BS: US & British war plans blocked

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 10:41 PM

jimmyt-If cheering people were all it took to make a leader good, Saddam would have had Bush and Blair beat by a long shot. His people cheered him whenever he wanted, and no one ever said a word against him ( or at least not more than once). I do not mean to state that Bush and Blair are using the same means of coercion, or intend to, but I don't know if the Iraqis realize that they don't have to cheer if they don't want to. If your only experience was in a police state, and someone invaded with hundreds of thousands of soldiers, you'd cheer too.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: jimmyt
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 10:22 PM

I am watching every network right now and in each case I have seen cheering Iraqis waving AMerican flags, tearing down statues of this monster, and thanking the president of the United States. Not too much more needs to be said. Thank God for men like Tony Blair and George W Bush who have the courage of their convictions to do the right thing.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 10:16 PM

Claymore-Just because some countries kill protestors, that doesn't make it moral to disperse a legally gathered crowd with excessive force. I'm not sure what you meant by the first sentence of the second paragraph of your post, but I understand that the court system is the judicial mechanism of the state. I simply disagree with its assessment of the Patriot Act, Homeland Security Act, et al. How do you reconcile some of these things with the Fourth and Fifth Amendments?

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 08:29 PM

Forum L, While the wording of the sentence was perhaps to artful for your understanding or referring to history you seem unaware of, the following nations spring to mind: Japan, Germany, and Italy, as well as the Vichy French (people do forget that the first American casualties occuring in the European theater of WWII were by the Vichy French in North Africa) and every nation in Europe helped by the Marshall Plan.

As for my comments about the protesters and the Court system (which you cannot, for some reason, understand that the appeals process in which the above referenced decisions were made, IS THE LEGAL SYSTEM) remains virtually intact. And were they to be protesting in many other countries of the world, the bullets would have a periodic table number closer to plumbium.

And as you cast out your last sentence, you must have heard the snickering down the hall...

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: GUEST, heric
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 08:09 PM

How peaceful and law-abiding you could be and still have Governor Moonbeam shooting at you?

Maybe you know the facts. I don't. But I've got to tell you, if Jerry thinks you should be shot at. . . .

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 07:48 PM

Claymore-It is quite possible that the French government has been selling materials necessary for a nuclear reactor to Saddam. Does that make it legitimate to nationalize French companies' property, given that not all of said companies engaged in such activity? Recall, we also have had billions of dollars tied up in regimes that tortured and oppressed their own people.

What "democratic, stable, and self-sufficient Arab nations" have we created?

You seem to have missed the occassion on which peaceful, legal protestors were fired on by police with rubber bullets and wooden dowels. You also may not have noticed that, according to the Patriot Act, those protestors were terrorists because they were undertaking illegal action (resisting arrest, for no particular crime) and endangering human life (their own, by being fired on) in an attempt to alter government policy (redress of grievances, anyone?). Regardless of what a number of stacked courts may say, anyone with half a brain can see that the Constitution DOES NOT make any exceptions to due process whatsoever.

Do you have any idea how many nations have supported terrorists? Let's see, the United States is up near the top of the list, with the Taliban as one of its best efforts. To invade every country that supported terrorism as much as Iraq did would require centuries of warfare, culminating in civil war.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 07:30 PM

FL, you clearly invoke your own prejudices.

The French have literally billions of dollars tied up in a regime that tortured and repressed its own people. To the extent that Jimmy Carter needed to offset the Iranian exremists, we began to give military aid to Iraq. But we realized our mistake, and to the extent of some one hundred casualties, and the other costs we have paid to liberate the country, we are doing our best to rectify things. The French have no such off-set. They were helping Saddam build nuclear weapons up until March 19th.

We have said over and over that we do not need Iraqi oil, and we don't. Moreover, using the Iraqi example to create a democratic, stable, and self sufficient Arab nation (as we are the only nation in the history of the world to do several times before) we do far more to ensure the stability of the worlds energy markets than the 7% that Iraqi oil would contribute to our Nations needs.

