The linked video is very graphic and concerns the effects of DU

[hangloose]

(short for Depleted Uranium) on the population of those countries where it has been used.

Warning !!

Some of you may suggest there is no empirical evidence that Depleted Uranium (DU) is the culprit, in the effects shown by this video, OK. But there is a growing compilation of evidence that points this way. Unfortunately our government, the primarily manufacturer and distributer (yes were selling to our friends) of DU weapons systems has taken a position that there are no long term consequences in using this radioactive material in conventional weapons used on the battle field and now in urban areas. The defense department has done little to nothing in health studies on this subject.

DU may be linked to Gulf war syndrome, were talking our boys.

Hmmm..... I remember something about agent orange having no health effects on humans, at lease that's what the department of defense said for years after the Vietnam war.


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

[Sabriel]

1. I know I should...

but I just can't. I have nightmares almost every night about napalm, and limbless children, and butchered babies. My tax dollars do this, and every day that I go to work, I dwell on it.

[knowbody0]

6. sabriel, i dream of them as well

and do believe we have created hell

[okieinpain]

2. wonder why this isn't right up there with abortion. hmmmmm!!!

I think I'll forward to falwell, and robertson. I know they will take immediate action on this. the pres, owes them, big time.

thanks.

[VOX]

3. Suggestion: "DU" has a very specific meaning on DU....

Probably best to spell out "depleted uranium."

Not to get anal-retentive on you. :)

[hangloose]

5. Thanks, made the revision

[okieinpain]

4. sent emails, to both pat and jerry. I pretty damn sure they are

contacting the pres as I type. see I knew there was a reason why god wanted bush.

[HuskiesHowls]

7. Well, in 4.5 Billion years (yes, with a "B")

HALF of it will be gone.

http://www.cadu.org.uk/intro.htm

[Cheswick2.0]

8. What I want to know is............

IF all of these vets are having deformed children why don't they organize to warn americans about what we are doing. Can you imagine if thousands of vets marched on DC?

When I was working for ACT, there was a woman we canvassed who said that her son was forced to sign a release before he left Iraq that he would not sue the government if he had deformed children.

[Julien Sorel]

9. Unfortunately, there is a false statement here.

The defense department has done little to nothing in health studies on this subject.

In fact, there are mountains and mountains of government research on the effects of DU. Anyone doing an online search would know this. Personally, I have no opinion on the stuff one way or another -- it's certainly potentially hazardous, but it also saves lives by efficiently and quickly knocking out tanks and the sort. But I do have problems with people, like the person linked to here, making blatantly false and misleading claims. It heaps discredit on the left when someone obviously associated with them says something, and all you have to do is go online and google for 30 seconds and find that it's false. If I can't believe this guy when I know the facts, why should I believe him when I don't?

[hangloose]

10. Ouch !! Nothing like having you credibility whacked....by Mr. Soral

Well now I didn't state there wasn't, as you say "mountains of research", there is quite a bit, yes, but little of it has been done by our "department of defense", ya know the same guys who gave you agent orange. Others who have done substantial work, such as the United Nations, World Health Organization, etc....are very wary of this substance as a weapon that keeps on given. Yes, mountains of research and much of it points to the potential toxic legacy of this material. Seems with all your knowledge of what's Googleable out there, I find it curious that you don't have an opinion. How selective can you be on this subject?

Wait, yes, it's a good tank penetrator, sure that's a plus.

[Julien Sorel]

11. So research done by the Department of Defense

is somehow different than research done by the rest of the government? That kind of silly parsing is simply dishonest. The military has made numerous statements on DU referencing government research, as have other GAs. Internationally, the IAEA released a report on the effects of leftover DU munitions from Gulf War I, and found no significant adverse effects.

In response you have what, lurid pictures of cancer victims, with no proof of what caused the cancer? I'll trust the science.

All that being said, like most people, the thought of any uranium makes me uneasy, and DU is known to be toxic under a variety of circumstances -- which was discovered by and reported in government research (but it wasn't the DoD, so it doesn't count, does it.) So I have no opinion on it one way or another.

And yes, when it kills tanks quickly, it saves the lives of soldiers. It's nice to hold up the picture of someone and claim (without proof) they have cancer caused by DU; it's too bad no one holds up pictures of the U.S. servicepeople, the pilots and tankers who are alive because of the effectiveness of DU weapons.

[OneBlueSky]

12. um . . . you actually believe the Pentagon? . . .

