Cancer Spreading Like Wildfire in Iraq

[JSJ]

http://www.islamonline.org/English/News/2004-07/28/article02.shtml

BAGHDAD, July 28 (IslamOnline.net & News Agencies) – "Cancer and birth defects have been spreading like wildfire in Iraq since the 1991 US-led Gulf War, prompting doctors to describe them as the Iraqi version of flu'.

'Depleted uranium (DU) used by the United States and its allies against Iraq has taken its toll on around 120,000 to 140,000 Iraqis, according to the latest estimates released by the Iraqi health ministry'.

'With Iraq becoming an almost radioactive toxic wasteland, the number of birth defects and cancer-infected Iraqis is on the rise day in and day out due to the lingering effects of the deadly nuclear substance, the London-based Al-Quds Press news agency reported Tuesday, July 27'.
-------------------------------
Thanks for the cancer which is killing our children, America. We sure hope you elect somebody who will stop doing things like this to us (it's unlikely this time, we know). And thank-you in advance for not sending- in a fit of insincere guilt- useless toys and wigs for the nonamusement of our afflicted children- we'd rather you just get the fuck out of our country! -An Iraqi as told to SJ

[Judi Lynn]

1. So father and son both are responsible for this vast crime against humanit

"They killed SLOWLY their own fellow human beings........." AND THEIR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN, ETC., ETC.

From the article:

DU is said to be radioactive for about 4 thousand years.

Is it that they are being kept completely ignorant of the consequences, and are so dim-witted they never thought to ask? I believe they would both know from the very first.

[JSJ]

2. i do, too

A man such as George Sr, involved in both arms dealing AND CIA info-dealing would certainly know about the deadly harms associated with du hardened shells.

[lottie244]

17. America's own brand of genocide....how shameful

Why would these people ever embrace the US and democracy?

[snowFLAKE]

18. I assume you included the quote "DU is said to be radioactive

for about 4 thousand years"

To Emphasize just how Absurd - and completely lacking in basic scientific grounding - that this article is?

[Sparky McGruff]

25. Yeah, absurd.

The half life is 4.5 BILLION years www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/du.htm. It's largely an alpha particle emitter; and those are largely harmless in an intact chunk of material -- they travel too short of distances in the air to harm you. But, "vaporizing" chunks of material by firing them in explosive projectiles -- that's a good way to get those alpha particles into your lungs, where they can do some real damage. In addition, Uranium is a terribly hazardous metal. It's like lead, only better.

But, those are just scientists talking. They're not nearly as educated in science as a right wing pundit!

[leesa]

27. Exactly. It is always interesting to see how the depleted uranium

apologists come out of the woodwork to tell us how safe DU is. Not when it's sitting in your lungs for years and not when it is capable of causing genetic mutations. To say it isn't dangerous means you believe gov propaganda to your own detriment.
Exactly like the scam with agent orange. We transplanted many, many people with lymphoma who had exposure to agent orange. I suspect it will be the same for DU. Heavy metal and uranium poisoning are not a good thing, except for the big businesses that are getting rid of their nuclear waste in this manner.

[Bowline]

81. DU also burns when it hits something.

A DU round impacting a tank, truck, or other hard surface will burn from the friction of penetration. This serves to enable the radioactive particles to be more easily inhaled.

[Doctor Smith]

26. Do you disagree with that statement?

Would you be willing to inhale a U-238 aerosol, to show us all how safe it is?

[snowFLAKE]

31. The U-238 aerosol is only a danger to persons

Who are exposed on the Battlefield. And as I've stated elsewhere, these persons typically have the more urgent problem of being Blown Up Real Good. Uranium is a dense metal, it rapidly settles into the soil (it does not float around in the air endlessly) - in fact some in this thread argue that it is sequestered in the Groundwater. Consequently, it is not a long-term hazard to the millions of people of Iraq.

Besides, if it were toxic, it would be due to its chemical properties, not due to its radiological properties. The moment someone associates any or all of the words: "DU" "radioactive" and "health hazard" - That's an instant TipOff that they're either a Nutcase or a Purposeful Deceiver.

[Career Prole]

39. According to you, "Uranium is a dense metal, it rapidly settles into

the soil (it does not float around in the air endlessly)", and indeed, according to the World Health Organization,
"A recent United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) report giving field measurements taken around selected impact sites in Kosovo (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) indicates that contamination by DU in the environment was localized to a few tens of metres around impact sites. Contamination by DU dusts of local vegetation and water supplies was found to be extremely low. Thus, the probability of significant exposure to local populations was considered to be very low."
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/

I'm no meteorologist, but my intuition tells me there may be significantly more sandstorms in Iraq than in Yugoslavia which quite likely could disperse DU farther than "a few tens of metres around impact sites" that WHO found in Kosovo.
That might be worth considering, no?

[LibLabUK]

40. Dispersion...

And dilution.

The further you disperse something the more dilute it becomes and the smaller it's impact will be... unless you're talking about homeopathic depleted uranium.. in which case we're all screwed.

[exJW]

47. HDU.... ok, that was funny, no matter

what side of this you're on, lol.

[DrWeird]

43. "Only dangerous to persons exposed on the Battlefield."

Pardon me, which battlefields are these? I was under the impression it's mostly urban combat.

[snowFLAKE]

46. I was under the impression that it was mostly desert combat

This impression is backed up by This Map:

http://bravo14b.tripod.com/map1.htm

Perhaps Kuwait City was in the battle zone, but oddly enough no one is claiming a Cancer Epidemic there.

[DrWeird]

50. Oh, you're talking about Iraq War I.

I was talking about Iraq War II.

[snowFLAKE]

51. Yes, as was the Original Article, see the opening statement . . .

"Cancer and birth defects have been spreading like wildfire in Iraq since the 1991 US-led Gulf War"

[Zerex71]

53. Dude, who let you get out of school by failing basic science?

Uranium is dangerous, poisonous, and a known carcinogen among other things. No matter how you slice it or try to semantically sidestep the argumment, the facts remain -- DU is being used extensively in Iraq and other theaters of conflict and shall remain in their environmental system for thousands to billions of years, all thanks to two oversized Texas egos.