As for the lamposts, let the Iraqis determine how they are decorated. The Black Muslim is now back in the States and our justice will see to his fate.

By the way, your comment about the protestors was appallingly stupid; the anti-war protestors in the States have been totally ignored, and except for when they block traffic, left to stew in their own ignominy. As for the enemy combatants and terrorists, the Administrations position has been upheld by every court in the land, at every level, with few modifications and no reversals.

As to your point, about Al-Qaeda and Irag, I do not see how it relates to anything I have written, except to say that, obviously, not everything about this subject has been written. As I noted above, I suspect that several nations that have supported terrorism in the past, are undergoing the Bush International IQ Test, and some interesting answers will be forth coming.

And some point you will have to realize you and yours have lost... totally and for at least the next ten years, maybe forever... Your lies and exaggerations do not survive daylight, and while you gather in groups to fester your views, the world is moving on. To the extent that your views are held with sincere conviction, the world will look back in pity. To the extent your views were promulgated with lies and deceit, the world will look back with quiet satisfaction. But make no mistake, the world will be looking back...

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 05:04 PM

Claymore-That's it exactly. Let's illegally steal large quantities of infrastructure from nations we profess to consider friendly, and use it to make it easier for our oil companies to build their own power base in our new colony. Let's butcher the former government in massive lynch mobs, rather than giving them a fair trial, because after all that only applies to Americans, and only then when they aren't terrorists, or enemy combatants, or protestors, or . . .

And need I point out that NO evidence exists to link Iraq to Al Qaeda?

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 04:58 PM

Gareth-It's true that there haven't been many American or British casualties; in fact, Americans and bad luck have killed more British troops than the Iraqis. I can't be too happy about Iraqi casualty figures, though; current reports are more than 1,200 civilian deaths and twice that in military, most of whom are draftees.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 04:56 PM

On the 22nd day of the war, we control Bhagdad, Iraqis fill the streets with cheering crowds as Saddam's statue is torn down, the prison torture chambers are being shown on TV, no-one can claim the media did not get full access to this war, no SCUDS hit Israel and only two in Kuwait, we got no cooperation from Turkey and still were in the city on the 18th day, few oil wells are burning, the civilian casualty count is well below the monthly number of civilians killed by Saddams regime for the past twelve years... I'd say the better men, Blair and Bush won again.

Now to help the Iraqis nationalize all French, German and Russian investments, turn the palaces into hospitals, universities, and seats of local government, and decorate the lampposts of Iraq with dead Ba'athists and Special Republican Guards... and one Black Muslim...

And to those nations who harbor terrorists, we have destroyed the governments of two terrorist nations in seven months; Life is an IQ test...

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Gareth
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 04:44 PM

Well so far so good, I mean from the hysteria posted in these threads, youd have thought :-

1/. The Iraqui's loved Saddam Hussain.

2/. That there would be mass civilian casualties,

3/. That there would be many Allied deaths

Etc.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: GUEST, heric
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 04:31 PM

. . . tick . . . tock . . . . tick . . . tock . . .

(But you guys have to admit that was a LOT of pesticide. . . )

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 03:58 PM

Well. . . ?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Wolfgang
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 10:56 AM

I'll tell you right up front, that if we go in and it's a purely conventional war, I'll be the first one to admit that I was wrong and that we had no business there in the
first place. (Troll)

Wolfgang (waiting)

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: gnu
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 05:05 PM

No no no, the Big Boys. Not a wee punt like the 117, which IS semi-helpless on a full moon. A grand ship like the B-52. Supported by advanced AWAC's, A-6's, Arrdvarks, Warthogs, Apaches, Cobras, Thomahawks and killer drones. This would advance a ground force which could be covered by stealth, Patriots and Star Wars during the dark phase of the moon.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 04:06 PM

Gnu, they shot down the f117 using eyes not radar. No moonligh, is my guess.

