Monster (NUCLEAR) Babies in Iraq

Originally posted by backwherewestarted

Originally posted by strangernstrangeland

Originally posted by backwherewestarted
It's interesting to see how people come into threads like this with an agenda. They immediately go for the conclusion that meets that agenda and ignore or attack anything else or anyone else saying something differently.

I research and expose the truth. If you call that an "agenda" so be it. As stated earlier, I have researched this subject to the hilt for about 5 years. No one is paying me to spout my opinions (like probably some others), I do this out of sheer respect for my fellow man and my utter disgust, hatred, and contempt for those that see others as nothing more than cannon fodder meant to die to further their ambitions. I would not be able to live with myself just letting this issue pass by.

I realize that your comment may not have been addressed to me, but I felt the need to respond.

I wasn't speaking about anyone in particular but you fit my post quite well. You have done all of this research and, based on what you post, have only researched one possibility...the horrible Americans. Nothing about any of the other very plausible possibilities. You have an agenda and claim to have done research that is all about backing up that agenda. Perhaps you should do some research on how to do ethical research.

How can you so casually assume that I have only researched one possibility? It has nothing to do with "horrible americans."

I am presciently aware of confirmation bias (look it up) and avoid it at all costs. My research includes almost every different point of view and I use my gift of reason to weed out the BS. You misunderstand the format of forums. Had I been the op of this post, I would have composed a pro, con and neutral side to this argument but I am only responding.

I have looked at and done deep research on the other so called "very plausible possibilities..." I would challenge you to name them. What are the other possibilities for all of the birth defects and soldiers returning with a mysterious "gulf war syndrome." Wouldn't firing irradiated rounds be part of the equation?

Please educate me on ethical research. Is that code for what research is condoned and approved by the department of propaganda, I mean "defense?" I don't do politically correct, as that is nothing more than a way to control people.

Come at me with some facts and I will (with my VERY limited time) destroy your argument.

Don't place blame on people who have actually taken the time to do their own research and form their own opinion. Focus on those that haven't learned the truth.

Nobody cares about the people of Iraq.

We needed oil, they had it. They would not accept our dollars anymore to get it so....buh bye.


Iraq's essentially dead. They're DNA will continue to be degraded over the centuries from all the radioactive material/toxins in their environment now.

The only thing guaranteed on this Earth is that we will continue destroying livable areas and destroying the human DNA. We're a species of death.

Originally posted by SpaceJockey1

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by steveo007
reply to post by SpaceJockey1

 

Reports early on in the war about WMD?!! I'm leaning towards they are still buried in the sand and nobody can find it or wants to find it.

And in Syria. Saddam's general in charge of the Air Force testified and wrote a book detailing how the Russians came into Iraq and helped the regime scrub all traces of it's banned WMD program during the months the US was trying to garner support to resume the original 1991 conflict with Iraq. He testified that they removed the seats from commercial airliners to transfer all banned materials to Syria in the months leading up to the war.

Man, that's so convenient...sure it wasn't the CIA wrote it and used his name, promised not to execute him , plus handed him a few million to retire on? I mean come on...a top general in Saddam's AF and he and his family end up living in the US, plus get a rosey book deal (what's wrong with this picture), while most of Saddam's mob are locked up and executed???

Well I guess Syria's close to getting 'some' real soon, though given that the book was written in 2006 you have to wonder why NO ACTION had been taken against Syria?

So we only love and support "whistleblowers" when they tell dirty little secrets of the US or Israel correct? If the other way around then they must be CIA stooges by default? Do you have any evidence that this man is a liar and what you claim is true other than what appears to be prejudicial arbitrary conjecture? At this point you're slandering a man you don't know without providing evidence to back up why his testimony cannot be trusted.

What are the inconsistencies in his story? What about his testimony doesn't pass the smell test? We know Saddam had these weapons, we're still holding the receipt!!!

reply to post by Pervius

Nobody cares about the people of Iraq.

Especially true of Saddam and his sons who at any point in time could have chosen to comply with the demands of the International community for the better part of a decade of begging, pleading, UNSC resolutions and bitter sanctions.

