ADS weapon ready to deploy (now discussing DU as a cause of Gulf war syndrome)

[aka_tom_w]

Weapon of the future ready now?

The ADS technology is ready to deploy, and the Army requested ADS-armed Strykers for Iraq last year. But the military is well aware that any adverse publicity could finish the program, and it does not want to risk distressed victims wailing about evil new weapons on CNN.

web page wired news

what is it?

Air Force's Active Denial System, or ADS, has been certified safe after lengthy tests by military scientists in the lab and in war games.

The ADS shoots a beam of millimeters waves, which are longer in wavelength than x-rays but shorter than microwaves -- 94 GHz (= 3 mm wavelength) compared to 2.45 GHz (= 12 cm wavelength) in a standard microwave oven.

The longer waves are thought to limit the effects of the radiation. If used properly, ADS will produce no lasting adverse affects, the military argues.

Documents acquired for Wired News using the Freedom of Information Act claim that most of the radiation (83 percent) is instantly absorbed by the top layer of the skin, heating it rapidly.

The beam produces what experimenters call the "Goodbye effect," or "prompt and highly motivated escape behavior." In human tests, most subjects reached their pain threshold within 3 seconds, and none of the subjects could endure more than 5 seconds.

"It will repel you," one test subject said. "If hit by the beam, you will move out of it -- reflexively and quickly. You for sure will not be eager to experience it again."

But while subjects may feel like they have sustained serious burns, the documents claim effects are not long-lasting. At most, "some volunteers who tolerate the heat may experience prolonged redness or even small blisters," the Air Force experiments concluded.

John Kettler why didn't you tell me about this one 1-2 years ago ? (I am dissappointed)

(LOL)

-tom w

[ December 14, 2006, 06:58 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[imported_Wildman]

GAWD! The Air Force developing an infantry ground weapon...what is the world coming to?

[Drusus]

(LOL)

How am I supposed to interpret that one? Seems that it contradicts itself.

[MikeyD]

"If used properly, ADS will produce no lasting adverse affects"

Makes me wonder about the meaning of "used properly" and "lasting" in that sentence. What happens when its not used properly, and how much margin for error is there between proper and improper use?

This reminds me of a demonstration I saw of a 'non-lethal' sticky foam being tested by the Army for incapacitating rioters. My first thought was "And what happens when I fall into it head-first? Asphixiation perhaps?" Or would falling into it head-first not be considered proper use?

[Peter Cairns]

Some of the problems that have been raised are with microwave weapons are.....

What happens if you are wearing metal framed specs, or indeed contact lenses.

What effect does it have on retina. What about people with sensitive skin etc. What about the injured or small children who can't get out of the way, what if someone faints or has a panic attack.

If it only effects the top layer of skin, how does it work on people wearing heavy clothing.

Can it ignite fuel or petrol vapour. Does it heat metal containers like cans of cooking oil or things like gas cylinders.

Does it interfer with radio signals, pacemakers or medical equipment.

Like MikeyD suggested "Used Properly" is a pretty loaded phrase, used properly Napalm is effective against infantry, even if they are in a hospital.

Peter.

[Moronic Max]

Makes me wonder about the meaning of "used properly" and "lasting" in that sentence.

Mhm. I'd really like to know exactly how this thing is supposed to be employed. Do you keep the beam on constantly 'til the crowd ain't there no more? Turn it on briefly? Sweep the crowd, turn it off, sweep it again? Or what?

But the Air Force is adamant that after years of study, exposure to MMW has not been demonstrated to promote cancer. During some tests, subjects were exposed to 20 times the permitted dose under the relevant Air Force radiation standard. The Air Force claims the exposure was justified by demonstrating the safety of the ADS system.

Years of study, huh? Two years? Three? Five? Ten? Twenty?

The American military doesn't exactly have a stirling track record for safety in this sorta thing; I'm thinking of Agent Orange, nuclear testing, all that 'radiation research' stuff, and so on.

I sure as hell wouldn't want to be on the receiving end, that's for sure. OTOH, better that than a few rounds from an M2.

What'll be interesting will be how people in Iraq respond to its use.

[John Kettler]

Moronic Max,

You mean the kind of stuff detailed here, right?

http://www.beyondtreason.com/

aka_tom-w,

I know there have been repeated mentions of this item on the Forums, but so far, haven't been able to run down the right links. That's why I didn't address it directly, at least as I recall.