Speaking of blocking War plans.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/14/opinion/14KRUG.html?th

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: gnu
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 03:59 PM

JtS... as I understand it, most of the southern radar and C&C was knocked out as far back as three to four weeks ago. This would give the Big Boys a go on the full moon, to be closely followed, if not concurrently accompanied, by a ground movement to set up artillary before sandstorm season really gets underway. I really don't think the lads want to delay the "ultimate" confrontation into the next dark phase of the moon... that is, the one after which you refer to. They would be at a much higher degree of disadvantage and many more troops would be lost.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 03:55 PM

Teribus, if you look at the following post of yours which predates my link by a good four days (you posted the article on 06 Mar 03 - 04:18 AM. I posted the link to that very same article on 10 Mar 03 - 01:27 PM), you will see the following paragraph about four paragraphs into the article (in YOUR post):

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Teribus - PM
Date: 06 Mar 03 - 04:18 AM

Hi Don:

"NELLIS TO RESUME DEPLETED URANIUM MUNITIONS TESTING

International media reports have raised questions about the health and environmental impacts of DU munitions used in recent conflicts. The World Health Organization, RAND and numerous other organizations have determined that the employment of depleted uranium is safe and presents no significant risk to human health or the environment.

YOU posted the article. All I did was to post a link to the article YOU posted. AFTER you posted it. And I did it as a courtesy to you in case your lengthy copy/paste article was deleted since it is against Mudcat rules for you to be posting lengthy copy/paste articles.

Earlier on in the thread MGOH posted a link relating to the four-fold increase in the incidence of cancer in Iraq.

Bobert, Don, Carol and others attribute this to the use during the Gulf War of DU munitions.

Please show me where I have done this.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 12:39 PM

Earlier on in the thread MGOH posted a link relating to the four-fold increase in the incidence of cancer in Iraq.

Bobert, Don, Carol and others attribute this to the use during the Gulf War of DU munitions.

For that to be true - whatever radiation and heavy metal particles result from the such ammunition must be the only carcinogens in the whole of Iraq. Now that is pattently absurd, as there are others.

One possible source could be from the deliberate poisoning of the waters in the South of Iraq, carried out by Saddam Hussein as part of his campaign of genocide against the Ma'dan (Marsh Arabs). No, of course not Saddam wouldn't do that - would he??

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 03:26 AM

CarolC,

The lines you have attributed to me are, as described a direct quotation from the link you, yourself supplied - i.e. Not my words.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Mar 03 - 05:11 PM

And you can find all sorts of people who'll tell you that smoking is good for you. Or, at the very least, there has been no established connection between smoking and cancer.

Yeah! Right!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Mar 03 - 04:58 PM

P.S. so far environmental studies and medical studies support my contention.

Some do, and some don't.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 13 Mar 03 - 02:26 PM

Gnu, since the US forces justifiably claim to "own the night" and since they lost an f117 stealth "fighter" in Cosovo becase the enemy could see it in a full moon. The smart money may not be on the 17th. If we're starting a pool I'll take March 25th.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: gnu
Date: 13 Mar 03 - 01:50 PM

My prediction got stuffed by world opinion last time. However, I think I'd put money on it this time. March 18 is a full moon, give or take a day.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Mar 03 - 01:39 PM

Interesting points, Wolfgang. I have not been arguing whether or not DU is dangerous, but rather, that it has not been shown to be safe, and that we need to do a lot more research on it before we use any more of it on the battlefield.

CarolC,

Please point out exactly where in any of my posts related to DU munitions that I have said it is safe - the point I have tried to illustrate is that it is not a dangerous as you and others would like to make out - so far environmental studies and medical studies support my contention.

Here you go, Teribus:

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Teribus - PM
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 04:33 AM

From the link supplied by CarolC (which was nothing more than a link to an online source for the article posted by Teribus):

"International media reports have raised questions about the health and environmental impacts of DU munitions used in recent conflicts. The World Health Organization, RAND and numerous other organizations have determined that the employment of depleted uranium is safe and presents no significant risk to human health or the environment."

