A decade after Gulf War I, UN investigators and Iraqi doctors have found an epidemic like increase in the incidence of many different types of cancers among the Iraqi population. Especially, among children born over the past decade.

Cancer of the brain, spine, liver, testicular, kidney - mostly unknown or found in very limited incidences in the previous two decades--have proliferated over 5,000% since the US' use of depleted uranium munitions in Iraq in 1991.

In Serbia and in Afghanistan the contamination of the drinking water and food supply chain continues to show a high incidence of low level radiation contamination--previously unknown in these countries--attributable to the US/English use of depleted uranium munitions by the medical personnel investigators of the UN and the local medical professionals in those countries.

To add insult to injury, US soldiers have been refused compensation or medical care by the Pentagon who refuses to touch the subject despite the fact that it is young American soldiers that are suffering the consequences of this use of radioactive materials in our weapons of war.

See: Http://www.miltoxproj.org/DU/danjuly99.html

and

http://www.kaapeli.fi/~tep/vipu/2000-1/hooper/lectfinal.pdf

[takes a while to load--but well worth it! ].

Abdulla....

Of course it is! And what about Hiroshima (at least 140.000 men, women and children killed) and Nagasaki (around 70.000 killed)?

Note : You should have put a poll... :(

^^^ Yes, I'll take those numbers over the two million military casualties (American and Japanese) plus another million Japanese civilian casualties that were estimated to have been incurred in a conventional invasion. Also, you're honestly comparing DU to a fission bomb? Nice one, captain fallacy. Guilt by association an argument does not make. Earn yourself some science, then we can talk.

Anyway.

The threat of DU is overinflated. Grossly.

http://www.reason.com/rb/rb032603.shtml


What happens to DU if someone eats it? According to a European Union study released in 2001, "most of the ingested DU (between 98% and 99.8%, depending on the solubility of the uranium compound) will be rapidly eliminated in the faeces." The vast majority of any remaining uranium will be "rapidly cleared from the blood" in a few weeks. Similarly, the majority of inhaled DU dust will also be cleared via the bloodstream and kidneys. The EU report concluded that "exposure to DU could not produce any detectable health effects under realistic assumptions of the doses that would be received."


The World Health Organization agrees that DU is not a great health risk. Its 2003 fact sheet on the topic declares that "because DU is only weakly radioactive, very large amounts of dust (on the order of grams) would have to be inhaled for the additional risk of lung cancer to be detectable in an exposed group. Risks for other radiation-induced cancers, including leukaemia, are considered to be very much lower than for lung cancer." Another WHO report found, "The radiological hazard is likely to be very small. No increase of leukemia or other cancers has been established following exposure to uranium or DU."


Finally, there is always a claque of activists who simply will pick up any stick with which to beat and demonize the United States. For them, the myth of severe DU toxicity is just another handy stick.

If you go to war you should be able to use any weapons you want. It's war I have a problem with........

Originally posted by Stokes Pennwalt
Yes, I'll take those numbers over the two million military casualties (American and Japanese) plus another million Japanese civilian casualties that were estimated to have been incurred in a conventional invasion.
So much? I don't think so... but I guess that they calculated it before showing their new power to the world. Nothing to do with Pearl Harbor...

Also, you're honestly comparing DU to a fission bomb?
No comparaison! Fission bombs are worse than DU.

Originally posted by SG-N
So much? I don't think so... but I guess that they calculated it before showing their new power to the world. Nothing to do with Pearl Harbor...Yeah. In retrospect it's been rehashed a zillion times, and more or less the finding has been that the Japanese Empire was on the verge of surrender, but the Japanese military was not, and was in fact planning a coup; holding the Emperor hostage in his own house. The data I'm going off is what Truman and his underlings were aware of in July of 1945. We can could've-should've-would've until our fingers are typed to the bone, but hindsight is always 20/20, and Truman et al. cannot be faulted for what we've learned since.

No comparaison! Fission bombs are worse than DU. Okay, but you injected the subject of the Hiroshima strike into a thread about DU projectiles in modern war. That's simply a red herring with absolutely no relevance to the subject at hand. It's a prototypical kneejerk reaction when people hear the word "Uranium" to fly into a frenzy of "durr, atoms = bad", but it's scientifically fallicious to associate the two starkly different types of weapon systems.

Not DU?
Well, what else could it be??
Lets try to remember a decade ago...1993.
Shooting, fighing , burning oil field...Wait a sec.
Burning oil field?? Hey kids what do you get when you burn oil?
That's right carcinogens!
Now what do you suppose we might get if we burned a whole oil field?
Right again: a whole lot of carcinogens!

So what effect do you think that might have on a population when the particles settle into drinking water, live stock, plants.
Hell lets go one better. Inhalation.

That oil field was burning for over a week. How much smoke do think that thing put off? what do you think the chances of that smoke contaminating water, food, etc is? And now we've got alot of cancer popping up? What the hell could the chances of that be?

Have they even bothered looking at the cancer rates in other ME countries yet, or are they just looking in Iraq so we can be blamed for more bullshit?

Stokes Pennwalt : well, I used an extreme example... that was too much when dealing with DU (but not totally out of the subject) :m:

Mephura : there's no petrol in Bosnia ;)

You never said anything about bosnia. It was probably just some low level minor nuke we used.. Nothing major;)

:D

Here is what I was talking about : "War veterans to be screened for uranium" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uranium/story/0,7369,420009,00.html).
That's an old link but the soldiers were already ill... why? I just say that it's not because of petrol. That's strange but a common point DU (I know that it's not the only one...).


http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/cartoons/2001/01/09/rowtoon512.jpg

Originally posted by Stokes Pennwalt
^^^ Yes, I'll take those numbers over the two million military casualties (American and Japanese) plus another million Japanese civilian casualties that were estimated to have been incurred in a conventional invasion. Also, you're honestly comparing DU to a fission bomb? Nice one, captain fallacy. Guilt by association an argument does not make. Earn yourself some science, then we can talk.