Also, I believe you'll find this useful, just not for ADS research.

http://www.carnicom.com/

Here's some ADS stuff

Wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Denial_System

Global Security on the vehicle mounted version

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/v-mads.htm

Discussion of Hummer mounted prototype in dev

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001102.html

A hot discussion on it here

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002035.html

ADS and the sordid backstory of military crowd control efforts

http://www.motherbird.com/zapper.html

WIRED's take, to include details on testing and live wargaming of the system

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,72134-0.html?tw=wn_index_1

Regards,

John Kettler

[aka_tom_w]

John Kettler!

Wow great research...

thanks

I will check out some of those links tomorrow when I get a chance.

-tom w

[John Kettler]

aka_tom_w,

Glad to oblige! Compared to some of the stuff I've researched, this is relatively tame. Relatively tame DOES NOT = safe. Offhand, I find the corneal damage issue especially disconcerting. Perhaps, it's because I'm practically blind w/o glasses. I think the issues regarding heating of metal glasses frames and potential interference to medical electronics also bear careful examination.

Never mind the lowered threshold for inflicting mass pain, what happens when you can't swiftly exit the beam, etc.!

Regards,

John Kettler

[Moronic Max]

I was thinking more along these lines, to be honest; if for no other reason than that the average person will find it more compelling than a doc with a title like 'beyond treason', which smacks of sensationalism (whether or not it's accurate isn't the point. The point is that the average person will look at the title, look at the description of its contents, dismiss it as a crock-u-mentary, and forget about it).

Now, an account from the DoE's homepage about experiments in which people were injected with effing plutonium...

[John Kettler]

Moronic Max,

I take your point, but I urge you to explore the site www.gulfwarvets.com It was founded by former Air Force Reserve Captain (Nurse) Joyce Riley, who developed GWS simply from treating evaced GW I soldiers and nearly died from it. This led her to take a deep look at the systematic use of the U.S. military and civilians for all manner of horrific experiments.

I recommended the DVD Beyond Treason simply because it put a lot of powerful material into viewers' hands quickly and easily. Her story's on it. I've met the woman. She went through hell but came out transformed to the core, being moved to reach out to victims of decades of government experimentation, providing not just information hard to come by but referrals to specialists in the terrible syndromes, referrals for tests the government wouldn't do (mycoplasma, DU, etc.) and support for the sufferers. The site's awash in the most damning documentation of the sorts of experiments covered on the DVD, to include Senate Reports.

Regards,

John Kettler

[MikeyD]

Not sure if this is even tangentially related to the topic, but I was struck by how the Pentagon has very VERY quietly decided to shift from DU back to tungsten core tank rounds. There may be reasons for doing this that we'll never hear about.

John Kettler's line above about "...the lowered threshold for inflicting mass pain" rather focuses the mind on what it is they're promoting with that weapon. Maybe they'll use ADS on anti-war protesters outside the Republican National Convention in '08.

[ December 07, 2006, 07:54 AM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[John Kettler]

MikeyD,

There has been a huge stink raised about DU, so much so that in the Balkans, NATO was forced to mount full scale radioactive cleanups wherever such weapons were used. In Iraq, by contrast, we don't care about either the people, where cancer and deformities are so rampant that the first question of a new birth is "Is the child normal?" or our own troops, who run about in an environment

with hundreds of tons of finely divided DU blowing about. The Pentagon only started testing for DU exposure after it practically became a front page scandal. Further, it is my understanding that under international law, use of DU and such is technically considered a form of nuclear warfare, hence is proscribed and actionable under said law.

The site I gave has lots of material on DU, there's lots more on the Net, and physicist Dr. Michio Kaku, who helped invent string theory

http://www.mkaku.org/articles_essay.htm

was part of an entire book exposing the Pentagon's lies about DU. It was titled METAL OF DISHONOR.

http://www.amazon.com/Metal-Dishonor-Depleted-Uranium-Pentagon-Civilians/dp/0965691608

This summarizes some of the key points

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/0965691608/ref=dp_proddesc_0/104-1911894-3708725?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books

As for using ADS on legitimate protesters, I think you have every right to be concerned. The administration's literal isolation of itself from dissenting voices (see protest zones out of eyeshot and earshot of presidential motorcades, for example) is but one example of a chilling effort to stifle dissent of all sorts. Fortunately, there now appears to be a backlash occurring.