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Wolfgang
Date: 13 Mar 03 - 08:27 AM

Again, I say, if it was safe, there would be no such guidelines. I'm guessing that the WHO has no guidelines for the safe limits of exposure to milk, for instance (Carol)

Milk isn't a good example for two reasons. First, it consists of too many different more elementary compounds and the relative contribution may vary considerably. The policy of the WHO has been to publish safe limits for identifiable elements or more complex chemicals and not for a food. So it would recommend safe limits for mercury in fish but not safe limits for fish (for the amount of mercury can vary a lot).

Second, components of milk of course have a recommended safe limit of exposure. Take the naturally occuring aflatoxin for instance and then you may read in a WHO discussion:

These (the EU countries) delegations noted that aflatoxin M1 was a genotoxic carcinogen, a lower level was needed to
    protect high level consumers of milk and vulnerable populations such as infants and young children (http://www.who.int/fsf/Chemicalcontaminants/AflaM1_32ccfac.htm)

The existence of recommended safe limits is not a good argument for (or against) relative danger.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Mar 03 - 06:32 AM

CarolC,

Please point out exactly where in any of my posts related to DU munitions that I have said it is safe - the point I have tried to illustrate is that it is not a dangerous as you and others would like to make out - so far environmental studies and medical studies support my contention.

Bobert says:

"The real "experiemental group" is in Iraq where so many DU rounds were used, compared to Kosova. And throw in the time lapse between the contamination and effects in Iraq and the spike in cancer and birth deformities, it is entirely possible and very probable that DU's ain't this wonderfully safe stuff."

Meanwhile the WHO says:

"No reproductive or developmental effects have been reported in humans."

I know who I would accept as being the greater authority on the subject.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Mar 03 - 07:58 PM

CarolC:

You can give up on T! T ain't gonna look under any rocks that might cast a shadow on T's guys (i.e, George Bush and anyone that Bush says is okay by him...).

The real "experiemental group" is in Iraq where so many DU rounds were used, compared to Kosova. And throw in the time lapse between the contamination and effects in Iraq and the spike in cancer and birth deformities, it is entirely possible and very probable that DU's ain't this wonderfully safe stuff.

Then when the US governemnt orders the good doctor not to dig too deep in treating Gulf War Syndrom vets, does make ya' wonder.

But, heck, this goverment can come up with more wonderful sounding organizations to say the stuff is safe that eventually they will have us thinking that they outta bottle DU up and sell it in the health stores...

As per usual, beam my boney butt up...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Mar 03 - 07:55 PM

Correction:

United States Government General Accounting Office

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Mar 03 - 07:53 PM

This site has some very interesting information regarding what the United States Government Accounting Office has to say about DU:

The potential health and environmental effects of DU is well-documented and many studies warn against DU use in munitions (for a good bibliography see the WISE home page, www.antenna.nl/wise/uranium/dlit.html). Contrary to their previous statements, the US government is aware of the potential risks of inhaling DU dust in the battlefield. In 1993, the US government General Accounting Office released a report that concluded, inter alia, that inhaled insoluble oxides [which makes up more than half of the DU dust created at impact with armour] stay in the lungs longer [than a year] and pose a potential cancer risk due to radiation. Ingested DU dust can also pose both a radioactive and a toxicity risk'. 1 (GAO/NSIAD-93-90: Operation Desert Storm: Army Not Adequately Prepared to Deal with Depleted Uranium)

NATO Notes

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Mar 03 - 07:25 PM

This is some of what RAND has to say about it. Nowhere in this site do they say that it is safe. They say that studies conducted so far do not show correlations between some of the conditions being examined and certain health consequences. But they also say that more research is needed (on people who have already been exposed) in order to determine more conclusively what the possible health hazards are:

"Because risk assessment has advanced greatly since many of the standards for both occupational and population exposures were developed, reexamination of those standards and refined dose response end points by these organizations would be helpful.

