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.


Monster (NUCLEAR) Babies in Iraq

page: 6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 05:34 PM

Originally posted by Tahnya86
reply to post by EmperorXyn

The US DID! drop nukes..... End note: Yes, US did drop nukes and this thread proves it.

Do you honestly believe there is any truth to your statement?

You do understand that nuclear detonations have a variety of specific characteristics that are unique and impossible to be confused with an equivalent magnitude conventional explosion?

Please quote the relevant facts supporting your allegation otherwise all this thread proves is that anybody agreeing with the pretense has absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

reply to post by SpaceJockey1

OP, would you care to enlighten the rest of us regarding the definition of what exactly is a "low threshold nuclear payload", how it relates to penetrating munitions and why you can hide nuclear explosions if they are being delivered as a "bunker buster"?

You may also be interested in knowing that "bunker buster" ordnance was developed during the second world war by the U.K. as a means to destroy German submarine pens, they are not a new development.

You may also want to reference Thermobaric weapons as given the time frame and geographical location you seem to be confusing Thermobaric weapons with Massive Ordnance Penetration munitions with tactical nuclear weapons with D.U. munitions.

On or about Sunday 03 March 2002 a single 2,000-pound thermobaric bomb was used for the first time in combat against cave complexes in which al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters had taken refuge in the Gardez region of Afghanistan.

BLU-118/B Thermobaric Weapon

Just doing my part to keep the story straight, we wouldn't want ATS to become a den of rumor and hyperbole being propagated by fakes and charlatans.

posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 05:54 PM
Not only did we kill a bunch of innocent civilians and leave the country a disaster.

Our aftermath will be creating monster babies for years to come. It's basically Chernobyl without the nuclear plant.....

posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 05:59 PM

Originally posted by SpaceJockey1
The following makes for interesting reading, if you have any DOUBTS about the dangers of DU (note also that there's been plenty of DU weapon testing on US soil, that's never been cleaned up!

The following is just a snippet of the full article:

[bold]The War Against Ourselves - An interview with Major Doug Rokke by Sunny Miller[/bold]
These consequences last for eternity. The half life of uranium 238 is 4.5 billion years. And we left over 320 tons all over the place in Iraq.

Rokke - We also bombarded Vieques, Puerto Rico, with DU in preparation for the war in Kosovo. That's affecting American citizens on American territory. When I tried to activate our team from the Department of Defense responsible for radiological safety and DU cleanup in Vieques, I was told no. When I tried to activate medical care, I was told no.

The US Army made me their expert. I went into the project with the total intent to ensure they could use uranium munitions in war, because I'm a warrior. What I saw as director of the project, doing the research and working with my own medical conditions and everybody else's, led me to one conclusion: uranium munitions must be banned from the planet, for eternity, and medical care must be provided for everyone, not just the US or the Canadians or the British or the Germans or the French but for the American citizens of Vieques, for the residents of Iraq, of Okinawa, of Scotland, of Indiana, of Maryland, and now Afghanistan and Kosovo.

Full Article

Anecdotal blogs and psuedoscientific agenda backed drivel masquerading as medical literature aside, there is a mass of peer reviewed literature to the contrary...

In this paper, written for a conference on &ldquo:Unacceptable Weapons” at MIT, the author gives an in-depth history of the concern over depleted uranium (DU) weapon fragments as a cause of illness in injured Gulf War veterans and in those exposed to depleted uranium projectiles during the wars in the Balkans.

There has been extensive distortion in the media and on the Internet concerning the effects of DU, but the facts do not warrant such scare tactics. Sound, objective research by RAND, the World Health Organization, the Institute of Medicine, and the National Academy of Sciences has shown that exposure to DU does not produce any medically detectable effects.

The author concludes that the full and unbiased presentation of the facts to governments around the world has resulted in the continued use of DU — even in the face of concerted actions by some to distort the facts and media often more interested in shock value than in presenting the truth.

Depleted Uranium A Case Study of Good and Evil

Depleted uranium - a health, environmental or societal issue?

NATO aircraft fired several tons of armor-piercing weapons made from depleted uranium at Serb military targets in Kosovo in 1999. To assess the danger, if any, of the resulting radiation to soldiers and local people, the United Nations Environment Programme dispatched teams of researchers to Kosovo in November 2000.

At a radioecology conference last week in Monaco (see main text), one of those teams presented results that should calm the nerves of peacekeepers and Kosovars.

