It's funny to see the progression of thought in this thread. SJO begins a topic based essentially on a BS statement. Scott asks for more science to support the assertion. SJO supporters bring absolutely nothing to the table in response, and then turn around and bay like wild dogs for Scott to do their homework for them. Scott actually does the homework and basically blows SJO out of the water. Then, just as someone had already predicted, none of SJO's supporters could get a clear grip on the math and science that was presented finally, and end up disregarding Scotts info anyway. Then we go through numerous more posts re-asserting the assumed danger of DU (basically after all that baying for some "real science", it was disregarded when it didn't support the original assertion).
So what we are left with is that the people here who seek out to demonize DU will continue to do so, regardless of the conflicting evidence presented (even if they are asking to hear the evidence). It is of no concern if it really is dangerous, for they have already made their mind up that it involves "nuclear" therefore it is dangerous and leads to deformed babies. All that is needed is the circumstantial instances that have been conveniently tied to the matter.
SJO presumably has been quiet insofar as she is busy removing a certain foot. I think anybody who posts something like that based on such questionable sources should seriously be "suspect" in any contributions they have in future threads (just IMHO). Clearly, examples of emotional outcry take precedence over rational thought in the construction of a stance (or support of an agenda).
On a separate train of thought, I think it is fairly probable that there are numerous sources of dangerous substances floating around in Iraq, right now, that could be causing any number of peculiar health and deformity issues. Unlike the US, I don't think there is any sort of EPA or health commission working over there regulating the use/handling/disposal of dangerous substances (related to industrial or military operations). For all we know, the general population may be awash in unregulated PCB leakages, carcinogenic solvents/pesticides/chemical by-products, and generally unsafe disposal of industrial wastes seeping into water supplies and such. Does anybody think Saddam cares about stuff like this as long it is kept out of his palaces? Who knows? Who's watching? Just do it, and make your buck. It's all a big, giant assertion I put forth here (at least I am dutifully labeling it as such beforehand). Suffice to say, there's a lot of suspect sources here, not the least are some DU rounds buried in the ground. ...but we won't hear much talk over that because it cannot be used in an agenda to much value to oppose a war or cut down a certain US president, for example.
This thread has evidence showing that it might not be safe.
Someone now needs to refute that evidence.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, the original claim was that DU is not safe.
Furthermore, there was a claim that the damage was due to radiation.
There have been no supporting facts presented that DU is unsafe. There was evidence that defects have been observed in general areas where DU ammunition has been used. There has been one instance cited where a researcher believes the cause to be DU based on one cluster in the United States, with no results of the visits to Kosovo or Iraq.
There has been no claim that DU is safe; only that DU is an unlikely source of radiation in the magnitude that would cause the biological damage attributed to it.
There has been no claim that DU is free of toxic effects. In fact, DU is toxic, just as many other things are toxic in sufficient quantities. This was mentioned marginally, was not refuted, but a good part of the discussion was about radiation effects. I believe it would be worthwhile to concentrate on this aspect.
I admit that I have not helped by bringing up a fact that was not true. I admit to not researching it beforehand, but rather relying on a statement by a research scientist at one of our national laboratories.
So far, the only evidence to refute is the claim about radiation effects. If someone would post "evidence" other than photographic records that claim to show the effects from a single cause, then perhaps there could be some discussion about it, either supportive or otherwise.
It is not unusual for the military to be cautious about handling materials. They are more careful than most. Just look at all the materials on California's Proposition 65 list. The military would tend to have instructions on protective wear for materials that civilians would have no second thoughts about handling.
Edit: Just to clarify, Proposition 65 is a regulation that requires warning signs wherever a substance on a list of potential or known carcinogens is present. For example, all our gas pumps have there signs because of the additive MTBE. Stores that sell leaded crystal have these signs posted.
For Immediate Release: Contact: September 25, 1998 Tara Thornton, Military Toxics Project (207) 783-5091 Chris Kornkven, President, National Gulf War Resource Center (920) 699-2376 Dr. Hari Sharma, University of Waterloo, (519) 885-1211 ext. 2609
INDEPENDENT PILOT MEDICAL STUDY ON PERSIAN GULF VETERANS CONFIRMS EXPOSURE TO DEPLETED URANIUM
Lewiston, Maine- Today the Military Toxics Project released preliminary test results of Persian Gulf Veterans, confirming depleted uranium in veteran's urine. They also confirm these veterans ingested or inhaled depleted uranium during their service in the Gulf. By calculating from rate of excretion formulas based on what is showing in the
urine now, almost 8 years after exposure, it was determined that veterans were exposed to anywhere from 1-10 grams of depleted uranium in the Gulf. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission notes that an intake of .01 gram in one week can cause health problems, and that a known or suspected inhalation of this amount of depleted uranium requires automatic medical testing.
