The Furtive Atomic War

[Terxpahseyton]

Many of the statistics in the article are completely absurd.

Please, share more details of your wisdom.
Oh and I forgot

Its a phenomena that can be triggered by global warming and therefore something we are responsible for!!

Debatable

 

[Masada]

I'll start because this article is somewhere between hysterical and ridiculous.

Its radioactive alpha radiation is only marginally weaker than the one of natural uranium.

What's natural uranium? Surely he doesn't mean all the rocks near me that can spike a Geiger counter! Yes, folks uranium ore doesn't glow and it looks just, well, like any other garden variety rock (literally). For the record I live within 65 kilometers of an old uranium mine on the northern most extent of the richest uranium province in the world. And yet, neither the mine or the presence of minuscule amounts of uranium poses much, if any, threat to my health.

Uranium-238 has a half-life period of 4.5 billion years, the operational zone remains contaminated for all time.

The whole world is screwed then. Because Uranium 238 is natrually occurring and courtesy of its ridiculously long half-life I don't see why we can't just rationally assume that its worked its way into everywhere by now in small amounts. And that's the key. If the author can't prove that Uranium 238 levels have reached levels which are considered to be deleterious to populaces health then I think its safe to say he's engaging in panic mongering.

Inside of the body the death dust unfolds its real potential. The uranium particles get into the lunge or the kidney, accumulate there and spread their alpha-radiation to neighboring cells. The gene code gets altered, the immune system collapses and cancer emerges

Aboriginals are all racially degenerative. Its the DUST that did it.

In all areas uranium ammunition was used the number of leukemia cases grew up to 40%.

I would love to see the study for that.

There almost a third of the children are born with genetic defects: The newborns have no eyes, no extremities or carry their internal organs in a pouch on the back. Only now, years after the combat operations, the entirety of the destruction becomes visible – not only in the Iraq.

I think that one's been fairly efficiently debunked by Uppi. But I'll bite on your response.

Your study does not refer to the same time frame.

It would seem to be indicative of the dangers depleted uranium, no? And I did a quick Wiki of depleted uranium gives me significant cause to question the validity of the claim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Basrah_birth_defects.svg

Graph showing the rate per 1,000 births of congenital malformations observed at Basra University Hospital, Iraq. Reference data from I. Al-Sadoon, et al., writing in the Medical Journal of Basrah University, (see Table 1 here). This version from data by same author(s) in Wilcock, A.R., ed. (2004) "Uranium in the Wind" (Ontario: Pandora Press)

I'll grant there is a substantial increase and that it doesn't cover the reference period that we would like it to. But we have a rate of 18 per thousand births and unless that increases by an order of magnitude I don't think we can expect to see anything close to the figures claimed by the author. But I can't for the life of me find a study that validates his figures. Research on Wiki seems to support the notion that it might increase birth defects for soldiers exposed to it but not anywhere near the level suggested by the author. I would also suspect that soldiers directly using depleted uranium rounds would have far more exposure on average than someone in a city unless they stood next to the blast.

Of 500.000 US-soldiers who fought in the Gulf War of 1991 are 30.000 dead and 320.000 ill.

Which proves what.

In the last Gulf War 2400 tons of depleted uranium were dropped on Baghdad in one week.

I love the juxtapositioning with previous section. If you read them concurrently you might even draw a link!

16 days later British scientists detect an increase of the uranium radiation in the atmosphere. They isolate some uranium particles and examine them. The decay rate makes it possible to track the source. Providential winds carry the dust from Baghdad to England.

Cool. Does this have any health consequences or are the levels still to negligible?

“Uranium particles don't just vanish off the planet.” says Frieder Wagner, journalist and expert on uranium ammunition. “And it become more and more.”

So? Does this pose a realistic danger to anyone's health? I could crack open a rock here and put some uranium 236 into the atmosphere, am I contributing to the next global apocalypse!

”The drops of atomic bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, overground tests like on the Bikini Atoll and the catastrophe in Chernobyl: Every deployment of uranium brings humanity one step close to a global crisis.

What crisis you ask?

“Evolution can deal with many diseases” says Wagner. “However the human being has never been designed to ingest radioactive nano-particles.”

Can someone with some knoweldge of biology please report. This section is rather well suspicious.

According to the estimates of renowned scientists in the next 15 to 20 years in Iraq alone seven million people will die due to the effects of uranium ammunition.

Uppi did a good number on this. I'll just cover some loose ends.

Let's be honest. You have no idea if their is "no way". It is not much more than your gut feeling. I can understand this feeling as the death toll is shocking high, too shocking to be just believed.

