Poisoned?Shocking report reveals local troops may be victims of america...

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/180333p-156685c.html


Shocking report reveals local troops
may be victims of america's high-tech weapons






By JUAN GONZALEZ
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER



Four soldiers from a New York Army National Guard company serving in Iraq are contaminated with radiation likely caused by dust from depleted uranium shells fired by U.S. troops, a Daily News investigation has found. They are among several members of the same company, the 442nd Military Police, who say they have been battling persistent physical ailments that began last summer in the Iraqi town of Samawah.

"I got sick instantly in June," said Staff Sgt. Ray Ramos, a Brooklyn housing cop. "My health kept going downhill with daily headaches, constant numbness in my hands and rashes on my stomach."

A nuclear medicine expert who examined and tested nine soldiers from the company says that four "almost certainly" inhaled radioactive dust from exploded American shells manufactured with depleted uranium.

Laboratory tests conducted at the request of The News revealed traces of two manmade forms of uranium in urine samples from four of the soldiers.

More...


For more info on what this will mean for their health (and all of us) go to www.radiation.org

...anywhere near where US troops would be? The negatives far outweigh any advantages. :grr:

dren for years after their use. why poison an entire country in an effort to "make it safe for democracy?"

the lunatics in charge of war are completely without conscience, and our government is complicit in horrific war crimes.

They shouldn't be using them at all. Anywhere. Period.:thumbsup:

someone probably got a big bonus for that rich idea :shrug:

peace

and look who is in prison and who is living in their lush gated communtities..makes me sick.

Another "product" that is too toxic to store and illegal to dump, so they spread it around in your toothpaste and ultimately the sewers to the ocean in such low quantities that one company can't be blamed.

http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

they released the poison fluoride into was Newburg, NY...insidious bastards

I think they intend to kill as many of us as possible.

Radiation exposure is a very effective population control device and they make billions ion the process both in selling the nuclear waste products to the military and in treating the sick with drugs afterwards (not to mention the money they make from nukkklear power and selling us electricity)

Thomas Malthus.

The fewer there are of us the better off the stinking rich fascists are.

That is what I believe,

I also believe they are necrophilic oil sucking vampires - the whole lot of them - the BFEE roll call.

The power elite hate the underclass. they see them as an impediment to their goals yet need them to pursue those same goals.

So they kill us and profit from it.

In pre Hitler Germany there were 5 Million Unemployed?

Hitler's solution?

The Final Solution.

5 Million Germans murdered. (Others too)

And Now that we know the Bushes were Hitler's Bankers for his sick and perverted enterprise of global fascism, then we can follow the pattern from Auschwitz to Indian Point to Fallujah.

like agent orange, the chemicals/poisons, are passed onto the wife/girlfriend via semen.

Absolutely disgusting. They KNOW this already. These monsters must be stopped! :grr:

:dem: :kick:

If our GIs spent anytime at all inside a building that was strafed with DU, chances are that he/she would have inhaled some of the residue.

Did any of these GIs go inside the Ministry of Information building? or the Foreign Ministry? Those were two of the buildings that I remember were strafed.

state of affairs for humanity. I feel so sorry for everybody that has been affected by the war.

www.radiation.org

for health info and the consequences. It is not pretty and we all have to face it or gide our heads in the radioactive poisoned sand.


Dr Helen Caldicott has a new organization which deals with this too.

I will try to get the link

On edit: here it is: http://www.nuclearpolicy.org/../

at that site search "Depleted Uranium" and you will get many studies and information from solid sources and scientists and NOT the government or nuclear power and weapons industry propaganda.

This was/is a problem in the first Gulf War. It's not something that can be treated. Kids are playing with it. Soldiers are walking on it. People are harvesting the stuff from their neighborhoods and trying to get rid of it before it kills them.

Boooooooooooooooorn in the U S A...

DU was used in Gulf War I with very serious effects. The cancer rate in children went up something like 5 times.

Consider also the mysterious Gulf War Syndrome the so many of the GW Vets experience. The Pentagon denied it existed for years.

They'll come, they always do. Insisting, despite the evidence, that DU poses no health threat.

and mutating and carcinogenic radionucleide poison is actually GOOD for you (if it doesn't kill you and your progeny forever you will actually be genetically enhanced!!!)

Duck and cover.

I believe the author of this piece also wrote a book about the toxic air at the WTC site and how the * administration downplayed the problem.

Juan Gonzalez, the writer of this article and author of the book, "Fallout" (which is about the toxic air at the WTC site), is also the co-host of "Democracy Now". I read this article this morning and I'm so pissed off and disgusted. Do you think someone will bring this up at the WH press briefing or at the Pentagon press briefing? (I can already guess what Rumsfeld will probably say.)

do you wish to believe in fantasies (such as those put forward by political advocacy groups such as radiation.org), or peer-reviewed science?

speaking of the latter, anyone can go to the national institutes of health PUBMED site at

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=Pager&DB=PubMed

and search 20 million or so primary scientific papers by keywords (for which free abstracts are available, and in many cases so is the full text).

on radiation.org

I suppose you embrace the lies told about Helen Caldicott and Dr. Ernest Sternglass too.

NPRI has solid evidnece too.

Words cannot express my disdain for the proponents of nuclear death and their apologists.

if you actually read the peer-reviewed literature (which you clearly have not done based on the information you post in post #24 - if you had read the papers you would see that the research IS NOT sponsored by those you claim it is) you would have discovered that the chemical health effects of uranium are ONE MILLION TIMES worse than it's radiation hazard.

since, from past discussions it is abundantly clear that you don't have the foggiest clue about how radiation damages cells and has adverse health effects, let's try an analogy. let's say you were in danger of being stomped to death by an elephant that weighs 1000 kg(think the chemical effects of DU) or by a baby mouse that weighs one million times less, or 1 gram (think the radiation effects of DU). could you be stomped to death by a baby mouse? perhaps, but most reasonable people woould think that to be very unlikely - and by claiming so you basically lose all credibility. the, when you propose something more reasonable (i.e., being stomped to death by an elephant) - no one's going to believe you.

air, soil and water samples contained 'hundreds to thousands of times' the normal levels of radiation

more...
http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jid/jid040402_1_n.shtml

well what do you think is causing this result?

peace

until it appears in a peer-reviewed journal, and is independently verified, it means diddly-squat.

if you actually care to consult the peer-reviewed journals, the consensus is something like that found in this paper:

J Environ Radioact. 2003;64(2-3):237-45.

Depleted uranium residual radiological risk assessment for Kosovo sites.

Durante M, Pugliese M.

Department of Physics, University Federico II, Monte S. Angelo, Via Cintia, 80126 Napoli, Italy.

During the recent conflict in Yugoslavia, depleted uranium rounds were employed and were left in the battlefield. Health concern is related to the risk arising from contamination of areas in Kosovo with depleted uranium penetrators and dust. Although chemical toxicity is the most significant health risk related to uranium, radiation exposure has been allegedly related to cancers among veterans of the Balkan conflict. Uranium munitions are considered to be a source of radiological contamination of the environment. Based on measurements and estimates from the recent Balkan Task Force UNEP mission in Kosovo, we have estimated effective doses to resident populations using a well-established food-web mathematical model (RESRAD code). The UNEP mission did not find any evidence of widespread contamination in Kosovo. Rather than the actual measurements, we elected to use a desk assessment scenario (Reference Case) proposed by the UNEP group as the source term for computer simulations. Specific applications to two Kosovo sites (Planeja village and Vranovac hill) are described. Results of the simulations suggest that radiation doses from water-independent pathways are negligible (annual doses below 30 microSv). A small radiological risk is expected from contamination of the groundwater in conditions of effective leaching and low distribution coefficient of uranium metal. Under the assumptions of the Reference Case, significant radiological doses (>1 mSv/year) might be achieved after many years from the conflict through water-dependent pathways. Even in this worst-case scenario, DU radiological risk would be far overshadowed by its chemical toxicity.

Chicken bomb was true, Britain insists
Associated Press

London — A claim that Britain considered using live chickens in a nuclear weapon aroused skepticism Thursday, but officials insisted that it was not an April Fool's hoax.

“It's a genuine story,” said Robert Smith, head of press and publicity at The National Archives.

The archives released a secret 1957 Ministry of Defence report showing that scientists contemplated putting chickens in the casing of a plutonium landmine.

The chickens' body heat was considered a possible means of preventing the mine's mechanism from freezing.

Listing ways of extending the armed life of the landmine, the declassified document proposed “incorporating some form of heating independent of power supplies under the weapon hull in the emplacement. Chickens, with a heat output of the order of 1,000 BTU (British Thermal Units) per bird per day are a possibility.
(snip)
http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040401.wbomb0401/BNStory/International/

...but it's still a pig.

The "sources" you're posting are nothing but dressed-up propaganda.

that means that the information has been thoroughly vetted by the experts in the field and thus represents the current consensus of the scientific community. sure, it's not the ultimate truth (and almost without exception these papers urge continued study) but this information does represent the most honest current understanding of this issue now available.

if you, like many posters on this board chose to reject science, that is of course perfectly fine - after all the current occupants of the white house provide a powerful precedent - but just don't expect too many out in the 'real world' to take you all that seriously.

That is a red herring argument.