Anyway.

The threat of DU is overinflated. Grossly.

http://www.reason.com/rb/rb032603.shtml

Abdulla: Yep, the Archer-Daniels Company should start selling DU as a food supplement, right? :rolleyes:

FOOL! :(

It's fools like this Ronald Bailey character that the Pentagon LOVES, they remove all the guilt regarding the poisoning of the invironment.

Maybe AGENT ORANGE should be added to each box of raisin bran too, huh, PENWALT?

Abdulla....

Actually DPU is not that bad, it’s not very radioactive, A human being is more radioactive then a 30mm DPU round. Coal power plants pump out more uranium into that atmospheres and water supply then was used in the gulf war... annually! How people fear the words "nuclear" and "radiation" it bothers me some times :(

ah well cooke dfetus. it is time you learn that this world is a world of ignorance. a world inwich ignorance is many peoples only power. the power to use the lack of knowledge to cause fear and hate.

but all thast beside the point. yah they probably did shit. ok.

Oh so you think I don’t know how the bush adm. Pulls off its poll result do you? :p

by the way Abdullathebomber I have notice your post count has been reducing how that been happening :D

Anyways we should also mortally fear our smoke detectors because they have RADIOACTIVE material in them that is used to ionize smoke and detect it magnetically! It true by the way!!!

I don't fear "nuclear"! I live in the first country for nuclear power (electricity) and I don't fear it at all. That's better than petrol...
Of course I fear "radiations" (not low levels or natural ones...). Who could say that he don't fear it? Someone that don't know what it is or a moron... For those who would not know what radiations are able to do, just have a look on Tchernobyl... :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Abdullathebomber
[B]Abdulla: Wow, a peace activist...]

hehe :)

If you want to look at it that way, but I'm just going to say i'm actually a libertarian.

My idea is to make war such a horrible concept that people will never want to go to war ever again. Problem is now that people say war doesn't cause civilian casualties they try to justify it that way.

Originally posted by Cjwinnit
Problem is now that people say war doesn't cause civilian casualties they try to justify it that way.
They should not look only FoxNews on which only terrorists are killed and on which the US soldiers die in "accidents" (but for a few exceptions : Iraqis are still bad, no?) -- anyway that's off-topic... :D

Nice idea but normally the ones instigating the wars are the ones that know they and no one of their kids or buddies will ever have to go near the war zone until the fighting and mess is well over and cleared up.
They dont care how "bloddy" or "horrific" the war is and they will start it regardless as they only see themselves reaping the rewards.
Yes i know thats a bit pesemistic massive opposition to war if it really was made to be seens as so parahic and Obscene that the people trying to start the war would be slapped down but at the end of the day it's almost always the public and little people that are left to suffer the effects and horrors of war.
When those powers that be say "hey it was worth the price" you can be sure its always someone else paying.

Originally posted by Abdullathebomber
It's fools like this Ronald Bailey character that the Pentagon LOVES, they remove all the guilt regarding the poisoning of the invironment.

Maybe AGENT ORANGE should be added to each box of raisin bran too, huh, PENWALT?

Abdulla.... Translation: "I, Abdulla, cannot refute the scientific data presented in Pennwalt's post, thus, I make ad hominem attacks on its author, inject a red herring into the debate, and utterly fail to address a single statistic or fact presented in the article."

Originally posted by Stokes Pennwalt
Translation: "I, Abdulla, cannot refute the scientific data presented in Pennwalt's post, thus, I make ad hominem attacks on its author, inject a red herring into the debate, and utterly fail to address a single statistic or fact presented in the article."

So you resort to flame-baiting ;)

DU is poinous in the same way that Lead is poisonous. I personally have no problem at all using it, but everyone misses the point. We shouldn't have been in Iraq in the first place.....

Originally posted by Stokes Pennwalt
Translation: "I, Abdulla, cannot refute the scientific data presented in Pennwalt's post, thus, I make ad hominem attacks on its author, inject a red herring into the debate, and utterly fail to address a single statistic or fact presented in the article."

SCIENTIFIC DATA?

Hey Jr. you're taking your chemistry set too serious!

Abdulla...

BTW: You didn't address the two sites I referred you to....

Oh, the Pentagon did not publish them - so you're skeptical, huh? :rolleyes:

Here's another site for you to explore regarding another ecological disaster caused by the Pentagon and deemed HARMLESS--( i. e. the use of toxins used to wrest the jungle back from the Viet Cong and the mosquitos in Vietnam ), YEAH RIGHT! :p

Read & Weep for the children of Vietnam:

http://www.getipm.com/articles/agent-orange-vietnam.htm *

and

http://www.vba.va.gov/bln/21/benefits/herbicide/

*Then you can return and weep for the cancer stricken children of Iraq too--OK? :(

Abdulla....

1. I didn't address the sites you linked, but I refuted their premise. DU is not harmful in the way they purport it to be. They consist of poorly informed conjecture and quasi-scientific mythology, not fact. Thus, directly addressing their plethora of fallacious positions was unnecessary.

2. The Pentagon didn't publish them, but that's not why I'm skeptical. I don't believe them because their information is congenitally flawed on a foundational scientific level.

3. Agent Orange is a red herring. This discussion is about DU.

Moderator edit -
     If you would read one of several PMs that have been sent to
     you, you might understand why this post continues to be deleted.

