DU - The stuff of nightmares

[seemslikeadream]

DU - The stuff of nightmares
By Julie Flint
Special to The Daily Star
Tuesday, September 14, 2004


Two years before the invasion of Iraq, a report commissioned by the World Health Organization warned that the long-term health of Iraq's civilian population would be damaged by the use of depleted uranium (DU) - radioactive waste from the nuclear industry which is used to harden missiles, shells and bullets and which slices through tank armor like a knife through butter. The WHO did not make the report public. Odd, that.

DU has been called the "Trojan Horse" of the wars in Iraq - and Afghanistan and Kosovo and Bosnia - a weapon that keeps on killing. On detonation, DU armaments release a spray of radioactive dust that can be carried in the air over long distances and which, when inhaled, goes into the body and stays there. The dust remains radioactive for 4.5 billion years.

The WHO report was written by three of Europe's top radiation scientists, including Dr. Keith Baverstock, for more than a decade the WHO's leading expert on radiation and health. After retiring from the WHO, Baverstock leaked the report to the media earlier this year. It concluded that microscopic particles of DU would be blown around and inhaled by Iraqi civilians for years to come, and could trigger the growth of malignant tumors. Baverstock believes the WHO deliberately suppressed the report - probably under pressure from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), a more powerful UN body that promotes nuclear power. In response, WHO claims the IAEA's role was "very minor" and says the report was not approved for publication because "parts of it did not reflect accurately what a WHO-convened group of international experts considered the best science in the area of depleted uranium."

In other words, its own chosen experts got it wrong. Odd, again.

Had the study had been published in November 2001, Baverstock believes there would have been more pressure on the Allies to limit their use of DU during the invasion of Iraq - and to clean up afterward. But it wasn't published. As a result, Iraq is now playing host to some 350 tons of DU fired in 1991, but also to more than 1,000 tons reportedly fired in 2003. The "reportedly" is needed here because the armed forces are playing coy with figures. No wonder: handlers of DU in the US and Britain are required to wear masks and protective clothing. Imagine Iraqis having to dress like that for 4.5 billion years.

more
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=8333

[geek tragedy]

1. I think they should rename the stuff

"Free Republic."

[GoddessOfGuinness]

10. Foisted Radium?

:shrug:

[oasis]

2. Both sad and scary. (eom)

[DulceDecorum]

3. The Tiny Victims of Desert Storm

tells of American soldiers whose children are suffering
from the effects of Depleted Uranium.
http://www.life.com/Life/essay/gulfwar/gulf01.html

Basra, Southern Iraq—I thought I had a strong stomach toughened by the minefields and foul frontline hospitals of Angola, by the handiwork of the death squads in Haiti and by the wholesale butchery of Rwanda. But I nearly lost my breakfast last week at the Basrah Maternity and Children's Hospital in southern Iraq.
Dr Amer, the hospital's director, had invited me into a room in which were displayed colour photographs of what, in cold medical language, are called congenital anomalies, but what you and I would better understand as horrific birth deformities. The images of these babies were head-spinningly grotesque and thank God they didn't bring out the real thing, pickled in formaldehyde. At one point I had to grab hold of the back of a chair to support my legs.
I won't spare you the details. You should know because according to the Iraqis and in all likelihood the World Health Organisation, which is soon to publish its findings on the spiralling birth defects in southern Iraq we are responsible for these obscenities.
During the Gulf war, Britain and the United States pounded the city and its surroundings with 96,000 depleted-uranium shells. The wretched creatures in the photographs for they were scarcely human are the result, Dr Amer said.
He guided me past pictures of children born without eyes, without brains.
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/239.html

There are those among us,
MANY of whom are to be found on the 911 forum,
who steadfastly insist that ther is no link between Depleted Uranium and any known illness.
They are in good company.

General Vesser spoke with surprising calm. When I asked the grounds for rejecting the influence of depleted uranium, he said, "Let me tell you about that." He leaned forward and continued.
"According to the Rand Corporation, to which we have commissioned this investigation, nothing in the scientific literature supports the idea that DU has any harmful effect whatsoever. The Baltimore Veterans Hospital is doing a health survey of soldiers who actually have DU fragments in their bodies from friendly fire. They do have elevated readings for uranium in their urine and other bodily fluids, but again, no connection to any illness has been discovered."

<snip>

In 1998, the Pentagon officially accepted the fact that soldiers who participated in the ground war were exposed to radiation. However, they still firmly deny any connection between that exposure and any illness. They also state clearly that DU munitions will be used in future wars.
"At this point, there is no scientific evidence indicating any detrimental impact of DU on human bodies. In fact, DU munitions have proved to be tremendously effective. DU shells are conventional weapons, not weapons of mass destruction like nuclear weapons. France and Russia are exporting them, and doing so involves no violation of international law. DU munitions will definitely be used in the future, as they were in Kosovo."
http://www.chugoku-np.co.jp/abom/uran/us_e/000413.html

Much much more on Depleted Uranium at:
http://www.chugoku-np.co.jp/abom/uran/index_e.html#1_us

[Zen0]

4. even if the report was published...

I don't think Rumsfeld would have cared too much.

Like agent orange, the animals and plantlife there are still infected since Vietnam, and we are doing so much to help out...
:(

[sofa king]

5. seemslikeadream, it's still bullshit.

As per this other thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x827787

This article is even worse. That statement, "The dust remains radioactive for 4.5 billion years," betrays the complete ignorance of the author.

As we are all taught in school, 4.5 billion years is the half-life of U-238. That means that one atom of U-238 has a one in two chance of radioactively decaying in four and a half billion years.

Put nine billion atoms of U-238 in your lungs and wait a year. At the end of that year just one of those atoms will have actually released some radiation.

DU dust remains radioactive for far longer than 4.5 billion years. But since we only live about seventy-five years, DU is almost insignificant as a radiation hazard.

If you folks want to worry about radiation, why not worry about carbon-14? It's radioactive, it has a half-life of only 5,700 years and by comparison to U-238 is crackling off in our bodies like popcorn on the stove. And worse, it's inside of you right now! Your body inhales carbon-14 in every breath. You eat it every day. It even inserts itself into your very DNA.

Same scare tactics, same bullshit.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/carbon-14.htm
http://science.howstuffworks.com/nuclear.htm

[JNelson6563]

6. Yeah, it's just bullshit

And mostly just used on brown-skinned folks on the other side of the planet. Who cares?

http://www.bushflash.com/pl_lo.html

Julie

[JoFerret]

7. That is a very powerful film/ animation

Needs to be widely see. Terrible.
Thanks.

[Radius]

26. Wrong spot(NT)

[hippywife]

9. I wouldn't be so sure

http://www.veteransforpeace.org/Death_by_slow_burn_071403.htm

exerpt:

The U.S. military insists that DU on the battlefield is not a problem. Colonel James Naughton of the U.S. Army Material Command recently told the BBC that complaints about DU “had no medical basis.”21

The military's own documents belie this. A 1993 Pentagon document warned that “when soldiers inhale or ingest DU dust they incur a potential increase in cancer risk.”22

A U.S. Army training manual requires anyone who comes within 25 meters of DU-contaminated equipment to wear respiratory and skin protection.23 The U.S. Army Environmental Policy Institute admitted: “If DU enters the body, it has the potential to generate significant medical consequences.”24 The Institute also stated that, if the troops were to realize what they had been exposed to, “the financial implications of long-term disability payments and healthcare costs would be excessive.”25

For pragmatic reasons, DOD chooses to lie and deny.