It depends on who sponsors the studies whether they are valid. Profit motive by the scientists doing the studies and the periodicals publishing them and the universities given grants by the nuclear industry skews these studies.

just because some of the authors contributing to the site have published peer-reviewed papers (these papers, btw, have quite a different tenor than the material presented on the radiation.org site) you cannot claim that the material presented at radiation.org is remotely peer-reviewable. that's because it blatantly ignores 95% of the results presented in the primary literature (such as that which can be found through searching at the NIH's PUBMED site (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=Pager&DB=PubMed)) in favor of the 5% that support the views they wish to espouse. that's not science, that's dishonesty.

further, the nuclear industry does not sponsor these studies, as you would know if you even bothered to have a look at them. sticking your head in the sand and refusing to evaluate all the evidence can make for some pretty scary websites, but it does not support honest debate or form a valid foundation for public policy.

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

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

The fine point made in these "studies" is that eating or ingesting the heavy metal is more dangerous than simply being exposed to its radiation in the clear. Sure, and gallon of arsenic is also more toxic when swallowed than when simply exposed to its radiation as well. Ergo, radioactive heavy metals are not much more toxic than liquid arsenic.

However, since the soldiers and people are inhaling the metals that are vaporised during flight and upon impact, it makes no sense to claim it's safe(r) just because it's not the radition that kills you, but the toxicity of the heavy metals themselves (like mercury poisoning, for example).

In either case, it is poison and will kill or hurt you - the method is irrelevant.

And of course none of this addresses the moral issues of spreading radiation AND toxic metals all over a foreign country, putting our soldiers and the native people at great risk for hundreds of years to come. Where's the scientific study for that? What peer reviewed journal would we read to find out about the effects of that?

http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

"Rather than the actual measurements, we elected to use a desk assessment scenario (Reference Case) proposed by the UNEP group as the source term for computer simulations."

See, all they have to do is tell what they did in that oblique, dry fashion they have and all is OK. Here they explain that they did not use the actual measurements they gathered, but just a reference case to reach their conclusion. So if you ASSUME the reference case and the actual case match (and they don't say that), no sweat.

If peer-reviewed research were the gospel, there would be no oppositional viewpoints in journals (and there are), and no further research would be needed, yet nearly every article calls for more.

smaller doses or exposures, kind of like second hand smoke, from the radioactive dust MAY well be extremely more dangerous than larger doses or exposures.

The reasons for this have to do with the production of free rdicals and I do not understand the details as they were explained to me by the Founder of the Pittsburgh School of Medicine's department of radiological physics (Dr. Ernest Sternglass)

The analogy they used was the theater doors when someone yells fire. higher doses of radiation cannot penetrate as easily as smaller doses.

Also the exposure-harm analysis which has been used is flawed. lower doses spike higher incidents of illness and harm and curve up slower at the higher doses.

But still - breathing in a chunkful of uranium tainted toxic dust is going to put that shit direcxtly in your blood and cause major problems. In utero and in women the mutations may be permanent and cause awful deformities in children and in the blood causing leukemia.

I get so sick of those who defend this murder.

global-warming" morons who take all their science from one politically-motivated think tank. do you have no ability to go to the primary literature and think for yourself?

anyhow, you are correct that radiation damages cells by the production of free radicals. however, in the case of DU, chemical mechanisms generate one million times more free radicals than the radiation effects!!!

as described in this article:

J Inorg Biochem. 2002 Jul 25;91(1):246-52.
Depleted uranium-catalyzed oxidative DNA damage: absence of significant alpha particle decay.

Miller AC, Stewart M, Brooks K, Shi L, Page N.

Applied Cellular Radiobiology Department, Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute, 8901 Wisconsin Ave., Bethesda, MD 20889-5603, USA.

Depleted uranium (DU) is a dense heavy metal used primarily in military applications. Published data from our laboratory have demonstrated that DU exposure in vitro to immortalized human osteoblast cells (HOS) is both neoplastically transforming and genotoxic. DU possesses both a radiological (alpha particle) and a chemical (metal) component. Since 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 10e(6)-fold (i.e., one million). The data showed that markers of oxidative DNA base damage, thymine glycol and 8-deoxyguanosine could be induced from DU-catalyzed reactions of hydrogen peroxide and ascorbate similarly to those occurring in the presence of iron catalysts. DU was 6-fold more efficient than iron at catalyzing the oxidation of ascorbate at pH 7. These data not only demonstrate that DU at pH 7 can induced oxidative DNA damage in the absence of significant alpha particle decay, but also suggest that DU can induce carcinogenic lesions, e.g. oxidative DNA lesions, through interaction with a cellular oxygen species.


my point is that DU may very well be harmful, but claiming that it is harmful because it is radioactive has absolutely no credibility. it's kinda like saying mr. george bush is evil because he's a child rapist (which may be true, but i don't believe there's much supportive evidence at all). then when you come back with real reasons why he's evil, who's going to believe you??

DU FAQs

1) WHAT IS DEPLETED URANIUM?
There's nothing depleted about it. It's Uranium 238.

4) WHAT DOES U-238 DO TO THOSE EXPOSED TO IT?
In dust form, U-238 is absorbed through the lungs
and contaminates the bloodstream with radioactive
chemical poison. Symptoms of U-238 poisoning range
from fatigue to kidney failure to lymphoma. U-238 levels
can be measured in bodily fluids of the exposed party,
such as urine or semen. Unfortunately, the kidneys
usually cannot filter out enough U-238 to save the exposed
party from cancer, but some of the poison does get
excreted — which explains why women who have
intercourse with a man who was exposed may feel a
burning sensation and develop U-238 poisoning
symptoms themselves; and which is why the offspring of
people exposed to U-238 are often severely deformed.
Just do a google image search: depleted uranium/birth
defects. It’s too horrible to be believed.


http://www.pecosdesign.com/lys/u238.html

http://www.disasternews.net/news/news.php?articleid=1687

"depleted uranium" is called that because it is "depleted" of the U-235 isotope.

natural uranium is about 99.3% U-238 and ~0.7% U-235. upon processing about 0.4% of the U-235 is removed and the remaining uranium, now about 99.7% U-238 is called "depleted uranium" in general usage.

i'm not sure what your "issue" is here, the term "depleted uranium" is based on these simple facts.

In the past decade, Rokke said 30 men out of 100 who were closely involved in these operations dropped dead.

Half life is 4.5 billion years.

As the U.S. stands on the brink of another war with Iraq,
(the one we're talking about now) Rokke said he wants to
make sure the American public
fully understands that this war will be far worse that the
last one, and that numbers of troops sickened by DU
is likely to be much higher.

you care to provide peer-reviewed studies, i'll listen. otherwise it's just propaganda.

here's what the british journal of medicine has to say:

BMJ. 2003 Dec 13;327(7428):1373.

Incidence of cancer among UK Gulf war veterans: cohort study.

Macfarlane GJ, Biggs AM, Maconochie N, Hotopf M, Doyle P, Lunt M.

Unit of Chronic Disease Epidemiology, School of Epidemiology and Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PT.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether incidence rates of cancer are higher in UK service personnel who were deployed in the Gulf war than in those not deployed and whether any increased risk of cancer is related to self reported exposures to potentially hazardous material during the period of deployment. DESIGN: A cohort study with follow up from 1 April 1991 (the end of the Gulf war) to 31 July 2002. PARTICIPANTS: 51 721 Gulf war veterans and 50 755 service personnel matched for age, sex, rank, service, and level of fitness who were not deployed in the Gulf (the Era cohort). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incident cancers, identified on the NHS central register. RESULTS: There were 270 incident cancers among the Gulf cohort and 269 among the Era cohort (incidence rate ratio 0.99, 95% confidence interval 0.83 to 1.17). There was no excess in site specific cancers among the Gulf cohort. Adjustment for lifestyle factors (smoking and alcohol consumption) did not alter these results. In the Gulf cohort, risk of cancer was not related to multiple vaccinations or exposure to pesticides or depleted uranium during deployment. CONCLUSION: There is no current excess risk of cancer overall nor of site specific cancers in Gulf war veterans. Specific exposures during deployment have not resulted in a subsequent increased risk of cancer. The long latent period for cancer, however, necessitates the continued follow up of these cohorts.

here's another peer-reviewed study:

Environ Int. 2004 Mar;30(1):123-34.

Environmental and health consequences of depleted uranium use in the 1991 Gulf War.

Bem H, Bou-Rabee F.

Institute of Applied Radiation, Technical University of Lodz, ul. Zwirki 36, 90-924, Lodz, Poland.

Depleted uranium (DU) is a by-product of the 235U radionuclide enrichment processes for nuclear reactors or nuclear weapons. DU in the metallic form has high density and hardness as well as pyrophoric properties, which makes it superior to the classical tungsten armour-piercing munitions. Military use of DU has been recently a subject of considerable concern, not only to radioecologists but also public opinion in terms of possible health hazards arising from its radioactivity and chemical toxicity. In this review, the results of uranium content measurements in different environmental samples performed by authors in Kuwait after Gulf War are presented with discussion concerning possible environmental and health effects for the local population. It was found that uranium concentration in the surface soil samples ranged from 0.3 to 2.5 microg g(-1) with an average value of 1.1 microg g(-1), much lower than world average value of 2.8 microg g(-1). The solid fallout samples showed similar concentrations varied from 0.3 to 1.7 microg g(-1) (average 1.47 microg g(-1)). Only the average concentration of U in solid particulate matter in surface air equal to 0.24 ng g(-1) was higher than the usually observed values of approximately 0.1 ng g(-1) but it was caused by the high dust concentration in the air in that region. Calculated on the basis of these measurements, the exposure to uranium for the Kuwait and southern Iraq population does not differ from the world average estimation. Therefore, the widely spread information in newspapers and Internet (see for example: http://www.cadu.org.uk/news/index.htm (3-13)>) concerning dramatic health deterioration for Iraqi citizens should not be linked directly with their exposure to DU after the Gulf War.