Mike

[snowFLAKE]

80. You know, I didn't fail science - but I should have.

To explain, I was taught by a fundamentalist/creationist. Once an appeal was made to the Higher Authority - you literally believed what was said or written. I now know this approach was all wrong.

To illustrate further, when I applied the fundamentalist/literalist approach to science, I would draw conclusions of the following type by taking the following approach.

First, I might consult a peer-reviewed scientific publication, such as the Journal of Environmental Radioactivity. In Science, this would be the equivalent of God or The Bible. Of course The Bible is a good source of Scientific Information on some topics, but the subject of Depleted Uranium was not covered so I had to search elsewhere.

Then, I might find an article written by, let's say the following persons:

Bleise A, Danesi PR, Burkart W.

Who are employed by:

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Department of Nuclear Science and Applications, Wagramer Strasse 5, P.O. Box 100, A-1400 Vienna, Austria.

OK, so far so good, we apparently have authors who are experts in the field - and they're from a scientifically advanced, but not intimately-aligned-with-the-Iraq-War-Perpetrators country, who published a thoroughly vetted paper in a legitimate journal. Here is what they published:

With the exception of crews of military vehicles having been hit by DU penetrators, no body burdens above the range of values for natural uranium have been found. Therefore, observable health effects are not expected and residual cancer risk estimates have to be based on theoretical considerations. They appear to be very minor for all post-conflict situations, i.e. a fraction of those expected from natural radiation.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12500797

OK, a fundamentalist approach would be to take this statement by a Scientific Authority very literally and conclude that Original Article upon which this thread is based is completely flawed and there is no massive environment catastrophy unfolding due to weapons use of DU. In fact, it would even support the contention I made elsewhere in this thread that natural levels of uranium are much higher than environment levels that result from weapons use of DU.

NOW, thanks to the kind and patient efforts of the folks who have contributed to this thread, many of whom are total experts on DU and its health effects, I realize what a miserably failed approach I've been taking to Science. I now realize that Scientists are a mischievious, perhaps even a malevolent bunch, who often say exactly the opposite of what they really mean. For example, what Bleise and coauthors really meant to write (if they had any inkling that their treatise would be taken literally at face value) was:

In addition to the crews of military vehicles having been hit by DU penetrators, body burdens above the range of values for natural uranium have been found in everybody within a 500 km range. Consequently, observable health effects are expected to be severe and cancer risk is skyrocketing. Health effects are extremely major for all post-conflict situations and dwarf those expected from natural radiation, which everyone knows does not really exist.

[Bo]

73. Its radio active active uranium flake

that gets into your lungs.

[Rex]

79. They are neither dumb, or ignorant, both men are pure unfiltered EVIL.

I fear that America will find out how evil the Bush Crime Family truly is only after we lose our democracy.

[Mokito]

3. This ís GENOCIDE!

And every country that has ever used depleted uranium in their armor should stand trial in The Hague for just that...genocide!

[Laughing Mirror]

8. Depleted uranium, napalm, hundreds of thousands

of children dying due to sanctions ... It all adds up, doesn't it?

[luaneryder]

4. The use of du makes *

better than Saddam how? They're cut from the same damn cloth, just born in different skins.

[leftchick]

5. exactly.... I wonder who has killed more people?

I would bet the bush* family given their penchant for war.

[niyad]

6. one wonders how greatly our own troops will be affected by this, in

addition to the body armour with DU. there has still been no real answer from the government about "gulf war syndrome"-- just the same sort of bs they handed out about agent orange in the vietnam vets (never mentioned the civilians there, either)

[HysteryDiagnosis]

9. Resources

www.nuclearpolicy.org

[soothsayer]

11. 2/3 of the first gulf war vets suffer from that syndrome, according to

Joyce Riley. She was on coast to coast a.m. earlier this week, continuing her good work and upward battle with the govt.

Gulf War Illness Update
Joyce Riley, spokesperson for the American Gulf War Veterans Association, reacted to a recent report that suggested that Gulf War illness is not related to bacterial infection.

We know many of the sick vets have "overwhelming mycoplasmal infections," she countered, adding that the antibiotic Doxycycline is one of the few things that is helping to keep them alive. Riley also expressed concern that a new illness syndrome would be arising in the vets coming home from the conflict in Iraq.

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040719-112731-8936r.htm

Joyce Riley is a Registered Nurse who has been a Director of Nursing of four institutions and has been a heart, lung, liver and kidney transplant nurse. She also served as a Captain in the USAF in support of Operation Desert Storm, flying active duty missions on a C-130 aircraft from Alaska to Cuba. Her experience as a medical-legal testifying expert in medical malpractice trials gave her the background to investigate the truth about the Gulf War Illness. She has since become an advocate for all veterans and citizens experimented upon by the government. Joyce was a whistle-blower in the famous "Baby Death" case in which Nurse Genene Jones, (who now serves a life sentence in the Texas Prison system) was convicted of causing injury to many babies in the Bexar County Hospital in San Antonio, Texas. She presently serves a spokesperson for the American Gulf War Veterans Association.

[Karenina]

56. Badly.

[Nomad559]

7. Depleted Uranium - Eric Blumrich (Flash Movie)

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

Download Link
http://www.ericblumrich.com/swf/ue_lo.swf

[DoYouEverWonder]

10. If anyone wants to see the horror

of what Bu$h's Blunder and using depleted uranium has done to the Iraqi people, then click on the following link.

Warning: A very strong stomach is required. Very, very graphic images.

http://www.web-light.nl/VISIE/extremedeformities.html

[Tight_rope]

60. Thanks!....I sent these pictures to all the "Deadheads" I know! Hopefully

They will wake up...but I doubt it!

[hippywife]

12. Death By Slow Burn

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

[slaveplanet]

13. looks like they found

the WMD

[Lithos]

14. This is crap science

The US didn't use that much DU in the first Gulf War against areas where the population would have been. DU is reserved for attacks against hard targets such as tanks which meant they were centered mostly on Iraqi units in Kuwait and in the very sparsely populated deserts out in the southwest of Iraq. The rise in Cancer in Kuwait has NOT gone appreciably much.