Footnotes:

22. “Depleted Uranium Symptoms Match US Report As Fears Spread,” Peter Beaumont, The Observer (UK) 1-14-01.

23. “Iraqi Cancer, Birth Defects Blamed on US Depleted Uranium,” Seattle Post- Intelligencer, 11-12-02.

24. “US To Use Depleted Uranium,” BBC News, 3-18-03.

25. US Army Environmental Policy Institute: Health and Environmental Consequences of Depleted Uranium in the U.S. Army, Technical Report, June 1995.

Interesting information available in this book and it even comes in video:

DU:Metal of Dishonor
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0965691608/103-9635667-6107854?v=glance

This book wasn't written by a bunch of scientific slouches or government shills, either.

[snowFLAKE]

11. Posts like This One about DU is the Reason Why I read DU

In the past I relied on the Peer-Reviewed Scientific Literature - obtainable from places like the NIH's searchable database PUBMED ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed ) - for Scientific Information. I got Complete Garbage such as:

Mil Med. 2004 Mar;169(3):212-6.

Chemical and radiological toxicity of depleted uranium.

Sztajnkrycer MD, Otten EJ.

Department of Emergency Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.

A by-product of the uranium enrichment process, depleted uranium (DU) contains approximately 40% of the radioactivity of natural uranium yet retains all of its chemical properties. After its use in the 1991 Gulf War, public concern increased regarding its potential radiotoxicant properties. Whereas in vitro and rodent data have suggested the potential for uranium-induced carcinogenesis, human cohort studies assessing the health effects of natural and DU have failed to validate these findings. Heavy-metal nephrotoxicity has not been noted in either animal studies or Gulf War veteran cohort studies despite markedly elevated urinary uranium excretion. No significant residual environmental contamination has been found in geographical areas exposed to DU. As such, although continued surveillance of exposed cohorts and environments (particularly water sources) are recommended, current data would support the position that DU poses neither a radiological nor chemical threat.

But now I see I was Very Foolish - what I really should have done is relied on the Popular Media, as footnoted in Your Post, to get Accurate Information.

[SoCalDem]

21. Perhaps you should expose yourself to DU and then have a baby

Doctors "know" the damage this does (can do) to babies.. A good friend of ours have two children..one pre-GW1 and one post GW1.. To date, the post war child has had an eye removed(at ONE WEEK old), and about 5 facial surgeries..and MANY more to go..

Google Goldenhar's Syndrome..

Care to expose yourself, and "roll the dice" with a baby??

[snowFLAKE]

29. Don't know why there are Concurrent DU Threads ongoing

Anyhow, a repost of relevance to your points is:

According to http://sftimes.editthispage.com/stories/storyReader$61
, Major Rokke details other conditions his unit encountered in the gulf war that maybe, just maybe, had bad health effects: These include:

anthrax and botulinum vaccinations (of which some batches were contaminated with squalene)

ingestion of PB (pyridostigmine bromide) tablets (an nerve gas antidote)

contaminated food (possibly due to sabotage with biological agents)

water sanitation issues that prevented bathing

exposure to incomplete combustion of inorganic and organic compounds from oil well fires

physical injuries

Before reading this thread, I was sadly ignorant, thinking that some of these factors might contribute to "Gulf War Syndrome" - but now I Know that it's all the fault of Depleted Uranium.

[Zynx]

31. The risk is from heavy metal toxicity, not radiation

Anyone who says otherwise is uneducated or lying.

[SoCalDem]

33. I am not a scientist, so I do not fully "understand" the reasons

...probably like MOST people here...

Heavy metals...radiation...whatever the "secret ingredients"... They are NOT good for human consumption/exposure..

Anecdotal "evidence" is about all most of us have to work with, and time after time, those incidents of "evidence" have been proven true....after much analysis by scientific types..

In recent years though, there has been a plethora of "junk scientists" with political agendas, who seem determined to pooh-pooh the "other scientists".

This is dangerous on so many levels, because it pits smart, dedicated people against other "smart" dedicated people (the second group's dedication is suspect)...

The lay-people out here who can't tell an ion from an icon, just have to try and wade through the literature and cross our fingers..

Love Canal was "discredited"
Stringfellow Acid pits were "discredited"
Ground Zero at the WTC was "discredited"
Childhood Cancer-clusters in Nevada were "discredited"..
Dioxin-sprayed roads were "discredited"...
Agent Orange was "discredited"...

All of the above, were discredited as causitive when they first came to light, and only after YEARS ...and millions of dollars, did the scientific community finally admit that there was validity to the charges..

In the long run, who knows?? It's just that when someone you know, or someone in YOUR family is stricken ill by "a toxin", and you cannot get straight answers, it tends to irritate..

We unfortunately, live in a toxic-soup every day, and probably MOST of "it" is dangerous.. Determining which "one thing" is the "cause" must be next to impossible, but I hope the real scientists out there keep trying :)

[snowFLAKE]

36. Good Points . . . And since I'm not A Lawyer

And therefore don't understand the subtle legal differences between presiding over a country whose military rapes children in a far away country and being a pedophile and doing it myself - Consequently I think I'm going to amuse myself for A While by starting several threads claiming that George W Bush is a Pedophile and Child Rapist .

After all, I just know he's a bad man, and I really want to get that message out there, in the strongest possible manner, to all the laypeople who might be unaware of his evil nature.
Do I stand to lose credibility by taking this approach - not on DU for sure!!

[SoCalDem]

38. So, in essence, you support GWB?? or you are upset

that a public message board would be a place of widely disparate opinions??

and you are right about one thing.. "most" of us want nothing more than to get rid of Gov. GWBush...

Probably 99.9 percent of DUers have not accused him of being a pedophile.. (Paedophelia actually requires a lot of planning and forethought, so I doubt that he has the mental faculties to handle a task as abhorrently complicated as that..)

Conjecture,supposition,and just general meanderings of thought are the hallmarks of website message boards..

No peer-review here, except for the occasional "WTF-BULLSHIT !!!"..

Try LBN, before you throw your hands up.. In LBN, links to sources are required, and often stories are more "fleshed-out"..:hi:

[snowFLAKE]

39. The point I was trying to make (and I believe others have as well)

Is that anyone screaming that Mr. Bush is a Pedophile/Child Rapist will no doubt able to exploit such nonsense into a Money-Making Website but will be regarded as A Complete Nutcase in most places (even at DU if your 99.9% figure is correct). Then, when This Person makes the more nuanced arguement that Mr. Bush is evil because dreadful things happened To Children he allowed to be imprisoned under His Watch (clearly, something that something should be done about) - who's going to be giving This Person any credibility and take steps to hold Mr. Bush accountable?

