NationStates Jolt Archive

Note the second picture:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/graphics/phantom_fury/flash.htm

Great photos.

Edit: I really liked them, they were very good, I wasn't being sarcastic the photographer should be proud.

Those are very good photos. Picture 15 (out of 20) recently became very famouse as the icon for fighting in Iraq.

Yes, I did note the Sarin gas. We'll probably hear more about it soon. Or as soon as its proven as enough poison to count as a WMD.

So 1,182 U.S. troops (as of Monday) have died to find 40 vials of sarin gas, which took a year and a half of unfettered access to the country to find.

And we've killed 14,000 civilians (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/) over these 40 vials of sarin gas.

Wow, I can finally say that the war was justified. :rolleyes:

Hey wow. And the labels were in english and everything.

Why wouldn't they be? English is one of the most widely used languages. If you notice there is also Cyrillic writing on it.

Interesting.

So 1,182 U.S. troops (as of Monday) have died to find 40 vials of sarin gas, which took a year and a half of unfettered access to the country to find.

And we've killed 14,000 civilians (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/) over these 40 vials of sarin gas.

Wow, I can finally say that the war was justified. :rolleyes:
Yes, so no more Halabja can happen.


The United States should be proud.

Why wouldn't they be? English is one of the most widely used languages. If you notice there is also Cyrillic writing on it.

But If it were meant for Iraqi soldiers (Not most famous for thier intellectuality) why not just put it in Arabic? Do you think its possible that they werent manufactured in Iraq? I'm not allaedging they were planted. But they certainly arent proof of a Large scale weapons producing program.
Chemical weapons are no Big thing. The Bush Administration slurred the definitions of Unconvential weapons and Weapons of Mass destruction. Chemical and even Biological weapons have no more Destructive potential than conventional explosives. So I am not terrified of them.

And notice that NO ANTHRAX or any bio weapons have been found. I'd be surprised if those Chemical weapons weren't passed their use by date, let alone any potential Bio weapons.

Its pathetic the way people keep chasing the WMD angle, be good little Neo-Con and move on to the liberation angle. Its more easilly defensable anyway.

PS: I dont know which language cyrillic is. But the only ones I can see Is English and whats possibly German or Russian or Even Greek :Snicker:. And beyond that. CAn anyone tell me what military application those "Sarin Darts" Actually have?

Yes, so no more Halabja can happen.


The United States should be proud.

Only we were 15 years too late to have any effect on the genocide of Kurds; in 1988, when this happened, we were an ally of Iraq. :rolleyes:

You don't understand the meaning of this find. Reports of Sarin gas has been "leaked" several times by US officials. While no one is saying these reports are untrue, these findings are meaningless if taken into contex with the search for WMD's. While there is a chance that some of these gas' (Sarin, Mustard, or otherwise) originated from the previous regime, that chance it is slim. And if that is the case, the gas was most definatly stolen. (Before UN pressures, Iraq did have poison gas.. cheaper then bullets I suppose).

These poisons are easy for terrorists to get hold of/produce. ..Understanding Cryllic might not be as easy -The pictures on the USA today site appear to be of some relic gas canisters from the USSR!

So 1,182 U.S. troops (as of Monday) have died to find 40 vials of sarin gas, which took a year and a half of unfettered access to the country to find.

And we've killed 14,000 civilians (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/) over these 40 vials of sarin gas.

Wow, I can finally say that the war was justified. :rolleyes:

It's 1,216 now. http://icasualties.org/oif/

Secondly, over 100,000 civilians were killed. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1338749,00.html

But If it were meant for Iraqi soldiers (Not most famous for thier intellectuality) why not just put it in Arabic? Do you think its possible that they werent manufactured in Iraq? I'm not allaedging they were planted. But they certainly arent proof of a Large scale weapons producing program.
Chemical weapons are no Big thing. The Bush Administration slurred the definitions of Unconvential weapons and Weapons of Mass destruction. Chemical and even Biological weapons have no more Destructive potential than conventional explosives. So I am not terrified of them.

And notice that NO ANTHRAX or any bio weapons have been found. I'd be surprised if those Chemical weapons weren't passed their use by date, let alone any potential Bio weapons.

Its pathetic the way people keep chasing the WMD angle, be good little Neo-Con and move on to the liberation angle. Its more easilly defensable anyway.

PS: I dont know which language cyrillic is. But the only ones I can see Is English and whats possibly German or Russian or Even Greek :Snicker:. And beyond that. CAn anyone tell me what military application those "Sarin Darts" Actually have?
First those are not "Darts" read the box.
Second, by your statement as to the lethality of Sarin you have no concept of what a lethal dose is.
There is enough Sarin in that photo to kill hundreds of people.
0.0001 mg/m3 is the Airborne exposure limit, over the course of six hours.
Lethal Exposure occurs at:
inhalation vapor 70 mg-min/m3 Effective dosages for vapor are estimated for exposure durations of 2-10 minutes
Blindness, to seizure and loss of motor function occurs in between those two doses.

*Russian is a Cyrillic language.

Hey wow. And the labels were in english and everything.
And German, and Russian

First those are not "Darts" read the box.
Second, by your statement as to the lethality of Sarin you have no concept of what a lethal dose is.
There is enough Sarin in that photo to kill hundreds of people.
0.0001 mg/m3 is the Airborne exposure limit, over the course of six hours.
Lethal Exposure occurs at:
inhalation vapor 70 mg-min/m3 Effective dosages for vapor are estimated for exposure durations of 2-10 minutes
Blindness, to seizure and loss of motor function occurs in between those two doses.

*Russian is a Cyrillic language.

Yeah. Iget it. Sarin Gas Kills. But so does a lot of other stuff. Sarin gas Isn't at the top of the list of my concerns.

When death certificates were not available, there were good reasons, say the authors. "We think it is unlikely that deaths were falsely recorded. Interviewers also believed that in the Iraqi culture it was unlikely for respondents to fabricate deaths," they write

Oh right because people dont lie...uh huh...especially folks who dont like the US..I asked my former AP Statistics teacher about this and he's a staunch liberal and even he said this sounded more like BS than the 2000 Presidental election. The survery further goes on to say that they went to 988 homes..if they did that then that means those homes would have had to witness 101 deaths each for it to come even remotely close..stop preporting that as fact.

So 1,182 U.S. troops (as of Monday) have died to find 40 vials of sarin gas, which took a year and a half of unfettered access to the country to find.

And we've killed 14,000 civilians (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/) over these 40 vials of sarin gas.

