Horrors of war: US, UK munitions 'cause birth defects in Iraq'

God bless our troops for....for uh....



what is it they're doing there again?

Originally posted by DarknStormy
reply to post by Cobaltic1978

 

You can use the first gulf war all you want. The facts suggest that this defect issue has become a big problem after the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

But that does not make sense since there was likely more DU used in Gulf War 1, back when Iraq had a formidable military. There were large scale tank battles and a true shock and awe bombing campaign.

I am still waiting to see if anyone can connect this study to Gulf War syndrome.

The irony of it all is that the "crazies" are going to save the planet and thereby humanity by throwing money at initiatives like Solyndra!

Yep, that'll do it.

Originally posted by steppenwolf86

Originally posted by DarknStormy
reply to post by Cobaltic1978

 

You can use the first gulf war all you want. The facts suggest that this defect issue has become a big problem after the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

But that does not make sense since there was likely more DU used in Gulf War 1, back when Iraq had a formidable military. There were large scale tank battles and a true shock and awe bombing campaign.

I am still waiting to see if anyone can connect this study to Gulf War syndrome.

Firstly, It is a fact that it has been used which could lead to the cause of defects in Iraqis.

news.bbc.co.uk...

Now it is understood that DU was used in the 1st Gulf war. The 2nd war is being fought on contaminated grounds to start with. The amount that was used in the 1st gulf war was significantly less than what was dropped in 2003.

The Pentagon used some 300 tons of depleted uranium during the Gulf War. Durakovic puts the amount used in the latest war on Iraq at 1,700 tons.

www.iacenter.org...

Apparently a study confirmed that after the first gulf war there was not an increase in birth defects or any other illness after the 1st Gulf war. I am still having trouble finding the study. Bare with me.

But never the less, It is very obvious that almost 6 times the amount of DU was dumped across Iraq compared to back in 91. It is very hard to argue that the more recent bombings have not contributed to the defects and illnesses the Iraqis are facing right now..

Now I'm not an expert on the subject, nor do I suggest that everything I have provided is the absolute truth. It seems though whether it was dropped in 1991 or 2003 doesn't really matter. The point is that it was dumped and if they did have issues in 91, the Iraqis are certainly going to have issues concerning the DU in 2003.

Was this a problem before 2003? Of course, but when you add another 1700 tonnes to the contamination already plaguing the country, it is very hard to deny that the latest contaminents have not played a part in the defects and illnesses today.

tThe problem is that Saddam had at least 3 and likely more chemical plants around Fallujah.
There is no evadance that the defects were caused by DU as they could just as likely have been caused by toxic chemicals ether dumped from the plants or spread by the fighting in and around Fallujah
www.globalsecurity.org...

reply to post by milkyway12

Depleted uranium is roughly 127 times less radioactive than 90% enriched uranium.

Do not belief that #! Depleted Uranium is composed of U236 not found in natural uranium. There are two types of DU. One type comes from the spent nuclear fuel.The fission product Tc99 and the activation products Np237, Pu238/239/240 and AM 241 are often found in DU.

DU made made from reprocessed Uranium is far more radioactive that naturally occurring Uranium.

.

reply to post by jerico65

Wow, no agenda of hate from either of these sources. Thanks!

and you expect what exactly. You are not going to find much on this covered in MSN. You are not going to have coalition force scientists going out taking samples and pulishing them in the public arena. Use your head and try reading between the lines.

I do not know why you are trying to argue with me. Go and do some research the evidence is there. I guess the idea that your troops and government fighting for freedom and democracy were able to do this does not sit right with you.

I will put it to you plain. Two illegal wars and almost 2 million civilians dead.War was not for freedom. The war was the same as war has always been. Rich people sending the poor to die so they can make more money.

And you half line response. Why even bother responding with it. Did you go to school. Has it stopped you thinking and researching for yourself. Regardless if I agreed or not you added nothing of value to this thread....

reply to post by jerico65

Wow, no agenda of hate from either of these sources. Thanks!