The Pentagon admitted in January 1998 that thousands of soldiers might have been exposed in the Gulf. The Veterans Administration admitted in November 1997 and again on September 18, 1998 they are finding neurocognitive disorders and depleted uranium in the semen of Gulf War Veterans. MTP along with Swords to Plowshares and the National Gulf War Resource Center released the Depleted Uranium Case Narrative in March saying that that number could be as high as 400,000 veterans exposed to depleted uranium. Yet, even though the NRC states that exposure to an intake of .01 grams requires automatic medical testing, the DoD has only tested a few dozen veterans for depleted uranium.
The Military Toxics Project held an International Forum on Depleted Uranium in November 1997. Strategy and next steps were discussed at that time including the loud call for an independent medical study. Veterans were tired of tests not being done, test results that were mysteriously lost, and tests that came back negative because they didn't
exceed the threshold limits for all isotopes of uranium. "We knew depleted uranium was used, we knew there were health risks, we knew no training was done and no protection was given to the vets. We needed to know and the veterans deserve to know if they were exposed and if DU is present in their bodies. Therefore, we conducted the tests independent of the Pentagon and the Veterans Administration", said Tara Thornton, organizer for the Military Toxics Project.
One veteran that tested positive for DU, Michael Stacy said, " I'm really angry, I begged and pleaded with the VA and the DoD for help and was denied, they told me I have Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, if I hadn't of met the folks at MTP, I wouldn't have been included in this pilot study and I still wouldn't know about my exposure to
depleted uranium. Its pretty sad that instead of the VA and DoD testing us vets, we had to go to an independent organization for the truth." Many sick Gulf War Veterans are angry at how they've been treated. Stacy summed up their sentiments best when he said, "80% of the people who join the military, do it to better their lives and their families lives. This has ruined our lives, I'm sick and my wife is sick. If I lived in Iraq or elsewhere I might expect to be treated this way by my government but I never would have thought the United States Government would have left the vets to hang out to dry like this."
Tara Thornton states these test results are preliminary and were conducted for the pilot study. The pilot study was a biased study in which a limited number of veterans known to have been exposed to DU were tested in order to develop the protocol for a much broader test in the future. The pilot study was done using the proper 24-hour
urine bottles sterilized with a nitric acid wash. Veterans were instructed on proper collection and shipping requirements and shipped the samples directly to Dr. Hari Sharma of the University of Waterloo in Canada who conducted the urine analysis.
Dr. Sharma describes the methodology used to determine if DU is present in the urine, "Uranium 235 is determined by the delayed- neutron counting method. Uranium-238 was determined by instrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA). If the ratio between U-238 and U-235 is higher than 137.8, which is what you would find for naturally occurring uranium, then DU is present". Dr. Sharma confirms what MTP has suspected all along, that veterans might have been exposed to depleted uranium in the Gulf. Sharma said, "if it had been simply exposure to natural uranium as the DoD continues to claim, the levels of U238 content found in urine would have resulted in higher levels U234 and U235. In depleted uranium the levels of U234 and U235 are much lower. Uranium in the urine must have come from inhalation or ingestion during the Gulf War, you can't get depleted uranium from any natural sources in the environment".
Chris Kornkven, a Persian Gulf Veteran involved in the pilot study and President of the National Gulf War Resource Center participated on an MTP teleconference call this morning with Dr. Sharma and other veterans tested. He said this confirms previous testing done by the VA in 1995. He has mixed emotions about the results considering the
fact that he was refused for testing, treatment and follow-up care. He said, "my test results in 1995 were higher than some veterans currently being monitored by the VA. These test results show the need for a much faster and more thorough independent investigation into inhalation and ingestion of depleted uranium". Veterans have many
questions regarding the health impact of inhaled or ingested DU and whether or not the depleted uranium will ever be gone from their bodies. Dr. Sharma stated, "there is so much we don't know about exposure to depleted uranium, the need for much more in-depth studies has never been clearer".<hr></blockquote>
Radioactive material is harmful to all life, period. You guys may feel that Iraqi babies are expendable, or haven't been affected by d.u., and I am sure that *none* of you (presumably) have visited maternity facilities in Southern Iraq.
I guess you also feel that the US Government and military authorities are perpetually blameless, never make mistakes, always do the right thing, and always follow standards that are acceptable in military conduct. It also seems that you feel that the price paid by our veterans is irrelevant. Once they have done their dangerous duty on the front line to service the bottom lines of whatever big business lobbied hard enough to send them off to war in the first place, then they are expendable, forgotten, and shafted. The Bush Admin's recent slap in the face to veterans of past wars just confirms this.
Don't we have enough firepower as it is without lobbing radioactive materials around the countryside? A single particle of radioactive material such as this in the lungs (and elsewhere) can trigger cancer.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
Radioactive material is harmful to all life, period. You guys may feel that Iraqi babies are expendable, or haven't been affected by d.u., and I am sure that *none* of you (presumably) have visited maternity facilities in Southern Iraq.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
First, have you actually read any of the reports made availiable by your source, the Military Toxics Project?
In particular, "Transformation of human osteoblast cells to the tumorigenic phenotype by depleted uranium-uranyl chloride" says that the effects could be explained by the toxic nature of uranium and believes the radiation effect to be negligible. In reading, I get the impression that the authors expected and wanted to find radiological effects, but could not substantiate this proposition.
