Cancer causing weapons used? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Willravel · 12-04-2004, 11:04 PM

I remember back in health class when it was explained that radioactive materials can be toxic to my health. I also remember that uranium can be radioactive. In order to get suitable material for bombs and nuclear reactors for electricity generation, it is necessary to enrich uranium in U-235. Each ton of nuclear fuel obtained in the enrichment process generates at least 7 tons of uranium that is depleted in U-235. This is known as depleted uranium, or DU. The depleted uranium is a waste product because uranium metal doesn't have desirable properties for commercial use. The military developed DU as a high density projectile in munitions (uranium is 1.7 times denser than lead and 19 times denser than water). Once this high density projectile is fired at high velocity, is itn's easily stopped. Not only is DU heavier than lead, but it is much harder, giving it the ability to pierce armor that would splatter lead (it burns upon impact, instead of splattering). The Persian Gulf Was was the first confirmed use of DU munitions by the U.S. military. It was estimated that 320 to 350 tons of DU were used in the 1991 conflict. It was later acknoweledged that DU munitions were also used in Kosovo and Bosina.

That being said, we do everything we can to remove toxic materials like lead, mercury, and chromium from food, water, and building materials. As each of these, like DU, is relativly harmles in very small amounts, they become more dangerous as the body is exposed to them (for their carcinogenic nature). Just as lead or mercury poisoning can kill with enough exposure, radiation can also kill. Why would we use dangerously radioactive materials in an area that can (and sometimes does) contain civilians homes?

As mentioned above, when DU penetrators pierce through metal or other hard objects, they burn. A typical 30 mm round fired by aircraft contains more than a half pound of uranium, which goes up in smoke when it burns. The smoke is a very fine aerosol of uranium oxides that are easily inhaled. If an aircraft strafes a target with hundreds of rounds (which only takes a few seconds of holding the trigger), there could be hundreds of pounds of DU going up in smoke, The particles are so small that they would not be noticed. They may remain suspended in the air for a long time and may travel on the wind for many miles. The levels of DU dust in destroyed vehicles could be quite high and easily resuspended in the air by unknowing individuals looking for souvenirs. Vehicles passing DU destroyed targets would also kick up the dust as they pass. This seems to be the scenario that prevailed in southern Iraq in 1991. There is no way of knowing just how much DU aerosol our soldiers were exposed to in that conflict.

Biochemists have known since the early 1960s that uranium binds very well to DNA. They used it often to prepare DNA for viewing in an electron microscope, because DNA by itself doesn't show up well. Only recently have scientists discovered that uranium will cause mutations and breakage in the DNA. Mutations and breakage of DNA can lead to cancer. Mutations and breakage of DNA in a developing fetus can lead to birth defects. Mutations and breakage of DNA in sperm and egg cells can lead to an unviable fetus that will spontaneously abort, or may survive to be born with severe deformities. Studies with lab animals have shown that this will happen to animals. Scientists study such toxicity effects in animals to better understand what might happen in humans.

So here we have a geneotoxic substance in munitions that becomes dust upon impact in a battle zone. This dust can easily be inhaled. This dust is not only inhaled by 'the enemy', but also by the lungs of the U.S. soldiers that fired it. Why are DU munitions not classified as chemical weapons of mass destruction? The toxic properties and use easily fit the description. AND NOW DU ammunition is avaliable on the public market.

Am I crazy, or is this comething that needs to be addressed? I'm going to ask my friends and family that came back from service in Iraq to get tested for exposure, just in case.

Ustwo · 12-04-2004, 11:39 PM

Quote:

07 October 2002
Fact Sheet on the Health Effects of Depleted Uranium

Studies find no evidence linking DU to serious health risks

Following is a Department of State fact sheet on the health effects of depleted uranium, based on U.S., U.N. and other investigative sources:

* World Health Organization and other scientific research studies indicate Depleted Uranium poses no serious health risks.

* Depleted Uranium has not affected the health of Gulf War veterans.

* There have been no independent studies related to Depleted Uranium inside Iraq. Since 1991, Iraq has refused to allow health inspectors assess the alleged impact of Depleted Uranium.

* Depleted Uranium does not cause birth defects. Iraqi military use of chemical and nerve agents in the 1980's and 1990's is the likely cause of alleged birth defects among Iraqi children.

What is Depleted Uranium?

Depleted Uranium (DU) is what is left from natural uranium when most of the radioactive isotopes U234 and U235 have been removed. Depleted Uranium is forty percent less radioactive than the natural "background" uranium that is prevalent in the earth's air, water and soil. Depleted Uranium is hard and dense; it is almost twice as dense as lead.

What is DU used for?

Due to it density, depleted uranium is used in aprons to protect patients in hospitals and dentists' offices from excessive x-rays, and as ballast in 747 planes and in the keels of large sailboats.

Again, because of its strength and density, depleted uranium is sometimes used in defensive plating on armored vehicles and other platforms to deflect ammunition rounds that might otherwise kill or wound personnel inside the vehicle. It has been a component in munitions used against hostile tanks and other armored vehicles.

Isn't uranium highly radioactive and therefore dangerous to humans and the environment?

No. Studies conducted through March 2002 consistently indicate the health risks associate with radiation from exposures to depleted uranium are low - so low as to be statistically undetectable, with one potential exception: Radiation doses for soldiers with embedded fragments of depleted uranium.

Uranium is a naturally occurring chemical element that is mildly radioactive. Humans and animals have always ingested particles of this naturally occurring substance from the air, water and soil. Only when uranium is enriched to produce material for nuclear reactors is the radiation level hazardous, requiring very careful handling and storage. Depleted uranium is roughly 127 times less radioactive than 90% enriched uranium.

Natural and depleted uranium have not been linked to any health risks. There have been 16 epidemiological studies of some 30,000 workers in U.S. radiation industries. Some of these workers, particularly in the early days of the industry, had very significant exposures to uranium particles. According to scientists in the field, there have been no recorded cases of illness among these workers as a result of their exposure to uranium.

Can exposure to DU cause leukemia?

According to environmental health experts, it is medically impossible to contract leukemia as a result of exposure to uranium or depleted uranium.

Can exposure to DU cause cancer?

Cancer rates in almost 19,000 highly exposed uranium industry workers who worked at Oak Ridge National Laboratory projects between 1943 and 1947 have been examined, and no excess cancers were observed through 1974. Other epidemiological studies of lung cancer in uranium mill and metal processing plant workers have found either no excess cancers or attributed them to known carcinogens other than uranium, such as radon.

Can DU cause kidney damage?

Recent studies have examined possible health effect from exposure to depleted uranium from chemical heavy-metal effects, unrelated to radiation. The best understood of these potential health risks, as determined by high-dose animal experiments, is kidney damage.

These studies indicate, however, kidney damage would require an amount of uranium in the human body would have to absorb quantities well above the level present in soldiers who have survived a direct contact with vehicles struck by DU munitions.

Some media reports suggest that dust from depleted uranium munitions and armor has caused health effects among soldiers and civilians in areas where such armaments have been used.

According to a number of comprehensive studies and reviews, no health effects have been seen in U.S. soldiers who are known to have had substantial exposure to depleted uranium dust and fragments.

* During the Gulf War, 15 U.S. Bradley Fighting Vehicles and nine Abrams tanks were mistakenly fired on and hit by shells containing depleted uranium. Thirty-three survivors of these incidents, roughly half of whom have retained fragments of depleted uranium in their bodies, have been studied in the Depleted Uranium Follow-Up Program (DUP) of the Baltimore Veterans' Affairs Medical Center.

To date, although these individuals have an array of health problems related to traumatic injuries resulting from their wounds, none of those studied had any clinically significant medical problems caused by the chemical or radiological toxicity of depleted uranium.

A survey of publicly available studies concludes the health risks to the general population in and near a war zone are low.