Neither do you and frankly the claim is so utterly extraordinary that it ain't up to Uppi to prove it. If I claimed that a third of Germany was going to die in the next decade because of all the arsenic the Ruhr puts into the air would you believe me implicitly? Of course not.

 

[Narz]

Better for Iraqis to be poisoned & free than um... yeah, support our troops!

I don't believe in hell but if there was one arms dealers would be there, especially those who profit from stuff like DU.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I think DU rounds should be illegal unless they are used in a nuclear engagement where it doesn't really matter. They are simply not needed in any of the scenarios where they have been used, and the resultant health risks are either laregly unknown or being deliberately understated by those who would know.

 

[Masada]

I think DU rounds should be illegal unless they are used in a nuclear engagement where it doesn't really matter. They are simply not needed in any of the scenarios where they have been used, and the resultant health risks are either laregly unknown or being deliberately understated by those who would know.

For the record: I agree.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

What's natural uranium? Surely he doesn't mean all the rocks near me that can spike a Geiger counter! Yes, folks uranium ore doesn't glow and it looks just, well, like any other garden variety rock (literally). For the record I live within 65 kilometers of an old uranium mine on the northern most extent of the richest uranium province in the world. And yet, neither the mine or the presence of minuscule amounts of uranium poses much, if any, threat to my health.

Natural uranium (NU) refers to refined uranium with the same isotopic ratio as found in nature. It contains 0.7 % uranium-235, 99.3 % uranium-238, and a trace of uranium-234 by weight. In terms of the amount of radioactivity, approximately 2.2 % comes from uranium-235, 48.6 % uranium-238, and 49.2 % uranium-234. -Wikipedia

Saying "natural" refers to already refined uranium with a natural isotope relation. Not to some stone hole near your house. Also your uranium next door is no dust cloud but encapsulated by the rock.

The whole world is screwed then. Because Uranium 238 is natrually occurring and courtesy of its ridiculously long half-life I don't see why we can't just rationally assume that its worked its way into everywhere by now in small amounts. And that's the key. If the author can't prove that Uranium 238 levels have reached levels which are considered to be deleterious to populaces health then I think its safe to say he's engaging in panic mongering.

Again, the naturally occurring Uranium 238 is encapsulated. If all the UD remained encapsulated nobody would care.
Yes the article is written in an sensational manner. This can hardly be overlooked. However the direction can still be right.

Aboriginals are all racially degenerative. Its the DUST that did it.

If you think so.

I would love to see the study for that.

Me too. Though I should add that "up to" ought to mean "as much as" to be understood properly.

It would seem to be indicative of the dangers depleted uranium, no?

Partially sure, the fact remains however that the Iraq had not been invaded at the time and hence matters are quite different.

And I did a quick Wiki of depleted uranium gives me significant cause to question the validity of the claim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Basrah_birth_defects.svg



I'll grant there is a substantial increase and that it doesn't cover the reference period that we would like it to. But we have a rate of 18 per thousand births and unless that increases by an order of magnitude I don't think we can expect to see anything close to the figures claimed by the author. But I can't for the life of me find a study that validates his figures. Research on Wiki seems to support the notion that it might increase birth defects for soldiers exposed to it but not anywhere near the level suggested by the author.

Fair points

I would also suspect that soldiers directly using depleted uranium rounds would have far more exposure on average than someone in a city unless they stood next to the blast.

Not really. As I understood it the real danger is to live near the place UD got exposed. A soldier is very close to the combat zone, but will not continuously be around afterwards. Civilians will.

Which proves what.

That an open mind to potential answers is at place.

Cool. Does this have any health consequences or are the levels still to negligible?

Don't know. But the point was more that the ongoing-use of DU in war zones will increase uranium dust levels everywhere, not just in the war zones. Not that the British people all got radiated by now.

So? Does this pose a realistic danger to anyone's health?

The people who realized that overground detonations of atomic bombs are a very bad idea seemed to think so.

What crisis you ask?

You would have to watch his documentation I suppose. But oh yeah that is right: Nobody is willing to distribute it.

Can someone with some knoweldge of biology please report. This section is rather well suspicious.

It is suspicious that humans can not deal with radiation?
Near Chernobyl nature is flourishing. It is in a better condition than before the failure of the power plant. If humans continued to live their I hardly expected them to do the same.
As scientists discovered those plants have special defence mechanisms at their disposal to counter radiation. Even rats have this ability to some extend. This is unknown for humans.
But sure, if we tried to continuously radiated all people of the world some immune humans could prevail.
Your point?