I'd pay more attention if I were you . . .

[Julien Sorel]

13. The pentagon?

Exactly where did I say I believed the pentagon?

I'd really pay more attention if I were you.

[LynnTheDem]

14. oy

:wow:


The Pentagon, headquarters of the United States Department of Defense.

[Julien Sorel]

18. And where did I say I believed them?

[Hunting Deer]

15. I like your answer!

The bottom line of any weapon the military has is will it sufficiently deter an enemy from attacking because of its lethality, or if they attack, will its lethality win the battle for us.

Nothing more, nothing less.

The nuclear bomb may be an abhorrant weapon, but thank God we have it or those that have it would have used it on US a long time ago.

We can worry for decades about whether the spent uranium metal used causes problems. The biggest way to prevent their use is to make our enemies aware that we will defeat them no matter what so do not start trouble with us.

[LynnTheDem]

17. Like Iraq?

We sure are making sure they and the world knows that for attacking us, Iraq is going to be defeated, no matter how many years & lives it takes!

Iraq sure is gonna pay for starting trouble with us!

Hey, let's just NUKE EM! THAT'll show em who's the biggest terrorist on the planet!

[trotsky]

19. WTF?

I thought we were supposed to be over there HELPING the Iraqi people - you know, establishing democracy and all that?

How is it HELPING them to leave tons of radioactive material all over their country that will be killing them for the rest of time?

[LynnTheDem]

20. *sniff*

Is that pizza we're smelling?

We're letting them Iraqis know not to fuck with us! Too bad about all the children born deformed from the last time we dumped toxic waste on them.

Better than gassing them with chemical weapons! Oh wait...we're doing that, too...

Yeah we're "helping" them by INVADING and OCCUPYING their country (even though they never asked us for our "help" and in fact didn't want our "help") killing them with guns, chemical weapons, starvation, lack of medical supplies...what's a bit of DU with everything else we're doing to them.

[trotsky]

22. Oh, but Lynn...

We got rid of Saddam Hussein! Freedom is on the march! We have liberated tens of thousands of Iraqis from their lives, and hundreds of thousands of them from their limbs or families!

Besides, didn't you get the word yet? We are all supposed to be outraged over the MASSIVE oil-for-food scandal! Those UN bastards!

[LynnTheDem]

23. I did get that word but I sent it back

:D

[newyawker99]

27. Hi Hunting Deer!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[hangloose]

35. The real potential of DU is it keeps on killing after its intended use

An as much as the atom bomb is quite the deterrent and has proven to be since Hiroshima, the use of DU is not associated with is potential long term impact to the population. I suspect that other technology is available to bust through tanks and bunkers that may be more expensive but won't leave a toxic legacy for generations.

The point is the human price outweights the benifit of its battle field advantage.

[bobbyboucher]

36. Pure rubbish. Back to the sand box with you.

Play on with your silly plastic toy soldiers.

[LynnTheDem]

16. UK govt admits troops placed at risk from the deadly effects of DU

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uranium/0,7368,419839,00.html

As the UK (and most the entire planet) is a good 2-3 years ahead of the USA, it may finally dawn on America that DU is banned for a very good reason; it kills people.

Uranium hazard prompts cancer check on troops
MoD heeds warning from scientists

Troops not told of shells' toxic risk
The government admits that thousands of British troops serving in Kosovo were placed at risk from the deadly effects of depleted uranium.

Scientists urge shell clear-up to protect civilians
Royal Society spells out dangers of depleted uranium.

[Julien Sorel]

21. You (conveniently) left out these other stories:

Study plays down cancer fears over Gulf weapons

Risks from DU 'insignificant'

There is simply no scientific evidence documenting the horrors of DU. It is toxic under certain circumstances, and no one can say beyond a shadow of a doubt what its long term effects might be -- but then, no one can say what the long term effects of anything might be. All the rest of this stuff is pointless, and in some cases blatantly dishonest, propagandizing. It's one thing to urge caution and demand ongoing research into DU; it's another thing entirely to act, as many people here do, as if there's some open and shut case against its use, because there isn't. When you have something besides pictures of cancer victims on your side, perhaps someone in the hated Pentagon will listen. In the meantime, you should realize there's a reason people get pigeonholed as being on the fringe.

[LynnTheDem]

24. Actually there IS scientific evidence

There is also scientific evidence saying the opposite.

I posted ONLY those SCIENTIFIC studies saying yes DU has deadly effects because you're saying there is NO such evidence.

