# General > General >  birth defects 13 times higher .......

## onecalledk

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/8548961.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/8548707.stm

it seems that the chemicals used in bombing have now affected those being born.  Unbelievably the women of the country were warned NOT to have children. 

K

----------


## golach

Saddam started it. Who was the worst?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/3738368.stm

----------


## onecalledk

women and children SUFFERED. FULL STOP. It is irrelevant whether that suffering was caused by one evil dictator or anyone else. 

K

----------


## fred

> Saddam started it. Who was the worst?


We are, we are by far the worse.

Saddam only killed once then stopped, we have contaminated the land, altered the DNA, our killing in Falujah will go on a thousand years then another. We have condemned their children and their children's children.

----------


## northener

Hang on a minute, Fred.

Where does it say that Coalition forces have been proved, beyond reasonable doubt, to be responsible for this?

----------


## fred

> Hang on a minute, Fred.
> 
> Where does it say that Coalition forces have been proved, beyond reasonable doubt, to be responsible for this?


Yeh yeh, the Americans say "we know of no official report" but neglect to say they refuse to let any officials in there to make a report.

We fired at least two and a half million pounds of nuclear waste at them, don't give me the reasonable doubt excuse.

----------


## onecalledk

it is IRRELEVANT who caused it, the suffering will continue until man realises that wars dont solve problems.  

Wars divide they dont unite.  We ALL SHARE this planet.  Its like throwing a stone into a pond and the ripples it causes.  Those who have been affected in this case by being damaged by the chemicals are in the inner part of the ripples......... 

K

----------


## northener

> Yeh yeh, the Americans say "we know of no official report" but neglect to say they refuse to let any officials in there to make a report.
> 
> We fired at least two and a half million pounds of nuclear waste at them, don't give me the reasonable doubt excuse.


So, guilty as charged then. Job done.

Next.

----------


## roadbowler

northerner, the proof is in the pudding. What's quiet right now in the mainstream media is that our soldiers are dying from cancers and all sorts because of their exposure using depleted uranium. They've been testing urine of sick soldiers and they are heavily exposed! Their children are being born with birth defects too. Not only that, got any clue as to how much depleted uranium was dropped in and about the solway firth while they were testing these weapons? These weapons violate international law and we've been using them other places, including the balkans not just iraq. Good posts onecalledk!

----------


## northener

> northerner, the proof is in the pudding. What's quiet right now in the mainstream media is that our soldiers are dying from cancers and all sorts because of their exposure using depleted uranium. They've been testing urine of sick soldiers and they are heavily exposed! Their children are being born with birth defects too. Not only that, got any clue as to how much depleted uranium was dropped in and about the solway firth while they were testing these weapons? These weapons violate international law and we've been using them other places, including the balkans not just iraq. Good posts onecalledk!


This appears to say differently: 

http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q746.html

----------


## Anfield

> Saddam started it. Who was the worst?
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/3738368.stm



Ever heard of Porton Down in Wiltshire?

----------


## The Drunken Duck

> Ever heard of Porton Down in Wiltshire?


Been there, whats your point ??

----------


## The Drunken Duck

> So, guilty as charged then. Job done.
> 
> Next.


Have you seen the "Man Eating Badger" accusations from 2007 ?? .. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6295138.stm 

Highly Amusing.

----------


## northener

> Ever heard of Porton Down in Wiltshire?


Certainly have, Anfield.

----------


## Anfield

> Been there, whats your point ??


Take your pick:

http://www.rense.com/general39/secret.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...fare-mortality

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porton_Down

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Christopher_Kelly

Just four of many.

Also, can I ask in what capacity you visited Porton Down? or is that "hush hush"

----------


## northener

> Have you seen the "Man Eating Badger" accusations from 2007 ?? .. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6295138.stm 
> 
> Highly Amusing.


And a sad indictment of how some people are ready to attach blame without the benefit of an investigation and evidence......

----------


## ducati

> This appears to say differently: 
> 
> http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q746.html


Thanks Northener, thought I'd seen that somewere.

Another reason to look further than the histerical on the Internet. As the answer says don't divert attention from the search for the real causes.

----------


## northener

> Take your pick:
> 
> http://www.rense.com/general39/secret.htm
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...fare-mortality
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porton_Down
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Christopher_Kelly
> ...


Anfield, what are you getting at here? Interesting, flawed in places and irrelevant in others......but I fail to see what this has to do with Feluja?

----------


## Stavro

> it is IRRELEVANT who caused it, ...



No. It is extremely relevant who has caused this.

Here is what a US military-man said: "No studies to date have indicated environmental issues resulting in specific  health issues." And then, "Unexploded ordinance, including improvised explosive devises, are a recognised  hazard."

Here is what a medical doctor on the ground is saying: "We are seeing a very significant increase in central nervous system  anomalies. Before 2003 [the start of the war] I was seeing sporadic numbers of  deformities in babies. Now the frequency of deformities has increased  dramatically. Most are in the head and spinal cord, but there are also many  deficiencies in lower limbs. There is also a very marked increase in  the number of cases of less than two years [old] with brain tumours. This is now  a focus area of multiple tumours." - Dr  Ayman Qais, Director and Senior Consultant, Falluja General Hospital.

(Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worl...#ixzz0hDkYIkSw )

The article carries a photo taken in Fallujah -



Notice the infrastructure that the Iraqis had before the illegal American invasion - modern street lighting, telegraph poles, electricity transformers, wide pavements, well-laid roads, a mixture of buildings and trees.

And look at it now.   :Frown: 

We are supposed to believe, like dummies, that things are "improving," because we have restored (actually this word is rarely used I think) the electricity supply to the hospital. As if the West is doing them some sort of favour being there!!!  ::

----------


## northener

> No. It is extremely relevant who has caused this.
> 
> Here is what a US military-man said: "No studies to date have indicated environmental issues resulting in specific health issues." And then, "Unexploded ordinance, including improvised explosive devises, are a recognised hazard."
> 
> Here is what a medical doctor on the ground is saying: "We are seeing a very significant increase in central nervous system anomalies. Before 2003 [the start of the war] I was seeing sporadic numbers of deformities in babies. Now the frequency of deformities has increased dramatically. Most are in the head and spinal cord, but there are also many deficiencies in lower limbs. There is also a very marked increase in the number of cases of less than two years [old] with brain tumours. This is now a focus area of multiple tumours." - Dr Ayman Qais, Director and Senior Consultant, Falluja General Hospital.
> 
> (Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worl...#ixzz0hDkYIkSw ) 
> The article carries a photo taken in Fallujah - 
>  
> ...


Whoah, stop righ there Stavro. No-one is denying there is a problem with birth defects in Fallujah. The dispute is over what's causung them.

The US response is simple. "unexploded ordinance is naughty" that sounds like it has been cherry-picked from a wider statement and has no real bearing on what the problem is.

Going on about how Fallujah used to look will not move the discussion forward regarding what caused the deformities, it'll just blur the whole thing into another Coalition/Anti-Coalition heap of crap..

----------


## ducati

Doesn't look like a very recent picture. You would have thought the Fallujahns' would have shoveled it up a bit. Looks like Hulme on a Saturday night.

----------


## Anfield

> Anfield, what are you getting at here? Interesting, flawed in places and irrelevant in others......but I fail to see what this has to do with Feluja?


If you look at first post on this thread by onecalledk,  you will see that it is about how the health of a nation is being destroyed by the use of highly sophisticated weapons that the US troops used  six years  ago. 

Another member then stated that Saddam had instigated the use of chemical weapons.  He omitted to state where Saddam obtained these weapons,  and as no weapons of mass destruction were ever found in Iraq it can only be assumed that they were purchased from abroad.

My post was to bring to the Orgs attention some of the work that takes place there.

----------


## northener

> If you look at first post on this thread by onecalledk, you will see that it is about how the health of a nation is being destroyed by the use of highly sophisticated weapons that the US troops used six years ago. 
> 
> Another member then stated that Saddam had instigated the use of chemical weapons. He omitted to state where Saddam obtained these weapons, and as no weapons of mass destruction were ever found in Iraq it can only be assumed that they were purchased from abroad.
> 
> My post was to bring to the Orgs attention some of the work that takes place there.


OK, we're complicit in the research and manufacture of Chemical and Biological weapons. We might as well blame the Chinese for inventing gunpowder.

So far, there's been a lot of speculation that these defects _may_ be cause by DU or White Phosphorous. It could quite easily be something (dumped WMD's for example :Wink: ) that hasn't yet been discovered.

The jury is still out on DU - there's lots of arguments on both sides of the divide and White Phosphorous has, I believe, had no work published upon it's long-term effects.

Just as a side-issue, I believe various cities (Coventry, London, Dresden, Hamburg) were subjected to massive amounts of bombardment with phosphorous bombs (700,000 inphosphorous bombs on Dresden alone)...yet there has been no furore over a massive increase in deformities post WW2......why?

----------


## Anfield

So just what are we putting in bombs/bullets these days

----------


## northener

> So just what are we putting in bombs/bullets these days


Chicken soup, mainly......