Wow, I can finally say that the war was justified. :rolleyes:


Wow, yes you can (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39045). Looks to me Like Saddam may have killed a few more on purpose than we have by accident. Way to defend a mass murderer, my hat is off to you.

These are the ones that have been more or less Verified. Consider this isnt just relating to people getting blown up. Its a compilation of everyone who has died as a result of the invasion. That includes people who could get proper medicine and those who were victims of the overall chaoticness of the country. At least thats how I was brought to understand it. I could be wrong.
Hey, If your teacher is so Liberal, why do you care what he thinks?

Wow, yes you can (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39045). Looks to me Like Saddam may have killed a few more on purpose than we have by accident. Way to defend a mass murderer, my hat is off to you.

Is revenge all you care about? Should thousands of people die so one man can be punished? Saddam was all oppressed out. He wasn't doing much that was awful lately all these are past crimes. Its not like in the Balkans where the invasion was to stop more crimes being committed.

If I wanted to stop Atrocities happening by invading countries, IRaq would not be where I start.

Wow, yes you can (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39045). Looks to me Like Saddam may have killed a few more on purpose than we have by accident. Way to defend a mass murderer, my hat is off to you.

Finally. Thank you. I guess him killing 50,000 people is okay. God help us if we try to prevent that from happening again.

BTW: New Astrolia -- We invaded the Balkans because of the ethnic cleansing that was supposedly happening. In fact, "mass graves" were reported all over the region. But somehow, once NATO got there, they were gone. Hmmm...

Also, Clinton bombed Iraq in 1998 for disobeying the UN's No Fly Zone. Thousands of civilians were killed in 3 days.

Wow, yes you can (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39045). Looks to me Like Saddam may have killed a few more on purpose than we have by accident. Way to defend a mass murderer, my hat is off to you.

Hmm, I must have missed the part where he defended Saddam. Oh, that's right, you're spouting off partisan claptrap, and he said no such thing.

So remember, kids, don't tell a Neocon that the war wasn't justified, because they found WMD ties to Al-Queda and 9/11 will accuse you of defending a murderous tyrant, and probably of being a communist!
;) (Damn eraser, never quite gets it all)

Wow, yes you can (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39045). Looks to me Like Saddam may have killed a few more on purpose than we have by accident. Way to defend a mass murderer, my hat is off to you.
Same to you and your support of mass murder. I salute you.

These are the ones that have been more or less Verified. Consider this isnt just relating to people getting blown up. Its a compilation of everyone who has died as a result of the invasion. That includes people who could get proper medicine and those who were victims of the overall chaoticness of the country. At least thats how I was brought to understand it. I could be wrong.
Hey, If your teacher is so Liberal, why do you care what he thinks?

1)They couldnt get proper medical treatment before the war. The war didnt change much. Except in the south and northern areas outside of the Sunni triangle where things have marginally improved.

2)What? Am I supposed to hold the same narrowminded view 99% of you Generalites hold on my side being the only one there is and no one else is right? Sorry I'm not nearly as polarized as you folks are.

Wow, yes you can (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39045). Looks to me Like Saddam may have killed a few more on purpose than we have by accident. Way to defend a mass murderer, my hat is off to you.

What the article fails to mention is that we allied ourselves with Iraq during the 1980's, when these atrocities were going on.

The aritcle you cited states that Saddam killed approximately 60,000 people. Well, we're well on our way to outdoing him.

the pictures were well done all the same...

Yeah. Iget it. Sarin Gas Kills. But so does a lot of other stuff. Sarin gas Isn't at the top of the list of my concerns.


Chemical weapons are no Big thing. Chemical and even Biological weapons have no more Destructive potential than conventional explosives. So I am not terrified of them.

This post was edited see page one of this thread to see New Astrolia complete post.

You obviously dont 'get it'.
Since you believe that Sarin is no more deadly then HMX or RDX or Dynamite.
Then there is the MAtter of the issue of large scale production which is not in question by any nation and my daughter could do a cursory search and find a dozen links to reputable sources that state Iraq had a large scale production facility.
Kurdish and Iranian survivors reports of being taken to Facilities where test could be done is one very bit of 'proof'.

You dont have to be for the War in Iraq to admit that there is still some good coming out of this.
Or you could just contnue to goose step down the halls of self righteous indignation regardless of what is put in front of your face..

1) Take it up with the Statisicians. But dont forget, the only difference between now and then is that now the coalition is responsible for the lack of medical care. Do you know what the Leiukemia rates in Iraq are, due to DU and Gulf war syndrome? Iraq has much worse medical problems than comperable states. So when the invasion happened and the system was disrupted sp that could have pushed a lot of people over the edge. So that could account for some of the stats.

2) I dont quite understand what your trying to say there.

This post was edited see page one of this thread to see New Astrolia complete post.

You obviously dont 'get it'.
Since you believe that Sarin is no more deadly then HMX or RDX or Dynamite.
Then there is the MAtter of the issue of large scale production which is not in question by any nation and my daughter could do a cursory search and find a dozen links to reputable sources that state Iraq had a large scale production facility.
Kurdish and Iranian survivors reports of being taken to Facilities where test could be done is one very bit of 'proof'.

You dont have to be for the War in Iraq to admit that there is still some good coming out of this.
Or you could just contnue to goose step down the halls of self righteous indignation regardless of what is put in front of your face..

Lets see, why don't we send thousands of troops to America, blow the crap out of it, lie about the reason, cover our butts by searching for months, and ya know what, I bet ya we could find some disturbing shit. Heck I've seen doco's of texans who run around saying "Look what I've got" and because you've got your "god given right" to have weapons no one cares. Oh and when we find a pack of bad chemicals we'll screen to high heaven saying "LOOK WE JUSTIFIED KILLING THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE YAY!"

Oh sorry, but your America.

Then there is the MAtter of the issue of large scale production which is not in question by any nation and my daughter could do a cursory search and find a dozen links to reputable sources that state Iraq had a large scale production facility.

Fascinating...perhaps your daughter could tell the US government where they are, then, since the government can't seem to actually find any themselves...

Lets see, why don't we send thousands of troops to America, blow the crap out of it, lie about the reason, cover our butts by searching for months, and ya know what, I bet ya we could find some disturbing shit. Heck I've seen doco's of texans who run around saying "Look what I've got" and because you've got your "god given right" to have weapons no one cares. Oh and when we find a pack of bad chemicals we'll screen to high heaven saying "LOOK WE JUSTIFIED KILLING THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE YAY!"