I believe you have keyed on the word, "uranium", and assume that "uranium == radioactivity" and "radioactivity == bad". Radioactivity / radioactive material is not by its existence harmful to all life. Radioactivity is natural on this earth.
"According to the Military Toxics Project, Depleted Uranium (DU), the radioactive byproduct of the uranium enrichment process, is "roughly 60% as radioactive as naturally occurring uranium ..."
In other words, DU is less radioactive than naturally occurring uranium. There are other posts in this thread that show that, while not great in abundance, natural uranium is more plentiful than many other elements.
No one said Iraqi babies are expendable. Those are your words.
For the benefit of others who want to research this further:
<a href="http://www.miltoxproj.org"; target="_blank">Military Toxics Project</a>: The mission of the Military Toxics Project is to unite activists, organizations, and communities in the struggle to clean up military pollution, safe-guard the transportation of hazardous materials, and to advance the development and implementation of preventative solutions to the toxic and radioactive pollution caused by military activities.
Edit: Removed some distracting replies to obviously incitive and baiting statements.
Your original assertion has been decimated, so now you attempt to throw an emotional grenade into the discussion, hoping the explosion and debris will hide your foolishness. I hope that no one takes the bait and allows your silly dramatics to shine like a beacon.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
Radioactive material is harmful to all life, period. </strong><hr></blockquote>
100% false. You are ignorant and uneducated in this area. Life on earth has been bombarded by natural radiation from the beginning. In fact there's a gene in your DNA that gets activated when radiation damage occurs. It scans the DNA and fixes damage. I've linked to the work of one man that demonstrates that some radiation may be good for you. :eek:
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong> You guys may feel that Iraqi babies are expendable, or haven't been affected by d.u., and I am sure that *none* of you (presumably) have visited maternity facilities in Southern Iraq. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Prove to me that those babies were deformed by du. Prove to me that the mothers had significant level of du increase the radiation level to a state that would cause those birth defects. Prove to me the level of du was sufficient to cause chemical toxicity. Otherwise STFU your ignorant troll.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong> I guess you also feel that the US Government and military authorities are perpetually blameless, never make mistakes, always do the right thing, and always follow standards that are acceptable in military conduct. It also seems that you feel that the price paid by our veterans is irrelevant. Once they have done their dangerous duty on the front line to service the bottom lines of whatever big business lobbied hard enough to send them off to war in the first place, then they are expendable, forgotten, and shafted. The Bush Admin's recent slap in the face to veterans of past wars just confirms this.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Irrelevant to the discussion. du either did or did not cause problems independent of the US government. Prove it did.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong> Don't we have enough firepower as it is without lobbing radioactive materials around the countryside? A single particle of radioactive material such as this in the lungs (and elsewhere) can trigger cancer.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes but with a 4.5 billion year half life the chance of that du atom doing anything in anyone?s lifetime is nil. Compared to all the natural sources of radiation it's not even a drop in the bucket. In fact radio biologically the radiation of a single atom would not cause cancer. To cause cancer you need a series of genetic mutations at different sites on different genes. One atom of du could not do that.
Look SJO without being too mean you are ignorant on this subject. You seem to lack the basic understanding of physics, radiobiology, epidemiology and other subjects to grasp this issue. You see a web site with unhealthy babies that blames du and your thoughtless knee jerk reaction is that it must be true. YOU ARE BEING LIED TO AND YOU ARE TOO DUMB TO KNOW IT.
Birth defects are a normal occurrence in this world. You have to prove that du was in those mothers in sufficient quantity to increase the rate of birth defects. Otherwise stfu.
I still find it ironic that we are trying to find a minute element of a weapon has a potential health risk...a weapon that disintegrates armored vehicles and probably turns humans into pink vapor...ironic.
I'll stick with my description of it all..it is a Weapon Of Lingering Destruction...like land mines...you know?
<strong>Why am I sick? Because I make a joke that SJOs hysteria comes from her being a woman?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Low blow, buddy.
Ignorance transcends gender. Concentrate on that, and you'll have an easier time of it. Don't resort to lobbing the emotional grenades and maybe someone will learn something.
My only problem with saying that is that you give SJO an out, something to scream about so she can ignore the very solid points made against her point by screaming about the sexism.
[quote]A single particle of radioactive material such as this in the lungs (and elsewhere) can trigger cancer.<hr></blockquote>
No way. Ever hold a geiger counter up to a shaker of table salt? Lots of radioactive iodine in there, which you eat, with no health effects. Much much more highly radioactive materials are used to cure cancers; they rarely cause new ones. The reason why is that your cells have extensive and effective pathways for detecting and removing DNA damage from all sources, including ionizing radiation. Radiation kills cancer cells more easily than normal cells because cancer cells tend to have defective repair pathways (which contributes to their becoming cancerous in the first place). It takes quite a bit to overwhelm your cellular repair pathways, which is a Good Thing(tm) because of the ubiquitous nature of ionizing radiation on this planet.