Among the U.S. and international groups whose research support the this finding are the World Health Organization; the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP); the United States Veterans Administration; the RAND Corporation; and Britain's Royal Society.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/...ufactsheet.htm

Uranium is a scary word, but DU is pretty harmless. I say this as a biologist who used to work with radioactive materials back in my genetics lab days.

mo42 · 12-05-2004, 01:07 AM

Still though, Gulf War Syndrome has yet to find a definite cause, and I would still not rule out depleted uranium as a possible source, especially with the uranium oxide aerosol vapor, which I had not previously known. That would allow a quantity of uranium to actually enter the body and bind to the DNA and screw up the DNA replication.

The radiation isn't the problem perhaps, but the actual absorbtion of uranium could be.

Superbelt · 12-05-2004, 07:36 AM

You interested, Ustwo, in testing that and spreading some DU shells around your back yard for your newborn to play in as he grows up? In Iraq in 1989 there were 11 birth defects per 100,000 births; in 2001 there were 116 per 100,000 births. Would you like to take that chance?

Just do the google search for DU + birth defects google search done for you
DU shell holes now show 1000 times the normal background radiation. Recomended levels of radiation in a basement are 0.4 pCi/L. Homeowners are supposed to take action and mitigate these levels at 5 to 10 times this base. You wouldn't let your kid play in a radon basement with even 2.0 pCi/L. Why be so callous to those who play in an environment at 1000 times that level?

The DU does seem to easily get into the water supply. How do you avoid that? The fact that the DU burns up on impact, turning it into a ceramic dust is what makes this happen so easily. It can also get blown in the wind and just generally taken up in humans and lower order animals who make up the diet of humans. Good old food chain.

Depleted Uranium birth defects. How would you like to see your next child come out like this Ustwo?

Seattle pi
The U.S. Army acknowledges the hazards in their training manual, in which it requires that anyone who comes within 25 meters of any DU-contaminated equipment or terrain wear respiratory and skin protection, and states that "contamination will make food and water unsafe for consumption."
....

Rokke and his primary team of about 100 performed their cleanup task without any specialized training or protective gear. Today, Rokke said, at least 30 members of the team are dead, and most of the others -- including Rokke -- have serious health problems.

[img]sorry, no pics of kids[ /img]
Infants born without brains, with their internal organs outside their bodies, without sexual organs, without spines.

Cancer has increased dramatically in southern Iraq. In 1988, 34 people died of cancer; in 1998, 450 died of cancer; in 2001 there were 603 cancer deaths.

Ustwo · 12-05-2004, 08:17 AM

Of course I wouldn't let my newborn play with DU there superbelt, I wouldn't let him play with lead either.

Quote:

Health aspects of DU

Depleted uranium is not classified as a dangerous substance radiologically, though it is a potential hazard in large quantities, beyond what could conceivably be breathed. Its emissions are very low, since the half-life of U-238 is the same as the age of the earth (4.5 billion years). There are no reputable reports of cancer or other negative health effects from radiation exposure to ingested or inhaled natural or depleted uranium, despite much study.

However, uranium does have a chemical toxicity about the same as that of lead, so inhaled fume or ingested oxide is considered a health hazard. Most uranium actually absorbed into the body is excreted within days, the balance being laid down in bone and kidneys. Its biological effect is principally kidney damage. WHO has set a Tolerable Daily Intake level for U of 0.6 microgram/kg body weight, orally. (This is about eight times our normal background intake from natural sources.) Standards for drinking water and concentrations in air are set accordingly.

Like most radionuclides, it is not known as a carcinogen, or to cause birth defects (from effects in utero) or to cause genetic mutations. Radiation from DU munitions depends on how long the uranium has been separated chemically from its decay products. If thorium-234 and protactinium-234 has built up through decay of U-238, these will give rise to some beta emissions. On this basis, DU is "weakly radioactive" with an activity of 39 kBq/g quoted (12.4 kBq/g if pure).

In 2001 the UN Environment Program examined the effects of nine tonnes of DU munitions having been used in Kosovo, checking the sites targeted by it. UNEP found no widespread contamination, no sign of contamination in water of the food chain and no correlation with reported ill-health in NATO peacekeepers.

Thus DU is clearly dangerous for people in vehicles which are military targets, but for anyone else - even in a war zone - there is little hazard. Ingestion or inhalation of uranium oxide dust resulting from the impact of DU munitions on their targets is the main possible exposure route. See also Appendix and WHO fact sheet on DU.

You see, I rely on facts, science, and logic. The radioactivity of DU is VERY VERY VERY low, so all it is a heavy metal. You don't want to ingest a lot of heavy metals, and if someone decided to make DU paint, or pipes out of DU there may well be problems with kids eating paint chips, and DU poisoning of the water supply, but currently the only health hazard DU poses is when its traveling at you at a high velocity.

You can cite all the unreliable anecdotal evidence you want, or put a picture of a deformed child, but that doesn’t make it DU’s fault, because quite frankly the properties are not there to do such damage. Now I of course an google every whine about DU by the left as another reason to hate the US, but this isn't politics here but pure science.

Willravel · 12-05-2004, 10:11 AM

Let's say for the sake of argument Ustwo is right. Admittedly the picture of the deformed baby did not add to the discussion at all. We all know what birth defects are. As soon as we read the word, we get plenty unpleasent pictures in our minds. It is possible that DU is not responsible for the deaths and cancer in Iraq.

Let's say for the sake of argument that Superbelt is right. Ustwo quoted a "fact sheet" from the state department. The studies mentioned are ALL done by the government and military. NOT ONE was done by an independant organization (I took the liberty of calling the state department, and after 4 hours of waiting, I finally got a answer to one question). This is the same state department that told us about the dramatic events surrounding Jessica Lynch. I'm sorry, but I have a lot of trouble simply trusting them to this extent over something this serious. I would much rather see an indepentdant medical group do a study and come to the same conclusions as the state department/military.

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/sto...p-156685c.html
Staff Sgt. Ray Ramos

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/loca...p-156686c.html
Staff Sgt. Ray Ramos

http://www.sundayherald.com/40306
The MoD (the UK's Ministry of Defence) passed on a card to troops on active service in Iraq: “You have been deployed to a theatre where depleted uranium (DU) munitions have been used. DU is a weakly radioactive heavy metal which has the potential to cause ill-health. You may have been exposed to dust containing DU during your deployment.

“You are eligible for a urine test to measure uranium. If you wish to know more about having this test, you should consult your unit medical officer on return to your home base. Your medical officer can provide information about the health effects of DU.”

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2002training/wakayama2.pdf
Among its warnings, the report recognizes that it is not safe to leave shell fragments in the body as per US military policy; warns that uranium would be solubilized and redistribute to various tissues as early as one day after implantation; highlights the special risks faced by children in the battle area, with risks to water and food supplies; recognizes risks of cancer, lung fibrosis, and DNA damage from DU deposited in bones.

The report recommends health monitoring of children, soldiers and civilians; epidemiological monitoring of cancer incidents of soldiers (what about civilians and soldiers' children?), including urine uranium testing, kidney function tests and neurological evaluations; removal of heavily contaminated soil in areas populated with civilians; and long term water and milk sampling in imact site.

http://currents.ucsc.edu/03-04/01-19/uranium.html
"U.S. veterans who were exposed to depleted uranium during the 1991 Gulf War have continued to excrete the potentially harmful chemical in their urine for years after their exposure, according to a new study published in the journal Health Physics."

http://traprockpeace.org/schott_12feb04.html
First War Pension Tribunal is won by British veteran Kenny Duncan over DU poisoning.

Dragonlich · 12-05-2004, 11:48 AM

Just a thought: what are the odds of an Iraqi dying from the effects of supposed DU exposure? Suppose for a moment that it does indeed lead to a higher chance of developing cancer. What is the net effect (in number of lives) of that higher cancer rate? And how does that compare with the number of deaths from, say, car crashes, home accidents, etc.