Similarly, claims that DU is a radioactive hazard are ludicrously incorrect and can be easily debunked by anyone who obtained their science education anyplace other Than Kansas. Consequently, anyone making such a claim will soon be regarded as A Complete Nutcase in most places (with DU boards one obvious exception). However, DU (like any heavy metal) likely has some degree of CHEMICAL TOXICITY that could cause adverse Health Effects - but by the time the DU-Alarmists get around to making this less alarming, somewhat more nuanced point, they've lost all credibility and Nobody's going to pay Any Attention.

[JNelson6563]

37. Do me a favor?

Check out this video:

http://www.bushflash.com/pl_lo.html

Please correct any inaccuracies in the figures they include regarding radiation, birth defects and cancer increases. If the info they include is not accurate I would like to know.

Thanks,
Julie

[sofa king]

49. Sigh. Okay.

First of all, most of those pictures of deformed babies appear to come from Takashi Morizumi, although at least one of them can also be seen on a notoriously...rotten... website as well.

Morizumi himself offers a probable explanation for one poor kid here:

http://www.savewarchildren.org/exhibitPictures.html

"Juwad has lost 550g in four month since his birth. His parents were unable to buy milk for him. He suffered from heavy diarrhea due to malnutrition. The hospital had almost no antibiotics available. Babies with low resistance are highly susceptible to infectious disease. Many fail to escape death."

Malnutrition, lack of antibiotics, low resistance. Why do you need depleted uranium to explain that horror?

Now for the figures.

"Since the end of the first Gulf War, cancer in Iraq has increased 700%-1000% and deformities 400%-600%"

Drop that phrase into Google and you get this site:

http://www.uwec.edu/grossmzc/seiferrg.html

And it also gives the table from which these figures have been taken. It's difficult for me to reproduce the table on this message board, but here are the numbers of deaths caused by cancer by year:

1988: 34
1998: 450
2001: 603

Okay, the first year is 1988. Now let me ask you this. Pretend you're a health statistics official in Iraq. Your mission is to report the number of (apparently newborn) cancer deaths to... Saddam Hussein. What do you do?

I'll let a statistician speak on the subject of extracting percentage increases from three data points, the first of which is by definition suspect. Also, the stated percentage increases appear to be wrong. I calculate that going from 34 to 450 is about 1323%. Or 416 babies, however you want to count it, but my math is notoriously bad. Either way, that's nothing compared to the 133,000 American families destroyed by DU, as we'll see below.

I'll also point out that these figures don't take into account other factors, like the constriction of medical supplies in Iraq, the lack of qualified health care givers, the increase of outside observers in Southern Iraq, et cetera. The bottom line is there is no direct association with depleted uranium whatsoever.

Aside from the above, I don't have any reasonable explanation for the increase in 1998 and 2001, but if you'll forgive me a Republican moment while I attack the messenger, the source for that statistic comes not from a peer-reviewed medical or scientific publication, but from this article in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/95178_du12.shtml

And that article repeats the fallacy that the radiation remains for 4.5 billion years. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say this: if the source doesn't understand what a radioactive half life is, that source is totally unqualified to authoritatively speak on the radiological dangers of depleted uranium.

Okay, so the first figure is extrapolated from figures taken from a newspaper article, figures which do not isolate depleted uranium as probable cause.
____________________
"A study of Gulf War veterans showed that 67% had children with severe illnesses, missing eyes, blood infections, respiratory problems and fused fingers."

Google offers this article for the quote:

http://www.join-snafu.org/news/du033003.htm

And credits Dr. Rokke himself for the figures.

I have a hard time believing Dr. Rokke because if you take those figures as gospel, that means that there are 133,000 American families who have severe illnesses, missing eyes, blood infections, respiratory problems and fused fingers, all thanks to the Gulf War. I guess we'll just have to see how the class action suits turn out.
_______________________
"In the aftermath of the Kosovo conflict, cancer rates have increased 166% and are rising."

I can't find the study that claims this.
_______________________

"In 2003, radiation levels between 1000-1900 times higher than normal were recorded in Baghdad."

Hey! This one credits our good friend Matt Drudge! If Drudge reports it, it has to be true, right?

http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=817

The figures appear to come from a Christian Science Monitor reporter who took readings throughout Iraq in 2003. Here's his article:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0515/p01s02-woiq.html

Reporter Scott Peterson visited four sites and took measurements there. Each of those sites were places where DU weapons had been used. That's not background radiation for Bagdhad in general, that's background near four individual worst-case scenario sites in Baghdad.

The article implies, but does not explicitly state, that these radiation readings are dangerous. I'm not certain that's the case.
Consider the following quote:

Radiological Hazard

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.)
Some examples which put the radiological risk into perspective:

* Insoluble depleted uranium is considered the most hazardous form for inhalation as it remains in the lungs. A dose of 1 millisievert would be received from inhaling 8 milligrams of insoluble depleted uranium.

* Soluble depleted uranium is the most hazardous form for ingestion as it is absorbed into the body. A dose of 1 millisievert would be received from ingesting about 1400 milligrams of soluble depleted uranium. This route of exposure presents only a small fraction of the potential radiological risk of inhalation for the same amount of intake. The relative radiological risks for ingestion and inhalation are 1:200, if the depleted uranium contains equal amounts of soluble and insoluble forms.

* External exposure to depleted uranium presents the least hazard. A person could be completely surrounded by depleted uranium 24 hours a day for a week before receiving a 1 millisievert dose.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hecs-sesc/rpb/depleted_uranium.htm
_______________________

So there we are. Of course none of this detracts from the fact that

[JNelson6563]

52. So does this all mean DU is NOT harmful?

And we citizens of USA should feel perfectly fine abou tus dropping it on the people of Iraq? The harm that is attributed to DU mere myth a mere myth?

I know when I get a dental x-ray the assistant runs out of the room. I, in my ignorance of radiation, assume it's because they don't want unnecessary exposure.

Is your point that the radiation from the DU we are using in weapons is less harmful than an x-ray?

Julie

[snowFLAKE]

55. I realize it's entirely futile to keep repeating Simple Facts

Since they have absolutely no impact, but DU IS NOT A RADIATION HAZARD!! In fact, it is used as a radiation SHIELD:

"A new radiation shielding material called DUCRETETM has been developed and patented by Idaho Technologies Co. at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL). The material will use the large stockpile of depleted uranium to produce spent fuel casks, and contain the spent fuel from nuclear reactors in a more efficient and environmentally sound manner. Using DUCRETETM shielding, containment of dangerous levels of g-radiation from spent fuel can be achieved with thinner shield walls and lower-weight casks."

http://vzajic.tripod.com/3rdchapter.html#top

Basically, the comparison of DU with anything radioactive, be it Hiroshima, X-ray, plutonium, etc is incredibly Intellectually Dishonest and it's only purpose can be Fear-Mongering to advance someone's political agenda by preying on the Scientific Ignorance of (basically) everyone.

Of course, DU might be harmful, but . . .