NO ONE in the Pentagon is going to listen, regardless the evidence.

You don't get it; using DU is CHEAPER for the USA. We have TONS of the stuff, old stockpiles of it.

There is a reason DU is banned.

The UK govt is now the "fringe"???

ROTFL!!!

[Sugarcoated]

25. Isn't it an absolute fact that Uranium causes cancer?

That's iffy to you???

[Julien Sorel]

26. Where is this evidence?

I posted the links to the only scientific articles listed; you posted links to columnists. Slight difference.

Exactly what has the UK government said regarding DU that contradicts anything said by science? Show me. Link to something. Quote something.

And while you're at it, tell me where in the world the use of DU has been banned by a binding act of law. Again, link to something.

[trotsky]

28. You should read your own links a little more closely.

From http://www.guardian.co.uk/uranium/story/0,7369,451400,00.html:

The environmental risks from contamination by depleted uranium ammunition used in the war in Kosovo are insignificant, a United Nations report concluded yesterday, but its authors also said that they remained unsure about the long-term health consequences of DU.

Your position seems to be centered around the first part of that sentence and ignores the last.

Radioactive and toxic contamination to passers-by was rated as "insignificant to non-existent" following tests based on samples gathered from 11 of the sites last November; this finding, however, did not include the cases in which people had had direct contact with the fragments or ingested the particles.

Considering the DU fragments & dust are pretty much everywhere, this seems like a rather large omission in data.

"There are still considerable scientific uncertainties, especially related to the safety of groundwater in the long term," Pekka Haavisto, the Finnish head of the investigative team, said.

Eh, it's just groundwater, right? Don't worry about it.

[Julien Sorel]

30. Nonsense.

You haven't provided anything linking to the "scientific evidence" that counters anything I've said, except something I'd already pointed out: that no one knows the long term effects of DU. What you have done is a lot of eye rolling and LOLing and assorted other nonsense, along with making shit up about bans and the position of the UK government.

[trotsky]

33. Don't get your posters confused.

I never said anything about bans or the UK government.

DU is a radioactive material. When ingested, as a poster below has pointed out, it's extraordinarily dangerous, and that's a scientific FACT. By vaporizing amounts of DU as we have done (when munitions explode), we are guaranteeing that DU particles are going to enter the bodies of our troops and those of Iraqis.

And like that other poster said, the US government is saying the same kind of things about DU now that it did about Agent Orange during the Vietnam War. No, that doesn't prove anything about DU directly, but it reminds us to always consider the source.

[Julien Sorel]

37. Sorry for the mistake.

The US government isn't the only one saying things about DU, as I have pointed out several times. The Royal Society in England and the IAEA have also researched DU, and all have reached similar findings. The term "extraordinarily dangerous" that you used is not supported by the research, which found the risks "insignificant," but suggested further study. It's this kind of exaggeration that I'm talking about. If you have to exaggerate to make this stuff seem "extraordinarily dangerous,", what kind of evidence do you actually have? None that you've produced.


When ingested, as a poster below has pointed out, it's extraordinarily dangerous, and that's a scientific FACT.

Here are the findings on ingesting DU:

In a report dismissed by Gulf war veterans as flawed, but accepted by the Ministry of Defence, the scientists said that the weapons could double a soldier's risk of lung cancer later in life but this would only occur if a tank survived a direct hit from armour piercing shells made of the radioactive metal and the soldiers inside the tank ingested up to 5gms of pulverised shell casing.

Of 1,000 soldiers caught like that, 123 might expect to die of lung cancer decades later.

According to the Royal Society such circumstances were unlikely. More probably, the report said, soldiers in a tank hit by a depleted uranium weapon could expect a 2% extra risk of death from lung cancer - out of 1,000 soldiers in vehicles disabled by depleted uranium shells, 59 might die of lung cancer. And in any population, 58 people in 1,000 died of lung cancer.

It's hardly "extraordinarily dangerous," and that's a worse case scenario.

[hangloose]

29. Your position should be respected Mr. Sorel, and I do respect

your opinion. And not to put words in your mouth but if I understand you correctly you feel that the "jury is out" on the adverse lingering effects of DU when used in war. The acute and intended effect of course is death, do to detonation.

The real issue is does DU when released into the environment as a fine dust (no dispute I assume), as a end result of intended use (to blow things up) does when inhaled, caused near term adverse health effects(cancer)and chronic effect (genetic deformities) to humans (among other living creatures)?