Note that I didn't include murders/terrorism, because that will end one day, and the supposed effects of DU will end much much later.

Another thought: is there no higher chance of cancer from the massive amounts of nasty chemicals that were already present in the Iraqi soil, thanks to the WMDs developed and used by Saddam? What about the reports that the "gulf war syndrome" was actually caused by clouds of nerve gas from blown up stockpiles? What about the toxic effects from the various oil wells? And what about the oil spills during the '91 war?

Could the health problems not be a result of those things? And if they're all to blame, which of these things cause more cancer?

Manx · 12-05-2004, 12:00 PM

If DU is essentially equivalent to naturally occuring uranium in regards to health concerns, and that is to say essentially equivalent to the health concerns of lead (this all a large assumption based primarily on U.S. military reports and the studies they approve) - it seems to me that a war zone would have comparable doses of "naturally" occuring DU as say, a lead paint factory has doses of "naturally" occuring lead. It's one thing to state that DU is harmless when you view certain quantities on a global scale. It's quite another to state it is harmless when you view those same quantities on a localized scale like a war zone.

So maybe the people that suggest DU is harmless to civilians in a war zone need to move their families to the nearest lead paint factory to demonstrate their belief.

stevo · 12-05-2004, 12:12 PM

So if DU is so bad, as well as lead, what do you want us to make our armor and ammo out of? hot dogs, or is that cancerous as well?

Manx · 12-05-2004, 12:22 PM

Lead does not become particulate dust upon impact as readily as DU. And again, that is only the primary concern if we make the assumption that the U.S. Military is providing accurate information. I see no reason to make that assumption.

Dragonlich · 12-05-2004, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo22

So if DU is so bad, as well as lead, what do you want us to make our armor and ammo out of? hot dogs, or is that cancerous as well?

Tungsten might work. It's supposedly just as tough as DU, but more expensive. It probably will have side-effects too, though.

Pacifier · 12-05-2004, 01:04 PM

AFAIK tugsten is not toxic and does not contamine the ground water which is the biggest problem with DU

And tungsten works, the german army uses tungsten rounds, they are as effective as DU ammunition. But they are more expensive.

Willravel · 12-05-2004, 01:58 PM

Dragonlich- I honestly don't know what the odds are, but this can kill people. Just because many thing kill people is not a reason to keep from trying to prevent this particular cause. The problems is that, just as the chemical weapons used by Saddam, DU's effects are long alsting to say the least. They can also cause severe birth defects, just as chemical weapons can. Now we went into Iraq to prevent the use of such inhumane chemical weapons, and to stop that use we use DU.

Max- I couldn't agree more. Well said.

Stevo- good to hear from you again. Yet again we run into a situation where you aren't looking at all of the possibilities (see the thread located at http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...t=67396&page=5). Hot dogs. Yes, we can used processed beef to protect our soldiers from enemy fire. Seriously, there are alternatives, such as tungsten, that are being currently researched. Would you be willing to take a great big breath of DU dust?

Pacifier- I didn't know that about german troops (honestly, no sarcasm). Thank you for giving tungsten (http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pu...dity/tungsten/) a good foothold in this conversation as a viable alternative.

Ustwo · 12-05-2004, 03:12 PM

If it were a hot sunny day and I was walking on a field that had been used for DU ammo testing, I'd be a hell of a lot more worried about getting sun cancer than getting anything bad from the DU.

This is a non-issue that has been made an issue because of the buggaboo word 'uranium'. Most peoples knowledge of biology and radiation is such that just saying the word makes them think of mutations and nuclear fall out. There is no property of DU that is hazardous beyond being a projectile, unless you plan on eating on on purpose for a long time. Even natural uranium which has a HIGHER radioactivity then DU has been found to be non-carcinogenic. Don't confuse U238 (harmless) with U235 (Dangerous).

The_Dunedan · 12-05-2004, 03:19 PM

The problem, as I understand it, occurs when DU dust gets inhaled. It adheres to the interior surface of the lungs and sinuses, and directly irradiates sensitive tissue. DU itself is not terribly radioactive, but when it gets stuck in there, it STAYs there, because it's so fine-grained. This is where the problems come in.

As for Tungsten-Carbide; it's good stuff, but not as good as DU for punching holes in things. DU is heavier, and unlike TC, it self-sharpens when it passes through an object: this is part of where the super-fine dust comes from. TC flattens out against a hard object, DU literally gets sharper as it punches through.

pan6467 · 12-05-2004, 03:50 PM

Interesting arguments.

I did a search and for every report that says that DU is relatively harmless there is one that says it is very harmful. I tend to believe the very harmful reports because there are way too many times in our past when the government, having much to lose, would lie about the harmful effects of something. And yes, the UN does this also, because in many ways they are still a US and ally controlled organization. Most refuse to mention the dust at all.

There is a serious change in birth defect where DU has been used, there is the fact that we have no idea what is causing Gulf War Syndrome and why the government some dozen years later STILL refuses to admit there is such a thing and the VA refuses to treat it.

There are definitive problems associated with DU and it's dust in particular. While a "stroll" through an area of it may not be harmful, I do believe long term exposure would be. Most of the reports I read that support DU are for short term, while the ones against talked long term. From what I gathered the dust appears to radiate soil affecting the food and water supplies and then ingested. The dust is like that of asbestos where the product itself maybe "safe" but the airborne byproducts cause serious damage.

My search was done via Yahoo under "depleted uranium".

If there is any evidence that there could be health risks our government should not use the material at all. If they choose to use it then they should be responsible for its cleanup, which they refuse citing that there is no correlation between illness and DU. Yet the fact that birth defects and illness skyrocket in exposed areas appear to present facts they ignore.

Connolly · 12-05-2004, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

The problem, as I understand it, occurs when DU dust gets inhaled. It adheres to the interior surface of the lungs and sinuses, and directly irradiates sensitive tissue. DU itself is not terribly radioactive, but when it gets stuck in there, it STAYs there, because it's so fine-grained. This is where the problems come in.

That hits it right on the nose. When inhaled, there is a chance that the DU can irradiate the lungs, with alpha radiation, which has a chance of causing a gene defect.

But the idea that people could be getting irradiated from shell holes is ridiculous. Regular uranium can't even do that, and depleted uranium has almost half as much radiation as uranium, all of which is blocked by the skin. Also, DU as a cause of birth defects? Heh.

Quote:

Thus DU is clearly dangerous for people in vehicles which are military targets, but for anyone else - even in a war zone - there is little hazard. Ingestion or inhalation of uranium oxide dust resulting from the impact of DU munitions on their targets is the main possible exposure route. See also Appendix and WHO fact sheet on DU.

Edit: You know, since I'm coming back from a discussion with a guy who entertained the notion that the CIA gassed the people in the planes and remote controlled them into the World Trade Center, I have to raise the following hypothetical: what if Saddam noticed all the attention DU was getting and decided to manufacture some evidence?

Just kidding.

Seaver · 12-05-2004, 05:27 PM

Look, I spent many weekends for 4 years straight camping on a bombing range that guess what, used DU ammo. I'm fully healthy. And the whole Gulf War Syndrome isnt caused by DU, otherwise almost the entire military would have problems associated with it. We shoot bullets and drop bombs in the same areas we have our military practice patrols and maneuvers.

Quote:

AFAIK tugsten is not toxic and does not contamine the ground water which is the biggest problem with DU

And tungsten works, the german army uses tungsten rounds, they are as effective as DU ammunition. But they are more expensive.