If it were infected with bubonic plague. One flea that bites the mouse that also bit a person could cause devastation far worse than one elephant(and has). The mouse might not seem dangerous compared to the elephant based on physical stature, but just because it is small does not mean it poses no threat.

that's why i specified the danger was from being "stomped to death" to limit the endless hypotheticals.

(who was head of the Depleted Uranium project for the Pentagon) - go hear him. Debate him directly. Would make for a very interesting interchange.

major rokke doesn't seem to be quite as unbalanced as many posters here considering that he leaves open the possibility of many other factors contributing to the veterans health problems.

see http://sftimes.editthispage.com/stories/storyReader$61


even so, this quote

I ASK: WOULD ANY OF YOU WANT HUNDREDS IF NOT THOUSANDS OF RODS OF SOLID URANIUM WEIGHING UP TO 10 POUNDS EACH LYING IN YOUR BACKYARD? Of course not, so why should it be anywhere?

shows he doesn't have a firm grasp about the realities of the danger of depleted uranium - when in the solid, metallic form (as opposed to the aerosolized, inhalable form), even the radiation.org nutcases don't consider it to be dangerous. heck, a boeing 747 has a couple of tons of metallic DU on board as counter-weights and abrams tanks used by us troops have DU armor. up to the 1980s, DU was used in denstitry (tooth fillings) and ceramic dinner plates containing DU can still be routinely found at garage sales.

about the realities of the danger of depleted uranium. Interesting.

I have heard Rokke speak. And read some of his work. As many researchers (with phds.), he qualifies his terms (per his acknowledgement of other factors), but he also gives very compelling information and data. One point does not exclude the rest.

Your qualifications - as you claim he - who worked the field in Iraq in the fist Iraq war are somehow questionable and that his grasp of the realities is somehow sakey - your qualifications to be a much better source would be exactly what?

I discount many sources. I too, am often skeptical. I, too, have advanced research experience (albiet not in this field). But I do look to those with exceptional experience in a direct field as having a bit more credibility than arm chair skeptics, until I learn the skeptics have comparable insight/experience. Mind you that I do not lightly confer anyone who writes upon a subject as being an "expert." But Dr. Rokke does fit those qualifcations.

IT IS A HEAVY METAL HAZARD! ITS PULVERIZED FORM MAKES FOR EASY INGESTION THROUGH WATER, WIND, ETC.
LEAD, BERYLLIUM, CADIUM, ETC. ARE HEAVY METALS AND NOT GOOD FOR YOU TO INGEST EITHER!

... what if the premise of the analogy is skewed?

What if the elepant represents the radiation effects of DU and the chemical effects is represented by some stomping animal who weighs in at a million times that?

In this case, either one can stomp you to death.

You know, you look at that LITTLE teensie tab of acid and you say,

How could taking this little tiny drop of stuff make a person hallucinate for eight hours?

It's about the QUALITY, not the QUANTITY, treepig.

So enough of the insulting, condescending, patronizing analogies about mice and elephants, treepig.

Uranium, like its non-radioactive cousin lead, isn't something you want to get in your body in any amounts, treepig.

It's not about whether it's a "million times" more dangerous due to chemical effects versus radioactive effects.

Uranium is just plain poisonous, no matter how you spin it, treepig.

i suppose that it was a misguided attempt to reach out to those who chose not to evaluate the "boring" scientific evidence for what it is.

for example, you continue to make statements such as

Uranium, like its non-radioactive cousin lead, isn't something you want to get in your body in any amounts, treepig.

to continue my insulting, condescending, and patronizing ways, i just cannot help but ask if you've thought through the consequences of not wanting to get any amount of uranium into your body.

what that would mean is that you would have to completely stop eating and drinking. that's because all food and water contains uranium - therefore if you partake in the extremely dangerous activity of eating and drinking, you'll take in about 0.001 mg of uranium each day. of course, you'll also be secreting it so it doesn't accumulate endlessly, instead it reaches a steady-state level of about 0.09 mg in your body. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hecs-sesc/rpb/depleted_uranium.htm

with this information i assume that you, who doesn't want any amount of uranium taken into your body, and no doubt seventhson who states that there is no safe level of radioactivity, will stop eating a drinking pronto.

on the other hand, myself and perhaps some of the saner readers of this forum, will undertake a rationale risk analysis and realize that animal studies, when extrapolated to humans, have shown that a negligible health risk exists up to an daily intake of 4.2 mg/day of uranium. of course, it can be risky to extrapolate animal studies to humans, but with a 40,000-fold margin of error to work with, a lot of us will keep right on deliberately dosing ourselves with uranium day after day.

of course battlefield exposure, where intake of gram quantities of uranium has been reported (if measured accurately), clearly could have tremendously adverse health effects. in any event, i submit that your statement

It's about the QUALITY, not the QUANTITY, treepig

qualifies for a few of these:

:crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy:
:crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy:
:crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy:
:crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy:
:crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy:
:crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy:
:crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy:
:crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy:
:crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy:
:crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy:
:crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy:
:crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy:

I would NOT trust the government to tell us whether the shit is "safe" for humans and opther living things.

Besides - most of those studies are NOT science - they are nuclear corporate propoganda sponosred by the merchants of death like GE, Westinghouse, Halliburton, Bechtel, etc.

The Uranium Medical Research Center (UMRC) estimates the amount of DU used in the 2003 war at 1,700 tonnes, deployed in fighting vehicles, tanks, and aircraft. According to a UMRC research team, DU rounds used by US and British forces may have subjected parts of the country to high levels of radioactive contamination. The team's preliminary tests showed that air, soil and water samples contained 'hundreds to thousands of times' the normal levels of radiation. Tanks used in the battle for Nasiriyah examined by the UMRC team were found to be emitting several hundred times the background level of radiation.

more...
http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jid/jid040402_1_n.shtml

psst... pass the word ;->

peace

From the Jane's article linked in the above post:


Iraq: the DU dust settles

Following the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, the incidence of radioactive contamination on Iraqi territory is being linked to the use of depleted uranium (DU) in munitions used by Coalition forces. JID's weapons specialist reviews the continuing political fall-out for Washington and its allies.

DU has created controversy since it was used in the 1991 Gulf War. Activists and veterans' groups blame US weapons containing DU as the prime cause of 'Gulf War syndrome', an elusive combination of maladies that has affected more than 50,000 US veterans. Iraqi medical authorities also claim that increases in child cancers and birth defects were caused by DU contamination from tank battles on farmland west of Basra.

The Uranium Medical Research Center (UMRC) estimates the amount of DU used in the 2003 war at 1,700 tonnes, deployed in fighting vehicles, tanks, and aircraft. According to a UMRC research team, DU rounds used by US and British forces may have subjected parts of the country to high levels of radioactive contamination. The team's preliminary tests showed that air, soil and water samples contained 'hundreds to thousands of times' the normal levels of radiation. Tanks used in the battle for Nasiriyah examined by the UMRC team were found to be emitting several hundred times the background level of radiation.

Depleted uranium - U-238 - is a waste by-product of uranium enrichment and is 40 per cent less radioactive than natural uranium, but remains radioactive for 4.5 billion years. DU is used in munitions because its density is 1.7 times that of lead; ignites and burns on hitting a hard target, acting as a self-sharpening penetrator; and has exceptional performance against armoured targets. Its hardness also makes it ideal for use in armour plating.

and the lack of critical thinking that allows the general public to buy into the sometimes completely absurd conclusions derived therefrom. an extant example is provided in this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1331199

where somebody calculated that, on an atom to atom basis, the DU released in iraq is equivalent to the radiation released in 250,000 nagasakis.

while technically accurate, that's very misleading.

first, the energy at nagasaki was released instantaneously, resulting in a huge explosion. in the case of DU, the energy is slowly and almost imperceptibly released over billions of years. there is quite a difference!!

second, as mentioned in the above linked thread, people currently alive have an equivalent of 57,000 nagasaki's worth of the naturally-occurring potassium-40 radioisotope inside their bodies right now! how can they possibly survive?!?!?!

the point being that the DU alarmists are only telling you part of the story - other parts of the story are (1) uranium is an ubiquitous part of the environment and weapons use does not measurably increase overall levels (certain persons exposed on the battlefield) and (2) the body is well equipped to protect itself against considerable levels of radiation becasue of natural levels of exposure - if you're interested you can calculate your own exposure here:

http://www.epa.gov/radiation/students/calculate.html

note that most people who do not fly alot get most of their exposure from radon, a decay product of depleted uranium, that's not in your basement because of weapons use, but rather because it's naturally occurring everywheres.

peace

see the second study in post #43 if you're looking for data on exposure of iraqi's to depleted uranium.

also, a few "back of the envelope" calculations belie the "thousands of times background levels" (other than at highly localized sites, such as a vehicle struck by a DU projectile)

there were 320 tons (290,560 kg) of depleted uranium used in the first gulf war. let’s assume that all of it was aerosolized and deposited into the environment. now let’s analyze the environmental effects compared to how much uranium was already there.

