NationStates Jolt Archive

That American forces use depleted uranium (http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Mar04/Nichols0327.htm) in their weapons isn't news, but these statistic are a little spooky. According to Bob Nichols at the Dissident Voice (http://www.dissidentvoice.org), they've unleased 4,000,000 pounds of DU in Iraq. That's the radioactive equivalent of 250,000 Nagasaki bombs (http://traprockpeace.org/bhagwat_du_29feb04.pdf) (pdf) says Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat, former chief of Naval Staff in India. And since it's dust...it travels with the wind, which means Europe will see some fallout. It also turns out that most of the soldiers didn't know they were using DU, (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/story/180342p-156689c.html) didn't know what DU was, and are now suffering reactions to it.

Are there any statistics over how many soldiers who have gottern sick from DU since the first gulf war?

:shock: Did they release it as dust, or is this something that has escaped from weapons they used?

According to the PDF link from above:

"By now, half of all the 697,000 US soldiers involved in the 1991 war have reported serious illnesses. According the American Gulf War Veterans Association, more than 30% of these soldiers are chronically ill, and receiving disability benefits from the Veterans Administration.

:shock: Did they release it as dust, or is this something that has escaped from weapons they used?

DU burns intensely and is very hard. It releases Uranium Oxide. The aerosol contains particles of 0.5-5 microns in size, once they are in the air or dust they are inhaled or ingested, including from contaminated soil.

If the military wants to use DU, theat's their choice. You can't sue the military and they've assessed the threat of DU as minimal. Either way, 4,000,000 pounds is a laughable figure. It's altogether impossible, in fact. Between our A-10s and Field Artillery, 1/100th of that is probably more accurate. "Gulf War Syndrome" has been blamed on more things than I can remember, none of them conclusive. Some evidence is in order.

If the military wants to use DU, theat's their choice. You can't sue the military and they've assessed the threat of DU as minimal. Either way, 4,000,000 pounds is a laughable figure. It's altogether impossible, in fact. Between our A-10s and Field Artillery, 1/100th of that is probably more accurate. "Gulf War Syndrome" has been blamed on more things than I can remember, none of them conclusive. Some evidence is in order.

Did you read the pdf?
http://traprockpeace.org/bhagwat_du_29feb04.pdf
It's quite well argued...

Also, Nagasaki wasn't a uranium bomb, it was plutonium based. And Hiroshima's after-effects have been surprisingly little. If an all-out blast does so little, it'd be pretty overkill to cry havock over the dust released from *depleted* uranium dust in A-10 bullets.

crikey. Are they still using this stuff?

Also, Nagasaki wasn't a uranium bomb, it was plutonium based. And Hiroshima's after-effects have been surprisingly little. If an all-out blast does so little, it'd be pretty overkill to cry havock over the dust released from *depleted* uranium dust in A-10 bullets.

It is a measure of the radiation which is independant of the material that generates it...

crikey. Are they still using this stuff?

More than ever by the looks of it...

Also, Nagasaki wasn't a uranium bomb, it was plutonium based. And Hiroshima's after-effects have been surprisingly little. If an all-out blast does so little, it'd be pretty overkill to cry havock over the dust released from *depleted* uranium dust in A-10 bullets.

It is a measure of the radiation which is independant of the material that generates it...

I read the pdf. I also took High School chemistry.

The pdf: Direct Exposure to DU = 50x the average annual radiation dose. 3 months of smoking cigarettes, 2 packs a day = 50x annual radiation dose.

Just reread the pdf. You realize they link DU to an AIDS epidemic, right? :lol:

I think I'll get some sleep now. Later everyone. :wink:

2 packs a day = 50x annual radiation dose.

You smoke radioactive cigarettes?
In any case, we're talking about radiation doses in many cases thousands of times the normal background radiation dose...

Also, Nagasaki wasn't a uranium bomb, it was plutonium based. And Hiroshima's after-effects have been surprisingly little. If an all-out blast does so little, it'd be pretty overkill to cry havock over the dust released from *depleted* uranium dust in A-10 bullets.

It is a measure of the radiation which is independant of the material that generates it...

I read the pdf. I also took High School chemistry.

You took High School Chemistry and still think it's a difference between radiation coming from Plutonium and Uranium? What did you learn?