The problem with tungsten is it's known to shatter when striking a tough object, instead of "slugging" itself through like lead or DU. Yeah it's great for anti-personel, but the only two things we use DU in are large caliber gatling guns (20mm+), and anti-tank kinetic rounds... and it's not like we use them for anti-personel so it doesnt help us.

pan6467 · 12-05-2004, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Look, I spent many weekends for 4 years straight camping on a bombing range that guess what, used DU ammo. I'm fully healthy. And the whole Gulf War Syndrome isnt caused by DU, otherwise almost the entire military would have problems associated with it. We shoot bullets and drop bombs in the same areas we have our military practice patrols and maneuvers.

Did you drink the water eat food from the ground and live there every day? How long has it been? Is everyone that camped with you healthy?

Cigarettes only give at most 1/3 cancer but there are other health defects that affect almost all smokers that take years to develop.

From what I gathered DU dust doesn't make you instantly sick, it takes time and is based on how long and how much you were exposed to. Also as with anything out there, some people are affected faster some affected in years later and some never affected.

So you are stating everyone in Gulf War I was exposed to DU? And if DU is not the cause of Gulf War Syndrome, what is? (Remember agent Orange, and all it's deviatiationsm were all deemed "safe" by our government and the UN when used in Vietnam). It wasn't until soldiers cam back and all had similar illnesses and went untreated by the military "because they were not proven to be caused from the military" that a group got lawyers and independant doctors to reseqarch and find that indeed Agent Orange were in fact causing illness that the government backed down.

Agent Orange did not affect everyone noticeably or instantly, some people took years to be affected, some gradually had their health deteriorate, it all depended on exposure.

Sounds to me like DU is following the exact footsteps of it's predecessor. You have to ask yourself, if this war is so one sided why take the risk of using something that can cause serious side effects? What makes us better than this supposed "dictator" who killed thousands of his own with chemicals when we have done the same and may quite possibly be doing it again, and the sad fact is we don't need to use DU.

Are you truly willing and supporting the slippery slope of "if the government says it's ok and it's not in my backyard, then we should use whatever it takes to win a war?" Because what happens when the enemy decides to use a more radioactive isotope bullet and weapon? Do we cry foul then or do we need to develop a weapon stronger then? Then they'll develop one stronger then we will have to and so on and so on until we're back to nuke bombs being the end result.

LINKS that verify what I have stated (top 3 more upon request):

http://www.aofiles.net/main/aohistory.html
http://www.tpromo.com/usvi/ag_org.htm
http://whyfiles.org/025chem_weap/5.html

There are far too many questions regarding DU dust and the implications on health, and those questions IMO need to be answered before we use them any further. Personally, it's a question of ethics, morals and belief systems and mine is such that just because we are at war we needn't risk the health of our men and the innocent natives and future generations of that land (there are innocents there right? Otherwise who's freedoms are we fighting for in Iraq?)

Just remember dear dear people sitting comfortably in your chairs, that we are very much an aging, greedy, sloven society while the Mid East and Africa are youthful and very much in a starving situation in every way. Very very soon these people who we are showing hatred, anger and teaching destruction to will be the revolutionaries, visionaries and thriving countries that we were until we got greedy. And by the very nature of man they will treat us as we taught them to treat countries that were weaker, bully, demand, and serve as cheap slave labor or be destroyed.

joeshoe · 12-05-2004, 07:00 PM

Depleted uranium may be a health risk, but so is everything in war. It would be great if no one needed bullets, but that's not going to happen anytime soon. The danger of DU radiation is miniscule compared to the danger of getting hit by a bullet, so I don't see why there should be an furor about the radiation.

jonjon42 · 12-05-2004, 07:19 PM

actually my biggest concern is now uranium breaks up compared combined with the small health risk..It's one thing if it's just some solidified splatter on the ground which lead tends to do.

Instead we have DU dust suspended in air. this stuff getting into people's lungs, radioactive or not is probably not a good idea. (mercury anyone?) If 1991 was the first time it was used in a large scale...then I would give it about another 10 to 15 years before we could really see the affects (large cancer spike compared to other areas, or other odd health problem that is higher among veterans of gulf and Iraqis)

Ustwo · 12-05-2004, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonjon42

Instead we have DU dust suspended in air. this stuff getting into people's lungs, radioactive or not is probably not a good idea. (mercury anyone?) If 1991 was the first time it was used in a large scale...then I would give it about another 10 to 15 years before we could really see the affects (large cancer spike compared to other areas, or other odd health problem that is higher among veterans of gulf and Iraqis)

From an epidemiological standpoint, even if you had such a spike it would only be a spike, you would have a very hard time finding the cause due to the multiple variables involved. We had Saddams oil fires in the area for one, the use of biological weapons in the area for another, the destruction of bio-weapons just after the war, and the soldiers were exposed to other elements which could also be to blame.

It would not be the first time alarmists have blamed one thing and found out another was the cause. Recall the deformed frogs a couple of years back and how it was due to chemical pollution or even global warming? Turns out it was due to a parasite.

pan6467 · 12-05-2004, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joeshoe

Depleted uranium may be a health risk, but so is everything in war. It would be great if no one needed bullets, but that's not going to happen anytime soon. The danger of DU radiation is miniscule compared to the danger of getting hit by a bullet, so I don't see why there should be an furor about the radiation.

I agree war is war and you're right there is no safety net for anything NOW in war. However, we should never punish those of the future for the transgressions of today. IE: what Agent Orange has done in Vietnam, what the A-Bombs did not only in Nagasaki and Hiroshima but in the lands where they and all nukes were tested that humans inhabited (IE the Nevada desert where it's rumored that at least one film crew that filmed a movie there had high cases of cancer and health problems as well as American Indians who had reservations nearby.)

IF we choose to defend these practices of using materials that destroy the land and cause future problems to the innocent who reside there after the war, then we can NEVER claim as we do now that we fight this war against "injustice and in the name of freedom". Especially when the need does not warrant the use for such materials.

For we are not giving freedom to those who inhabit contaminated land, but sentences of severe health problems, birth defects and a plethora of problems.

How we fight today determines how we live tomorrow. Do we fight with weapons that not just kill people today but continues to kill a region for lifetimes or do we fight as our forefathers did and work to rebuild what was destroyed but the land remains ok?

We, I thought, here in the US were supposed to set the standards and show humanity and instead what we are demonstrating is that we will not just kill those we want but we will destroy your lands, leave you with severe health issues and subject our own men to unnecessary health risks. The only example to the world we are showing right now is that of greed, destruction and uncaring of anyone. It will come back to us, all things do. Agent Orange, that harmless little defoliant that was just used to take out forests in 'Nam came back to haunt us, as will DU.

pan6467 · 12-05-2004, 08:29 PM

BIg question for those who support the use of DU: IF in 10 years and studies that show irrefutable evidence that DU causes health problems, what will you say then?

That you approved of it's use because the gov't said it was ok and that we needed to use it?

That you approved because you knew there maybe something to the health issues but you didn't care?

What will you tell those innocents that live there when they come, and rightfully so, demanding justice and retribution, What will you say then?

What are you going to tell our soldiers who unselfishly fought for what they were told were the right reasons and face lifelong severe medical problems from weapons our government DID NOT NEED TO USE?

Will you say that you felt you had no voice to go against the government and that the issue didn't affect you anyway so you didn't care?

What will you say.........

Is it truly worth the risk of having to find out what you'll have to say?

Willravel · 12-05-2004, 08:36 PM

Ustwo- Yep. Radiation from the sun can be dangerous in large amounts. Just like radiation from DU can be dangerous in large amounts. Eating DU can be dangerous, but I'm sure it isn't done on purpous. The same dust I mentioned before CAN get into water and food supplies.

The_Dunedan- I couldn't agree more about the adhering in the lungs.

pan6467- Precisely.

Connolly- Regular uranium CAN do that. It just takes time. We are talking about over a decade from the initial use of DU in Iraq. This is enough time for us to start seeing some of the effects start to come to the surface. Since DU is a geneotoxic substance, it can cause birth defects. What's the deal with your edit? Please elaborate.