Originally posted by strangernstrangeland
So, will you take be up on my offer. I will modify and sweeten it for you. I will bet $10k that you would not eat a tablespoon of DU, and I have the money in the bank. It should be no problem for you, as your so called defense department says that you can literally eat it for breakfast with no ill effects. What say you?

edit on 3-1-2012 by strangernstrangeland because: (no reason given)

If I may, let me sleep on your offer.

Proof of funds in separate trust up front, first verified by Springer or a similiar trusted member of the ATS staff who has mediated these types of activities in the past?

Needless to say, including a legally binding release from all liability for all participants provided on my part as well.

Originally posted by Pervius
Nobody cares about the people of Iraq.

We needed oil, they had it. They would not accept our dollars anymore to get it so....buh bye.


Iraq's essentially dead. They're DNA will continue to be degraded over the centuries from all the radioactive material/toxins in their environment now.

The only thing guaranteed on this Earth is that we will continue destroying livable areas and destroying the human DNA. We're a species of death.

Nicely put. Also props to the OP for starting this thread. It's a good one and he knows what he is talking about.

There is a lot of information on the web about the use of depleted uranium munitions. They were used in the Balkans during Clinton's time and in the Gulf Wars under Bush 1 and 2. There have been studies done of the effects of their use and recommendations made and efforts made to initiate an international ban on the use of these munitions.

They should be banned. They are a great munition but they are too poisonous.

The problem is that in addition to being the king penetrator of all bullets, the depleted uranium round provides an industrial product made out of otherwise useless waste from the nuclear industry. That is a powerful double motive to use them.

This is going to be a real political battle. The American military could have rolled over Iraq without recourse to DU munitions, but undoubtedly it would have taken longer and there would have been more US casualties. Prying this weapon out of the hands of the military is not going to be easy, but it should be done.

The weapon is just too much of a polluter. Unfortunately, the use of DU munitions is becoming like a "heroin addiction" to the military, and even to industries where explosives are used, like the oil industry, where depleted uranium shaped charges are now being used.

The following information is taken from two other posts which appeared in two different threads, but which may be of interest to people in this thread. The first lays out a case for the use of depleted uranium shaped charges in the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here in tabular form, Chemistry Figure 1, is the USGS breakdown of what was found in the dust from the WTC.

The methodologies used to arrive at these findings are explained at the following link. Suffice it to say that a number of dust samples from different parts of ground zero and from other locations in lower Manhattan were were gathered to arrive at an overall representative sample of the WTC dust.

pubs.usgs.gov...

On the evenings of September 17 and 18, the field crew collected samples of dust and airfall debris deposits from 33 outdoor locations within a 1-kilometer radius of the WTC; this sampling occurred after a major rainstorm on September 14. Two samples of indoor dust deposits unaffected by rainfall, and two samples of material coating a steel beam in the WTC debris close to Ground Zero were also collected.

One of the interesting things about this list and other more detailed expositions of what was found in the dust of the WTC, issued by the USGS, is that they are not exhaustive and complete.

Don't get me wrong. They went a country mile for America in publishing what they did publish.

However, they themselves acknowledge that their study is not the whole story. (All emphases in the following are mine.)

pubs.usgs.gov...

The trace metal compositions of the dust and girder coatings likely reflect contributions of material from a wide variety of sources. Possibilities include metals that might be found as pigments in paints (such as titanium, molybdenum, lead, and iron), or metals that occur as traces in, or as major components of, wallboard, concrete, aggregate, copper piping, electrical wiring, and computer equipment. Further detailed SEM studies of dust and beam coating samples are needed to develop a better understanding of the residences of metals in the samples. A detailed review of the materials used in construction, and the elemental composition of materials commonly found in office buildings would also be useful to understand more completely the potential sources and compositions of the materials in the dusts.

Let us take one of the elements from Chemistry Figure 1, above and do our best, as laymen, to come to a better understanding of what the table is or is not telling us about the element in question.

Let's look at the element Uranium.

The first thing to note about it, on the list in the table, is that the exact isotope or, nuclide, of uranium found in the WTC dust is not given.

What are isotopes and nuclides? They are basically different names for the same thing. A good explanation is given on the following Wikipedia page.

en.wikipedia.org...