Neither do you and frankly the claim is so utterly extraordinary that it ain't up to Uppi to prove it. If I claimed that a third of Germany was going to die in the next decade because of all the arsenic the Ruhr puts into the air would you believe me implicitly? Of course not.

You are right and I said nothing to the contrary.

 

[taper]

Did anybody ever think to consider other sources for these illnesses? DU is far from the only bad thing to happen in that area. Despite all the controversy over the 2003 invasion, it is 100% beyond a doubt that Saddam's Iraq produced, stored, and used chemical weapons in the 90's. Then there's the Kuwaiti oil fires that sent around 6 million barrels of oil into the sky every day, and it took 8 months to cap them all. That's in addition to the 1-10 million barrels of oil dumped into the Persian Gulf as a defense against Marine landings. For comparison the Exxon Valdez spilled a little over 250,000 barrels. Children who's reproductive systems were still developing during this time are the ones having kids now. I can't image breathing crude oil vapors is good for you.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I'm sure the experts never thought of any of that while correlating the rise in birth defects to the areas where DU ammo was known to be used.

And as far as the oil spill is concerned:

According to a study sponsored by UNESCO, Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and the United States, the spill did little long-term damage. About half the oil evaporated, a million barrels were recovered and 2 million to 3 million barrels washed ashore, mainly in Saudi Arabia.[1]

 

[JohnRM]

I don't care what the studies show or do not show, I don't like the idea of spreading depleted Uranium all over the place.

 

[Masada]

Sorry about the late reply. I missed it.

Saying "natural" refers to already refined uranium with a natural isotope relation. Not to some stone hole near your house. Also your uranium next door is no dust cloud but encapsulated by the rock.

Except as far as I can see he's referring to precisely that.

Again, the naturally occurring Uranium 238 is encapsulated. If all the UD remained encapsulated nobody would care.

Except it doesn't remain encapsulated in nature either. The rocks that contain it can erode. His hysteria is undermining his own arguments. His whole implicit appeal to nature is also ******** for just this reason.

Yes the article is written in an sensational manner. This can hardly be overlooked. However the direction can still be right.

Refer above.

If you think so.

There's plenty of uranium contained in the air here as well for that matter. If you honestly expected to see deleterious health affects I would suppose that the groups of Aboriginals here with historical provenances far in excess of just about any other people in the world would evidence that!

Me too. Though I should add that "up to" ought to mean "as much as" to be understood properly.

How does that work? You get a group of people together who were exposed to depleted radiation then see if they have an increased likelihood viz. a viz. a control group. You can't have each individual with up to 40% more risk. You don't take a generalization from the group and selectively employ it viz. a viz. each individual.

Partially sure, the fact remains however that the Iraq had not been invaded at the time and hence matters are quite different.

It had earlier and depleted uranium was used in the First Gulf War. That's the context in which the paper is given.

Fair points

Which is why my argument makes sense here.

Not really. As I understood it the real danger is to live near the place UD got exposed. A soldier is very close to the combat zone, but will not continuously be around afterwards. Civilians will.

Rubbish. The soldier would be exposed to doses far in excess of the civilian. Up to the length of the war. Surely, we would expect the soldiers to evidence the same magnitude of problems, or at least similar magnitudes, in terms of child birth as the Iraqi's far far quicker. Or at least a hint of that happening. But to the best part of my knoweldge American soldiers returning from Iraq are not much, if any, more likely to spit out freak babies and certainly not the 1 in 3 ratio suggested by the article.

That an open mind to potential answers is at place.

That juxtaposing two unrelated comments one of which is only spuriously linked might fool some people into actually thinking they were related.

Don't know. But the point was more that the ongoing-use of DU in war zones will increase uranium dust levels everywhere, not just in the war zones. Not that the British people all got radiated by now.

So its a red sensationalist herring.

The people who realized that overground detonations of atomic bombs are a very bad idea seemed to think so.

Not a fair analogy. Your comparing a potentially boiling jug of water to a broiling acidic caldera on a volcano with millions of tonnes of water held back by a mix of verdigris and dirt.

You would have to watch his documentation I suppose. But oh yeah that is right: Nobody is willing to distribute it.

Dude, its sensationalist and I can't find his sources. If liberal German television won't circulate it then I suspect it might have something to do with its intellectual honesty.

It is suspicious that humans can not deal with radiation?

We get bombarded by solar radiation all the time.