"Immediate health risks associated with exposure to depleted uranium include kidney and respiratory problems, with conditions such as kidney stones, chronic cough and severe dermatitis. Long-term risks include lung and bone cancer. Several published reports implicated exposure to depleted uranium in kidney damage, mutagenicity, cancer, inhibition of bone, neurological deficits, significant decrease in the pregnancy rate in mice and adverse effects on the reproductive and central nervous systems. Acute poisoning with depleted uranium elicited renal failure that could lead to death. The environmental consequences of its residue will be felt for thousands of years. It is inhaled and passed through the skin and eyes, transferred through the placenta into the fetus, distributed into tissues and eliminated in urine." Source: Journal of applied toxicology : JAT [J Appl Toxicol] 2002 May-Jun; 22 (3), pp. 149-52.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=20835&perpage=20&highlight=depleted%20uranium&pagenumber=2

the link below deals with the UK veterans concerns


The point that most people fail to realise is that the alternative to DU is Tungstan Carbide which has shown to be no longer effective against modern armour (armor for our US cousins)

Both the US & British Armies can still remember the tank crew losses in WWII when their tanks were unable to destroy the tanks of the German Army. They are not prepared to let this happen again. http://www.mod.uk/issues/depleted_uranium/index.htm

The only form of DU that is of any harm at all to humans is oxidozed DU dust, and it is only formed when DU bullets strike hard materials, like tanks or armored vehcles. And even then, it's only harmful when inhaled in large quantities as skin or light clothing protects from the alpha radiation and small quantities are easily and harmlessesly dealth with by the body like all the other naturally radioactive isotopes we inhale every second of every day.

Besides which, the toxic chemicals in those burnt out tanks is the far worse health problem... All the shots that miss sit harmlessly in the desert, not hurting anything. A DU penetrator is encased in a thin polymer coat at manufacture to protect against the sharpness of the tip and also the dust an incident bump could knock off. The only place DU detritus will be encountered will be inside the hulks of burned out tanks. Also, breathing tungsten dust from a more traditional AT round will be none the better for you, so the alternative critics suggest for DU is quite insignificant. Anyway, tungsten sucks when compared to DU. DU is about 50% more dense, and has way cool additional properties that make weaponizing it a favorable endeavor...

DU rounds are pyrophoric, so they catch fire as they penetrate the target, and are in fact sharpened by target armor as they penetrate it. How cool is that?

A picture is worth a thousand words. Here is the US M829A1 Armor Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot, with tracer and combustible casing. The DU penetrator itself is the long, finned, gray dart in the very center. It is shrouded in a black anodized aluminum sabot that seals the 120mm smoothbore gun barrel during firing for propulsion. After leaving the muzzle, the sabot is ripped off by air resistance and the 42mm penetrator is left flying toward its hapless target at over a mile a second. Thus, the DU is not exposed directly when the shell is in storage, nor is it exposed during flight, or unless it hits a hard enough target to strip its polymer sheath. Additionally, when a penetrator misses and burrows into the ground, it goes quite far - remember, these things are designed to penetrate eighteen inches of rolled homogeneous steel armor, so they lance through umpteen feet of earth and rock without a hitch. They bury themselves far and away from the prying hands of Iraqi children!

http://www.speakeasy.net/~rylandpage/m829-2.jpg

Here is the penetrator and sabot undergoing breakaway after leaving the gun barrel:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/apfsds.jpg

And here is a DU round from a 25mm Bushmaster chain gun that I happen to have here, in my room, in a drawer next to me. That's a 12 inch engineering rule next to it for comparison:

http://dw33b.homestead.com/files/images/what/DU001.jpg

Finally, the World Health Organization reports that its military use is not dangerous:

A recent United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) report giving field measurements taken around selected impact sites in Kosovo (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) indicates that contamination by DU in the environment was localized to a few tens of metres around impact sites. Contamination by DU dusts of local vegetation and water supplies was found to be extremely low. Thus, the probability of significant exposure to local populations was considered to be very low.Link (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/)

It's no more dangerous than any heavy metal. HEY GUYS LET'S BAN LEAD TOO. [/sarcasm]

jps,

So what your saying is DU happens to have the same toxic qualities a lead pain dust? No ON it true DU is not good for you it is toxic, but its not the radiation that hurting you.

Originally posted by Stokes Pennwalt
It's no more dangerous than any heavy metal. HEY GUYS LET'S BAN LEAD TOO. [/sarcasm]

Abdulla:

P. T. Barnum was right: "THERE'S A SUCKER BORN EVERY MINUTE!" and this Pennwalt fella seems to be on a commission basis with the DU department at the Pentagon.

At a time when even silver nitrate in underarm deoderants have been determined to preciptate alheimers diesese we have this guy going bananas for more enviromental contamination---probably picketed the recent Kyoto Treaty ratification meetings in Vienna.

Here, read this research paper and look at the horrendous deformities brought on by these DU contaminants and tell me more lies--K? :)

No. it wasn't written by the Wolfowitz, Perle, of the ZioNazi clan at the Pentagon.... :eek:

http://www.web-light.nl/VISIE/extremedeformities.html

Abdulla....

BTW: Lead causes learning disabilites in children and hs been banned in US water.... it appears in amounts exceeding 10 ppm in many places in the US and the world and the result is deformed, demented and retarded babies.

Now tell me that most water pipes in America are made of lead. :p

SEE!

There's crazy People like you are all over the place who don't believe "anything" they're told until they see the effects of lead on the human organism.

Originally posted by WellCookedFetus
jps,

So what your saying is DU happens to have the same toxic qualities a lead pain dust? No ON it true DU is not good for you it is toxic, but its not the radiation that hurting you.
Lead is mutagenic and causes cancer?
The issue isn't why it has all these negative effects, its whether it does.

Originally posted by Abdullathebomber
[crap]

http://www.web-light.nl/VISIE/extremedeformities.html

[more crap]Quite a poor scientific reference, but I'll bite.

First, they are essentially using correlation to imply causality; a textbook logical fallacy. They have observed two things: The coalition used DU projectiles in 1991. Since 1991, there have been birth defects within Iraq.Well, sorry, but that does not effectively prove that the former was the causal root of the latter.

