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 Won't clean up DU munitions

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:
dom

posted on Apr, 14 2003 @ 10:06 AM
link   
news.bbc.co.uk...

"The US says it has no plans to remove the debris left over from depleted uranium (DU) weapons it is using in Iraq.

It says no clean-up is needed, because research shows DU has no long-term effects.

It says a 1990 study suggesting health risks to local people and veterans is out of date. "

Yep, I'm sure it's just a conspiracy theory...

Do we need any more signs that the US aren't going to clean up this mess properly?




posted on Apr, 14 2003 @ 10:26 AM
link   
This plainly shows how rabid and greedy, and immoral the bush administration is : They're not even spending a billion or so on cleanup, which would be a great propagandistic victory and which would probably keep malformed iraqi children to appear on TV in the next years.

[Edited on 14-4-2003 by Mokuhadzushi]



posted on Apr, 15 2003 @ 09:57 AM
link   
in depth coverage of the DU issue :

english.aljazeera.net...



posted on Apr, 15 2003 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Hopefully, when the UN gets involved with the post-war Iraq situation, this can be addressed and taken care of... Most here know my feelings towards Bush, and he seems to be purposefully trying to reinforce it each day!



posted on Apr, 16 2003 @ 06:40 PM
link   
You fools have bought into Saddam's propaganda!!!!

LOL!!

Depleted Uranium does nothing to the body.

Want to know why there was a huge increase in cancer in Iraq around 1990 and up? It's because of the chemical weapons Saddam used on his own people!!

Some 1990 study shows that cancer in Iraq drasticly increased. Woopedy doo.... Guess what? We weren't fighting in Iraq in 1990!



posted on Apr, 16 2003 @ 06:55 PM
link   
For the first time, I have to agree with Moku, this is a rather bad idea.

Dangerous Brian, I have been in the environmental field for the last 4 years, and have a bit of knowledge in this field: DU is extremely toxic if it enters the bloodstream.

Like all heavy metals, DU is completely cumulative inside the human body, meaning that it goes in and becomes resident in your bodily tissue cells. Some of the more common symptoms include sterility/sexual dysfunction, blood clotting/circulatory problems, blood anemia, loss of bone density, loss of teeth, and severe mental problems.

The average DU weapon does in fact spall and release a cloud of micron sized DU particles on impact with an armored target. This certainly poses a hazard for any workers who will be constructing anything in the immediate area, or will be otherwise stirring up the ground and making this dust airborn (once airborn it does pose an inhalation hazard, and if inhaled will readily cause serious lung problems.)

I was interviewed by Halliburton for a position where I would be managing environmental problems associated with the oil fields in Iraq. Although it was very lucrative, I declined for several reasons, not least of which was my concern for health and safety related to heavy metal contamination in the fields, due to use of DU weapons.

If an armored conflict occurred in an area, and DU weapons were used, the likely way any kind of cleanup would go would be something like this:

First, widespread sampling of the soils to find and delineate where such contamination was located. If it was a large conflict, especially a large tank battle, I can see hundreds of square km impacted.

Once you know where the contamination is, and how bad it is, you have to do something about it. If it is low enough level, you could simply cordon it off and prohibit any excavation/construction, or any other activity that would stir the soil up (DU is very heavy and it takes a bit of activity to make it airborn).

If construction or other activity is planned in the affected area, you only really have 2 choices: remove it (could easily reach hundreds of thousands of cubic yards of material excavated, and where do you put it? Bury it all? And where do you find clean fill to replace it?) or simply overlay it and seal it in place with asphalt/concrete or other material. But again, you could be talking hundreds of squard km.

I can easily see testing and remediation for battle fields running into the multiple billions, if not hundreds of billions of dollars.



posted on Apr, 16 2003 @ 06:57 PM
link   
Wow, I actually agree with Moku for once. This is immoral.



posted on Apr, 16 2003 @ 09:07 PM
link   
See link.....

www.gulflink.osd.mil...

Scource link....

www.gulflink.osd.mil...

Nato....

www.nato.int...



posted on Apr, 17 2003 @ 01:18 AM
link   
I agree with dragon rider, but I don't agree with Moku

They have bydgeted something ike 65 billion to the getting Iraq free and restored (I forget the exact amount). And so far with the freeing part almost done they have spent 20 million. That leaves a lot more twards cleanup and rebuilding, plus money from Iraqs oil which will go back to their rebuilding. Their reasoning, while I may not agree with it is because there is no direct threat from the uranium, even the UN noted that it is highly unlikely. While we all seem to agree that it would be more responsible for them to do it (and likely they will end up doing it anyways), it's not an issue of an immoral corrupt greedy administration. And for the record I despise Bush.



posted on Apr, 17 2003 @ 01:38 AM
link   
Only spent 20 million? Are you nuts? Just getting the Navy to the area properly cost more than that!

There have been plenty of credible non-U.S. sources that say that the D.U. hysteria is hype. Just another avenue of "blame America" crap.

The Iraqis are having the opinion of "Thanks, no get the heck out of here, you infidels!" now, so they can take some of the billions they can make off their oil and pick up any stupid D.U. bullets they can find, I don't care. I've spent enough as a tax payer ridding Hussein from our worries and theirs. They couldn't even oust him on their own, they can spend a bit of their new-found freedom (assuming they have the wherewithall to keep it) to clean it up themselves if they think its a problem.

Personally, I don't think they'll keep their freedom for very long. To them, the freedom was cheaply gained. Nobody respects anything that cost them little.



posted on Apr, 17 2003 @ 03:53 PM
link   
evidence that DU causes problems, and I've seen evidence that it doesn't.