Bombs tend to be full of explosive, bullets (DU or otherwise) tend to be solid shot. 
Or are you implying a more sinister use?

----------


## ducati

> Chicken soup, mainly......
> 
> Bombs tend to be full of explosive, bullets (DU or otherwise) tend to be solid shot. 
> Or are you implying a more sinister use?


I don't really see the (more sinister) argument. If you're targeted by an A10 the last thing you need to worry about are birth defects.

----------


## oldchemist

There does appear to be a real effect here but only impartial and rigorous investigation will _possibly_ identify the cause.

All this knee-jerk stuff reminds me of the accusations levelled at the nuclear industry in the UK when leukaemia clusters were identified near some installations - the subsequent loud protests ignored the fact that there are clusters all over the place. The real benefit would have come from identifying any cause of the clusters, apart from just random variations, but instead it became an anti-nuclear rant.

----------


## The Drunken Duck

> If you look at first post on this thread by onecalledk,  you will see that it is about how the health of a nation is being destroyed by the use of highly sophisticated weapons that the US troops used  six years  ago. 
> 
> Another member then stated that Saddam had instigated the use of chemical weapons.  He omitted to state where Saddam obtained these weapons,  and as no weapons of mass destruction were ever found in Iraq it can only be assumed that they were purchased from abroad.
> 
> My post was to bring to the Orgs attention some of the work that takes place there.


First I hope those poor souls get the help and care they need. Thats the most important thing in my book. Second is finding out why the rate is so much higher in Fallujah than anywhere else.

The health of the people in Fallujah was being destroyed long before 2003. In 1998 during Desert Fox some vehicles in that area were "plinked" and they turned out to be mobile chem labs, just where do you think Saddam got the chem weapons that he used to murder his own citizens in Al Habja in the late eighties from ?? Fallujah was just one of several areas used to make them, chem weapons are quite simple to make but the chemicals can, if not properly contained, cause serious damage to people and the environment. They are also VERY easy to destroy, one of the reasons his chem arsenal that was never found. His stalling with the weapons inspectors was time well spent. Plus in 2004 the Insurgents were making their own explosives and that involves chemicals. There are also known cases of IED's with certain "additions" of the non explosive variety.

You claim the birth defects were caused by "highly sophisticated weapons" with no proof and crucially no knowledge of what weapons WOULD have been employed in that area. Fishing with no bait that. In urban areas it would have been cannon fire, Rockets (High Explosive and Flechette. Flechette warhead contains hundreds of metal arrows that shred everything in a small area, they are made simply of metal) and High Explosive bombs of 2000lb or less (most probably 500 lbers)that were used. Anything bigger than that has too big a kill area when you are dropping near friendly troops. If you are talking about DU and even White Phos then there are areas of Kuwait that had a lot more DU rounds and such muntions deposited on them in Desert Storm and they have nowhere near the rate of birth defects that are claimed in Fallujah. In fact a lot of areas have zero reported cases. Fallujah is a defect hotspot for a reason and if it was purely down to DU then most of Kuwait, and even certain areas of Iraq, would be in a similiar position. The fact it doesnt does not excuse DU but it would suggest it isnt the primary factor responsible.

----------


## bekisman

> Ever heard of Porton Down in Wiltshire?


Yep, been there.

----------


## bekisman

> Take your pick:
> 
> http://www.rense.com/general39/secret.htm
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...fare-mortality
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porton_Down
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Christopher_Kelly
> ...


I, like others are still around, no problems.

----------


## bekisman

> Thanks Northener, thought I'd seen that somewere.
> 
> Another reason to look further than the histerical on the Internet. As the answer says don't divert attention from the search for the real causes.


I heard mass for mass, *coffee* is 1/1000 as *radioactive* as 'low level' nuclear waste, 1/2 as *radioactive* as coal ash, and about the same as granite..?

----------


## scotsboy

> Yeh yeh, the Americans say "we know of no official report" but neglect to say they refuse to let any officials in there to make a report.
> 
> We fired at least two and a half million pounds of nuclear waste at them, don't give me the reasonable doubt excuse.


No doubt there is something that requires investigation, and certain people will know what munitions were used, but to say that "nuclear waste" was fired is total balls.

----------


## bekisman

Noticed what happened before the legal 'invasion': 

Tom Grey answers David Crow's request the empirical basis for his statement on the number of dead under Saddam Hussein.  Here is an excerpt:":Along with other human rights organizations, The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over *600,000 civilian executions in Iraq*. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed *100,000 Kurdish Iraqis*. Another *500,000* are estimated to have died in Saddam's needless war with Iran. Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam's reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between *70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power"* 

Never did see any protests here in the UK?..

http://wais.stanford.edu/Iraq/iraq_d...sein42503.html

----------


## Anfield

> First I hope those poor souls get the help and care they need. Thats the most important thing in my book. Second is finding out why the rate is so much higher in Fallujah than anywhere else.
> 
> The health of the people in Fallujah was being destroyed long before 2003. In 1998 during Desert Fox some vehicles in that area were "plinked" and they turned out to be mobile chem labs, just where do you think Saddam got the chem weapons that he used to murder his own citizens in Al Habja in the late eighties from ?? Fallujah was just one of several areas used to make them, chem weapons are quite simple to make but the chemicals can, if not properly contained, cause serious damage to people and the environment. They are also VERY easy to destroy, one of the reasons his chem arsenal that was never found. His stalling with the weapons inspectors was time well spent. Plus in 2004 the Insurgents were making their own explosives and that involves chemicals. There are also known cases of IED's with certain "additions" of the non explosive variety.
> 
> You claim the birth defects were caused by "highly sophisticated weapons" with no proof and crucially no knowledge of what weapons WOULD have been employed in that area. Fishing with no bait that. In urban areas it would have been cannon fire, Rockets (High Explosive and Flechette. Flechette warhead contains hundreds of metal arrows that shred everything in a small area, they are made simply of metal) and High Explosive bombs of 2000lb or less (most probably 500 lbers)that were used. Anything bigger than that has too big a kill area when you are dropping near friendly troops. If you are talking about DU and even White Phos then there are areas of Kuwait that had a lot more DU rounds and such muntions deposited on them in Desert Storm and they have nowhere near the rate of birth defects that are claimed in Fallujah. In fact a lot of areas have zero reported cases. Fallujah is a defect hotspot for a reason and if it was purely down to DU then most of Kuwait, and even certain areas of Iraq, would be in a similiar position. The fact it doesnt does not excuse DU but it would suggest it isnt the primary factor responsible.


Your first sentence is perhaps the most apt. 
The rest, to me, is straight out of one of the documents used by Blair & Bush to justify invading Iraq i.e. rhetoric with a few "buzz" words thrown in to add to effect.

As early as 2005 the Allies had admitted using white phosphorus in Fallujah

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4440664.stm and 

http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle10901.htm

----------


## roadbowler

old chemist, problem is why do they wait til after they've used loads of it to have an investigation as to what effects it has? People are forgetting about the balkans, same anomalies there. Mobile chem labs plinked there too i suppose? How do you suppose soldiers are turning up ill and their children being born with birth defects and they all turning up with du in their urine? Perhaps there is a perfectly good excuse why the du clean up crews and ammunition handlers wear full on hazmat suits when dealing with the stuff exploded or not? White phosphorus was banned as an offensive weapon and may only be used as an incendiary weapon. Napalm been banned too. Bit late though.

----------


## fred

> No doubt there is something that requires investigation, and certain people will know what munitions were used, but to say that "nuclear waste" was fired is total balls.


That's what DU is isn't it, both a by product of the manufacture of fuel rods and contained in spent fuel rods. I mean what if the people at Dounreay had turned up at Seater tip with a load of depleted uranium, would they have been able to dump it there? Why not if it's so safe?

And in the first three weeks of the illegal invasion we fired 2,000 tons of the stuff at Iraqi cities.

----------


## northener

> ... 
> As early as 2005 the Allies had admitted using white phosphorus in Fallujah
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4440664.stm and 
> 
> http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle10901.htm


Cherry picking to suit your argument, Anfield. You can do better than that.

The use of white phosphorous has not been denied.

----------


## northener

> That's what DU is isn't it, both a by product of the manufacture of fuel rods and contained in spent fuel rods. I mean what if the people at Dounreay had turned up at Seater tip with a load of depleted uranium, would they have been able to dump it there? Why not if it's so safe?
> 
> And in the first three weeks of the illegal invasion we fired 2,000 tons of the stuff at Iraqi cities.


Technically it's 'Nuclear Waste', but I believe you meant to use the term to allude to radioactivity.....nice buzzwords 'Nuclear waste'. 
Guaranteed to provoke an adverse reaction amongst those who do't know what DU is. :Wink:  ::

----------


## Stavro

> And in the first three weeks of the illegal invasion we fired 2,000 tons of the stuff at Iraqi cities.



Solves the storage problem - dump it all over Iraq - as long as it does not contaminate 'our' oil.

----------


## fred

> The health of the people in Fallujah was being destroyed long before 2003. In 1998 during Desert Fox some vehicles in that area were "plinked" and they turned out to be mobile chem labs, just where do you think Saddam got the chem weapons that he used to murder his own citizens in Al Habja in the late eighties from ??