Here is a quote fromt the NPRI... Nuclear Project Research Institute... I can send the whole document if you would like to read it,

NPRI has found in our research that the health risks of depleted uranium tend to be substantially understated by government bodies, which in some cases have made public statements which directly contradict the results of their own research. The toxic effects responsible for cancers and possible birth defects have latency periods of a few years to possibly a couple of decades. Studies conducted only since the early 1990’s have documented the impact of alpha radiation, the bystander effect, genomic instability, mutagenic capabilities of uranyl ions, all issues presenting a very real human health risk.

While most media and government attention regarding the use of depleted uranium has centered on soldiers, with this report, NPRI cautions that the most vulnerable population is children. In conflict areas such as Iraq, where residential areas have been ravaged by tanks and munitions, the DU-contaminated debris has become the children’s new playground. Dr. Mike Repacholi, the World Health Organizations coordinator for occupational and environmental health recognizes that “young children could receive greater depleted uranium exposure when playing within a conflict zone because of hand-to-mouth activity that could result in high depleted uranium ingestion from contaminated soil.”1 Not only are they more likely to ingest DU, but they are 10 to 20 times more susceptible to the carcinogenic effects then adults

2 Children suffer the greatest risk from depleted uranium exposure, yet they have no voice in the DU debate. Those children, as well as the broader civilian and military population exposed to DU, deserve the utmost consideration when determining the scientific basis for assessing risk.

docs.google.com...:RiqfgPcKEwEJ:www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/pub_meet/en/DU_Eng.pdf+depletued+uranium+and+health+risks&hl=en &gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjl99qzwZZTL9Ssy7QVuH0ZuMJar6kvEI68zGW_sCIHS4ftnshp8tjFxdEKThpibr6iooHMNBqudKtz7W8WzYBJbwk7VbECk3L1XVIxN1TIgJNMNgDOMJEPSK7hZQ hacQsRSZsu&sig=AHIEtbRa9nyKSyadlbdHVw0rmWXqnMPUqQ

reply to post by purplemer


Hey, links not working--can you please try the shortcode? thanks

2nd

reply to post by cartenz


I done it wrong.. soz. I hope this works ok for you...

www.helencaldicott.com...

reply to post by cartenz


I done it wrong.. soz. I hope this works ok for you...

www.helencaldicott.com...

Originally posted by ANNED
tThe problem is that Saddam had at least 3 and likely more chemical plants around Fallujah.
There is no evadance that the defects were caused by DU as they could just as likely have been caused by toxic chemicals ether dumped from the plants or spread by the fighting in and around Fallujah
www.globalsecurity.org...

That could possibly contribute to the issue, but whether it does or doesn't, DU has been dumped in Iraq and it must come into the equation when we are speaking about defects, illnesses and deaths in Iraq. Radiation exposure is not a good thing for anyone.

reply to post by purplemer


thanks, I found it quite horrifying. It was still no surprise to read:

An August 2002 report by the UN Sub-Commission stated that the use of DU shells is a breach of the
following laws: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the Charter of the United Nations; the Genocide
Convention; the Convention Against Torture; the four Geneva Conventions of 1949; the Conventional
Weapons Convention of 1980; and the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. These laws all ban the use of
weapons with indiscriminant effect or which cause long-term and/or unnecessary suffering.

p21

Is the US signatory to any of those treaties?

I am a big fan of America's policy, but it is the easiest way to point someone else when you are in trouble. Is it possible to change own things, own behavior to make better days, or just try to get attention to outer enemy.

reply to post by milkyway12
Why are you going on about depleted uranium so much? It's lead and mercury that are causing these defects and miscarriages...

Hair samples of the population of Fallujah revealed levels of lead in children with birth defects five times higher than in other children, and mercury levels six times higher. Basrah children with birth defects had three times more lead in their teeth than children living in areas not struck by the artillery.

Overall, the study found that the number of babies in the region born with birth defects increased by more than 60 percent (37 out of every 1,000 are now born with defects) in the past seven years. This rise was linked to an increased exposure to metals released by the bombs and bullets used over the past decade.

60% increase in birth defects... Now think real hard about this one, what has happened in Iraq in the last 10 years? Come on, i'm sure even you can work this one out..

That's right, your government/millitary have poisoned a whole population of women and children...

www.guardian.co.uk - 'Safe' uranium that left a town contaminated...

.........
The US federal government and the firm that ran the factory, National Lead (NL) Industries, have been assuring former workers and residents around the 18-acre site for decades that, although it is true that the plant used to produce unacceptable levels of radioactive pollution, it was not a serious health hazard.