Because of high chemical toxicity, radiological effects of natural or depleted uranium are difficult or impossible to study in laboratory animals.

http://vzajic.tripod.com/7thchapter.html#top

Now, consider that the chemical toxicity of DU requires the soluble form of this metal. The soluble form, however, is rapidly excreted from the body, thereby Limiting Toxicity. The particulate metal/ceramic form, i.e., the microparticles embedded in the lungs upon Battlefield Exposure, are claimed to remain for years. That means that they ARE NOT SOLUBLE, and therefore chemical toxicity is NOT AN ISSUE.

[hippywife]

43. You know

I read your response this morning and waited to respond until I gave it enough thought to decide that you were actually being sarcastic and condescending.

Don't look at just the footnote sources, look at the internal army documents they are all quoting. DU:Metal of Dishonor, also highlights these very documents and has some very intense testimony of soldiers who were in Gulf War I, scientists of the caliber of Helen Caldicott, along with former UN Ambassador Ramsey Clark.

As for the POPULAR MEDIA, how many times have diligent journalists sounded the alarm on things of this nature, been sneered at initially, and then finally vindicated? We are fortunate to have these people out there who will take the time to do the difficult research into an issue and warn the public about it.

As for the NIH site, what is posted there and other governmental information sites have never been influenced by a sitting administration? That's just plain wrong because it has been happening:

Early in 2001 Bush's Christian Taliban began scrubbing federal information sources of offending materials. The censorship campaign prompted Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) to send a letter to HHS Secretary Thompson demanding an explanation for the removal of information from the HHS Web site of scientific findings by the National Cancer Institute that, contrary to anti-choice propaganda, abortions do not increase the risk of breast cancer. Thompson never responded but the "cleansing" continued.

* Scientific data on condom use, long available on government health Web sites, was removed and replaced by sermons on abstinence and alarmist propaganda that exaggerated the risks of condom use.

* The phrase "reproductive health" was expunged and replaced with the vague terms "related clinical preventive health services" and "related preventive health services."

* Links to non-governmental family planning resources were deleted.

* Web sites at the Centers of Disease Control and National Institute of Health were cleared of scientific studies and materials relating to abortion and condom use.

* At the CDC results from a peer-reviewed study showing that education about condom use did not result in increased sexual activity or sex at younger age, were deleted from the Web site.

* The NIH's Web site was cleaned of FAQ's on condom effectiveness and a sexuality education curriculum called "Programs that Work."

Good science was disappearing from government publications and Web sites at such a pace that the Union of Concerned Scientists issued a report in early 2004 documenting and condemning the Bush administration.

There is significant evidence that the scope and scale of the manipulation, suppression and misrepresentation of science by the Bush administration is unprecedented... There is a well-established pattern of suppression and distortion of scientific findings by high-ranking Bush administration political appointees across numerous federal agencies. These actions have consequences for human health, public safety, and community well-being." (Union of Concerned Scientists, report, Scientific Integrity in Policymaking. 2004.)

So, even as the Bush administration denounced and battled Islamic religious zealotry abroad it was and is nurturing a fundamentalist Christian version here at home, much to the delight of radical right-wing Christians.

http://www.alternet.org/story/18259

Stick your head in the sand if you must. Thankfully, others refuse to.

[snowFLAKE]

44. Like I said, DU is a never-ending source of Scientific Enlightenment

I am feeling ever more and more ashamed and embarrassed of relying on peer-reviewed studies for years and years when I should have been embracing the homespun (home-schooled in Kansas, perhaps?) wisdom of Helen Caldicott and the rock-solid scientific credentials of Ramsey Clark.

I'd write a bit more now, but I have to consult the writings of two-time Nobel Prize winner Linus Pauling to calculate how much Vitamin C I should be ingesting before bed.

[hippywife]

47. You are still ignoring

the quotes from the internal army documents and choosing to try to besmirch the reputation of Dr. Caldicott instead. Ignore the message, try to discredit the messengers.

Yes, I'm definitely going to trust the word of scientists promoted by the government over those who have nothing to gain and ask nothing in return:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x829928

[snowFLAKE]

51. Talk about sticking your head in the sand and Ignoring Stuff

I submit that you are the Prime Example. I provided the NIH's PUBMED search engine where it's possible to search the PRIMARY PEER REVIEWED LITERATURE THAT's PUBLISHED ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD (yes, most of it is beyond the all-powerful reach of the BFEE and Halliburton). You responded by a diatribe about the government purging information for it's website - thereby showing Great Ignorance about how this website works - nothing has been purged - for example, you mention condoms - go there and enter "condoms" and you'll get 7002 research studies to peruse.

Similarly, if you go there and enter "Depleted Uranium" you'll get a few hundred thoroughly vetted research papers. Now, if you understand how Science Works, it is not kosher to pick through these papers, select the 1 or 2% that offer incorrect information (either because the peer-review process is not perfect, or because the information was correct at the time but have been replaced by newer information) that supports a particular POV - that's exactly what the DU-alarmist Websites do.

And about Helen Caldicott - anyone who equates depleted uranium with nuclear holocausts at Hiroshima and Nagaski richly deserves to be ridiculed. The comparison is roughly similar to denouncing a candle on a child's birthday cake be it is hydrocarbon-based combustible and hydrocarbon-based combustibles were used to fire-bomb Tokyo and Dresden killing at least 100,000 civilians in each case. I'd have to agree with Bill Mahre on this one, when he pointed out that a good use for the human brain is to think long and hard in order to understand even extremely subtle differences - such as those between a birthday candle and a mega-firebombing!

[snowFLAKE]

12. That's Halliburton at Work

My Sources tell me (they're setting up a Website, and will then Have Credibility) that Halliburton, Cheney, et al have infiltrated SuperMarket Chains and have been putting all that radioactive Carbon-14 into everyone's food. But, according to this site:

http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/natural.htm

the Real Scandal is all the Radioactive Potassium - food provides a daily intake of 0.39 mg and leads to a steady state level of 17 milligrams in the human body with (compared to a steady state level of 95 micrograms of C-14 with a daily intake of 1.8 micrograms) that "THEY" are adding to our food. On an atom by atom comparison of radioactivity - that's something like several hundred Nagasaki's(based on the reasoning presented at http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Mar04/Nichols0327.htm but applied to radioactive potassium). Of course, "THEY" are also adding (mostly depleted) uranium to our (with our = AMERICAN's) food, at a level of 1.9 micrograms/day to give a steady state level of 90 micrograms - once My Sources get their Website up and running it will be clear to everyone that these largely invisible experiments performed silently on the American Public for many years (have you stopped to consider just why so many of your Friends and Relatives get cancer?!?!??!) were really just a Test Run for The Atrocities now underway in Iraq.

[Art_from_Ark]

18. Considering that there are 1 trillion atoms of Carbon-12

for every atom of Carbon-14, that Carbon-14 does not occur in concentrated form anywhere outside of a laboratory, that Carbon-14 emits a very WEAK beta radiation, that it has occurred naturally in the human body for ages, and that no one is ever going to make a nuclear bomb out of Carbon-14, I'm not going to get all worked up about it.