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 even 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, if we assume that the depleted uranium was localized to 10% of the country, that means an additional 17.3 kg/sq.mi., or if the fighting was extremely localized to only 1% of the country (and the depleted uranium dust was somehow similarly localized), that means there’d be an additional 173 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
w/weapons DU localized to 1% of iraq: 1.903 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 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 the amounts intoduced into the environment 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 gradiation 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.

Ca. 1995 or so? No?


Why am I unsurprised?






Um, can you just agree that inhaling DU dust peobably isn't the best thing for our troops to be doing? Or are you now going to start saying there's no harm in inhaling uranium dust?

if you add < 0.2 ppm of uranium from weapons use, and there was no natural uranium to start with, the amounts present in the environment would be much less than anywhere in the usa.

if there already were high levels, i.e., 5 ppm, then the final levels would rise to a maximum of 5.2 ppm - who knows if that's a concern.

and about your question

Um, can you just agree that inhaling DU dust peobably isn't the best thing for our troops to be doing? Or are you now going to start saying there's no harm in inhaling uranium dust?


may i counter with my own question (besides this one)?

why bother bashing me if you don't even bother to read what i post, such as the last sentence of post #39?

and rember the use of these weapons were VERY concentrated - 'smart' weapons and all

peace

the Las Vegas test site means anything?

Take another look.

and a little common sense too.

If there is any chance something is dangerous and can kill...cause mutations, disease or WHATEVER....then doesn't critical thinking AND common sense dictate that
YOU DON'T USE IT IF YOU DON'T KNOW THE RESULTS?

I don't see how anyone can get past that DU is not a healthy thing to be using regardless whether its the radiation or the chemical toxicity....either way it kills...indiscriminately.
Now to me, that makes absolutely no sense at all to use it....unless of course that is your goal...to eliminate indiscriminately.

Peace...the only answer for our continued survival...unless its already too f**king late

DR

first, DU blows up and kills people - just like a hydrocarbon-based explosive in a steel casing would do - i find that immoral and reprenhisible.

this point has very little to do with the long term effects of environmental contamination of DU, which are essentially negligible compared with the fact that DU blows up and kills people!!

in one example, how many people were killed on the "highway of death"



because DU blows up and kills people??

http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/iraqgenocide/HighwayofDeath.html


btw, depleted uranium has some fairly benign civilain uses:

Depleted uranium has a number of civilian applications. It is employed in counterweights
or ballasts in aircraft (for example, a 747 has about 1.8 tonnes of DU aboard); radiation shields (any irony there?) in medical equipment; as containers
for the transport of radioactive material and as chemical catalysts. DU has also been
used in glassware and ceramics (as cooking and serving containers) and dentistry.

from:

Journal of Environmental Radioactivity 64 (2003) 113–119
www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvrad
Civil use of depleted uranium
Maria Betti

cooling and serving containers? Wha????? I'm none too thrilled about that.

provided:

1) credible evidence is provided that show that the points i raise are incorrect

or, provided that such information continues to not be provided,

2) people quit posting information that is blatantly misleading.


if one is really concerned about the health problems of iraqis or gulf war veterans, is there really any benefit to (most likely falsely) attributing all/most of the problems to DU and leaving the "real killer" unaccounted for? somehow, it seems incredibly cruel to me to let all these people suffer for the sake of idealogy.

By minimizing the affects of the DU you are not enhancing concerns about the troops.

The fact is that there are synergistic effects if you expose troops to chemicals AND radiation.


so you even care about that.

It is not ideology - it is science and it is caution.

The radiaion may COMPOUND the damage from the chemicals - and no intent to minimize the chemical effect is intended. They are BOTH horrific.

But minimizing the dangers which the EU has raised and many scientists have concerns about, places our troops and civilians (and combatants) at risk of horrible suffering.

The nuke industry is on this to protect themselves from liability - that is all.

I think it is indefensible to minimize the potential risks.

Better to be safe than sorry and the only safe way to deal with this is to BAN these weapons.

i thought i clearly stated when i would stop doing so in the post you replied to.

i can now see the magnitude of what i'm up against, apparently my poor spelling, grammar, and sentence structure render my posts completely incomprensible.

oh, well

...wishing that you were gone. I guess I wasn't clear enough in my earlier post.

That's how long it took.

Our very own.

War crimes and profit, hand in hand.

it will be affecting us and our loved ones the rest of our lives.

When these guys get sick and go crazy with illness it will impact all of us: whether it is a loved one who is deteriorating before our eyes or a veteran who goes psycho in a Burger King because he is so sick it is destroying his brains.

Radiation REALLY fucks up one's hormonal system, endocrine system, and can destroy clear thinking, just as you get sicker and sicker from a destroyed immune system and fall victim to opportunistic infections by bacteria and viruses which are mutating due to the radiation too. It becomes harder and harder to think straight.



ON EDIT: GO TO THE NPRI WEBSITE LINKED IN MY PREVIOUS POSY AND THEN SEARCH THE TERM "DEPLETED" - YOU WILL GET THESE RESULTS AND MORE (Sorry, I could not make the links work so here are the results and articles you will find there, inter alia):



Search Results

Search NPRI News
Search NPRI Documents


Your Search for: Depleted turned up 15 documents out of 1322 documents searched

Document Title Score

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pentagon Press Briefing on Depleted Uranium 89.12%
Pentagon Press Briefing on Depleted Uranium Just prior to the opening of the March 2003 Iraq war, the Pentagon conducted a press priefing claiming depleted uranium has no environmental or health effects.

United States Department of Defense
News Transcript
On the web: Presenter: COL James Naughton, U.S. Army Materiel Command

Weapon of Mass Deception 86.58%


The real threat—not only to U.S. troops but to Iraqis as well—may prove to be a weapon scarcely mentioned before, during or after the war: depleted uranium.

Depleted uranium is a byproduct of enriched uranium, the fissile material in nuclear weapons.

Depleted uranium’s radioactive and toxic residue has been linked to birth defects, cancers, the Gulf War Syndrome, and environmental damage.


Weapons of Mass Deception: What the Pentagon doesn’t want us to know about depleted uranium. 86.58%


The real threat—not only to U.S. troops but to Iraqis as well—may prove to be a weapon scarcely mentioned before, during or after the war: depleted uranium.

Depleted uranium is a byproduct of enriched uranium, the fissile material in nuclear weapons.

Depleted uranium’s radioactive and toxic residue has been linked to birth defects, cancers, the Gulf War Syndrome, and environmental damage.


Depleted Uranium Weapons -- June 14th Symposium Presentations and Audio 86.58%


Conference introduction:
Charles Sheehan-Miles, Executive Director, NPRI.
George Woodwell, Ph.D.


Policy Group Calls for More Research on Health Effects of Depleted Uranium 83.51%
Policy Group Calls for More Research on Health Effects of Depleted Uranium NPRI is calling for more research on the health effects of special ammunition used by the U.S. military in the Iraq and other wars.

Tank-busting shells made of an extremely dense metal called depleted uranium are a Pentagon favorite.

Mr. Sheehan-Miles says the health risks from depleted uranium, or DU, may be greater after the latest war in Iraq.


Depleted uranium weapons in Iraq raise health concerns 83.51%
Depleted uranium weapons in Iraq raise health concerns Depleted uranium munitions were tested at the Army’s Jefferson Proving Ground in Madison from 1983 until the base closed in 1994. The widespread use of depleted uranium weapons by U.S. and British forces in Iraq could pose serious health and environmental risks to troops and residents, nuclear and medical experts are warning.

Depleted uranium munitions were tested at the Army’s Jefferson Proving Ground in Madison from 1983 until ...


Army shells pose cancer risk in Iraq 81.69%
Army shells pose cancer risk in Iraq Depleted uranium shells used by British forces in southern Iraqi battlefields are putting civilians at risk from 'alarmingly high' levels of radioactivity. Depleted uranium shells used by British forces in southern Iraqi battlefields are putting civilians at risk from 'alarmingly high' levels of radioactivity. It has long been alleged that depleted uranium (DU) used in the first Gulf ...


Group claims U.S. weapon sickens victims 81.69%
Group claims U.S. weapon sickens victims Is depleted uranium to blame for Gulf War Syndrome suffered by U.S. veterans, for the birth defects of their children and for the illnesses of Iraqi citizens? PORTSMOUTH - Is depleted uranium to blame for Gulf War Syndrome suffered by U.S. veterans, for the birth defects of their children and for the illnesses of Iraqi citizens?

The questions surrounding depleted uranium were explored in an hour-long video titled ...


McDermott Introduces Depleted Uranium Bill 81.69%
McDermott Introduces Depleted Uranium Bill Congressman Jim McDermott (D-WA) introduced legislation requiring studies on the health and environmental impact of depleted uranium (DU) munitions.