Research to better understand the mechanisms and dose response of exposure to DU on renal function would be helpful. Attempts should be made to correlate nephrotoxicity with renal uranium concentration following different modes and levels of exposure. Knowledge of cortical concentration would be more informative than total renal uranium levels. The U.S. Transuranium Registry is a continuing source of these data (Kathren and Ehrhart, 1998). It is also important to continue work to understand the mechanism by which natural and depleted uranium exert toxic effects on the body. This would include work to understand the nature and toxicological significance of the separate uranium pools kinetically identified in the kidney. Modern techniques should permit analysis of distribution of the toxic metal in the kidney, and more-sophisticated dose-effect studies than those relying on total tissue concentration at one arbitrary time are appropriate.

The work of the DU Follow-Up Program being conducted and expanded at the Baltimore VA Medical Center is important and needs to continue. The cohort and research represents the best opportunity to study the effects of human exposure to DU over time that is now available.

Although ionizing radiation from DU is in the form of alpha particles, the decay products emit gamma and beta radiation that could affect those in proximity to DU weapons. Although research to date has indicated that levels of exposure are significantly below occupational levels, ongoing efforts to study the levels of exposure from such radiation to soldiers in proximity to DU weapons or armor should continue, especially as weapons and weapon systems vary over time."

RAND

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Mar 03 - 12:04 PM

No need to get personal there, Teribus. I read the contents of the link. And I need to look at some more sites before I feel that I can debate effectively on this subject. My point in my last post was only that if it were safe there would be no guidlines for maximum exposure. And it was to illustrate my point that I chose the part I did to copy/paste.

Here's some more guidelines that support my contention (that the WHO does not say DU is safe):

"Following conflict, levels of DU contamination in food and drinking water might be detected in affected areas even after a few years. This should be monitored where it is considered there is a reasonable possibility of significant quantities of DU entering the ground water or food chain.

Where justified and possible, clean-up operations in impact zones should be undertaken if there are substantial numbers of radioactive projectiles remaining and where qualified experts deem contamination levels to be unacceptable. If high concentrations of DU dust or metal fragments are present, then areas may need to be cordoned off until removal can be accomplished. Such impact sites are likely to contain a variety of hazardous materials, in particular unexploded ordnance. Due consideration needs to be given to all hazards, and the potential hazard from DU kept in perspective.

Small children could receive greater exposure to DU when playing in or near DU impact sites. Their typical hand-to-mouth activity could lead to high DU ingestion from contaminated soil. Necessary preventative measures should be taken.

Disposal of DU should follow appropriate national or international recommendations."

Again, I say, if it was safe, there would be no such guidelines. I'm guessing that the WHO has no guidelines for the safe limits of exposure to milk, for instance, which we generally acknowledge to be safe.

Your contention is that DU is safe. You posted an article that quoted the World Health Organization as saying it is safe. In no part of the page I posted by the WHO, including the part of it that you copy/pasted, does it even remotely say that DU is safe. You're obfuscating, Teribus, and you're using obfuscation to try to prove that an apple is an orange. That's your most frequently used debating tactic here in the Mudcat. Unfortunately for you, obfuscation only works on lazy thinkers, so it isn't terribly effective here.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Mar 03 - 08:26 AM

CarolC -

Thanks for the link - you are very good at posting these and very selective in your quotations from them - unfortunately you are not so good at reading them.

From Carol's link:

"Applications of depleted uranium

Due to its high density, about twice that of lead, the main civilian uses of DU include counterweights in aircraft, radiation shields in medical radiation therapy machines and containers for the transport of radioactive materials. The military uses DU for defensive armour plate.

DU is used in armour penetrating military ordnance because of its high density, and also because DU can ignite on impact if the temperature exceeds 600°C.


Exposure to uranium and depleted uranium

Under most circumstances, use of DU will make a negligible contribution to the overall natural background levels of uranium in the environment. Probably the greatest potential for DU exposure will follow conflict where DU munitions are used.

