Rising cancer cases in Iraq due to use of Deplete Uranium Shells

[Thurston Howell IV]

Security - or the lack of it - and the rising incidence of cancer due to the use of depleted uranium (DU) shells are the biggest challenges facing humanitarian groups in Iraq, an official with the largest Arab-American charity organisation said.

Muthanna Al Hanooti, co-founder and director of public relations of Life For Relief and Development (Life), a humanitarian group based in Detroit, Michigan, said the Dubai Aid City (DAC) will help facilitate the delivery of aid to the war-torn country.

"The security concerns remain," said Al Hanooti, who has spent nine months in Iraq since the US-led invasion. "The rise in the incidence of cancer in Iraq is largely blamed on the extensive use of uranium-tipped armour-piercing weapons."

He did not mention specific figures but said: "Every family in Iraq knows a member who is suffering from one kind of cancer or another. There has been a disproportionate amount of deformities in newborns, too. There has to be a thorough study of these cases."

http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/World2.asp?ArticleID=133192

[soothsayer]

1. And this time OUR boys and girls are going to feel the effects, too

assuming that wasn't the cause of the original gulf war syndrome.

Their exposure is so much longer this time---they are in a heap of trouble I'm afraid.

[leesa]

16. They are already experiencing them. Probably heavy metal poisoning

The GW1 soldiers also have higher rates of birth defects

[soothsayer]

17. I know, I remember the really scary stories from their spouses

Saying that their husbands ejaculate BURNED them. That is scary.

[oneighty]

2. Nay-sayers

Jump on this. Prove to me again that Depleted Uranium is not dangerous.

Sarcastic? Maybe.

180

[bahrbearian]

3. "First prove to me it is dangerous..

lets not run around willy-nilly , crying the sky is falling, the sky is falling".... using my Donald Rumsfeld voice.

[oneighty]

4. Military

Explosive Ordnance Disposal Technicians are required to wear special protective clothing and respiration equipment while working with DU. Why? Because it is bad for one's health.

If one wishes to work with this stuff they should volunteer for that type of work.

Prove to me and to the military that it is not a health hazard. They will be glad to know that.

180

[bahrbearian]

7. Oh I agree,,

[soothsayer]

18. All civilized countries have banned it for a reason. n/t

[arwalden]

25. What Does That Say About Our Country??

No wonder they all hate us.

[Radius]

56. NATO uses DU in its MBTs., Because it is the best tool for the job(NT)

[Radius]

5. Primary Toxicity:

Heavy metal, like lead.
Secondary toxicity, alpha radiation.
DU is only anti armor, how many rounds of du were expended in cities to disable tanks. I would bet the majority of shots were HE used on poeple.
Requires ingestion to become a threat. Low level carcinogen. Like formalin.

This has been discussed widely and in not supported by the oncology community at large.

BBC tauted a Balkan epidemic, never happened..

It was debunked in kosovo data as junk science. The UN studies even debunks it.
http://www.junkscience.com/jan01/uranium.htm

[HysteryDiagnosis]

15. Beyond cancer... beyond rationality.... censored study.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1122566.stm
>>"The problems the kids have are the same as the soldiers'", says Mandy. "They've got bowel problems, chronic fatigue, and a persistent cough, and nothing helps with that."
She believes her husband is now showing early signs of cancer, with a lump on his knee and a nine-month wait to find out what it is.

"I think the kids are going to grow up without a dad", she says. "I don't think the government actually realises how many lives they are ruining, and they need to.<<

http://www.sundayherald.com/40096
>>“I believe our study was censored and suppressed by the WHO because they didn’t like its conclusions. Previous experience suggests that WHO officials were bowing to pressure from the IAEA, whose remit is to promote nuclear power,” he said. “That is more than unfortunate, as publishing the study would have helped forewarn the authorities of the risks of using DU weapons in Iraq.”<<

>>UNEP, which surveyed DU contamination in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 2002, is keen to get into Iraq to monitor the situation as soon as possible. It has been told by the British government that about 1.9 tonnes of DU was fired from tanks around Basra, but has no information from US forces, which are bound to have used a lot more.<<

[mahatmakanejeeves]

49. Junkscience.com

Google for "who is junkscience.com"

"Corporate-funded site which contends that environmentalists, activists, government regulators, lawyers, and scientists use faulty scientific data (junk science) and fear-mongering to further their agendas."

[Radius]

58. Then look at the list of contributors and University affiliation

Many studies, the UN, oncology journals, etc have debunked the du myth.

See any huge cancer blooms in Kuwait or Kosovo, no. This is urban legend.

It is a heavy metal, and mild emitter of alpha. Like the tritium in an expensive watch or your smoke detector. Don't eat them and you are ok..