For crying out loud, no they were not and no they did not. That is just another of the lies that America fed the United Nations hoping to con them into a resolution to back the invasion. There were no mobile chemical labs, they have admitted it. Now read my lips, NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION WERE FOUND IN IRAQ, is it starting to sink in yet?

The ones he used at Al Habja America gave him.

----------


## fred

> Technically it's 'Nuclear Waste', but I believe you meant to use the term to allude to radioactivity.....nice buzzwords 'Nuclear waste'. 
> Guaranteed to provoke an adverse reaction amongst those who do't know what DU is.


So would the council allow it to be dumped at Seater tip?

----------


## Anfield

Before we all get sidetracked, let us remember the original point of this post.

Before the illegal "war" against Iraq a doctor in Fellujah was seeing one patient every two months i.e .016 patients per day.

Now she is seeing 1 per day,

From initial post:
"..She said that one doctor in the city had  compared data about birth defects from before 2003 - when she saw about  one case every two months - with the situation now, when, she saw cases  every day. 
Ms Hamdan said that based on data from January this  year, the rate of congenital heart defects was 95 per 1,000 births - 13  times the rate found in Europe."


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/8548707.stm

----------


## Stavro

> Going on about how Fallujah used to look will not move the discussion forward regarding what caused the deformities, it'll just blur the whole thing into another Coalition/Anti-Coalition heap of crap..


I'm not "going on" about Fallujah, northener, but just making a simple observation. We all need to open and use our own eyes, I believe.

It was stated, for example, in another thread a few weeks ago that some corps of engineers had restored something (I can't remember what it was), but it was not stated that these things existed (built by Saddam Hussein's administration) before the British and Americans flew over there and blew them up.

There is good reason to believe that the heavy use of depleted uranium munitions, used to blow up bridges, power stations and human beings, is causing these severe birth defects (and will continue to do so for a very, very long time).

----------


## northener

> I'm not "going on" about Fallujah, northener, but just making a simple observation. We all need to open and use our own eyes, I believe.
> 
> It was stated, for example, in another thread a few weeks ago that some corps of engineers had restored something (I can't remember what it was), but it was not stated that these things existed (built by Saddam Hussein's administration) before the British and Americans flew over there and blew them up.


That's all very well and good, Stav. Still got  all to do with birth defects though.




> There is good reason to believe that the heavy use of depleted uranium munitions, used to blow up bridges, power stations and human beings, is causing these severe birth defects (and will continue to do so for a very, very long time).


There is reason to believe it is possible, true. 
But the jury is still very much out on this. Regardless of how some people are quick to blame the US without considering the possibilities of it being something unrelated.

----------


## onecalledk

my original post was to highlight how we are all affected by ANY use of chemicals in the world.  This appears to have decended into a point scoring exercise which detracts from everything. 

It IS irrelevant who started, who bought, who used, who invented chemical weapons. The fact is that they bring man one step closer to annihilation, no one will be left to point the finger as we will have destroyed our own planet. 

All alterations to human DNA will affect the rest of humanity full stop. 

Once more the arguments ensue, the arguments are ego. The arguments will NOT stop us from hurtling down the path we seem eager to explore....... 

K

----------


## Stavro

> Once more the arguments ensue, the arguments are ego. The arguments will NOT stop us from hurtling down the path we seem eager to explore....... 
> 
> K


It is not irrelevant, nor is this any form of point-scoring exercise.

The problem cannot be solved unless we start to understand its root cause. These birth defects cannot be 'corrected'. Those poor people are left with them. We should be looking to prevent any more. That means we should be investigating what and who caused them. This needs proper investigation and not throwing labels in about ego and point scoring.

----------


## fred

> No doubt there is something that requires investigation, and certain people will know what munitions were used, but to say that "nuclear waste" was fired is total balls.


I seem to remember a discussion we had, me and you, some years ago when I said that a dirty bomb would not be too devastating because it involved only a very small amount of uranium which would be dispersed over a large area by the explosion so the dose to each individual would be small and then only for a short period of time while the area was evacuated and buildings and people decontaminated. People seemed to be suggesting I was crazy for thinking such a thing.

Now we have a case where many tons of uranium have been fired at a city and people have been living with it for years and when I suggest it is the most likely cause of birth defects...

----------


## The Drunken Duck

> Your first sentence is perhaps the most apt. 
> The rest, to me, is straight out of one of the documents used by Blair & Bush to justify invading Iraq i.e. rhetoric with a few "buzz" words thrown in to add to effect.
> 
> As early as 2005 the Allies had admitted using white phosphorus in Fallujah
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4440664.stm and 
> 
> http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle10901.htm


No genius. 

The rest of the comments were mine because I was there on Op Desert Fox and had access to photo recce and ground intel that you didnt. We had jets recce'ing that area for weeks. Google "E-6 TACAMO" and "E-8 JSTARS" you might work out how vehicle movements and patterns are formed to locate departure points and arrival points. So really I am talking from my own experience and not doing what you do in reading something on the net and assuming its right. Google doesnt tell you everything you know.

And your assumption that we are somehow solely responsible for these birth defects convienently ignores the fact that areas subjected to larger bombardments of DU ammo have nothing near the ratio (if any at all !!) of these defects. That suggests additional factors in the area, now I can see how that blows a whole in your argument that you have plucked out of the air with no proof but it does tend to make sense. And for the record White Phos is used as a marker grenade, its a caustic agent that burns through skin and flesh and not some sort of magic genetic weapon. 

As has been said on the thread already the cause needs to be investigated so I put forward the point I have just made .. If these defects are caused purely by allied munitions why arent we seeing similiar patterns in other areas that were bombarded as heavily as Fallujah ??

----------


## northener

> I seem to remember a discussion we had, me and you, some years ago when I said that a dirty bomb would not be too devastating because it involved only a very small amount of uranium which would be dispersed over a large area by the explosion so the dose to each individual would be small and then only for a short period of time while the area was evacuated and buildings and people decontaminated. People seemed to be suggesting I was crazy for thinking such a thing.
> 
> Now we have a case where many tons of uranium have been fired at a city and people have been living with it for years and when I suggest it is the most likely cause of birth defects...


The difference being, Fred, that DU has a very low radioactive yield, making it useless in a 'dirty bomb' - that's an entirely different weapon.

I think that I'll go with the impartial view of the WHO on this one (unless proved otherwise): http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/


Particularly this section:

*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._Like I said at the start, lets get to the bottom of this problem and learn from it. If it proves that DU or Phosphorous is at the heart of the matter, then fine. I ain't got a problem with that. 

I don't like the automatic assumption that "it must be X or Y".

(Edit): DD just reminded me about something I was going to say...

Phosphorous is not a 'chemical weapon' in the accepted sense of the word. As DD pointed out it is an incendiary - and has no other purpose IIRC. 
And I refer back to my earlier post regarding Dresden etc and the singular lack of mass deformities following the depositing of 700,00 phosphorous based bombs on Dresden alone...a damn site more than were dropped in any area of Iraq.

----------


## Stavro

*Background*

Depleted uranium is being used increasingly often as a component of munitions in military conflicts. Military personnel, civilians and the DU munitions producers are being exposed to the DU aerosols that are generated.

*Methods*

We reviewed toxicological data on both natural and depleted uranium. We included peer reviewed studies and gray literature on birth malformations due to natural and depleted uranium. Our approach was to assess the "weight of evidence" with respect to teratogenicity of depleted uranium.

*Results*

Animal studies firmly support the possibility that DU is a teratogen. While the detailed pathways by which environmental DU can be internalized and reach reproductive cells are not yet fully elucidated, again, the evidence supports plausibility. To date, human epidemiological data include case examples, disease registry records, a case-control study and prospective longitudinal studies.

*Discussion*

The two most significant challenges to establishing a causal pathway between (human) parental DU exposure and the birth of offspring with defects are: i) distinguishing the role of DU from that of exposure to other potential teratogens; ii) documentation on the individual level of extent of parental DU exposure. Studies that use biomarkers, none yet reported, can help address the latter challenge. Thoughtful triangulation of the results of multiple studies (epidemiological and other) of DU teratogenicity contributes to disentangling the roles of various potentially teratogenic parental exposures. This paper is just such an endeavor.

*Conclusion*

In aggregate the human epidemiological evidence is consistent with increased risk of birth defects in offspring of persons exposed to DU.


From a scientific paper published August 2005, 

*"Teratogenicity of depleted uranium aerosols: A review from an epidemiological perspective"*

( Source - http://www.ehjournal.net/content/4/1/17 )

----------


## Anfield

> No genius. 
> 
>   ".. And for the record White Phos is used as a marker grenade, its a caustic agent that burns through skin and flesh and not some sort of magic genetic weapon.."


Well that's OK then, so lets carry on dropping/shooting this stuff at people.

