Toxic legacy of US assault on Fallujah 'worse than Hiroshima' , page 1


Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 39 times
Topic started on 27-5-2012 @ 07:39 AM by neformore

Toxic legacy of US assault on Fallujah 'worse than Hiroshima'


www.independent.co.u k
Dramatic increases in infant mortality, cancer and leukaemia in the Iraqi city of Fallujah, which was bombarded by US Marines in 2004, exceed those reported by survivors of the atomic bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, according to a new study.
(visit the link for the full news article)


reply posted on 27-5-2012 @ 08:39 AM by Open2Truth
Your thread brought to mind a few others I've read.

For example,
US Could Use Limited Nuclear Weapons in Iraq, - Posted January '03.
The Source from that thread, 9 years ago, reads in part:

U.S. forces could use nuclear-tipped "bunker-buster" bombs against buried terrorist weapons in Iraq, should Congress approve funding to develop the new weapons. The enhanced bombs, called "Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrators (RNEP)," would be used to destroy caches of weapons of mass destruction hidden deep inside hardened caves and bunkers. Like the conventional "bunker-busters" used in Afghanistan against cave-hidden Taliban and al Qaeda weapons and personnel, the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator bomb will not fully detonate until deep below ground. Unlike the explosives in the conventional bunker-buster, however, the RNEP's warhead will pack a nuclear punch.


Of course, we also get this "reassurance:"
While the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator is undeniably a nuclear weapon, Pentagon officials are quick to point out that it be designed to do its job without spreading radiation into the atmosphere, and that its development would comply with all nuclear arms reduction and test ban treaties.


So the US clearly showed a desire to deploy at least one form of nuclear weapon (as of '03). The US Massive bombardment of Fallujah occurs in '04. And now the numbers of birth defects, cancers, etc. in the area are undeniable.

Shame shame shame on us.

Edit to add: Additional Thread Link - www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 5/27/2012 by Open2Truth because: add linkey



reply posted on 27-5-2012 @ 09:30 AM by Silcone Synapse
reply to post by neformore



RT recently had a documentary on this horrible subject.
rt.com...

The program starts by guessing that the use of white phosphorus is responsible for the birth defects and elevated cancers in Fallujah-that is until they test the soil and find Uranium..
It interviews Dr Chris Busby-Professor Christopher Busby is the scientific secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risks,who concludes Uranium munitions are the cause.

He was also interviewed separate from the documentary in this RT piece:



This subject along with the still ongoing agent orange birth defects/cancers is one of the worst war crimes the USA has ever committed IMO.
To use a weapon which will destroy the following generations,none of whom have ever participated in any acts of aggression against the USA is pure EVIL.
The fact it is still going on today,and no one is held to account makes it even worse...

Utterly shameful,evil war crimes,committed against INNOCENTS,by the "freedom loving", "democratic" leader of the "free world."
This will still be killing and maiming innocent babies for many decades/centuries.

And people wonder why so many folks in the middle east hate the USA???




reply posted on 27-5-2012 @ 09:44 AM by Liberal1984
Depletive Uranium is terrible because although not very radioactive, the price for this is that it's half life is extreme (4.68 billion years) so it will still be killing half as many people today when our sun finally absorbs the Earth.
No other weapon can kill in a million years time, let alone literally thousands of times longer.

Here How It Works...
Depletive Uranium only emits Alpha radiation (which you can stop with a piece of A4 paper)
And Beta (which can be stopped by a thin sheet a aluminum)

BUT...
When a shell hits a target, the friction of impact rips it apart, and then the Uranium burns (like magnesium or lithium chemically burn in air) then the warhead is converted into microscopic particles, that can be inhaled-ingested directly into the human body. Then these particles emit radiation at point blank range into your cells (i.e. DNA) and they do this for years, and that's how you get birth defects from it.
The stuff is supposed to have a biological half life of only 15 days, but this isn't accurate as it depends if your a growing child-baby (in which case it becomes part of you) and how much has got into your body fat. U238 accumulates in body fat, meaning a cow eating grass with DU on it, will have milk far more contaminated than the grass it ever ate. Basically it's rather like DTT for human beings, and worst of all (unlike DTT) more than half will be around as long as the Earth can sustain life from the sun. The military knows what's its done to its own, as well as the civilians it leaves behind.



reply posted on 27-5-2012 @ 10:55 AM by projectvxn
reply to post by neformore



This is not the result of DU. This is a myth pushed by anti-war propagandists.

