The Horrors Of DU

shatteredparadigm.blogspot.com...

*warning, graphic content in link*

The Horrors Of DU: We Are Fighting Our Wars With Nuclear Waste And It Is Killing Our Troops And Deforming Their Babies

Most Americans still do not seem to realize that we are using thousands upon thousands of tons of nuclear waste ("depleted uranium") to fight our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Most Americans still do not seem to know that thousands upon thousands of our troops are getting sick and dying from exposure to DU.

www.envirosagainstwar.org...

In early September 2003, Army National Guard Spec. Gerard Darren Matthew was sent home from Iraq, stricken by a sudden illness.

One side of Matthew's face would swell up each morning. He had constant migraine headaches, blurred vision, blackouts and a burning sensation whenever he urinated.

The Army transferred him to Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington for further tests, but doctors there could not explain what was wrong.

mod edit: added external quote tags and added link warning.



[edit on 20-5-2008 by UK Wizard]

I take it you did not use the search function here before posting? It is in the top right of your screen.

Otherwise you would have seen that there are tons of articles (some still in progress) on DU. Some of them were able to post their evidence without involving a biased website.

It was obvious to me that whoever wrote that article is not aware of how DU works and also not aware of how it gets in your system.

I heard a story from a friend of the family that a scientist had a brick sized block of mined uranium (not purified at all) sitting in his lab for several years, and one day while doing an experiment with a geiger counter, he accidentally realized that the brick was actually uranium. I don't know what kind of stupid scientist that was, but I'm guessing even depleted uranium is more pure than freshly mined uranium.

Either way, look at some of the Indian Reservations where they mine uranium. Mine workers (often native americans themselves) getting terribly sick and dying, drinking water being contaminated, deformed babies, sick and dying livestock and crops.

Uranium and people just don't mix... and it is sick and twisted that we use depleted uranium on the tips of bombs and warheads when bombing innocent people's homes and apartments and such.

Make all the excuses you want. I'm biased towards the war AND the use of depleted uranium on innocent towns and villiages, not to mention it's just not necessary AT ALL, and I am rightfully biased. If you aren't biased towards this, you're completely blind to the suffering of others, and the fact that the US govt/army can and will do some really horrible stuff.



[edit on 19-5-2008 by dunwichwitch]

its called depleted for a reason. not saying that makes it any more ethical, but depleted uranium =/= uranium in terms of radiation.

Alot of information but no proof.
Is there proof presented that troops are somehow "transmitting" radiation to their wives during sex? NO
Is there proof presented that this has resulted in countless deformities in childre? NO
Is there proof presented that these people in Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. are no longer asking whether their children are boy or girl but whether or not they are normal? NO

Birth defects happen. Sometimes in families without some kind of genetic predisposition for such a thing. They are not all caused by DU nor are they all caused by radiation.
This article doesn't even describe how DU contamination actually occurs nor do I know if he/she even knows that.

I worked in munitions in the U.S. Air Force for 6 years and have worked with ammunition containing DU as a penetrator.

We all know that radiation = bad if you are exposed. DUH! But the DU slug isn't going to harm anyone. In instances where the DU becomes inhaled is where the contamination occurs. This can be either on the battlefield after the DU slug has been destroyed or if the round somehow becomes damaged due to faulty equipment or whatever which makes small particles of the DU airborne.

Depleted Uranium is supposedly treated as low-grade nuclear waste. But the military isn't going to set down DU and compromise for something less effective as a penetrator. DU is one of the most dense substances on the planet. It also has pyrophoric properties which enhance the penetrating effect on the target.

Due to international moratoriums and public outcry, almost all countries have stopped using DU as a penetrator. The U.S. is only one of three or four countries that still use it. Should the U.S. be looking for a safer alternative? YES. Should the government have admitted from the very beginning that there was the potential for health hazards? YES. Is DU somehow some kind of genocidal weapon for indiscriminate killing and death? NO.

We talked about this to great length in other threads and there are MANY MANY cited sources of information about this. This is one thread that I participated in which had alot of good information sources and discussion.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


-ChriS

So no mention that radioactively speaking, DU is about as dangerous as a house full of granite counter tops?

That's not to say that DU isn't dangerous, but lets be honest about why it's dangerous. It's a heavy metal, and causes heavy metal poisoning. Just like lead, just like mercury, and so forth.

Originally posted by lpbman
So no mention that radioactively speaking, DU is about as dangerous as a house full of granite counter tops?

That's not to say that DU isn't dangerous, but lets be honest about why it's dangerous. It's a heavy metal, and causes heavy metal poisoning. Just like lead, just like mercury, and so forth.

Here at Wikipedia:
en.wikipedia.org...