New Findings Allay Concerns Over Depleted Uranium

The study described in this report used mathematical modeling to estimate health risks
from exposure to depleted uranium (DU) during the 1991 Gulf War for both U.S. troops
and nearby Iraqi civilians.

The analysis found that the risks of DU-induced leukemia or
birth defects are far too small to result in an observable increase in these health effects
among exposed veterans or Iraqi civilians. Only a few veterans in vehicles accidentally
struck by U.S. DU munitions are predicted to have inhaled sufficient quantities of DU
particulate to incur any significant health risk (i.e., the possibility of temporary kidney
damage from the chemical toxicity of uranium and about a 1% chance of fatal lung

The health risk to all downwind civilians is predicted to be extremely small.
Recommendations for monitoring are made for certain exposed groups. Although the
study found fairly large calculational uncertainties, the models developed and used are
generally valid. The analysis was also used to assess potential uranium health hazards for
workers in the weapons complex.

No illnesses are projected for uranium workers
following standard guidelines; nonetheless, some research suggests that more
conservative guidelines should be considered.
An Analysis of Uranium Dispersal and Health Effects Using a Gulf War Case Study

Is DU a Health Hazard?
■Based on credible scientific evidence, there is no proven link between DU exposure and increases in human cancers or other significant health or environmental impacts.
■The most definitive study of DU exposure is of Gulf War veterans who have embedded DU shrapnel in their bodies that cannot be removed. To date none has developed any health abnormalities due to uranium chemical toxicity or radio toxicity.
■It is a common misconception that radioactivity is the main health hazard of DU rather than chemical toxicity. Like other heavy metals, DU is potentially poisonous. In sufficient amounts, if DU is ingested or inhaled it can be harmful because of its chemical toxicity. High concentration could cause kidney damage.
■According to the World Health Organization (WHO), very large amounts of DU dust would have to be inhaled to cause lung cancer from radio toxicity. Risks of other radiation-induced cancers, including leukemia, are considered to be very much lower still.
International Atomic Energy Agency/Depleted Uranium Factsheet

Etc... Etc... Etc...

posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 06:05 PM
reply to post by Drunkenparrot

Thanks for your balanced input, and yes I'm well aware of the bunker buster's original and recent history.

Proving that a 'nuclear' enhanced version is obviously difficult as any official details would be under TOP SECRET, but the following is what has been discussed, and given one of my earlier posts where eye witnesses that saw one in action, and then got cover in the dust that was found to be radioactive, you'd not be wrong tp assume that there's a lot of possible truth to the claims:

Bunker-busting nuclear weapons, also known as earth-penetrating weapons (EPW), are a type of nuclear weapon designed to penetrate into soil, rock, or concrete to deliver a nuclear warhead to a target. These weapons would be used to destroy hardened, underground military bunkers buried deep in the ground. In theory, the amount of radioactive nuclear fallout would be reduced from that of a standard, air-burst nuclear detonation because they would have relatively low explosive yield. However because such weapons necessarily come into contact with large amounts of earth-based debris, they may, under certain circumstances, still generate significant fallout. Warhead yield and weapon design have changed periodically throughout the history of the design of such weapons. An underground explosion releases a larger fraction of its energy into the ground, compared to an explosion at or above the surface which releases most of its energy into the atmosphere.

The purpose of an earth-penetrating nuclear "bunker buster" is to reduce the required yield needed to ensure the destruction of the target by coupling the explosion to the ground, yielding a shock wave similar to an earthquake. For example, the United States retired the B-53 warhead, with a yield of 9 megatons, because the B-61 Mod 11 could attack similar targets with much lower yield (400 kilotons)

posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 06:12 PM
reply to post by SpaceJockey1

It would seem the author Doug Rokke has been suspected of fabricating the entire anecdote you just posted.

Friendly advice, next time perhaps vette your sources a bit more thoroughly?

The following information from the military "Special Assistant on Deployment Health" paints a quite different picture. Unless Rokke can come up with the names of most of the 30 who he alleges have died, I will have to believe the government information, rather than Rokke's claim. Rokke seems to have exaggerated both his role and the number of people who have died since the cleanup. Here is the email from the official government source:

>>>>We can offer some accurate information to correct the record. Rokke is a private citizen and does not represent the Department of Defense. Following the ground war, Rokke was attached for duty to assist technical experts in the recovery and decontamination of radioactive material and equipment.