Seaver- I'm with pan on this one. 4 weekends at a bombing range that may or may not use DU hardly compares to 10 years in a zone that saw hundreds of tons of DU munitions used.

Joeshoe- The problem is that when it is proven that DU does what we are claiming it does, it will be in clear violation of the Geneva Convention, a treaty we signed in good faith. I know it sounds silly to have rules of war on the surface, but these rules keep innocent people from being injured or killed.

jonjon42- Yes!

Ustwo, again- I don't consider myself an alarmist. Do you know how many soldiers from the Gulf War are STILL TO THIS DAY testing positive for DU in their urine? I'll let you find that one out.

Willravel · 12-05-2004, 08:40 PM

By the way-
I REALLY appreciate everyone's adding to this discussion. Things can become very serious and heated in TFP Politics at times, and I appreciate the civility.

DelayedReaction · 12-05-2004, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

BIg question for those who support the use of DU: IF in 10 years and studies that show irrefutable evidence that DU causes health problems, what will you say then?

Why don't we use this kind of logic in everything we do? In ten years time, when it turns out that laser eye surgery causes my eyeballs to pop out, what should I say? In ten years time, when it's revealed that the Internet causes major psychological harm due to message board trolls, what will I say then? In ten years time, when we discover that wearing yellow acts as a homing beacon for invading aliens, what words will soothe our concious?

Making decisions based on the possibility of risk in the future is a silly idea. You base your decisions on what you know at the time, and in this case our research shows that depleted uranium has a minimal impact on health. If we were to follow your logic, every decision would be paralyzed by the fear of future harm.

pan6467 · 12-05-2004, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DelayedReaction

Why don't we use this kind of logic in everything we do? In ten years time, when it turns out that laser eye surgery causes my eyeballs to pop out, what should I say? In ten years time, when it's revealed that the Internet causes major psychological harm due to message board trolls, what will I say then? In ten years time, when we discover that wearing yellow acts as a homing beacon for invading aliens, what words will soothe our concious?

Making decisions based on the possibility of risk in the future is a silly idea. You base your decisions on what you know at the time, and in this case our research shows that depleted uranium has a minimal impact on health. If we were to follow your logic, every decision would be paralyzed by the fear of future harm.

So by your logic, it was ok to dump 1000's upon 1000's of gallons of Agent Orange onto our soldiers in 'Nam. There were reports that ther may be some damage but minimal health risks, yet look what we have from Agent Orange. (I'm sure someone will discount AO's effects, which sadly will be demeaning to those Vets, who were exposed and suffer from its effects.)

By your logic, it doesn't matter that we don't need those weapons, we will use them anyway, who cares what the future risks are.

By your logic, we should fucking do whatever we want to today because the future doesn't matter.

My logic is very simply put like this...... WHY ARE WE USING WEAPONS THAT ARE POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS WHEN WE DO NOT NEED TO??????

Or is it you position that the war over there dictates use of these weapons? Then why are they necessary if we are so much more superior to the enemy over there?

As for your first paragraph, I'll just simply say it shows nothing about the argument just the mentality of holier than thou attitude, that chooses not to face the issue at hand nor add anything supportive to their side.

iamnormal · 12-05-2004, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

BIg question for those who support the use of DU: IF in 10 years and studies that show irrefutable evidence that DU causes health problems, what will you say then?

What would you say if DU caused over 1 million cases of cancer a year in the US?
Would you ban it?

If so then try getting UV exposure banned because it allready is causing over 1 million cases of cancer a year in the US.
http://www.cdc.gov/chooseyourcover/skin.htm

Willravel · 12-05-2004, 09:18 PM

DelayedReaction- this is serious. We are talking about something where the evidence is already surfacing. This is not just something that may or may not be dangerous at all. We already know it is at the very least a little dangerous. We already know that it's effect classifies it as a chemical weapon of mass destruction, due to it's plausable effect on healthy people over long periods of time. In referring to one of my posts above, there are war pensions being paid due to poisoning from DU. That is official. This is not a maybe, this is a certian.

What pan was saying is that in 10 years, when this is general information, will you finally question your blind faith to the untrustworthy people who lie about this? The evidence is here now, not 10 years from now.

Your entire first paragraph essentially makes fun of pan. Thanks for keeping this civil (oddly enough RIGHT after I commented on how glad I was that people were acting civil).

Willravel · 12-05-2004, 09:24 PM

iamnormal- you serious? Let me ask you this. How many terrorists have killed Americans on our soil vs. how many people have died because of choking on food on American soil? Should we abondon terrorists for the cure to choking? We can play this game all day long, but we'll ultimatally run out of boring and irrelevant statistics. Apples and oranges. We are talking about illegal munitions being used. We are not talking about the lack of spf30. We can't ban the sun, but we CAN ban illegal munitions. I hope that clears it up for you. I would be glad to have a great discussion with you about UV caused cancer over in health, btw.

pan6467 · 12-05-2004, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iamnormal

What would you say if DU caused over 1 million cases of cancer a year in the US?
Would you ban it?

If so then try getting UV exposure banned because it allready is causing over 1 million cases of cancer a year in the US.
http://www.cdc.gov/chooseyourcover/skin.htm

It's always so heartening when the other side refuses to truly face an issue by trying to divert with minutia and facts that don't substantiate their position but support something totally off issue.

UV is natural and from the sun. There are ways to prevent death from it.

Smoking kills also, but I and millions of others CHOOSE to smoke, knowing the health risks. Just as those who worship tans and sit for hours under the sun or in tanning booths CHOOSE to ignore health warnings against the UV rays.

Big difference with DU.....

These people HAVE NO CHOICE when we dump tons upon tons of it upon them and leave it there.

stevo · 12-05-2004, 09:42 PM

Wow. Now the DU munitions the US military uses are illegal. didn't know that. We certainly shouldn't be using illegal weapons or even weapons that kill. I think we should ban all weapons that kill people. we should just drop bombs that change peoples beliefs. That would work much better. Like hotdogs.

edit-Seroiusly, I'm confused. Is the concern over DU the harm it will cause the future generations or is it from inhaling the dust now? If its the former then sorry, I disagree with you. If its the latter then sorry, its a war.

mo42 · 12-05-2004, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo22

Seroiusly, I'm confused. Is the concern over DU the harm it will cause the future generations or is it from inhaling the dust now? If its the former then sorry, I disagree with you. If its the latter then sorry, its a war.

There are two main concerns. One, that the depleted uranium is causing adverse effects upon the Iraqi civilian population, and two, that the depleted uranium is causing adverse effects among our own troops.

The argument seems to be that if weapons of nearly equivalent utility (non-DU rounds) would prevent this, they should be used instead to spare our own troops and the Iraqi civilians the negative consequences.

stevo · 12-05-2004, 10:24 PM

thanks for clearing this thread up, mo.

Willravel · 12-05-2004, 10:30 PM

Stevo22- if you aren't here to further the conversation, you are free to roam elsewhere. No one is forcing you to read this. The Geneva Protocol of 1925 (ratified by the U.S. in 1975) bans the production and use of chemical weapons. Chemical weapons use the toxic properties of chemical substances in order to hurt or kill. DU is a toxic substance that is being used in war. So, yes, DU munitions are illegal. I realize that to a lot of people war seems to be a single minded situation in which winning is the only thought, but there have to be rules to try and safeguard people. While it is debatable whether war is necessary, it is NOT debatable that it is wrong to target, attack or harm innocent civilians. War, while uncivilized on the surface, has rules to follow. When these rules are broken, there are consequences.

iamnormal · 12-05-2004, 10:35 PM

DU is just one turd on a big pile of shit. So why bother with that one turd when you live with the pile of shit?