It states:

External exposure to radiation from depleted uranium is less of a concern because the alpha particle emitted by its isotopes travel only a few centimeters in air or can be stopped by a sheet of paper. Also, the uranium-235 that remains in depleted uranium emits only a small amount of low-energy gamma radiation. According to the World Health Organization, a radiation dose from it would be about 60 percent from purified natural uranium with the same mass. Approximately 90 micrograms of natural uranium, on average, exist in the human body as a result of normal intakes of water, food and air. The majority of this is found in the skeleton, with the rest in various organs and tissues.

As well as this:

A 2002 study from the Australian defense ministry concluded that “there has been no established increase in mortality or morbidity in workers exposed to uranium in uranium processing industries... studies of Gulf War veterans show that, in those who have retained fragments of depleted uranium following combat related injury, it has been possible to detect elevated urinary uranium levels, but no kidney toxicity or other adverse health effects related to depleted uranium after a decade of follow-up.”[78] Pier Roberto Danesi, then-director of the IAEA Seibersdorf +Laboratory, stated in 2002 that "There is a consensus now that DU does not represent a health threat".[79]

The International Atomic Energy Agency reported in 2003 that, "based on credible scientific evidence, there is no proven link between DU exposure and increases in human cancers or other significant health or environmental impacts," although "Like other heavy metals, DU is potentially poisonous. In sufficient amounts, if DU is ingested or inhaled it can be harmful because of its chemical toxicity. High concentration could cause kidney damage." The IAEA concluded that while depleted uranium is a potential carcinogen, there is no evidence that it has been carcinogenic in humans.[80]

A 2005 study by Sandia National Laboratories’ Al Marshall used mathematical models to analyze potential health effects associated with accidental exposure to depleted uranium during the 1991 Gulf War. Marshall’s study concluded that the reports of cancer risks from DU exposure are not supported by veteran medical statistics, but Marshall did not consider reproductive health effects.[81]

You can't trust everything you are being told especially if the report is coming from the department of defense itself which would obviously defend the use of DU. DU is 65% more dense than lead and has all kinds of additional properties that make it perfect for a penetrator. Imagine how much money it would cost to:

A-Conduct R&D to find a viable and safe alternative (Given the properties of DU it would be difficult beyond anything I can imagine).

B-Create an entire new stockpile of this ammunition for the entire military.

C-Somehow safely destroy or dispose of every single round of DU in the military inventory (not to mentin the transportation and labor costs of getting it off of all the military bases currently holding it and shipping it back to the U.S. if needed from overseas bases. especially consdiering DU is treated as low-grade nuclear waste).

You can imagine it would be Remarkably expensive to say the least. Of coarse they wouldn't want to do that.

The military isn't going to make a compromise for something half as good but non-radioactive. The entire point of technological innovation is to find alternatives that are more advanced and better than what is currently in place. They will not willingly take a step down the technological ladder.

I agree there is a problem. The health risks are obvious. DU emits gamma rays and is not exactly completely safe. The shame is the government's position on DU. The politicians will, for the most part, not even admit that it is unsafe and potentially hazardous. Meanwhile, most of the rest of the world has stopped using DU for obvious reasons.

But I also see this entire fiasco as means for some people to make fantastic claims of genocidal warfare, death, and suffering on a mass scale (Because they can). Some studies have shown it is unsafe. Some studies have shown it is. But you have to consider where the information is coming from also. It is obviously not the safest thing we could use and because of this some people see it as some kind of massive genocidal conspiracy when it is anything but. We still use DU because our government doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks regardless of the truth about DU. Then you have the money scenario i talked about earlier on top of this.

-ChriS

[edit on 20-5-2008 by BlasteR]

ud is a penetrator----thats it !......almost non-existant levels of radiation are emmited. it is one of the most dense matierials known to man, and that is why it is used.

dems and libs find ways to oppose the war, here is an argument to add to their list!

as a veteran, who had fought in 2 different conflicts it's the blogs like this that make me angry. simple bickering about our military from people who had never seen a lick of real combat.

we are keeping the war in iraq to keep it out of our backyard, we are fighting them on their soil not ours! remember 9/11----never again!
so to all the anti-war fools--stfu and show respect, my friends are dying to protect your sorry azz!

Originally posted by BlasteR
Alot of information but no proof.
Is there proof presented that troops are somehow "transmitting" radiation to their wives during sex? NO
Is there proof presented that this has resulted in countless deformities in childre? NO
Is there proof presented that these people in Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. are no longer asking whether their children are boy or girl but whether or not they are normal? NO

Well, here's another article that appears in the American Free Press about DU weapons...Including some studies by the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry at Long Island University in New York.