Confusing Cause and Effect Fallacy: (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/confusing-cause-and-effect.html)

Confusing Cause and Effect is a fallacy that has the following general form:

A and B regularly occur together.
Therefore A is the cause of B. This fallacy requires that there is not, in fact, a common cause that actually causes both A and B.

This fallacy is committed when a person assumes that one event must cause another just because the events occur together. More formally, this fallacy involves drawing the conclusion that A is the cause of B simply because A and B are in regular conjunction (and there is not a common cause that is actually the cause of A and B). The mistake being made is that the causal conclusion is being drawn without adequate justification.
Second, they fail to take an elementary factoid into account: Coalition forces only advanced about 50 miles into Iraq during the 100 hours of the (quite laughable) Iraqi resistance on the ground. Your source does not specify where these birth deformities have occurred, thus, it is impossible to draw a causal conclusion that DU ordnance is the source of said deformities.

Lastly, your article cites quotes by qualified sources on DU attributes, but it takes them largely out of context. In fact, the quotes buttress my premise instead of yours. The WHO has spoken on DU. You cannot refute their assertation, or at least have failed to thus far.

You're really just scuttling your own position here. It would behoove you to stop firing off random irrelevancies. So far you've only managed to hit yourself.

Originally posted by Stokes Pennwalt
Quite a poor scientific reference, but I'll bite.

First, they are essentially using correlation to imply causality; a textbook logical fallacy. They have observed two things: The coalition used DU projectiles in 1991. Since 1991, there have been birth defects within Iraq.Well, sorry, but that does not effectively prove that the former was the causal root of the latter.

Second, they fail to take an elementary factoid into account: Coalition forces only advanced about 50 miles into Iraq during the 100 hours of the (quite laughable) Iraqi resistance on the ground. Your source does not specify where these birth deformities have occurred, thus, it is impossible to draw a causal conclusion that DU ordinance is the source of said deformities.

Lastly, your article cites quotes by qualified sources on DU attributes, but it takes them largely out of context. In fact, the quotes buttress my premise instead of yours. The WHO has spoken on DU. You cannot refute their assertation, or at least have failed to thus far.

You're really just scuttling your own position here. It would behoove you to stop firing off random irrelevancies. So far you've only managed to hit yourself.

Abdulla: My, My, looks like you had too much lead in your water as a child yourself, sorry! :)

You can lead a horse to water--but you can't make him drink! :rolleyes:

Oh well, fugg it!

Abdulla...

By separate cover ( actually FEDEX ) I am sending you 50 kilos of DU for your kids sandbox, jajajaja.

Have fun, ya hear?! :p

Abdulla....

Pssst, 50 miles, huh? I hadn't realize that Baghdad was 50 miles from the Kuwaiti border!

Originally posted by Abdullathebomber
Pssst, 50 miles, huh? I hadn't realize that Baghdad was 50 miles from the Kuwaiti border! No. Read your own link. Those birth defects were obviously recorded during the 1990s, between both wars.

I think I see your mode of arguing now.

Abdulla: hey guys, read this basless conjecture and demagoguery!
Critic: this is wrong, and here is why [information]
Abdulla: LOL UR SOURCE SUX U R SO DUM IM RITE LOLOL
You are truly a master debater.

well, yeah, baghdad isnt 50 miles from the kuwaiti border, because should you know a bit of history, in 1991, Coalition forces did Not go to baghdad. Also, sine much of the action fought in '91 was in Kuwait where the Iraqi army was occupying, are there massive birth defects there as well?

jps,

Yes lead does cause kidney and liver damage that can lead to cancer… most heavy earth metals do.

Stokes Pennwalt,

and I thought I was the fallacy police officer here. Oh well kick him tell he bleeds... either that or just don't read his post and ignore him and he will leave or learn, well hopefully leave.

Originally posted by Carnuth
well, yeah, baghdad isnt 50 miles from the kuwaiti border, because should you know a bit of history, in 1991, Coalition forces did Not go to baghdad. Also, sine much of the action fought in '91 was in Kuwait where the Iraqi army was occupying, are there massive birth defects there as well?

Abdulla: I guess you and stupid never heard of the 1500+ Tomahawk cruise missiles with depleted uranium warheads and over 15,000 sorties flown over Baghdad and Basra by coalition ( i. e. US/British ) aircraft using DU 20/30 mm cannon shells in their A-10's, F-15's and British Tornados during the Gulf War I incursion, huh?

But, I'm not disappointed in you two "self annoited" know-it-alls. :rolleyes:

The Pentagon is still fighting "tooth & nail" with them sissies that poured all those Agent Orange toxins on the people of Vietnam.

They call it "getting screwed."

I call it "Poetic Justice!" :p

Abdulla....

Originally posted by Abdullathebomber
Abdulla: I guess you and stupid never heard of the 1500+ Tomahawk cruise missiles with depleted uranium warheadsYou have no idea what you are talking about, but again, that's no surprise. Tomahawk missiles use four types of warheads: TLAM-A: 1,000 pound unitary HE warhead TLAM-C: 1,000 pound unitary warhead in hardened steel encasement for surface penetration TLAM-D: cluster bomblet submunitions TLAM-N: W80 selectable yield nuclear warhead: 0.3-300 kiloton.TLAM-B was an antiship variant, but was canceled in the later 1980s due to the high cost of a Tomahawk and increased potency of the Harpoon missiles they were intended to supplement.

Originally posted by WellCookedFetus
jps,

Yes lead does cause kidney and liver damage that can lead to cancer? most heavy earth metals do.


I think it imply that it does more than cause kidney damage that can lead to cancer seeing as it says "lung and bone cancer"
I'll have to check the article again though.