Willravel · 12-05-2004, 10:48 PM

iamnormal- answer: because you can't deal with the whole pile at once. You start with the worst turns, and work your way back to the tolerable turds. The problem with this particular turd is that it is putting our soldiers in danger and it is illegal. You can't take a lethargic stance on things like this unless you want them to continue. I know that my friends who are loyally serving their country do not deserve exposure to dangerous DU. They deserve respect and loyalty from us civilans, those who don't/can't serve in the military. If it wasn't for a heart condition, I would be over there right now. It is wrong for us to sit back, turn on CSI, and just put injustice out of our minds.

Manx · 12-05-2004, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DelayedReaction

Why don't we use this kind of logic in everything we do? In ten years time, when it turns out that laser eye surgery causes my eyeballs to pop out, what should I say? In ten years time, when it's revealed that the Internet causes major psychological harm due to message board trolls, what will I say then? In ten years time, when we discover that wearing yellow acts as a homing beacon for invading aliens, what words will soothe our concious?

Your analogies are significantly flawed. DU is known to be a toxic substance. The question is not whether it is harmful, the question is whether the quantities being used in a localized area are harmful to that area. Laser surgery is not known to cause eyeballs to pop out. Message board trolls are not known to cause psychological harm. Aliens are not known to exist.

Quote:

Making decisions based on the possibility of risk in the future is a silly idea.

Huh? We base all decisions on the possibility of risk in the future. Every single one of them. If we didn't, we'd be dying off like flies in the winter. Should I cross the street? Let's see if it appears that it will be safe while I am crossing the street. Should I buy a new car? Let me see how much money I have vs. need in order to eat. Should I take this new job? Let me analyze the job/market/prospects to see what the long term results will be.

You're attempting to portray DU as a completely innocuous substance for which there is presently zero potential for detrimental repercussion. That is simply not the case.

pedro padilla · 12-05-2004, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iamnormal

DU is just one turd on a big pile of shit. So why bother with that one turd when you live with the pile of shit?

well put. DU is barely scratching the surface. There are piles of reports concerning the use of experimental chemical and biological weapons by US forces in Iraq. The same ones that Saddam didn´t have. Shit, the pentagon has admitted using Napalm in air strikes over Bagdhad.. But only after being caught. They´re only WMDs when someone else uses them. When the US air force drops illegal and sickeningly inhumane bombs on civilian populations its justified because Iraq was an imminent threat. Meaning they were mere hours away from doing it to Americans in their own backyards. Yeah. Right. And how about them cute little cluster bomblets?

12-04-2004, 11:04 PM	#1 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Cancer causing weapons used? I remember back in health class when it was explained that radioactive materials can be toxic to my health. I also remember that uranium can be radioactive. In order to get suitable material for bombs and nuclear reactors for electricity generation, it is necessary to enrich uranium in U-235. Each ton of nuclear fuel obtained in the enrichment process generates at least 7 tons of uranium that is depleted in U-235. This is known as depleted uranium, or DU. The depleted uranium is a waste product because uranium metal doesn't have desirable properties for commercial use. The military developed DU as a high density projectile in munitions (uranium is 1.7 times denser than lead and 19 times denser than water). Once this high density projectile is fired at high velocity, is itn's easily stopped. Not only is DU heavier than lead, but it is much harder, giving it the ability to pierce armor that would splatter lead (it burns upon impact, instead of splattering). The Persian Gulf Was was the first confirmed use of DU munitions by the U.S. military. It was estimated that 320 to 350 tons of DU were used in the 1991 conflict. It was later acknoweledged that DU munitions were also used in Kosovo and Bosina. That being said, we do everything we can to remove toxic materials like lead, mercury, and chromium from food, water, and building materials. As each of these, like DU, is relativly harmles in very small amounts, they become more dangerous as the body is exposed to them (for their carcinogenic nature). Just as lead or mercury poisoning can kill with enough exposure, radiation can also kill. Why would we use dangerously radioactive materials in an area that can (and sometimes does) contain civilians homes? As mentioned above, when DU penetrators pierce through metal or other hard objects, they burn. A typical 30 mm round fired by aircraft contains more than a half pound of uranium, which goes up in smoke when it burns. The smoke is a very fine aerosol of uranium oxides that are easily inhaled. If an aircraft strafes a target with hundreds of rounds (which only takes a few seconds of holding the trigger), there could be hundreds of pounds of DU going up in smoke, The particles are so small that they would not be noticed. They may remain suspended in the air for a long time and may travel on the wind for many miles. The levels of DU dust in destroyed vehicles could be quite high and easily resuspended in the air by unknowing individuals looking for souvenirs. Vehicles passing DU destroyed targets would also kick up the dust as they pass. This seems to be the scenario that prevailed in southern Iraq in 1991. There is no way of knowing just how much DU aerosol our soldiers were exposed to in that conflict. Biochemists have known since the early 1960s that uranium binds very well to DNA. They used it often to prepare DNA for viewing in an electron microscope, because DNA by itself doesn't show up well. Only recently have scientists discovered that uranium will cause mutations and breakage in the DNA. Mutations and breakage of DNA can lead to cancer. Mutations and breakage of DNA in a developing fetus can lead to birth defects. Mutations and breakage of DNA in sperm and egg cells can lead to an unviable fetus that will spontaneously abort, or may survive to be born with severe deformities. Studies with lab animals have shown that this will happen to animals. Scientists study such toxicity effects in animals to better understand what might happen in humans. So here we have a geneotoxic substance in munitions that becomes dust upon impact in a battle zone. This dust can easily be inhaled. This dust is not only inhaled by 'the enemy', but also by the lungs of the U.S. soldiers that fired it. Why are DU munitions not classified as chemical weapons of mass destruction? The toxic properties and use easily fit the description. AND NOW DU ammunition is avaliable on the public market. Am I crazy, or is this comething that needs to be addressed? I'm going to ask my friends and family that came back from service in Iraq to get tested for exposure, just in case.

12-05-2004, 01:07 AM	#3 (permalink)
mo42 Insane Location: California	Still though, Gulf War Syndrome has yet to find a definite cause, and I would still not rule out depleted uranium as a possible source, especially with the uranium oxide aerosol vapor, which I had not previously known. That would allow a quantity of uranium to actually enter the body and bind to the DNA and screw up the DNA replication. The radiation isn't the problem perhaps, but the actual absorbtion of uranium could be. __________________ It's not getting what you want, it's wanting what you've got. Last edited by mo42; 12-05-2004 at 01:14 AM..

12-05-2004, 07:36 AM	#4 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	You interested, Ustwo, in testing that and spreading some DU shells around your back yard for your newborn to play in as he grows up? In Iraq in 1989 there were 11 birth defects per 100,000 births; in 2001 there were 116 per 100,000 births. Would you like to take that chance? Just do the google search for DU + birth defects google search done for you DU shell holes now show 1000 times the normal background radiation. Recomended levels of radiation in a basement are 0.4 pCi/L. Homeowners are supposed to take action and mitigate these levels at 5 to 10 times this base. You wouldn't let your kid play in a radon basement with even 2.0 pCi/L. Why be so callous to those who play in an environment at 1000 times that level? The DU does seem to easily get into the water supply. How do you avoid that? The fact that the DU burns up on impact, turning it into a ceramic dust is what makes this happen so easily. It can also get blown in the wind and just generally taken up in humans and lower order animals who make up the diet of humans. Good old food chain. Depleted Uranium birth defects. How would you like to see your next child come out like this Ustwo? Seattle pi The U.S. Army acknowledges the hazards in their training manual, in which it requires that anyone who comes within 25 meters of any DU-contaminated equipment or terrain wear respiratory and skin protection, and states that "contamination will make food and water unsafe for consumption." .... Rokke and his primary team of about 100 performed their cleanup task without any specialized training or protective gear. Today, Rokke said, at least 30 members of the team are dead, and most of the others -- including Rokke -- have serious health problems. [img]sorry, no pics of kids[ /img] Infants born without brains, with their internal organs outside their bodies, without sexual organs, without spines. Cancer has increased dramatically in southern Iraq. In 1988, 34 people died of cancer; in 1998, 450 died of cancer; in 2001 there were 603 cancer deaths. Last edited by MSD; 12-06-2004 at 02:25 AM..