So, with a neighboring population which has NOT seen a rise in cancer, but suffered similarly, what could the cause be?

The real reason for the rise in Cancer in the Iraqi population since 1991 is more than likely directly attributable to the US bombing of the water plants which forced people to go back to untreated Artisian wells and River water. With the lowering of the water table from the large amount of irrigation (which usually brings out very hard water - water laden with things like arsenic, etc.), the chemicals released from the Petrochemical industry (and the bombing by the US of same). I'm also sure the smoke and airborne chemicals released by the burning of the petrochemical factories also didn't help.

Think about it, the civilians had to drink tainted water for years because the water infrastructure was destroyed. The reason why cancer hasn't gone up in Kuwait is that the US didn't destroy those plants in the bombing campaign.

If fingers are to be pointed, point them at the real cause, the violation by the US of the International Rules of war against attacking civilian targets.

L-

[snowFLAKE]

15. Yes, anytime you see DU and "Radioactive Wasteland"

Linked in the popular press, you can be assured that somebody with a political agenda is preying upon the vast scientific ignorance of the general population.

Uranium is a heavy metal, and may have some amount of chemical toxicity like other heavy metals such as lead. Therefore it is conceivable that Iraqis may be suffering chemical effects of uranium exposure. However, if one does the math, it can be easily seen that weapons use of DU in Iraq has increased environmental levels of uranium by something like 0.1 to 1% (exceptions may be to persons inside of enclosed structures struck by DU munitions - they may be exposed to considerably higher levels that would reasonably be expected to affect their health. These persons, however, generally must deal with the more urgent problem of being "blown up real good").

[rfkrocks]

16. You mean just like stem cell research and the GOP?

[Veggie Meathead]

20. What is the likelihood that DU dissolves in water and

contaminates the potable water of the Iraqis? Even if only a small fraction is soluble in water,including compounds of DU such as oxides and chlorides that would be enough to cause a widespread cancer epidemic.This also contradicts the earlier poster's thesis that one has to be in intimate contact with DU in enclosed areas to get cancer.
Over a twelve year period I am sure a considerable amount of DU has dissolved in the groundwater spreading the risk all over Iraq.

[snowFLAKE]

21. Did you put a lot of Thought into your Hypothesis?

If so, can you please explain how the DU from Weapons Use (~ 1% of the total amount), but not the Naturally-Occurring DU (~99% of the total amount), can get into the water supply?

Also, can you provide actual numbers that support the increased levels in the Water Supply? For example, if the entire 320 tonnes of DU used in Gulf War I were dissolved in Lake Michigan, the amount of uranium in the lake would increase by 0.065 ppb. By contrast, the EPA allows 30 ppb uranium in Drinking Water (yeah, the "ultra pure" kind you buy from your Organic Health Food Store). Please supply the corresponding numbers for Iraq with emphasis on the following issue "Once again, does the additional 0.2% really pose a health hazard?"

Finally, compared to the 320 tonnes of uranium released in Gulf War I, if you are really concerned about it's carcinogenicity, why aren't you 453 times more concerned about the 145,230 tons (containing 1031 tons of uranium-235) uranium released into the USA's environment due to coal combustion? (see http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html)

Eagerly awaiting your expert insights . . . !!

[niyad]

28. so all the cancer and other problems of the gulf war vets is related to

what, exactly? and how about using a source other than the government for your information, since we know that this government has been busy "correcting" all sorts of information on official web pages.

[KittyWampus]

65. Think All The Carcinogens That Might Have Been Inhaled In NYC After 9/11

LOTS of shit was blown up in Iraq.

I am not an apologist for DU.

The US has certainly lied about agent orange and any number of other things.

But it is not CERTAIN certain that DU is the cause.

And the SCIENCE leaves doubt.

And those who blame DU talk about aerosolized DU which does NOT happen the way it's used in warfare.

[Doctor Smith]

30. There is a big difference between a few atoms of uranium

taking a ride on a coal smoke particle, and an aerosol of metallic uranium particles that can be inhaled and lodged in the lung.

[snowFLAKE]

36. Once again, It is necessary to Draw a Distinction

Between Battlefield Exposure (which is undoubtably detrimental) and the large scale, long-term everyone-is-doomed scenario that this article describes for which there is absolutely no scientific basis.

Like Ron Reagan said in his speech, we do have Human Intelligence that should help us differentiate issues of this sort. A factually-supported documentation of Major Rokke's clean-up crew, who apparently were made to decontaminate DU-struck vehicles with no (or inadequate) safety equipment is one thing. It is indeed possible that the chemical effects of uranium (which, btw, would result from ionic forms of the metal, not the micron-sized ceramic spheres) may cause health hazards.

By Contrast (Part 1), the radiation level of DU, even when the ceramic particles are inhaled into the lung, is far to low to cause cancer.

By Contrast (Part 2), no evidence exists that civilians hundreds of miles away from the battlefield suffer any increased DU exposure at all.

[MadHound]

49. Friend, let me respectfully tell you something.

You have no clue as to what you're talking about. And here's why.

I work with DU on a daily basis. I have to know the hazards it poses, it is part of my job, and if I make a mistake, I am liable for thousands of dollars in fines. I reference manuals and sources ranging from DOE to NRC to IATA. I know what I'm talking about. And I'm here to tell you the YES, DU is a genocidal disaster. Let me tell you how.

As you well know, DU is depleted Uranium 235 or 238. But just because it says depleted doesn't mean it isn't an active emitter. It is. On average it emits aprox 0.1 mR at three feet, a bit more on contact. It is primarily an alpha and beta emitter. Thus, it doesn't pose a threat in solid chunks outside the human body. Alpha and beta waves do not penetrate the human skin. I wouldn't take it home and sleep with it every night, but I have no qualms being around quantities of it for extended periods of time. It has several beneficial uses, the main one being that it is a very effective shield for other more radioactive substances.