Oh sorry, but your America.

Oh for the love of Jesus. Stigmitize 270 Million people, please. You going for Russia next?

What you're saying is no better than what you're arguing against.

1) Take it up with the Statisicians. But dont forget, the only difference between now and then is that now the coalition is responsible for the lack of medical care. Do you know what the Leiukemia rates in Iraq are, due to DU and Gulf war syndrome? Iraq has much worse medical problems than comperable states. So when the invasion happened and the system was disrupted sp that could have pushed a lot of people over the edge. So that could account for some of the stats.

2) I dont quite understand what your trying to say there.
Do YOU know whatthe Leiukemia rates are in Iraq?
What were they prior to the use of the DPU rounds(which have been being phased out of use over the last ten years)
You said DPU and Gulf War Syndrome--I though DPUs casued Gulf War Syndrome or do we just carry it when ever we enter the gulf.
If Gulf War syndrome increased the Leiukemia rate then what delivered the GWS?

In convention terms. Chemical weapons are no more deadly. They evaporate into the air very quickly and so wouldn't kill many more than a conventional explosives attack. You would need more than a few shells to get something really devastating going. And It wouldn't be preferable to deploy in a Well ventilated area :D

And those annonymous sources you refer to cant be all that reputable if you assert that. Or maybe you and I just have a different definitions of the qualifier "reputable"

Its not some lameass thinktank or blog is it?> Because as I've said. NS probably has more credibility than a lot of them.

Whats happened has happened. But before the invasion I was opposed to the war because the coalition was the aggressor and the aggressor is always wrong. Thats all I need to know. On the other hand, It all depends on what you think is good. Mucho bad has also happened. So maybe it was best to keep things stable rather than muck it all up.

I dont know what the rates are. Its been ages since I checked. Maybe they have crashed, maybe everyone who had it died so the rates have come down again. But there is definately evidence of radiation contamination in Iraq.

GWS is just that, a syndrome. DU would seem to contribute to it, but there are certainly other potential causes, Like Bodgy vaccines and .... Chemical Weapons :D Even though HW. verhmently denies it. Mainly because he sold them to Iraq in the first place. The symptoms of all those would culminate into the syndrome which bears the name of the gulf war.

And since when was the US phasing out the use of DU? First I've heard of it, although if they were they certainly wouldn't make a lot of noise about it.

1) Take it up with the Statisicians. But dont forget, the only difference between now and then is that now the coalition is responsible for the lack of medical care. Do you know what the Leiukemia rates in Iraq are, due to DU and Gulf war syndrome? Iraq has much worse medical problems than comperable states. So when the invasion happened and the system was disrupted sp that could have pushed a lot of people over the edge. So that could account for some of the stats.

2) I dont quite understand what your trying to say there.

1)As opposed to all those oil wells which were set on fire? If I wasnt mistaken those Leiukemia rates spiked on in Southern Iraq. In the same regions where contaminated smoke would have blown from those breezes off the Persian Gulf. Because there has yet to be a conclusive link to the DU. Gulf War Syndrome itself is still an unknown, some scientists think some of the nerve gas(back in 91 he still had sizeable quantities of the stuff) storage areas Saddam kept were hit by bombs, and when US troops moved into the area they were properly protected.

As for DU...where are the similar reports from Kosovo and the Former Yugoslavia? We hit them to with DU rounds.

2)You commented why would I listen to my teacher because he's a liberal, my comment, why wouldnt I? Simple enough for you? Or should I draw it out for your understanding?

Same to you and your support of mass murder. I salute you.
Mass murder?

Did someone call for some mass murder?

I guess not.

"Okay, Jerry, you can put the chainsaw back in the shed, we aren't gonna need it..."

In convention terms. Chemical weapons are no more deadly. They evaporate into the air very quickly and so wouldn't kill many more than a conventional explosives attack. You would need more than a few shells to get something really devastating going. And It wouldn't be preferable to deploy in a Well ventilated area :D


Umm..right evaporate quickly except for Mustard Gas..or Cyclosarin....I could go on but why bother you'll ignore it anywa.

Oh for the love of Jesus. Stigmitize 270 Million people, please. You going for Russia next?

What you're saying is no better than what you're arguing against.
Oh for the love of Buddha. It was hyperbole. Go learn english debating tactics.

Fascinating...perhaps your daughter could tell the US government where they are, then, since the government can't seem to actually find any themselves...
1. http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=2&q=http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/fallujah.htm&e=9901
2. http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=4&q=http://www.ceip.org/files/nonprolif/templates/article.asp%3FNewsID%3D4928&e=9901

3. http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=17&q=http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/iraq/un_wmd.html&e=9901

Those are every reason to believe that Iraq is stockpiling because we couldnt account for stockpiles of CW, or the chemical precursors and equipment to prodice large quatities of CW.

I do not support this WMD line thinking, however your "Victim Saddam" line of thinking is utter nonsense.

Oh for the love of Buddha. It was hyperbole. Go learn english debating tactics.

A hyperbole? That's what you'd call a hyperbole?

I'm not quite sure I'm the one who needs to "go learn" english debating tactics. Hyperboles shouldn't be used in debate. It demeans the entire purpose.

Facts are welcome. "Hyperboles", however, make it a child's argument. Sound and Fury signifying nothing. :)

I think it was known before the war that Zarqawi was making Sarin gas. I don't think this qualifies as anything we didn't know.

In convention terms. Chemical weapons are no more deadly. They evaporate into the air very quickly and so wouldn't kill many more than a conventional explosives attack. You would need more than a few shells to get something really devastating going. And It wouldn't be preferable to deploy in a Well ventilated area :D

And those annonymous sources you refer to cant be all that reputable if you assert that. Or maybe you and I just have a different definitions of the qualifier "reputable"

Its not some lameass thinktank or blog is it?> Because as I've said. NS probably has more credibility than a lot of them.

Whats happened has happened. But before the invasion I was opposed to the war because the coalition was the aggressor and the aggressor is always wrong. Thats all I need to know. On the other hand, It all depends on what you think is good. Mucho bad has also happened. So maybe it was best to keep things stable rather than muck it all up.

I dont know what the rates are. Its been ages since I checked. Maybe they have crashed, maybe everyone who had it died so the rates have come down again. But there is definately evidence of radiation contamination in Iraq.

GWS is just that, a syndrome. DU would seem to contribute to it, but there are certainly other potential causes, Like Bodgy vaccines and .... Chemical Weapons :D Even though HW. verhmently denies it. Mainly because he sold them to Iraq in the first place. The symptoms of all those would culminate into the syndrome which bears the name of the gulf war.