Depleted Uranium is most commonly used against armor assets. Not against soft targets. Not enough depleted uranium could be used to cause this. Secondly DU is NOT U235 which is highly radioactive. I recommend doing more research on what DU actually is rather than what the media and propagandists would have you believe it is.

Thirdly, Falluja's infrastructure was destroyed in the intense fighting. No electricity, running water, sanitation and health services. Conflict tends to cripple these things and as a result infant mortality rates go up. Infection rates of diseases not normally associated with the area goes up. While it is equally terrible that such suffering is going on, misdiagnosing the problem just to cast aspersions on the US military does no one any good.

Familiarize yourselves with it:

Depleted uranium WHO

About 98% of uranium entering the body via ingestion is not absorbed, but is eliminated via the faeces. Typical gut absorption rates for uranium in food and water are about 2% for soluble and about 0.2% for insoluble uranium compounds.
edit on 27-5-2012 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 27-5-2012 @ 11:00 AM by Danbones
What about du enetering your lungs and through your skin?
oooops

DU AND chemical weapons
coming soon to a neigbourhood near you...

Research links rise in Falluja birth defects and cancers to US assault• Defects in newborns 11 times higher than normal
War contaminants' from 2004 attack could be cause

www.guardian.co.uk...

Depleted Uranium and Health: Facts and Helpful Suggestions
by Glen Lawrence Ph.d.
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Long Island University, Brooklyn, NY 11201
PDF file) Essential information for soldiers and civilians who are at risk for uranium contamination in areas where DU munitions have been used

www.grassrootspeace.org...

guns will be a big help holding that off

edit on 27-5-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-5-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)


oh yeah and NO effin WMD
edit on 27-5-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-5-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-5-2012 by Danbones because: added links



reply posted on 27-5-2012 @ 11:07 AM by projectvxn
reply to post by Danbones



DU's entrance through the skin is negligible at best as current research shows.

Secondly, from your article:

"We suspect that the population is chronically exposed to an environmental agent," said one of the report's authors, environmental toxicologist Mozhgan Savabieasfahani. "We don't know what that environmental factor is, but we are doing more tests to find out."


So this is all supposition and all of you have no damned clue what you're talking about? Gotcha.


reply posted on 27-5-2012 @ 11:10 AM by Danbones
Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to
post by Danbones



DU's entrance through the skin is negligible at best as current research shows.

Secondly, from your article:

"We suspect that the population is chronically exposed to an environmental agent," said one of the report's authors, environmental toxicologist Mozhgan Savabieasfahani. "We don't know what that environmental factor is, but we are doing more tests to find out."


So this is all supposition and all of you have no damned clue what you're talking about? Gotcha.

that was for the chemical agent statement in my post smart boy
read the pdf re DU
and where are those wmd again?
gotcha
edit on 27-5-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-5-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 27-5-2012 @ 11:14 AM by projectvxn
reply to post by Danbones



How about I read more of the article you used?

Scientific studies have so far established no link between the rounds, which contain ionising radiation to burst through armour and are commonly used on the battlefield.


Hmmm.

And the fact that this same article quotes the researchers as saying that MANY different types of toxins and residue, commonly found on battlefields(not just battlefields where the US is involved) may be contributing factors.

And please stay on topic. This isn't about Bush's BS excuses for invading Iraq. This is about more DU mythology.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^



Israel angered over IAEA vote on nuclear arsenal
  Posted 13 days ago with 79 member flags
Neil Armstrong dead at age 82 - report
  Posted 17 days ago with 63 member flags
Judge orders release of detained Marine veteran
  Posted 19 days ago with 58 member flags
Birds hold \'funerals\' for dead
  Posted 10 days ago with 55 member flags
TSA agents swarm Ron Paul\'s plane, demand explosives check
  Posted 11 days ago with 47 member flags
Mysterious Changes in Ocean Salt Spur NASA Expedition
  Posted 1 days ago with 36 member flags
Ga. Murder Case Uncovers Terror Plot by Soldiers
  Posted 15 days ago with 32 member flags