----------


## ducati

> I seem to remember a discussion we had, me and you, some years ago when I said that a dirty bomb would not be too devastating because it involved only a very small amount of uranium which would be dispersed over a large area by the explosion so the dose to each individual would be small and then only for a short period of time while the area was evacuated and buildings and people decontaminated. People seemed to be suggesting I was crazy for thinking such a thing.
> 
> Now we have a case where many tons of uranium have been fired at a city and people have been living with it for years and when I suggest it is the most likely cause of birth defects...


Not Uranium, Depleted Uranium cannon shells fired (very accurately for once) at specifice armoured vehicle targets. Not dropped in bombs all over Iraq, not used to blow up bridges (they don't blow up).

----------


## The Drunken Duck

> Well that's OK then, so lets carry on dropping/shooting this stuff at people.


I do like your style, however I have an alternate plan.

We should just print off your posts, do a mass leaflet drop and then watch the enemy commit suicide by throwing themselves on White Phos grenades becuase its the lesser of the two evils.

Seriously though, just how naive are you ??

----------


## fred

> The difference being, Fred, that DU has a very low radioactive yield, making it useless in a 'dirty bomb' - that's an entirely different weapon.


Not the DU from spent fuel rods it isn't, that is contaminated with plutonium, neptunium and americium among other very nasty things. Plutonium-239 is 200,000 times more radioactive than U-238, it's the most carcinogenic substance known to man. The americium is even more worrying, it has a half life of 7,300 years and it decays to plutonium-239.

----------


## The Pepsi Challenge

Just saw the televised BBC report from Fallujah on the mutations - very distressing to say the least. I hope an independent inquiry is instigated right away.

----------


## fred

> Not Uranium, Depleted Uranium cannon shells fired (very accurately for once) at specifice armoured vehicle targets. Not dropped in bombs all over Iraq, not used to blow up bridges (they don't blow up).


Well now I'm wondering just why we haven't found hundreds of uses for this wonderful stuff in civilian life. I mean just look at the advantages, harder than steel, heavier than lead and cheap, the atomic reactor people will pay you a fortune to take the stuff away.

I'm wondering why we don't all have a DU hammer or a DU axe about the place, I'm wondering why it's only use is for firing at people we don't like.

----------


## northener

> Well now I'm wondering just why we haven't found hundreds of uses for this wonderful stuff in civilian life. I mean just look at the advantages, harder than steel, heavier than lead and cheap, the atomic reactor people will pay you a fortune to take the stuff away.
> 
> I'm wondering why we don't all have a DU hammer or a DU axe about the place, I'm wondering why it's only use is for firing at people we don't like.


Because it's very good for firing at people. :: 

If the intention was to come up with an armour-piercing weapon that would also do nasty things to people for years to come - then I'd say DU is pretty crap.

A DU hammer...Hmmm, I can see little mushroom clouds coming up from thousands of garden sheds every weekend......

----------


## bekisman

> Well now I'm wondering just why we haven't found hundreds of uses for this wonderful stuff in civilian life. I mean just look at the advantages, harder than steel, heavier than lead and cheap, the atomic reactor people will pay you a fortune to take the stuff away.
> 
> I'm wondering why we don't all have a DU hammer or a DU axe about the place, I'm wondering why it's only use is for firing at people we don't like.


Hmm: http://web.ead.anl.gov/uranium/pdf/potentialuses.pdf

----------


## bekisman

> Not the DU from spent fuel rods it isn't, that is contaminated with plutonium, neptunium and americium among other very nasty things. Plutonium-239 is 200,000 times more radioactive than U-238, it's the most carcinogenic substance known to man. The americium is even more worrying, it has a half life of 7,300 years and it decays to plutonium-239.


I thought it was 430 years for Americium?

----------


## northener

> Not the DU from spent fuel rods it isn't, that is contaminated with plutonium, neptunium and americium among other very nasty things. Plutonium-239 is 200,000 times more radioactive than U-238, it's the most carcinogenic substance known to man. The americium is even more worrying, it has a half life of 7,300 years and it decays to plutonium-239.


 I don't dispute the information you've just put regarding fuel rods, but something at the back of my mind tells me we've got something wrong here somewhere regarding which U's make up DU.

AFAIK U-238 is the main ingredient of DU, U-235  has virtually been removed and I cannot find where U-239 is mentioned as a part of DU.

A quick google reveals that U-239 has a half-life of only 20-odd minutes, mabe that's why it doesn't figure anywhere. I dunno.

----------


## fred

> Hmm: http://web.ead.anl.gov/uranium/pdf/potentialuses.pdf


I see.




> It is recognized that major issues exist that must be resolved before commercial uses can be implemented, including addressing a number of technical aspects and obtaining regulatory and user acceptance of any future uses.


Pity they didn't bother getting user acceptance from the people they used it on in Iraq and elsewhere.

----------


## fred

> I thought it was 430 years for Americium?


I would imagine it is like other radioactive substances and different isotopes have different half lives.

----------


## Stavro

> Just saw the televised BBC report from Fallujah on the mutations - very distressing to say the least. I hope an independent inquiry is instigated right away.


Yes, an independent inquiry is seriously overdue. And not one where the findings are sealed away for 100 years.

----------


## fred

> I don't dispute the information you've just put regarding fuel rods, but something at the back of my mind tells me we've got something wrong here somewhere regarding which U's make up DU.
> 
> AFAIK U-238 is the main ingredient of DU, U-235  has virtually been removed and I cannot find where U-239 is mentioned as a part of DU.
> 
> A quick google reveals that U-239 has a half-life of only 20-odd minutes, mabe that's why it doesn't figure anywhere. I dunno.


That's plutonium-239 not uranium.

When they detected a speck of it too small to see on Sandside Beach they carted the entire beach away, that's how safe it is.

----------


## bekisman

> That's plutonium-239 not uranium.
> 
> When they detected a speck of it too small to see on Sandside Beach they carted the entire beach away, that's how safe it is.


Re Sandside Bay: 
"But both UKAEA and Sepa insist that there is no danger to the public from the particles. 
And Highland Council, which has a public access arrangement with Mr Minter, has no intention of closing the beach. 
A UKAEA spokesman said the that the particles being found are 100 times below the level which represents a risk to health."

----------


## Aaldtimer

Info on half lifes here:- http://hypertextbook.com/facts/JaniceChing.shtml 

Pu 239 ~ 240,000 years. ::

----------


## fred

> Re Sandside Bay: 
> "But both UKAEA and Sepa insist that there is no danger to the public from the particles. 
> And Highland Council, which has a public access arrangement with Mr Minter, has no intention of closing the beach. 
> A UKAEA spokesman said the that the particles being found are 100 times below the level which represents a risk to health."


So a hundred of them would be a risk, a thousand ten times the risk.

Wonder just how many particles would have been in those thousands of tons of DU we threw at Iraq.

----------


## northener

> So a hundred of them would be a risk, a thousand ten times the risk.
> 
> Wonder just how many particles would have been in those thousands of tons of DU we threw at Iraq.


This is where the problem lies.

DU is made up from U-234, massively reduced levels of U-235 and U-238...no mention of U-239 or Pu-239.

----------


## fred

> This is where the problem lies.
> 
> DU is made up from U-234, massively reduced levels of U-235 and U-238...no mention of U-239 or Pu-239.


They might not put it on the list of ingredients but the American government has admitted plutonium is there.

----------


## bekisman

> That's plutonium-239 not uranium.
> 
> When they detected a speck of it too small to see on Sandside Beach they carted the entire beach away, that's how safe it is.


Come on Fred 'entire beach away' no, I'm pretty sure it's still there - I went past at 3.15 today and I can categorically state I could see it..

----------


## Bruce_H

*Newsflash* - War is bad, that's why you don't want one.

Bruce H

----------


## fred

> Come on Fred 'entire beach away' no, I'm pretty sure it's still there - I went past at 3.15 today and I can categorically state I could see it..


I think they put it back again when they'd finished with it.

----------


## Anfield

Thank you to all the posters  who contributed to the technical debate on the chemical make up of modern day weapons.

I am sure that all the Iraqi people who were affected by birth defects,  will be delighted to know that they helped a few Org members further their knowledge of killing and maiming devices.

----------


## ducati

> Well now I'm wondering just why we haven't found hundreds of uses for this wonderful stuff in civilian life. I mean just look at the advantages, harder than steel, heavier than lead and cheap, the atomic reactor people will pay you a fortune to take the stuff away.
> 
> I'm wondering why we don't all have a DU hammer or a DU axe about the place, I'm wondering why it's only use is for firing at people we don't like.


Well you wouldn't want to fire it at people you do like-it's dangerous!

----------


## golach

> Thank you to all the posters who contributed to the technical debate on the chemical make up of modern day weapons.
> 
> I am sure that all the Iraqi people who were affected by birth defects, will be delighted to know that they helped a few Org members further their knowledge of killing and maiming devices.


Saddam killed more Iraqi's than any of the UN task force ever did, did we see you posting your propaganda here then...I think not  ::

----------


## northener

> Thank you to all the posters who contributed to the technical debate on the chemical make up of modern day weapons.
> 
> I am sure that all the Iraqi people who were affected by birth defects, will be delighted to know that they helped a few Org members further their knowledge of killing and maiming devices.