I am not in medicine or physics, but nobody in here, no matter what variety of puerile bleatings employed has convinced me one iota that there is no hazard associated with d.u.
Is the original link 'unreliable' because it comes from a middle-eastern, (or non-US Govt. source)?
*
To Scott most specially, and those of similar ilk: If someone makes a factual error in a post, do (please) try to point it out in a civilized fashion. You really don't have resort to unleashing hatred, blind anger, personal jibes and unmitigated vitriol.
If you have that much anger and frustration in your life, I would recommend a good counselor or therapist, because without treatment, such negative and chronic emotional states result in all kinds of delibitating conditions. Are you like this in real life? I feel sorry for you if that is the way you react to a total stranger, on a bulletin board who has made a factual error. Or is it because I included a link that was from a predominantly Muslim nation...Iraq? It is obvious from your numerous posts that you have some pathological hatred for non-Jewish people of middle eastern origin and their faith system.
Scott...maybe you were abducted by aliens? Perhaps you sexually abused as a child? If so, then there are plenty of folk who could do some hynotic regression on you. But that might just be too scary for you. But do try something.
Is being polite not macho enough for your obviously insecure ego? Just wondering.
<strong>The evidence in this thread shows, even some circumstancial evidence from the US Military, that it might not be safe.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, I thought this thread in general drew the opposite conclusion, that the US military's precationary warnings were just that, precautionary, not really being conclusive per se. Well, goes to show you that people see what they want to see. I mean, I have three thoughts with regard to this argument:
1. They're weapons so of course they're dangerous, they're supposed to be. The issue is whether there are lasting side effects, environmental poisoning.
2. Depleted uranium is not some glowing green goo from the Springfield nuclear power plant. As others have said (and mathed-out), there's more concentrations of radioactivity in the general environment. It is a weak source of radiation, again, the question is whether there are long term effects to exposure.
3. The sources supporting that d.u. has long-term negative effects in the environment mentioned here are certainly questionable, especially that first ludicrous source. The best source so far is our own military, which (wisely) promotes precaution, nothing being said about actual effects either before or after the weapons' use.
If the question is whether depleted uranium is dangerous or not, I think I answered that a few pages ago: yes. However, I think the real question is whether it's dangerous in terms of after-effects, long-term exposure. You can choose to ignore the numbers people have thrown out here, though they do at least suggest one conclusion. The only study apparently carried out was by the EU and they said it said, no, it's not a health risk. You can either believe them or not, and wait for more studies, but that's about as far as we can take this subject until we have more real-world long-term studies of the situation. The only question left is whether these suspicions warrant any kind of moratorium, or whether current studies negate that caution.
[quote] I am not in medicine or physics, but nobody in here, no matter what variety of puerile bleatings employed has convinced me one iota that there is no hazard associated with d.u.<hr></blockquote>
Translation I have no idea what I'm talking about on the subject at hand, and although various people have pointed me to sources regarding the subject, I refuse to read them or comprehend them because they disagree with my entrenched beliefs on the subject. My mind is closed on the subject matter, and I posted the original link with no intention of learning anything new on the subject matter. [/End Translation]
SJO, i have no idea why you bother posting anything at all if that's your attitude. it's pathetic. at least show an iota of character and be willing to admit that you're wrong when you're wrong. that or slink off with your tail between you legs and stop posting on the matter. however, if you insist to always hold to your beliefs, no matter what evidence is thrust in your face, the least i could do is point you to others who you might do well with. try <a href="http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm"; target="_blank">these folks</a> they should be right up your alley.
bunge i have to believe that you're tying to misunderstand what's being said in this thread. you'd have to work at misreading just about everything that's been written to reach your conclusions. i only hope it's an accident and not intentional, although after reading through the thread is seems that time and time again you go out of your way to misread information, or leap to stupid/illogical conclusions from other's posts. do you really need to sink to that level?
[quote]The original claim is that DU is safe beyond normal usage. That's the claim by the US (and perhaps other) Military.<hr></blockquote>
oh for Pete's sake. read the first post. read the claim. you're so wrong there it's laughable.
let's take a look at what you've just said.
first:
The original claim here you flat out misunderstand that use of the word original. i would have let it go if this was the first time in this thread that it happened, but it's not. here's a clue for you.
o·rig·i·nal Audio pronunciation of original ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-rj-nl)
adj.
1. Preceding all others in time; first.
2.
1. Not derived from something else; fresh and unusual: an original play, not an adaptation.
next there's is that DU is safe beyond normal usage
learn to read. nowhere does it say that DU is safe. the only claims made in any respect are to what dangers DU rounds impose, and what safety measures should be followed.