That said, when it is used as a weapon, DU becomes a weapon of slow motion genocide. Here's how it works. Most weaponized DU is used on the tips of missles, tank killers, bunker busters, etc. When these weapons impact and explode, they also disperse a fine powder of DU. When DU is exposed to the extreme pressures, heat, and explosive force of a strike, a great deal of it reacts like a kids sparkler, it heats up and seperates from the main body of the DU, settling onto the ground as a fine dust. This dust is subsequently stirred up by passing vehicles, people, wind etc., getting into peoples' lungs, digestive system, and other interior areas of the human body. That's when the real horror begins.

While the alpha and beta emissions from DU are too weak to pass through human skin, when particulized DU enters the lungs or other interior areas of the body, there is NO protection from the harmful effects of these alpha and beta emissions. And while they are small in quantity, the tendency of these particles to lodge in out of the way nooks in the body, and long half life insure that the cumulative exposure will wreak havoc on the person's body, if not kill them slowly and painfully.

The other toxic effect of DU is the one it shares with other heavy metals. It is a toxic poison. In fact, this very toxicity may be of even greater concern than the problems of radiation exposure. The toxic effect is quicker, and in the short term possibly more deadly than the exposure level. And once again, since we are dealing with a fine dust lodged in out of the way places, it is virtually impossible to clean out a person once they've been exposed. Instead you do what you can, and hope that the healing power of the body eliminates the rest. A great deal of the time that hope is in vain.

You can deny this crisis all you wish, but those denials aren't based in reality. The reality is that the US has unleashed a weapon of slow motion genocide in Iraq and elsewhere in the world. There are stringent regulations dealing with DU, it's use, transport and storage. There are also a number of regulations dealing with the consequences of DU being caught in a fire or blown up. Most of them boil down to run for your fucking life and take the surrounding population with you. These regulations aren't made up for fun, or out of thin air, they are based on knowledgable science and years of experience. I would suggest you pay attention to them rather than engage in denial or wishful thinking.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

52. A link...

...to the regulations would be useful, if such a link exists.

edit: clarification

[MadHound]

55. Sorry friend, I can't give you one

I wish I could. These regs are put out in paper form only, and you have to not only purchase them, but also go through a few sets of hoops also. Everything is high security when you're dealing with the nuclear industry.

Here is the home page of IATA<http://www.iata.org/index.asp>

On further research, you can check out an incomplete CFR list. This is a long and poderous search, and is missing several key sections, but it has some information. <http://www.nrc.gov/search?NS-search-page=results>

Here is the DOE home page, you might be able to find something there, but apparently their regs are off line only. <http://www.doe.gov/engine/content.do>

Hope that helps.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

75. Interesting.

Still pondering these links. A lot of info here. So, tell me... what is someone who uses a peace symbol as their avatar doing working for a company that deals in depleted uranium?

:)

Just curious.

-y

[MadHound]

82. Well, it is like this

I work at a nuclear research reactor. We produce many many radiopharmaceuticals, mostly for cancer treatments(if you are a relative received a radioactive cancer treatment, odds are it was from us). We also do lots of archeaology studies that involve the use of radiation. Our use of DU is for shielding other, more active radionucleides. In my position, I have to have an extensive knowledge of the regulations pertaining to the use and transport of DU, among other haz-mats.

[struggle4progress]

76. Google CFR. It's available online. eom

[snowFLAKE]

62. Once again, you offer vague generalties

If you have data to back up your claims you should publish them in peer-reviewed journals (which currently offer quite a different Reality).

From http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/natural.htm we learn that a typical square mile of land area contains 2,200 kg of uranium in the uppermost 1 foot of soil (where it is most likely to be disturbed by a passing tank, for example, and have the opportunity to interact with a human). Considering that Iraq covers 168,000 sq. mi., if the depleted uranium used in weapons was evenly dispersed, there would be an additional 1.73 kg added to the natural burden of uranium per square mile. Of course, the battles were not fought over all the country, therefore if we assume that the depleted uranium was localized to 10% of the country, that means an additional 17.3 kg/sq.mi.

Converting to ppm data, we see:

Natural levels of uranium: 1.764 ppm
W/weapons DU spread over all of iraq: 1.766 ppm
W/weapons DU localized to 10% of iraq: 1.778 ppm

OK, we see that the use of DU weapons incurs a measurable increase in uranium levels in the environment. But the key question is, is the tiny, tiny increase large enough to cause health problems?

From this map:



We see that the environmental levels of naturally-occurring uranium in the United states varies much more than happens upon use of all those depleted uranium weapons. In fact, the use of DU-containing weapons releases so little uranium as to be hard pressed to cause a color gradation shift in the above map – note that certain parts of the country have 10 times more environmental uranium (such as in the southwest) than others (such as central florida) but cancer rates show no correlation – clearly the increased long-term environmental load of DU in iraq due to weapons use is minimal.

The only remaining question is the chemical form of DU. The several hundred or thousands of pounds of "natural" uranium present in your backyard (and decaying into the Radon in your basement) presumably exists in ionic form (as compared to the ceramic or metallic forms) most likely in one of several oxidation states that are readily uptaken into one's body, circulates throughout one's cells and tissues, and is eventually secreted. Up-take occurs at 1.9 micrograms per day until a steady state level of 90 micrograms is achieved.

(data is from http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/natural.htm ).

This 90 micrograms of uranium naturally taken up from the environment and naturally present is in the "dangerous" ionic form getting into peoples' lungs, digestive system, and other interior areas of the human body - in contrast to the ~10 micron particles in the aerosolized form which are stuck in the lungs. The DU in these particles must be oxidized to soluble forms to have health effects by a chemical toxicity mechanism (the cellular damage caused by the amount of radiation these particles emit is neglible compared to that caused by normal metabolism and consequently repaired by a cell). If you'd be so kind as to provide data on

1) The actual amount of DU derived from weapons use that is lodged into victims lungs

2) Provide pharmacokinetic data on it's conversion from the ceramic/metallic form to the chemically active hexavalent form

and

3) Provide studies that show the amounts in 1 and 2 are large enough to be harmful to human health (or even animal health), then you'll have something. Until then you're just another fear-mongering, pseudo-expert who chooses to ignore peer-reviewed evidence and blindly accept the drivel peddled at websites and in the popular media.