According to humanitarian law, the illegality of DU weapons is based on four criteria:

• The “territorial” test. Weapons of war may only be used in the legal field of battle. Weapons may not have an adverse effect off the legal field of battle.

• The “temporal” test, meaning that weapons may only be used for the duration of an armed conflict. A weapon that continues to act after the war violates this criterion. The territorial and temporal criteria are meant to prevent weapons from being “indiscriminate” in their effect.

• A weapon cannot be unduly inhumane. The Hague Convention of 1907 prohibits “poison or poisoned weapons.” Because DU weapons are radioactive and chemically toxic, as the military knows, they fit the definition of poisonous weapons banned under the Hague Convention.

• The “environmental” test says that weapons cannot have an unduly negative effect on the natural environment. Depleted uranium does not meet the requirements of any of the four.

Even though DU weapons violate all four of the criteria, they're still being used & further studies are being blocked.

Originally posted by BlasteR
This article doesn't even describe how DU contamination actually occurs nor do I know if he/she even knows that.

Maybe not, but the article linked in this post does (bold emphasis is mine)...

...uranium dust may do permanent damage to the lungs, resulting in chronic respiratory problems, and that uranium exposure also affects neurological function. Rats exposed to uranium had impaired nerve cell function, and 1991 Gulf War I veterans who were excreting high levels of uranium in their urine showed impairment in cognitive function.

Originally posted by dunwichwitch
I heard a story from a friend of the family that a scientist had a brick sized block of mined uranium (not purified at all) sitting in his lab for several years, and one day while doing an experiment with a geiger counter, he accidentally realized that the brick was actually uranium. I don't know what kind of stupid scientist that was, but I'm guessing even depleted uranium is more pure than freshly mined uranium.

Isn't this a variation on the "A friend of my father's co-worker's uncle's wife's hairdresser told her that..." sort of story? It certainly sounds like it to me. I don't suppose this scientist has a name, or even a position? I'm asking because it's relevant to your comment. Let me paraphrase it into a question, if I might. "What kind of stupid scientist was that?" Answer: Perhaps some kind other than a geologist? It's not as though 'freshly mined uranium ore' comes out of the ground with a greenish glow around it, and warning signs already hanging from it.

As for depleted uranium being more pure than freshly mined uranium, it is. As to whether it's more dangerous, different story. The uranium ore is probably going to be more radioactive, but the depleted uranium *is* a heavy metal, and has all of the health risks associated with same.

Either way, look at some of the Indian Reservations where they mine uranium. Mine workers (often native americans themselves) getting terribly sick and dying, drinking water being contaminated, deformed babies, sick and dying livestock and crops.

I can't look at the reservations or the workers, since you haven't cited any sources for these Biblical-scale catastrophes. If you'd be kind enough to do so, it would be appreciated.

Uranium and people just don't mix... and it is sick and twisted that we use depleted uranium on the tips of bombs and warheads when bombing innocent people's homes and apartments and such.

You might look into how and where depleted uranium is used. It's not used on every type of weapon in a theater. It's used in applications where high armor penetration is mission-critical...things like discarding-sabot AP rounds for a tank's main gun (not very effective against apartment buildings, by the way), or rounds for the A-10's GAU-8 cannon. It's not used in bomb casings or in run-of-the-mill missile warheads because it's not effective in low-velocity impacts.

You might also look at some objective figures for collateral damage. Any is too much, but in a real world, it happens. That said, there's a reason the U.S. military is using more and more guided weapons.

Here's a simple question: If we're trying to kill civilians in some sort of genocidal campaign, why are we using something so inefficient and slow-acting as depleted uranium? Why aren't we simply carpeting places like Fallujah and Sadr City with cluster munitions and napalm, and getting the killing done?

Make all the excuses you want. I'm biased towards the war AND the use of depleted uranium on innocent towns and villiages, not to mention it's just not necessary AT ALL, and I am rightfully biased. If you aren't biased towards this, you're completely blind to the suffering of others, and the fact that the US govt/army can and will do some really horrible stuff.

[edit on 19-5-2008 by dunwichwitch]

Ahh yes...the righteous (or self-righteous) indignation phase. "IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH ME, YOU ARE A HEARTLESS B***ARD!". I'll point out once more (without resorting to the ad hominem) that depleted uranium isn't used against towns or villages...it's used against armored vehicles and, rarely, against heavily fortified positions.

You have the right to any opinion you wish regarding the war in Iraq, or on the use of depleted uranium by the U.S. military. You do *not* have the right to assume that any and all who disagree with your opinion are your moral inferiors. Alongside the right to have an opinion, you have the corollary responsibility to make certain that your opinion is based on the best possible information. Given your repeated (and mistaken) assertions regarding the use of depleted uranium, I can't help but question your information on the subject.