Now, in a development with potentially devastating implications not only for Colonie but also for the future use of some of the West's most powerful weapon systems, that claim is being challenged. In a paper to be published in the next issue of the scientific journal Science of the Total Environment, a team led by Professor Randall Parrish of Leicester University reports the results of a three-year study of Colonie, funded by the UK Natural Environment Research Council.
.........

Originally posted by Cobaltic1978

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by absente
Exactly - yet bombs containing Uranium were found during the Yugoslavian / Balkan war too. There were a lot of reports, studies, even a trial in Hague on this topic,

Care to show a proper source for that claim, where are the reports on the trial in the hague?

So what's basically happening is that the "Coalition Forces" use "conventional weapons", which contain enriched uranium

Care to show us a source for these weapons that use "enriched" uranium?

edit on 14-10-2012 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)

How about you take a look and then report back. It's common knowledge that the coalition forces used DU ammunition during the Iraq war!!

The trouble is cause and effect, not if DU was used during the war. Consider the large amounts of burning petrochemicals throughout country.

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by milkyway12

 

Depleted uranium is roughly 127 times less radioactive than 90% enriched uranium.

Do not belief that #! Depleted Uranium is composed of U236 not found in natural uranium. There are two types of DU. One type comes from the spent nuclear fuel.The fission product Tc99 and the activation products Np237, Pu238/239/240 and AM 241 are often found in DU.

DU made made from reprocessed Uranium is far more radioactive that naturally occurring Uranium.

.

That is not true.

When the 0.7 percent of U235 is removed from natural uranium, what remains is a silvery, very dense metal consisting of U238 plus a small percentage of U235 and a negligible percentage of the four other isotopes. We call this Depleted Uranium or DU.

www.tandfonline.com...

As noted above, depleted uranium is 40% less radioactive than natural uranium. The most hazardous route of exposure from radiological point of view is inhalation, followed by ingestion and external exposure. The radiological risk can be understood by estimating the amount of depleted uranium that would deliver a dose equal to 1 millisievert in one year, the public dose limit for releases from regulated facilities in Canada. For comparison, the dose received from natural background radiation in Canada is about 2 millisievert per year. (A millisievert is the unit for effective dose of ionizing radiation. This dose is considered to be directly related to health risk.)

www.hc-sc.gc.ca...

Originally posted by thePharaoh
reply to post by absente

 

where did you think our nuclear waste went?.....into these missiles

what else can incinerate a tank in one second?....or incinerate half a childs arm, with the other half untouched?


cmon...of course there is radiation...excessive amounts...around every bombed site


peace

Missles? "Incinerate half a tank?" C'mon, lets keep this discussion within the realm of physics.

Originally posted by purplemer
and you expect what exactly. You are not going to find much on this covered in MSN. You are not going to have coalition force scientists going out taking samples and pulishing them in the public arena. Use your head and try reading between the lines.

I do not know why you are trying to argue with me. Go and do some research the evidence is there. I guess the idea that your troops and government fighting for freedom and democracy were able to do this does not sit right with you.

What am I trying to argue? How about find it so easy to quickly blame the US military for this, yet not even spend a second doing research on what that area was being used for prior to US involvement. This was a toxic waste dump for Saddam. They people there were exposed to all sorts of nasty chemicals prior to the US even getting there.

Yet, according to you and your sources, this is all the fault of the US. Nevermind what Saddam was doing.

Originally posted by purplemer
I will put it to you plain. Two illegal wars and almost 2 million civilians dead.War was not for freedom. The war was the same as war has always been. Rich people sending the poor to die so they can make more money.

Yep. Illegal war. Rich men sending poor men to fight. 2,000,000 civilians dead (source please) and you think every single one was killed by US Forces. I read that on a daily basis here on ATS. Doesn't mean it's correct.

Originally posted by purplemer
And you half line response. Why even bother responding with it. Did you go to school. Has it stopped you thinking and researching for yourself. Regardless if I agreed or not you added nothing of value to this thread.... .

Annnnnddd the all important personal attack. Yep, went to school, speak a foreign language, and I was in Iraq and A-stan. How about you? Ever spend any time there, or just get everything off the intrardweb?