Well, I've learnt quite a bit about DU today, so I'm quite happy. ::

----------


## Anfield

I am really happy for you, so happy in fact I will listen to Dark Star

----------


## Stavro

> Saddam killed more Iraqi's than any of the UN task force ever did, did we see you posting your propaganda here then...I think not


Latest estimates of the number of Iraqi men, women, children and babies killed as a direct result of the illegal invasion of their country by the British and American regimes: over 1,366,350

It is you who are peddling propaganda, golach.

----------


## scotsboy

> I seem to remember a discussion we had, me and you, some years ago when I said that a dirty bomb would not be too devastating because it involved only a very small amount of uranium which would be dispersed over a large area by the explosion so the dose to each individual would be small and then only for a short period of time while the area was evacuated and buildings and people decontaminated. People seemed to be suggesting I was crazy for thinking such a thing.
> 
> Now we have a case where many tons of uranium have been fired at a city and people have been living with it for years and when I suggest it is the most likely cause of birth defects...


I disagree that Depleted Uranium is "nuclear waste". 

I disagree that Depleted Uranium is the most likely cause of birth defects (based on its radioactivity, it is much more chemically toxic, and we would be seeing significant kidney damage)

I agree that something is causing these birth defects...........but not depleted uranium.

----------


## The Drunken Duck

I have just been out for a run and bumped into a fellow jogger who is a junior Doctor, I was asking him about this issue and he also came to the same conclusion as Scotsboy, namely DU cannot be solely responsible for these defects, if at all. A factor maybe but certainly not solely responsible. I suggested what I have before, namely that if DU and weapons were responsible solely for these defects then why arent we seeing the same rates of defects in other areas that were more heavily bombarded ??

He raised some interesting points, and bear in mind he is a Doctor.

Baseline Data .. Where there are any records kept before 2003 of the rate of defects, the Iraqi's dont keep records now so unless they did before the Invasion for accurate comparison the claimed rate is basically a guess. And an unfair one. Why ?? .. see below. Plus why aren't more Doctors claiming what this one Paeditirician is ??

"13% above Normal" .. This claim relates to the rate of Birth Defects in Europe. Europe has a far lower rate of birth defects than Iraq or indeed most Middle Eastern countries because our calibre of Healthcare and Quality of Life is far higher. So its a basically a false comparison unles we know what the Birth Defect rate was before 2003. Which we dont.

Stress of War .. Living in a Warzone is a stressful place to be, is stress a factor here ??, maybe some female Orgers who have had children would be able to give an opinon on the physical effects of stress during pregnancy.

Insurgent Weapons .. Homemade explosives involve the use of chemicals. Plus there are captured examples of IED's made with mines that had chemical additions. Mines are illegal weapons by the way. What was being manafactured and with what on their own doorstep. Fallujah did have mobile Chem labs in the area in 1998.

Limited Gene Pool .. Birth defects are common in areas with limited population and when interbreeding of families occurs, he told me of an area of Ecuador that has a specific facial deformity common in most of their children because of this. Iraq does have such social backgrounds and as I pointed out before we dont know what the defect rate was before 2003 so maybe it was an issue before the Invasion. There are also far more instances of beastiality among Arab men than Westerners. Could be a factor, I once watched a Tornado recce pod clip of three Iraqi men taking turns on a donkey. I saw an advert for The Brooke donkey charity  a few months ago and now give them two quid a month now, poor Ey-Ore.

Its the Brits/Americans fault .. a common Iraqi complaint. Everything is someone elses fault. They werent happy under Saddam but did nothing about it except whinge. They werent happy that we kicked Saddam out and then didnt rebuild the place in a week, hand them a pot of cash and leave. They sit around in filth and squalor and complain despite doing diddly to help themselves. Even now they are killing each other over petty squabbles and still blaming us. The case of the Basra Badgers in 2007 is a prime example. Apparently we were setting specially bred man eating Badgers on them when in fact Iraq Authorities confirmed they were just Honey Badgers that had been in the area since 1986. So any excuse to blame anyone but themselves is seized upon.

----------


## fred

> I have just been out for a run and bumped into a fellow jogger who is a junior Doctor, I was asking him about this issue and he also came to the same conclusion as Scotsboy, namely DU cannot be solely responsible for these defects, if at all. A factor maybe but certainly not solely responsible. I suggested what I have before, namely that if DU and weapons were responsible solely for these defects then why arent we seeing the same rates of defects in other areas that were more heavily bombarded ??


Well now first of all I don't believe you about being out jogging and bumping into a doctor, I think you just wanted to add some authority to your bovine excrement without it being able to be verified.

Secondly, where was there more heavily bombarded than Fallujah? in retaliation for the killing of four American contractors America destroyed the city. 36,000 of the city's 50,000 homes were destroyed along with 60 schools and 65 Mosques.

----------


## fred

> I disagree that Depleted Uranium is "nuclear waste". 
> 
> I disagree that Depleted Uranium is the most likely cause of birth defects (based on its radioactivity, it is much more chemically toxic, and we would be seeing significant kidney damage)
> 
> I agree that something is causing these birth defects...........but not depleted uranium.


Well now let's look at the evidence. Depleted uranium, obtained from uranium after it has been processed to make fuel rods and also from spent fuel rods. The latter the American government has admitted is contaminated with highly radioactive particles like plutonium. This is a substance classed as hazardous waste in this country. When a shell hits it's target the uranium vaporises, turns to uranium and uranium oxide dust spread over a wide area, American servicemen are not allowed near without protective clothing. It gets into the air and it gets into the soil, it is known that uranium when ingested binds readily to DNA and there is a lot of evidence that uranium then acts as an amplifier for background radiation. It has been proved that DU dust induces mutations in the chromosomes of human lung cells.

Considering we threw hundreds of tons of this stuff at the Iraqis it would be surprising if there wasn't a huge increase in birth defects. What evidence is there it wasn't the cause? America says it wasn't but then doesn't America deny liability for everything until it is proved without any shadow of doubt? Didn't the American government flatly deny they had used white phosphorus on Fallujah until it was proved without any shadow of a doubt they had?

----------


## bekisman

Just read through this, certainly a possibility 
- bit long to reproduce here.

http://lamecherry.blogspot.com/2010/...d-history.html

----------


## fred

> Just read through this, certainly a possibility 
> - bit long to reproduce here.
> 
> http://lamecherry.blogspot.com/2010/...d-history.html


Who wrote it? What are their qualifications? I can quote respected sources for the things I wrote.

Looks like just another war monger in denial to me.

If a Muslim country had been lobbing DU at us and the number of babies born deformed had gone through the roof I'm sure as hell there wouldn't be any doubt in anyone's mind as to the cause.

----------


## Anfield

> Who wrote it? What are their qualifications? I can quote respected sources for the things I wrote.
> 
> Looks like just another war monger in denial to me.
> 
> If a Muslim country had been lobbing DU at us and the number of babies born deformed had gone through the roof I'm sure as hell there wouldn't be any doubt in anyone's mind as to the cause.


Come on Fred, you know that these people can never come up with reliable sources which can be checked.

----------


## Anfield

Gordon Brown this morning at Chilcott enquiry into illegal war in Iraq

"..I never agreed invade Iraq because of WMD,.. it was because of Iraqs  failure to adhere to UN resolutions.."

Were UN resolutions not based on the fact that they were mislead about WMD

----------


## fred

> Gordon Brown this morning at Chilcott enquiry into illegal war in Iraq
> 
> "..I never agreed invade Iraq because of WMD,.. it was because of Iraqs  failure to adhere to UN resolutions.."
> 
> Were UN resolutions not based on the fact that they were mislead about WMD


I do seem to remember Colin Powell telling the United Nations that there was absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, mobile chemical labs, links to Al Qaeda and had been trying to buy yellowcake from Niger.

----------


## The Drunken Duck

> Well now first of all I don't believe you about being out jogging and bumping into a doctor, I think you just wanted to add some authority to your bovine excrement without it being able to be verified.
> 
> Secondly, where was there more heavily bombarded than Fallujah? in retaliation for the killing of four American contractors America destroyed the city. 36,000 of the city's 50,000 homes were destroyed along with 60 schools and 65 Mosques.


Fred, The guy is actually a former neighbour and friend who moved house when he got married recently. I see him quite often on the route I run, the points he raised are valid ones which you convinently ignore because they dont suit your rants. But seeing as you and your fellow blinkered prejudiced know-it-all's are closed to any suggestion that doesnt fit in with your views I am not surprised at your attitude. And there are far more places that were hit by more ammunition than Fallujah that dont show such rates of birth defects. Massive areas of Kuwait for instance. Places like Highway 80 (aka The Highway to Hell) outside Basra that had more A-10 rounds fired at the retreating Iraqi Forces in 1991 than a lot of places put together. But pointing these out to you would do no good as you and your fellow arrogantly delusional disciples would not believe it anyway. You are going to think what you want regardless.