[MadHound]

66. You are laughable in your hypocrisy friend.

You slam me for using sources on the 'net(ie the IATA, DOE, and NRC sites, you know, official, peer reviewed sites), and yet you use a net source to back yourself up with:eyes: Not to mention I also referred to sources(and included links to where you can order said sources), yet you conviently ignore that fact. You seem to ignore much in your quest to convince us that DU is no threat. Why is that?

Let me correct a few of your other fallacious arguements

First, your figure of 2200 kg per sq mile is an AVERAGE amount. Do you understand the concept of how averages work? There isn't 2200 kg under every square mile in this country. There are low concentrations under most of the US, with higher concentrations in the Western Mountain states and in the Eastern Appalachian states.

Second, this uranium is underground, and earth is a good shielding agent. It is also in solid form, not particulized like DU, which is deposited on the surface, in a particulate form. It is much harder to cram a one pound chunk of uranium up your nose that inhale a gram of DU dust.

Third, your example of uranium breaking down is funny, for you use radon as an example. Where have you been for the past twenty years friend? Radon has been a known radioactive carcinogen for awhile, in fact in some states you cannot sell or buy a house without getting a radon check.

You are also (deliberately?) missing the point of radiation that occurs external of the human body, and radiation that occurs internally. The human skin blocks out much of the harmful effects of the naturally occuring radiation in our enviroment. However, if you internalize a radioactive source, your body has little internal radiation protection. Note your example of Radon, a naturally occuring radioactive gas. The reason that it is considered such a threat is because it is easily internalized through inhalation. But I suppose you're going to deny that too:eyes:

As far as the studies you wish, well here:


"Environmental Exposure Report: Depleted Uranium in the Gulf;" Office of the Special Assistant for Gulf War Illnesses, U.S. Department of Defense; July 31, 1998;


Development of Depleted Uranium Training Support Packages: Tier I - General Audience; U.S. Army Chemical School; October, 1995;

Kinetic Energy Penetrator Long Term Strategy Study (Abridged); U.S. Army Armament, Munitions, and Chemical Command Task Force; July 24, 1990.

Kinetic Energy Penetrator Environmental and Health Considerations (Abridged); Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC); July, 1990

Conduct of the Persian Gulf War: Final Report to Congress; U.S. Department of Defense; April, 1992;

Health and Environmental Consequences of Depleted Uranium use in the U.S. Army; U.S. Army Environmental Policy Institute; June, 1995;

"Environmental Exposure Report: Depleted Uranium in the Gulf;" Office of the Special Assistant for Gulf War Illnesses, U.S. Department of Defense; July 31, 1998; p. 69. Operation Desert Storm: Army Not Adequately Prepared to Deal With Depleted Uranium Contamination; U.S. General Accounting Office; GAO/NSIAD-93-90; January, 1993;

"Summation of ARDEC Test Data Pertaining to the Oxidation of Depleted Uranium During Battlefield Conditions;" U.S. Army Armament Research, Development, and Engineering Center (ARDEC); 8 March 1991;

This should answer the questions you posed, if you wish for more, let me know. By the by, please note that these are not coming from the 'net, AND they are written for a group who is the most vocal PROponents of DU, the military. And strangely enough, that back my assertions.

Gotta go now friend, let me know how you're doing with that whole head in the sand thing, OK.

[snowFLAKE]

67. Thanks muchly for the detailed explanations

For example, you say: You slam me for using sources on the 'net(ie the IATA, DOE, and NRC sites, you know, official, peer reviewed sites)

I say, how stupid of me. Of course the information on the DOE and NRC sites that you provide is officially peer-reviewed. How could I have not known that. And at the same time, another gov't agency - the U.S. Geological Service, from whence my information came, is completely unreliable. D'oh, my bad :freak:

First, your figure of 2200 kg per sq mile is an AVERAGE amount. Do you understand the concept of how averages work? There isn't 2200 kg under every square mile in this country. There are low concentrations under most of the US, with higher concentrations in the Western Mountain states and in the Eastern Appalachian states.

I say, Wow - that's a point I completely missed. Oh wait, no I didn't. In fact I even posted a map making exactly that point - showing that parts of the country had up to three times more uranium than the average amount. Mysteriously enough, the people in these high uranium areas survive. :freak: :freak:

You also say Second, this uranium is underground, and earth is a good shielding agent.

Of course, a doofus like myself completely misunderstood the statement "in the uppermost 1 foot of soil" to mean "in the uppermost 1 foot of soil." I feel so stupid now that you so elegantly explain that "the uppermost 1 foot of soil" really means "underground." :freak: :freak: :freak:

You then say It is much harder to cram a one pound chunk of uranium up your nose that inhale a gram of DU dust

I say "Wow - one pound chunks of uranium!! That sounds like uranium-mining heaven. You better hope I don't find out where you live or I'll be over harvesting those chunks. I'd feel even more stupid right now, but I'll leave that honor to the Japanese who are considering schemes like extracting uranium from seawater. Boy, will they ever have egg on their face when they find out natural uranium comes in one pound chunks right here in the good ole USA. :freak: :freak: :freak: :freak:

More from you Third, your example of uranium breaking down is funny, for you use radon as an example

I say, Hmm, my fundamentalist creation-beliving science teacher taught me that radon is a decay product of U-238. In fact she taught me that U-238 had 'decay chain' of subsequent radioactive products that accumulate over time as shown as the colored areas in this diagram:



Because the earth is now just over 6000 years old, we are just reaching the point where the combined levels of decay products is reaching their highest point. As a consequence, I was told that the "depleted uranium" used for weapons is actually much safer than natural uranium because it has been separated from all these dangerous decay products - thereby resetting the clock to time = zero - giving the low level of radiation just like God created it. But now I know I've just had my head up my ass for the past 20 years. :freak: :freak: :freak: :freak: :freak:

Finally you say You are also (deliberately?) missing the point of radiation that occurs external of the human body, and radiation that occurs internally.