[LibLabUK]

52. Hmm..

Whilst I agree with your point and that article seems solid, I wouldn't put too much faith in Steven Milloy, who runs the website junkscience.com. He's a shill for the CATO institute and a corporate lobbyist. His scientific qualifications are also in doubt.

[leftchick]

6. Do you suppose they are useing DU weapons on Fallujah daily?

omg... it is unbelievable what we are doing to these poor people....

[Radius]

8. DU is useful on TANKS...

not people. DU possesses properties that make it exceptionally effective at destroying tanks.

When shooting at people HE rounds, or fletchette rounds are more effective because they explode and produce shrapnel or turn a tank into a "shotgun". DU does not. It is a metal spike.

[leftchick]

12. In the "precision strikes" last night and today....

they targeted some vehicles and warehouses which turned out to be peoples homes. I don't give enough credit to the assholes in charge to use the "correct" ammo on their targets. Why the hell would I? They are bombing the hell out of innocent civilians daily saying they are "terrorists"!!

[Radius]

19. A DU round

looks like a railroad spike in diameter and is designed for one thing, to blow a hole through metal tanks. It is worthless on soft targets or buildings. It does not explode. Its physical properties make it very effective in destroying tanks.
Explosive tank rounds are designed to kill trucks, buildings, and people.

Those assholes probably went to school with you and are there because of politics, not on their own volition. Lay blame where it is due.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

22. " It is worthless on soft targets or buildings."

Yep. From the looks of that thing it would probably bounce right off me. Count me as one of the convinced.

[Radius]

23. You do not understand the mechanics.

A DU round is a kinetic penetrator round. When it strikes metal at velocity its surface is liquefied creating a low resistance allowing the round to penetrate a tanks armor and create spalling. Ever shot a bb through glass, looks like a crater on the exit side. This is spalling and kills tank crew. This shattering of the round and metal it passed through causes the death of the tank crew and destruction of any ordinance it hits.

It is not used on structures because it does not have this property with rock. HE rounds are used to blow up structures. Remember the AL-jizeera camera man who was killed by a tank round, HE. Blew his hotel room and the ones near by to shreds. A du round would have poked a little hole in the roof and kept on going until it ran out of energy, leaving a 4 - 6 inch hole behind it.

To kill you a tank gunner would have to place a piece of metal with the diameter of a railroad spike through your body. Or he could fire an explosive round that would kill you if it landed within 60 feet of you, or he could shoot you with a machine gun. Which is easier?

Could you kill someone with a DU round, sure, but why go to the trouble to make a very difficult shot instead of just sending you a 120mm HE round.

DU is not antipersonnel. It is capped in that shot because it is sharp.

BTW DU is used as ballast in ships, in tank armor, in xray facilities and many other non war situation. This is an urban legend debunked by many studies.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

26. Oh, I understand.

It's a nefarious way of getting rid of enriched uranium by-product. It's has a dual use: half weapon, half trash.

[Radius]

27. That is Alcoa speak

We used tungsten before du for the same reason. It is very dense, it does not liquefy and slide its way through armor, however.

DU is the best anti armor weapon that can be fired from a tank or any other gun.

DU is made, you don't just take out of a reactor and fire it in a gun.

Certainly dangerous, but not what it is claimed to be. It is a toxic heavy metal first and mildly radioactive emitter second like an expensive wrist (tritium)watch or smoke detector,

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

29. You're not following me...

1) I understand it's military application.
2) To quote you: Certainly dangerous...a toxic heavy metal
3) DU is the best anti armor weapon. Where are the fucking tanks in Iraq?!(They were destroyed within the first 72 hours)


Nutshell:

I'm sure it's a mighty fine weapon. It doesn't just take a life, it takes a half-life.

[Radius]

32. You got it, no tanks no DU , wonder when the last du round was fired?(NT)

[not systems]

30. I remember a A10 shelling the Iraqi Intelegence HQ with DU ...

rounds.

Plain as day on TV.

The A10 fires antitank DU rounds.

So by your logic shouldn't have been straffing a
building but was and did.

[Radius]

33. A-10 Can fire DU OR 30mm HE, HE kills people better. Possible though.(NT)

[not systems]

34. agreed.

[KittyWampus]

9. When You Blow Shit Up LOTS Of Carcinogens May Become Air Borne

I am not convinced that DU is the culprit.

Think of NYC when WTC became dust & rubble.

Think of all the potentially hazardous materials that became breathable.

There needs to be hard science linking cancer to DU.

From what I've read, there isn't YET.

Other potential causes need to be screened out.

I am not an apologist or trying to say anything definitive.

It's easy to imagine getting flamed for posting this.

[Radius]

10. Politics and Truth

should not be mutually exclusive. Logic and fact should be applied universally by both sides.

Is DU good to eat, no. Is it an almighty evil as claimed, no.
The truth is usually somewhere in the middle.