Comments
It's funny to see the progression of thought in this thread. SJO begins a topic based essentially on a BS statement. Scott asks for more science to support the assertion. SJO supporters bring absolutely nothing to the table in response, and then turn around and bay like wild dogs for Scott to do their homework for them. Scott actually does the homework and basically blows SJO out of the water. Then, just as someone had already predicted, none of SJO's supporters could get a clear grip on the math and science that was presented finally, and end up disregarding Scotts info anyway. Then we go through numerous more posts re-asserting the assumed danger of DU (basically after all that baying for some "real science", it was disregarded when it didn't support the original assertion).
So what we are left with is that the people here who seek out to demonize DU will continue to do so, regardless of the conflicting evidence presented (even if they are asking to hear the evidence). It is of no concern if it really is dangerous, for they have already made their mind up that it involves "nuclear" therefore it is dangerous and leads to deformed babies. All that is needed is the circumstantial instances that have been conveniently tied to the matter.
SJO presumably has been quiet insofar as she is busy removing a certain foot. I think anybody who posts something like that based on such questionable sources should seriously be "suspect" in any contributions they have in future threads (just IMHO). Clearly, examples of emotional outcry take precedence over rational thought in the construction of a stance (or support of an agenda).
On a separate train of thought, I think it is fairly probable that there are numerous sources of dangerous substances floating around in Iraq, right now, that could be causing any number of peculiar health and deformity issues. Unlike the US, I don't think there is any sort of EPA or health commission working over there regulating the use/handling/disposal of dangerous substances (related to industrial or military operations). For all we know, the general population may be awash in unregulated PCB leakages, carcinogenic solvents/pesticides/chemical by-products, and generally unsafe disposal of industrial wastes seeping into water supplies and such. Does anybody think Saddam cares about stuff like this as long it is kept out of his palaces? Who knows? Who's watching? Just do it, and make your buck. It's all a big, giant assertion I put forth here (at least I am dutifully labeling it as such beforehand). Suffice to say, there's a lot of suspect sources here, not the least are some DU rounds buried in the ground. ...but we won't hear much talk over that because it cannot be used in an agenda to much value to oppose a war or cut down a certain US president, for example.
[ 02-01-2003: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]</p>
<strong>
The orginal claim was that DU is safe.
This thread has evidence showing that it might not be safe.
Someone now needs to refute that evidence.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, the original claim was that DU is not safe.
Furthermore, there was a claim that the damage was due to radiation.
There have been no supporting facts presented that DU is unsafe. There was evidence that defects have been observed in general areas where DU ammunition has been used. There has been one instance cited where a researcher believes the cause to be DU based on one cluster in the United States, with no results of the visits to Kosovo or Iraq.
There has been no claim that DU is safe; only that DU is an unlikely source of radiation in the magnitude that would cause the biological damage attributed to it.
There has been no claim that DU is free of toxic effects. In fact, DU is toxic, just as many other things are toxic in sufficient quantities. This was mentioned marginally, was not refuted, but a good part of the discussion was about radiation effects. I believe it would be worthwhile to concentrate on this aspect.
I admit that I have not helped by bringing up a fact that was not true. I admit to not researching it beforehand, but rather relying on a statement by a research scientist at one of our national laboratories.
So far, the only evidence to refute is the claim about radiation effects. If someone would post "evidence" other than photographic records that claim to show the effects from a single cause, then perhaps there could be some discussion about it, either supportive or otherwise.
It is not unusual for the military to be cautious about handling materials. They are more careful than most. Just look at all the materials on California's Proposition 65 list. The military would tend to have instructions on protective wear for materials that civilians would have no second thoughts about handling.
Edit: Just to clarify, Proposition 65 is a regulation that requires warning signs wherever a substance on a list of potential or known carcinogens is present. For example, all our gas pumps have there signs because of the additive MTBE. Stores that sell leaded crystal have these signs posted.
[ 02-01-2003: Message edited by: Skipjack ]</p>
In 1939, the Nazis under Hitler invaded Poland.
Document Dated: Sep-25-1998
For Immediate Release: Contact: September 25, 1998 Tara Thornton, Military Toxics Project (207) 783-5091 Chris Kornkven, President, National Gulf War Resource Center (920) 699-2376 Dr. Hari Sharma, University of Waterloo, (519) 885-1211 ext. 2609
INDEPENDENT PILOT MEDICAL STUDY ON PERSIAN GULF VETERANS CONFIRMS EXPOSURE TO DEPLETED URANIUM
Lewiston, Maine- Today the Military Toxics Project released preliminary test results of Persian Gulf Veterans, confirming depleted uranium in veteran's urine. They also confirm these veterans ingested or inhaled depleted uranium during their service in the Gulf. By calculating from rate of excretion formulas based on what is showing in the
urine now, almost 8 years after exposure, it was determined that veterans were exposed to anywhere from 1-10 grams of depleted uranium in the Gulf. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission notes that an intake of .01 gram in one week can cause health problems, and that a known or suspected inhalation of this amount of depleted uranium requires automatic medical testing.