[MadHound]

22. Friend, go and do some more research

I work at a nuclear plant, and you arguement is so full of holes that it makes a sieve look solid. Even you links contradict you. I don't have the time to correct all of your errors, so just go and do the research on your own, and learn something OK.

[Hekate]

8. Gulf War vets and their survivors, read this...

The info below is from the website of my local chapter of Vets for Peace. Depleted Uranium poses serious threats to the health of combat soldiers -- and to their families. A recent article from San Francisco stated that in some former military units the only healthy children were those conceived and born before their parents' exposure to so-called depleted uranium. Among other things, DU (which is used for weapons casings) becomes micro-fine dust after explosion and drifts on the wind for miles and penetrates deep into the lungs of anyone who breathes it.

VFP Chapter 54 has undertaken the project of supporting Dr Al Holtz in his efforts to get the VA rating board to recognize the effects of DU exposure as a service-connected disability. This would be a big step forward not just for the current veterans but for future military personnel.

Please pass this along to anyone you know connected with Gulf War I. Maybe we can get this pernicious s*** banned altogether.

Hekate

http://www.vfpsb.org/about.html

VETERANS EXPOSED TO DEPLETED URANIUM: CHAPTER 54 OF THE VETERANS FOR PEACE NEEDS YOU

We are looking to help represent veterans exposed to the effects of radiation and suffering from cancer. Our chapter has expertise in medical, legal and administrative law.

We as a chapter of the VFP have started a program and done research to develop a brief for presentation to the VA rating board to obtain service connection disability for the affected veteran. Gulf War I and II vets are encouraged to get in touch with us for information on this project.

A. I. Holtz, MD, FAAP has had seven years experience on the rating board in the Los Angeles office.

PLEASE CONTACT US WITH ANY QUESTIONS.
CONTACT INFORMATION:

Correspondence may be mailed to: Veterans For Peace Chapter 54,
566 Dolores Drive, Santa Barbara, CA 93109

National Chapter Contacts: http://www.veteransforpeace.org/chapters_112603.htm

[snowFLAKE]

13. "Imagine Iraqis having to dress like that for 4.5 billion years"

Me Too - I'm seriously considering wearing masks and protective clothing for the next 4.5 billion years, too - based on some simple calculations I've Just Completed.

To provide Background Information - the Iraqi environment is contaminated with 1,000 tons of DU (from 2003). That's Very Very Bad.

But, according to:

http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/natural.htm

the USA has an average of 2,200 kg, or 2.5 tons, of DU per square mile (and that's just in the uppermost foot of soil, where young children digging in the sanbox or old children driving their SUV's through Wilderness Areas are likely to stir it up). Considering the size of the USA, that means that the continental USA is contaminated with ~7,500,000 tons of DU, or about 7,500 times as much as introduced into the Iraqi Environment by weapons use. Talk about a NIGHTMARE. In fact, I'm already RE-considering my initial plan, presented in the first sentence of this post, to wear protective clothing for 4.5 billion years. To be safe, I'm now going to wear it for 7,500 times longer, or ~34 TRILLION years. Geez, I'm going to be very, very old when life will finally return to normal. Thanks Halliburton (FOR NOTHING!!).

[seemslikeadream]

14. America’s Nuclear Wars

By Paul Harris
Sep 15, 2004, 08:35

American soldiers have dropped Depleted Uranium (DU) on enemy combatants since 1991. It is lethal, it is horrid, and even though it doesn’t have the bluster and showmanship of a mushroom cloud, it is still a nuclear bomb.


It is one of the ironies of history: The United States went to war against Iraq in 2003 on the basis that Iraq was chock-a-block with ‘weapons of mass destruction’ (WMD). Eventually, the Americans had to admit they were wrong and they just couldn’t find those weapons. Many skeptics suspect the Bush administration lied about the WMDs in Iraq to cover a desire to invade and steal Iraqi oil. They continue to lie: Iraq is full of WMDs, both used and unused, but the Bushoviks and their sycophantic media fail to alert the public because it is the Americans who are using them.


Despite going to war in Iraq on the basis of fabricated evidence about Saddam Hussein’s stock of vicious weapons, the United States itself has a long history of manufacturing, storing, selling and deploying WMD. As far back as the Second World War, there is clear evidence of use by the United States of several chemicals which meet the current U.S. definition of WMD. Still, most of us who point fingers at the Americans are best familiar with their exploits in Vietnam.


Agent Orange and napalm are the best known WMDs used in Vietnam although the Americans also deployed Agents White, Blue, Purple, Pink and Green (all of the ‘agents’ were so named because of the colour of distinguishing markers on their shipping containers). These products are actually herbicides, developed during the 1940s, and were used in Vietnam as defoliants to strip away the forests and trees in order to deny the enemy hiding places. Most of these products are known carcinogens and their extensive use in Vietnam has compromised the health of many who came in contact with them, including American forces; and they were used in far greater concentrations than would be usual.

more
http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_11792.shtml

[Sophree]

34. Thank you for posting

http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2004/DU-Trojan-Horse1jul04.htm

Depleted Uranium:
The Trojan Horse of Nuclear War
LEUREN MORET / World Affairs – The Journal of International Issues 1jul04

****SNIP****

SOUTH REGION: “This huge region, torn by volatile hatreds and surrounded by competing powerful neighbors, is likely to be a major battlefield, both for wars among nation-states and, more likely, for protracted ethnic and religious violence. Whether India acts as a restraint or whether it takes advantage of some opportunity to impose its will on Pakistan will greatly affect the regional scope of the likely conflicts. The internal strains within Turkey and Iran are likely not only to get worse but to greatly reduce the stabilizing role these states are capable of playing within this volcanic region. Such developments will in turn make it more difficult to assimilate the new Central Asian states into the international community, while also adversely affecting the American-dominated security of the Persian Gulf region. In any case, both America and the international community may be faced here with a challenge that will dwarf the recent crisis in the former Yugoslavia.” Brzezinski




The fact is that the United States and its military partners have staged four nuclear wars, "slipping nukes under the wire" by using dirty bombs and dirty weapons in countries the US needs to control. Depleted uranium aerosols will permanently contaminate vast regions and slowly destroy the genetic future of populations living in those regions, where there are resources which the US must control, in order to establish and maintain American primacy.

**********

[HysteryDiagnosis]

15. What would we do as Americans if

somebody dumped 1400 or 1500 tons of toxic materials on our soil, that has been linked to severe birth defects and cancers? Hell, we won't even let them store it in a "safe" place.... I imagine there would be trouble in the streets if this happened here.