Isotopes are variants of atoms of a particular chemical element, which have differing numbers of neutrons. Atoms of a particular element by definition must contain the same number of protons but may have a distinct number of neutrons which differs from atom to atom, without changing the designation of the atom as a particular element. . . .

A nuclide is an atom with a specific number of protons and neutrons in the nucleus, for example carbon-13 with 6 protons and 7 neutrons. The nuclide concept (referring to individual nuclear species) emphasizes nuclear properties over chemical properties, while the isotope concept (grouping all atoms of each element) emphasizes chemical over nuclear.

In very basic terms an element like uranium can have several isotopes or nuclides and still be considered uranium.

There are three, naturally occurring nuclides of uranium. They are listed in this useful article on uranium from Wikipedia.

en.wikipedia.org...

In nature, uranium is found as uranium-238 (99.2742%), uranium-235 (0.7204%), and a very small amount of uranium-234 (0.0054%).

The average person, knowing this, would say to himself,

"Well, they must have found Uranium 238 in the WTC dust, since that is by far the most common naturally occurring nuclide of uranium. There is a 99.2742% chance that they found U238. Hey, they might have found all three nuclides in naturally occurring amounts."

That takes us back to the table. How much uranium did they find in the dust?

The table is a little hard to read, but it would appear that uranium was found in the WTC dust in an amount between 7 and 10 parts per million (ppm). One commentator I read on the web put the figure at 7.75 ppm. He represents himself as a nuclear physicist, but since I am a layperson, I'm going to err on the side of caution and use the figure 7 ppm of uranium found in the WTC dust by the USGS study.

7ppm. Is that natural? Does everything contain 7ppm of uranium?

The short answer is no.

Antiques can be a source of small amounts of radiation because they were manufactured before the hazards of radioactive materials were well understood.

These figures are so called "vaseline" glass, which contain uranium as a colorant and glow a yellowy green under black light.

epa.gov...



Although uranium can be found almost everywhere in trace amounts, even in our bodies, the amounts for naturally occurring environmental uranium are significantly below 7ppm and more in the range of 1 to 3 or 4 ppm or even lower ppm.

Here is a list of some common building materials and their naturally occurring amounts of uranium, thorium and potassium in parts per million (ppm) and also in amounts of radiation released per gram.

It is the amount of uranium in parts per million, in which we are interested.

www.physics.isu.edu...



If you put a million "parts" of each one of these materials into a blender and then checked the blended mixture to see how many ppm of uranium were present, in the mixture, it should equal the total number of ppm in the table, divided by the number of materials in the table, as follows:

total ppm of uranium in mixed materials / number of materials = ppm of uranium in mixture

Total ppm in mixed materials (35.65), divided by number of materials (10) equals ppm of uranium in mixture (3.565).

If the dust of the WTC were composed of these ten building materials and if, as the USGS says, the WTC dust contained 7 ppm of uranium, then we could say that there is almost exactly twice as much uranium in the WTC dust as there should be.

At that point we could legitimately, and with serious concern, ask,

"Where did the extra uranium come from?"

Did it come from depleted uranium shaped charges for example?

We know that uranium exists in trace amounts in the environment and in building materials and human bodies, but the trace amounts are much less than 7 ppm.

Where did the extra uranium come from?

But of course the number crunching above is based on an artificial situation. In reality there would be more of some materials than others in the mix and this would alter the ppm of uranium present.

Let's look at the table again.

Clay brick, at 8.2 ppm and "By-product" gypsum, at 13.7 ppm, if present in sufficient quantities might act to boost the ppm of uranium in the mixture of building materials up to 7ppm.

That situation would serve to account for the USGS findings in a way that implied no unusual circumstances at all with regard to the presence of uranium.

Was there a lot of clay brick in the WTC, or rather, I should ask, was there clay brick in the WTC in sufficient quantities to overwhelm the volume of concrete and other building materials plus other environmental sources of uranium, as the predominent factor determining the amount of uranium in the WTC dust?

I think not. I think there was little clay brick in the WTC. Undoubtely some, but my guess would be that clay brick usage in the WTC was very small, practically negligible, when compared to other materials to be found there.

Consequently, clay brick probably had almost no effect on the ppm figure for uranium in the WTC dust, as determmined by the USGS.