Its interesting that you resorted to insults by calling me a Liar. Then again getting a bit angry that your claims and arguments are being picked apart and taking it to a personal level is a sign of an insecure personality. You should work on that. I am all for a debate but you are not interested in one. You just want to preach from a position of other peoples opinions you screengrabbed and insult anyone who deems to challenge your views.

----------


## fred

> Fred, The guy is actually a former neighbour and friend who moved house when he got married recently. I see him quite often on the route I run, the points he raised are valid ones which you convinently ignore because they dont suit your rants.


No they aren't, they are exactly the same sort of bovine excrement you come out with.

----------


## The Drunken Duck

> No they aren't, they are exactly the same sort of bovine excrement you come out with.


Sorry Fred all I heard there was Wibble, take the boxers off your head, the pencils out of your nose and give it up. 

What really bothers you is that I have been out there and have first hand knowledge and you just recycle the bits that match your assumptions from what other people say on the Internet. A trained Doctor suggesting that comparing a claimed birth rate defect in one part of the world with a known defect rate in another part of the world from a baseline of no knowledge of what the rate was in the initial area in previous years makes perfect sense to me. Of course it doesnt make sense to you .. its logic.

By the way you cant upset or bother me so save your bandwidth.

----------


## golach

> bovine excrement


A new catchphrase fred? do try harder  ::

----------


## fred

> Come on Fred, you know that these people can never come up with reliable sources which can be checked.


Well so far we have an anonymous blogger and a doctor someone met while out jogging.

----------


## fred

> A new catchphrase fred? do try harder


He's talking absolute rubbish.

"Limited gene pool", Fallujah was a city of 600,000 people and under Saddam a secular society.

Whereas Caithness is a county with 25,000 people and five surnames.

Limited gene pool? Bovine excrement.

----------


## Anfield

Like Fred, I have my doubts about DrunkenDuck and his buzz words.

Another member pulled him up about his terminology and he then went absent for a few days.
Maybe, he is a fantasist, and soon he will be writing a book about his experiences on front line.

----------


## scotsboy

> Well now let's look at the evidence. Depleted uranium, obtained from uranium after it has been processed to make fuel rods and also from spent fuel rods. The latter the American government has admitted is contaminated with highly radioactive particles like plutonium. This is a substance classed as hazardous waste in this country. When a shell hits it's target the uranium vaporises, turns to uranium and uranium oxide dust spread over a wide area, American servicemen are not allowed near without protective clothing. It gets into the air and it gets into the soil, it is known that uranium when ingested binds readily to DNA and there is a lot of evidence that uranium then acts as an amplifier for background radiation. It has been proved that DU dust induces mutations in the chromosomes of human lung cells.
> 
> Considering we threw hundreds of tons of this stuff at the Iraqis it would be surprising if there wasn't a huge increase in birth defects. What evidence is there it wasn't the cause? America says it wasn't but then doesn't America deny liability for everything until it is proved without any shadow of doubt? Didn't the American government flatly deny they had used white phosphorus on Fallujah until it was proved without any shadow of a doubt they had?


Uranium is a naturally occurring element, it is ubiquitous in rock formations and seawater. When natural uranium is mined or extracted from seawater it has three main isotopes U-235 (0.7%), U-238(99.3%) and trace quantities of U-234. Enriched Uranium is any that has had the U-235 enhanced to above 0.9%. Depleted Uranium (DU) is not nuclear waste it may be a by-product of isotope separation but it is not waste. 
DU is used in munitions due to its high density and therefore enhanced penetrating power; it is also used in ships and aircraft for ballasting. It is also used in ceramics for pigments and glazes, and is used in dentistry. It is also widely used as an effective shield for gamma radiation, and is used for transport containers for industrial radiography sources etc. So it is not a waste.
There is significant information on the radiological effects of uranium, it is well understood. It is also known to be very toxix as it is a heavy metal  the toxicity effects on the kidney are well known and documented. The information Fred refers to regarding Uranium binding to the DNA is from studies done by Diane Stearnes at Northern Arizona University, but what Fred fails to pick up on is that this relates totally to the toxic effects of Depleted U and not its radioactivity, a direct quote from Professor Stearnes:


_Our discovery that uranium may damage DNA as a heavy metal means that we need to consider that uranium may be chronically harmful in ways that are not consistent with radioactivity.  Our results suggest that just because there is no measurable radiation this does not mean that there is no appreciable exposure or risk.  Uranium has long been known to be chemically toxic to kidney.  However, little has been done to investigate any potential link between uranium as a heavy metal and cancer.  Our study alone is not enough to establish uranium as a chemical carcinogen, but we think it raises the question and calls for more specific investigations._ 
 [Online at: http://www.heyokamagazine.com/HEYOKA...%20Stearns.htm ]


I once again state that I think something is causing the birth defects, but I do not think it is DU.

----------


## Stavro

> He raised some interesting points, and bear in mind he is a Doctor.
> 
> Baseline Data .. Where there are any records kept before 2003 of the rate of defects, the Iraqi's dont keep records now so unless they did before the Invasion for accurate comparison the claimed rate is basically a guess. And an unfair one. Why ?? .. see below. Plus why aren't more Doctors claiming what this one Paeditirician is ??


It would be unusual for a doctor to question the conclusions of a consultant that he has never met, since that would imply discredit on a fellow member of his profession. Doctors (and lawyers) stick together like super glue. Also, if he is indeed a junior doctor, then he must have served time in accident and emergency, from which he will be aware that he does not need tables and statistics in order to discern trends.





> "13% above Normal" .. This claim relates to the rate of Birth Defects in Europe. Europe has a far lower rate of birth defects than Iraq or indeed most Middle Eastern countries because our calibre of Healthcare and Quality of Life is far higher. So its a basically a false comparison unles we know what the Birth Defect rate was before 2003. Which we dont....


No way. Iraq was definitely not the backward place that it was portrayed to be. Neither is Iran. Afghanistan, yes, but not the Middle East. If they were short of medicines it is because the British and American military/banking regimes deliberately deprived them of such, but even then, I do not know what lack of medicines would have to do with serious birth defects. For a doctor to claim this would be a bit odd.





> Stress of War .. Living in a Warzone is a stressful place to be, is stress a factor here ??


According to you, a doctor is claiming that stress would be a factor in _severe birth defects_? Very stressful to be pregnant in Somalia or Eritrea, etc., where there is no prospect of being able to give the baby food or water when it is born, but they are not born with missing limbs, multiple heads, tumors, ...





> Insurgent Weapons .. Homemade explosives involve the use of chemicals. Plus there are captured examples of IED's made with mines that had chemical additions. Mines are illegal weapons by the way. What was being manafactured and with what on their own doorstep. Fallujah did have mobile Chem labs in the area in 1998.


Now I know that you are trying a fast one. "Insurgent weapons"?! Come off it.





> Limited Gene Pool .. Birth defects are common in areas with limited population and when interbreeding of families occurs, he told me ...


As Fred has already pointed out, this is utter nonsense.





> Its the Brits/Americans fault .. a common Iraqi complaint. Everything is someone elses fault. They werent happy under Saddam but did nothing about it except whinge. They werent happy that we kicked Saddam out and then didnt rebuild the place in a week, hand them a pot of cash and leave. They sit around in filth and squalor and complain despite doing diddly to help themselves. Even now they are killing each other over petty squabbles and still blaming us. The case of the Basra Badgers in 2007 is a prime example. Apparently we were setting specially bred man eating Badgers on them when in fact Iraq Authorities confirmed they were just Honey Badgers that had been in the area since 1986. So any excuse to blame anyone but themselves is seized upon.


Is this the "doctor's" viewpoint, or yours?

They have to "blame ... themselves," then? You must be kidding, right?  ::

----------


## fred

> The information Fred refers to regarding Uranium binding to the DNA is from studies done by Diane Stearnes at Northern Arizona University, but what Fred fails to pick up on is that this relates totally to the toxic effects of Depleted U and not its radioactivity, a direct quote from Professor Stearnes:


No it isn't.




> Chris Busby of the Institute of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science (IPNSS) in Braunschweig, Germany and University of Ulster, UK, and Ewald Schnug, Director of the IPNSS, claim in a new study that uranium atoms in the body could act as radiation antennas. They argue that uranium atoms could be capturing photons of background gamma radiation and then re-emitting their energy as fast-moving electrons that act on the surrounding tissue in the same way as beta radiation.

----------


## scotsboy

...........which has nothing to do with the "bonding to DNA" you quoted.........I see.

----------


## scotsboy

Again this ‘radiation antenna” hypothesis does not provide any solid evidence or even enhanced potential of such birth defects that are occurring in Fallujah being from DU exposure. What they are describing is basically the photoelectric effect, a well known interaction of radioactivity with matter (two of the other most significant being Compton Scattering and Pair Production).

It is also worth noting that DU is basically U-238 which is an alpha emitter, alpha being the most damaging decay mechanism inside the body, due to is high linear energy transfer (LET) being very effective at causing DNA double strand breaks............beta radiation is around one twentieth as effective.