And since when was the US phasing out the use of DU? First I've heard of it, although if they were they certainly wouldn't make a lot of noise about it.
first Mustard Gas can remain for weeks, along with several others in low lieing areas.
Second since you have no concept of how CW work I am not surprised you didnt know that the DU round is being phased out.
That process began pre-gulf war one.
Though the Army officially denies any danger from the round, it is still being phased out being replaced with a tungsten carbide hardened stell replacement--old way.
If GWS is a syndrome caused by chemical weapons then you aresuggesting that chemical weapons were used on American GIs and then by your post also on Iraqis.
You also suggested a vaccine which the IRaqis have not recieved, just the GIs.
And if you dont know what the rates are --Why did you ask the question?
For dramatic effect thats why.
So which conspiracy theory are you going with because you seem to have a whole jumble with a lot of twisted half facts.

But we were talking about Sarin werent we? Other gasses may, but as I said. Its hardly comperable to the damage a nuclear weapon can wreack. And you still need a lot of it. You seem to keep ignoring that fact.

You cant deny that Gulf War Syndrome exists. And since it has such a broad range of symptoms you cant put it down any one cause apart from having been in the Gulf War. In fact A British comission concluded recently that Gulf War syndrome Exists. Perhaps the main reason there is little "Conclusive" proof of the harmfull effects of DU and its link to GWS is because the DOD has actively hampered efforts. Clicky (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4018603.stm)

And NY&J there ARE reports of it from Kosova and Former Yukoslavia.

Coincidently check out this PDF I found on the DTIC public server by A Col. Wakayama.
Clicky (http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2002training/wakayama2.pdf)

Interesting little Bio-Physics lesson there.
I dont know what his deal is, but it shows not everyone in the DOD is willing to tow the party line.

Oh for the love of Buddha. It was hyperbole. Go learn english debating tactics.
A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect,

You should go learn english debating tactics--you will not find hyperbole.

1. http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=2&q=http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/fallujah.htm&e=9901
2. http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=4&q=http://www.ceip.org/files/nonprolif/templates/article.asp%3FNewsID%3D4928&e=9901

3. http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=17&q=http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/iraq/un_wmd.html&e=9901

Those are every reason to believe that Iraq is stockpiling because we couldnt account for stockpiles of CW, or the chemical precursors and equipment to prodice large quatities of CW.

Let's see...a location defunct since 1991 in link 1, and no substantial information in links 2 or 3. Am I supposed to be shut down by the fact that saddam once had WMDs? In a word, "duh." Yet, for all your certainty, no weapons or working production facilities have been found. Hmm...

I do not support this WMD line thinking, however your "Victim Saddam" line of thinking is utter nonsense.

*Yawn* How tiresome - get a real argument. No one has even uttered the claim that Saddam was a victim. No one ever has. Saying that US was in the wrong does not necessitate a belief that Saddam was in the right.

But we were talking about Sarin werent we? Other gasses may, but as I said. Its hardly comperable to the damage a nuclear weapon can wreack. And you still need a lot of it. You seem to keep ignoring that fact.

You cant deny that Gulf War Syndrome exists. And since it has such a broad range of symptoms you cant put it down any one cause apart from having been in the Gulf War. In fact A British comission concluded recently that Gulf War syndrome Exists. Perhaps the main reason there is little "Conclusive" proof of the harmfull effects of DU and its link to GWS is because the DOD has actively hampered efforts. Clicky (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4018603.stm)

And NY&J there ARE reports of it from Kosova and Former Yukoslavia.

Coincidently check out this PDF I found on the DTIC public server by A Col. Wakayama.
Clicky (http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2002training/wakayama2.pdf)

Interesting little Bio-Physics lesson there.
I dont know what his deal is, but it shows not everyone in the DOD is willing to tow the party line.
Sarin is not the only gas in the Iraqi stockpile.
I am not denying it exists, i am saying you are throwing it out there like Americans are inflicting it on people like it was a weapon which is absurd.
Second you have not offered one shred of ...anything but your conjecture and opinion.
You didnt say it was comparable to nukes--you said conventionals.
And Sarin is comparable to nukes, pound for pound it kills more people.
Is easier to manutfacture and deliver.
Again why did you ask if someone else knew medical facts about Iraq when you admittedly didnt know your self?
Why now are you pretending I said that GWS doesnt exist when I never said any such thing?
Dramatic effect, you cant argue, so you dramatize.

But we were talking about Sarin werent we? Other gasses may, but as I said. Its hardly comperable to the damage a nuclear weapon can wreack. And you still need a lot of it. You seem to keep ignoring that fact.

You cant deny that Gulf War Syndrome exists. And since it has such a broad range of symptoms you cant put it down any one cause apart from having been in the Gulf War. In fact A British comission concluded recently that Gulf War syndrome Exists. Perhaps the main reason there is little "Conclusive" proof of the harmfull effects of DU and its link to GWS is because the DOD has actively hampered efforts. Clicky (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4018603.stm)

And NY&J there ARE reports of it from Kosova and Former Yukoslavia.

Coincidently check out this PDF I found on the DTIC public server by A Col. Wakayama.
Clicky (http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2002training/wakayama2.pdf)

Interesting little Bio-Physics lesson there.
I dont know what his deal is, but it shows not everyone in the DOD is willing to tow the party line.

Fine lets throw links around, NATO study conducted in 2001:
http://www.nato.int/du/docu/d010207b.htm

Here's another one, this one is pretty funny and sad..Soviet Industrialization hurray!
http://www.keepmedia.com/acct/QuickRegSubmit.do;jsessionid=a-D0eZ0snF3h

I never said the Gulf War syndrome didnt exist. I said you couldnt pin it on DU.

And you were talking chemical weapons. But if you want to change it to Sarin then fine, it evaporates quickly but not quick enough not to kill scores of people.

Good night all.

And if you dont know what the rates are --Why did you ask the question? For dramatic effect thats why.

Well I didn't know. I was hoping you knew ;) Why I asked.

And I dont think you really know how dangerous Chemical weapons are either. Do you know how much was used at Hallabja? ( XD ) It was a lot. From a heavy artillery bombardment and also from the air. The stuff does not quallify as a WMD. Which was the point of my original post. Which you have managed to steer the conversation away from ( Thats Right, I can deconstruct too)

I find it surprising that The U.S would walk away from DU in favour of tungsten. Especially since China has the worlds largest reserves.
Could you dig up a link? Because I cant find any reference to it.