Regards,

John Kettler

[flamingknives]

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/document.asp?id=1431

[jBrereton]

What about peoples' eyes - that's my question. Blinding, perhaps?

[acrashb]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

Further, it is my understanding that under international law, use of DU and such is technically considered a form of nuclear warfare, hence is proscribed and actionable under said law.

Since DU is about half as radioactive as natural U and since it's main hazard is as a heavy metal (chemical, not radiological toxicity), this would be remarkable. Anything credible to cite?

[flamingknives]

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

[John Kettler]

acrashb,

Suggest you take a look at these, which flatly contradict the rosy picture painted by the Pentagon

and the WHO.

http://www.ratical.org/radiation/DU/disorder.html

http://www.eoslifework.co.uk/u232.htm

http://www.sonaliandjim.net/politics/DU/DU_paper.htm

According to this, UN studies predict 500,000 Iraqi civilian DEATHS from the DU used in that country by the U.S. and its partners. This same article specifically states that DU is multiply banned by a stack of treaties, is a WMD, and its use constitutes radiological warfare.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=3453

The former Indian Navy Chief of Staff minced no words either on these issues in his presentation.

http://www.traprockpeace.org/bhagwat_du_29feb04.pdf

This shows that the Pentagon knew of the real dangers of DU long ago and is therefore culpable.

http://www.bpac.info/AbolishDUWeaponryAug102005.doc

Statement of Dr. Rosalie Bertel, an expert in low level radiological effects.

http://members.tripod.com/~sarant_2/ks23du.html

I could easily provide much more. Please note that some of what's given as links precedes other items by many years, thus isn't necessarily current.

Regards,

John Kettler

[flamingknives]

John,

You can provide as much as you like, I'm happy with my two, given their provenance.

For example, one of your sources states:

Scientific peer reviewed research on the extent of exposure to DU dust and the internal damage directly resulting from any internally retained DU is imperative to ending the debate over DU is imperative.

That's what this is.

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/document.asp?id=1431

I also note that many of your sources are hosted by what can be fairly called biased sites, whereas the Royal Society is autonomous and has no agenda regarding the use of DU or weapons. Of course you may decide, for reasons of your own, that this is a government whitewash. In that case, there's nothing anyone could do to contradict your prejudaces.

Because we're probably in on it too.

[John Kettler]

flamingknives,

For many years, I was blissfully unaware of DU as being other than a super dense material which because of that and its pyrophoric effects, made a superb armor killer and penetrating munition. It was only much later on that I first became aware of the toxicology aspects.

I have presented clear evidence that the Pentagon knew of these issues years ago. You may not like the sites, but not liking isn't the same as disproving the information therein. Referring specifically to the one which quotes both Manhattan Project and Army official documents, seems to me you'd need to disprove the quotes, rather than just equating arm waving with refutation. Oh, and thanks for reminding me of my prejudices, whose existence you by default presume to exist. Examined your own lately? Is it possible that you simply don't want to deal with the consequences of not merely using DU, but having used it on an enormous scale?

Regards,

John Kettler

[Moronic Max]

According to this, UN studies predict 500,000 Iraqi civilian DEATHS from the DU used in that country by the U.S. and its partners. This same article specifically states that DU is multiply banned by a stack of treaties, is a WMD, and its use constitutes radiological warfare.

John, did you check this? I ask because, if I'm reading the IAEA unofficial transcript correctly, what it's refering to is not a UN study; it's an Iraqi study presented to the UN 29 September, 1999. Which I don't think is necessarily reliable.

[John Kettler]

Moronic Max,

Here's the relevant portion from the Z magazine article (fair use).

"The special agency of the United Nations system dealing with nuclear questions, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has detailed knowledge of the impact of DU in Iraq. At the 42nd General Conference in September 1998, a document entitled "Radiation Effects" included information about the use of depleted uranium against Iraq. IAEA document GC(43)/INF/20 of 29 September 1999 stated that "Diseases which do not commonly appear in the region such as various forms of cancer, and early pregnancy abortion, deformed babies in addition to the after effects which may damage hereditary genes and future effects of radioactive waste resulting from radioactive aerosols due to the bombardment. This effect may be transferred to other regions in the country due to natural phenomena."