12-05-2004, 01:04 PM	#12 (permalink)
Pacifier undead Location: Duisburg, Germany	AFAIK tugsten is not toxic and does not contamine the ground water which is the biggest problem with DU And tungsten works, the german army uses tungsten rounds, they are as effective as DU ammunition. But they are more expensive. __________________ "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death — Albert Einstein

12-05-2004, 03:12 PM	#14 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	If it were a hot sunny day and I was walking on a field that had been used for DU ammo testing, I'd be a hell of a lot more worried about getting sun cancer than getting anything bad from the DU. This is a non-issue that has been made an issue because of the buggaboo word 'uranium'. Most peoples knowledge of biology and radiation is such that just saying the word makes them think of mutations and nuclear fall out. There is no property of DU that is hazardous beyond being a projectile, unless you plan on eating on on purpose for a long time. Even natural uranium which has a HIGHER radioactivity then DU has been found to be non-carcinogenic. Don't confuse U238 (harmless) with U235 (Dangerous). __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

12-05-2004, 10:11 AM	#6 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Let's say for the sake of argument Ustwo is right. Admittedly the picture of the deformed baby did not add to the discussion at all. We all know what birth defects are. As soon as we read the word, we get plenty unpleasent pictures in our minds. It is possible that DU is not responsible for the deaths and cancer in Iraq. Let's say for the sake of argument that Superbelt is right. Ustwo quoted a "fact sheet" from the state department. The studies mentioned are ALL done by the government and military. NOT ONE was done by an independant organization (I took the liberty of calling the state department, and after 4 hours of waiting, I finally got a answer to one question). This is the same state department that told us about the dramatic events surrounding Jessica Lynch. I'm sorry, but I have a lot of trouble simply trusting them to this extent over something this serious. I would much rather see an indepentdant medical group do a study and come to the same conclusions as the state department/military. http://www.nydailynews.com/front/sto...p-156685c.html Staff Sgt. Ray Ramos http://www.nydailynews.com/news/loca...p-156686c.html Staff Sgt. Ray Ramos http://www.sundayherald.com/40306 The MoD (the UK's Ministry of Defence) passed on a card to troops on active service in Iraq: “You have been deployed to a theatre where depleted uranium (DU) munitions have been used. DU is a weakly radioactive heavy metal which has the potential to cause ill-health. You may have been exposed to dust containing DU during your deployment. “You are eligible for a urine test to measure uranium. If you wish to know more about having this test, you should consult your unit medical officer on return to your home base. Your medical officer can provide information about the health effects of DU.” http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2002training/wakayama2.pdf Among its warnings, the report recognizes that it is not safe to leave shell fragments in the body as per US military policy; warns that uranium would be solubilized and redistribute to various tissues as early as one day after implantation; highlights the special risks faced by children in the battle area, with risks to water and food supplies; recognizes risks of cancer, lung fibrosis, and DNA damage from DU deposited in bones. The report recommends health monitoring of children, soldiers and civilians; epidemiological monitoring of cancer incidents of soldiers (what about civilians and soldiers' children?), including urine uranium testing, kidney function tests and neurological evaluations; removal of heavily contaminated soil in areas populated with civilians; and long term water and milk sampling in imact site. http://currents.ucsc.edu/03-04/01-19/uranium.html "U.S. veterans who were exposed to depleted uranium during the 1991 Gulf War have continued to excrete the potentially harmful chemical in their urine for years after their exposure, according to a new study published in the journal Health Physics." http://traprockpeace.org/schott_12feb04.html First War Pension Tribunal is won by British veteran Kenny Duncan over DU poisoning.

12-05-2004, 11:48 AM	#7 (permalink)
Dragonlich 42, baby! Location: The Netherlands	Just a thought: what are the odds of an Iraqi dying from the effects of supposed DU exposure? Suppose for a moment that it does indeed lead to a higher chance of developing cancer. What is the net effect (in number of lives) of that higher cancer rate? And how does that compare with the number of deaths from, say, car crashes, home accidents, etc. Note that I didn't include murders/terrorism, because that will end one day, and the supposed effects of DU will end much much later. Another thought: is there no higher chance of cancer from the massive amounts of nasty chemicals that were already present in the Iraqi soil, thanks to the WMDs developed and used by Saddam? What about the reports that the "gulf war syndrome" was actually caused by clouds of nerve gas from blown up stockpiles? What about the toxic effects from the various oil wells? And what about the oil spills during the '91 war? Could the health problems not be a result of those things? And if they're all to blame, which of these things cause more cancer?

12-05-2004, 12:00 PM	#8 (permalink)
Manx Loser	If DU is essentially equivalent to naturally occuring uranium in regards to health concerns, and that is to say essentially equivalent to the health concerns of lead (this all a large assumption based primarily on U.S. military reports and the studies they approve) - it seems to me that a war zone would have comparable doses of "naturally" occuring DU as say, a lead paint factory has doses of "naturally" occuring lead. It's one thing to state that DU is harmless when you view certain quantities on a global scale. It's quite another to state it is harmless when you view those same quantities on a localized scale like a war zone. So maybe the people that suggest DU is harmless to civilians in a war zone need to move their families to the nearest lead paint factory to demonstrate their belief.

12-05-2004, 12:12 PM	#9 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	So if DU is so bad, as well as lead, what do you want us to make our armor and ammo out of? hot dogs, or is that cancerous as well?

12-05-2004, 12:22 PM	#10 (permalink)
Manx Loser	Lead does not become particulate dust upon impact as readily as DU. And again, that is only the primary concern if we make the assumption that the U.S. Military is providing accurate information. I see no reason to make that assumption.

12-05-2004, 01:58 PM	#13 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Dragonlich- I honestly don't know what the odds are, but this can kill people. Just because many thing kill people is not a reason to keep from trying to prevent this particular cause. The problems is that, just as the chemical weapons used by Saddam, DU's effects are long alsting to say the least. They can also cause severe birth defects, just as chemical weapons can. Now we went into Iraq to prevent the use of such inhumane chemical weapons, and to stop that use we use DU. Max- I couldn't agree more. Well said. Stevo- good to hear from you again. Yet again we run into a situation where you aren't looking at all of the possibilities (see the thread located at http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...t=67396&page=5). Hot dogs. Yes, we can used processed beef to protect our soldiers from enemy fire. Seriously, there are alternatives, such as tungsten, that are being currently researched. Would you be willing to take a great big breath of DU dust? Pacifier- I didn't know that about german troops (honestly, no sarcasm). Thank you for giving tungsten (http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pu...dity/tungsten/) a good foothold in this conversation as a viable alternative.

12-05-2004, 03:19 PM	#15 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	The problem, as I understand it, occurs when DU dust gets inhaled. It adheres to the interior surface of the lungs and sinuses, and directly irradiates sensitive tissue. DU itself is not terribly radioactive, but when it gets stuck in there, it STAYs there, because it's so fine-grained. This is where the problems come in. As for Tungsten-Carbide; it's good stuff, but not as good as DU for punching holes in things. DU is heavier, and unlike TC, it self-sharpens when it passes through an object: this is part of where the super-fine dust comes from. TC flattens out against a hard object, DU literally gets sharper as it punches through.