And I dont think you really know how dangerous Chemical weapons are either. Do you know how much was used at Hallabja? ( XD ) It was a lot. From a heavy artillery bombardment and also from the air. The stuff does not quallify as a WMD. Which was the point of my original post. Which you have managed to steer the conversation away from ( Thats Right, I can deconstruct too).

Wait hold on, they dont classifiy as WMDs? In your opinion...which doesnt appear to be the opinion of multiple world governments. Heck Mustard Gas only had a 1% lethality rate in WWI but is still classified as a WMD because the effects of it are severe long lasting and can be leathal. A WMD does not mean instant death. You only get that kind of lethality with nuclear weapons.

PS":

WOO YEAH. I win!

Oh, Damn. Bedou has excapeded without telling me more about this purpurted DU outphasing. Youd think 15 years would be long enough for them to get their act together wouldn't you?

Oh yeh. NY&J is still around.

No I dont. But If you want to get into the whole definition of WMD then we'll be here for a while. And I dont think either of us know enough about the subject to talk about well. WMD is a rhetorical term. It means nothing and while it was around before the Neo-Cons popularised it. During the Cold War, Unconventional weaponry was a far more popular and descriptive term.

Oh yeh. NY&J is still around.

No I dont. But If you want to get into the whole definition of WMD then we'll be here for a while. And I dont think either of us know enough about the subject to talk about well. WMD is a rhetorical term. It means nothing and while it was around before the Neo-Cons popularised it. During the Cold War, Unconventional weaponry was a far more popular and descriptive term.

Oh your funny :rolleyes:

Sorry I dont feel like openly insulting you to get your attention but if you want I can start. Dont think the mods will be happy about that..but let me give you a puzzle: your out head Get of ass your. Feel free to work on that long as you want.

Oh and I'd love to hear your definition of WMD anyway and why you dont consider Chemical weapons to fall under that category.

BTW: New Astrolia -- We invaded the Balkans because of the ethnic cleansing that was supposedly happening. In fact, "mass graves" were reported all over the region. But somehow, once NATO got there, they were gone. Hmmm...


http://beqiraj.com/kosova/de/war_crimes/index.asp

well there goes that idea...

Is revenge all you care about? Should thousands of people die so one man can be punished? Saddam was all oppressed out. He wasn't doing much that was awful lately all these are past crimes. Its not like in the Balkans where the invasion was to stop more crimes being committed.

If I wanted to stop Atrocities happening by invading countries, IRaq would not be where I start.

Um, my post has nothing to do with revenge. I'm simply stating that he was outraged by 14,000 people being killed on accident, which is a terrible tragedy, but he doesn't even care about the thousands murdered by Saddam.

Hmm, I must have missed the part where he defended Saddam. Oh, that's right, you're spouting off partisan claptrap, and he said no such thing.

Right, but I'm guessing by what he was saying that he thinks that we should not have removed Saddam from power and allowed him to keep on massacring people.

Same to you and your support of mass murder. I salute you.

I never said I support mass murder. Your sarcasm amuses me, and makes me laugh because the best you can do is regurgitate what I have just said in a somewhat twisted form.

What the article fails to mention is that we allied ourselves with Iraq during the 1980's, when these atrocities were going on.

The aritcle you cited states that Saddam killed approximately 60,000 people. Well, we're well on our way to outdoing him.

For the first part, I'm assuming you're implying guilt by association, and for the second part according to your link, we're still at least 46,000 people shy, so I don't think we're "well on our way."

But If it were meant for Iraqi soldiers (Not most famous for thier intellectuality) why not just put it in Arabic? Do you think its possible that they werent manufactured in Iraq?

PS: I dont know which language cyrillic is. But the only ones I can see Is English and whats possibly German or Russian or Even Greek :Snicker:. And beyond that. CAn anyone tell me what military application those "Sarin Darts" Actually have?
Obvoiusly it was obtained from the Russians.

Cyrillic is the Russian alphabet.

Military application of those "Sarin Darts"? Well im not exactly sure, but 1 or 2 of those vials would take out a nice chunk of Baghdad.

Sorry to break up the party, but I think those are actually ampules you take to PROTECT against nerve gas (it's probably atropine in there).

The clue is in the 'SOMAN, SARIN, V-GASES' - those are three different things. It can't be all of them at the same time. More likely it is to protect against all of the things listed.

Besides - how the heck would you use those as a weapon? They're in fragile glass tubes - you can't fire them, and okay, you could throw them (although not very far because they are also unbalanced) if you were in an NBC suit, but a grenade would probably be better.

oh well
In the course of locating seven weapons caches in a single block around a mosque in northeast Fallujah, an Iraqi platoon Wednesday found a suitcase full of vials labeled "Sarin," a deadly nerve agent.

While further analysis determined that the find was probably part of a Soviet test kit with samples, its discovery in a room with mortar shells appeared to indicate an intent to weaponize the material.


To bad no one reports the two rockets the Polish found in Al Hillah, Iraq in July 2004.The rounds were tested and showed positive for Sarin gas....

"In the course of locating seven weapons caches in a single block around a mosque in northeast Fallujah, an Iraqi platoon Wednesday found a suitcase full of vials labeled "Sarin," a deadly nerve agent. While further analysis determined that the find was probably part of a Soviet test kit with samples, its discovery in a room with mortar shells appeared to indicate an intent to weaponize the material."

Like fuck. What kind of journalism is that? It was found next to some ammunition, so it must be an attempt to weaponise it? Get outta here! Listen, I was a research chemist for the Ministry of Defence, and I can tell you that you don't 'weaponise' nerve gases in the field by taking mortar bombs to bits and pouring deadly chemicals that evapourate very quickly inside, because it will have bugger all effect. You do it by putting them into sealed compartments in a laboratory.

The key to weaponising is to create an aerosol of the nerve gas. Putting it next to a high explosive will probably convert most of it to harmless by-products as the explosive reacts (plus unless you can seal it properly most of it will have leaked away and evapourated before you use it, and unless everyone who handles it is in a sealed suit it will probably be more harmful to the firers than the target anyway).

This is pie in the sky rationalisation of a bad war. Those are atropine ampules for chemical DEFENCE, I'm pretty sure, because the ones the British Army use look very similar. It was just that some hack at USA Today didn't know what the hell he was talking about (and that would be no surprise for most journalists, and I speak as someone who is today a chemical industry journalist). If this was really WMD all of the news services would have picked this up and the US government would be shouting it from the rooftops. But they're not. I wonder why...