Yes, I totally missed that point, notwithstanding the information I posted that the average intake of uranium is 1.9 micrograms per day and the steady state level within the body is 90 micrograms. This information is given in a Table Entitled "Natural Radioactivity in your body" from this site:

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

Once again I am humbled to find out that my reading comprehension is so abysmal that I actually interpreted the phrase "in your body" to mean "in your body." I am humbled to find out that the correct interpretation of "in your body" is "radiation that occurs external of the human body." I've got to hand to you, you are a complete genious to pick up on these subtle nuances in phrasing and terminology that completely go over my head. :freak: :freak: :freak: :freak: :freak: :freak:

[mbperrin]

78. Take a look at page 7 of this report and see if those

"hotter" spots in Texas don't line up pretty well:
http://www.tdh.state.tx.us/tbdmd/Data/section6.pdf

[Emillereid]

68. Thanks for your articulate post -- This too is what I've learned about

the dangers of DU, but it being outside my scientific expertise, I didn't feel confident in framing such a post. Thanks again!

[Doctor Smith]

61. To (Part 1): Complete nonsense.

To(Part 2): No evidence exists that civilians are all hundreds of miles away from the battlefield.

[snowFLAKE]

64. Complete Nonsense?

So you're more of an authority than the World Health Organization (see post #32)? I'm quite priveleged to participate in a thread where so many experts are coming out of the woodwork.

Since you're an expert, there's something I'm quite curious about. There's a scientific study out there that states that the amount of cellular damage caused by DU via chemical mechanisms is one million times greater than those caused by its radiation as discused in this paper:

Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry (2002) 91(1):246-52

Depleted uranium-catalyzed oxidative DNA damage: absence of significant alpha particle decay.

Quote "DU has a low-specific activity in comparison to natural uranium, it is not considered to be a significant radiological hazard. In the current study we demonstrate that DU can generate oxidative DNA damage and can also catalyze reactions that induce hydroxyl radicals in the absence of significant alpha particle decay. Experiments were conducted under conditions in which chemical generation of hydroxyl radicals was calculated to exceed the radiolytic generation by 10(6)-fold."

To a naive country bumpkin like myself, it's quite difficult to imagine how the radiation can cause any ill health effects, if for no other reason than that the chemical toxicity will have long since caused similar or much worse problems. More specifically, if the chemical effects cause cancer in one to five years, and the radiation effects are one million times lower, does that mean that the radiation would take one to five million years to cause the same cancer? Many people I know don't don't even live the latter length of time, that's why I made my previous Complete nonsense statement that it would appear to be a factual impossibility that the radiation effects of DU could cause cancer. It would be mighty kind if you could indulge the intellectually challenged such as myself with a more detailed explanation than "Complete nonsense" to clear up the puzzling (to morans such as myself) discrepancy that I point out.

[Lithos]

77. To wit...

To(Part 2): No evidence exists that civilians are all hundreds of miles away from the battlefield.

To point the finger at just DU is to be very disingenuous. It ignores the destruction of the petrochemical industry by both the US and the Iraqis. Remember the dark, black clouds of heavy petro-chemical smoke marking the burning of oil wells which covered the sky for months following the end of the war? Or what happened when the coalition destroyed Saddam's chemical weapons, chemical and petro-chemical factories and the remaining nuclear processing centers? (This was 1991 when Saddam was actively building towards WMD's, not 2001 when it was already gone). A good deal of the destruction of Saddam's WMD did not occur via peaceful means, but rather as the result of hostile bombardment. Also, Saddam did order the destruction or abandonment of much of his chemical stocks. I doubt that he handled this in a way which was designed to protect the health of his civilians - I imagine open air burning consumed much of his remaining stocks.

The rise in the Iraqi population has been dramatic since the first Gulf War. The majority of civilians which would have been affected were in Kuwait where the majority of the fighting occured. Yet, there has been no significant increase in cancer in Kuwait which still enjoys one of the lowest rates of incidence in the world.

So you have to look to the differences which explain why Kuwait isn't suffering as much as Iraq. Sure, there is probably some fudging on the part of Kuwait, but the main distinction is that Iraq (especially Southern, Shi-ite Iraq) has suffered from the destruction of the basic infrastructure and the lack of desire (they were Shi-ite, Saddam support came from Sunnis) and capability by Saddam to repair it.

[Lithos]

22. That's the problem

DU was used primarily in Kuwait and the desert area bordering Iraq/Kuwait/Saudi Arabia. The majority of any DU leached into the water table would not move upstream towards Baghdad, etc.

Again, there has been no corresponding rise in cancer rates in Kuwait, where the majority of DU was used (Highway of death, etc.).

To focus on DU is to ignore the bigger issues caused by the indiscriminate bombing of water in an attempt to destabilize Saddam by causing unneeded death and suffering to the general populace -- a significant war crime in itself.

[Ravenseye]

19. possible.

I tend to agree with this. though really, who knows how much they were lobbing and it's going to be awhile before someone gets in there to do some true environmental studies.

I DO know that when the water plants and eletrical plants were bombed the people had to go get their water from the rivers, then boil them if they were lucky using propane etc. Or just wood fires. Same water that some sewage was dumping into, not to mention all the chemicals from other industry as you said.

I wouldn't be surprised if that was the larger cause.

[Ilsa]

23. My brother, a gulf war vet, '91, said he got a letter

from the army telling him he had a 35% higher chance of having children with birth defects, even ten years after the war. He said the children of a bunch of guys in his unit that got their wives pregnant after returning home had birth defects. He's afraid to have kids, and makes it clear to women he dates that he won't be having them.

[Lorien]

35. And the soldiers that are there now

will have longer and more tours of duty than your brother did. Scary.

[SoCalDem]

48. A young friend of ours had a baby girl with Goldenhars Syndrome

Their doctor said it was commonly seen in Gulf war vets' children.

Their son born BEFORE he went, was fine..

---

more...