What about "By-product Gypsum" (at 13.7 ppm) and what the heck is by-product gypsum anyway, and, most important of all, was it used extensively in the WTC, . . . enough to make a significant difference in the ppm total for uranium?

It turns out that those questions lead to an interesting little niche of information that is not well known by the general public.

In our table of building materials, above, there is listed "Dry wallboard" (1.0 ppm uranium), "By-product gypsum" (13.7 ppm uranium) and "Natural gypsum" (1.1 ppm uranium).

Most people are quite familiar with "Dry wallboard". Basically it consists of sheets of what looks like plaster sandwiched between layers of paper. It is a substitute for lath and plaster construction in the finishing of interior walls in houses and is screwed into sheet metal (formerly wooden) "studs" to create the wall surfaces of rooms. The hardened substance in the middle of the paper is gypsum.

I haven't consulted experts but I am assuming that "Natural gypsum" is the powdered form of dry wall gypsum. This would be used to make old fashioned "plaster of paris" and other materials applied with trowels or poured into molds.

"By-product gypsum" is the most interesting of the three.

www.enotes.com...

Gypsum produced as a byproduct of the flue-gas desulfurization process at electric power plants provides an economical, environmentally sound raw material for making high-quality gypsum board.

In other words "by-product gypsum" comes out of the smoke stacks of coal fired power plants.

The relatively (within the terms we are discussing) high quantity of uranium found in it (13.7 ppm) originates in the coal. (See link below.)

pubs.usgs.gov...

Now we know what "by-product gypsum" is and we know that it is used to make wallboard. Surely, there was a lot of wall board in the WTC?

Some people might say no. The WTC was mostly "open concept" office space with few partitions and consequently not much wallboard, certainly less per square foot of floor space than the average bungalow.

Others might say, "You're wrong. There were gypsum containing ceiling tiles, a significant amount of gypsum wallboard for interior rooms and a massive amount of gypsum board used as fire retardant material lining the core of the building.

It is true. There was a large amount of gypsum board used in the core of the buildings as fire retardant material, lining the walls and covering girders.

How much wallboard was used in the towers? Here is what one knowledgeable poster on a physics forum said about the materials used to build the towers. (Emphasis mine.)

www.physforum.com...

I have certainly never seen a detailed calculation of the mass of WTC 1 or 2; but there are plenty of references on the web for the weight of the materials used in the construction of the WTC Towers. For example, the weight of structural steel used in each Tower is generally reported to be 96,000,000 kg and the weight of concrete is said to be 48,000,000 kg per Tower. I have also seen the weight of aluminum cladding reported to be 2,000,000 kg, and the weight of wallboard quoted at 8,000,000 kg per Tower, giving a total weight of structural materials of 154,000,000 kg per Tower.

The above quoted figure for gypsum wallboard in each tower is obviously not exact. I don't even know where the poster got the figure. But if it were accurate and if the figure for concrete were accurate, it would mean that the mass of concrete in the towers was six times the mass of the wallboard. The ppm uranium of the concrete could be multiplied by six, added to the ppm uranium of the "by-product gypsum" and the result divided by seven to give a ppm of the mixture that is still less than 7 ppm uranium in the WTC dust, determined by the USGS.

And that is not including other materials that would dilute the ppm uranium even further.

But it gets worse.

According to an overview of the gypsum building products industry published by The Athena Sustainable Materials Insititute in Canada,(Page 2-9)

www.athenasmi.org...

Use of by-product, chemical gypsum is new to the North American continent. In the U.S., by-product gypsum represented only 3.6% of the total gypsum supply in 1994.

And this:

www.gypsum.org...

Prior to the 1980s, virtually all the gypsum used to manufacture gypsum board and gypsum plaster was natural gypsum. While the technology to create synthetic ("by-product"-ipsedixit note) gypsum was developed in Europe in the 1930s and scattered references to its existence are found in industry records prior to World War II, the wholesale use of synthetic gypsum to manufacture gypsum board did not occur in the U.S. until the 1980s.

Thus the likelihood of "by-product" gypsum at 13.7 ppm uranium even coming into the calculations at the outset is diminished to near zero.

Upgrades of fire protection, in later years may have included "by-product" gypsum boards at 13.7 ppm uranium, but these would have been in the minority compared to standard gypsum wallboards rated at 1.0 ppm uranium.