Any particulate matter can cause lung cancer, many heavy metals like Uranium and thorium end up in the bones. You have to understand that Uranium has a half-life of 4.6 billion years, a dust particle of uranium will give off maybe a milli-rads… in your enter life time!

Originally posted by Stokes Pennwalt
You have no idea what you are talking about, but again, that's no surprise. Tomahawk missiles use four types of warheads: TLAM-A: 1,000 pound unitary HE warhead TLAM-C: 1,000 pound unitary warhead in hardened steel encasement for surface penetration TLAM-D: cluster bomblet submunitions TLAM-N: W80 selectable yield nuclear warhead: 0.3-300 kiloton.TLAM-B was an antiship variant, but was canceled in the later 1980s due to the high cost of a Tomahawk and increased potency of the Harpoon missiles they were intended to supplement.

Abdulla: You're like stink on sh!t Pennwalt and as stubborn as caca too.... you must be Jooish! :p

Here: http://www.rimbaud.freeserve.co.uk/dhap99f.html (and) http://www.rimbaud.freeserve.co.uk/dhap99f.html#FAHEY

see for yourself--that you're full of it too, LOL! :eek:

I think you have too much time on your hands and your daddy ought to have your butt out in the back yard cutting grass and pulling weeds this summer!

While you were building model's and being the master baiter (masturbater? ) I was flying an F-16 for 15 years. Believe me DU will kill ya!

Abdulla...

Abdullathebomber,

Aaah were in that link of yours is there anything that connects Tomahawk to DP? Also where in your 15 years of fighter pilot career (that none of us doubt :p ) did you deal with DU?

Originally posted by Abdullathebomber
blahMore of the same blathering garbage. However, neither of those sources says a thing about Tomahawk cruise missile warheads. Straw man. I work with these weapon systems professionally. You are wrong.

Now I have a few questions. Should be easy to answer for you, being a retired F-16 pilot. What was the principle change between the F-16B and F-16C models and why was it introduced? What is the airframe (F-16C's) G force tolerance? At around what altitude (unofficial) does the F-16C's turbofan flame out? In the F-16B, why was a split-S maneuver from above 30,000 feet not advisable, while under 30,000 feet it was fine? (hint: think outboard wing tanks, although this was an axiom for F-16B pilots)

Originally posted by WellCookedFetus
Abdullathebomber,

Aaah wHere in that link of yours is there anything that connects Tomahawk to DU? Also where in your 15 years of fighter pilot career (that none of us doubt :p ) did you deal with DU?

Abdulla: OK pals--you asked and I'll let ya know-OK?

Remember the so called COMMAND & CONTROL bunker where the US murdered 400 civilian's in downtown Baghdad in 1991--and the Pentagon would never admit that they had made a mistake? ( Brought to the world in-living-color by CNN's Peter Arnett, remember? ).

Well, that bomb was a DU bomb. How do you think it penetrated some10 meters underground before exploding and causing all of that carnage?

Yes, the lying mendacious George I, claimed to the bitter end that it was not a powdered milk factory but the honest facts made a liar out of him.

This was the same liar that, after helping to arm the CONTRAS with money obtained through the illegal sale of TOW antitank missiles to Iran, said: I have no idea regarding the illegal funding of the CONTRAS because "I was out of the loop! ( The head of the CIA was "out of the loop?" ).

DU bombs were around before they were "cool" so don't go 'round thinking that 1991 was the 1st time they were used.

Abdulla...

BTW: Looks like the "equally" mendacious king George II is getting ready to let George Tenet take-it-on-the-chin over his lying about Iraq's WMD's from listening to Hannity on FOX NEWS today.

I just hope the REAL lying and conniving J/bass terds--Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz get their's. :(

Originally posted by Abdullathebomber
Well, that bomb was a DU bomb. How do you think it penetrated some10 meters underground before exploding and causing all of that carnage?Not true. The GBU-28 5,000 pound penetrators are made from the steel barrels of decommissioned 155mm howitzers. They carry quite a kinetic punch when released from 40,000 feet.


The bombs are modified Army artillery tubes, weigh 4,637 pounds, and contain 630 pounds of high explosives.Link (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/gbu-28.htm)

Prove me wrong.

Why are you picking on me? :(

Monetarism is a crime against humanity, as is race-mixing and all other forms of pollution.

Yeah, I agree. Race mixing is a big problem. I think the 100 Meter dash should not even be in the same arena as the 800 meter!

::End Sarcasm::

You are saying that an Asian person should not have children with a caucasian or hispanic person right? If so then I think you are a whack-a-doo. Why is that a problem? What do you do if you are already a combination? How far apart can two people be and still be suitable for child bearing? Can Hawiians have children with anyone from off the island?

Originally posted by prozak
Mas is race-mixing and all other forms of pollution.

If anyone tries to tell me what to do I usually tell them where they can shove it. You apply here. I'll marry who I like and you have no right to dictate what other people do.

Please take my kind-hearted advice and shut up.

Originally posted by prozak
Monetarism is a crime against humanity, as is race-mixing and all other forms of pollution.
The more I think about it the more I think you are totally wrong. I think we should all mix races so that we end up at a point where no one can tell the difference. Then we won't have any of the racial problems we have today.

Originally posted by Ectropic
Yeah, I agree. Race mixing is a big problem. I think the 100 Meter dash should not even be in the same arena as the 800 meter!

::End Sarcasm::

You are saying that an Asian person should not have children with a caucasian or hispanic person right? If so then I think you are a whack-a-doo. Why is that a problem? What do you do if you are already a combination? How far apart can two people be and still be suitable for child bearing? Can Hawiians have children with anyone from off the island?

Race-mixing is unacceptable because the white race should be kept pure, and not devolved into some brown racial caste.

Originally posted by You Killed Jesus
Race-mixing is unacceptable because the white race should be kept pure, and not devolved into some brown racial caste.