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

A UN expert team reported in November 2002 that they found traces of DU in three locations among 14 sites investigated in Bosnia following NATO airstrikes in 1995. A full report is expected to be published by UNEP in March 2003.

Levels of DU may exceed background levels of uranium close to DU contaminating events. Over the days and years following such an event, the contamination normally becomes dispersed into the wider natural environment by wind and rain. People living or working in affected areas may inhale contaminated dusts or consume contaminated food and drinking water.

People near an aircraft crash may be exposed to DU dusts if counterweights are exposed to prolonged intense heat. Significant exposure would be rare, as large masses of DU counterweights are unlikely to ignite and would oxidize only slowly. Exposures of clean-up and emergency workers to DU following aircraft accidents are possible, but normal occupational protection measures would prevent any significant exposure.


Intake of depleted uranium

Average annual intakes of uranium by adults are estimated to be about 0.5mg (500 ìg) from ingestion of food and water and 0.6 ìg from breathing air.

Ingestion of small amounts of DU contaminated soil by small children may occur while playing.

Contact exposure of DU through the skin is normally very low and unimportant.

Intake from wound contamination or embedded fragments in skin tissues may allow DU to enter the systemic circulation.


Absorption of depleted uranium

About 98% of uranium entering the body via ingestion is not absorbed, but is eliminated via the faeces. Typical gut absorption rates for uranium in food and water are about 2% for soluble and about 0.2% for insoluble uranium compounds.

The fraction of uranium absorbed into the blood is generally greater following inhalation than following ingestion of the same chemical form. The fraction will also depend on the particle size distribution. For some soluble forms, more than 20% of the inhaled material could be absorbed into blood.

Of the uranium that is absorbed into the blood, approximately 70% will be filtered by the kidney and excreted in the urine within 24 hours; this amount increases to 90% within a few days.


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.

I find nothing in the above that would support your description of the passage I quoted from the article on Nellis Range that would allow it to be call propagandist.

According to the above, people living in Aberdeen and parts of Cornwall, who have never seen a DU shell, missile or Bomb in their lives, appear to be at greater radiation risk than those people in Kosovo or Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Wolfgang
Date: 12 Mar 03 - 07:27 AM

Just getting used to some new expressions:

freedom leave
freedom letter
freedom polish
freedom kiss

Well, after a bit of time that'll feel as common as Kitchener, Ontario

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 10:59 PM

Looks like the article you posted, and that I provided a link to is just another propaganda site. It says the "The World Health Organization...(has) determined that the employment of depleted uranium is safe and presents no significant risk to human health or the environment."

I haven't checked out the other organizations mentioned in the article, but the WHO most certainly does not say it is safe or that it poses no significant risk to human health. In fact, it has issued guidlines about maximum recommended exposure for humans. If it was safe, there would be no recommendations of that nature. These are the recommendations I found on the WHO website on DU:

World Health Organization

"The general public should not receive a dose of more than 1 millisievert (mSv) in a year. In special circumstances, an effective dose of up to 5 mSv in a single year is permitted provided that the average dose over five consecutive years does not exceed 1 mSv per year. An equivalent dose to the skin should not exceed 50 mSv in a year.

Occupational exposure should not exceed an effective dose of 20 mSv per year averaged over five consecutive years or an effective dose of 50 mSv in any single year. An equivalent dose to the extremities (hands and feet) or the skin should not surpass 500 mSv in a year.

In case of uranium or DU intake, the radiation dose limits are applied to inhaled insoluble uranium-compounds only. For all other exposure pathways and the soluble uranium-compounds, chemical toxicity is the factor that limits exposure."