Near Chernobyl nature is flourishing. It is in a better condition than before the failure of the power plant. If humans continued to live their I hardly expected them to do the same.

Sure, humans could probably live within the exclusion zone with the potential for negative consequences in an undeterminable future.

But sure, if we tried to continuously radiated all people of the world some immune humans could prevail.

I better criticize the sun then!

Your point?

That he assumes a result without tendering any evidence. He doesn't go, well Iraq has a level of radiation X. This will cause Y effects. Instead he goes: FREAK BABIESIIESIEISSIESI AND SEVEN BAZZILLION DEAD PEOEPLESSSS!!!1111!

You are right and I said nothing to the contrary.

You kinda did.

 

[Gustave5436]

Did I read that right? Three hundred and twenty thousand of the five hundred thousand troops who fought in Desert Storm are fatally ill due to radiation poisoning/related illnesses? I find that fantastically high.

Radiation poisoning is an acute illness. Long-term effects of radiation exposure would "only" cause increased rates of cancer, suppression of immune function (cells with rapid divide rates, such as blood cells, are most effected), etc.

 

[woody60707]

This again, uggg, I'm just going to copy/paste what I wrote in the other thread.

The World Health Organization (WHO) says your wrong.

No reproductive or developmental effects have been reported in humans.

it doesn't even make sense that it would effect reproductive. I know it has that big scary word, Uranium in there, but you could sleep on this with your bare skin and be 100% safe (note the Depleted part). With the battle being years ago, not 9 months, being exposed would be by secondary means.

The key danger lays with DU being a heavy metal. You get enough of this stuff in your body (dust, eating drinking), and it will mess with your kidneys and nervous system.

Some bomb labs (for making IEDs) can be as toxic as a meth lab. I'm sure having some of those being blown up, or just living around one isn't great for your health. But in general, I would think a warzone wouldn't be healthy. I'm sure all the chemicals, oils, and toxic materials that comes from blowing up tanks, houses, and factories isn't doing anyone any good.

But to dismiss all that and say it's DU because it sounds scary is silly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Wow... umm.. ok. Again from the UN World Health Organization

Potential health effects of exposure to depleted uranium
* In the kidneys, the proximal tubules (the main filtering component of the kidney) are considered to be the main site of potential damage from chemical toxicity of uranium. There is limited information from human studies indicating that the severity of effects on kidney function and the time taken for renal function to return to normal both increase with the level of uranium exposure.
* In a number of studies on uranium miners, an increased risk of lung cancer was demonstrated, but this has been attributed to exposure from radon decay products. Lung tissue damage is possible leading to a risk of lung cancer that increases with increasing radiation dose. However, 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.
* Erythema (superficial inflammation of the skin) or other effects on the skin are unlikely to occur even if DU is held against the skin for long periods (weeks).
* No consistent or confirmed adverse chemical effects of uranium have been reported for the skeleton or liver.
* No reproductive or developmental effects have been reported in humans.
* Although uranium released from embedded fragments may accumulate in the central nervous system (CNS) tissue, and some animal and human studies are suggestive of effects on CNS function, it is difficult to draw firm conclusions from the few studies reported.

You have it backwards, DU is what's left over when making enriched uranium (the radioactive stuff).

Now are you confusing radioactive half-life with radioactivity? Those two are more or less inversely proportional. The longer the half-life, the less radiation it's giving out. The shorter the half-life, the more radiation it's giving out. You see Uranium-238 has a half-life of 4.5 billion years which sounds really scary, but is safe (if not eaten duh). Plutonium-241 is about 14 days, and is not safe.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

The natural radioactive decay of either plutonium or uranium involve a complex decay chain which are constantly occurring thoughout the entire half-life period:

ugg, which is why I said "more or less" meaning in a very general term.

So no, U-238 isn't "safe" any more than plutonium-239 is with a half-life of 24K years. If you are constantly exposed to either material, you will likely die from its toxic effects before you will from the radiation. But if you don't die of the toxic effects, your cells are becoming ionized from beta particles and neutrons which leads to birth defects when they strike your reproductive organs.

But the "good news" is that depleted uranium doesn't have much U-235 in it, which is far more radioactive than U-238 is. So it is a bit less dangerous than naturally occurring uranium - at least from a radiation perspective.

Dude, DU isn't at all dangerous from a radiation stand point. My god it's like watching Arlit, deuxième Paris again. I'm just screaming at the TV saying "you fools, it's not the radiation that's killing you poor guys, but the heavy metal toxicity". And everyone else in the room is looking at me like I'm dumb. Dude, I have twice posted links from the UN World Health Organization that DU can be left on your skin for weeks at a time with no ill effects.