Overall, the mathematics is against by-product gypsum boards at 13.7 ppm of uranium having enough of an effect to lift the ppm uranium of the WTC dust even over the level of 5 ppm uranium and that is leaving a lot of diluting factors out of the calculations.

We have already found, earlier in the thread, that Boeing 757s and 767s never used depleted uranium as balancing weights. So. . . .

Where did the extra uranium come from?


This video from another thread,originally posted by Godhood, contains testimony from a New Yorker concerning the kinds of health problems he has been having since 9/11 and also concerning the kind of response the medical practitioners in New York are giving to people like him.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



If in fact, the American oligarchy is using depleted uranium munitions on Americans themselves, as I believe they did, on 9/11, then that would go into an already long list of reasons why the American people have to take another look at how their government is being run.

reply to post by ipsedixit


Thanks for your informative addition to the thread and kind comments ipsedixit.

I hadn't intended on bringing 9/11 into the thread, as there's already enough here on ATS to discuss for years to come, but what you've added is relative and has in itself created so much doubt about the 'official' story, that is the reason so many of us are here on boards like ATS, seeking answers to valid questions.

When governments have a shocking history of LYING to and EXPERIMENTING on an unsuspecting public, you can't help but DOUBT the 'official story', and wish to investigate other possibilities.

reply to post by SpaceJockey1

I agree. The emphasis in this thread is obviously on the more conventional uses of DU in munitions. I certainly don't want to derail and as you point out 9/11 is dealt with elsewhere. It is just that munitions are the thin edge of the wedge. This plague, depleted uranium, is spreading into areas that are unexpected and Americans at home are, I believe, beginning to be affected by it's use. The possible 9/11 usage raises that sort of problem as a consideration.

DU really should be banned from being used in connection with explosives of any sort. It is just too long lasting a poison.

Iraq and Afghanistan are not the only places that we have irradiated. Add one more to that list:

Originally posted by EmperorXyn
How would you not know if someone is using nuclear bombs???

What makes you think all nuclear weapons are like what we saw in Japan during ww2?

It seems to me that all weapons go through an evolution. Take firearms as an example. They did not start out as what we see today. The very first "firearm" was actually more of a flame thrower. It was known as a "Fire Lance" which was basically a tube filled with gun powder and attached to the end of spear. Sometimes the tube was also filled with shrapnel so that if fired out along with the fire. Eventually that evolved, and we saw things like flintlock rifles, breech loaders, and eventually what we know today as automatic weapons. All weapons evolve.

So with that in mind, why is it so hard to believe that nuclear weapons have evolved? It seems like a natural progression to me to harness such a power into a smaller and more controllable weapon.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by SpaceJockey1


Lol no thanks buddy, I'm a healer by choice.

But now that you mention it, it kinda does doesn't it.... oops I really hope I don't attract the wrong type of attention with that....

reply to post by 46ACE


Well actually you are on the money with that, we did and so did they, but after you've learned everything you can about a certain weapons design its moot. There were thousands of warheads created, by both sides, and maybe a hundred were dissected. In addition, another 20% or so were disassembled and converted for use in nuclear reactors; some US reactors are powered by the remnents of USSR A-Bombs, kinda crazy huh.
Anyway, after a few decades in the desert they may become to corroded or unstable to be moved or transported safetly, so what can you do? You blow it up. The danger of trying to dismantle a nuclear weapon that has been damaged or corroded is monumental, you could end up setting it off anyway, so the best option really would be to detonate it. What better than killing two birds with one stone, get rid of the old bombs and flatten the enemy; using nukes on Rebel terrorist fighters is beyond overkill, Napalm and Willy Pete is bad enough... (also illegal weapons).

So in conclusion, they didn't need the bomb for anything, and if anything they were dangerous and needed to be disposed of in probably many cases. Either way, I can certainly see the plausibility of it.

I appreciate the feedback, let me know what you think.

reply to post by BillyBoBBizWorth

Take your BS information and shove it.

Can we disagree here people without being disagreeable? Goodness sakes.

reply to post by M1FST91


no you dont

Can we disagree here people without being disagreeable? Goodness sakes.