Congressman Jim McDermott (D-WA) today introduced legislation requiring studies on the health and environmental impact of depleted uranium (DU) munitions, as well as cleanup and mitigation of depleted uranium contamination at sites within the United States where DU has been used or produced. "We had ...


Anti-nuclear activist Caldicott speaks in Concord 79.67%
Anti-nuclear activist Caldicott speaks in Concord Caldicott, a prominent spokesman for the antinuclear movement, Nobel Peace Prize nominee and inspiration to generations of activists, gave a sobering talk on "Health, Environment and the New Nuclear Danger" at Concord Academy last Thursday night. >

Caldicott, a prominent spokesman for the antinuclear movement, Nobel Peace Prize nominee and inspiration to generations of activists, gave a sobering talk on "Health, Environment and the New ...


Theft of 30 lbs. of Depleted Uranium Puts United Kingdom on Alert 79.67%
Theft of 30 lbs. of Depleted Uranium Puts United Kingdom on Alert British police have issued a national alert after 30 pounds of depleted uranium was stolen from a radioactive waste processing firm in Essex.

LONDON: British Police have issued a national alert after 30 pounds of depleted uranium was stolen from a radioactive waste processing firm in Essex.

Scotland Yard's anti-terrorist branch and Special Branch officers have been...


Iraqi doctors blame cancer rise on depleted uranium shells 79.67%
Iraqi doctors blame cancer rise on depleted uranium shells TOKYO — An increasing number of Iraqis are suffering from cancer and leukemia allegedly caused by depleted uranium shells the United States military used in the area, two visiting doctors from Iraq said in presentations in Japan over the past two weeks. TOKYO — An increasing number of Iraqis are suffering from cancer and leukemia allegedly caused by depleted uranium shells the United States military ...


Unprecedented Report Makes the Scientific Case Against Depleted Uranium 79.67%

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE



"The debate over depleted uranium has increasingly become politicized and polarized, and the rhetoric is getting in the way of the science,"said Helen ...


Watchdog urges depleted uranium cleanup in Iraq 79.67%
Watchdog urges depleted uranium cleanup in Iraq UNITED NATIONS, May 29 (Reuters) - A nuclear arms watchdog group, warning of possible health risks to Iraqi civilians, urged the United States and Britain on Thursday to clean up the remnants of depleted uranium anti-tank shells used in the war. UNITED NATIONS, May 29 (Reuters) - A nuclear arms watchdog group, warning of possible health risks to Iraqi civilians, urged the United States and Britain on Thursday to clean up the remnants of ...


Depleted Uranium Controversy Sparks Scientific Debate 79.67%
Depleted Uranium Controversy Sparks Scientific Debate WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The recent looting of nuclear materials in Iraq increases the world’s focus on issues of health and safety in the post-war era including the impact of depleted uranium. The Nuclear Policy Research Institute (NPRI) brings together experts on all sides of the issue to inform the debate on the potential health effects of depleted uranium on June 14, 20003 at the New York Academy of Medicine.

And they are us.

Everlasting shame.

:cry: :cry: :cry:

All of the wasted humanity. I despise the makers of war!

http://www.wgoeshome.com

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

Edit - It's from BushFlash.com

It's called Poisonous Legacy ... http://www.ericblumrich.com/animation.html

can you tell me which flash it is at your site so I can come back when I have more time? It;s name at BushflasH?

Thanks. Great site by the way.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE July 8, 2003

Contact: Christine Haenn 202/822-9800; Christine@nuclearpolicy.org



UNPRECEDENTED REPORT MAKES THE SCIENTIFIC CASE

AGAINST DEPLETED URANIUM

Nuclear Policy Research Institute releases comprehensive review of potential medical effects



WASHINGTON, D.C. : The Nuclear Policy Research Institute called on the US government to halt the use of depleted uranium (DU) munitions at a press conference to release an unprecedented report outlining the medical effects of depleted uranium.



Depleted Uranium: Scientific Basis for Assessing Risk is a comprehensive review of the broad scope of available research on the fundamental biology behind DU's effect. The Institute found that research conducted since the early 1990's on the impact of alpha radiation, the bystander effect, genomic instability and mutagenic capabilities of uranyl ions confirms that depleted uranium is detrimental to the health of civilians and soldiers alike, particularly children.



"The debate over depleted uranium has increasingly become politicized and polarized, and the rhetoric is getting in the way of the science,"said Helen Caldicott, M.D., Nuclear Policy Research Institute (NPRI). "NPRI compiled this report in order that policy-makers and the public become more fully informed on the medical effects of depleted uranium. The Pentagon cannot justify the use of depleted uranium when the science indicates there is a risk of childhood cancers, birth defects and long term health damage."



NPRI has found in its research that the health effects of DU tend to be substantially understated by government officials, who have in some cases made public statements that directly contradict the results of their own research. The Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute (AFRRI) has documented biological phenomena consistent with that found in studies by independent researchers.



Dr. Thomas Fasy, a Clinical Associate Professor of Pathology at Mount Sinai School of Medicine, presented specific research on the mutagenic capabilities of uranyl ions, the soluble form of depleted uranium, and briefly addressed the biological connection between the dissolution of inhaled uranium oxides in the body and, cancer and birth defects.



"The molecular toxicology profile of uranyl ions is such that it's plausible that they might cause cancers and, when the ions cross the placenta, birth defects," said Dr. Thomas Fasy, Clinical Associate Professor of Pathology at Mount Sinai School of Medicine. "Birth defects seen in studies with mice have included cleft palates and bony malformations."



In June 2003, the need for well-considered scientific data led the Institute to undertake its inaugural symposium at the New York Academy of Medicine. Scientists on both sides of the DU debate gathered to present their data. Some of the results of that symposium are included in the report.



"The Pentagon statements contradict their own research, said Charles Sheehan-Miles, Executive Director, NPRI. "Our report and symposium examined all of the available research and lead to only one conclusion. Therefore, NPRI is calling on the US government to immediately halt the use of DU, initiate a plan for clean up of contaminated areas, and support further research."



The Nuclear Policy Research Institute was founded in 2001 by Nobel Peace Prize nominee, physician, and author Dr. Helen Caldicott. It was established to facilitate a far-reaching, effective, ongoing public education campaign in the mainstream media about the often-underestimated dangers of nuclear weapons and nuclear power programs.

DU shells are OK-pay no attention to those scientists-I swear Galileo would be in the dock with these gopers-this sounds like agent orange deja vu

Thanks george.

Gerdes concluded that four of the men had depleted uranium in their bodies. Depleted uranium, which does not occur in nature, is created as a waste product of uranium enrichment when some of the highly radioactive isotopes in natural uranium, U-235 and U-234, are extracted.

Several of the men, according to Duracovic, also had minute traces of another uranium isotope, U-236, that is produced only in a nuclear reaction process.

I've read in other reports that they've found the same thing in Afghanistan, where urine samples taken from villagers contained not only depleted uranium but also other isotopes. What does that mean?

and it is killing our own soldiers as well as civilians globally.

Interestingly (ahem) the dust from these countries does get into the atmosphere and blow into Europe and ultimatley it goes global. It's half-life is in the millions of years in some cases meaning EVERY bomb could cause harm to not only our troops and civilians, but our grandchildren and great grandchildren generations from today.

Think about that.

YOUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK KILLING OFF FUTURE GENERATIONS!

Congratulations, Pilgrim!

is discussed here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12500799

and here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12500802

They'd pave the parking lots in Washington with it.

And we can send Bush copies of treepig's assurances it perfectly safe. Nothing for them to worry about. Sure.

why shouldn't it, considering that most us tanks do, and the same military folks are basically in charge of both the army and white house:

DEPLETED URANIUM ARMOUR
The M1A1 tank incorporates steel encased depleted uranium armour. Armour bulkheads separate the crew compartment from the fuel tanks. The top panels of the tank are designed to blow outwards in the event of penetration by a HEAT projectile. The tank is protected against nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) warfare.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/abrams/

were the reason our Iraqi soldiers in Iraq I and Iraq II
was the reason for their ailments........NOT!!!!

It has always been the depleted Uranium and this lovely
depleted Uranium DUST covers every square foot in Iraq!!!

Isn't ironic, in essence, the US Military has an autoimmune
disorder where they are just killing themselves.

So let us just let Bush/Cheney eventually destroy the military that protects them and all their corporate thugs. Eventually they won't have anymore .........well you got the picture.

How can still keep on minning it? Here is an excerpt from a who report

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/
(snip)
Potential health effects of exposure to depleted uranium

* In the kidneys, the proximal tubules (the main filtering component of the kidney) are considered to be the main site of potential damage from chemical toxicity of uranium. There is limited information from human studies indicating that the severity of effects on kidney function and the time taken for renal function to return to normal both increase with the level of uranium exposure.
* In a number of studies on uranium miners, an increased risk of lung cancer was demonstrated, but this has been attributed to exposure from radon decay products. Lung tissue damage is possible leading to a risk of lung cancer that increases with increasing radiation dose. However, because DU is only weakly radioactive, very large amounts of dust (on the order of grams) would have to be inhaled for the additional risk of lung cancer to be detectable in an exposed group. Risks for other radiation-induced cancers, including leukaemia, are considered to be very much lower than for lung cancer.
* Erythema (superficial inflammation of the skin) or other effects on the skin are unlikely to occur even if DU is held against the skin for long periods (weeks).
* No consistent or confirmed adverse chemical effects of uranium have been reported for the skeleton or liver.
* No reproductive or developmental effects have been reported in humans.
* Although uranium released from embedded fragments may accumulate in the central nervous system (CNS) tissue, and some animal and human studies are suggestive of effects on CNS function, it is difficult to draw firm conclusions from the few studies reported.
(snip)

I was kind of thinking this whole thing was a little hyped, but now I do remember this stuff from awhile back. They have been trying to shut this Army doctor down for a long while now it seems.