[snowFLAKE]

17. In case you missed the Other Thread about DU where I posted this

Somebody (Dick Cheney and Halliburton I believe) is actually doing just that. But on a much greater scale:

Based on the predicted combustion of 2516 million tons of coal in the United States and 12,580 million tons worldwide during the year 2040, cumulative releases for the 100 years of coal combustion following 1937 are predicted to be:


U.S. release (from combustion of 111,716 million tons):

Uranium: 145,230 tons (containing 1031 tons of uranium-235)

Thorium: 357,491 tons

Worldwide release (from combustion of 637,409 million tons):

Uranium: 828,632 tons (containing 5883 tons of uranium-235)

Thorium: 2,039,709 tons

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

[Zynx]

16. Science in Article is bad

Something that has a half-life of 4.5 billion years is, for all intents and purposes, NOT radioactive. You could put a huge chunk of it on the floor in your office as a doorstop. There are scientists that do this. They just do not touch it without gloves.

However, DU dust is one of the worst heavy metal carcinogens on the face of the earth. *THAT* is the risk, not radiation and that is why people wear protective cloathing. Heavy metals get into your body and just build up; they do not LEAVE. Large exposure will take a robust US Marine and make him into someone who is in a wheelchair and looks like he has MD. He will remain like that for life.

Talking about DU as radioactive merely shows lack of education and helps the government pigs deny the danger.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

19. I posted "toxic" materials, not radioactive.

I have read quite a bit about the chemical toxicity of DU including the heavy metal issue.

>>He will remain like that for life.<<

There are methods available that can expedite the removal of heavy metals from the body... they aren't perfect, but persons so affected should be made aware of them. Asside from their not being perfect, they also aren't used by traditional medicine. Pity.

http://www.thorne.com/altmedrev/fulltext/dmsa3-3.html
Dimercaptosuccinic Acid (DMSA), A Non-Toxic, Water-Soluble Treatment For Heavy Metal Toxicity

by Alan L. Miller, N.D.
>>Introduction
Contamination of water, air, and food by numerous chemicals and non-essential elements, such as heavy metals, is an unfortunate byproduct of a complex, industrialized, high-tech society. The resultant accumulation of heavy metals in the human body poses a significant health risk, leading to a wide array of symptomatology, including anemia, learning deficits, reduced intelligence, behavioral and cognitive changes, tremor, gingivitis, hypertension, irritability, cancer, depression, memory loss, fatigue, headache, hyperuricemia, gout, chronic renal failure, male infertility, osteodystrophies, and possibly multiple sclerosis and Alzheimer's disease.

Although human lead toxicity has decreased in the United States since discontinuation of the use of lead as a gasoline additive, it continues to be a significant problem, especially in urban areas, where lead-based paint exposure is still an issue, and in areas where lead is mined and/or smelted. Chronic mercury toxicity from occupational, environmental, dental amalgam, and contaminated food exposure, is a significant threat to public health. Other heavy metals, including cadmium and arsenic, can also be found in the human body due to cigarette smoke, and occupational and environmental exposure. Diagnostic testing for the presence of heavy metals, and subsequently decreasing the body's burden of these substances, should be an integral part of the overall treatment regimen for individuals with the above-mentioned symptomatology or a known exposure to these substances.<<

http://www.dmso.org/articles/information/muir.htm
Dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), a by-product of the wood industry, has been in use as a commercial solvent since 1953. It is also one of the most studied but least understood pharmaceutical agents of our time--at least in the United States. According to Stanley Jacob, MD, a former head of the organ transplant program at Oregon Health Sciences University in Portland, more than 40,000 articles on its chemistry have appeared in scientific journals, which, in conjunction with thousands of laboratory studies, provide strong evidence of a wide variety of properties. (See Major Properties Attributed to DMSO) Worldwide, some 11,000 articles have been written on its medical and clinical implications, and in 125 countries throughout the world, including Canada, Great Britain, Germany, and Japan, doctors prescribe it for a variety of ailments, including pain, inflammation, scleroderma, interstitial cystitis, and arthritis elevated intercranial pressure.

[Art_from_Ark]

20. What does U-238 turn into when it decays?

Click here to find out:

http://www.idust.net/Tutorial/DBish002.htm

[snowFLAKE]

23. Or, Here's a Picture

The DU in Iraq, being about 1 year old, has accumulated decay products to reach a level of about 50 units:



By contrast, the "natural" uranium in my yard - Which I assume got there when God created The Earth about 6,000 years ago or when Dick Cheney took over Halliburton about 6 years ago (and, btw, these "natural" levels about 1000x higher than Environmental Levels caused by Weapons Use in Iraq) - is just now reaching it's highest stage of emmisions (of about 200 units, as shown on the chart). And it's going to stay at that level for billions of years!! Yikes, talk about nightmare upon nightmare. This is the scariest thread ever.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

24. So if this is true

reactors. This not only means that a sample of contaminated depleted uranium is much more radioactive than it would be if it were pure DU, some of the contaminants, such as plutonium, neptunium, americium and other trans-uranium elements, have a significant chemical toxicity of their own.<<

Doesn't it make DU a weapon of mass destruction with effects that are difficult to track and pin down?

Doesn't it make it illegal to use?

Doesn't it make the people who use it war criminals?

Oooooops..... there it is....

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?nn20040314a5.htm
DEPLETED URANIUM SHELLS DECRIED
Citizens find Bush guilty of Afghan war crimes
By NAO SHIMOYACHI
Staff writer
A citizens' tribunal Saturday in Tokyo found U.S. President George W. Bush guilty of war crimes for attacking civilians with indiscriminate weapons and other arms during the U.S.-led antiterrorism operations in Afghanistan in 2001.

http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/du.htm
Download Information Brochure about Depleted Uranium:
ANOTHER WAR CRIME? IRAQI CITIES "HOT" WITH DEPLETED URANIUM

http://www.peoplesvideo.org/poisondust.ram

[nolabels]

32. And don't you love technology

This is very good article, thanks.

Seems to me this nasty stuff makes just about any kind of armor obsolete and even potentially more of problem in the long run.

Now that they have spent billions on the new high-tech A-1's and Bradley's this comes as good news :silly: It's a race to top of the weapons food chain with poor people picking up the tab with higher taxes. Too bad the US government don't spend money on productive things anymore





http://www.somc.on.ca/forum/viewtopic.php?forum=2&showtopic=6857

[LeftHander]

25. DU - Refined, manufactured, quality....dirty bomb

There is a reason why you don't hear about "dirty bombs" in the media anymore...


It is preciesly because of Depleted Uranium use in munitions byt eh U.S. Military in Iraq and Afganistan...

[Radius]

27. DU Junk Science

http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jdw/dutoxic010112_1_n.shtml

Interesting article. Depleted uranium acts like lead as a heavy metal. It is an alpha particle emitter. It can be handled with no effect, in dust form it is dangerous, like lead. If you read the box of any ammunition sold in the us it contains an lead toxicity warning.

There was a legal case that where a lady sued to work in a battery plant while pregnant, and won. Concentrations of any heavy metal are harmful.

It is also the most effective fired anti tank weapon in the world. It was used in Kosovo as well as Iraq.

This UN report states DU and natural environmental uranium are within 1 percent of each other. IE an non threat.

http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/pub_meet/en/Depluranium1.pdf
http://www.junkscience.com/news2/iraqcan.htm
http://www.junkscience.com/jan01/uranium.htm

[wsswss]

28. Come on, people

Let's be intelligent here. The most cursory knowledge of physics teaches you that DU is virtually not radioactive. Sure, heavy metal dust can be a carcinogen -- but then you should worry more about the dust from other non-DU munitions.