Based on the report of the 48th meeting issued by the UN Committee dealing with effects of Atomic radiation on 20th April 1999, noting the rapid increase in mortality caused by DU between 1991 and 1997, the IAEA document predicted the death of half a million Iraqis, noting that "...some 700-800 tons of depleted uranium was used in bombing the military zones south of Iraq. Such a quantity has a radiation effect, sufficient to cause 500,000 cases which may lead to death."

After independently reviewing the reference cited in the article, I agree that the statement quoted in the magazine was sloppily written. That said, though, the material presented here was an

official, formal information submission to the IAEA by the Iraqi government. I read it here.

http://f40.iaea.org/GC/gc43/documents/gc43inf20.html

Even if you wish to treat that Iraqi report as unreliable-blatantly propagandistic, there still remains a stack of issues not reliant on said questionable report, discussed in paragraphs 8 and beyond here.

http://www.japanfocus.org/products/details/2086

As a cross check on the estimates previously given, I recall that during the sanctions before OIF, the Red Cross's own in country investigations concluded that the aftermath of U.S. combat actions from the first Gulf War (described as systematically shattered and not permitted to be repaired water supplies and sewage systems, coupled with hundreds of tons of DU munitions used, the byproducts of which were wafting about)

were killing 100,000 Iraqi children a year!

A little "light" reading from the UN Scientific Committe on the Effects of Atomic Radiation

http://www.unscear.org/unscear/search.html?q=du

Also Annex G here.

http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/publications/2000_2.html

Wiki on DU, with many interesting links and the fascinating statement that the then Soviets had DU

tank ammo in service by 1970. Remember that armor/antiarmor gap the U.S. discovered in the mid '80s? This was part of it!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium

According to this, the U.S. took such umbrage over two female Iraqi doctors who carefully documented the damage wrought by DU in Iraq that when the U.S. invaded again under OIF, they were arrested and jailed, only being released when the spurious charges that they were involved in producing WMDs was shown false. There's much here on how other countries are responding to the radioactive hazards unleashed in

Iraq.

http://www.bsharp.net.au/htm/news.htm

The above page is from a site for an Australian DU documentary called Blowin' in the Wind, and here's some background from that site on what's happened to people in other places where DU munitions have been used, and by no means just in war. I think the U.S. Army's former point man for DU in Iraq, Doug Rokke's, take on the matter, based on direct field measurements ten years after the bombing is damning.

http://www.bsharp.net.au/htm/the-film.htm

This 2006 report to the UN by an antiDU group cites a stack of scientific studies which, among other things, reveal serious methodology problems with standard radiation exposure modeling and previously unsuspected interactions between DU and genes.

http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/a/90.html

Dr. Baverstock's 2006 report to the Belgian Defence Committee highlights major deficiencies in both the Royal Society and WHO assessments of the hazards of DU exposure, not the least being the nonaddressing of genotoxic effects.

http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/a/91.html

Regards,

John Kettler

[ December 12, 2006, 05:14 AM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[flamingknives]

John, perhaps I'm missing something here, but isn't this:

According to this, UN studies predict 500,000 Iraqi civilian DEATHS from the DU used in that country by the U.S. and its partners. This same article specifically states that DU is multiply banned by a stack of treaties, is a WMD, and its use constitutes radiological warfare.

somewhat inconsistent with this:

For many years, I was blissfully unaware of DU as being other than a super dense material which because of that and its pyrophoric effects, made a superb armor killer and penetrating munition. It was only much later on that I first became aware of the toxicology aspects.

Since radiological and toxic effects are somewhat different?

I'll not deny that DU is toxic, but to claim that it is a radiological is stretching it rather too much. It's rather like claiming a rifle is a radiological weapon because of its tritium sight.

As a cross check on the estimates previously given, I recall that during the sanctions before OIF, the Red Cross's own in country investigations concluded that the aftermath of U.S. combat actions from the first Gulf War (described as systematically shattered and not permitted to be repaired water supplies and sewage systems, coupled with hundreds of tons of DU munitions used, the byproducts of which were wafting about)

were killing 100,000 Iraqi children a year!