Also, Nagasaki wasn't a uranium bomb, it was plutonium based. And Hiroshima's after-effects have been surprisingly little. If an all-out blast does so little, it'd be pretty overkill to cry havock over the dust released from *depleted* uranium dust in A-10 bullets.

It is a measure of the radiation which is independant of the material that generates it...

I read the pdf. I also took High School chemistry.

You took High School Chemistry and still think it's a difference between radiation coming from Plutonium and Uranium? What did you learn?

Yes, they're both sources of high-level doses of alpha particles. And if you smoke cigarettes, you're getting the same thing. *Shock!* Source an article that doesn't descend into unfounded propaganda after the third paragraph, please. :wink: This one's waay over the top.

Also, Nagasaki wasn't a uranium bomb, it was plutonium based. And Hiroshima's after-effects have been surprisingly little. If an all-out blast does so little, it'd be pretty overkill to cry havock over the dust released from *depleted* uranium dust in A-10 bullets.

It is a measure of the radiation which is independant of the material that generates it...

I read the pdf. I also took High School chemistry.

You took High School Chemistry and still think it's a difference between radiation coming from Plutonium and Uranium? What did you learn?

Yes, they're both sources of high-level doses of alpha particles. And if you smoke cigarettes, you're getting the same thing. *Shock!* Source an article that doesn't descend into unfounded propaganda after the third paragraph, please. :wink: This one's waay over the top.

You're saying that you nuke your lungs when you smoke? Do you have any source on that? I'd like to read up on it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1118876.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1119197.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/362484.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1118306.stm

Also, Nagasaki wasn't a uranium bomb, it was plutonium based. And Hiroshima's after-effects have been surprisingly little. If an all-out blast does so little, it'd be pretty overkill to cry havock over the dust released from *depleted* uranium dust in A-10 bullets.

Cancer rates in regions where DU shells have been used are between 35% to 75% higher then the norm. Birth defects have been recorded in massive numbers in Iraq after the first Gulf War as well as in Kosovo and off the Island of Okinawa.

The "dust" is just one of the main dangers to civilians in combat regions. Often, shells and ordinance wreckage is scavenged by residents to sell. The irradiated material is passed through many hands further increasing the exposure. Army HAZMAT teams cannot clean up all material from a serious engagement and there have documented cases of DU material finding its way into local water supplies.

It is not "propaganda", it is the result of using non-conventional ordinance in uncontrolled battlespaces with high civilian populations.

You can't sue the military and they've assessed the threat of DU as minimal.

The 'Raqis, too, have decided that justice grows out of a barrel of an RPG :wink:
Enjoy the ride :twisted:

Also, Nagasaki wasn't a uranium bomb, it was plutonium based. And Hiroshima's after-effects have been surprisingly little. If an all-out blast does so little, it'd be pretty overkill to cry havock over the dust released from *depleted* uranium dust in A-10 bullets.

Cancer rates in regions where DU shells have been used are between 35% to 75% higher then the norm. Birth defects have been recorded in massive numbers in Iraq after the first Gulf War as well as in Kosovo and off the Island of Okinawa.

The "dust" is just one of the main dangers to civilians in combat regions. Often, shells and ordinance wreckage is scavenged by residents to sell. The irradiated material is passed through many hands further increasing the exposure. Army HAZMAT teams cannot clean up all material from a serious engagement and there have documented cases of DU material finding its way into local water supplies.

It is not "propaganda", it is the result of using non-conventional ordinance in uncontrolled battlespaces with high civilian populations.

The pdf *is* propaganda, if you read it. It takes scant evidence and relates it to the un-relatable. (AIDS, for example) Nato's studies disagree with your numbers, and no conclusive study has been done... what you've got is conjecture and speculation. Saddam dumped and burned more oil to clog the skies in '91 and '03 than the Exxon Valdez spilled. Twice as much. The alternative hypotheses are stronger until there is real proof. Until then, we aren't going to discard our best method of killing tanks in favor of theories of what might happen to the enemy survivors or kids who think it's wise to play in warzones before the dust has cleared.

You can't sue the military and they've assessed the threat of DU as minimal.