Why is it so hard for people to understand that any harm from DU is from the chemical toxicity of being a heavy metal, not form the radiation. Has Hollywood movies brainwashed people completely?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Except as far as I can see he's referring to precisely that.

Well I certainly value a standard definition more important than your biased feeling.

Except it doesn't remain encapsulated in nature either. The rocks that contain it can erode. His hysteria is undermining his own arguments. His whole implicit appeal to nature is also ******** for just this reason.

It still remains encapsulated to a high degree as the Uranium does not start accumulate by itself but always remains a part of the lithosphere. Also it is not blown up and spread up until the atmosphere.

There's plenty of uranium contained in the air here as well for that matter. If you honestly expected to see deleterious health affects I would suppose that the groups of Aboriginals here with historical provenances far in excess of just about any other people in the world would evidence that!

It escapes my imagination that the Aboriginals refined uranium and blowed it up afterwards.

How does that work? You get a group of people together who were exposed to depleted radiation then see if they have an increased likelihood viz. a viz. a control group. You can't have each individual with up to 40% more risk. You don't take a generalization from the group and selectively employ it viz. a viz. each individual.

This article and its sources can of course not replace an independent and full-scale scientific investigation of that matter. Which has not taken place so far.

It had earlier and depleted uranium was used in the First Gulf War. That's the context in which the paper is given.

Hem?

Which is why my argument makes sense here.

Yes, doubts of the details in the article are totally justified.

Rubbish. The soldier would be exposed to doses far in excess of the civilian.

I disagree as stated before.

That juxtaposing two unrelated comments one of which is only spuriously linked might fool some people into actually thinking they were related.

Again: Hem?

So its a red sensationalist herring.

This is a logical consequence. Implications are another story.

Not a fair analogy. Your comparing a potentially boiling jug of water to a broiling acidic caldera on a volcano with millions of tonnes of water held back by a mix of verdigris and dirt.

O yeah?

Radiation In Iraq Equals
250,000 Nagasaki Bomb

Source

Dude, its sensationalist and I can't find his sources. If liberal German television won't circulate it then I suspect it might have something to do with its intellectual honesty.

And the film distributors? Are they also concerned with intellectual honesty?

We get bombarded by solar radiation all the time.

Now that is not a fair analogy.

That he assumes a result without tendering any evidence. He doesn't go, well Iraq has a level of radiation X. This will cause Y effects. Instead he goes: FREAK BABIESIIESIEISSIESI AND SEVEN BAZZILLION DEAD PEOEPLESSSS!!!1111!

It is sensationalist. I already agreed on that.

@woody60707
The aspect of being a heavy metal is a good point.

However you shouldn't have gotten too exited about the WHO-report you referred to. According to an investigation by the BBC it is skewed and ignored reports presenting evidence for the danger of the radiation in the dust. Reports to which sources belongs the US Department of Defense.

Here is the full story.

 

[uppi]

TI know it has that big scary word, Uranium in there, but you could sleep on this with your bare skin and be 100% safe (note the Depleted part).

Uhh...no. While it would not lead to certain death or something, it would increase your cancer risk. One problem of uranium is that it has Radon in its decay chain, which is a noble gas which can get into the lungs and do damage there.

You have it backwards, DU is what's left over when making enriched uranium (the radioactive stuff).

Depleted uranium is only about 6.5 times less radioactive than 100% enriched uranium. Calling enriched uranium "the radioactive stuff" is ignorant, as depleted uranium is not much safer. The only real difference between enriched and depleted uranium is the possibility of chain reactions. U-235 will make a big mushroom cloud if you bring enough of it together and U-238 will not (well, with the right conditions you also can get U-238 to go boom, but you need to treat it right).

From a radiative danger point of view, there is not much difference between enriched and depleted uranium, so the required radiation safety precautions for both should be the same. Now enriched uranium isn't that dangerous, so depleted uranium is also not that dangerous.

Depleted uranium certainly isn't death incarnate like the posted article describes it, but to downplay the effects just because it is called "depleted" while ignoring the physical properties isn't going to help either.

Depleted uranium is as dangerous as "normal" uranium and should be treated as such.

 

[Masada]

Well I certainly value a standard definition more important than your biased feeling.

He's not using the standard definition.

It still remains encapsulated to a high degree as the Uranium does not start accumulate by itself but always remains a part of the lithosphere. Also it is not blown up and spread up until the atmosphere.