That is truly shocking reporting. It's crap and you really ought to know better :mad: . I think it likely that the vast majority of those deaths can be attributed to the lack of basic sanitation rather than the nebulous effects of depleted uranium.

Why I dismiss these sites is because I find things like this in them

During the current war, the US-UK forces used banned nuclear weapons in the most densely populated areas of Iraq against a defenseless population.

Now that's clearly horse droppings. Nuclear weapons are not banned, so how can you have banned ones? If it's a penetrating bomb with radiological side effects, then it's a radiological weapon, not a nuclear one. The editors should know the difference if they are to write about in technical terms, so they're either ignorant or being deliberately misleading. I remind you of the old (and better, IMHO) acronym for unconventional weapons:

CBRN, Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear. If the last two were synonymous, why have both?

Based on previous research on the impact of DU and the mortality estimates by the IAEA, the death toll may surpass a million deaths over the next few years, with more to follow!

Written about the 2003 invasion, we ought to be seeing those million deaths kicking off about now. Not something Al Jazeera and the liberal media would pass up on, is it?

A devastating impact on civilians is also achieved by other banned illegal weapons such as cluster bombs and "Daisy Cutter" thermobaric bombs used by US-UK forces

"Banned illegal"? Please. Clearly an attempt to force an opinion using strong and reinforcing words. Plus; only the US use daisy cutters, thermobaric weapons are not banned and neither are cluster bombs.

The result is mass killing beyond imagination. UNICEF and WHO have spoken of 500,000 victims, mainly children, dying of diseases and under-nourishment as a result of the Gulf War

There's your 500,000 figure. Not DU related at all, but from all war induced causes. Oh, and Saddam Hussein being a meglomaniacal dictator who funneled most of the countries wealth into his own pockets.

The bsharp site claims the half-life of DU to be 4.5 billion years. That sounds scary, but if you know anything about radioactivity it means that it's not very radioactive.

I could go on, but the manifold deciept and childish linguistic devices are making me depressed.

And yes, I am prejudaced against sites which, time and again, show bad science, bad reporting and bad use of the English language. Nonetheless I read them, only to have my prejudaces confirmed and reinforced.

[John Kettler]

flamingknives,

Let's strip this down to bare essentials, shall we?

You seem to agree that DU is toxic, and it is this toxicity which explains the underlying etiology. Classically speaking, any finely divided metal is toxic, so no argument there, and on that point solely.

What you can't seem to grok, though, is that DU is also radiologically toxic and highly persistent. It is radiologically toxic because it is an Alpha emitter. True, Alpha particles can literally be stopped by a piece of paper, but all bets are off

once it's inside the body. There, the weak emitter is in direct contact with living cells.

In the case of DU, it seems to congregate in and attack the kidneys, as borne out by numerous Gulf War veterans's experiences after the war.

I don't know whether or not you're aware of this,

but smokers' lungs have been passively imaged using simply the accumulated radiation from years of smoking radioactively contaminated tobacco (apatite fertilizer substituted for manure during WW II is weakly radioactive, and the polonium 210 and lead 210 have been shown to accumulate in the bronchi and lungs. These plus radon have been the subject of several PSAs here in the States under the Truth.com rubric). I wrote an entire article on radioactive tobacco at the

request of a former interviewee who lost a beloved aunt to cancer (I lost my mother, a longtime smoker, to pancreatic cancer; pancreas is another organ in which radiation accumulates). That article appeared in ATLANTIS RISING No. 36. I quote from my draft article.

"You’re Kidding, Right?

Hardly. The problem traces back to fertilizer and World War II, to a fateful changeover from natural fertilizer (manure) to chemical fertilizer. The reason? The munition makers needed the saltpeter from the manure to make explosives, so the government

collected and carried off the manure used for centuries to fertilize the tobacco fields. The replacement, a chemical fertilizer made from the mineral apatite, was the tobacco equivalent of growth hormone, but it bore within it a deadly cargo--radioactive contaminants of several types.

An Appetite for Apatite

Tobacco plants grow like wildfire on calcium phosphate fertilizer, providing an economic disincentive to return to the lower yield rates of natural fertilizer or the considerable costs associated with using ammonium phosphate fertilizer. The latter is a product

which has been processed to remove outright or greatly reduce radioactive materials which naturally occur in the phosphate rock.