You aren't white are you? ;)

Originally posted by You Killed Jesus
Race-mixing is unacceptable because the white race should be kept pure, and not devolved into some brown racial caste.

Abdulla: Geez, in a country of mongrels and you get buried in race!

If you were Russian. French or even Azerbaijanian, I could see RACE PURITY to be important--the old CCCP had a billion people under its control, from Mongols to Chinese to blond/blue eyed caucasians and racism was not as big a problem there as in racist America.

Yes YKJ, whitie is programmed to make his final exit in America by 2075--it's a numbers game, remember? :eek:

Sorry Whities!

Sorry YKJ! ;)

Abdulla....

Originally posted by Cjwinnit
You aren't white are you? ;)

I think he is black... i mean come on what honest white man wouldnt want racial intergration!

Originally posted by You Killed Jesus
Race-mixing is unacceptable because the white race should be kept pure, and not devolved into some brown racial caste.

Why?

Originally posted by You Killed Jesus
Race-mixing is unacceptable because the white race should be kept pure, and not devolved into some brown racial caste.

"Heil Hitler"
Is it your favourite quote?
:mad: :mad: :mad:

Actually interbreeding produces healthier children. So let him @#$% his racially pure sister and go back to rednecks vill.

No one has the right to talk badly about people who believe in the purity of white race. I mean when it comes down to it they are concentrated in the south, and we all know how productive the south generally is and how proud we are of the people who live in the rural communities there. After all they gave us wonderful inventions such as Nascar, Beer Helmets and on top of all that they perfected church burning techniques.

Originally posted by Ectropic
No one has the right to talk badly about people who believe in the purity of white race. I mean when it comes down to it they are concentrated in the south, and we all know how productive the south generally is and how proud we are of the people who live in the rural communities there. After all they gave us wonderful inventions such as Nascar, Beer Helmets and on top of all that they perfected church burning techniques.

Abdulla: Yep, the boys have their sex education from their brothers, sister and sometimes even their mothers! ( Appalachia ).

OK Hitler/Sharon, now I'll get into your "purity of Race" drivel now.

Tell me--are you a real pedagree white poodle?

How far can you go up into your family tree?

All the way to the Vikings?

Attila-the-Hun?

Karl Marx? ( I didn't say Grocho Marx, OK? ) :)

Can you whistle "Dixie" in its entireity on one breath?

How 'bout "The Battle Hym of the Republic?

Did your great grand parents own slaves?

Did they belong to the KKK and burn crosses in peoples front yards as they fingered the rosary?

Did they fight in the civil war?

Have you had a DNA check to see if you're "really" white?

Please come back with your answers and I'm especially interested in seeing your DNA profile report, ya hear?

To be continued.......

Abdulla....

Yeah, you we're joking, of-course.

Me too! :)

Well, I guess the subject hasn't been DEPLETED because the FACTS regarding DU contamination in Iraq continues to curse the Bush administration just about as bad as the AGENT ORANGE scandal cursed the Johnson and Nixon administrations.

And why is this a scandal? Because, along with the AGENT ORANGE disaster, these two events have been ( will be? ) the greatest poisoning of the invironment since a meteor hit the Yucatan penninsula 1.5 million years ago wiping out 99% of the dinosaurous.

This also has ( will? ) made (make ) the US more Muslum enemies worldwide. Today in Vietnam, and a plume that extends into Laos and Cambodia, mothers milk still contains deadly toxins and an extraordinary amount of cases of Spina Biffida, cancer of the liver, brain, palate, kidney's, uterus, prevail.

Mal/deformed babies, chronic asthma and under weight babies still prevail in the AGENT ORANGE zones of the Mekong Delta some 28 years after the crimes were committed by US forces. (

Note: And George W. Bush keeps pointing fingers at Saddam's chemical warfare blunders sponsored by Ronald Reagan and his his fathers ( CIA ) administration in the 1980's?!

If you think this SILVER BULLET will hit our Whitehouse terrorist in between the eyes or stake the ole corrupt VAMPIRE in the heart ( what heart? ), you may have a US state department free prepaid tour of Kabul and you can even sleep in the O' Sammy bin Laden's master bedroom in Masharraf's royal palace, FOR FREE! :p

Read and see what America has stooped down to in Iraq:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~stgvisie/VISIE/du-cleanup-iraq.html

Abdulla....

PS: Un-America to talk like this, you say, huh?

I say "well informed talk!" :D

Huh, Rush Laumbagh and Michael Savage?

these two events have been ( will be? ) the greatest poisoning of the invironment since a meteor hit the Yucatan penninsula 1.5 million years ago wiping out 99% of the dinosaurous.

That is complete BS. DU is hardly going to produce climate change, species extinction or anything like the Iridium anamoly.

However, the US should not ignore the UNEP reccomendations for the clean up of such sites. Potentially, DU can be very dangerous if it builds up in the drinking water. In the past it has poisoned people that have come into close or prolonged contact to it.

For some deep scientific background on the fallacy of the DU argument, take a look at my posts in this thread (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23971).

Yo! Stokes!
If I ground up some DU really fine, put it in an envelope and posted it to congress what would happen? Would they close down during the clean up or would they just run a mop over it?
Would it be considered a terrorist act or just laughed off as a jolly schoolboy prank? Where can I get some? Do they sell it in wal-mart? Guess they should, they sell everything else. Put me down for a Kilo!

High density fun Ahoy!
Dee Cee

The SOB he just repeated his last post! this is spamming man, we proved him wrong then and now look, he learned nothing and repeats the same argument!

He could a have a least got the facts right on the dinosaurs I mean 65 million years ago not 1.5, and 100% of the dinosaurs not 99%.