NOTurTypical,well enough is enough,its time for people to start using their heads and get frigging serious about whats going on around here.

Why did my whole post get taken down? Whomever could of just edited what wasn't "ATS worthy"...

Im pretty sure,that only the last line would of been the reason why.

reply to post by SpaceJockey1


rainbowwarrior2005.wordpress.com...

Doctors report “unprecedented” rise in deformities, cancers in Iraq
By Larry Johnson

November 16 2009

"The Guardian.co.uk (has an excellent Video) reports that doctors in Fallujah are dealing with up to 15 times as many chronic deformities in infants and a spike in early life cancers that may be linked to toxic materials left over from the fighting.

The report said, “Neurologists and obstetricians in the city interviewed by the Guardian say the rise in birth defects – which include a baby born with two heads, babies with multiple tumours, and others with nervous system problems – are unprecedented and at present unexplainable.”

Actually, this rise in birth defects has been reported on – by, at least a handful of journalists – for years. Iraqi researchers and doctors – for years – have documented the rise of birth defects and cancer primarily in southern Iraq where most of the fighting took place in the first Gulf War."

**

The news isn't new but many aren't aware of this issue. I remember reading some articles after Desert Storm about American troops and their "post offspring" having a high rate of unexplained diseases and such. Many soldiers thought it might be something in the vaccines they were forced to take before deployment or something they were exposed to while in Iraq. TPTB denied any responsibility and claimed that the numbers weren't any higher than the "normal" rate per capita in the USA. TPTB are toxic all the way around.

Next to 9/11 the DU issue is probably one of the best cover-ups in recent times.

You'd have to say that there are many similarities to AGENT ORANGE, as there was massive attempted debunking done there too, for many years.

I'm sure that eventually we'll find it will be ex-servicemen and women that will co-ordinate, compare medical records, find some damned good lawyers and bring a class action suit against the Government.

reply to post by SpaceJockey1

One thing the vets should be doing and the 9/11 responders should be doing is pressuring the medical community to develop an arthroscopic technique for introducing radiation detectors into the lungs and other points within the body that may have minute alpha particle emitters wreaking havoc in very small, two inch radius, zones of afflicted organs and tissues.

Originally posted by strangernstrangeland

Originally posted by backwherewestarted

Originally posted by strangernstrangeland

Originally posted by backwherewestarted
It's interesting to see how people come into threads like this with an agenda. They immediately go for the conclusion that meets that agenda and ignore or attack anything else or anyone else saying something differently.

I research and expose the truth. If you call that an "agenda" so be it. As stated earlier, I have researched this subject to the hilt for about 5 years. No one is paying me to spout my opinions (like probably some others), I do this out of sheer respect for my fellow man and my utter disgust, hatred, and contempt for those that see others as nothing more than cannon fodder meant to die to further their ambitions. I would not be able to live with myself just letting this issue pass by.

I realize that your comment may not have been addressed to me, but I felt the need to respond.

I wasn't speaking about anyone in particular but you fit my post quite well. You have done all of this research and, based on what you post, have only researched one possibility...the horrible Americans. Nothing about any of the other very plausible possibilities. You have an agenda and claim to have done research that is all about backing up that agenda. Perhaps you should do some research on how to do ethical research.

How can you so casually assume that I have only researched one possibility? It has nothing to do with "horrible americans."

I am presciently aware of confirmation bias (look it up) and avoid it at all costs. My research includes almost every different point of view and I use my gift of reason to weed out the BS. You misunderstand the format of forums. Had I been the op of this post, I would have composed a pro, con and neutral side to this argument but I am only responding.

I have looked at and done deep research on the other so called "very plausible possibilities..." I would challenge you to name them. What are the other possibilities for all of the birth defects and soldiers returning with a mysterious "gulf war syndrome." Wouldn't firing irradiated rounds be part of the equation?

Please educate me on ethical research. Is that code for what research is condoned and approved by the department of propaganda, I mean "defense?" I don't do politically correct, as that is nothing more than a way to control people.

Come at me with some facts and I will (with my VERY limited time) destroy your argument.

Don't place blame on people who have actually taken the time to do their own research and form their own opinion. Focus on those that haven't learned the truth.

I could not have asked for a better post to use as an example of what I was saying. Thanks.