Life magazine did a special report on this condition..Story ios here..very moving
http://www.life.com/Life/essay/gulfwar/gulf08.html


Goldenhar's syndrome


Goldenhar's syndrome is the result of maldevelopment of the first two branchial arches, and as such results in, on the affected side:

hypoplasia of the face
low set ear, which is usually malformed
deafness, which is sensorineural
coloboma
short neck
midline facial cleft
There may also be vertebral, renal and cardiovascular anomolies.

[LibLabUK]

57. Hmm...

An interesting study

The birth prevalence was 14.7 per 100,000 live births among GWV infants (95% confidence interval : 5.4-36.4) and 4.8 per 100,000 live births (95% CI: 0.8-19.5) among NDV infants (relative risk: 3.03; 95% CI: 0.63-20.57; P values: <2-tailed> = 0.26, <1-tailed> = 0.16). The few affected cases and the broad confidence intervals surrounding the relative risk require that these results be interpreted with caution and do not exclude chance as an explanation for these findings.

[thecrow]

24. check out these links

http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=23515

On this one, scroll through the pages of links:
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=doctors+against+depleted+uranium

[AFSCME girl]

29. Oh my God, fellow DUers..

this is awful!!! It makes one almost speechless - except for the
expletives I would like to spew in 41's & 43's faces!!!!!!:grr:

[Wolfetone]

32. According to the World Health Organization

http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/pub_meet/en/Report_WHO_depleted_uranium_Eng.pdf
Several studies have investigated the environmental consequences of depleted uranium at testing sites and firing ranges, most notably in the US, for example at the Aberdeen Proving Ground, Yuma and Nellis bases, as well as in the Gulf states following the Gulf War. Similarly, various medical studies have been initiated and a growing body of literature is now publicly available. State of knowledge literature reviews were examined by the mission as part of the preparations for the activities undertaken in Kosovo. Two particularly relevant observations were drawn from the literature:

First, the low radioactive content of depleted uranium compared to natural uranium;

Second, the lack of authoritative epidemiological and radio-biological evidence that demonstrates the initiation of cancer or serious dysfunction of organs through exposure to depleted uranium. The scientific literature is unambiguous with regard to the relative radioactivity of depleted uranium. An object composed of depleted uranium contains lower radioactivity than one with the same concentration of natural uranium (as discussed in section 2). WHO issued a fact sheet on depleted uranium in January 2001 (WHO 2001); it provides an interpretation of the consequences of depleted uranium. The fact sheet points out that no radiation-related increases in leukaemia have been found in uranium workers and that in war zones, even under extreme conditions, the inhalation of dust and smoke will only result in a small increase in radiation exposure. It also points out that the accepted latency period before the clinical identification of leukaemia from any ionizing radiation or other relevant exposures is at least two to five years. This is a period longer than has elapsed since the end of the Kosovo conflict in mid-1999.

[reprobate]

33. I'm definately not an expert on DU, but this much I do know......

The US gov't and especially its military, has a long history of experimenting on unknowing servicemen and civilians. A few examples:

Exposing troops to nuclear explosions at close range.

Detonating nueclear devices so that the downwind fallout exposed civilians in nevada.

Treating black males in the south with placebos just to see what the end stage of their syphalis would be. We know what it would be. Death.

CIA experimenting with LSD resulting in several deaths. They were suicided.

Agent Orange.

And there have been others that don't come to mind now.

What does this have to do with DU? Only this: A basic sense of history shows that when it comes to weapons and the profit that comes from them, the lives of americans, military or civilian, are expendable. We simply don't count. Only profits matter.

[LibLabUK]

34. Tuskegee

"Treating black males in the south with placebos just to see what the end stage of their syphalis would be. We know what it would be. Death."

[Occulus]

37. Learning about Tuskeegee

forever shattered the idea for me that our government would not dare to actually hurt its own people.

Yes, those blinders came off years ago.

[LibLabUK]

38. I thought that...

until I actually read about the experiment.

It's nothing like what it is often claimed to be.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

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

[struggle4progress]

74. You might want to read more about the Tuskegee "experiment":

Material at the link you provided is really misleading.


Remembering Tuskegee
Syphilis Study Still Provokes Disbelief, Sadness

July 25, 2002 --Thirty years ago today, the Washington Evening Star newspaper ran this headline on its front page: "Syphilis Patients Died Untreated." With those words, one of America's most notorious medical studies, the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, became public.

"For 40 years, the U.S. Public Health Service has conducted a study in which human guinea pigs, not given proper treatment, have died of syphilis and its side effects," Associated Press reporter Jean Heller wrote on July 25, 1972. "The study was conducted to determine from autopsies what the disease does to the human body."
<snip>

At the start of the study, there was no proven treatment for syphilis. But even after penicillin became a standard cure for the disease in 1947, the medicine was withheld from the men. The Tuskegee scientists wanted to continue to study how the disease spreads and kills. The experiment lasted four decades, until public health workers leaked the story to the media.
<snip>

http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/features/2002/jul/tuskegee/


AN APOLOGY 65 YEARS LATE

<snip>
In 1930, the United States Health Service launched a study of the disease and the effects of treatment in six Southern counties with large black populations. But two years later at the height of the Depression, funding ran out.

Back in Washington, the Health Service decide if it couldn’t afford to treat syphilis, maybe in a scaled back version of the experiment, they at least could study its effects. This decision produced the dramatic turn that led to today’s apology. Abandoning those who participated in the larger treatment program, the Health Service chose to focus on poor and rural Macon County, Alabama, as the only site for a scaled down experiment.