Leave the DU conspiracy theories to the folks over at Indymedia and let's try to focus on reality here.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[arikara]

40. The reality is that the US government KNOWS that it is harmful

Arguing whether the harm is caused from radioactivity or from heavy metal toxicity is simply another way to muddy the waters. Regardless of the cause, DU causes extreme illness and horrendous birth defects in future generations and is therefore a weapon of mass destruction.

What Government Documents Admit

"If DU enters the body, it has the potential to generate significant medical consequences. The risks associated with DU in the body are both chemical and radiological."

"Personnel inside or near vehicles struck by DU penetrators could receive significant internal exposures."

From the Army Environmental Policy Institute (AEPI), Health and Environmental Consequences of Depleted Uranium Use in the U.S. Army, June 1995

"Short-term effects of high doses can result in death, while long-term effects of low doses have been implicated in cancer."

"Aerosol DU exposures to soldiers on the battlefield could be significant with potential radiological and toxicological effects."

From the Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) report, included as Appendix D of AMMCOM's Kinetic Energy Penetrator Long Term Strategy Study, Danesi, July 1990.

This report was completed six months before Desert Storm.

"Inhaled insoluble oxides stay in the lungs longer and pose a potential cancer risk due to radiation. Ingested DU dust can also pose both a radioactive and a toxicity risk."

Operation Desert Storm: Army Not Adequately Prepared to Deal With Depleted Uranium Contamination, United States General Accounting Office (GAO/NSIAD-93-90), January 1993, pp. 17-18.

What the Government Is Telling Us

"The Committee concludes that it is unlikely that health effects reports by Gulf War Veterans today are the result of exposure to depleted uranium during the Gulf war."

From the Final Report: Presidential Advisory Committee of Gulf War Veterans Illnesses, December 1996.


"Metal of Dishonor" has lots of information on DU.

[snowFLAKE]

42. Well, THANK JESUS the government provides warning about DU dangers

They don't do that for all chemicals, you know.

For example, for years the Governments at many levels have encouraged interactin with a certain chemical - this encouragment has taken many forms ranging from building roads to facilitate easy access to large supplies to the granting of building permits to People (most of whom I suspect are employed by Dick Cheney and Halliburton) who wish to accomodate visitors to the chemical-laden regions. I used to actually trust that the Government was looking out for the safety of Me and My Family and allowed My Children to come into contact with this chemical on more than one occasion.

However, I know better now, THANK GOD. I recently purchased a bottle of this chemical - in highly purified form, btw - for use in The Laboratory (from Mallinckrodt Baker, Inc. Paris Kentucky 40361, CAS 15808-60-7).

The label contains the following warnings:

CAUTION!

CAUTION! CHRONIC INHALATION HAZARD. OVEREXPOSURE MAY CAUSE LUNG DAMAGE. SUSPECT CANCER HAZARD. MAY CAUSE CANCER.

KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN.

NOT FOR FOOD OR DRUG USE

Warning:
THIS PRODUCT CONATAINS A CHEMICAL(S) KNOWN TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO CAUSE CANCER.

READ CAREFULLY OTHER CAUTIONS (referring to those cautions listed on the MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET (MSDS) due to a lack of space on the label on the bottle to list all the health hazards of this dangerous, dangerous chemical).

Referring to the MSDS, available online at (http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/s0722.htm),
we find out more (selected excerpts):

Health Rating: 3 - Severe (Cancer Causing)

Lab Protective Equip: GOGGLES; LAB COAT; PROPER GLOVES


Health Effects:

Inhalation:
Acute pneumoconiosis from overwhelming exposure has occurred. Coughing and irritation of throat are early symptoms

Eye Contact:
May cause irritation, redness and pain.

Chronic Exposure:
Inhalation is classified as a human carcinogen. Chronic exposure can cause silicosis, a form of lung scarring that can cause shortness of breath, reduced lung function, and in severe cases, death.

Aggravation of Pre-existing Conditions:
Inhalation may increase the progression of tuberculosis; susceptibility is apparently not increased. Persons with impaired respiratory function may be more susceptible to the effects of this substance. Smoking can increase the risk of lung injury.

First Aid Measures

Inhalation:
Remove to fresh air. If not breathing, give artificial respiration. If breathing is difficult, give oxygen. Get medical attention.

Ingestion:
If large amounts were swallowed, give water to drink and get medical advice.

Skin Contact:
Wash exposed area with soap and water. Get medical advice if irritation develops.

Eye Contact:
Wash thoroughly with running water. Get medical advice if irritation develops.

Fire Fighting Measures

Special Information:
In the event of a fire, wear full protective clothing and NIOSH-approved self-contained breathing apparatus with full facepiece operated in the pressure demand or other positive pressure mode.

Accidental Release Measures

Ventilate area of leak or spill. Wear appropriate personal protective equipment as specified in Section 8. Spills: Sweep up and containerize for reclamation or disposal. Vacuuming or wet sweeping may be used to avoid dust dispersal.

Handling and Storage

Keep in a tightly closed container, stored in a cool, dry, ventilated area. Protect against physical damage. Use dustless systems for handling, storage, and clean up so that dust does not exceed the PEL. Use adequate ventilation and dust collection. Practice good housekeeping. Do not allow dust to collect on walls, floors, sills, ledges, machinery, or equipment. Maintain, clean and test respirators in accordance with OSHA regulations. Maintain and test ventilation and dust collection equipment. Wash clothing that has become dusty; do not breathe the dust from clothing. Containers of this material may be hazardous when empty since they retain product residues (dust, solids); observe all warnings and precautions listed for the product.

Skin Protection:

Wear protective gloves and clean body-covering clothing.

Eye Protection:

Use chemical safety goggles. Maintain eye wash fountain and quick-drench facilities in work area.

Hazardous Decomposition Products:

At higher temperatures, can change crystal structure to form tridymite or cristobalite, which have greater health hazards.

[arikara]

45. The way you are SO desperately defending it

would Lead one to believe that just Perhaps you have Shares in the Corporation that Produces it.

[Radius]

48. Links

I just posted links to reasonable sources like the UN study and a scientific website that debunks crap science. I wouldn't eat the stuff but I wouldn't swim in the east river either.

Bottom line if you are in a tank and someone is shooting at you from a t-72 DU ordinance is the most effective way to knock out the threat.

NMI in concord mass is not publicly traded, to my knowledge.