[oneighty]

11. Google

EOD depleted uranium. It is interesting what those engineers and scientists have to say. I was In EOD and I tend to believe them. Life is safer that way if one is EOD.

180

[Radius]

13. I have

A good friend who is AD EOD. I'll drop him an email, get his take. Not saying the stuff is harmless. Toxic heavy metal. Just saying there will be no cancer epidemic, based on kosovo data.

UN says the same thing. Oncology journals agree. Liquid Metals and other manufacturers have seen no bloom in cancer from their material handlers.

[oneighty]

14. Good luck

I asked a recently retired EOD the "DU question" He ignored my question. Makes me suspicious.

I am most curious about the people living in the contaminated area being exposed year after year. And I think I am sure glad it is not my grand children.

I think the jury on this will be out for many years and that there are official reasons for denial just as there was/is for agent orange.

180

[burrowowl]

21. Just the heavy metal is not good

children in South El Paso suffered high rates of lead poisoning due to the smelter stack.
The pic you show is not the only type of DU munition used. Go to a Los Alamos magazine published several years ago.
The munition also ignites causing very fine particles to spray all over the place. These particles can contaminate the water or be blown up in a wind storm and voila! Ingestion. The particles are small enough to be breathed into the lungs.

[snowFLAKE]

48. OK, that's a Very Revealing post

If you're getting your Scientific Information from Google - you might as well be pulling it straight out of your ass.

(Although, on balance - Google-derived information is a Tiny Tiny bit better than Democratic Underground-present science - this thread being a representative example).

[oneighty]

54. Google

EOD depleted uranium? I am ex-EOD I know it to be the truth.

So there I guess. Sigh.

180

[snowFLAKE]

57. Then "Google"

"Blood Type" and "Personality"

and you'll find out that there's scientific evidence that one's personality is determined by your O, A, B, or AB blood antigens.

What about entering "Petition to ban DHMO"

and you'll find solid scientific backing for AN IMMEDIATE government-enforced ban of WATER.

I could go on and on providing examples of the complete bullshit one can uncover by relying on Google for scientific information. You're apparently satisfied to believe This Garbage - others may wish to consult the peer-reviewed literature available at the NIH's PUBMED site:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=Pager&DB=pubmed

[oneighty]

67. Somehow I get the impression

you might be here for fun and games. I am not.

I suggest you suit up, go to Iraq or wherever suck up some of that good depleted uranium dust and eat a bit of it also. Report back to me in ten years or so.

I did attend a military school for Atomic Chemical and Bacteriological De-contamination long ago (ABC Warfare)and also a school for rendering safe unexploded nuclear ordnance. The military does not paint a pretty picture of the potential harmful effects of these things on humans. It is safety first for those of us doing that sort of work.

So if the Explosive Ordnance Disposal engineers say I need to use protection against DU and other nasties I will believe they have a reason for it.

The real world is not in a text book.

180

[snowFLAKE]

72. You Military Guys

Should get together and get your story straight.

After all, there's this Doug Rokke guy running around claiming that his contingent WERE NOT supplied with protective gear for handling/cleaning up DU-contaminated areas.

Is he lying? He must be if it's true that "The military does not paint a pretty picture of the potential harmful effects of these things on humans. It is safety first for those of us doing that sort of work."


BTW, I do eat a good deal of depleted uranium - everybody does.

Indeed, The Average American ingests 1.9 micrograms a day, and has a steady-state level of 90 micrograms in their bodies:

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

Perhaps that's why cancer is so prevalent??

(of course, naturally-occurring nuclides such as potassium-40 and carbon-14 provide thousands times higher levels of radiation inside the body, but since Halliburton isn't responsible - there's no harm/no foul).

[oneighty]

74. Rokke is not an EOD technician.

And I do not know if DU causes cancer or not. As I said before I will wait (Not really as I am too old) but years from now we will learn for sure whether DU is yummy stuff or not yummy stuff. The children of Iraq are the canary birds for DU. Or perhaps one day DU will visit America and we will learn first hand.

Nuff said by me.

180

[snowFLAKE]

78. Please humor my Immense Obtuseness

But I fail to grasp the significance of Major Rokke not being an EOD technician.

He claims to be of "The Military" (as do you).

And, you claim "The Military" knows how harmful DU is . . .

So why would The Military protect you and not him?

Especially considering that he claimed to work with the "nasty" blown-up form of DU. Wouldn't the All-Knowing Military be especially keen to provide him and his crew with the necessary protection - knowing as it does just how harmful it is?

[oneighty]

89. I suggest you join the military

and learn for your self. I think you would make an excellent EOD technician.

And I am of the military and I got the papers to prove it unlike our illustrious Chicken hawk leader.