In a report, Taliford Clark of the Health Service explained why. "Macon County," he wrote, "is a natural laboratory; a ready-made situation. The rather low intelligence of the Negro population, depressed economic conditions, and the common promiscuous sex relations not only contribute to the spread of syphilis but the prevailing indifference with regard to treatment." The famous Tuskegee Institute, founded by Booker T. Washington to educate freed slaves and their descendants, relied heavily on federal funding and quickly volunteered office space and its hospital for exams and autopsies.
<snip>

The study, originally intended to run for six months, lasted 40 years. It was well known in the medical community--thirteen articles were published in medical journals throughout the course of the study. But the larger public and the participants didn’t learn about it until 1972 when Peter Buxtun, a former Health Service employee, leaked the story to an Associated Press reporter. The AP story said the experiment involved "human beings, induced to serve as guinea pigs" and said that health officials involved had "serious doubts about the morality of the study."
<snip>

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/may97/tuskegee_5-16.html


Abstract of the Syphilis Study Legacy Committee
Final Report of May 20, 1996
From 1932 to 1972, 399 poor black sharecroppers in Macon County, Alabama were denied treatment for syphilis and deceived by physicians of the Unites States Public Health Service. As part of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, designed to document the natural history of the disease, these men were told that they were being treated for "bad blood." In fact, government officials went to extreme lengths to insure that they received no therapy from any source. As reported by the New York Times on 26 July 1972, the Tuskegee Syphilis Study was revealed as "the longest nontherapeutic experiment on human beings in medical history."
The Study continues to cast a long shadow over the relationship between African Americans and the bio-medical professions; it is argued that the Study is a significant factor in the low participation of African Americans in clinical trials, organ donation efforts, and routine preventive care. In view of this unacknowleged wrong and the the damage it has caused, the Tuskegee Syphilis Study Legacy Committee pursues two inseparable goals:
1) to persuade President Clinton to apologize to the surviving Study participants, their families, and to the Tuskegee community. This apology is necessary for four reasons: the moral and physical harm to the community of Macon County; the undeserved disgrace the Study has brought to the community and University of Tuskegee, which is in fact a leading advocate for the health of African-Americans; its contribution to fears of abuse and exploitation by government officials and the medical profession; and the fact that no public apology has ever been made for the Study by any government official.
2) to develop a strategy to redress the damages caused by the Study and to transform its damaging legacy. This is necessary because an apology without action is only a beginning of the necessary healing. The Committee recommends the development of a professionally staffed center at Tuskegee for public education about the Study, training programs for health care providers, and a clearinghouse for scholarship on ethics in scientific research.

http://www.med.virginia.edu/hs-library/historical/apology/report.html


President Clinton's Statement
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release May 16, 1997
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
IN APOLOGY FOR STUDY DONE IN TUSKEGEE
The East Room
2:26 P.M. EDT

<snip>
So today America does remember the hundreds of men used in research without their knowledge and consent. We remember them and their family members. Men who were poor and African American, without resources and with few alternatives, they believed they had found hope when they were offered free medical care by the United States Public Health Service. They were betrayed.

Medical people are supposed to help when we need care, but even once a cure was discovered, they were denied help, and they were lied to by their government. Our government is supposed to protect the rights of its citizens; their rights were trampled upon. Forty years, hundreds of men betrayed, along with their wives and children, along with the community in Macon County, Alabama, the City of Tuskegee, the fine university there, and the larger African American community.

The United States government did something that was wrong -- deeply, profoundly, morally wrong. It was an outrage to our commitment to integrity and equality for all our citizens.
<snip>

http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/od/tuskegee/clintonp.htm

[enki23]

41. it's too soon.

by a few decades. for that reason, among many others, this really doesn't wash.

[bos1]

42. Depleted Uranium is all over Kosovo too

[SoCalDem]

45. Other people's lives are meaningless

That's the creed that allows these things to happen.. The "take it to THEM" attitude allows for horrible things to happen..

Don't forget, SOLDIERS and NGOs get these particles in THEIR lungs too..

The fact that it takes years to manifest itself in disease or birth defects, is the "perfect" cover..The VA will just pooh-pooh it and relegate it to the "round file" for years, until enough have died...and it's less "expen$ive to deal with..

It's always about the money..:(

[rawstory]

54. hahah...and SADDAM may have CANCER! -- AP

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20040729/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_saddam_s_health

[Sabriel]

58. Soooo, I guess we "nuked 'em," after all.

Where is the bottom, so this government can't go any lower?

[Tight_rope]

59. One day...the rest of the world may take revenge on the US!

The US can't continue to go around the world destroying other countries and think that the people in these other countries will not rise up. One day they are going to say, "Enough is enough". They will join forces and attack the US when it's at it's weakest point, like they did on September 11.

[struggle4progress]

63. It's really much too early for any possible carcinogenic effect ...

... of the war to be obvious in epidemiology.

[medeak]

69. BULLCRAP!

I lost two Palestinean friends within a year of each other. They both had rare form of cancer that oncologists said was caused by growing up during war.

One was 28 and left two precious babies behind. She cried for 4 days without sleeping when she heard the diagnosis as brother died of same.

[struggle4progress]

70. There's usually a multi-year lag between exposures and ...

... the appearance of enough cases to identify clearly. For cigarette smokers, the lag is typically several decades. Of course, high doses could decrease the lag time.

I have no problem whatsoever with the idea that the munition-associated chemical exposures might produce cancers in the population. But if the doses are really so high that the lag time was only a year or two between exposure and a resulting "cancer epidemic," it would probably be reasonable to expect to see widespread acute toxicological effects.

With respect to DU exposures, my major short-term concern would be toxicity effects, though (on general principle) I might also be concerned about long-term effects of radiation on a large population.

I'd consider the lasting health effects of war an important issue, but it's critically important to get the facts right. For that purpose, I'd really want a better, more scholarly link than the one at the top of this thread.

And I am sorry to hear about your two friends ...

[medeak]

71. It's been 13 years

since the Gulf War....think that qualifies as long enough to see disease process. Think it's time for studies...don't you?

[struggle4progress]

72. You certainly won't get argument from me against public health studies ...

... but doing a high quality epidemiological study would require good control info: what munitions were used where, as well as detailed info on conventional war injuries and a variety of poverty/health issues. Poorly designed studies generally fail to discover effects.

I'm not an expert on this, and I'd probably be able support eliminating DU weapons based on toxicology alone. But political realities will limit available funding for rehab projects, and I'd probably expect an impartial investigation into priorities to rank war injury remediation and poverty reduction as having more immediate importance for Iraq than attempts to clean-up DU dust. Unfortunately, I also expect that such clean-up, if it must be done, will be extremely expensive and difficult.