This is persistant problem that will never be able to be solved

http://www.democracynow.org/

Broadcast Exclusive: U.S. Soldiers Contaminated With Depleted Uranium Speak Out

A special investigation by Democracy Now! co-host Juan Gonzalez of the New York Daily News has found four of nine soldiers of the 442nd Military Police Company of the New York Army National Guard returning from Iraq tested positive for depleted uranium contamination. They are the first confirmed cases of inhaled depleted uranium exposure from the current Iraq conflict.

After repeatedly being denied testing for depleted uranium from Army doctors, the soldiers contacted The News who paid to have them tested as part of their investigation.

Testing for uranium isotopes in 24 hours' worth of urine samples can cost as much as $1,000 each.

In a Democracy Now! broadcast exclusive, three of the contaminated soldiers speak out.

Army officials at Fort Dix and Walter Reed Army Medical Center are now rushing to test all returning members of the 442nd. More than a dozen members are back in the U.S. but the rest of the company, mostly comprised of New York City cops, firefighters and correction officers, is not due to return from Iraq until later this month
(snip)

In truth, I have no inclination there is anything good about any applications for anything RADIOACTIVE, but maybe that's just me. If any portion what the doctor had been researching is true. Then this will be a even bigger blow to nuclear technology, once all these other troops come home and suffer from it. This is saying nothing about the poor people in Iraq either (there land is stuck with it all over the place).

That believe and say repeatedly that DU is harmless would go roll in it, play in it, breathe it, eat it and report back to me in about five years.

180

you've being doing all those things all your life, as shown by this map of uranium distribution in the usa:

malformation, birth defects, etc.

THANK YOU. Very reassuring.

Now ADD to that the waste and legal/accidental emissions from nuke plants and you will see why the RPHP has found man-made radiation in the baby teeth of EVERY American child tested.

See here:

www.radiation.org

is weird, and I think it might be because of radiation my parents were exposed to before I was born. Oh, there's nothing really wrong with me, per se, but my left side has some... odd traits.

I saw a chart once showing fallout exposure levels from nuclear testing in the West. It was a huge swath that expanded from the west to totally cover the midwest and eastern parts of the country. God only knows how many cancers, deformations, genetic conditions, etc. were caused or exacerbated by that testing.

Fallout likely caused 15,000 deaths

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/02/28/usat-nuke.htm

of course, comparing radioactive fallout from weapons testing with the ubiquitously-occurring U-238 isotope is either bizarre or down-right fraudulent, depending on how charitible one wishes to be.

some radioisotopes actually save lives. for example, and no doubt explaining some of some of the posters on this thread's animosity towards all things radioactive, radioactive iodine was used to treat Grave disease in both poppy and barbara bush (see http://pharmalicensing.com/features/disp/1015507108_3c8768a47296c ).
an argument can be made that without radioisotopes, both of these people would be dead, consequently there'd be no puppetmaster(s) behind the current administration, and DU (that's democratic underground in this case) wouldn't even exist.

http://spike.nci.nih.gov/fallout/html/

then go hear and read this:

http://www.euradcom.org/2003/execsumm.htm

and you're being damn disingenuous by posting it. Like I said before, show me a photo of Iraq ca. 1995 or so that shows the concentration of weaponized uranium and I will pay attention to it.

You're trying to equate naturally occurring uranium existing in the ground with weaponized depleted uranium dust that's in the air and on the soil's surface, as well as on burned-out vehicle husks and bombed-out buildings. Sorry, treepig, but that kind of transparent reframing of the issue simply won't fly with me.

Do better, if you can. After seeing that photo twice in this thread, however, I'm not going to keep my hopes up about that.

and uranium dust (i.e, the 2-10 micron particles that result from weapons use) rapidly settles and is incorporated into the soil, becoming indistinguishable from naturally-occurring uranium.

the exception, i.e. as situation when greater-than-background levels of uranium are absorbed by the body are (see bold statement below):


J Environ Radioact. 2003;64(2-3):93-112.


Properties, use and health effects of depleted uranium (DU): a general overview.

Bleise A, Danesi PR, Burkart W.

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

Depleted uranium (DU), a waste product of uranium enrichment, has several civilian and military applications. It was used as armor-piercing ammunition in international military conflicts and was claimed to contribute to health problems, known as the Gulf War Syndrome and recently as the Balkan Syndrome. This led to renewed efforts to assess the environmental consequences and the health impact of the use of DU. The radiological and chemical properties of DU can be compared to those of natural uranium, which is ubiquitously present in soil at a typical concentration of 3 mg/kg. Natural uranium has the same chemotoxicity, but its radiotoxicity is 60% higher. Due to the low specific radioactivity and the dominance of alpha-radiation no acute risk is attributed to external exposure to DU. The major risk is DU dust, generated when DU ammunition hits hard targets. Depending on aerosol speciation, inhalation may lead to a protracted exposure of the lung and other organs. After deposition on the ground, resuspension can take place if the DU containing particle size is sufficiently small. However, transfer to drinking water or locally produced food has little potential to lead to significant exposures to DU. Since poor solubility of uranium compounds and lack of information on speciation precludes the use of radioecological models for exposure assessment, biomonitoring has to be used for assessing exposed persons. Urine, feces, hair and nails record recent exposures to DU. 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.


by saying that peer-reviewed science "won't fly with me" basically you're leaving the realm of rationality and embracing superstition - why i'm not sure but i suspect you must have some reason ??

I am say that pic you posted doesn't really support your argument:

-it's a pic of the US, not Iraq, which unless I missed something was the topic at hand

-it's a pic of naturally occurring uranium in the ground. What shows on that map isn't depleted or weaponized.

Like I said before, that map of uranium concentrations in the US does nothing to convince me that inhaling depleted uranium dust isn't harmful to soldiers and civilians alike. And, here's another thing: you won't ever convince me that that isn't harmful. Trying to do so will only make you sound like a 1980's tobacco executive.

Is that really what you're trying to say? That inhaling DU dust isn't harmful? In fact, I must ask... what, exactly, are you trying to say?

Is this stuff harmful over a long period, or is it not?

read the abstract i posted. or at least the two bolded sentences.

the point of the first sentence is that depleted uranium (which is 99.7% U-238) used in weapons rapidly becomes indistinguishable from the natural uranium (which is 99.3% U-238) already present in the environment.

the point of the second sentence is that yes, exposure of soldiers on the battlefield may sometimes be hazardous (but mainly because these people would be blown up by being struck by a DU munition). the flip side is that no, there is no harm to civilians (unless, of course the civilians - aka blackwater mercenaries - are in the previously specified DU-munitions-struck vehicle).

You and I have traveled this road before when I first suggested you join up and go to Iraq and help the Explosive Ordnance Disposal Technicians (EOD Techs) people clean up some of the mess. (As I recall you rejected that suggestion). Uncle Sam provides very special protective clothing and self contained breathing equipment for that purpose (Working with DU munitions) and so it is I am convinced it is not good for one, especially me.. And of course like you I am stubborn and nothing will change my mind,nothing. Period.

180 Ex Explosive Ordnance Disposal and Nuclear Weapons Disposal Technician-- I might add.

Treepig is right.

Or vice versa

and what was a bit strange was that uncle sam provided all that special gear for you to handle the intact, relatively less dangerous, form of the DU munitions

but did not provide the "special protective clothing" for major rokke's team when they had to clean up the aerosolized, relatively more dangerous, form of the DU munitions. i'm not sure if we ever figured out what was up with that.


in any event, there are no doubt instances when blown-up DU munitions do indeed present a real health hazard - but due to chemical - not radiological - factors. somehow i'm completely unable to cogently present that distinction to readers of this forum. perhaps i should learn klingon in case i'll be able to present my arguments more persuasively in a different language.

...because most of us have already seen through your little game. Shoo...go on home now, the adults want to talk.

made out of it.

Corporations.

(Sarcasm off(


Remember Cheney's Halliburton builds Nukes and finances the propaganda supporting the nuke industry.