The Pentagon admitted in January 1998 that thousands of soldiers might have been exposed in the Gulf. The Veterans Administration admitted in November 1997 and again on September 18, 1998 they are finding neurocognitive disorders and depleted uranium in the semen of Gulf War Veterans. MTP along with Swords to Plowshares and the National Gulf War Resource Center released the Depleted Uranium Case Narrative in March saying that that number could be as high as 400,000 veterans exposed to depleted uranium. Yet, even though the NRC states that exposure to an intake of .01 grams requires automatic medical testing, the DoD has only tested a few dozen veterans for depleted uranium.
The Military Toxics Project held an International Forum on Depleted Uranium in November 1997. Strategy and next steps were discussed at that time including the loud call for an independent medical study. Veterans were tired of tests not being done, test results that were mysteriously lost, and tests that came back negative because they didn't
exceed the threshold limits for all isotopes of uranium. "We knew depleted uranium was used, we knew there were health risks, we knew no training was done and no protection was given to the vets. We needed to know and the veterans deserve to know if they were exposed and if DU is present in their bodies. Therefore, we conducted the tests independent of the Pentagon and the Veterans Administration", said Tara Thornton, organizer for the Military Toxics Project.
One veteran that tested positive for DU, Michael Stacy said, " I'm really angry, I begged and pleaded with the VA and the DoD for help and was denied, they told me I have Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, if I hadn't of met the folks at MTP, I wouldn't have been included in this pilot study and I still wouldn't know about my exposure to
depleted uranium. Its pretty sad that instead of the VA and DoD testing us vets, we had to go to an independent organization for the truth." Many sick Gulf War Veterans are angry at how they've been treated. Stacy summed up their sentiments best when he said, "80% of the people who join the military, do it to better their lives and their families lives. This has ruined our lives, I'm sick and my wife is sick. If I lived in Iraq or elsewhere I might expect to be treated this way by my government but I never would have thought the United States Government would have left the vets to hang out to dry like this."
Tara Thornton states these test results are preliminary and were conducted for the pilot study. The pilot study was a biased study in which a limited number of veterans known to have been exposed to DU were tested in order to develop the protocol for a much broader test in the future. The pilot study was done using the proper 24-hour
urine bottles sterilized with a nitric acid wash. Veterans were instructed on proper collection and shipping requirements and shipped the samples directly to Dr. Hari Sharma of the University of Waterloo in Canada who conducted the urine analysis.
Dr. Sharma describes the methodology used to determine if DU is present in the urine, "Uranium 235 is determined by the delayed- neutron counting method. Uranium-238 was determined by instrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA). If the ratio between U-238 and U-235 is higher than 137.8, which is what you would find for naturally occurring uranium, then DU is present". Dr. Sharma confirms what MTP has suspected all along, that veterans might have been exposed to depleted uranium in the Gulf. Sharma said, "if it had been simply exposure to natural uranium as the DoD continues to claim, the levels of U238 content found in urine would have resulted in higher levels U234 and U235. In depleted uranium the levels of U234 and U235 are much lower. Uranium in the urine must have come from inhalation or ingestion during the Gulf War, you can't get depleted uranium from any natural sources in the environment".
Chris Kornkven, a Persian Gulf Veteran involved in the pilot study and President of the National Gulf War Resource Center participated on an MTP teleconference call this morning with Dr. Sharma and other veterans tested. He said this confirms previous testing done by the VA in 1995. He has mixed emotions about the results considering the
fact that he was refused for testing, treatment and follow-up care. He said, "my test results in 1995 were higher than some veterans currently being monitored by the VA. These test results show the need for a much faster and more thorough independent investigation into inhalation and ingestion of depleted uranium". Veterans have many
questions regarding the health impact of inhaled or ingested DU and whether or not the depleted uranium will ever be gone from their bodies. Dr. Sharma stated, "there is so much we don't know about exposure to depleted uranium, the need for much more in-depth studies has never been clearer".<hr></blockquote>
Radioactive material is harmful to all life, period. You guys may feel that Iraqi babies are expendable, or haven't been affected by d.u., and I am sure that *none* of you (presumably) have visited maternity facilities in Southern Iraq.
I guess you also feel that the US Government and military authorities are perpetually blameless, never make mistakes, always do the right thing, and always follow standards that are acceptable in military conduct. It also seems that you feel that the price paid by our veterans is irrelevant. Once they have done their dangerous duty on the front line to service the bottom lines of whatever big business lobbied hard enough to send them off to war in the first place, then they are expendable, forgotten, and shafted. The Bush Admin's recent slap in the face to veterans of past wars just confirms this.
Don't we have enough firepower as it is without lobbing radioactive materials around the countryside? A single particle of radioactive material such as this in the lungs (and elsewhere) can trigger cancer.
<strong>
Radioactive material is harmful to all life, period. You guys may feel that Iraqi babies are expendable, or haven't been affected by d.u., and I am sure that *none* of you (presumably) have visited maternity facilities in Southern Iraq.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
First, have you actually read any of the reports made availiable by your source, the Military Toxics Project?
In particular, "Transformation of human osteoblast cells to the tumorigenic phenotype by depleted uranium-uranyl chloride" says that the effects could be explained by the toxic nature of uranium and believes the radiation effect to be negligible. In reading, I get the impression that the authors expected and wanted to find radiological effects, but could not substantiate this proposition.