That such contaminants exist is easily shown in the following, taken from the online mining site Drillbits & Tailings, Volume 5, Number 2, February 14, 2000 (www.moles.org/ProjectUnderground/drillbits/5-02/vs.html), which says of phosphate production "Because of other elements present in phosphates deposits such as uranium and cadmium, phosphogypsum (byproduct of making phosphoric acid used in phosphatic fertilizers, Ed.) typically contain radon and other radioactive materials and can be extremely hazardous." Reinforcing this statement we find on the Florida Institute of Phosphate Research site the abstract for FIPR Publication No. 05-040-111, "Behavior of Radionuclides During Ammonocarbonation of Phosphogypsum," by

William Burnett, Michael Schultz and Carter Hull, Florida State University, March 1995 (www.fipr.state.fl.us./fipr111.htm) which says "Approximately thirty million tons of by-product "phosphogypsum" are currently produced annually by the phosphate fertilizer industry in Florida. Nearly all of this material is stockpiled because radioactive impurities prevent utilization of what could otherwise be a useful agricultural amendment or construction material." Elsewhere, that same abstract names the radionuclides as Uranium-238, Radon-226, Lead-210 and Polonium-210. Let's see, the leftovers are radioactively contaminated, so the phosphoric acid used to make the phosphate fertilizers used in the tobacco fields must be...?

Radioactive Tobacco: What the Tobacco Companies

Knew and When They Knew It

Decades of litigation over illness and death caused by smoking have resulted in enormous quantities of sensitive tobacco company documents being obtained through discovery motions and stored in massive online databases. Here's what digging turned up.

Philip Morris Document No. 1004863883/3884, dated July 23, 1974 and titled "Disease and Radioactive Polonium" speaks volumes, saying in its damning opening sentence:

"The subject of radioactive polonium in tobacco smoke has been with us for at least ten years. It has been fairly well demonstrated that the radioactive polonium is on tobacco and that it is found in excess quantities at the bifurcation of the trachea in smokers..."

The above document is available online at www.pmdocs.com/getallimg.asp?if=avpidx&DOCID=1004863883/3884

Even more revealing is a Philip Morris U.S.A. inter-office correspondence of April 2, 1980 and marked "Confidential" which says in Document No. 2012611337 in response to the "Newscript" article on radioactive cigarettes dated 2/22/80:

"That phosphate fertilizer (specifically superphosphate fertilizer) contains natural radioactivity is a well established fact...natural uranium accumulates in the phosphate rock and has been shown to substitute for calcium in the rock structure...Uranium and its daughters are thus carried through

the mining and manufacturing processes and appear in the commercial product..."

Were you paying attention? Philip Morris just admitted in an internal memo that it knows the fertilizer is radioactively contaminated. But let's see what else awaits.

"Soils to which these products are applied show an increase in that naturally present and this increase is a function of the rate of application and the number of years that the fertilizers have been used..."

In other words, the more phosphate fertilizer they use and the longer they use it, the more radioactive the tobacco fields become. The document then goes on to mention that the specific activity (activity per unit size) increases as phosphate fertilizer particle size decreases. Thus the small particles wind up either deposited on the leaves by normal farming practices or are taken up via the roots of the tobacco plants. Here are two more things to ponder:

"210 Pb and 210 Po are present in tobacco and smoke." (Lead-210 and Polonium-210, Ed.)

and

"The recommendation of using ammonium phosphate instead of calcium phosphate as fertilizer is probably a valid but expensive point...

Preparation of ammonium phosphate for fertilizer would then yield a product greatly reduced in or free of the natural radioactivity present in the parent phosphate rock."

This document is available online at http://www.pmdoc.com/getallimg.asp?/DOCID=2012611337/1338"]www.pmdoc.com/getallimg.asp?/DOCID=2012611337/1338"

Continuing from later in the article, we find

"Radioactivity in Cigarette Smoke:

What Some Doctors Know

The writer made a major find while conducting research for this article, in the form of a site (http://www.nepenthes.lycaeum.org/Drugs/THC/Health/cancer.rad.html) containing a 1982 letter to the Editor, New England Journal of Medicine, 306(6):364-365, by Winters, TH and Di Franza, Joseph, both doctors at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts. The subject of their letter? "Radioactivity in Cigarette Smoke." Their letter by itself would be more than adequately disturbing and monitory, as we'll see, but it triggered a veritable deluge of responses, responses which not only amplified the original issues but opened up many new ones with acute public health implications. All those follow up letters are on the same site, and they contain references to much research unknown to most doctors, let alone the public at large.