The anti-nuke people (like me) are fighting the nasty goliath artmed only with the Truth and NO profit motive (with the possible or likely exception of Ralph Nader who seems yo be willing to say or do anything for his own profit).

is how he has been selectively quoted by those wishing to hype the radiation dangers of DU.

if one cares to take his spiel in totality, a speech of his is found at

http://sftimes.editthispage.com/stories/storyReader$61

where he details other seemingly unhealthy conditions his unit encountered in the gulf war.

these include:

anthrax and botulinum vaccinations (of which some batches were contaminated with squalene)

ingestion of PB tablets (an nerve gas antidote)

contaminated food (possibly due to sabotage with biological agents)

water sanitation issues that may have directly led to ingestion of pathogens and at the least prevented bathing

exposure to incomplete combustion of inorganic and organic compounds from oil well fires

physical injuries

quite frankly, it's not at all clear to me how these factors shouldn't be given some?/equal?/greater? consideration compared to depleted uranium in trying to determine the cause of the gulf war syndrome.

from the sun:


treepig (1000+ posts) Fri Apr-02-04 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #18

20. yes, but it's much too dangerous


in the usa alone sunlight causes ~100,000 new cases of cancer and 5-7,000 deaths each year.

that's due to radiation being uncontrollably released into the environment, i believe.

sunlight should be banned, imo.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=6618#6778

is the ultraviolet form of radiation, which forms thymine dimers in dna.

it's really quite different from the ionizing radiation (alpha particles) from DU, which is capable of causing oxidative dna damage.

but yes, if one is worried about the health effects of radiation, the logical place to start would be banning sunlight.

btw, there's also a chemical known as dhmo that is very, very dangerous, find out all the details at:

http://www.dhmo.org

and be sure to sign the petition to ban this chemical, which has been found in each and every cancer cell ever tested for its presence, at:

http://www.dhmo.org/research.html

You said: "it's not at all clear to me how these factors shouldn't be given some?/equal?/greater? consideration compared to depleted uranium in trying to determine the cause of the gulf war syndrome."

Fact is that they SHOULD be factored in to the harms-- and that is what he is saying.

The radiation may and likely has a synergistic effect with other injuries/damage from whatever source.

And this is exactly WHY he is discussing all of these issues.

this conclusion from a leading nuclear scientist who has studied the problem?

Quote from article--

"'All humans have at least tiny amounts of natural uranium in their bodies because it is found in water and in the food supply,' Dietz said. 'But natural uranium is quickly and harmlessly excreted by the body.'

"Uranium oxide dust, which lodges in the lungs once inhaled and is not very soluble, can emit radiation to the body for years.

"'Anybody, civilian or soldier, who breathes these particles has a permanent dose, and it's not going to decrease very much over time,' said Dietz, who retired in 1983 after 33 years as nuclear physicist. 'In the long run ... veterans exposed to ceramic uranium oxide have a major problem.'"

Just blobs of water w/ enough organic matter
mixed in to keep us from dribbling all over the place.

“In a war that’s being fought for the benefit of the Iraqi people, you can’t afford to kill any of them,”

http://archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/2003/04/01/story93816.asp

30 kg DU in each cruise missile.
25% went off course.

in a reputable journal,

but having said that, consider that considerably more in known now than in 1983 about the cellular effects of radioisotopes.

if you calculate how many reactive free-radical oxygen species (which are what causes cellular damage) are generated by a DU particle of 10 microns (the maximum inhalable size i've seen quoted) due to it's emmission of alpha particles - it's in the order of thousands to tens of thousands each day.

the most dangerous situation is when all of these free radicals are concentrated on one cell - therefore their damage will be more focussed and likely to irreparably damage the cell.

however, consider that "Some ten billion free radicals are created each day in each cell" due to natural metabolism (see
http://www.lfr.com/news/EBulletins/e-bulletin016.htm ).

therefore consider the effects of a few thousand free radicals from the radiation produced by the DU particle compared to a few billion free radicals from natural metabolism. you do the math.

oh, except I don't think he ever inhaled some radioactive dust or ate crops grown in the soil.

http://spike.nci.nih.gov/fallout/html /

then go hear and read this:

http://www.euradcom.org/2003/execsumm.htm

excerpt from the European Radiation Study Conclusion/Summary:


9. The committee reviews the evidence which links radiation exposure to illness on the basis that similar exposures define the risks of such exposures. Thus the committee considers all the reports of associations between exposure and ill health, from the A-bomb studies to weapons fallout exposures, through nuclear site downwinders, nuclear workers, reprocessing plants, natural background studies and nuclear accidents. The committee draws particular attention to two recent sets of exposure studies which show unequivocal evidence of harm from internal irradiation at low dose. These are the studies of infant leukemia following Chernobyl, and the observation of increased minisatellite DNA mutations following Chernobyl. Both of these sets of studies falsify the ICRP risk models by factors of between 100 and 1000. The committee uses evidence of risk from exposures to internal and external radiation to set the weightings for the calculation of dose in a model which may be applied across all exposure types to estimate health outcomes. Unlike the ICRP the committee extends the analysis from fatal cancer to infant mortality and other causes of ill health including non-specific general health detriment.

10. The committee concludes that the present cancer epidemic is a consequence of exposures to global atmospheric weapons fallout in the period 1959-63 and that more recent releases of radioisotopes to the environment from the operation of the nuclear fuel cycle will result in significant increases in cancer and other types of ill health.

11. Using both the ECRR's new model and that of the ICRP the committee calculates the total number of deaths resulting from the nuclear project since 1945. The ICRP calculation, based on figures for doses to populations up to 1989 given by the United Nations, results in 1,173,600 deaths from cancer. The ECRR model predicts 61,600,000 deaths from cancer, 1,600,000 infant deaths and 1,900,000 foetal deaths. In addition, the ECRR predict a 10% loss of life quality integrated over all diseases and conditions in those who were exposed over the period of global weapons fallout.

Why is it that when we were screaming about the dangers of DU, we were shouted down? Now it's some big dam revelation that DU is bad for you? I guess it was in the context of the Iraqi people, that made the subject unimportant.. now it's affecting OUR people, it's news. Disgusting, sad, and totally predictable.

people in New York got it on the front page is why I posted it.

It doesn't often get to LBN.

But this is an issue for our troops from Desert Storm as well as Kosovo.

It just never gets to the mainstream news and I try whenever possible to get folks to pay attention. I have interviewed and worked with the folks at the Radiation and Public Health Project.

The industry coverup is a horrific and deadly quilt of lies.

They are killing us and they know it.

And they send liars and propagandists out to discredit ANYONE who might intefere with the profits of Halliburton, GE and Westinghouse (just to name a few).

It is the most profitable business on the planet (weapons and products of mass death and destruction) and they will NOT be trifled with concerning their profits.

.....to CORPORATE GREED....we've ALL been enlisted as guiney pigs by them with OR WITHOUTH our consent...all our science has been used for and against us for the HIGHEST PROFIT!

THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS RIGHT/WRONG OR JUSTICE...yet the illusion continues! :eyes:

They are killing us and WE KNOW IT.

Flashback: 50's... D.C. area... elementary school. We did planets in 4th and "Industrial Revolution" in 5th were I made this connection... OOPS! Venutians blew it BIG TIME! And now in my half century, I'm watching Earth blow it BIG TIME RIGHT IN FRONT OF MY LYING EYES. Next stop: Mars. :silly:

It's a sight to behold. In the name of "profits" which these days are keystrokes or a touch on a screen (think: vote) the AIR, WATER AND FOOD SUPPLIES ARE BEING SYSTEMATICALLY POISONED (our sustenance, Mother Earth being raped. Move along nothing to see here).

Blood is FLOWING IN THE STREETS (think: Haiti, Iraq, Israel, anyone? Nothing to see in Africa. Who's on "Survivor" tonight?)

I be seeing lava spewing from the Iraq volcano... Be that my lying eyes again? Wo dem other glasses? (Ich hab "Mittebrille!" Die sind geil!) Yup. It's FUBAR. OH SHIT.

I'ma only say it once. <<Yeah, right. :silly:>>

*cabal intends to live to see HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS TO BILLIONS of Homo-sapiens dead (I won't digress as we're SO ARROGANT and only seem to get it when WE as a species are affected, and a lot o' times NOT EVEN THEN). That is if MoEarf don't get there first (think: antibiotics for a primer or mebbe global warming if you can even go there).

Long time ago, I read that the most common phrase uttered by pilots knowing collision stared them in the face was, "OH SHIT."

Hey Demo Tex bist Du da? Is that an urban legend?

Allright, I'm never gonna give an inch to idiots who prefer propaganda over truth again! And ignore the pathetic unoriginal uniformed people who still echo the official 9/11 lies to. Time will tell, the Bush Gang did it!
:think:

I guess that I DO need to read the studies to see what they prove or NOT.

This excerpt was the third article at the link provided by Treepig when I searched the term Depleted Uranium there (the NIH site)

Here is an excerpt:

Depleted uranium (DU) and heavy-metal tungsten alloys (HMTAs) are dense heavy-metals used primarily in military applications. Chemically similar to natural uranium, but depleted of the higher activity 235U and 234U isotopes, DU is a low specific activity, high-density heavy metal. In contrast, the non-radioactive HMTAs are composed of a mixture of tungsten (91-93%), nickel (3-5%), and cobalt (2-4%) particles. The use of DU and HMTAs in military munitions could result in their internalization in humans.

Limited data exist however, regarding the long-term health effects of internalized DU and HMTAs in humans.

Both DU and HMTAs possess a tumorigenic transforming potential and are genotoxic and mutagenic in vitro.