I believe you have keyed on the word, "uranium", and assume that "uranium == radioactivity" and "radioactivity == bad". Radioactivity / radioactive material is not by its existence harmful to all life. Radioactivity is natural on this earth.
"According to the Military Toxics Project, Depleted Uranium (DU), the radioactive byproduct of the uranium enrichment process, is "roughly 60% as radioactive as naturally occurring uranium ..."
In other words, DU is less radioactive than naturally occurring uranium. There are other posts in this thread that show that, while not great in abundance, natural uranium is more plentiful than many other elements.
No one said Iraqi babies are expendable. Those are your words.
For the benefit of others who want to research this further:
<a href="http://www.miltoxproj.org"; target="_blank">Military Toxics Project</a>: The mission of the Military Toxics Project is to unite activists, organizations, and communities in the struggle to clean up military pollution, safe-guard the transportation of hazardous materials, and to advance the development and implementation of preventative solutions to the toxic and radioactive pollution caused by military activities.
Edit: Removed some distracting replies to obviously incitive and baiting statements.
[ 02-01-2003: Message edited by: Skipjack ]</p>
<hr></blockquote>
Your original assertion has been decimated, so now you attempt to throw an emotional grenade into the discussion, hoping the explosion and debris will hide your foolishness. I hope that no one takes the bait and allows your silly dramatics to shine like a beacon.
<strong>
Radioactive material is harmful to all life, period. </strong><hr></blockquote>
100% false. You are ignorant and uneducated in this area. Life on earth has been bombarded by natural radiation from the beginning. In fact there's a gene in your DNA that gets activated when radiation damage occurs. It scans the DNA and fixes damage. I've linked to the work of one man that demonstrates that some radiation may be good for you. :eek:
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong> You guys may feel that Iraqi babies are expendable, or haven't been affected by d.u., and I am sure that *none* of you (presumably) have visited maternity facilities in Southern Iraq. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Prove to me that those babies were deformed by du. Prove to me that the mothers had significant level of du increase the radiation level to a state that would cause those birth defects. Prove to me the level of du was sufficient to cause chemical toxicity. Otherwise STFU your ignorant troll.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong> I guess you also feel that the US Government and military authorities are perpetually blameless, never make mistakes, always do the right thing, and always follow standards that are acceptable in military conduct. It also seems that you feel that the price paid by our veterans is irrelevant. Once they have done their dangerous duty on the front line to service the bottom lines of whatever big business lobbied hard enough to send them off to war in the first place, then they are expendable, forgotten, and shafted. The Bush Admin's recent slap in the face to veterans of past wars just confirms this.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Irrelevant to the discussion. du either did or did not cause problems independent of the US government. Prove it did.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong> Don't we have enough firepower as it is without lobbing radioactive materials around the countryside? A single particle of radioactive material such as this in the lungs (and elsewhere) can trigger cancer.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes but with a 4.5 billion year half life the chance of that du atom doing anything in anyone?s lifetime is nil. Compared to all the natural sources of radiation it's not even a drop in the bucket. In fact radio biologically the radiation of a single atom would not cause cancer. To cause cancer you need a series of genetic mutations at different sites on different genes. One atom of du could not do that.
Look SJO without being too mean you are ignorant on this subject. You seem to lack the basic understanding of physics, radiobiology, epidemiology and other subjects to grasp this issue. You see a web site with unhealthy babies that blames du and your thoughtless knee jerk reaction is that it must be true. YOU ARE BEING LIED TO AND YOU ARE TOO DUMB TO KNOW IT.
Birth defects are a normal occurrence in this world. You have to prove that du was in those mothers in sufficient quantity to increase the rate of birth defects. Otherwise stfu.
I'll stick with my description of it all..it is a Weapon Of Lingering Destruction...like land mines...you know?
<strong>...
I'll stick with my description of it all..it is a Weapon Of Lingering Destruction...like land mines...you know?</strong><hr></blockquote>
But it's not. This is all a twitch in SJO's hysterical uterus.
<strong>
But it's not. This is all a twitch in SJO's hysterical uterus.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry groverat but I have to state this:
Scott...you are one sick motherf@cker...
<strong>Why am I sick? Because I make a joke that SJOs hysteria comes from her being a woman?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Low blow, buddy.
Ignorance transcends gender. Concentrate on that, and you'll have an easier time of it. Don't resort to lobbing the emotional grenades and maybe someone will learn something.
God *forbid*, of course.
My only problem with saying that is that you give SJO an out, something to scream about so she can ignore the very solid points made against her point by screaming about the sexism.
No way. Ever hold a geiger counter up to a shaker of table salt? Lots of radioactive iodine in there, which you eat, with no health effects. Much much more highly radioactive materials are used to cure cancers; they rarely cause new ones. The reason why is that your cells have extensive and effective pathways for detecting and removing DNA damage from all sources, including ionizing radiation. Radiation kills cancer cells more easily than normal cells because cancer cells tend to have defective repair pathways (which contributes to their becoming cancerous in the first place). It takes quite a bit to overwhelm your cellular repair pathways, which is a Good Thing(tm) because of the ubiquitous nature of ionizing radiation on this planet.