The team of approximately 10 people was led, not by Rokke, but by a civilian from the Army Munitions and Chemical Command (AMCCOM). Rokke's primary role was to facilitate the recovery operations by ensuring the team had the proper support.

Over the past years, Doug Rokke has reported varying numbers of ill or dead members of "his team." These claims have been researched and are unsubstantiated.

In 1998, our office compiled a list of 29 names of people Rokke reported to be on "his team." Staff members were able to interview 22 of them. Approximately 15 of the 29 people Doug Rokke had identified as being on "his team" actually worked on DU-contaminated vehicles.

Two of the 29 had died, however, in interviews with the others, neither of these two veterans was named as having worked with depleted uranium.

While we respect Rokke's right to express his opinions, the fact that he presents himself as an expert, does not make it so. His role in the Gulf War and at the Chemical School, as well as the specifics of his educational background, do not qualify him as a depleted uranium expert. These areas fall well outside of his area of expertise and responsibility.

authors comments: It seems that as of 1998, not a single member of the team had died of exposure to uranium, contrary to Rokke's claim. Before posting the above text, I contacted Doug Rokke and asked him to comment on this material. He refused to say anything in support of his earlier claim that 30 people had died from his organization and instead showed an intense desire to change the subject.

Military Spokesman Contradicts Fatalities Claim by Doug Rokke

posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 06:14 PM
reply to post by Drunkenparrot

I'd already read most of what you presented 'supporting' DU being SAFE, and a good LAUGH at the BS put out to 'calm' the public!

What you quoted is just part of the cover-up to keep Joe public in the dark.

Next thing you'll be telling us that it's SAFE to drink FLOURIDE in our water...

edit on 3-1-2012 by SpaceJockey1 because: spelling

posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 06:18 PM

Originally posted by SpaceJockey1
reply to post by Drunkenparrot

Next thing you'll be telling us that it's SAFE to drink FLOURIDE in our water...

edit on 3-1-2012 by SpaceJockey1 because: spelling

posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 06:25 PM

Originally posted by BlastedCaddy
reply to post by SpaceJockey1

I was expecting something more like....

Now that is funny...Lol

posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 06:29 PM
Watcha DRINKING DrunkenParrot?

Just remember that anyone speaking out, will obviously have their credibility attacked and with the vast amounts of resources at the Govt's (CIA) hands, it's going to be very hard to fight then evenly. Just as we know there are shills that are paid to post on here, there's probably many more editing Wiki!

Rokke stated: I am dismayed that DOD and DOE officials and their representatives continue personal attacks aimed to silence or discredit those of us who are demanding that medical care be provided to all DU casualties and that environmental remediation be completed in compliance with government regulations.

The Pentagon arrogantly refuses to comply with its own orders and directives that require the DOD to provide prompt and effective medical care to all exposed individuals, as cited in military reports.


Based on a report by RAND, a research corporation, the U.S. Department of Defense claims DU doesn’t compromise human health. However, Dan Fahey, the Director of Research at the Gulf War Resource Center, points out that the RAND report was incomplete: it ignored 68 relevant sources that show clear relationships between DU and harm to human health. While the health effects of DU are largely unknown, it is believed to cause cancer, the phenomenon known as Gulf War Syndrome, radiation poisoning, and respiratory problems.
edit on 3-1-2012 by SpaceJockey1 because: Add more

posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 06:29 PM
With Fukashima, the BP disaster, fracking, and the total disregard for our environment that the free market has, monster babies are sure to become the norm in a few decades. One candidate wants to do away with the EPA even. Imagine the horrors we will see when every polluter feels safe to dump God knows what into our air and water? There is a cumulative effect of all these contaminants in the natural environment that will amplify as they start to work in unison. The hydrological cycle will spread everything all over given enough time. I am just waiting for the sea life in the Pacific to start showing the effects of Japan, its only a matter of time. Certainly the DU in Iraq will work its way into the biosphere everywhere in time. Its frightening

posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 06:29 PM
If DU is safe than America would allow it to be used in bullets in America. Citing something is safe because the military has much to gain is like listening to a tobacco company praising how great smoking is for the body.

It's all bs. It isn't safe but they don't want you getting all antsy about it. Once the people find out how much crap the US has done around the world they won't stand for it !

posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 06:37 PM
reply to post by openminded2011

Exactly! And you've only scratched the surface, I'm afraid.

