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

[John Kettler]

flamingknives,

No, it doesn't defeat my argument, for we're talking about inhaling radioactive particles in both cases. Nor does the fact that there's a certain amount of natural intake of uranium from the environment. Why? It's because I'm talking about an extraordinary intake of radiation, at levels way above background. Again, I refer you to Rokke's investigations and conclusions made in his then official capacity for the Army. Finally, I refer you to the recent discoveries of the genotoxic, as opposed to cytotoxic, effects of even low level radiation. Low levels of radiation have been shown to create genetic damage. Oh, in case you're wondering why Native Americans are doing some of the research, it's because the Bureau of Indian Affairs thoughtfully provided hogans built from radioactive uranium mine tailings!

Regards,

John Kettler

[flamingknives]

John,

Yes, it does, for it refers to there being Po210 and Uranium in cigarettes, but only the Po210 has carcinogenic effects in isolation.

If you deign to read the reports I posted, you'll note that the assessment of the details of the dangers of Uranium are the same, but that the assessment of the level of risk differs.

[Wicky]

The pesky Iranians seem to thrive on radiation...

Ramsar, a northern coastal city in Iran, has areas with some of the highest levels of natural radiation measured to date. The effective dose equivalents in very high background radiation areas (VHBRAs) of Ramsar in particular in Talesh Mahalleh, are a few times higher than the ICRP-recommended radiation dose limits for radiation workers. ...

The preliminary results of cytogenetical, immunological and hematological studies on the residents of high background radiation areas of Ramsar have been previously reported (Mortazavi et al. 2001, Ghiassi-Nejad et al. 2002 and Mortazavi et al. in press), suggesting that exposure to high levels of natural background radiation can induce radioadaptive response in human cells. ...

Based on results obtained in studies on high background radiation areas of Ramsar, high levels of natural radiation may have some bio-positive effects such as enhancing radiation-resistance. More research is needed to assess if these bio-positive effects have any implication in radiation protection (Mortazavi et al. 2001). The risk from exposure to low-dose radiation has been highly politicized for a variety of reasons. This has led to a frequently exaggerated perception of the potential health effects, and to lasting public controversies.

High Background Radiation Areas of Ramsar, Iran

Phew Seems we can postpone the mass evacuation of Cornwall, UK esp the residents living in natural granite or concerete homes.

[John Kettler]

Wicky,

While that is indeed interesting and maybe even remarkable, I think it's appropriate to note that there's a big difference between living in area which practically overnight goes from having very little radioactivity to being flat out "hot" and worse, stays that way and one which has long been "hot" and remained so. Seems to me that the huge jump in birth defects, cancers and the like found not just in Iraqis but also in DU exposed U.S. soldiers and those near gunnery/bombing ranges where DU munitions have been used, as cited in several of the reports I provided links to, would appear to indicate that not only do many do not thrive under such conditions as the VHBRA example you presented, but that it causes genetic damage passed from parents to their progeny.

flamingknives,

I'll take a look at your evidence, but you seem profoundly resistant to accepting even the possibility that all that pulverized DU wafting about Iraq and elsewhere can even cause significant health problems, despite considerable evidence to the contrary, from widely separated parts of the world.

(retires to do some reading)

Okay, I 've now read the executive summary, from which I see the following problems: a) the report's out of date, thus doesn't include a considerable amount of work reported on in just the last few years; the strong ICRP contingent in the study group fails to address the issue I pointed out in my radioactive tobacco excerpts, in that the ICRP model is based on whole body dose when in reality, Alpha irradiation phenomena are very shallow, thus dramatically increasing the actual dose in the irradiated area; c) the study group's composition fairly screams Establishment

and status quo; I don't see anyone here who could truly be deemed independent, automatically rendering the report's conclusions suspect (have seen way too many "directed studies"; d) it may be true for MoD but certainly isn't true for DoD that everyone exposed got timely urine tests and such for DU; to the contrary, the Pentagon stalled for years, "lost" records, and had to be forced to give tests, conveniently well after the uranium wouldn't be likely to show up, nor have I seen any evidence whatsoever that the U.S. is monitoring the DU exposures in air, soil, and water, either for the benefit of the troops or the Iraqi people;

e) there are lots of U.S. Gulf War vets who would strongly dispute the "anecdotal" characterization

in the report. Lots of formerly super fit, strong, healthy people are now wearing incontinence garments or shuttling to dialysis appointments for the rest of their lives. One lady I know of did nothing more than simply be in a truck driven through a zone in which Iraqi armor was previously destroyed.