The evidence in this thread shows, even some circumstancial evidence from the US Military, that it might not be safe.
So if the US Military deems it dangerous beyond its normal usage, where is the evidence in this thread that they're wrong?
Can anyone show me that the US Military is wasting my tax dollars with precautionary measures with regards to DU?
No?
Oh, that's kind of the feeling I got from the thread.
Is the original link 'unreliable' because it comes from a middle-eastern, (or non-US Govt. source)?
*
To Scott most specially, and those of similar ilk: If someone makes a factual error in a post, do (please) try to point it out in a civilized fashion. You really don't have resort to unleashing hatred, blind anger, personal jibes and unmitigated vitriol.
If you have that much anger and frustration in your life, I would recommend a good counselor or therapist, because without treatment, such negative and chronic emotional states result in all kinds of delibitating conditions. Are you like this in real life? I feel sorry for you if that is the way you react to a total stranger, on a bulletin board who has made a factual error. Or is it because I included a link that was from a predominantly Muslim nation...Iraq? It is obvious from your numerous posts that you have some pathological hatred for non-Jewish people of middle eastern origin and their faith system.
Scott...maybe you were abducted by aliens? Perhaps you sexually abused as a child? If so, then there are plenty of folk who could do some hynotic regression on you. But that might just be too scary for you. But do try something.
Is being polite not macho enough for your obviously insecure ego? Just wondering.
<strong>The evidence in this thread shows, even some circumstancial evidence from the US Military, that it might not be safe.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, I thought this thread in general drew the opposite conclusion, that the US military's precationary warnings were just that, precautionary, not really being conclusive per se. Well, goes to show you that people see what they want to see. I mean, I have three thoughts with regard to this argument:
1. They're weapons so of course they're dangerous, they're supposed to be. The issue is whether there are lasting side effects, environmental poisoning.
2. Depleted uranium is not some glowing green goo from the Springfield nuclear power plant. As others have said (and mathed-out), there's more concentrations of radioactivity in the general environment. It is a weak source of radiation, again, the question is whether there are long term effects to exposure.
3. The sources supporting that d.u. has long-term negative effects in the environment mentioned here are certainly questionable, especially that first ludicrous source. The best source so far is our own military, which (wisely) promotes precaution, nothing being said about actual effects either before or after the weapons' use.
If the question is whether depleted uranium is dangerous or not, I think I answered that a few pages ago: yes. However, I think the real question is whether it's dangerous in terms of after-effects, long-term exposure. You can choose to ignore the numbers people have thrown out here, though they do at least suggest one conclusion. The only study apparently carried out was by the EU and they said it said, no, it's not a health risk. You can either believe them or not, and wait for more studies, but that's about as far as we can take this subject until we have more real-world long-term studies of the situation. The only question left is whether these suspicions warrant any kind of moratorium, or whether current studies negate that caution.
Remember, we're talking about weapons.
[ 02-01-2003: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</p>
Translation I have no idea what I'm talking about on the subject at hand, and although various people have pointed me to sources regarding the subject, I refuse to read them or comprehend them because they disagree with my entrenched beliefs on the subject. My mind is closed on the subject matter, and I posted the original link with no intention of learning anything new on the subject matter. [/End Translation]
SJO, i have no idea why you bother posting anything at all if that's your attitude. it's pathetic. at least show an iota of character and be willing to admit that you're wrong when you're wrong. that or slink off with your tail between you legs and stop posting on the matter. however, if you insist to always hold to your beliefs, no matter what evidence is thrust in your face, the least i could do is point you to others who you might do well with. try <a href="http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm"; target="_blank">these folks</a> they should be right up your alley.
bunge i have to believe that you're tying to misunderstand what's being said in this thread. you'd have to work at misreading just about everything that's been written to reach your conclusions. i only hope it's an accident and not intentional, although after reading through the thread is seems that time and time again you go out of your way to misread information, or leap to stupid/illogical conclusions from other's posts. do you really need to sink to that level?
oh for Pete's sake. read the first post. read the claim. you're so wrong there it's laughable.
let's take a look at what you've just said.
first:
The original claim here you flat out misunderstand that use of the word original. i would have let it go if this was the first time in this thread that it happened, but it's not. here's a clue for you.
o·rig·i·nal Audio pronunciation of original ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-rj-nl)
adj.
1. Preceding all others in time; first.
2.
1. Not derived from something else; fresh and unusual: an original play, not an adaptation.
next there's is that DU is safe beyond normal usage
learn to read. nowhere does it say that DU is safe. the only claims made in any respect are to what dangers DU rounds impose, and what safety measures should be followed.
i feel like i should have pointed <a href="http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/new_matter_020410.html"; target="_blank">these folks</a> to this thread and saved them a lot of time and money.