180

[OneBlueSky]

20. DU weapons are weapons of mass destruction . . .

and George Bush and his cohorts should be arrested, tried and convicted for crimes against humanity through their use . . .

[Radius]

24. Well better arrest

Clinton , and NATO, for using it in the Balkans. BTW there is no cancer bloom there. This is urban legend and has been debunked by UN studies, oncology journals, and other real sources.

DU is a toxic heavy metal and mild radioactive emitter. Like the stuff that makes your watch dial glow. Don't eat your wrist watch and you will be ok.

[Columbia]

28. None in Kuwait either n/t

[Amigust]

35. Don't eat your wrist watch and you will be ok.

"DU is a toxic heavy metal and mild radioactive emitter. Like the stuff that makes your watch dial glow. Don't eat your wrist watch and you will be ok."

Sounds like that pretty well wraps it up. Now IF the damn stuff didn't aerosolize on impact and spread everywhere nearby, we wouldn't have to worry about people getting it inside their bodies, like kids playing in contaminated areas, for instance.

[KittyWampus]

60. DU Does NOT Aerosolize. That Is THE Reason I Discount Many "Experts"

who are ringing alarm bells frantically.

Again, one more time, DU as used by the US military does NOT AEROSOLIZE.

If you want to prove DU is a dangerous cancerinogen which is the undisputed cause of deaths somewheres.... don't hurt our cause by posting this misinformation.

I am NOT an apologist for DU or the US Government. DU may very well be proven to do what its detractors claim... just like Agent ORange.

But htere needs to be hard science and not misleading and incomplete information bandied about.

[Columbia]

31. Dumping of chemicals in the Tigris and Euphrates

And diminished capacity of wastewater treatment are much more likely culprits of higher incidences of cancer than DU.

[sofa king]

36. Sigh. That's it. I'm failing all of you. Get out of my physics class.

I'm not going to go through this bullshit again. Uranium might cause cancer chemically, but if you really think that the radiation from depleted uranium is bad enough to cause cancer, you can get out of my class right now and take an F for the election season.

Or, you can redeem yourselves by showing that somehow the radioactive half life of depleted uranium is being altered, which doesn't usually happen outside of nuclear explosions and particle accelerators. Show that and not only will you stop looking scientifically illiterate, but you'll also likely win Nobel prizes and solve the world energy crisis. You can start here:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/halfli2.html

If you want to look into rising cancer rates, you might wish to look into Saddam Hussein's "Third River Project," the systematic destruction of the Tigris and Euphrates marshlands. There are persistent rumors that chemical defoliants were used in large quantities there... in southern Iraq... where the cancer rates are appearing to rise... while they aren't in Kuwait, where just as much depleted uranium was used.

[JSJ]

38. well, you're not a good teacher- in fact, you're trying to divert us...

...from the subject at hand- depleted uranium contamination- to the crimes of the US-supported Saddam. Go back and take a refresher course.

[MeinaShaw]

40. Explanation please

I am not sure I follow the article or your post. What bombs are they saying are causing the cancer? Or are they (you) saying that?

[JSJ]

41. there is no question that american du-hardened artillery shells...

...pose a grave danger, after detonation, to children and others in Iraq, due to high radioactive levels contained in the resulting dust and particulant contaminants released into the air and water.

[MeinaShaw]

42. I got that part ...but

I got that part. But the article seems to be implying that these bombs are causing cancer now. Did I read it correctly. Is the article saying that bombs dropped on Iraq are the cause of existing cancer cases or that the will be the cause of cancer in the future?

[JSJ]

43. us has been using du-hardened shells for the past 12 years...

...starting with the UN sanctions which were enforced with American bombs- including many with du-hardened shells.

[MeinaShaw]

44. Did those cause cancer?

Does cancer show up in trends that can be linked to events that started 12 years ago? For example, if 12 years ago someone was exposed to one of these bombs, would they have cancer by now? Would enough people have cancer by now that it could be traced back to those bombs?

I'm not doubting you. I just need to understand this better.

[JSJ]

45. radioactive agents can- if the doses are large enough- cause...

...cancer in a relatively short time. Within 12 years, for sure.

[MeinaShaw]

46. Pretty scary stuff

Thanks for the reply.

[mike_c]

47. with all due respect, this is a myth that needs to by dispelled...

...if only for the sake of credibly criticizing the legitimate problems caused by DU contamination. DU is NOT "highly radioactive." It is barely radioactive at all-- the "depleted" part of the name refers to the removal of radioactive isotopes. DU is what's left over-- U-238. It is not much more radioactive than lead.

DU is mostly U-238 and has a half-life of 4.5 billion years. U-238 decays into lead-206, but at such an excruciatingly slow rate that it has to be regarded as VERY stable. Remember, the half-life means that on of every two atoms of U-238 will decay into lead-206 each 4.5 billion years (and emit gamma radiation). That's pretty stable!