----------


## scotsboy

> He's talking absolute rubbish.
> 
> "Limited gene pool", Fallujah was a city of 600,000 people and under Saddam a secular society.
> 
> Whereas Caithness is a county with 25,000 people and five surnames.
> 
> Limited gene pool? Bovine excrement.


Whilst I do not think it is the cause of the horrific defects seen in Fallujah. There are significant birth defects caused by inter-family marriage across the Middle East.

----------


## fred

> Whilst I do not think it is the cause of the horrific defects seen in Fallujah. There are significant birth defects caused by inter-family marriage across the Middle East.


Do you have any evidence to back that claim? Research has shown that birth defects are more linked to the wealth of a country and nutrition than it's customs. Plus the fact that in Western countries half the pregnancies involving birth defects are terminated. A March of Dimes Foundation study of 193 countries in 2000 showed the country with most birth defects was Sudan with 82 per 1000 births and the country with least was France with 39.7. Not a huge difference and mostly attributed to poor nutrition in pregnancy, Sudan being in the malaria belt and the far greater number of terminations in France.

And certainly it cannot even begin to explain what we are seeing in Fallujah.

----------


## fred

> Again this radiation antenna hypothesis does not provide any solid evidence or even enhanced potential of such birth defects that are occurring in Fallujah being from DU exposure. What they are describing is basically the photoelectric effect, a well known interaction of radioactivity with matter (two of the other most significant being Compton Scattering and Pair Production).
> 
> It is also worth noting that DU is basically U-238 which is an alpha emitter, alpha being the most damaging decay mechanism inside the body, due to is high linear energy transfer (LET) being very effective at causing DNA double strand breaks............beta radiation is around one twentieth as effective.


Solid evidence? Everywhere they have used depleted uranium there has been an increase in birth defects. When it hits it is transformed into particles a tenth of a micron across, when inhaled or ingested it remains in the body and binds to DNA. This is a substance classed as hazardous nuclear waste in this country and we threw hundreds of tons of it at Iraq. You still haven't addressed the fact that the American government has admitted that half the DU used is contaminated with highly radioactive particles such as plutonium and americium.

Shouldn't we just stop using these weapons now then start again if and only if they are proved to be safe instead of demanding "solid evidence" they aren't?

----------


## The Drunken Duck

Stavro .. you need to go back and read what I actually wrote.

1 .. The Doc (my former neighbour) made the point that to claim that birth defects are 13% higher than normal you have to start from a baseline of "normal", the Iraqi Authorities themselves admit that they keep no record of even current levels of birth defects. So how one earth can anyone claim that the current level is 13% higher than a level that was never ever defined ?? That is why the rate of European birth defects was chosen and is an unfair comparison. And to say you dont need graphs and statistics to define trends is ridiculous. A trend is a prediction of future expectations based on past stats in my experience. There is undoubtedly an abornally high instances of birth defects and that should be investigated instead of jumping to a convienent conclusion.

2 .. The doc I spoke to never claimed that "a lack of medicine" was a factor in these birth defects, he made a point relating to the fact that in 2003 and 2004 ALL aspects of medical care, not just available medicines, in that area was of a lower standard than in Europe. The same Europe that the birth defect rate was plucked from, mainly because no such data emerged from Iraq for a comparison as the authorities never recorded it. Also, even at the height of sanctions against Iraq medicines were never blockaded. The UN even allowed Iraq to sell Oil to buy medicines, Saddam refused. So instead of blaming the British and American military to suit your own agenda please go back and check the facts. 

3 .. Nowhere did I post that the Doctor was directly claiming that birth defects were down to stress as you claim, that was a point made by myself and never attributed in any way directly to him. I posted it simply as a point from myself to be considered. 

4 .. Me pulling a "fast one" by claiming "Insurgent Weapons" such as IED's made with mines (illegal at the the time too) were found with chemical additions ??, they were. End of. Saw the evidence myself. If you take issue with the term Insurgent as they were in their own country then fine. Names are irrelevant. Pick your favourite. 

5 .. So Fred says its utter nonsense that birth defects result form interbreeding. Right, is he a Geneticist on top of self appointed expert on everything too ??, the simple fact is that it does exist worldwide. 

6 .. The viewpoint on Iraq is mine, that was pretty obvious. Its based on what I have seen and heard with my own eyes and ears. You might be shocked to know that I dont agree with us being in Iraq or Afghan, on that we agree. Probably the only thing we agree on on this subject in fact. Or any other subject hopefully.

But this subject has gone as far as it can. Nothing to be gained from discussing it further as you have views entrenched in concrete. No point, its a waste of bandwidth talking to you, Anfield or Fred. You could be shown platinum laced evidence that you were wrong and you would still maintain your views. Plus your posting of the photo of a badly burnt child on the Afghan thread was indicative of someone best avoided. I have seen a lot worse than that in person for the record, you didnt shock me.

----------


## fred

> 5 .. So Fred says its utter nonsense that birth defects result form interbreeding. Right, is he a Geneticist on top of self appointed expert on everything too ??, the simple fact is that it does exist worldwide.


And your claims that the birth defects are down to Iraqi men having sex with donkeys?

You just posted to add insult to injury.

Here, take a look at these children, did their fathers have sex with donkeys too?

http://www.vfp143.org/lit/LIFE-%20Ti...289of11%29.pdf

----------


## The Drunken Duck

> And your claims that the birth defects are down to Iraqi men having sex with donkeys?
> 
> You just posted to add insult to injury.
> 
> Here, take a look at these children, did their fathers have sex with donkeys too?
> 
> http://www.vfp143.org/lit/LIFE-%20Ti...289of11%29.pdf


I dont know. I didn't know their fathers. I do love the way though you fixate on one point you can manipulate and ignore the ones that make sense. I never said that the birth defects were directly down to making it with Ey-Ore. But lets face it making it with livestock isn't healthy is it if they are also sleeping with women ??, I just pointed that there were Iraqi men who liked to line up behind a donkey and give it the good news captured on film. The clip we got was actually quite funny to watch once we speeded up the tape and added some Benny Hill music. I was appalled though, I mean they didnt even offer the donkey a ciggy afterwards.

I think we are all aware of what birth defects look like Fred. I watch the news. If you aimed to shock think again, I have seen much much worse in person. While I feel heart sorry for the kids involved, and I do, which is why I posted way back that the the proper care and treatment of them must be the first priority. Finding the cause secondary. But the way you and others who share your views use pictures of the misfortune of children to make your points is sick. 

I suggest you ignore me and I will return the compliment. Gladly.

----------


## Stavro

> There is undoubtedly an abornally high instances of birth defects and that should be investigated instead of jumping to a convienent conclusion.


Drunken Duck, it is not a "convenient" conclusion, it is an obvious conclusion. However we can both agree that this is abnormally high and that it should be investigated. The American government does not agree with you and I on this though - did you look at the pdf that Fred provided a link to? Did you see where the American government refuses to even discuss an investigation? "Official stonewalling," was the phrase used I think.





> The doc I spoke to never claimed that "a lack of medicine" was a factor in these birth defects, he made a point relating to the fact that in 2003 and 2004 ALL aspects of medical care, not just available medicines, in that area was of a lower standard than in Europe. ... Also, even at the height of sanctions against Iraq medicines were never blockaded. The UN even allowed Iraq to sell Oil to buy medicines, Saddam refused. So instead of blaming the British and American military to suit your own agenda please go back and check the facts.


Look at your own words: "_even allowed_ Iraq to sell oil to buy medicines." And you accuse others of having a view set in stone!

*Leslie Stahl (CBS Sixty Minutes                 interview, 11 May 1996):* “We                 have heard that a half a million children have died.  I                 mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima.  And,                 you know……………is the price worth it?” 

*Madeleine Albright (US Secretary                 of State):* “I think                 this is a very hard choice.  But the price, we think the                 price is worth it.” 





> Nowhere did I post that the Doctor was directly claiming that birth defects were down to stress as you claim, that was a point made by myself and never attributed in any way directly to him. I posted it simply as a point from myself to be considered.


Okay, fair enough.





> Me pulling a "fast one" by claiming "Insurgent Weapons" such as IED's made with mines (illegal at the the time too) were found with chemical additions ??, they were. End of. Saw the evidence myself.


What evidence did you see?





> So Fred says its utter nonsense that birth defects result form interbreeding. Right, is he a Geneticist on top of self appointed expert on everything too ??, the simple fact is that it does exist worldwide.


Drunken Duck, we are talking of a _very marked increase_ in _very serious birth defects_ since the Americans (and possibly the British, too, although they denied it) dropped large amounts of depleted uranium munitions on someone else's country. We are not talking of cretinism due to in-breeding.





> The viewpoint on Iraq is mine, that was pretty obvious. Its based on what I have seen and heard with my own eyes and ears. You might be shocked to know that I dont agree with us being in Iraq or Afghan, on that we agree. Probably the only thing we agree on on this subject in fact. Or any other subject hopefully.
> 
>     But this subject has gone as far as it can. Nothing to be gained from discussing it further as you have views entrenched in concrete. No point, its a waste of bandwidth talking to you, Anfield or Fred. You could be shown platinum laced evidence that you were wrong and you would still maintain your views. Plus your posting of the photo of a badly burnt child on the Afghan thread was indicative of someone best avoided. I have seen a lot worse than that in person for the record, you didnt shock me.