So? You've obviously spent some time reading up on this. Wouldn't it have been better for him not to have written the whole post in a blatantly and egregiously alarmist manner.

It escapes my imagination that the Aboriginals refined uranium and blowed it up afterwards.

They've been exposed to it for thousands-upon-thousands of years. Surely, the cumulative effects would have been of a similar magnitude. If, indeed, the effects described in the article and seemingly only in the article are accurate.

This article and its sources can of course not replace an independent and full-scale scientific investigation of that matter. Which has not taken place so far.

So, wait. He quotes a bunch of studies anonymously that purport to suggest that up to seven million people will die and that a substantial swathe of babies in Iraq are already being born as freaks. But I can't find any evidence to support that. And, it now, seems that you accepted that there probably isn't any evidence. So we're left with the authors own suppositions and sources nobody can seem to find. Great, what a lot of evidence to support something akin to the ol' Ruhr-factories-killing-millions trope.

Hem?

They used depleted uranium in the First Gulf War. Surely, we could expect to see some effects of the same order of magnitude as suggested by the author. We don't see jack. We see a slight increase. That isn't consummate with even a 10th of babies being born with defects let alone a 3rd.

Yes, doubts of the details in the article are totally justified.

Your defending an article even you seem to have doubts about...

Again: Hem?

Look up the definition of juxtaposition. Now, read the sentences concurrently.

This is a logical consequence. Implications are another story.

What.

O yeah?

Is he a nuclear physicist. Can I get access to his calculations. Does this pose a threat to anyone's health. Could this conceivably cause 7 million people to die and a third of all babies to be born with serious problems at birth. Your suspicion isn't sufficient grounds to make a judgment and neither are random non-contextualized pieces of data.

And the film distributors? Are they also concerned with intellectual honesty?

I have no idea. They might be concerned with outright lying?

Now that is not a fair analogy.

Why. You haven't offered anything to suggest it isn't.

It is sensationalist. I already agreed on that.

Sensationalistic. No discernible factual basis. Omnipresent bias. Wild claims which are so extreme as to engender disbelief. And yet, your still defending this. I'm now going to begin writing a script about the Ruhr killing millions of Germans. It would be about as accurate probably more so.

 

[Elrohir]

Given that this website is called "Bushtrash.de" and prominently links to patriotsquestion 911.com I'm not inclined to find it believable right off the bat. (They linke to several other Truther sites by banners, as well) Do you have a more reputable source, by any chance? With, like, actual doctors or scientists analyzing the effects of depleted uranium use as a weapon? I'm honestly not going to waste my time debating with Truthers. We need a real source in order for this thread to be actually meaningful as a source of discussion.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

He's not using the standard definition.

What tells you that?

So? You've obviously spent some time reading up on this. Wouldn't it have been better for him not to have written the whole post in a blatantly and egregiously alarmist manner.

I agree it would. But this was the first article in an magazine which examined the issue that critical so I found it newsworthy nevertheless.

They've been exposed to it for thousands-upon-thousands of years. Surely, the cumulative effects would have been of a similar magnitude. If, indeed, the effects described in the article and seemingly only in the article are accurate.

I don't see why. As it is with most dangerous material the intensity is decisive.

So, wait. He quotes a bunch of studies anonymously that purport to suggest that up to seven million people will die and that a substantial swathe of babies in Iraq are already being born as freaks. But I can't find any evidence to support that. And, it now, seems that you accepted that there probably isn't any evidence. So we're left with the authors own suppositions and sources nobody can seem to find. Great, what a lot of evidence to support something akin to the ol' Ruhr-factories-killing-millions trope.

I simply trust the magazine to not publish an article out of thin air having some experience with it. To not cite sources as it would be scientific correct is a normal magazine practice. Now this also means I will not run around and claim the prediction and allegations of the article as facts. That there are most likely not an reflection of truth is somewhat a necessity because the relation of health conditions and UD-use has not been documented to an conclusive extend. But they make still a decent plug for a thread IMO.

They used depleted uranium in the First Gulf War. Surely, we could expect to see some effects of the same order of magnitude as suggested by the author. We don't see jack. We see a slight increase. That isn't consummate with even a 10th of babies being born with defects let alone a 3rd.

The actualy effects are not unlikely to take decades to become apparent as stated in the BBC-article I posted. That could be an explanation.

Your defending an article even you seem to have doubts about...

I am defending my opinion and current impression, not the article.

Look up the definition of juxtaposition. Now, read the sentences concurrently.

In deed I did not know this word before, but I looked it up already. Still I'm honestly not sure to what exactly you are referring to.