There are concerns about DU alpha emissions, but the heavy metal toxicity is likely to be far worse, IMO.

[KittyWampus]

63. Your Assertions Are Not Proof. And The Fact You Don't Actually Provide Any

weakens your case.

You must rule out OTHER contaminates/agents that are present in Iraq.

That is how Science is done.

Not by using half baked information and emotionally laden arguments.

Using emotinally laden arguments is the same tactic the Right uses to whip up sentiment against abortion.

[MeinaShaw]

39. River pollution a good place to look

If the water ways in Iraq are as contminated by chemical waste as they are in many third world and developing countries, then that more likely the source. People in these countries boil water in what they think makes it safe to drink. Of course, the chemicals don't boil away.

I would be skeptical that cancer would develop so quickly from any bombs that have been dropped in recent years if that is what the article is saying. Much more likely long term exposure to other pollutants.

[MadHound]

50. Well, then I guess I'll have to take an F then

And I'll tell all of the HPs, Ops, and other fellow workers at my nuke plant that they just don't know :wtf: they're talking about, and everything that they know is somehow wrong, just because an anonymous physics teacher on this board says so:eyes:

I really should just save the following so that I can cut and paster, it would save me a world of trouble. OK, here we go again.

DU is quite harmful. DU is a cocktail of radioactive elements, uranium-238 is the main one, with traces of neptunium, uranium-235, and plutonium thrown in. The respective half lives of this mixture ranges from hundreds of thousands to millions of years. DU is primarily an alpha and beta emitter. When DU is on the outside of the body your skin is more than up to the task of blocking alpha and beta emissions. However, once DU gets into your body, there is no skin to block the radiation, and it starts taking it's toll. It is also virtually impossible to get DU particles out of the body. They tend to lodge in tiny tiny out of the way places in the lungs and digestive system, where they stay to do their deadly work.

When the DU tip of a shell slams into a target, it heats up, can catch fire and oxidizes the DU, spitting it off in small, dust size particles, much like a fireworks sparkler spits off particles of aluminum that are on fire. These dust like particles are very fine, and can become airbone with the wind, or even by the passing of people and animals that stir up the dust. Once airbore, it can be inhaled, or setting onto food or water, become ingested.

The other danger of DU is the fact that it is a heavy metal. And like any heavy metal, it is highly toxic. Thus, once ingested the question becomes one of whether the person will fall due to radiation induced cancer, or heavy metal poisoning.

DU, quite frankly, is a slow motion genocide of epic proportions. Due to it's long half life, DU will continue to have adverse effects on both humans and animals for generations to come. The Pentagon is refusing to do any research on this topic, for they don't want to have to admit to the horror they've caused. Yet that doesn't mean that DU is going away. As more countries like Britain and others investigate DU, as more strange cancers and diseases turn up in US soldiers and the native populations of countries that we've shelled with DU, it is increasingly apparent what kind of horror we've released. If we continue to shell Iraq and the ME with DU, we will turn it into a lifeless wasteland.

The time to end this practice is now. Though many US and military apologists will try to tell you otherwise, the reality of the matter is that DU kills, slowly, agonizingly, but certain none-the-less.

[snowFLAKE]

53. Oh Goody - Another DU thread - Another chance for you to

Spread MisInformation.

In any event, I assume that this guy must be one of your fellow nuclear plant workers (BTW, just how are Nuclear Plant workers qualified as DU Experts?):

[Radius]

59. Lifeless wastelends like Kuwait and Kosovo?(NT)

[MadHound]

62. Well hey SF, here to spread disinformation and lies again I see

Ooo, and gratuitous personal attacks as well. Nicking a page off the 'Pugs eh? If you can't beat them with information and logic, smear them with ad hominem attacks. Good show!

And just for your own information, those who work at nuke plants are knowledgable about DU because we work with it everyday. We read about it's effects, uses, what it does under various conditions, using sources ranging from the NRC to IATA to DOE, along with various books, journals and other articles. What do you use, oh yeah, that's right, biased and slanted web sites:eyes:

[snowFLAKE]

69. Yes Indeed I am proud to use biased and slanted Websites

For example, my primary source of Information is the Biased and Slanted National Institutes of Health's PUBMED search engine for Peer-Reviewed Research:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=Pager&DB=pubmed


You claim to be using "information and logic?"


Then why do you omit information on the natural environemental levels of uranium (which are thousands of times higher than levels from weapons use of DU)? Previously you claimed that the natural uranium found in soil was in kilogram-sized chunks (as opposed to the particulate form from weapons use). I am still eagerly awaiting documentation for this (seemingly rather bizarre) claim.

And why do you omit information that levels of uranium released into the environment in the USA from the combustion of coal are HUNDREDS of times higher than those in Iraq from weapons use?