Never forget that since the 1940's there have been over 2000 nuclear tests done worldwide....many in the atmosphere, that have seriously damaged the ionosphere and more.

Eventually the accumulation of man messing with nature is going to have a very bad pay-back, if it isn't already.

posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 06:42 PM
reply to post by Equinox99

That's the truth!

I mean what a great way to rid Western countries of their DU stockpiles...dump it with the Arabs and when they are completely wretched & depleted from all the radioactivity, it's an easy conquest and access to all that OIL and other MINERALS...

I mean, look at can't get involved in BOMBING the Arab world fast enough! It's also ramping up its nuclear plant program, adding 10 more plants. Guess they've got to make way for all the DU waste, eh?

posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 07:35 PM
Haven't (and don't currently) had/have the time so I'm sorry if what I post has already been said.

I wrote a huge journalism article (that got wiped out due to a hard drive failure) on this subject about 4 or 5 years ago once I started looking into the matter and became absolutely appalled.

As of that time, we had already dumped 330 TONS of d.u. into that country. I'm sure it has gone up drastically, if not doubled, by now. Our military has done worse to these people than any atrocity I can think of, as that country (and our clueless soldiers, mind you) has been destroyed by this deadly element and will be uninhabitable for centuries as du has a HALF life of 4.4 BILLION years.

Watch this:

It isn't some lightly evidenced hack documentary. The main feature is a man named Dr. Doug Rokke, who was the man tasked by the army itself to find ways to clean up du. He tells us that you can't; once it's fired and atomized, not even the very best filters we have can stop the particles from getting through.

Rokke is sick in the vid, but he's on deaths door now. He makes phone interviews with Alex Jones (it is what it is, a medium to hear knowledgeable people speak) when he's healthy enough.

The documentary's title sums up the situation perfectly: Beyond Treason. I believe that we need to have a good ole fashioned war crimes trial on the Nuremberg scale and hang all of the absolute monsters that knew about this and carried it out.

There is a new saying in Iraq when a baby is born. It's not "is it a boy or a girl?" No, now the mothers ask hesitantly "Is my baby normal?"

Sorry for the rant, the magnitude of this cannot be overstated.
edit on 3-1-2012 by strangernstrangeland because: mispelled something

posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 07:40 PM
reply to post by SpaceJockey1

Yes I am more concerned with the monsters responsible. Thank you for asking. Just because monster babies is in the original title doesn't mean you have to use it. I just find it sad that these babies are described as monsters because of their deformities. The people responsible for this are monsters.

posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 07:59 PM
reply to post by SteffieJo

I understand where you are coming from but unfortunately there's no easy glossing over the effects of these wars, especially where radioactive particles are involved.

posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 08:04 PM
reply to post by Drunkenparrot

I normally don't go negative on other forum members, but believing the government over a scientist is maybe the dumbest crap I've ever heard and I honestly can't believe you would post that drivel in support of its claims. I could see you posting it as further evidence against the government, but not in support. Rokke has no axe to grind other than the fact he's almost dead due to exposure and he wants the truth to come out. The gov and military have much more to lose if the truth is allowed to surface.

That is like having a KNOWN, well known rapist claiming that a professional, respectable woman with two black eyes and obvious signs of rape, claim that all he did was give the woman a hug and that the woman is lying. Don't you trust your good friend the rapist? Shouldn't he at least stand trial since he's been convicted before and the evidence is written all over the woman?
If you honestly can't see the parallels, I won't do it for you. I simply cannot believe someone on this board would believe what the government tells them, when it's the actual government committing the crimes!!! Do you honestly believe the people responsible for killing/permanently maiming MILLIONS of innocent people are going to come forth and say "Ok, we did it. Sorry for killing everybody. Please don't put us in jail for too long or hang us."

Just to give you an Idea what your ministry of propaganda, military division (or dept of defense) would have you believe; their official statement is that you could eat DU for breakfast and be fine (With that statement, they can shuck the responsibility of taking care of all the soldiers with "gulf war syndrome" and also deny claims or lawsuits of the people affected. Yeah, they surely would admit their wrongdoing given everything it would do for them). Since you love and trust our government so dearly, why don't you give that a go and get back to me.