Let's look at the highlights from the first letter.

"The alpha emitters polonum-210 and lead-210 are highly concentrated on tobacco trichomes (hairs on the tobacco plant's leaves, Ed.) and insoluble particles in cigarette smoke. The major source of the polonium is phosphate fertilizer, which is used in growing tobacco. The trichomes of the leaves concentrate the polonium, which persists when tobacco is dried and processed."

The doctors then go on to describe how ciliary action sweeps the

insoluble particles to the bronchial junctions, common sites for bronchial cancers. They note that the radiation dose to the bronchial surface for 1 1/2 pack a day smoker is the skin dose equivalent of 300 chest X-rays per year. They then inject a dramatic twist as how how to interpret the resulting radiation insult to the body, which works out on a whole body basis to what one gets from natural sources in a year of living near Boston, Massachusetts.

The twist? It has long been customary to average out high individual area exposure over total body mass, thus considerably reducing the apparent actual dose. But we're dealing with alpha radiation, whose particles penetrate a mere 40 microns into the body. Thus, instead of the 8000 mrem per year depicted by the 300

chest X-rays, a single bronchial skin nucleus taking just one alpha particle strike receives a walloping 1000 rems, 125 times higher dose than the standard, flawed exposure model would predict. Not surprisingly, the doctors conclude: "The Po-210 alpha activity may be a very effective carcinogen if a multiple mutation mechanism is involved." They also add some sobering words about the effects on bystanders: "Radford and Hunt have determined that 75 per cent of the alpha activity of cigarette smoke enters the ambient air and is unabsorbed by the smoker...making it available for deposit in the lungs of others."

This provoked a string of responses, the first from Edward Martell, Ph.D. of the National Center for Atmospheric Research,

Boulder, Colorado, himself the author of another seminal paper in the field, "Radioactivity of tobacco trichomes and insoluble cigarette smoke particles," which was published in Nature, 1974;

249: 215-7. Summarizing several recent studies and some of his own work, he concludes: "Thus, the smoker receives alpha radiation at lung bifurcations from these three sources: from indoor radon progeny inhaled between cigarettes, from Po214 in mainstream smoke particles, and from Po210 that grows into Pb210 particles that persist at bifurcations." He estimates the cumulative alpha dose at these bifurcations of smokers who die as

"1600 rem...a dose sufficient to induce malignant transformations by alpha interactions with basal cells."

Enter Jeffrey I. Cohen, M.D., of Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina who addresses the paradox of higher lung cancer deaths among those who smoked 20-39 low-tar, low-nicotine cigarettes per day than those who smoked 1-19 high-tar, high-nicotine cigarettes per day. He says "higher porosity paper and perforated filters may enhance the completeness of combustion...and may increase the pyrolysis of trichomes, resulting in smoke particles with higher specific activities of Pb210," then goes on to note that cigarette filters have shown no usefulness against Po210 inhalation. "If Po210 and Pb210 contribute to tobacco related cancer, then the number of cigarettes smoked may be more important than the tar or nicotine content. He then reasonably suggests that future research should focus on "the development of low Po210, low Pb210 cigarettes."

A letter from Beverly S. Cohen, Ph.D. and Naomi H. Harley, Ph.D., both of the New York University School of Medicine, added both more light and heat. They point out a sheaf of other studies and provide some new insights and chilling confirmations of what others previously reported.

"Measurements made with cigarette smoke condensate demonstrate that although radium and thorium are also present in cigarette smoke,99% of the alpha activity is from Po210." They further report that whole lung measurements of smokers and exsmokers reveal "... the inhaled Po210 is retained in the lower lung."