What.

UD-dust particles have by human standards an enormously long-lasting half-life period. Hence if exposed they are going to stay around. It is also proven that they are able to travel the world (posted another source). Hence every war using UD raises UD-dust levels in the entire world. The important point now is: Assuming we continue to use UD in wars and continue to wage wars, most UD spread in that time will be still around in the next 1000 years plus the UD-dust of those next 1000 years and so on. UD-dust levels will inevitably rise and rise and rise all over the world if we continue to embrace UD.
That is the way I understood the article and I think that this is a really good argument.
We will have to stop anyway. Why wait.

Is he a nuclear physicist. Can I get access to his calculations. Does this pose a threat to anyone's health. Could this conceivably cause 7 million people to die and a third of all babies to be born with serious problems at birth. Your suspicion isn't sufficient grounds to make a judgment and neither are random non-contextualized pieces of data.

It was enough to refute your argument. It isn't to prove the article right, didn't say that.

The admiral in India calculated the number of radioactive atoms in the Nagasaki bomb and compared it with the number in the 4,000,000 pounds of uranium left in Iraq from the 2003 war. Now, believe me, it is a lot more complex than that; but, that is essentially what the experts in India did.

How many Nagasaki Nuclear Bombs equal the Radiation loosed in the 2003 Iraq war? Answer: About 250,000 Nuclear Bombs.

How many Nagasaki Nuclear Bombs equal the Radiation loosed in the last Five American Nuclear Wars? Answer: About 400,000 Nuclear Bombs.

The article itself admits that this is not an scientific valid number. So yeah it was not done by an nuclear physicist and my be flawed. However the basis seems reasonable enough to me to accept it as evidence that blowing up atomic bombs and the mass-dropping of UD-bombs are at least comparable regarding exposed radiation. So no the analogy was not unfair.

I have no idea. They might be concerned with outright lying?

The journalist had a good-going career and a good reputation. Considering that and the many answered* question on this issue I find that to be a bold claim.
edit: * meant unanswered questions

Why. You haven't offered anything to suggest it isn't.

If you suggest that radiation caused by the sun is just as dangeraus as DU-dust I think it is your job to offer prove.

Sensationalistic. No discernible factual basis. Omnipresent bias. Wild claims which are so extreme as to engender disbelief. And yet, your still defending this. I'm now going to begin writing a script about the Ruhr killing millions of Germans. It would be about as accurate probably more so.

As I said: I am not defending the article per se. I said I am open to insights and I meant it.

Given that this website is called "Bushtrash.de" and prominently links to patriotsquestion 911.com I'm not inclined to find it believable right off the bat. (They linke to several other Truther sites by banners, as well) Do you have a more reputable source, by any chance? With, like, actual doctors or scientists analyzing the effects of depleted uranium use as a weapon? I'm honestly not going to waste my time debating with Truthers. We need a real source in order for this thread to be actually meaningful as a source of discussion.

The source is not the website "Bushtrash.de", but the German magazine "Welt der Wunder". The website just displays this article on its website.
However, if you wish a more established source you should find the BBC article I linked in my post before interesting.

 

[Masada]

What tells you that?

The complete ambiguity of the statement.

I don't see why. As it is with most dangerous material the intensity is decisive.

I'm yet to see any evidence that's the case. Actually, the complete lack of evidence is honesty amusing.

I simply trust the magazine to not publish an article out of thin air having some experience with it. To not cite sources as it would be scientific correct is a normal magazine practice. Now this also means I will not run around and claim the prediction and allegations of the article as facts. That there are most likely not an reflection of truth is somewhat a necessity because the relation of health conditions and UD-use has not been documented to an conclusive extend. But they make still a decent plug for a thread IMO.

Seriously. They do not make a decent plug for a thread. I can backtrack a story in the NYT and figure out its sources. People have done that umpteen number of times. But I can't backtrack for this or even find evidence which is even in the broadest sense commiserate with the claims presented in the article. Even piece of evidence that has been cited in this thread seems to suggest outcomes to the contrary. Also, you've made every effort to defend the intellectual credibility of this source.

The actualy effects are not unlikely to take decades to become apparent as stated in the BBC-article I posted. That could be an explanation.

But the time-frames described in the article are of the same length: 15-20 years. The Gulf War occurred when?

I am defending my opinion and current impression, not the article.

Why seem to be synonymous.

In deed I did not know this word before, but I looked it up already. Still I'm honestly not sure to what exactly you are referring to.