12-05-2004, 03:50 PM	#16 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Interesting arguments. I did a search and for every report that says that DU is relatively harmless there is one that says it is very harmful. I tend to believe the very harmful reports because there are way too many times in our past when the government, having much to lose, would lie about the harmful effects of something. And yes, the UN does this also, because in many ways they are still a US and ally controlled organization. Most refuse to mention the dust at all. There is a serious change in birth defect where DU has been used, there is the fact that we have no idea what is causing Gulf War Syndrome and why the government some dozen years later STILL refuses to admit there is such a thing and the VA refuses to treat it. There are definitive problems associated with DU and it's dust in particular. While a "stroll" through an area of it may not be harmful, I do believe long term exposure would be. Most of the reports I read that support DU are for short term, while the ones against talked long term. From what I gathered the dust appears to radiate soil affecting the food and water supplies and then ingested. The dust is like that of asbestos where the product itself maybe "safe" but the airborne byproducts cause serious damage. My search was done via Yahoo under "depleted uranium". If there is any evidence that there could be health risks our government should not use the material at all. If they choose to use it then they should be responsible for its cleanup, which they refuse citing that there is no correlation between illness and DU. Yet the fact that birth defects and illness skyrocket in exposed areas appear to present facts they ignore. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?" Last edited by pan6467; 12-05-2004 at 03:55 PM..

12-05-2004, 07:00 PM	#20 (permalink)
joeshoe Crazy Location: California	Depleted uranium may be a health risk, but so is everything in war. It would be great if no one needed bullets, but that's not going to happen anytime soon. The danger of DU radiation is miniscule compared to the danger of getting hit by a bullet, so I don't see why there should be an furor about the radiation.

12-05-2004, 07:19 PM	#21 (permalink)
jonjon42 Psycho Location: inside my own mind	actually my biggest concern is now uranium breaks up compared combined with the small health risk..It's one thing if it's just some solidified splatter on the ground which lead tends to do. Instead we have DU dust suspended in air. this stuff getting into people's lungs, radioactive or not is probably not a good idea. (mercury anyone?) If 1991 was the first time it was used in a large scale...then I would give it about another 10 to 15 years before we could really see the affects (large cancer spike compared to other areas, or other odd health problem that is higher among veterans of gulf and Iraqis) __________________ A damn dirty hippie without the dirty part....

12-05-2004, 08:29 PM	#24 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	BIg question for those who support the use of DU: IF in 10 years and studies that show irrefutable evidence that DU causes health problems, what will you say then? That you approved of it's use because the gov't said it was ok and that we needed to use it? That you approved because you knew there maybe something to the health issues but you didn't care? What will you tell those innocents that live there when they come, and rightfully so, demanding justice and retribution, What will you say then? What are you going to tell our soldiers who unselfishly fought for what they were told were the right reasons and face lifelong severe medical problems from weapons our government DID NOT NEED TO USE? Will you say that you felt you had no voice to go against the government and that the issue didn't affect you anyway so you didn't care? What will you say......... Is it truly worth the risk of having to find out what you'll have to say? __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

12-05-2004, 08:36 PM	#25 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Ustwo- Yep. Radiation from the sun can be dangerous in large amounts. Just like radiation from DU can be dangerous in large amounts. Eating DU can be dangerous, but I'm sure it isn't done on purpous. The same dust I mentioned before CAN get into water and food supplies. The_Dunedan- I couldn't agree more about the adhering in the lungs. pan6467- Precisely. Connolly- Regular uranium CAN do that. It just takes time. We are talking about over a decade from the initial use of DU in Iraq. This is enough time for us to start seeing some of the effects start to come to the surface. Since DU is a geneotoxic substance, it can cause birth defects. What's the deal with your edit? Please elaborate. Seaver- I'm with pan on this one. 4 weekends at a bombing range that may or may not use DU hardly compares to 10 years in a zone that saw hundreds of tons of DU munitions used. Joeshoe- The problem is that when it is proven that DU does what we are claiming it does, it will be in clear violation of the Geneva Convention, a treaty we signed in good faith. I know it sounds silly to have rules of war on the surface, but these rules keep innocent people from being injured or killed. jonjon42- Yes! Ustwo, again- I don't consider myself an alarmist. Do you know how many soldiers from the Gulf War are STILL TO THIS DAY testing positive for DU in their urine? I'll let you find that one out.

12-05-2004, 08:40 PM	#26 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	By the way- I REALLY appreciate everyone's adding to this discussion. Things can become very serious and heated in TFP Politics at times, and I appreciate the civility.

12-05-2004, 09:18 PM	#30 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	DelayedReaction- this is serious. We are talking about something where the evidence is already surfacing. This is not just something that may or may not be dangerous at all. We already know it is at the very least a little dangerous. We already know that it's effect classifies it as a chemical weapon of mass destruction, due to it's plausable effect on healthy people over long periods of time. In referring to one of my posts above, there are war pensions being paid due to poisoning from DU. That is official. This is not a maybe, this is a certian. What pan was saying is that in 10 years, when this is general information, will you finally question your blind faith to the untrustworthy people who lie about this? The evidence is here now, not 10 years from now. Your entire first paragraph essentially makes fun of pan. Thanks for keeping this civil (oddly enough RIGHT after I commented on how glad I was that people were acting civil).

12-05-2004, 09:24 PM	#31 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	iamnormal- you serious? Let me ask you this. How many terrorists have killed Americans on our soil vs. how many people have died because of choking on food on American soil? Should we abondon terrorists for the cure to choking? We can play this game all day long, but we'll ultimatally run out of boring and irrelevant statistics. Apples and oranges. We are talking about illegal munitions being used. We are not talking about the lack of spf30. We can't ban the sun, but we CAN ban illegal munitions. I hope that clears it up for you. I would be glad to have a great discussion with you about UV caused cancer over in health, btw. Last edited by Willravel; 12-05-2004 at 09:25 PM.. Reason: typo

12-05-2004, 09:42 PM	#33 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	Wow. Now the DU munitions the US military uses are illegal. didn't know that. We certainly shouldn't be using illegal weapons or even weapons that kill. I think we should ban all weapons that kill people. we should just drop bombs that change peoples beliefs. That would work much better. Like hotdogs. edit-Seroiusly, I'm confused. Is the concern over DU the harm it will cause the future generations or is it from inhaling the dust now? If its the former then sorry, I disagree with you. If its the latter then sorry, its a war. Last edited by stevo22; 12-05-2004 at 09:58 PM..

12-05-2004, 10:24 PM	#35 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	thanks for clearing this thread up, mo.

12-05-2004, 10:30 PM	#36 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Stevo22- if you aren't here to further the conversation, you are free to roam elsewhere. No one is forcing you to read this. The Geneva Protocol of 1925 (ratified by the U.S. in 1975) bans the production and use of chemical weapons. Chemical weapons use the toxic properties of chemical substances in order to hurt or kill. DU is a toxic substance that is being used in war. So, yes, DU munitions are illegal. I realize that to a lot of people war seems to be a single minded situation in which winning is the only thought, but there have to be rules to try and safeguard people. While it is debatable whether war is necessary, it is NOT debatable that it is wrong to target, attack or harm innocent civilians. War, while uncivilized on the surface, has rules to follow. When these rules are broken, there are consequences.

12-05-2004, 10:35 PM	#37 (permalink)
iamnormal Addict Location: In the id	DU is just one turd on a big pile of shit. So why bother with that one turd when you live with the pile of shit?

12-05-2004, 10:48 PM	#38 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	iamnormal- answer: because you can't deal with the whole pile at once. You start with the worst turns, and work your way back to the tolerable turds. The problem with this particular turd is that it is putting our soldiers in danger and it is illegal. You can't take a lethargic stance on things like this unless you want them to continue. I know that my friends who are loyally serving their country do not deserve exposure to dangerous DU. They deserve respect and loyalty from us civilans, those who don't/can't serve in the military. If it wasn't for a heart condition, I would be over there right now. It is wrong for us to sit back, turn on CSI, and just put injustice out of our minds.