Regards,

John Kettler

[ December 14, 2006, 05:03 AM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[John Kettler]

Here is some more information on the pertinent DU issues.

The last few items here seem highly pertinent to our discussion of the nature and magnitude of the problem. If fewer than 8000 soldiers were wounded,

why have over 500,000 GW I&II vets been retired on medical disability? I think the deformity studies on GW veteran babies are also noteworthy.

http://www.gulfwarvets.com/du_wmd.htm

Here's a chilling example of how little the Army cares for troop welfare in Iraq and a microcosm of what has laid low so many veterans.

http://www.gulfwarvets.com/du_iraqi_vets.htm

Apparently, some independent experts are talking,

and are getting threats for their pains. There also appears to be a link between DU and huge jumps in diabetes rates.

http://www.gulfwarvets.com/du_coverup.htm

Since it's oh so easy to get lost in a sea of stats, I thought I'd show you what I mean by "deformed babies" and "birth defects" attributed to DU. I freely grant that the captions are inflammatory and the story sickening, but I feel that everyone who reads this thread needs to understand that not only is this what's happening in Iraq and Afghanistan, but to one degree or another, EVERYWHERE DU's being used.

http://www.rense.com/general70/deathmde.htm

A Southwest Asian perspective on DU

http://www.gulfwarvets.com/du_blowinginthewind.htm

According to this article, as of March 2005, 11,000 Gulf War veterans have died from DU, and the statement of a Lawrence Livermore scientist on what's happening is shocking.

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/du_death_toll.html

On second thought, best read it verbatim.

DU Death Toll Tops 11,000

Nationwide Media Blackout Keeps U.S. Public Ignorant About This Important Story

By James P. Tucker Jr.

The death toll from the highly toxic weapons component known as depleted

uranium (DU) has reached 11,000 soldiers and the growing scandal may be the reason behind Anthony Principi’s departure as secretary of the Veterans

Affairs Department.

This view was expressed by Arthur Bernklau, executive director of Veterans for Constitutional Law in New York, writing in Preventive Psychiatry E-Newsletter.

“The real reason for Mr. Principi’s departure was really never given,” Bernklau said. “However, a special report published by eminent scientist Leuren Moret naming depleted uranium as the definitive cause of ‘Gulf War Syndrome’ has fed a growing scandal about the continued use of uranium

munitions by the U.S. military.”

The “malady [from DU] that thousands of our military have suffered and died from has finally been identified as the cause of this sickness, eliminating the guessing. . . . The terrible truth is now being revealed,” Bernklau said.

Of the 580,400 soldiers who served in Gulf War I, 11,000 are now dead, he said. By the year 2000, there were 325,000 on permanent medical disability. More than a decade later, more than half (56 percent) who served in Gulf War I have permanent medical problems. The disability rate for veterans of the world wars of the last century was 5 percent, rising to 10 percent in Vietnam.

“The VA secretary was aware of this fact as far back as 2000,” Bernklau said. “He and the Bush administration have been hiding these facts, but now, thanks to Moret’s report, it is far too big to hide or to cover up.”

Terry Johnson, public affairs specialist at the VA, recently reported that veterans of both Persian Gulf wars now on disability total 518,739, Bernklau said.

“The long-term effect of DU is a virtual death sentence,” Bernklau said. “Marion Fulk, a nuclear chemist, who retired from the Lawrence Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab, and was also involved in the Manhattan Project, interprets the new and rapid malignancies in the soldiers [from the second war] as ‘spectacular’—and a matter of concern.’ ”

While this important story appeared in a Washington newspaper and the wire services, it did not receive national exposure—a compelling sign that the American public is being kept in the dark about the terrible effects of this toxic weapon. (Veterans for Constitutional Law can be reached at (516) 474-4261.)

Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute - as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003

Regards,

John Kettler

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

flamingknives,

I'll take a look at your evidence, but you seem profoundly resistant to accepting even the possibility that all that pulverized DU wafting about Iraq and elsewhere can even cause significant health problems, despite considerable evidence to the contrary, from widely separated parts of the world.