Probably one of the most unbelievable posts I have ever seen on this board, and that is saying something. Who signs your checks?

posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 08:11 PM
How do good people fight the kind of horrible people that would do something like this?

It's the ultimate paradox.

What can humans do about man's inhumanity to man?

It would take a massive reprioritizing from every human on the planet, simultaneously. No small task.

posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 08:23 PM

Originally posted by M1FST91
I really don't want to comment much on this due to my families well being but after serving and coming home a year or so later I was diagnosed with liver cancer and I know of at least 5 others that are close friends of mine have the same thing. I'm not saying its from my deploy but what are the odds.... Oh and my mos is a fighter pilot raptors. Just my experience... Read betw----------------.

Interesting...since we've never deployed Raptors to the Middle East and "mos" is an Army occupational acronym and not one an Air Force Raptor pilot would use. But keep sending out these little tidbits of's only you that looks stupid.

posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 08:31 PM
reply to post by strangernstrangeland

In the spirit of a community forum I will assume that you overlooked the multiple peer reviewed papers written by real accredited scientists with verifiable credentials that I posted just above...?

I believe if you were to take a moment and actually source the information being presented in this thread you will find that the only academically recognised work posted in this thread are the sources I provided.

post by Drunkenparrot

I believe in fact and evidence, not hyperbole and appeals to emotion.

Read the Robert Holloway paper, you will recognize quite a few names from the anti-DU movement who have been indisputedly involved in gross misrepresentation and falsification of data to push their own agenda's.

UPDATE - June, 2009 - Depleted uranium has become an unfashionable cause for the depleted uranium activists. It is old news. The Traprock Peace Center is now under new management with a new director and it appears that depleted uranium will no longer be a focus of the organization.

The few other organizations that were pressing this issue also are in decline. The website of Dr. Asaf Durakovic is dormant and it seems that he has retired from the fray. Leuren Moret and Doug Rokke seem to spend less time on the road drumming up interest in the subject.

The Military Toxics project has declining revenue. However, I will leave this site on the Internet for a few months longer, to address whatever interest there may still be in the subject.

There are half a dozen documented examples of fraud and misrepresentation by Leuren Moret and Doug Rokke

In closing, this gem...

Alleged Connection Between Depleted Uranium and Birth Defects
by Robert Holloway

One of the most powerful emotional tactics of the campaign against depleted uranium is to show horrific photos of birth defects that are alleged to have been caused by depleted uranium. This argument has been presented to me by several activists and in each case it is done in a way that I find most striking and astonishing.

The astonishing part is that the activists never feel the need to demonstrate any connection between depleted uranium and the birth defects. It is as if the mere presence of birth defects in a country where depleted uranium munitions were used is enough to establish a cause and effect relationship. Perhaps that is at least remotely rational since it seems to be common knowledge that radiation can cause birth defects.

Radiation is known to cause birth defects such as retardation and small head size but these effects are only found with very large doses of radiation and not from uranium, either natural or depleted.

A related but not identical effect of radiation is that of inheritable defects. Bear in mind that a birth defect is not necessarily a hereditary effect. The best expert opinion, including a report of the United Nations Scientific Committee on Effects of Radiation, is that "radiation exposure has never been demonstrated to cause hereditary effects in human populations".

One of the largest study populations is that of the survivors of the atomic bombing of Japan. According to the U.N. report, "The absence of observable effects in children of survivors of the atomic bombings in Japan, one of the largest study populations, indicates that moderate acute radiation exposures of even a relatively large human population must have little impact."

It is important to note here that the report does not claim that it is impossible for radiation to produce hereditary effects, but that the frequency of hereditary effects (from radiation) is very low compared to the baseline frequency of hereditary effects from other causes even in the case of a large radiation dose.

According to the U.N. report a substantial dose of 1 Gray is likely to produce adverse effects at a frequency of less than one percent of the baseline frequency of these adverse effects. [A one Gray dose is approaching a lethal dose] Another factor that enters into the situation is that when the activists show photos of birth defects, there is normally an absence of information as to the radiation exposure, if any, of the parents.

Two unlikely probabilities, multiplied together, immensely reduce the chances that the observed birth defects were caused by depleted uranium. That unlikely situation does not reduce the shrill cries of alarm from the activist groups, however. A three page summary of the United Nations report can be found at the following link:
Report of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation to the General Assembly

edit on 3-1-2012 by Drunkenparrot because: syntax

new topics

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in