Isn't it "logical" that since we're all exposed to much higher levels of uranium, and it's decay products, that occur from weapons use, that we should all be dead by now?

Furthermore, do you not consider it to be intellectually dishonest to provide information out of context? Specifically, wrt to your claims that DU used commercially is contaminated with U-236, plutonium (etc) - this happened TO ONE BATCH that was accidently reprocessed and then released into the supply chain. Sure, that was a major fuckup, but hardly indicative of the vast majority of DU that's being used, whether for dental purposes, 747 counterweights, shielding for transport of radioactive materials, or whatever. Weapons use of the reprocessed material in Kosovo did occur (and should rightly be condemned) - however, the resulting environmental increase in plutonium levels was negligible compared to levels from the fallout of the nuclear weapon tests of the 1960s.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12500799

[MadHound]

70. You keep trotting out naturally occuring uranium arguement again and again

You must be a glutton for punishment. Let me explain to you once more.

Yes, uranium occurs in nature, yes, it is radioactive, an alpha and beta emitter just like DU is. However, there are a couple of salient points to need to take into account. The first is that the vast majority of this naturally occuring uranium is underground, and well shielded. Secondly, like I said before, it is primarily an alpha and beta emitter. Human skin does a superb job of blocking these emissions, as it does with DU. However, if you were to inhale or ingest any of this naturally occuring uranium, you would be faced with the same prospects as those who inhale or ingest DU, heavy metal poisoning and radically increased chances for cancer. Got that?

By the by, your first link simply goes to a search engine, and your second link simply states that yes, DU is contaminating areas of the Balkans, and I quote "The results indicated that whenever the U concentration exceeded the normal environmental values (approximately 2 to 3 mg/kg) the increase was due to DU contamination"

Any more hackneyed arguements you would care to repeat for disinformation purposes?

[snowFLAKE]

77. Yes, my link goes to a search engine

So that those with A Brain can do research on Their Own (and don't have to rely on either you or me).

As you were able to quote the normal environmental level of uranium as 2 to 3 mg/kg correctly - YAY!! - once again you leave out the salient point of the magnitude of the increase due to DU contamination.

Let's examine what the 2 to 3 mg/kg of naturally-occurring uranium means in relationship to the level of DU released by weapons use. Let's consider that the uppermost one foot of soil (which you continue to claim, once again bizarrely, is "underground and well shielded) contains about 2,200 kg (about 2.5 tons) of natural uranium per square mile (this value is calculated on an average soil density of 1.58 g/cm3, as described http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/natural.htm ).

Then, let's assume that DU from weapons use spread over about 10-15% of Iraq, or about 10,000 sqare miles, and mixed with the natural uranium found in the uppermost foot of soil. Consequently, the 320 tons released in Gulf War 1 would add about 0.032 tons per square mile - or about 14 kg - to the levels of natural uranium already there.

So, let's compare - 2,200 kg naturally + 14 kg from weapons use. Yes, like the article states, due to the use of sensitive scientific instrumentation this small increase can be detected (and was attributed to DU contamination). Any rational person, however, would think long and hard about whether this 0.6% increase poses a real health risk. Especially considering that the soluble type of DU (ie., the form of DU responsible for chemical poisoning that results in adverse health effects when tested in laboratory animals) IS NOT the main type found in the environment from weapons use.

On edit - since you're a DU genius - just why do uranium miners get cancer?

[MadHound]

81. Once again, you are resorting to numbers tricks to prove your point

Using averages, not medians, using stats you have no source for, all in an attempt to obvuscate the fact that you have no leg to stand on.

And the trouble with your little search engine is that when you type in a salient topic, like delpleted uranium, it returns no results. Ooo, great search engine. And again, you insist on obvuscating where radioactive minerals are. Here is a fine, albeit old, article on where uranium and it's radioactive brethern are, how they occur, and why we aren't all glowing. Take the time to read it. <http://www.dangerouslaboratories.org/radore.html>

And once again, you insist on spreading disinformation by spreading the DU dust over the whole of a country, yet you and I both know that such a thing doesn't occur. You have pockets and blooms, like in Sarejevo, where the leukemia outbreak from DU is three time the normal rate.

If you wish to continue this game, feel free. But I've got better things to do. I guess I'll see you on the next DU thread, spreading distortions and disinformation as always. What, do you have some stock in the munitions industry, is this why you engage in this foolishness?

[snowFLAKE]

84. Well Duh!

I'm not surprised that "delpleted uranium" returned no results at PUBMED:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&itool=toolbar

however, "depleted uranium" provides 182

and "uranium" gives 4080.


