New animation from Bushflash
 

This one Is about Depleted Uranium

Be warned: This one is graphic

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

very very graphic, but worth watching.

Where did the authors of this flash get their stats? They don't seem to understand what a half-life is, and so I have to wonder if the numbers were merely picked at random or distributed by Saddam's ever-so-accurate information minister.

The dead baby pics were thoroughly disgusting, but without any sources mentioned, they serve little point but shock value.

I like how my tax dollars are at work! That made me feel great!!! :) Still not enough carnage as far as I'm concerned.

Well, if you want a further glorification of carnage you can always take a look at your avatar.

I'm surprised the film makers took the stand that the depleated uranium was in weapon systems and not directly injected into infants and pregnant mothers by the evil U.S..

a more responsible look at the issue:
http://www.csmonitor.com/atcsmonitor...ium/index.html

In isolated areas, i don't really see the issue with the use of these weapons. near civilian populations, its a dicier call.

I have to say I was completely oblivious to this subject. The US is truly dropping this shit?

I think Seretogis was calling for some information to back up claims, I didn't spend too long researching, but what i did get was a bit about the effects of

DU
http://www.xs4all.nl/~stgvisie/VISIE...nk-cancer.html

or a very impressive looking study at
http://www.web-light.nl/VISIE/DUREPO..._dureport.html

the conclusion of the second is:
The quantity of D.U. weapons used by U.S. and British forces against Iraq in 1991 was estimated to be approximately 5000-6000 rounds of 120 mm and 940,000 bullets of 30 mm. Its weight was approximately 630,000 pounds (Dan Fahey 98).


The effluent of this weapon is the dust of uranium oxide resulted in pollution of thousands of targets hit by this sort of weapon and surrounding areas in the southern region of Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia.


The study of tables and graphs shows the change in the pattern of different types of cancer cases in military personnel who participated in the southern region of Iraq (exposed or not exposed to an explosion). They also show positive odds ratio of cancer cases in relation to the explosion which indicates the association between the factor under study (D.U.) and these cases.


From epidemiological criteria of effluent, the usage of such weapons creates dust or aerosol as a result of explosion of D.U. weapon in the field, and may be transmitted directly to the human body through respiratory system or gastrointestinal system or contaminate wounds directly or through contaminated shrapnel.


The indirect method of transmission is through pollution of the environment in which the soluble part of alpha particles deposited on the soil. In addition, the bullets that missed their targets and fell on the ground can pollute food, surface water, and ground water. (U.S. Army Chemical School, D.U. training 1995).


The significant odds ratio of lymphomas, leukemias, brain CA, which were 5.6, 4.8 and 4.5 respectively in the exposed personnel.



hmmm....and as for the amounts of DU dropped in Iraq as of 2003....


In three separate interviews a U.S. Special Operations Command Colonel admitted that the U.S. and Great Britain fired 500 tons of D.U. munitions into Iraq.


from http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0305/S00050.htm

other reports say between 1,000 and 2,000 tons, but none of them had "sources" that I thought would be firm enough for Seretogis

........

are you serious?

if the stats are for real, then it's gruesome.

That made me feel thoroughly disturbed. Damn that was gruesome.

Of course I'm serious.
I don't expect anyone to agree with me, but I am 100% serious.

All hysteria and gruesome photographs aside, it seems as if there is great controversy as to whether or not DU is a significant hazard.

Some noted scientists say no while others say yes.

But after reading a few reports, especially this one:

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/

it seems to me that the arguement against DU use is weak at best, amounting to the scare over irradiating food.

even if you don't expect people to agree, could you explain what you mean exactly, and why you want more carnage?

Bah, stupid. No understanding of scientific principles, sensational photographs, and wild stats add up to one pointless piece of propaganda.

Because I like the idea of killing potential terrorists before they ever get out of the womb....

Who even knows if this thing is telling the truth?