I gather they were attempting to use the samples of live sarin that were included in the kit. Perhaps the insurgent(s) beleived lacing the mortar shells with the sarin samples would cause more casualties. The average insurgent is not a research chemist and would not know that doing so would render the chemicals harmless. Whether or not this is actualy dangerous material, it points out an attempt by the Iraqis to use chemical weapons

Woo Yeh! Vindication :P

Oh your funny

Sorry I dont feel like openly insulting you to get your attention but if you want I can start. Dont think the mods will be happy about that..but let me give you a puzzle: your out head Get of ass your. Feel free to work on that long as you want.

Oh and I'd love to hear your definition of WMD anyway and why you dont consider Chemical weapons to fall under that category.

Well I do feel offended. But that doesn't matter.

As I said WMD is a rhetorical term. Its very name betrays its rhetorical nature. Weapon of mass Destruction A weapon that destroys things. To take a conservative materialist view I construe that to mean the destruction of things. Not people. It causes lots of collateral Damage. Chemical and biological weapons only kill people. They leave the land relatively intact. Kinda like neutron bombs ;) (Now that has to have been the stupidiest idea ever) It should be noted that WMD was never a term used by the military, but one used by the peace movement of the late Twentieth Century. The Term Militaries and anaylists used, at least in the West was the term Unconventional warfare. Which basically came down to the expanded application of the M.A.D theory.
"You do it to use, we do it to you" All of that stuff was very useful politically. Because if you got some, then your enemy would too and so you could point in a panickstricken manner and shout "Look, Look Be afraid now" It worked for both sides.

Hmmmm, I seem to have forgotten what I was talking about.
Chemical weapons. As I keep saying. You need a lot to make it effective. Sure A tiny amount can kill you, but a tiny explosion in your brain could do the same. In the Lab. But in the field things are much less clear cut. Each person would need to have at least draw one breath to make it effective, And I dont know how much that one breath would contain. But probably not a lot, since you cant prevent gas from trying to spread out. Its like dropping lemonade in the ocean, it would dilute and spread out very fast.

Thats why World governments never got into Chemical weapons. They are just too much of a hassle.

PS: Or maybe it was just some looted stuff. Anyone who can rig up a bomb, should be intelligent enough to know that if you wanna release some gas, and explosion is a stupid way to do it.

wmd

W.M.D. n : a weapon that kills or injures civilian as well as military personnel (nuclear and chemical and biological weapons) [syn: weapon of mass destruction, WMD, W.M.D.]

Who the hell comes up with that definition and why should I accept it. Notice that definition could apply to conventional explosives as well. A lot more civilians have died because of explosives that were meant for soldiers than from Bio or chemical weapons. Or CBW as some have called them.

Its a rhetorical term. To me WMD is simply the thing that hasn't been found in Iraq.

Miriam Webster

I gather they were attempting to use the samples of live sarin that were included in the kit. Perhaps the insurgent(s) beleived lacing the mortar shells with the sarin samples would cause more casualties. The average insurgent is not a research chemist and would not know that doing so would render the chemicals harmless. Whether or not this is actualy dangerous material, it points out an attempt by the Iraqis to use chemical weapons

It would render the insurgents quite unwell if they broke open a vial of sarin in a confined space without proper protection (no protective suits found there, I note). I see no attempt to use it, even assuming that it really genuinely IS nerve gas (still not convinced about that). If this were an attempt to use it, why didn't they?

Dangerous is a relative term. Nerve gases can be deadly, no question about it. But it's all about how it's used, and in what quantity. The Aum Shinrikyo cult in Tokyo used Sarin on the underground rail system in several big buckets in a confined space against unprotected and unaware civilians and still only managed to kill a dozen or so. That is because they relied upon it evaporating, meaning it was inhaled in fairly low quantities and most people were able to detect the effect and move away from the problem before they had taken in a lethal dose. The best delivery system is via aerosol, ie droplets of liquid that can land on you and then be absorbed via skin (but this is slow - it's easy to spot it and wash it off) or in the lungs, throat or eyes (much quicker and deadlier) - liquids are much more concentrated than gases - the phrase 'nerve gas' is a misnomer. That way you usually have sufficient quantity already in your system that by the time you notice the effects or take countermeasures it's already too late. Troops are trained to use atropine injectors within 30 seconds of exposure. Beyond that they're probably dead.

But that is what 'weaponising' usually means - spraying it in small droplets via specially constructed shells that have low amounts of explosive and which are designed to distribute the nerve gas as an aerosol over a large area. You could probably do it from a crop spraying plane, too, like they did against the Kurds IIRC.

Even this IS sarin and soman and V-X and other V-gases, it's not in readily usable form. Breaking a tube and chucking it at the enemy is going to be relatively ineffective and is probably going to kill or incapacitate far more of your own team that it ever does the opposition. If it IS actual nerve gas, there is enough there that it could be dangerous if properly weaponised, I'll grant you, but that takes research and development and sealed areas and all of the kind of parephernalia that hasn't really been found in Iraq. There is not enough there to be especially deadly if it isn't weaponised.

PS - I'm not sure why you say 'live' sarin - it's a chemical, not a virus; it's not alive.

PS: I dont know which language cyrillic is. But the only ones I can see Is English and whats possibly German or Russian or Even Greek :Snicker:. And beyond that. CAn anyone tell me what military application those "Sarin Darts" Actually have?

Cyrillic is the alphabet used for writing Russian, Ukrainian, Mongolian and many other Eastern European and Northern Asian languages.

All the BS aside would you be going to Iraq to fight??? :sniper:
Especially in Fallujah would you willingly follow your country men into hells kitchen???

Cyrillic is the alphabet used for writing Russian, Ukrainian, Mongolian and many other Eastern European and Northern Asian languages.

How I never knew that. Even Monolian huh? Whats this cultural influence a result of/

How I never knew that. Even Monolian huh? Whats this cultural influence a result of/

The Cyrillic alphabet was invented for writing down Russian, by St Cyril (hence the name). When the soviet union invaded countries that used non-cyrillic alphabets, it made them use the Cyrillic alphabet. So I suppose arab countries that are ex soviet-union like tajikistan might write arabic in cyrillic.

I know that the mongolian language has its own alphabet, but Mongolia proper was influenced by the soviet union so writes in cyrillic, and Inner Mongolia (a province of china that is basically the bottom half of mongolia, annexed by china) writes the same language using the original mongolian characters.