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 08:31 PM

Well, here's the latest ((click):

WASHINGTON, March 11 — Show the flag and pass the ketchup was the order of the day in House cafeterias Tuesday. Lawmakers struck a lunchtime blow against the French and put "freedom fries" on the menu. And for breakfast they'll now have "freedom toast." (Associated Press)

I have to say that I'm deeply embarrassed that this sort of propaganda comes from my country. Well, this is the land that renamed sauerkraut to "liberty cabbage," so I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Do you think maybe it could just be a joke?
Maybe the current Powers That Be in Washington are a joke.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 04:33 AM

From the link supplied by CarolC:

"International media reports have raised questions about the health and environmental impacts of DU munitions used in recent conflicts. The World Health Organization, RAND and numerous other organizations have determined that the employment of depleted uranium is safe and presents no significant risk to human health or the environment."

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Mar 03 - 01:27 PM

BTW, here's the link to to the article Teribus copy/pasted:

Air Combat Command News Service

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Mar 03 - 01:09 PM

Teribus, you can test things in a laboratory or on a proving ground or any other controlled situation and generally get a pretty good idea of what results you will get. But—the real proof is when you use it in the actual situation. Factors can show up that you never anticipated. This, of course, is very upsetting to those who conducted the tests, especially when the tests are run while wanting to get a particular result.

Reread the article I linked to. There's your actual, "in the field" result of using depleted uranium. Not all the special pleading in the world can deny that.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Mar 03 - 12:52 PM

What they did do at Nellis Range was to set up live fire tests, i.e. give pilots real targets to fly and fire at. Those targets would be hit, they would then be inspected - I presume by people.

By people in protective gear. (If not, that's just one more thing to convince me that the current US administration is insane.) The people who were exposed to inhaled DU previously did not have protective gear.

The effects on the environment would be identical to those in Iraq, possibly not identical to conditions in Kosovo.

The effects on the environment perhaps, but not the effects on people who are exposed to inhaled DU.

As the article I posted stated an environmental study was carried out, and as a result of it's findings testing has been resumed in conjunction with ongoing environmental monitoring.

Nowhere did you mention studies being one on people who were exposed to inhaled DU. If you know of any such studies, please post a link to them.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Mar 03 - 08:51 AM

CarolC:

What they did do at Nellis Range was to set up live fire tests, i.e. give pilots real targets to fly and fire at. Those targets would be hit, they would then be inspected - I presume by people. The effects on the environment would be identical to those in Iraq, possibly not identical to conditions in Kosovo. As the article I posted stated an environmental study was carried out, and as a result of it's findings testing has been resumed in conjunction with ongoing environmental monitoring.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Mar 03 - 02:24 PM

"...the scientist say
it'll all was away
but we don't believe in them
anymore..."

Sure the *government" is going to say the stuff is safe! What else *can* they do, for cripes sake. But they fire the good doctor when he was close to sniffin out some real positive correlations between DU's and significant health risks.

And then we have the "experiemental group" (the Iraqis) who have expienced a major spike in cancer and birth deformity rates. How much a spike? Some doctors in Iraq have reported ten fold which is probably exaggerated but even if it's only 3 fold, I don't think it can be easily dismissed because the *governemnt* says the stuff is safe.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Mar 03 - 12:30 PM

Teribus, I'm guessing you didn't read the article Don linked to. If you had read the article, you might have addressed the issue of particulate DU causing health problems when it is inhaled. The article you copy and pasted (without providing any link) does not address this problem either. The only way they can do tests on inhaled DU is to have people inhale it and then do studies on those people. I don't think they're going to be doing that at the Nellis range. But they can do this with the people who have already inhaled it during the last Gulf War, and in the Balkan countries where it was used.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Mar 03 - 04:18 AM

Hi Don:

"NELLIS TO RESUME DEPLETED URANIUM MUNITIONS TESTING

LANGLEY AIR FORCE BASE, Va. (ACCNS) -- The Air Force announced today it will resume limited use of depleted uranium munitions on the Nevada Test and Training Range.

Software upgrades and ballistic testing of the ammunition for the 30mm cannon on the A/OA-10 aircraft are scheduled to begin in 2002.

"Depleted uranium munitions are absolutely critical to our future success in combat. Resuming ballistics testing will ensure our pilots have the confidence and skill to use these munitions effectively in combat," said Gen. Hal Hornburg, commander of Air Combat Command.