Read these sentences concurrently. You will see the problem.

Of 500.000 US-soldiers who fought in the Gulf War of 1991 are 30.000 dead and 320.000 ill. In the last Gulf War 2400 tons of depleted uranium were dropped on Baghdad in one week.

UD-dust particles have by human standards an enormously long-lasting half-life period. Hence if exposed they are going to stay around. It is also proven that they are able to travel the world (posted another source). Hence every war using UD raises UD-dust levels in the entire world. The important point now is: Assuming we continue to use UD in wars and continue to wage wars, most UD spread in that time will be still around in the next 1000 years plus the UD-dust of those next 1000 years and so on. UD-dust levels will inevitably rise and rise and rise all over the world if we continue to embrace UD.
That is the way I understood the article and I think that this is a really good argument.
We will have to stop anyway. Why wait.

... Wait what. Other than suspicion that might be able to occur. Do we even have a tolerance from which to deal with? I mean, if I can sling around 5000 tonnes of DU for the next five centuries before I trigger even mild symptoms. By all means, throw it around. I don't we're going to last five centuries.

It was enough to refute your argument. It isn't to prove the article right, didn't say that.

No it wasn't. We don't have a contextual frame of reference. All we have is an amorphous figure floating around with no ties to the real world.

The journalist had a good-going careere and a good reputation. Considering that and the many answered question on this issue I find that to be a bold claim.

Honestly, most journalists are self serving biased scum. Somewhat akin to the stuff you scrape out of maritime bilges. So I'm going to take that with a dose of salt. Also, conspiracy theory much? None of these claims are particularly new. I had a teacher from way back who got completely hysterical about DU all of a decade ago..

If you suggest that radiation caused by the sun is just as dangeraus as US-dust I think it is your job to offer prove.

Sure, we at least have quantifiable figures for skin cancer. A quick wiki provides 6500 for melanoma deaths in the US and a further 2500 deaths from basal cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma in 2001. Australia reports 1074 deaths from melanoma in 2001. That's a round total of 10,074 deaths. I could look at WHO if you want they tend to have useful statistics. But I'm content to rest my case at this point.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

The complete ambiguity of the statement.

As I said: biased

I'm yet to see any evidence that's the case. Actually, the complete lack of evidence is honesty amusing.

Take a look at the BBC-article.

Seriously. They do not make a decent plug for a thread. I can backtrack a story in the NYT and figure out its sources. People have done that umpteen number of times. But I can't backtrack for this or even find evidence which is even in the broadest sense commiserate with the claims presented in the article. Even piece of evidence that has been cited in this thread seems to suggest outcomes to the contrary. Also, you've made every effort to defend the intellectual credibility of this source.

A diversity of question has been raised, discussion is going on, statements been made, new sources have been posted.
I think the article served the role I wanted it to. Maybe not as successful as possible considering the relative small size of the thread, but it did to some extend.

But the time-frames described in the article are of the same length: 15-20 years. The Gulf War occurred when?

So now you argue with the article?

Why seem to be synonymous.

If you refer to the overall opinion "DU used in weaponry strongly sucks" guilty as charged.

Read these sentences concurrently. You will see the problem.

Yes I can see your concern here.

... Wait what. Other than suspicion that might be able to occur. Do we even have a tolerance from which to deal with? I mean, if I can sling around 5000 tonnes of DU for the next five centuries before I trigger even mild symptoms. By all means, throw it around. I don't we're going to last five centuries.

To counter that argumentation I brought the analogy with overground explosions of atomic bombs forward which then I substantiated in its fairness by the source I posted.

No it wasn't. We don't have a contextual frame of reference. All we have is an amorphous figure floating around with no ties to the real world.

The ties are explained in the second quote I posted (and further explained in the entire writing on the website).

Honestly, most journalists are self serving biased scum. Somewhat akin to the stuff you scrape out of maritime bilges. So I'm going to take that with a dose of salt. Also, conspiracy theory much? None of these claims are particularly new. I had a teacher from way back who got completely hysterical about DU all of a decade ago..

That is your interpretation. I have mine.

Sure, we at least have quantifiable figures for skin cancer. A quick wiki provides 6500 for melanoma deaths in the US and a further 2500 deaths from basal cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma in 2001. Australia reports 1074 deaths from melanoma in 2001. That's a round total of 10,074 deaths. I could look at WHO if you want they tend to have useful statistics. But I'm content to rest my case at this point.

If a country willfully enforced higher death rates through the sun on civilians or its own soldiers it should be just as outrageous as the use of DU.