These are good short articles about mongolian http://www.omniglot.com/writing/mongolian.htm


and cyrillic
http://www.omniglot.com/writing/cyrillic.htm


Back to the sarin - since the vials are marked in english, russian and german, i'd say they are cold war, pre 1990, when half of germany was on the same side as the soviet union.

Wow, yes you can (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39045). Looks to me Like Saddam may have killed a few more on purpose than we have by accident. Way to defend a mass murderer, my hat is off to you.

What you fail to acknowledge is that when Saddam gassed those people, he had the blessing of the Reagan administration, most notably Donald Rumsfeld, we have the video of their meetings and the record of gifts from the whitehouse before and after this occurence. Not only that, the UK and the US were selling them the materials to make chemical and bio weapons. Thanks neocons, thanks for ENABLING a mass murderer. And you know what else? This stuff is in a briefcase most likely carried in by our good friend's the saudis, yeah the same guys who did 9/11.

It was SOO the Iranians :p

Well I didn't know. I was hoping you knew ;) Why I asked.

And I dont think you really know how dangerous Chemical weapons are either. Do you know how much was used at Hallabja? ( XD ) It was a lot. From a heavy artillery bombardment and also from the air. The stuff does not quallify as a WMD. Which was the point of my original post. Which you have managed to steer the conversation away from ( Thats Right, I can deconstruct too)

I find it surprising that The U.S would walk away from DU in favour of tungsten. Especially since China has the worlds largest reserves.
Could you dig up a link? Because I cant find any reference to it.
The Sarin thing aside.
NO I cant dig a link up- I know the DU thiing from first hand experience.
Circa Gulf War a buddy of mine did some digging into the use of DUs and discovered that though the Government was denying his illness had anything to do with DUs-the round was being phased out.
The Tungsten AP round is the old round used by the military- we are returning to it.
That is according to a close friend, and several people I associate with still in the service.
My friend is former Army.
The people I deal with through my work are Airforce.
Tungsten Carbide hardened steel is less expensive to use and handle then DUs.
It is even cost effective.
Or so I am told.
So please feel free to take it as conjecture, as I cant supply a direct source, or prove I have uttered a word to military personel.
Anyway, point in case, I disagree with you that absolutely nothing good is coming from the Iraq situation.

Note the second picture:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/graphics/phantom_fury/flash.htm
Several problems here:

1. How many competent weapon inspectors do you need to tell you that there are NO WMD in Iraq? There have been 4 so far....Ritter, Blix, McKay and Dulfer (sp?).

2. The label on the left one looks relatively new, leading to the following possibilities, and scenarios:

a) Planted by the Marines?

b) Brought in by the terrorists after the US invasion?

c) Are pictures of tubes with no gases inside, with a label slapped on them to make them look like they are sarin gas?

d) Are the pictures of the sarin gas taken in the US?

And.... the biggest question:

e) If Iraqis, and/or terrorists actually had these weapons, why the hell didn't they use them, considering the destructive forces used the US to destroy the city of Fallujah?

3. Do you honestly believe that the destruction of Iraqi cities one by one is going to win the fabled war on terrorism?

That's one hell of an unsafe way to store sarin and soman. Glass vials in a cardboard box with minimal cushioning? Also little glass vials, if they do contain nerve agents, are most likely for research. Nerve agents are loaded into bombs, shells, or aircraft with aerosol sprayers to use against the enemy. The total ammount of nerve gas in those vials would be less effective than a good artillery barrage.

It's 1,216 now. http://icasualties.org/oif/

Secondly, over 100,000 civilians were killed. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1338749,00.html

The figure of 100,000 needs clarification as it is inaccurate and misleading.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/

The figure of 100,000 needs clarification as it is inaccurate and misleading.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/



From that Article:

Finally, we reject any attempt, by pro-war governments and others, to minimise the seriousness of deaths so far recorded by comparing them to higher figures, be they of deaths under Saddam's regime, or in other much larger-scale wars. Amnesty International, which criticized and drew attention to the brutality of the Saddam Hussein regime long before the governments which launched the 2003 attack on Iraq, estimated that violent deaths attributable to Saddam's government numbered at most in the hundreds during the years immediately leading up to 2003. Those wishing to make the "more lives ultimately saved" argument will need to make their comparisons with the number of civilians likely to have been killed had Saddam Hussein's reign continued into 2003-2004, not in comparison to the number of deaths for which he was responsible in the 1980s and early 1990s, or to casualty figures during WWII.

Wow, labels in German, Russia and English. The only Arabic is on the envolope. Wonder who sold it, the US, UK, Germany or Russia.

Anyhoo, how old is that stuff, Scott Ritter said Sarin has a life of about 5 years, so is it even effective anymore? Well, I guess we just dont know, have to wait for the test results.


EDIT - The Christian Science Moniter (http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1112/p01s02-woiq.html) and other site say that this is likely an old Soviet testing kit.

lmao, anyone trying to suggest this "sarin" which apparently belonged to insurgents is even remotely linked to the reasons/justifications for going to war (WMD) is seriously mistaken.....both in regards to what sarin can do, how you must use it for it to be effective, and the likely source of this.

Sarin isn't exactly hard to get hold of either, the US have millions of tonnes of it in mountain bunkers (but for some reason it's ok if the US have it) and Japanese "terrorists" got hold of it relatively easily for use in the Tokyo attack. The black market in chemicals is relatively widespread

From that Article:

Finally, we reject any attempt, by pro-war governments and others, to minimise the seriousness of deaths so far recorded by comparing them to higher figures, be they of deaths under Saddam's regime, or in other much larger-scale wars. Amnesty International, which criticized and drew attention to the brutality of the Saddam Hussein regime long before the governments which launched the 2003 attack on Iraq, estimated that violent deaths attributable to Saddam's government numbered at most in the hundreds during the years immediately leading up to 2003. Those wishing to make the "more lives ultimately saved" argument will need to make their comparisons with the number of civilians likely to have been killed had Saddam Hussein's reign continued into 2003-2004, not in comparison to the number of deaths for which he was responsible in the 1980s and early 1990s, or to casualty figures during WWII.

So to justify an inflated figure of 100,000 civilian deaths you have to ignore over 2 decades of genocide by Saddam and the boys, focus on 2-3 years of fewer killings, take a sampling of fewer than 1000 families with no guidelines for accurate sampling (weather or not the dead were involved in the fighting, casualty figures collected from more peaceful areas for accurate cross-reference, cause of death <weather by insurgent, military, or accidental>), and ignore the probable future threat Saddam posed for other countries. Hmmmm......think your argument may be a little biased?