"Personnel inside or near vehicles struck by DU penetrators could receive significant internal exposures." Quoted From the Army Environmental Policy Institute (AEPI), Health and Environmental Consequences of Depleted Uranium Use in the U.S. Army, June 1995



"Short-term effects of high doses can result in death, while long-term effects of low doses have been implicated in cancer."
"Aerosol DU (U238) exposures to soldiers on the battlefield could be significant with potential radiological and toxicological effects."

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



A memo, from the Defence Nuclear Agency,reads. "Alpha particles (uranium oxide dust) from expended rounds is a health concern but, Beta particles from fragments and intact rounds is a serious health threat..."

A Los Alamos memo, written by a Lt.Col. M. V. Ziehmn read, in part, "there has been and continues to be a concern regarding the impact of DU on the environment. Therefore, if no one makes a case for the effectiveness of DU on the battlefield, DU rounds may become politically unacceptable and thus, be deleted from the arsenal. ...

Now I think you would agree, DU (238) is know to be toxic. Any dispute? So how can dispersing this material into the air and onto the ground and into the water be a matter of "no opinion"?

If you don't agree with this posting that's your right, but why are you questioning my credibility? I'm not questioning yours. There are two sides to this story and time will tell who is correct.

For myself I beleive there is a connection and DU should be eliminated for the arsenal.

Respectfully, Hangloose

[Julien Sorel]

31. You started this thread saying it "concerns the effects of DU."

You link to a site that shows a bunch of pictures of deformed babies, and makes the straight claim that DU is responsible for it, and it will go on for 4.5 billion years. You also say the DoD has done "little" by way of research into DU's effects.

These statements are either demonstrably false, or unsupported by scientific evidence.

Yet you wonder why I find your credibility suspect?

[hangloose]

34. Well you haven't demonstrably supported your position either

in my opinion. The article I offered for comment is one view of the current risk posed by DU friend. I'm sure you can offer an article or two sponsored by the department of defense that says otherwise.

That's what makes American great two views can be put up and debated without fear of the mind police coming to take one or the other party away.

But insults are inconsequential in making your case to those of use how are more than marginally intelligent. My point is, make you case, don't use the well worn Republican ruse of discrediting the messenger.

With all do respect,
Hangloose bro

[MadHound]

32. Actually friend, I know that there is danger from DU

I work with it on a daily basis. Here's the deal.

First off, DU is an alpha and beta emitter. If you go to the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics you will find the exact rates of decay and emission, but suffice it to say, it is relatively minor in comparison to other elements, but the key thing to remember is that it does emit radiation. Now then, alpha and beta waves are fairly low energy, they can be blocked by one's skin or clothing. However, when DU is particlelized, broken down to a dust form(which is what happens when it is used on the tip of an artillery round), it becomes easily inhaled or ingested. When a radiation source gets in your body, there is no protection from the radiation, alpha, beta or gamma. DU in dust form collects in many out of the way places in the body and stays there. If it is in the lungs, it migrates to the aveoli, where it stays. If ingested, it migrates to out of the way pockets of the digestive track and stays there.

Now then, damage due to radiation is a function of three things. Amount of radiation that the source is emitting, distance from source, and how long you're exposed. While the amount of radiation that the internalized DU is quite small, the distance is nil, and the length of time exposed is quite long, in most cases the lifetime of the victim. Therefore, there will be long term damage from exposure to DU.

The second nasty thing about DU is that it is a heavy metal. Like all heavy metals, it is quite toxic. If you internalize DU, it will cause damage from sheer toxicity, like any other heavy metal. In fact this is probably what is causing the symptons experienced by our vetrans. The damage from radiation won't show up until later, in the form of birth defects and odd cancers.

There is a large effort underway to downplay the effects of DU, but please don't fall for it. Any competent physicist or doctor will tell you that if you internalize DU, it will harm you, like any other internalized radioactive heavy metal. It is only a matter of time. And that is what the US has set in motion in Iraq, a slow motion weapon of mass destruction.

The US tried to downplay the effects of Agent Orange during the Vietnam War, but their propaganda effort was proven wrong. This is the same path that DU is going to take, a massive propaganda effort to downplay the dangers of DU, until the evidence becomes so overwhelming that they simply can't ignore it. Don't fall for the lie friend. We have set a slow motion genocide into motion, and while our own soldiers will pay a terrible price, the people of Iraq will be paying the toll for generations to come.