(retires to do some reading)

Okay, I 've now read the executive summary, from which I see the following problems: a) the report's out of date, thus doesn't include a considerable amount of work reported on in just the last few years; the strong ICRP contingent in the study group fails to address the issue I pointed out in my radioactive tobacco excerpts, in that the ICRP model is based on whole body dose when in reality, Alpha irradiation phenomena are very shallow, thus dramatically increasing the actual dose in the irradiated area; c) the study group's composition fairly screams Establishment

and status quo; I don't see anyone here who could truly be deemed independent, automatically rendering the report's conclusions suspect (have seen way too many "directed studies"; d) it may be true for MoD but certainly isn't true for DoD that everyone exposed got timely urine tests and such for DU; to the contrary, the Pentagon stalled for years, "lost" records, and had to be forced to give tests, conveniently well after the uranium wouldn't be likely to show up, nor have I seen any evidence whatsoever that the U.S. is monitoring the DU exposures in air, soil, and water, either for the benefit of the troops or the Iraqi people;

e) there are lots of U.S. Gulf War vets who would strongly dispute the "anecdotal" characterization

in the report. Lots of formerly super fit, strong, healthy people are now wearing incontinence garments or shuttling to dialysis appointments for the rest of their lives. One lady I know of did nothing more than simply be in a truck driven through a zone in which Iraqi armor was previously destroyed.

Regards,

John Kettler

Well, conversely, a number of your sources are older still than the Royal Society report and at least one is directly contradicted by actual events since its publication.

The Royal Society is independent. But, as I noted earlier, your leanings are likely to dismiss it as part of the conspiracy.

Being as radiation is a random process and the effects of cellular damage is a random process, a statistacally averaged damage model seems to be a reasonable assumption.

[John Kettler]

flamingknives,

I'm well aware that some of what I presented is dated, but it was done with malice aforethought to illustrate changing perceptions of the DU hazard issue. Regarding the Royal Society, I don't have to invoke conspiracy, for business as usual, rice bowl protection, and a pretty strong British tendency to not make waves are sufficient unto themselves. Most bureaucrats don't willingly go against those who fund them, and that's just as true here in the States.

I made the time to go through the Royal Society's executive summary, but did you bother to look at the contemporary studies and profoundly disturbing

field reports for which I provided links? Did you look at what the Gulf War veterans are suffering through and dying from; at the conditions they were placed in without so much as a health warning; at the horribly malformed children being born where DU's been used? The ones coming from GI parents probably aren't as bad, but then their cumulative radiation exposure's probably much less, having not spent, say, ten years immersed in VHBRA, thus are likely to have far less genetic damage to pass on to their children. I haven't seen such nightmarish birth defects like the Afghanistan link since the 1960s and thalidomide!

If you feel comfortable ignoring gaping holes in the standard exposure model, wish to discount a stack of evidence indicating not only cytotoxic, radiological, genotoxic and the emerging field of

super toxicity from DU nanoparticles, then that's on you, as is your apparent unwillingness to look at the descriptions provided by the victims themselves and those aware of the circumstances in which they were exposed. I can lead you to water,

but after that, it's up to you.

I think a statistically averaged damage model is wrong precisely because Alpha irradiation is NOT a whole body exposure. Rather, it is a highly concentrated dose delivered into a very shallow tissue layer. Bluntly put, the ICRP standard model doesn't even proximally describe what actually is occurring in the DU exposure victim's body.

Regards,

John Kettler

[J Ruddy]

DU

I wouldn't want to eat or drink food & water contaminated with it. Besides the high toxicity of materials like U and Pb, the alpha radiation from DU can damage cells if ingested.

I wouldn't want to breath in DU contaminated dust for the same reason.

DDT and PCB's were once considered safe.

So call me a cynic, I'm not a fan of DU in Armour or Weapons.

Of course IMO both the radical anti-DU lobby and the radical pro-DU lobby are probably full of dung, and like most debates, the truth is likely hidden somewhere behind the misleading charts, anecdotal "evidence" and biased scientific opinions.

:S

[MikeyD]

For those interested, here's the extensive Wikipaedia link on Gulf War Syndrome:

Gulf War Syndrome link

Depleted Uranium is listed among the possible causes.

[flamingknives]

John,

Yes, I did read some, but not all, of your links. That's were I got all of the quotes from. I did note that all were from sites dedicated solely to banning DU. The Royal Society is not pro-DU, or pro-military. It is a scientific society that

I'm not claiming that DU is entirely safe, but that it is frequently hyperventilated out of all proportion to the risk it actually poses.