linking DU to health problems would be with maps. The first map would show the intensity of radiation coming from DU residue. It will show higher concentration of radioactivity with the DU signature of U235/238 ratio in certain areas.

The second map would show the incidences of whatever ailments one is evaluating by geographic area.

If there is a strong correlation of ailments in a geographic area with high DU related radioactivity, and the ailments can be determined to be a potential result of such exposure, then we have a pretty convincing case even if it's not 100% proof. But "Fallujah" is not specific enough of a geographic location in this case, we would need to see maps of streets/neighborhoods where the exposure occurred. We haven't seen these maps yet, have we? In fact what if the highest incidence rate of problems turned out to be in neighborhoods where DU exposure was low but exposure to residue from Saddam's secret projects was high?

[edit on 30-7-2010 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Sir or counsellor:
Association is not causaation. Never was, never will be. Not in a real world, legal prestidigitation is spin and win. May not matter in a legal environment because of course, lawyers get paid to argue by the hour, regardless of outcome, not to come to honest objective conclusions, but thems the facts. Reality can be decreed from the bench, unless they get a better offer.
Spend any time in law school, facts and honesty are not held in high regard for the newly minted officers of the court, only providing 'legal process" to peons deemed too stupid to reckon common sense. Dont tell me different, been there and I dont need protestations of innocence of lessons in predatory logic.
Respectfully Submitted...

[edit on 30-7-2010 by mordant1]



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by mordant1
 
I can't argue with you about the courts. The last time I went to jury selection everyone with a PhD or MD who was highly educated, was rejected by either the prosecutor or the defense attorney. Seems like they wanted the least educated folks they could find that could be easily persuaded by their antics.

But set the court antics aside for a moment. Show two maps to me that show a strong correlation of DU residue and illness in the same geographic areas, and while I wouldn't call it proof, I would find it persuasive and I might start lobbying my representatives to investigate DU usage further to see if it IS the cause and to ban it's use if it is. But I haven't seen that yet.

Now back to the courts. Did you see the movie "Erin Brockovich"? Erin Brockovich for Real


The real Erin Brockovich is more engaging, intelligent and visionary than the personality portrayed by Hollywood. She gained fame as the law office file clerk whose solo investigation established that the health of countless people who lived in and around Hinckley, California had been devastated by exposure to toxic Chromium 6 (hexavalent chromium) coming from a compressor plant owned by the huge electric utility PG&E (Pacific Gas and Electric. In 1996, thanks to the persistent efforts of Erin and Ed Masry PG&E was ordered to make the largest legal settlement in U.S. history, paying out some $333 million to more than 600 Hinckley residents.


Now did she ever PROVE PG&E caused the illness? I don't know, but her evidence was persuasive even if it wasn't "proof". I'm not even seeing anything all that persuasive on the DU-Fallujah illness link so far.

[edit on 30-7-2010 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


You well know at voir dire, anyone with enough education is automatically discarded in hopes of getting OJ's jury; Funny you seem surprized somehow.
Proof?I dont know the proof, I know the case and likely there was merit, but I know that many of the plaintiffs didnt get much if any promised money from Brokovich & Co, and wonder why, seems the majority of the money went for legal expenses including fees. Funny class action suits usually the majority of the money goes to the lawyers.,in class action in spite of the often routine similarity of the case material.
SOmeone I know spent stupid money on the now crappy maytag, won in class action for broken 2000 washer drier combo, reward was $100 certificate good for purchase of a new maytag, not even a repair of the original unit. I assure you lawyer got cash. I could go on if you want...

[edit on 30-7-2010 by mordant1]



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 08:47 AM
link   
wikileaks needs to find some more data on this ...



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 09:08 AM
link   

According to Geophysisist, Leuren Moret, the equivalent of atomic bombs released by the use of DU in Iraq in 2003 is 400,000 Hiroshima bombs. We need to be clear that these DU particles have a half-life of 4.5 billion years. In other words, its effects will not blow away in a few years.

What we are looking at is something beyond the imagination. DU has been blamed on the health level for the effects of the Gulf War Syndrome, including chronic muscle and joint pain, fatigue, and memory loss among at least 200,000 soldiers.


www.i-amperfectlyhealthy.com...

By all means use all the du you want....

What makes me laugh is the stay at home fundies who point to biblical verses that say Iraq will be made uninhabitable for ever.
This a good thing according to them because it means their bible is coming true.


Cancer in Iraq, according to a UN Subcommission, seems to have increased between 7 and 10 times, and deformities, or congenital defects between 4 and 6 times expected levels of the norm. A United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority report said up to 500,000 people would die before the end of the century due to radioactive debris left behind in the desert.
from the above link

the WHO info sited earlier was from the balkans and refers insignificant use of DU as opposed the the massive use of DU in the Iraq.

if you think its effect on the us troops is bad now wait till they start firing it the patriots ...

www.gulfwarvets.com...
go here

[edit on 3-8-2010 by Danbones]

[edit on 3-8-2010 by Danbones]



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join