Anyhow, you're right - Who needs rationale thought when hysteria is so much more fun - to give a great example I'm sure you'll love:

There Are No Words ...
Radiation in Iraq Equals 250,000 Nagasaki Bombs
by Bob Nichols

One Atom Bomb was dropped by Americans on the city of Hiroshima, the other bomb on the city of Nagasaki three days later. About 170,000 to 250,000 people were vaporized or incinerated immediately. It was a really big deal.

It is a measuring stick that plays very well in the rest of the world; but, not very well on American Fox News (Fair & Balanced)(c) channel or the rest of the Fox-like American media. The Department of Energy still lists the Hiroshima and Nagasaki detonations as "tests". The admiral released the data months ago at a scientific conference in India. This article is the first report of the data in the United States. It will first be released on the Internet. (Editorial Comment: Why, Oh Why, isn't this Important Information not being first released in the Scientific Literature where Its Wisdom will be preserved for All Time?)

The admiral in India calculated the amount of radiation in the Nagasaki bomb and compared it with the number in the 4,000,000 pounds of uranium left in Iraq from the 2003 war. Now, believe me, it is a lot more complex than that; but, that is essentially what the experts in India did.

How many Nagasaki Bombs equal the Radiation in the 2003 Iraq war? Answer: About 250,000 Nagasaki Bombs.

How many Nagasaki Bombs equal the Radiation in the last Five American Nuclear Radiation Wars? Answer: About 400,000 Nagasaki Bombs.

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Mar04/Nichols0327.htm


Scary Scary Stuff!!

[KittyWampus]

64. You Are Mistaken. DU Does NOT AEROSOLIZE AS Used By US Military

you weaken your case using this.

There may be plenty of other pertinent and TRUE information that points to DU causing cancer.

Why not find that.

[MadHound]

68. Read here please

It is a layman's explanation, and should put your doubts to rest.<http://www.counterpunch.org/du.html> DU does particlize upon impact, due to a combination of high heat, explosive forces and rapid oxidation. These particles form a fine dust that covers everything in the effected area.

[KittyWampus]

86. Counterpunch Is The LAST Place I'd Look For Credible Information

after maybe Fox News.

[VeniceBeat]

37. Who's to Say?

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

[Copperred]

51. Does anyone know if DU is true? What do the Soldiers say?

Has not the Pentagon been denying for a long time that there is no risk to population centers from the use of weapons with DU?

I have been tracking this DU issue for a while. In Afghanistan, there was a group claiming it was causing issues too.

IF THIS IS TRUE...we, the US, have to stop this immediately. It's royally F___ED if true.... Who are the corporate contractors making money of off DU?

Why is no one doing anything about this....

[Radius]

55. The companies that make

DU for weapons, ballast in ships, x ray shielding, and other applications have not had any blooms of cancer in their workers.

Kuwait, where massive tank battles were fought has had no blooms.
DU is an anti tank weapon and there are no tank battles going on now. Du is ineffective as antipersonnel.

This is political, and is urban legend. The Kuwaitis aren't suffering and complaining because they have no motive to.

DU was used in kosovo as well, where UN studies found no cancer related to its use. Oncology journals online do not cite it as a realistic mass cancer agent.

It is a toxic heavy metal like lead. It is not safe to eat, neither is lead, diesel fuel, or your smoke detector. You placing your self in a more toxic environment in an indoor shooting range.

[MadHound]

66. Entirely non comparable situations friend

When you are manufacturing or working with DU, you have the training, knowledge and equipment to keep yourself and others safe. When DU is blown into a fine dust, in a country where the knowlege, training and equipment you need to deal with it is in short supply, then you are simply exposing the populace to a major disaster.

In addition, the DU that myself and other nuclear worker deal with is in solid chunks, not easily ingested. Whereas the DU that is currently plaguing Iraq, Kuwait and the Balkans has been particlized by the force of heat and high explosives. And make no mistake, the population in these areas is suffering from the effects of DU. <http://www.counterpunch.org/du.html> It is hard to deny what is going on when a person suffering from cancers and heavy metal poisoning is excreting small amounts of DU.

It is true that the major threat from DU is the toxic poisoning that one gets from ingesting heavy metals. But it is foolish to discount the effects of radiation on unprotected tissue in the body. It doesn't take much radiation to cause cancer.

[Radius]

71. No Legitimate data source,

The UN study, The Journal Of Oncology and other similar publications, have not linked DU to cancer in a specific location. The UN report is linked now.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki and other gamma events are prime examples of the relationship between radiation and cancer. It is not automatic. It increases your risk but is not a perfect correlation. There are thousands of things that expose you to radiation, and carcinogens, naturally and un-naturally. DU is a minor player.

DU is not a safe material, but neither is lead, or scud missile fuel.

Kuwait and Kosovo are not showing any blooms and massive amounts of DU were used there. Kuwait is not experiencing or complaining about DU problems because they have no political motive to.

DU is used primarily in Tank Battles and the majority of these took place in the open desert.