[snowFLAKE]

53. No, I don't Have Shares

Instead, I'm a Paid Shill. In the vein, I really hate to make this Dirty Laundry Public - but my DU-producing Employers are WAY BEHIND in sending the checks - so I'm going to go ahead and The Identity of these Scumbags public:

Present manufacturers of DU metal include (among others):

* Starmet Corp. (formerly Nuclear Metals) in Concord, Massachusetts
* Oak Ridge Centers for Manufacturing Technology in Oak Ridge, Tennessee
* Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site (formerly Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons Plant) near Boulder, Colorado
* Fernald Environmental Management Project (formerly Feed Materials Production Center) in Fernald, Ohio (until 1989)

Present manufacturers of DU ammunition include (among others):

* Starmet Corp. (formerly Nuclear Metals) in Concord, Massachusetts
* Primex Technologies in St. Petersburg, Florida
* Alliant Ammunition and Powder Co. in Radford, Virginia
* Radford Army Ammunition Plant in Radford, Virginia
* Aerojet Ordnance Co. (formerly Aerojet Heavy Metals Co.) in Jonesborough, Tennessee
* Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant in New Brighton, Minnesota




The other angle is that I'm taking a long-awaited trip next week on a 747 - and if this anti-DU stuff catches on they're all going to Be Grounded considering that they each have a couple tons on board:

"An airplane such as Boeing 747 needs 1,500 kg of counterweights <9>. DU counterweights for Boeing are made by the Starmet Corp. (formerly Nuclear Metals), a Massachusetts based company, in their Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) approved facility."

http://vzajic.tripod.com/3rdchapter.html


After that, efforts to ban DU should procede apace. Who gives a damn that that will leave our troops less protected - they're all bunch ow War Criminals in any event!?!

"Depleted uranium is also used to reinforce the armor protection of M1 series tanks. US Army publicly revealed the use of DU armor in March 1987. As of 1993, the US Army acquired about 1,500 Abrams M1A1 tanks fitted with DU armor, with plans for 3,000 more <24>."

I suppose it's one of Life's Little Ironies that troops INSIDE a DU-armored tank actually received LESS radiation than background levels, due to the radiation-shielding effects of DU.

[mbperrin]

46. Well, I suppose I must conclude from all this previous blather

that depleted uranium is GOOD for you! Peps up the old kidney system, holds down those nasty "natural" levels of uranium, and so I propose that we blanket every aquare inch of the planet with a six foot deep layer just to keep ourselves safe from all that nasty natural stuff out there!

We can give those holy Halliburtoners the contract!

Hey, two problems solved! A global health program that makes sense, AND a way to get rid of those nasty unwanted government dollars. Oh, while we're at it, let's make sure that we get tort deform, I mean reform, so that those evil lawyers can't sue for various sissified reasons!

God, now I feel like a MAN!

[sofa king]

50. No, you can conclude that war sucks any way you slice it.

And that's all you can conclude. Because the hype about depleted uranium is pretty much total bullshit.

And as I have suggested elsewhere, let's say you guys win this argument by screaming shrilly and quoting bad science. You know what is going to be used in the next war?

Lead. Lead, which also vaporizes when it hits something, and creates dust. Lead, which is more toxic than depleted uranium. Lead, which is just as easily inhaled and more easily absorbed into the human body through ingestion.

And lead, which cannot be detected by a geiger counter, so you won't even be able to wave around the bad science that you already have.

I'd also point out that since the very same war zones have already seen the deposition of many times more lead than depleted uranium, the observed effects--if you can even conclusively show that there are any--may well be the result of lead poisoning right now, rather than DU.

Mark my words: we're going to harm even more people if we get rid of depleted uranium. And war still sucks, and we shouldn't have them anymore.

[mbperrin]

54. Who's YOU GUYS?

I haven't quoted any science at all. I have summed up the pro-DU arguments on this thread and come to the logical conclusion of them ( a degree in rhetoric will let you do this).

War sucks? Yes, it does. "There never was a good war or a bad peace."

I support our troops, and am ready to prove it by bringing them each and every one home today. Now. Just get on the planes/ships/buses/you name it and come home. Now!

[snowFLAKE]

56. The Logical Conclusion?

Really, You replied to my Post #42, about how the government was ignoring the dangers of Sand, and you call characterize this response as summing up the pro-DU arguments?

Weird - especially since you miss my point that the dangers of sand, as outlined in Post #42, are Completely Ignored by The Government. Therefore, something like DU, which The Government actually admits Is Dangerous, MUST BE REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, bad.

[Gregorian]

35. Dr. Helen Coldicott warned about this, years ago.

I remember listening, in horror, to her talks about what was happening in Iraq, during the years in which the sanction was in place. It was horrific. No medicine or medical treatment, either. This is not news. We knew long ago what DU does. Poor people with sick children and infants with birth defects. This is the saddest thing in the world. I keep coming back to Republicans. If they really wanted George Bush so badly, then they bear the burden of guilt for this. And if this is not a war crime, then words are meaningless.
We knew then, and we know now, what America is doing to Iraq. And right now, the children are paying the price. It's heartbreaking. And maddening. Whatever will we do? Even when Idiot Fratboy is gone, these people will have to live out their lives.

[young_at_heart]

41. They sure are "liberated"

The poor Iraqi people.......they have gone through too much!

[milkyway]

57. Chalmers Johnson on DU:

However, as of May 2002, the Veterans Administration (VA) reported that an additional 8,306 soldiers had died and 159,705 were injured or ill as a result of service-connected "exposures" suffered during the war. Even more alarmingly, the VA revealed that 206,861 veterans, almost a third of General Schwarzkopf's entire army, had filed claims for medical care, compensation, and pension benefits based on injuries and illnesses caused by combat in 1991. After reviewing the cases, the agency has classified 168,011 applicants as "disabled veterans." In light of these deaths and disabilities, the casualty rate for the first Gulf War is actually a staggering 29.3%.


A significant probable factor in these deaths and disabilities is depleted uranium (or DU) ammunition, although this is a hotly contested proposition. Some researchers, often paid for by the Pentagon, argue that depleted uranium could not possibly be the cause of these war-related maladies and that a more likely explanation is dust and debris from the blowing up of Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons factories in 1991, or perhaps a "cocktail" of particles from DU ammunition, the destruction of nerve gas bunkers, and polluted air from burning oil fields. But the evidence--including abnormal clusters of childhood cancers and birth defects in Iraq and also in the areas of Kosovo where the U.S. used depleted-uranium weapons in the 1999 air war--points primarily toward DU. Moreover, simply by insisting on employing such weaponry, the American military is deliberately flouting a 1996 United Nations resolution that classifies DU ammunition as an illegal weapon of mass destruction.


DU, or Uranium-238, is a waste product of power-generating nuclear-reactors. It is used in projectiles like tank shells and cruise missiles because it is 1.7 times denser than lead, burns as it flies, and penetrates armor easily, but it breaks up and vaporizes on impact--which makes it potentially very deadly. Each shell fired by an American tank includes between three and ten pounds of DU. Such warheads are essentially "dirty bombs," not very radioactive individually but nonetheless suspected of being capable in quantity of causing serious illnesses and birth defects.6


In 1991, U.S. forces fired a staggering 944,000 DU rounds in Kuwait and Iraq. The Pentagon admits that it left behind at a bare minimum 320 metric tons of DU on the battlefield. One study of Gulf War veterans showed that their children had a higher possibility of being born with severe deformities, including missing eyes, blood infections, respiratory problems, and fused fingers.

http://www.presentdanger.org/papers/sorrows2003.html