All right, all right. First things first.

No Arabic on the labels = No damn way those were produced within Iraq. Period, end of bullsh!tting (hopefully). Russian and German on the same label strongly implicates East Germany, which means before 1989.

Second. One label has a date on it, with the year very conveniently obscured. If those boxes didn't come in with the Marines, which I highly doubt because even this administration isn't that colossally stupid, there is no way to be sure those vials aren't leftovers from the pre-sanctions era. Which means they would be useless; the shelf life of that stuff isn't that long.

Right, but I'm guessing by what he was saying that he thinks that we should not have removed Saddam from power and allowed him to keep on massacring people.

Are those the only two options that occur to you? This is why I worry about America today.

Everyone knows Saddam needed to go, but there were right and wrong ways to do it. I think Bush fgured out a way to do the most wrong thing possible, short of nuking the whole damn country. It's moronic to imply that the only two possiblities here are that you either approve of Bush's invasion or you think that Saddam should have been left in place, under some kind of delusion that he was a good person. That kind of "thinking" only flies on AM radio, and it amazes me when I hear people repeating it in the real world.

So to justify an inflated figure of 100,000 civilian deaths you have to ignore over 2 decades of genocide by Saddam and the boys, focus on 2-3 years of fewer killings, take a sampling of fewer than 1000 families with no guidelines for accurate sampling (weather or not the dead were involved in the fighting, casualty figures collected from more peaceful areas for accurate cross-reference, cause of death <weather by insurgent, military, or accidental>), and ignore the probable future threat Saddam posed for other countries. Hmmmm......think your argument may be a little biased?

It's better than you claiming that it's an inflated figure and not justifying that claim at all, for starters.

Secondly, it does make quite a bit of sense to analyze the present, you know, the time period we're actually dealing with. It may not serve the needs of the 'hawks, but I buy the citation of the gassing of the Kurds as much as I do when using that same argument to claim Saddam had WMDs. Not present, not really important. As for the "probable future threat," what threat would that be? It's been determined that the sanctions were working, and that Saddam's means were wasted away to virtually nothing (oh, but of course he wanted to destroy the US, so we should all tremble in fear :rolleyes: ), so what future threat are you referring to?

It's better than you claiming that it's an inflated figure and not justifying that claim at all, for starters.

Secondly, it does make quite a bit of sense to analyze the present, you know, the time period we're actually dealing with. It may not serve the needs of the 'hawks, but I buy the citation of the gassing of the Kurds as much as I do when using that same argument to claim Saddam had WMDs. Not present, not really important. As for the "probable future threat," what threat would that be? It's been determined that the sanctions were working, and that Saddam's means were wasted away to virtually nothing (oh, but of course he wanted to destroy the US, so we should all tremble in fear :rolleyes: ), so what future threat are you referring to?

So...if a guy rapes a woman 20 years ago..then does it again 15 years ago..infact is a serial rapist...goes to jail and rapes someone again presently..you wouldnt consider his past rapes to establish a probable cause? Because thats what Bush did with Saddam. In the past between 91-98 UN Weapons inspectors believed Saddam was hiding them. Heck Clinton bombed Saddam for three days because he felt Saddam was hiding something.

So...if a guy rapes a woman 20 years ago..then does it again 15 years ago..infact is a serial rapist...goes to jail and rapes someone again presently..you wouldnt consider his past rapes to establish a probable cause? Because thats what Bush did with Saddam. In the past between 91-98 UN Weapons inspectors believed Saddam was hiding them. Heck Clinton bombed Saddam for three days because he felt Saddam was hiding something.

Poor analogy. You'd be a little more accurate were you to add that the rapist (gee, that's not a weighted analogy - to disagree, one must defend rapists!) is now so weak that he can barely move, much less rape anyone. Then I might give this argument a little credit.

I dont believe a hard line on criminals is a good way to go either. What does it solve? Who does it help? The rapist is in jail, and the womans life is fucked up either way.

You should never act in anger.

OOH! This is interesting. The link was already posted in this forum. But its relevant to this thread.

Clicky (http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_Cool111504,,00.html?ESRC=soldiertech.nl)


Uranium-Sucking Tumbleweeds

For years, the U.S. military and its allies have relied on depleted uranium (DU) for their anti-tank rounds. Twice as dense as lead, the stuff does a mean job piercing armor. But it comes with a price. Tons of DU litter battlefields around the world; the British fired almost 2 tons of DU around Bara during the Iraq invasion, for example. And unexplained illnesses always seem to follow in the rounds' wake. Nothing's been categorically proven. But a variety of ailments -- from "Gulf War Syndrome" to lung cancer -- have all been linked to the material. Cleaning it up has been an almost impossibly messy task.

But now, a New Mexico researcher may have found an answer to the problem in, of all things, the tumbleweed. A preliminary study shows that the plant, and some other flora common to dry, Western lands, "have a knack for soaking up depleted uranium from contaminated soils at weapons testing grounds and battlefields," according to a statement from the Geological Society of America.



The fact that plants absorb uranium is not news, since old uranium prospectors used to use Geiger counters on junipers to find buried uranium lodes. But finding a plant that grows fast on little water and can be easily harvested to carry away the depleted uranium – that's another story...

In her study, [New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology geologist] Dana Ulmer-Scholle and her colleagues... sought out DU contaminated soils at an inactive munitions testing ground in New Mexico. Then they planted selected native and non-native plants in a test garden and in pots to see how much DU the plants absorbed from the soil.

The tumbleweed, or Russian thistle did particularly well. So did the grain crop quinoa and the purple amaranth. None of the plants need much water or care. But "sprinkling the ground with citric acid" did seem to bolster the plants' ability to suck up DU.

As for why some plants absorb uranium, that's still a mystery, says Ulmer-Scholle. It could be that the plants use the metal to create pigments. One way she hopes to test that possibility is to grow native plants used for dyes.
Either way, Ulmer-Scholle cautions, plants will only work as a slow-burn solution to DU. For immediate clean-ups, "no plant species appears to offer a short-term alternative to traditional remediation."
THERE'S MORE: Defense Tech reader TH notes "the mysterious lack of
Gulf War Syndrome in areas where natural uranium (which is chemically identical, and more radioactive), is present in concentrations far exceeding those found on battlefields."

Im surprised the British gave any sort of Estimate. The U.S hasnt given anything away. Of coure, the U.S is still to submit embarassing estimates of a lot of things.