Originally posted by nepenthe From what I remember, DU was not brought up at the time of the Gulf War or Kosovo. The topic reared its head years later when cancer rates began to rise in areas where it was utilized.
I guess I just remember it at the time it first came out because it was a topic closely associated to my job. It made a bigger impression on me because throughout '91, '92 and '93, I was deployed on a regular basis to the region and we parked our F-15E's very close to the A-10's for awhile.
Originally posted by zooner perhaps i merely misunderstood the tone of the original post.
I believed this was a post concerning the loss of life. To see people turn it into a poduim to broadcast thier hatred for liberals, makes me sick. That's why I was so upset. I dont care if you're conservative or otherwise, this was a thread about AMERICANS dying.
I wonder sometimes who these people really hate more, the 'terrorists' or the liberals? If I listen to a more liberal station, they might discuss what bush is doing. If you listen to a conservative station, all you hear about is how HORRIBLE liberals are.
Zooner, no offense to you but I think you are actually missing the point. We all read the article. We know that it's about loss of life. The problem here is that some of us read the article and didn't just gobble up every word as fact. We saw the bias and the agenda and commented on it. If you were unable to see that slant, it's OK. You are the kind of person that this article was targeting. It has nothing to do with party affiliation. It has to do with a reporter throwing numbers around that are speculative at best. It makes it seem that the government is hiding the numbers and keeping the American public in the dark. Now, I realize that that has been going on for decades no matter who is in office.
It's not like we didn't get the message about the dead and the wounded. The fact is that we are NOT seeing a massive amount of casualties for such a long, ground taking campaign. So wy the need for a story like this with no hard facts?
Agenda my friend.
I did not read the thread past you last post so if I missed anything, please excuse me.
It's all about perception. You percieved us as slanting the thread to a Republican agenda, yet somehow missed the bias in the original article. Ironic. I guess it has to do with what kind of glasses we wear.. *shrugs*
Peace,
FunK
Simply run adaware, spybot, ZoneAlarm, HijackThis, AVG, update windows daily, have a router, don't open e-mail, turn off action scripting, don't use P2P networks, don't violate EULAs, and wear a condom to get Windows secured.
Originally posted by lonewolfz28 The point was that that "one in four" is just a trigger number used by certain parties that doesn't tell the full story. By steadfastly standing by this "number" you lose creditability in my eyes as someone who really knows what they are talking about on this subject.
Depleted Uranium has been brought up in the media in the first Gulf War. Iguess you missed it that time around. It was also mentioned a couple times between wars by people trying to stir up public sentiment.
Basically the conclusions reached were that unless you were right there to breathe in any vapor or dust resulting from the impact, your dosage of radiation would be negligable. Of course, if you were close enough to be exposed to any dust, you were more than likely already dead from the impact explosion or shouldn't be playing around licking the insides of burned out Iraqi tanks. You get more radiation from natural sources every day than you would holding a DU round.
I teach aircraft fundmentals with a couple A-10A Warthog crewchiefs and a military training leader friend is a weapons specialist on the A-10, F-15E and F-16. We had this conversation when the news stories ran in the early '90's. We had them again when it resurfaced last winter/early spring. I'll take his word on the dangers of this round over that of some media source that's looking to make money or stir up trouble by slinging dirt.
More scare tactics from those that bring you Roswell, the Anthrax vaccine scare and the bermuda triangle.
Oh, forgot the IMHO part.
As Ray Bristow, of The Gulf War Veterans and Families Association, points out internal studies have been available to the military since 1990 that concluded that DU was harmful to the health of combatants of both sides in addition to the local civilian population and the environment.
DU shell holes in the vehicles along the Highway of Death are 1,000 times more radioactive than background radiation, according to Geiger counter readings done for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer by Dr. Khajak Vartaanian, a nuclear medicine expert from the Iraq Department of Radiation Protection in Basra, and Col. Amal Kassim of the Iraqi navy.
The desert around the vehicles was 100 times more radioactive than background radiation; Basra, a city of 1 million people, some 125 miles away, registered only slightly above background radiation level.
But the radioactivity is only one concern about DU munitions.
A second, potentially more serious hazard is created when a DU round hits its target. As much as 70 percent of the projectile can burn up on impact, creating a firestorm of ceramic DU oxide particles. The residue of this firestorm is an extremely fine ceramic uranium dust that can be spread by the wind, inhaled and absorbed into the human body and absorbed by plants and animals, becoming part of the food chain.
remember the fear that was attempted to be spread with the idea of a DU suitcase bomb?? How horrible that would be and how much of an impact it would have on a city like NYC??
From the Federation of American Scientists website ww.fas.org that you yourself linked:
Depleted uranium results from the enriching of natural uranium for use in nuclear reactors. Natural uranium is a slightly radioactive metal that is present in most rocks and soils as well as in many rivers and sea water. Natural uranium consists primarily of a mixture of two isotopes (forms) of uranium, Uranium-235 (U235) and Uranium-238 (U238), in the proportion of about 0.7 and 99.3 percent, respectively. Nuclear reactors require U235 to produce energy, therefore, the natural uranium has to be enriched to obtain the isotope U235 by removing a large part of the U238. Uranium-238 becomes DU, which is 0.7 times as radioactive as natural uranium. .
Hardly cause for alarm. Like I said, you get as much radiation from natural sources all day, everyday as you'd get holding a DU round. Run around outside in the summer without sunscreen and you're doing a LOT more damage to yourself than you'd get from one of those rounds used or unused.
Also, quoting Iraqi science reports made while Saddam was still in power hardly establishes source creditability.
Believe what you want, I'll believe what I know from those that actually work with and around the stuff.
In dental school I had a colleague who was a fellow chemist. According to him, he was working on the DU project for creating a shells that would easily penetrate armor. Needless to say that they were successful. Again according to fellow student, even in the mid eighties, scientist working on the project were aware that there would be a problem even with the U238. The shells would partially disintegrate, yielding an airborne dust. Although alpha particle emission is no severe issue externally (Our skin can stop it), it is very much a problem if ingested or inhaled. The epidemiology supports this, in the cancer rates are far higher in areas where DU was utilized. The studies will of course vary depending on who is performing the study. Needlees to say the US military has found no connection, whereas as a large number of European scientists have.
Natural occuring uranium appears in trace amounts. Tons of ore must be sifted in order to acheive a usable sample. You cannot compare the effects of natural occuring mineral to that of the metallic dust.
shant,
david
I want to learn more and more to see as beautiful what is necessary in things; then I shall be one of those who make things beautiful. Amor fati: let that be my love henceforth! I do not want to wage war against what is ugly. I do not want to accuse; I do not even want to accuse those who accuse. Looking away shall be my only negation. And all in all and on the whole: some day I wish to be only a Yes-sayer.
Upon further research, I have come to mostly the same conclusions. I had assumed that the particle emissions would penetrate the skin, however it appears this is not the case.
However, it's great that some of us think that we're god and this destruction and descecration of the land is O.K.
So fine, it's not harmful as long as:
1.) it's not kicked up and breathed.
2.) no plants are eaten from the affected soil.
3.) no kids are allows to roll around or play.
4.) certainly windy days are a no-no.
But hey, this questionable war is worth ruining the lives of countless people for BILLIONS of years.
I want to learn more and more to see as beautiful what is necessary in things; then I shall be one of those who make things beautiful. Amor fati: let that be my love henceforth! I do not want to wage war against what is ugly. I do not want to accuse; I do not even want to accuse those who accuse. Looking away shall be my only negation. And all in all and on the whole: some day I wish to be only a Yes-sayer.