Using insoluble DU-UO2 and a reconstituted mixture of tungsten, nickel, cobalt (rWNiCo), we tested their ability to induce stress genes in thirteen different recombinant cell lines generated from human liver carcinoma cells (HepG2). The commercially available CAT-Tox (L) cellular assay consists of a panel of cell lines stably transfected with reporter genes consisting of a coding sequence for chloramphenicol acetyl transferase (CAT) under transcriptional control by mammalian stress gene regulatory sequences. DU, (5-50 microg/ml) produced a complex profile of activity demonstrating significant dose-dependent induction of the hMTIIA FOS, p53RE, Gadd153, Gadd45, NFkappaBRE, CRE, HSP70, RARE, and GRP78 promoters. The rWNiCo mixture (5-50 microg/ml) showed dose-related induction of the GSTYA, hMTIIA, p53RE, FOS, NFkappaBRE, HSP70, and CRE promoters. An examination of the pure metals, tungsten (W), nickel (Ni), and cobalt (Co), comprising the rWNiCo mixture, demonstrated that each metal exhibited a similar pattern of gene induction, but at a significantly decreased magnitude than that of the rWNiCo mixture.

These data showed a synergistic activation of gene expression by the metals in the rWNiCo mixture.

Our data show for the first time that DU and rWNiCo can activate gene expression through several signal transduction pathways that may be involved in the toxicity and tumorigenicity of both DU and HMTAs.


WHAT THIS MEANS:

DU is mutagenic (causes genetic mutation) and genotoxic (poison to genes) in vitro (in the test tube) and have tumor creating potential due to these characteristics.

There is a synergy with the metals and DU used in weapons (meaning they are MORE dangerous in combination than when used alon)

This is EXACTLY what I was saying dammit.

I guess I tried to blow Treepig off without realizing that he was citing sources which actually agreed with what I have been saying all along.

DU is dangerous and is MORE dangerous weaponized with the other heavy metals used.

There is no argument then.

Treepig's sources are right and they agree with me. Treepig's assertion that DU radiation is not dangerous is hogwash and this study PROVES it:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14971665

After reading through this entire thread, it seems like you repeatedly ignore Treepig's statements that DU is very much CHEMICALLY toxic. Chemical toxins, such as heavy metals, are usually mutagenic, terotogenic and genotoxic. You on the other hand keep claiming the damage done by DU is radiation-based, which this article DOES NOT back up.

causes the harm or not.

In the past posters have defended the nuke industry which produces this shit which is nuclear waste.


and there is plenty of evidence that low level nuke waste is dangerous. I have seen many of the studies.

But so what?

The point is that the DU is killing our troops as well as civilians and that it is indefensible.

But your point is noted.

I think the last study I cited does not say WHY the DU is mutagenic (radiation or heavy metal or both). The implication is that DU and the other heavy metals in the weapons is synergistically WORSE, but there is no explanation of why.

What it says is that there are not enough studies on the impact to humans.

If you want to defend the radiation in DU go ahead.

I believe it is dangerous.

But I will continue to do my research.

It seems that Treepig wants us just to bel;ieve, with no evidence cited by him, that radiation in the DU is SAFE.

To me that is totally nuts and is an industry argument.

Quoted directly out of his post, #29:

"if you had read the papers you would see that the research IS NOT sponsored by those you claim it is) you would have discovered that the chemical health effects of uranium are ONE MILLION TIMES worse than it's radiation hazard."

As far as I can tell, he's NEVER claimed DU was safe. He's claimed it is a low health risk from RADIATION, but he clearly states it is a serious health risk from CHEMICAL toxicity. He's not defending the use of DU for war usage either, as stated in his post #68, titled "i completely agree that weapons use of DU should end NOW".

Does no one pay attention to Treepig's mention of the CHEMICAL toxicity of DU? I find it much more believable that these men are suffering from the toxic effects of chemically-induced DU poisoning than from radiation-induced DU poisoning.

Furthermore, many posters here appear to be putting words into Treepig's mouth to imply he is saying things he is not. I have yet to see him state DU is harmless; he has stated on numerous occasions that DU is a dangerous substance based on it's chemical (not radiological) toxicity. Why must so many here imply he is saying DU is perfectly safe in every form in an attempt to win an argument when that doesn't even appear to be his position?

The gist of the thread, from my viewpoint, seems to be:

Treepig: DU is toxic, but toxic due to its chemical nature, not its low-level radiation emission.

Others: How dare you claim DU is perfectly safe and non-toxic! It's RADIOACTIVE (que the screams of terror).

DU can be both chemically toxic and radiologically toxic. It is my understanding that "depleted" uranium is not always depleted. A large amount of it isn't depleted and is just plain old uranium.

I expect that tests of proven depleted uranium may come out to be clean, while tests using random samples of "depleted" uranium from munitions will not come out clean.

is what I object to.

Treepig's first post on this subject on this thread included the following:

treepig (1000+ posts) Sun Apr-04-04 09:12 AM
Response to Reply #5

19. i guess the key question is do you wish to believe in fantasies (such as those put forward by political advocacy groups such as radiation.org), or peer-reviewed science?

The position Treepig is defending is that the irradiating of our troops is perfectly safe and not dangerous.

THAT is bullshit.

He has also stated in this thread:

"this point has very little to do with the long term effects of environmental contamination of DU, which are essentially negligible..."

I have stated here repeatedly that there is a synergistic effect of radiation AND the heavy metal chemical components of the DU weapons.

Treepig calls the research by the Radiation and Public Health Project a "Fantasy".

I find that reprehensible. These are dedicated professionals and doctors and scientists who HAVE published peer reviewed articles. Treepig misrepresents that completely and calls it "Fantasy".

If your children had radiation in their teeth and they had leukemia or bone cancer or a damaged thyroid or immune system - Treepig says there is no relation. That the radiation is fine and perfectly safe -- that is his position.

I simply say read the research and studies andf articles at radiation.org or the other site I cited (Helen Caldicott's articles on DU I cited above)

I think this is obfuscation of the real issues. Irradiating our troops and our environment and Iraq's environment is KILLING people and will continue to Kill people. Treepig says that is untrue. I think he is dead wrong. About the radiation.

There is NO safe level of radiation exposure. Our troops are being exposed and they are sick. Are they sick from other causes combined with the radiation. I'd bet on it.

And it disgusts me.

is the same problem that occurs with this post - selective and out-of-context quoting of a small subset of all available information with (what would appear to be) the intent to mislead.

by contrast, nick79b, summarized my position fairly and accurately (and succintly! bravo!) a couple of posts up.

maybe there are dedicated professionals who contribute to the radiation.org site, but their work appears to be taken quite out of context there. in particular, if you go to the primary, peer-reviewed papers they publish (limited to uranium exposure in this discussion), these papers essentially say:

1) elevated levels of uranium isotopes have been measured in troops exposed to battlefield use of du in gulf war I and kosovo

2) so far no clear impact of (1) on the health of exposed persons is apparent, but further study is required to ascertain the long-term health effects (for example, because delayed onset cancers may yet be manifest).

anything further is mere hype.

and once again, please explain to me if "There is NO safe level of radiation exposure" any of us are alive, considering we're all exposed constantly?

see http://www.cns-snc.ca/branches/Toronto/radiation/natural_and_human_radiation.html

I have had several reletives that lived downwind of the Nevada test site that died of cancer and other simular radioactive type diseases. It is never real till it hits home and you should not bs so dissmissive of people who have some claims. It's very real to them.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9907/15/nuke.weapons.workers/
U.S. to compensate nuclear workers for illness
From staff and wire reports

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The federal government acknowledged for the first time Thursday that thousands of nuclear weapons contract workers were made sick by exposure to dangerous substances and announced a plan to compensate many of them for medical care and lost wages.

Congress must still approve the compensation, which would end years of litigation over claims by the workers that they became sick while employed by private contractors at federal nuclear weapons facilities during the Cold War.

"The U.S. government is acknowledging that we made a mistake ... We need to right this wrong," said Energy Secretary Bill Richardson, in announcing the compensation plan after years of government rejection of health claims.

"What we are doing that is different now is admitting that there's a causal affect ... that nuclear weapons work may have caused sickness. That didn't happen before. That's the change today," Richardson said.
(snip)

http://www.accuracy.org/press_releases/PR081299.htm
August 12, 1999
FALLOUT FROM NUCLEAR EXPOSURE

Newspaper accounts this week report that workers were unknowingly exposed to deadly radioactive isotopes at key Department of Energy facilities. The following analysts are available for interviews:

# JAY TRUMAN, hermit@downwinders.org, www.downwinders.org
Founder and director of Downwinders, a group of people exposed to radiation during nuclear tests, Truman said: "The news that the workers at Paducah (Ky.) and Oak Ridge (Tenn.) were unknowingly exposed to plutonium and other dangerous isotopes for up to three decades is yet another tragic example of the price paid by average American citizens for this country's nuclear weapons policy. For decades, these workers were led to believe by the government that they were only dealing with uranium. They were never informed that they were also engaged in the much more dangerous reprocessing of spent fuel rods from naval nuclear reactors. Nor was the public living around these facilities informed that many of these same isotopes that workers now charge resulted in cancer and other illnesses were slowly leaking into their local water supplies... Energy Secretary Bill Richardson has now made his promise that the endless excuses will stop. The proof is in the pudding -- the Secretary and the Department have a long way to go to put substance behind those promises
(snip)

Yes, depleted uranium is nasty stuff, but this entire thread is a case study of people going ape shit over anything "radioactive" or "nuclear".

Guess I shouldn't tell you guys what they use in smoke detectors, camping lanterns, or exit signs :)