Sandia Depleted Uranium Study: No Serious Health Risks Found.

Ah, so a 'predicted' one percent possibility of getting cancer if you belong to an undefined group is insignificant therefore DU is safe.


The argument is fallacious.


A predicted possibility amongst an undefined group implies nothing!

Originally posted by ANOK
They have discovered high concentrations of Anti-Squaline antibodies in vets linking GWS to the Anthrax vaccine used...

www.autoimmune.com...

I will be going through my 3rd GWS evaluation next week, 2 days of MRI's (yuk!) and tests...I will be asking about Squaline/Anthrax...

I am currently doing some research on that, ANOK.
Good point you raise.





seekerof

Sorry for the double post,
dunno why it happened 3-4 posts apart.

and seekerof..
whats with the immaturity?

just because u dont agree with some threads doesnt mean u go out of your way to criticise someone on a completely different thread.

[edit on 27-7-2005 by GlobalDisorder]

[edit on 27-7-2005 by GlobalDisorder]

Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart
The argument is fallacious.

Your argument was over and "fallacious" when you misinterpreted a word describing probability into an absolute use/tense.





seekerof

[edit on 27-7-2005 by Seekerof]

Not so, the paragraph in question made a statement of statistical probabiltity about a group described only as a 'few'

Thus the statistical figure is meaningless unless we know what a 'few' means !

The paragraph was thus nothing but an unsupported conclusion.

I will Just Answer with Few Links, since my Point of View here is Pretty much clear on this Topic:


www.rimbaud.freeserve.co.uk...

www.who.int...

www.cadu.org.uk...

www.iacenter.org...

www.tv.cbc.ca...

www.ccnr.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

www.unhchr.ch...(Symbol)/E.CN.4.Sub.2.2002.38.En?Opendocument

www.ead.anl.gov...

www.ead.anl.gov...

www.sandia.gov...

www.unep.org...

www.unhchr.ch...(Symbol)/7afeec7003489bb7802567550045e27a?Opendocument

www.democracynow.org.../04/05/1356248&mode=thread&tid=25

www.betterworldlinks.org...


...Just to Name A FEW Links to the Contrary of the Topic in this Thread.

Have a Nice Day Everyone!

Grinning like a big dog.....:shk:
Souljah?
You are aware that you have provided two links [above] that I have already provided on page one that agree, not contradict, with the Sandia Deplted Uranium Study: No Serious Health Risks Found?

And that another three of your above links only mention that their is a possibility, meaning 'a chance of', 'maybe', 'possible', 'might', 'could', 'not sure', etc?

Your efforts are always appreciated though, Souljah.


Here's a little more on that Sandia 2-Year Study:

Marshall’s study concluded that the reports of serious health risks from DU exposure are not supported by veteran medical statistics nor supported by his analysis. Only a few U.S. veterans in vehicles accidentally struck by DU munitions are predicted to have inhaled sufficient quantities of DU particulate to incur any significant health risk. For these individuals, DU-related risks include the possibility of temporary kidney damage and about a 1 percent chance of fatal cancer.

Several earlier studies were carried out by the U.S. Department of Defense, by University Professors Fetter (University of Maryland) and von Hippel (Princeton), and by an Army sponsored team from Pacific Northwest National Laboratories and Los Alamos National Laboratory.

The conclusions from the Sandia study are consistent with these earlier studies. The Sandia study, however, also includes an analysis of potential health effects of DU fragments embedded as shrapnel in the bodies of some U.S. veterans. The Sandia study also looked at civilian exposures in greater detail, examined the potential risk of DU-induced birth defects in the children of exposed individuals, and provided a more detailed analysis of the dispersion of DU following impact with a number of targeted vehicles.

Sandia completes depleted uranium study






seekerof

[edit on 28-7-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof
Grinning like a big dog.....

:shk:
Souljah?

Your efforts are always appreciated though, Souljah.

Dear Sir,

You Said you were in First Gulf War right?

Where did You Serve?

I heard that the Armored Core Personell have had most Problems with the Post-Gulf Syndrome, since most of the DU Ammo is armor-piercing, meaning they have lots of contaact with this DU ammo.

Anyway, doesnt even the name "Depeleted Uranium" sound Deadly 'nuff for You?

All this DU health risk stuff conveniently ignores the fact that DU ammunition is used as a more efficient way of killing people.

DU ammunition is designed to be dangerous!

Using any lethal ammunition is insanity!

Warmongering is a disgusting obscenity.

Give it up.

Originally posted by Souljah
You Said you were in First Gulf War right?
Where did You Serve?

I heard that the Armored Core Personell have had most Problems with the Post-Gulf Syndrome, since most of the DU Ammo is armor-piercing, meaning they have lots of contaact with this DU ammo.

Anyway, doesnt even the name "Depeleted Uranium" sound Deadly 'nuff for You?

Yes I did, was there for 6-months.
Where? In a number of classified forward deploymet areas for rescuing downed pilots, Souljah. After hostilities ended, my unit was assigned to aiding Kuwait refugees.
As to what you heard, I heard the same, have read the same. Again, two things here:
One: DU has the potential to be harmful. What is being disputed here is what exactly is being harmed.
Two: I have given example that there are large numbers of tank crewmen that were surrounded and handled DU rounds on a near daily basis and were not shown or have thus indicated health problems or negative health symptoms. I have been around freshly destroyed flaming and smoking armored vehicles, which had been destroyed by A-10s spraying DU rounds.

The Sandia Study was a wide ranging study covering all those aspects, Souljah, that also included those who had been hit by DU framentation or shrapnel. Again, the Sandia Study is showing up on nearly all science sites, and is backed by a number of independent studys, findings, and reports.





seekerof

[edit on 28-7-2005 by Seekerof]

Australian risk assessment document

UK site addressing DU issues

Canadian site addressing DU

In summary:

We still cannot say with any certainty whether or not DU represents a tangible health risk; it's just too early to really draw anything but "maybes", "coulds", "perhapses" and the like.

Common sense suggests that yes, depleted uranium can't be good for you - and it probably does represent an increased risk of developing certain conditions; but until we can actually provide a definitive link we're really no more knowledgeable today than we were yesterday.

(disclaimer: no conspiracies, biases or ambiguities were hurt or mistreated in the production of this post)

OK so I guess you were in Contact with DU but not Long Enough to be a Deadly Dose.

Imagine a City that was Levelled by DU Ammunitions - like Fallujah; dont you think that a Bigger Concentration of DU Dust, coming from dropped DU bombs COULD and probably WILL result in also Severe Damage to the Health of the people who Inhale that Dust? From what I have read it Increases your Lung Cancer and not to mention your Liver, where most of the Poison coming to your body are Stored.

Anyway, I dont think that DU is what it says it the Title "No SERIOUS Health Risks Found".

I guess we will see in Few Years Time what the Real Effects are - just like with the GSM's and the Radiation there that Affects Us.


BTW:
Seekerof: Thanks for Posting my Thread in your Links in the Original Post.



[edit on 28/7/05 by Souljah]