Though their autopsy tests of seven upper respiratory tracts using

nuclear-track-etch film to self-map the tissue via alpha radiation

were not sufficiently confirmatory to reach any solid conclusion about the bronchial junction irradiation model, save in one possible case among seven, they are blunt in their overall views: "The importance of proper assessment of the risk to cigarette smokers from radionuclides in the smoke cannot be overstated...Po210 is the only component in cigarette smoke or tar

that has produced cancers by itself in laboratory animals as a result of inhalation exposure...We firmly believe that the role of alpha radiation in tobacco related carcinogenesis deserves further

study."

Naturally, not everyone agreed. C.R. Hill, M.D. of the Institute for Cancer Research at Royal Marsden Hospital in Sutton, Surrey, England certainly didn't. He attacked everything from the hot particles to claims that the major source of polonium was phosphate fertilizer, arguing that the true source is fallout from decay products of natural radon-222 in the atmosphere.

The next letter was from Walter L. Wagner, B.A., of the Veterans Administration Medical Center in San Francisco, California. He described two animal studies in which intratracheal instillation of Po210, at doses corresponding to less than a fifth of what a heavy smoker (two packs a day) receives over 25 years, still produced a borderline carcinoma rate of 13% and 11% for malignant tumors. He then observes that reducing the radiation dose two hundred times only drops the tumor rate by a factor of four (cancer rates shown are for reduced dosage), concluding: "Presumably, the high density of ionization along the track of alpha radiation (about one ion pair for every two Angstroms traveled) and other high-LET (linear effect transfer, Ed.) radiation is the prime factor causing Po210 to be an extremely efficient carcinogen...further work is warranted in this area, but we should not hesitate to disseminate the information already at hand--that the alpha-radiation exposure to the lungs of tobacco smokers is extremely important."

As if the Wagner letter wasn't enough, R.T. Ravenholt, M.D., M.P. H., Centers for Disease Control, Atlanta, Georgia, entered the lists, dropping the scientific equivalent of a nuclear bomb. It was all the more shocking for its understated delivery: "Although Winters and Di Franza tellingly describe the the mechanisms by which Po210 on insoluble particles in cigarette smoke causes lung cancer, they neglect the even more important matter of how Po210 and other mutagens from tobacco smoke cause malignant neoplasms, degenerative cardiovascular diseases, and other diseases throughout the bodies of smokers." Ravenholt then presents a page sized chart showing statistically expected deaths vs. those in smokers. The differences are telling, ranging from 11% more for intestinal cancer to a staggering almost fifteen times more for emphysema. Nor is there mercy after the table, for Ravenholt describes how the Po210 is spread throughout the body, "being carried by the systemic circulation to every tissue and cell, causing mutations of cellular genetic structures, deviation of of cellular characteristics from their optimal normal state, accelerated aging, and early death from a body-wide spectrum of diseases....The proof of circulating mutagens from smoking is that Po210 can be recovered not only from tobacco smoke and bronchial mucosa, but also from the blood and urine of smokers."

Thus, you now have a model which beautifully shows

how something weakly radioactive can be a serious and even mortal threat. Bearing the above firmly in mind, now go back to what the Army's own investigator found in Iraq ten years after the last bomb had dropped. He found high radiation levels. This, then, is the environment the Iraqis have had to live in, compounded by the destruction of water and sanitation facilities. It's also the environment in which our troops have long operated without so much as a gas mask, as confirmed by my now retired brother who served there with the first Stryker brigade to see combat. I have the earlier unclassified live fire trials for GAU-8 lot acceptance tests, and in the damage assessment pics, the evaluators are all wearing respirators

and protective jumpsuits. With very good reason!

I hope this explains why there's more to DU exposure than you seem to believe. I'd also point out that NATO assessments in Yugoslavia found that DU dissolved in the ground. Recovered penetrators

which hit nothing but bare earth were missing as much as 25% of their mass via corrosion.

Regards,

John Kettler

[ December 12, 2006, 10:13 PM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[flamingknives]

And Uranium is more radiologically toxic and occurs naturally.

Stick to the subject. The key to the dangers of DU is exposure, and smoking doesn't really compare. Nonetheless, it kind of defeats your argument. Po 210 is very radioactive - half-life of 140 days - and is stated to be

Po210 is the only component in cigarette smoke or tar

that has produced cancers by itself in laboratory animals as a result of inhalation exposure

Whilst it's also stated that uranium is also present.

Bear in mind that Po210 is ten orders of magnitude more radioactive than uranium.