DeeCee,

If I ground up some lead and shipped it would be nearly the equivalent, the media would be all over it though if it was DU though: just because you know "nuclear" and "radiation" are such powerful over exaggerated words. You have to understand pound for pound we give off more radiation then DU! If it was something like radium or cesium 137 then I would be freaking out.

To try another spin on this issue....
Would anybody here have a problem if I asked the American tourists in London (Those brave few who risk the flight;) ) to dispose of their coke cans and burger cartons in a safe and tidy manner?
No one?
Ok then why can't the American 'tourists' in Iraq dispose of their litter safely? It's just good manners after all.
This is an argument that applies regardless of the toxicity or otherwise of DU.

Get out of that you Yankee litter bugs :p
Dee Cee

Depleted uranium, is slightly radioactive, and because regarding the radiation (measured in Curie), the EXPOSURE= TIME x INTENSITY , may have the same effect as a full nuclear blast. More, it is pulverized at impact, making the contamination of environment more likely.
See Desert Storm syndrom, and the UN statistics on the Iraqis children born after that.
Using it, should be banned under any international laws, being a WMD with long term effects.

There should be a clean up but to ban DU ammunition at this time is a non starter. I have made the following two points in other similar threads but a repeat is I think justified.

1. The old style Tungstan carbide armour piercing ammunition has been proven to be ineffective against the latest generation of armour, such as 'chobham' and it's derivatives.

With memories of 'Sherman's Vs Tiger tanks still fresh in the mind, you cannot expect the US or British governments to send their tank crews into battle with ammunition that is not capable of destoying the opposition.

2. However, In two gulf war's and in the Balkan's, US or British troops have not once had to face an enemy equipped with tanks or other armoured vehicles protected by this high technology 'advanced' armour. The fact is that there has not yet 'ever' been a combat situation where DU munitions were absolutely necessery.

Why were they used?, ammuntion like everything else has a 'shelf life' and then needs to be replaced. They simply don't make the old stuff anymore.

THE SOLUTION. Spend what is in real terms 'peanuts' in producing both types of munitions. you then use DU if you have to or use Tungsten when you don't.

By the way the Royal Navy is replacing DU ammunition with tungsten for it's US made close range weapons systems. makes sense, since when was DU needed to shoot down an aeroplane or an Exocet?.

To clarify a bit the posts of mine I referred to above are actually on the second page (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23971&perpage=20&pagenumber=2) of that thread, not the first. I could regurgitate them here but I don't care to retype, and I dislike cross-posting the same thing ad infinitum.


Originally posted by cornelius
Depleted uranium, is slightly radioactive, and because regarding the radiation (measured in Curie), the EXPOSURE= TIME x INTENSITY , may have the same effect as a full nuclear blast. More, it is pulverized at impact, making the contamination of environment more likely.
See Desert Storm syndrom, and the UN statistics on the Iraqis children born after that.
Using it, should be banned under any international laws, being a WMD with long term effects. You cannot, in any way, equate DU radiological exposure to exposure from a nuclear burst. DU is a low grade alpha emitter with a radioactivity 7% less than natural pitchblende. In a radiological sense it is actually less dangerous than Uranium ore itself. Furthermore its slow moving alphas are stopped by the outer epidermis and do not penetrate the body. Only if ingested would these represent a danger, but DU is passed through the digestive tract within 24 hours so the effects never manifest themselves.

Originally posted by aghart
THE SOLUTION. Spend what is in real terms 'peanuts' in producing both types of munitions. you then use DU if you have to or use Tungsten when you don't.

By the way the Royal Navy is replacing DU ammunition with tungsten for it's US made close range weapons systems. makes sense, since when was DU needed to shoot down an aeroplane or a an Exocet?.DU is not necessary for anti-air applications, actually. But that's not the reason why it's used. The reason is cost effectiveness.

DU is free to arms manufacturers. In fact, the Uranium enrichment facilities in the US actually pay for it to be taken away. 99.3% of natural Uranium is comprised of U-238 with the rest being mostly U-235 and about .01% U-234. When Uranium is enriched for reactor fuel rods its U-235 content is raised to about 5%. As you can see, this requires large amounts of natural Uranium to extract the U-235 from. The result of this is a little bit of enriched Uranium for reactor fuel and a large quantity of U-238 left over. This is depleted Uranium - "depleted" meaning the most useful isotope has been removed from it.

It is the fact that DU would always be with us regardless of demand, coupled with its handily adaptable weaponized properties, that make it an ideal substance for penetrators. Tungsten, on the other hand, is exorbitantly expensive to manufacture in that it isn't an ancillary byproduct of another manufacturing process already. Tungsten also lacks all but the penetrating properties of DU, and those it has only partially since it's about 30% less dense.

Good point about the CIWS guns that the Royal Navy uses though, and in fact, the US Navy is doing the same. DU stocks of 20mm ammo are being expended in training to hasten their exhaustion and I imagine the same protocol exists in the RN.

Tungsten, on the other hand, is exorbitantly expensive to manufacture in that it isn't an ancillary byproduct of another manufacturing process already.

No argument there, but the cost is surely worth it to both the US and British Governments to avoid 'all this hassle', that's what I meant by 'peanuts'.

I'm curious Stokes, can you answer me some questions?
Where are the studies of the effects of DU on expectant mothers and their fetuses?
If DU contaminates the water table, and thus does not clear the body in 24 hours, but instead remains in the body, being continually replenished, is it still safe?
How do you explain the higher incidence of lukemia reported by UN troops in bosnia who operate in areas contaminated by DU?