International media reports have raised questions about the health and environmental impacts of DU munitions used in recent conflicts. The World Health Organization, RAND and numerous other organizations have determined that the employment of depleted uranium is safe and presents no significant risk to human health or the environment.

DU's ability to penetrate armor and its increased range and accuracy over other munitions make it an ideal weapon for the A/OA-10 mission.

Currently, the Air Force tests gun-sight software with simulations and trains A/OA-10 pilots in classroom instruction, which is unrealistic and does not satisfy training requirements. Without live-fire testing and limited training, software upgrades can only be validated through combat.

The Air Force and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service mutually agreed to stop the use of DU munitions at the Nellis range in 1993. The Air Force then reexamined using DU at the range and completed an environmental assessment in 1998. The assessment found no significant impact on human health or the natural environment from the use of these munitions at target complex 63-10, situated about 12 miles inside the range. Upon completion of the EA, the USFWS signed a memorandum of agreement accepting the Air Force's decision to resume testing and training.

The Air Force will implement a rigorous management and monitoring plan that covers every aspect of DU testing and training, from weapons use to clearance and disposal.

"Our plan involves life cycle monitoring, air and soil sampling, clearance and disposal of DU rounds and targets," said Hornburg. "The Nellis range is critical to our readiness. We must be good stewards of the natural resources on the range while preserving the military's primary mission."

Depleted uranium is a heavy metal that is 40 percent less radioactive than natural uranium, which can be handled safely with bare hands. DU is used in the protective armor of the Army's M1A1 Abrams tank, commercial and medicinal radiation shielding, drill bits, and as ballast to balance the center of gravity in civilian aircraft and sailboats."

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 02:48 PM

Depleted Uranium

'Nuff said.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 04:14 PM

Don't be prockly Wolfgang, that was a straightforward reqest on my part. I meant it, I wasn't being sarky or anything.

But it sounds to me as if you would be much better equipped than I am to search out the truth on this.

All I've ever heard, and that has mstly been the mainstream papers and the mainstream broadcasters, has been to the effect that depleted uranium is extremely toxic when the dust is inhaled, and that using it in shells produces a lot of dust that never goes away. But then the journalists writing this aren't experts either.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 03:29 PM

Well, sure the DU's were test fired prior ro their use in the Gulf War. Problem is that the "control group" was not subjected to 320 tons of them as was the "experiemental group" (i.e., the Iraqis...).

And how come they fired a 20 some year veteran Doctor for refusing to stop researching the correlation of unanium in the bodies of his patients and the high level of those same patients with Gulf War Syndrome symptoms?

Can anyone really give me a logical explanation for this curious coincident? The doctor was told they were cutting back at that Wilmington, Delaware VA hospital but soon after his firing he was *indeed* replaced. Hmmmmmm?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 02:26 PM

Lots and lots of figures, Teribus. Those who deny the existence of a "Gulf War Syndrome" have one set of figures. Those who say they suffer from Gulf War Syndrome and their advocates have an entirely different set of figures. As they say--go figure. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 04:41 AM

Thanks for the post above Wolfgang, your points are very well put.

On the subject of DU ammunition, I would like to elaborate on a question I raised earlier.

These munitions were made and tested in various countries around the world, the US military is not the only armed force that has developed them. They must, therefore, have been tested in those countries and those tests would have included live firings against the targets they were meant to destroy. The effects would therefore have been similar, albeit to a slightly lesser degree.

What are the statistics in, and around, those test areas for incidence of the illnesses reported as being attributable to DU rounds used in "Desert Storm" ?? Any figures - anybody?

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: GUEST,Gareth
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 03:14 AM

New "Bunker Busting" Bombs ????

My Oh My ! - Looks like they've reinvented Barnes Wallis's "Tallboy" and "Grand Slam" - Whats next ? 617 squadron over Bagdad ?

"Click ;Ere"