Personally, I'm usually one to error on the side of caution when in doubt.... I say clean it up...



posted on Apr, 17 2003 @ 05:02 PM
link   
There have been plenty of credible non-U.S. sources that say that the D.U. hysteria is hype. Just another avenue of "blame America" crap. Posted by Thomas Crowne

On a professional level, I have to say that DU IS a health and safety concern to any who do any amount of work, construction, or other serious ground movement in the affected area.

Granted, it is not a true hot potato in the sense that just walking through an old battlefield will automatically give you cancer and you will die, such a fate could well befall any who work extensively in that environment. (Also, if say a residential area was constructed on an old battlefield, I can easily see a spike in cancer rates and other health problems for the residents in the following years).



posted on Apr, 17 2003 @ 07:13 PM
link   
Dragonrider perhaps you should read more carefully the reports provided.

Its very simple, the amount of exposure to radiation (even in the case of construction) is equivalent to the radiation experienced by those working in nuclear plants (day in and day out). One perhaps would feel more comfortable wearing a surgical mask, while completing his or her shift.

But otherwise the level of risk is well below what has been sugested.



posted on Apr, 17 2003 @ 07:23 PM
link   
But otherwise the level of risk is well below what has been sugested. Posted by Toltec

The risk of radiation is NOT what I would be worried about. I would be worried about the heavy metal contamination and physiological effects on people working in an affected area.

As I mentioned, this is the area I have worked in for the last 4 years. I agree, it is not a *red* dangerous area, you are not going to fall dead as you walk across an affected area. However, any significant work in an affected area that would significantly disturb the soil would produce an inhalation hazard as well as other exposure hazards.

Of course, I have a feeling the US will take the position of "this is the Iraqis land, so we wont worry about it, not like they are going to sue us".

I specifically passed up a position with Halliburton because I did not want to be responsible for environmental hazards in the Iraqi oilfields. I was not worried about normal hazards associated with oil fields (although they are substantial, they are well known and anyone with experience can deal with them), but being an environmental manager, you sign off on all environmental hazards to your people. I didnt know the full extent what other hazards there would be (including DU), and didnt know what kind of budget for assessing these hazards there were, which is part of the reason I passed the position up.

In other words, I didnt want to take the liability of someone coming down with lung cancer/heavy metal poisoning, or some other ailment due to a factor that I did not fully assess, did not have budget, equipment, or was not allowed to assess.



posted on Apr, 17 2003 @ 07:41 PM
link   
Again Dragonrider a surgical masks seems the best resolution to your concerns. To be honest this in respect to what you clamed to be the serious threat of DU (in a prior post at this thread) seems to be the best solution to even the most paranoid of employees.

Not that a surgical mask would actually be needed but if I were an employer my impression is that it would certainly cut down on frivolous lawsuits.



posted on Apr, 17 2003 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Toltec
Not that a surgical mask would actually be needed but if I were an employer my impression is that it would certainly cut down on frivolous lawsuits.


Yeah right .. just like the frivolous complaining about frivolous malformations of children playing in that area...





[Edited on 17-4-2003 by Mokuhadzushi]



posted on Apr, 17 2003 @ 07:55 PM
link   
Not that a surgical mask would actually be needed but if I were an employer my impression is that it would certainly cut down on frivolous lawsuits. Posted by Toltec

If you were an employer in this situation, and you adopted this strategy, you would only be setting yourself up for HUGE lawsuits, as you knowingly allowed employees into a contaminated area. (The environmental field is as much for lawyers as anyone else)

Consider that a recent federal court ruling allows people to seek damages for *exposure* to asbestos (no documented evidence that it actually caused harm, just that they *may have been* exposed to it, by an employer *negligently* allowing people into a known asbestos containing structure), and a lawsuit is already in the works under this ruling in the millions of dollars.



posted on Apr, 17 2003 @ 08:21 PM
link   
I am aware of that but despite the facts asbestos is still used in Moslems countries with respect to building homes. That falls under the responsibility of the League of Arab Nations. Perhaps Aljezeara(sp) should report in respect to such findings, asbestos was outlawed in this country a very long time ago???


Mokuhadzushi do you have a link outside of Aljezira(sp) or the Moscow times???


Perhaps the malformations are the result of accepting food exposed to DDT? A chemical also outlawed for use in the US but still used in other countries.



posted on Apr, 17 2003 @ 10:17 PM
link   
I am aware of that but despite the facts asbestos is still used in Moslems countries with respect to building homes. That falls under the responsibility of the League of Arab Nations. Perhaps Aljezeara(sp) should report in respect to such findings, asbestos was outlawed in this country a very long time ago??? Posted by Toltec

True, asbestos is outlawed in the US, and not in many other countries. In truth, asbestos is only moderately harmful (and only chrysitille asbestos).

I would imagine that the overall attitude to any environmental cleanup for Iraq will be that it isnt covered under US law, and outside of cleanup for the "vital" areas (oil fields, ect) it wont happen. After all, it will be set up that the Iraqis will not be able to sue the Americans.

My concern about working for Halliburton is that I would be working in a foreign country under an American company (thereby under American laws), and with largely American workers under me/that I would be responsible for thier well being. Therefore, I forsaw a situation where I would have to sign off on peoples safety, knowing there were additional environmental hazards that I likely would not be allowed or be budgeted to assess for. Therefore, when people DID start getting sick, I would be held liable for it, even if such contaminants were legal in the country where it happened.

And, for the record, I DO believe that DU is hazardous, and still needs to be remediated before any serious work will be allowed in an affected area.



posted on Apr, 17 2003 @ 10:31 PM
link   
the twenty "million" a typo for "20 billion", methinks.
The issue here, I believe, is one that has been raised: any explicit or implicit admission that DU is hazardous could open the floodgates for litigation at home.
And if it is as hazardous as some claim: Gawd help us because they're still dealing with dioxin in Vietnam after 40 years.







 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join