The major radiological events in Iraq have been caused by people getting into unsecured enrichment facilities and handling, ingesting, or berating partially enriched uranium or other radioactive compounds.

DU gives our tanks a massive advantage on the battle field when dealing with armor, that must be weighed against its possible effect on human health.

[MadHound]

73. It increase your risk of cancer a great deal if you ingest or inhale it

I'm not saying that it is for sure that you will get cancer, but it increases you risks tremendously. Couple that with the for sure toxic effects due to heavy metal poisoning, and you've just brewed up a slow motion genocide machine.

In addition, it has been noted time and again that it isn't only alpha and beta emitters that make up DU, but also gamma emitters like plutonium. Ups that cancer chance some more. And if you would read my link, you would see that cancers such as leukemia have tripled in areas bombed with DU. Not only civilians are suffering, but UN and NATO workers are also. And it is hard to deny the cause when they are excreting minute amounts of DU.

And let's see friend, how many tank battles did we have in Iraq this time around? Oh, yeah, that's right, none.

[Radius]

75. A few tanks were killed..

DU is a joke that people throw around to point out how evil the US is. Genocide in this context cements it.

Your opinion is your own, but not shared by any real outlet of scientific information.

No bloom in kosovo, no bloom in Kuwait, where there were huge tank battles.

The UN did not attribute any cancer fluctuations in kosovo to DU.

No real source of scientific information has come to that conclusion.

Just out of of curiosity what is the docket number(s) of your facility?

[Radius]

79. Just out of of curiosity what is the docket number(s) of your facility?

[MadHound]

80. Sorry friend, but I'm not going to give you those numbers

This is a public forum, and I have clue as to who you are in real life. Sorry.

As far as the UN reports go, there is a great deal of evidence that they are hiding the true extent of their findings. Here is a link that deals with that issue, among other things. <http://www.ccmep.org/hotnews/du.html>

[Radius]

82. That is public information.

You have no clue as to who I am. And I have no clue to who you are. You are posting specific technical data and claiming expertise and linking to trash. That is weird.

A docket number is something most people can't google up to give themselves credibility. If you work for a nuclear power facility that is no big deal, like saying I work at the McGuire facility, on lake norman. Makes you one of thousands of Duke energy employees, impossible to trace.

Even if you worked at a research facility the docket number is not restricted information.

No insult inferred.

[Radius]

85. You are linking to agenda sites.

Please link to oncology journals, doe information, nest procedures, toxinet, etc. These are real indicators of what DU is. No spin included.

What is your take on the daves beasse incident?

[Radius]

87. What is your take on the daves beasse incident?

[Radius]

76. Your source is a slanted joke..

http://www.counterpunch.org/imperial.html

The list goes on.

Try the UN findings on DU, Oncology journals, or Toxinet for more info real data, this is propaganda.

[SidDithers]

61. Rising Cancer rates in Iraq are probably from a combination of factors...

of which DU may or may not be a contributor. The petrochemical industry is not particularly well known for their environmental protections, and the petro industry in Iraq has had more than their share of "problems".

The Tigris and Euphrates have both become a chemical soup, and purifying and waste treatment are non-existent. Living in such a toxic environment, it's no surprise that cancer and sickness rates are on the rise.

Sid

[Snow]

83. I'm not going to weigh in on the depleted uranium thing, but I'm

willing to bet Iraq is doing a really bad job of tracking cancer rates right now, and that's likely to continue for quite a few years. Not to mention, if you'll pardon a bit of epidemiology jargon, the "competing causes of mortality" that tend to kill people before they get the chance to have a cancer. In short, the guy's talking through his hat - he (and everybody else) is totally clueless regarding cancer rates.

If there is something impacting cancer rates, though, from the atomic bomb survivors commission we know that there is a pretty clear succession of types of cancer occurring following a carcinogenic exposure in a population. We first see leukemias, then the lymphomas and bone cancers, then more of the solid tissue tumors such as kidney & liver, and the lung cancers come in about them. Horrible sort of after-the-fact way of being able to say something like "there goes an epidemic of cancer!", but that is one way to spot it.

[Anon]

65. Here's the UN Report on the use of DU in Kosovo

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Features/DU/finalreport.pdf#xml=http://www.iaea.org/search97cgi/s97_cgi?action=View&VdkVgwKey=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eiaea%2Eorg%2FNewsCenter%2FFeatures%2FDU%2Ffinalreport%2Epdf&doctype=xml&Collection=IaeaSite&QueryZip=Kosovo&

[Zynx]

88. Not this BS again.

The shit is not radioactive. It is however, very obnoxious due to its status as a heavy metal, none of which are good to be exposed to, and all of which can be highly crippling.

[nomatrix]

90. Don't believe anything until it's been officially denied

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6960.htm

Can we agree something is making them sick?