Sixate's right - just because some group put together a Flash presentation and posted it on the Net doesn't automatically make it true. Who made it? Who are they affiliated with? Where did they get their facts? Nothing's documented, so why should I think twice about it?

God i hope it's not true but i don't think i would doubt it.

why dont you take a look for some more information and try and see if it could be true ? at some point its your job to educate yourself.

A simple goggle search for "Depleted Uranium" will give you all the fact's on Depleted Uranium.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...=Google+Search

Sixate, your concern (and that of others) over the authenticity of the information is understandable, in fact responsible. But to simply deny it without any further inquiry, rather than question it and then find out for yourself, is extremely irresponsible. If you take Nomad's suggestion you will find plenty of information that corroborates what was said in the flash movie (misunderstanding of the term "half-life" notwithstanding)

As for your "killing potential terrorists while they're in the womb" thing, i'm appalled. Innocent until proven guilty, anyone? Besides, don't you think it's carnage that turns ordinary people into terrorists in the first place, or is it just something in middle eastern genetics that does this to people? Most importantly, if we don't discriminate between those who have done something wrong and those who are simply "associated" with them by nationality or ethnicity, what makes us any different than the 9/11 hijackers who made no distinction between the US government and innocent American civilians?

Interesting.

hiredgun, did you bother to look up the reports that do NOT support this flash movie?

I found and linked a very pursuasive one put out by the World Health Organization, but the people who are determined to believe the flash presentation seem to have ignored it.

I can't comment on the sources used, since the creators didn't see fit to provide any. I will mention a few things that make me question the trustworthiness of this 'presentation'.

Depleted uranium is not 'nuclear waste'. Nuclear waste is what comes out of a nuclear reactor - unfissioned fuel and fission products. It is highly radioactive (decreasing over time) and dangerous. Depleted uranium is uranium ore which has been partly stripped of the mildly radioactive isotope U235, leaving the mostly stable isotope U238.

Some have already pointed out the fact that the creators don’t seem to understand what a half life means. I’ll just mention that isotopes with long half lives are less radioactive than those with short half lives. So the longer the half life, the ‘cooler’ the substance. 4.5 billion years is so long as to be essentially stable.

Finally, the claim that radiation levels have increased in Baghdad is meaningless as it stands. What kinds of radiation? Turning on a bunch of antiaircraft radars will certainly increase radiation levels. The sun coming up in the morning massively increases radiation levels. (Dangerous, cancer-causing radiation at that.) Regardless, whatever is causing this increased radiation it is not depleted uranium, which, again, is of such low activity as to be essentially stable.

What a load of crap.

First: An average coal fired power plant in the US dumps 100 tons of uranium a year into the atmosphere, not depleted uranium, mind you, just raw uranium.

Second: DU is not the environmental horror it is made out to be. The danger actually comes from Uranium Oxide, which is formed in during the projectiles impact. UO is very toxic (not radioactive), but it also bonds into various harmless organic compounds almost instantly. As long as you don't go licking tanks within a day of them being destroyed you should be OK.

Third: Most of those pictures are from the Minamata Mercury poisoning incident.

Fourth: I work with numerous Gulf War I vets, all of them armor types, and not one of them has bitched about GWS (which, incidentally, is thought to be caused by low level exposure to Sarin when we destroyed stockpiles).

This flash is sophistry and fear mongering at it's very worst.

Are you telling me you wouldn't want to get all the Timothy McVeighs out there before they're born?

how is it possible to predict the future of an unborn or infant child? you can't punish someone for something he or she hasn't done.

Oh yeah? Tell Tom Cruise that! ;)

Thanks Nomad. Very disturbing.

That is, by far, the stupidest thing I have ever read. Ever.

Congratulations.

I sometimes use sarcasm to refrain from writing a page or from taking discussions to places I would really prefer to take them. You’re not seeing the concurrence here?

Oh, now i get it. *smacks self*