Originally posted by EI_Sparks
Where are the studies of the effects of DU on expectant mothers and their fetuses?There have been none to the extent of my knowledge. A generational genetic study takes time. Time that the relative modernicity of DU use hasn't allowed us yet. That is why I suspect there are no legitimate published findings on this subtopic. There have been a few flare-ups of demagoguery, but they represent poor scientific method, and reading them is often akin to being punched in the face by stupidity.
If DU contaminates the water table, and thus does not clear the body in 24 hours, but instead remains in the body, being continually replenished, is it still safe?That depends on the concentration in the water. All non-distilled water contains natural Uranium (and other naturally occuring radioisotopes that are magnitudes more dangerous, like Radon), which is more radioactive than DU, but in such sparse quantities as to not be harmful. Because DU exists only inside and within a few meters of vehicles that have been destroyed with DU munitions, the rate at which DU precipitates into groundwater is low enough to be inconsequential.
How do you explain the higher incidence of lukemia reported by UN troops in bosnia who operate in areas contaminated by DU?[/list] Can you link me to this report? I have read of some correlations before. However, the sites that were attacked with DU gun rounds from aircraft were also military sites with large caches of weapons of their own. The UN is currently investigating whether or not this correlation is linked to DU use, but all known science thus far connotes that it is not.

WellCookedFetus,


He could a have a least got the facts right on the dinosaurs I mean 65 million years ago not 1.5, and 100% of the dinosaurs not 99%.

The meteor did hit 65 million years ago, but it DID NOT kill all the dinosaurs. Birds are the decendants of some of the dinosaurs that survived.

Prosoothus,

Birds descended from dinosaurs during the Triassic not 135 million years later during the cretaceous, thus avians (birds) were a different class when the meteor hit, thus no dinosaurs survive.

Back to the crappy topic:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/images/smilies/argh.gif OK just to make sure everyone knows this but Depleted uranium is not going to kill you from radiation! U-238 and all its progeny has a total of 124,000 disintegration per second per gram; the human body has 19,800,000 disintegration per second (from carbon 14 alone, not including other radioactive isotopes) everyone is more often exposed to people then to depleted uranium, should you were lead aprons to protect you from people??? A couple of micrograms of uranium in the air or water is not going to do much do to from radiation… toxicology it is far worse! Uranium is a heavy metal as such it has the same health properties as lead or mercury, what uranium that does get stuck in you will remained trapped in bone, liver or kidneys, uranium oxide particles from used DU ammunition (DU has the really cool ability to light on fire when hitting a target at high speed) trap in the lungs is very harmful… but not because its radioactive! A gram of uranium trap in your body will increase your radiation exposure by .6%

WellCookedFetus,


Birds descended from dinosaurs during the Triassic not 135 million years later during the cretaceous, thus avians (birds) were a different class when the meteor hit, thus no dinosaurs survive.

Technically, modern birds can still be considered avian dinosaurs.

Yeah, I'm a sore loser. :D

Oh really? Then you are still a mammal-like-reptile.

Firstly well cooked foetus, whilst yoru right about the Uranium being dangerous as a heavy metal. (funny how that allways gets overlooked) its disingenuous to compare uranium and carbon 14, seeing as C14 is a beta emmitter not an alpha emitter, which i htink makes them not directly comparable. certainly the exposure limits for C14 are far higher than for U235.

"Because DU exists only inside and within a few meters of vehicles that have been destroyed with DU munitions, the rate at which DU precipitates into groundwater is low enough to be inconsequential."

really? Can you point to any studies that show this? And what size are the particles, and how susceptible are they to transport by air, water and into food?

I have also read of varioud GW1 veterans testing for heavy doses of DU in their urine and blood years afterwards, which would certainly expalin some of the ill effects. PLus there is it seems litte research on the effects of dosing the body with multiple injections at once. It would seem likely that some people would have severe adverse reactions to them.

Either way, the final test of DU safety would be:
Are you willing to spray 20 tons of it on Washington DC in atomised form?

Alpha rays are roughly 3 times more damaging, take that and recalculate, also I includes all the sub-products of Uranium to lead fission in my original calculations, which give off a variety of radiations, also you should recalculate for radioactive isotopes of calcium, phosphorus, potassium that we have in the body.

Also are you willing to spray mercury over Washington DC, then way do you think they would be willing to?

Originally posted by EI_Sparks
I'm curious Stokes, can you answer me some questions?
Where are the studies of the effects of DU on expectant mothers and their fetuses?
If DU contaminates the water table, and thus does not clear the body in 24 hours, but instead remains in the body, being continually replenished, is it still safe?
How do you explain the higher incidence of lukemia reported by UN troops in Bosnia who operate in areas contaminated by DU?

See: http://www.antenna.nl/wise/uranium/dgvd.html

Also.... :eek:

See: http://www.antenna.nl/wise/uranium/dgvd.html#EXPSOLD

Abdulla....

Originally posted by Prosoothus
WellCookedFetus, the meteor did hit 65 million years ago, but it DID NOT kill all the dinosaurs. Birds are the decendants of some of the dinosaurs that survived.

A goy that has lived all of his life in a mason jar has a very small perspective on the world and the universe Prosoothus - why confuse him with the facts. :rolleyes:

How the hell does one know if it was 65 million years ago - or 2000 years ago on a Hannakah Tuesday or on Holloween 10 decades ago on a Good Friday? :)

Meanwhile, do you have an extra RU486 pill for "our" gurgling little petri-pest? :p

Abdulla....

Australian servicemen and women who served in the recent Iraq war were reporting symptoms of uranium sickness, a United States nuclear weapons expert said today.
Dr Douglas Rokke is a former US Army nuclear health physicist and was formerly the Pentagon's expert on the health effects of depleted uranium ammunition.
Speaking in Melbourne today, Dr Rokke said Iraqi women and children and American and Iraqi military personnel had reported respiratory illnesses and rashes after the recent conflict, and he had also been told of Australian servicemen and women with similar symptoms.
"That's the reports I received from the US Army medical department. That's something that needs to be verified and looked into," he said. (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/06/23/1056220529069.html)

EI_Sparks,

nice, I like how they treated it as the toxin it is.