The 'Raqis, too, have decided that justice grows out of a barrel of an RPG :wink:
Enjoy the ride :twisted:

The Iraqis can't sue the military either. We could release the ebola virus on them if we wanted to. :wink: Either way, they've never won a battle in two wars, with or without old soviet surplus weaponry, and they won't win now. :)

You can't sue the military and they've assessed the threat of DU as minimal.

The 'Raqis, too, have decided that justice grows out of a barrel of an RPG :wink:
Enjoy the ride :twisted:

The Iraqis can't sue the military either. We could release the ebola virus on them if we wanted to. :wink: Either way, they've never won a battle in two wars, and they won't win now. :)

:roll:

*refrains from...*

Anyway, you didn't read the last four articles did you?

But hey, good job 'liberating' the Iraqi people. From what I've been hearing on the news lately it goes swell. Winning the battles don't win the war you know...

You can't sue the military and they've assessed the threat of DU as minimal.

The 'Raqis, too, have decided that justice grows out of a barrel of an RPG :wink:
Enjoy the ride :twisted:

The Iraqis can't sue the military either. We could release the ebola virus on them if we wanted to. :wink: Either way, they've never won a battle in two wars, and they won't win now. :)

:roll:

*refrains from...*

Anyway, you didn't read the last four articles did you?

But hey, good job 'liberating' the Iraqi people. From what I've been hearing on the news lately it goes swell. Winning the battles don't win the war you know...

Yeah, I read them. One's garbage. The others are full of "possibly," "some say" and "may be attributable to" and so on. It boils down to who you trust: NATO or some indian who blames the PNAC (who has no say on DU or military methods). Let them do a comprehensive study if they're so concerned. They need go no further than France fo an abundance of radioactive waste, depleted uranium, and the whole spectrum of nuclear byproducts. Until then, although we're done using DU now that we're in the policing phase, we'll continue to kill tanks the best way available, 50 roentgens or no 50 roentgens to the kids who play in warzones. :wink:

The pdf *is* propaganda, if you read it. It takes scant evidence and relates it to the un-relatable. (AIDS, for example) Nato's studies disagree with your numbers, and no conclusive study has been done... what you've got is conjecture and speculation. Saddam dumped and burned more oil to clog the skies in '91 and '03 than the Exxon Valdez spilled. Twice as much. The alternative hypotheses are stronger until there is real proof. Until then, we aren't going to discard our best method of killing tanks in favor of theories of what might happen to the enemy survivors or kids who think it's wise to play in warzones before the dust has cleared.

None of my facts came from the *pdf, studies done by the WHO, several branches of the US military as well as other NGO's all have concluded that there is a link between DU use and cancer rates.

The burning of petroleum has a dramatic effect on the local environment but the concentrations of birth defects and cancer do not relate to the regions affected by oil smoke. The weather patterns in the gulf dispersed the smoke over several large population centres both within and outside of Iraq. From what evidence has been collected, there is inconclusive evidence to indicate that the aforementioned environmental catastrophe could be linked to cancer rates.

As for your callous disregard for civilians caught in conflict regions, perhaps you should do some reading on what it is like to live in under threat of perpetual threat and death. I find your glib answer insulting and reeking of ignorance.

Haha Eynonistan, seriously cigarettes contain trace amounts of alpha radiation?! Haha, I learned that in 4th grade, The human body produces .005ish rads a year on its own. Almost everything produces some form of radiation... Cigarettes just have more ^_^

Heres a link http://scienceu.fsu.edu/news/healthsmart/health27.html

Roy Del Fuego is just one of the Americans who doesn't really care about the civilians in an area while hes off at home sitting in his living room watching TV, I'm thinking white Christian :wink:

Until then, although we're done using DU now that we're in the policing phase, we'll continue to kill tanks the best way available, 50 roentgens or no 50 roentgens to the kids who play in warzones. :wink:
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

War-zones are created by adults. Adults should not allow kids to 'play' in them. Americans who spout on about their 'superiority' and joke about such things are lower than any terrorist. I'm intrigued that you consider Iraq to be in a policing phase. Was Vietnam a 'police' action? How many of your countymen and women (forgetting innocent civilians which you consider less than vermin) have to die for the gangster Bush's 'policing'? Do you actually read the news or just masturbate at your computer screen? Like far too many young Americans, you're heavy on 'data' and light on real life.