I was not trying to "shock" you, Drunken Duck. Someone had used the word "tripe" about the discussion on the killing and maiming of fellow human beings. My point was to illustrate that "tripe" was not a word that should have even entered anyone's head. If you are feigning indignation at the posting of a link (with a warning), then perhaps you ought not to have clicked the button. No one forced you to click the mouse button, just as no one forced you to take part in the illegal invasion of a soverign country thousands of miles away and of no threat to this land whatever.

----------


## Anfield

> Stavro .. you need to go back and read what I actually wrote.
> 
> 1 .. The Doc (my former neighbour) made the point that to claim that birth defects are 13% higher than normal you have to start from a baseline of "normal", the Iraqi Authorities themselves admit that they keep no record of even current levels of birth defects. So how one earth can anyone claim that the current level is 13% higher than a level that was never ever defined ??


I think you will find that claimed birth rate defects are 1300% (one thousand, three hundred % )  higher than normal,  and not 13%, this is a very big difference

I hope your Doctor friend is not a drug dispensing doctor,  because if he is, his employers  are going to have a lot of deaths and law suits on their hands.

----------


## Boozeburglar

> Saddam started it. Who was the worst?
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/3738368.stm


One of the dummest things I ever read on this forum; and that is quite an achievement.

----------


## golach

> One of the dummest things I ever read on this forum; and that is quite an achievement.


Thank you so much I take your bad rep as a compliment coming from you, but i am sure you can do better, keep trying  ::

----------


## Boozeburglar

You reduce a serious issue to the level of school ground 'tit for tat' mentality. 

You could have posted something considered when mentioning what you linked, but instead you use infantile reasoning.

Are you suggesting their fate was justified by the earlier actions of their leadership?

I am bad repping the post, not you as a person.

It was in my opinion a thoughtless thing to say.

----------


## Stavro

> You reduce a serious issue to the level of school ground 'tit for tat' mentality. 
> 
> You could have posted something considered when mentioning what you linked, but instead you use infantile reasoning.
> 
> Are you suggesting their fate was justified by the earlier actions of their leadership?
> 
> I am bad repping the post, not you as a person.
> 
> It was in my opinion a thoughtless thing to say.


For once I agree with you. Points made on such a serious subject ought to be backed up by at least some sort of reasoning.

----------


## scotsboy

> Do you have any evidence to back that claim? Research has shown that birth defects are more linked to the wealth of a country and nutrition than it's customs. Plus the fact that in Western countries half the pregnancies involving birth defects are terminated. A March of Dimes Foundation study of 193 countries in 2000 showed the country with most birth defects was Sudan with 82 per 1000 births and the country with least was France with 39.7. Not a huge difference and mostly attributed to poor nutrition in pregnancy, Sudan being in the malaria belt and the far greater number of terminations in France.
> 
> And certainly it cannot even begin to explain what we are seeing in Fallujah.


Not aware of the research that indicates birth defects are more lined with wealth of a society, but there is plenty of available peer reviewed data on birth defects in the Middle East and North Africa. I stress that the types of defects I am talking about are nothing like the type of thing that is occurring in Fallujah, a good summary paper is:

Newborn screening: Experiences in the Middle East and North Africa 
Journal Journal of Inherited Metabolic Disease 
Publisher Springer Netherlands 
ISSN 0141-8955 (Print) 1573-2665 (Online) 
Issue Volume 30, Number 4 / August, 2007 
Category Newborn Screening 
DOI 10.1007/s10545-007-0660-5 
Pages 482-489 
Subject Collection Medicine 
SpringerLink Date Thursday, August 16, 2007 

Available here: http://www.springerlink.com/content/e8q705471853m867/

The summary of which states:

_The population in the region is about 400 million, with high birth rate and an estimated 10 million newborns per year. The majority of the population is of the Islamic faith and mostly Arab. The population is characterized by a high consanguinity (2570%) and a high percentage of first-cousin marriages. Haemoglobin disorders, inherited metabolic disorders, neurogenetic disorders and birth defects are relatively common among the population. There is a rather slow progress in developing and implementing preventive genetic programmes owing to legal, cultural, political and financial issues. Although research spending is rather soft in the region, there are numerous pilot studies that highlighted the high incidence of genetic defects and the need for newborn screening programmes._

----------


## scotsboy

> Solid evidence? Everywhere they have used depleted uranium there has been an increase in birth defects. When it hits it is transformed into particles a tenth of a micron across, when inhaled or ingested it remains in the body and binds to DNA. This is a substance classed as hazardous nuclear waste in this country and we threw hundreds of tons of it at Iraq. You still haven't addressed the fact that the American government has admitted that half the DU used is contaminated with highly radioactive particles such as plutonium and americium.
> 
> Shouldn't we just stop using these weapons now then start again if and only if they are proved to be safe instead of demanding "solid evidence" they aren't?



The vast majority of what you have written above is unsubstantiated rubbish...........but I do agree with your conclusion that Depleted Uranium weapons should not be used.  I see no need for them, they are used for their high density, there are other materials (ok slightly less dense), but I am sure with a bit of engineering the same kinetic energy can be achieved. It is not as if they are a deterrent or anything is it.
It is wrong that the environment is contaminated and people receive enhanced radiation doses due to the use of this material.

----------


## fred

> The vast majority of what you have written above is unsubstantiated rubbish...........but I do agree with your conclusion that Depleted Uranium weapons should not be used.  I see no need for them, they are used for their high density, there are other materials (ok slightly less dense), but I am sure with a bit of engineering the same kinetic energy can be achieved. It is not as if they are a deterrent or anything is it.
> It is wrong that the environment is contaminated and people receive enhanced radiation doses due to the use of this material.


The US army acknowledges the dangers, they require anyone going within 25 meters of a DU contaminated area to wear protective clothing and respirators. Yet the US government says it is safe.

Which brings us to the question of legality. Under existing conventions the use of depleted uranium is undoubtedly a war crime, a crime against humanity. It is a poison, it is a carcinogenic, it pollutes the soil, it pollutes the water and it kills civilians indiscriminately.

These are chemical and biological weapons, the real weapons of mass destruction and we are the ones using them.

----------


## Stavro

> Which brings us to the question of legality. Under existing conventions the use of depleted uranium is undoubtedly a war crime, a crime against humanity. It is a poison, it is a carcinogenic, it pollutes the soil, it pollutes the water and it kills civilians indiscriminately.
> 
> These are chemical and biological weapons, the real weapons of mass destruction and we are the ones using them.


Agreed. The use of white phosphorus is also a war crime.

----------


## bekisman

> Agreed. The use of white phosphorus is also a war crime.


GENEVA  The international Red Cross said Tuesday that Israel has fired white phosphorus shells in its offensive in the Gaza Strip, but has no evidence to suggest the incendiary agent is being used improperly or illegally.
The comments came after a human rights organization accused the Jewish state of using white phosphorus, hich ignites when it strikes the skin and burns straight through or until it is cut off from oxygen. It can cause horrific injuries.
The International Committee of the Red Cross urged Israel to exercise "extreme caution" in using the incendiary agent, which is used to illuminate targets at night or create a smoke screen for day attacks, said Peter Herby, the head of the organization's mines-arms unit.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/13/israels-use-of-white-phos_n_157648.html

----------


## scotsboy

> The US army acknowledges the dangers, they require anyone going within 25 meters of a DU contaminated area to wear protective clothing and respirators. Yet the US government says it is safe.
> 
> *Which brings us to the question of legality. Under existing conventions the use of depleted uranium is undoubtedly a war crime, a crime against humanity. It is a poison, it is a carcinogenic, it pollutes the soil, it pollutes the water and it kills civilians indiscriminately.
> 
> These are chemical and biological weapons, the real weapons of mass destruction and we are the ones using them.*


Incorrect, this is taken directly from wikipedia, but it can be verifed if required:

_In 2001, Carla Del Ponte, then the chief prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, said that NATO's use of depleted uranium in former Yugoslavia could be investigated as a possible war crime.[35] Louise Arbour, Del Ponte's predecessor as chief prosecutor, had created a small, internal committee, made up of staff lawyers, to assess the allegation. Their findings, that were accepted and endorsed by Del Ponte,[36] concluded that:

There is no specific treaty ban on the use of DU projectiles. There is a developing scientific debate and concern expressed regarding the impact of the use of such projectiles and it is possible that, in future, there will be a consensus view in international legal circles that use of such projectiles violate general principles of the law applicable to use of weapons in armed conflict. No such consensus exists at present.[37]_

----------


## fred

> Incorrect, this is taken directly from wikipedia, but it can be verifed if required:
> 
> _In 2001, Carla Del Ponte, then the chief prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, said that NATO's use of depleted uranium in former Yugoslavia could be investigated as a possible war crime.[35] Louise Arbour, Del Ponte's predecessor as chief prosecutor, had created a small, internal committee, made up of staff lawyers, to assess the allegation. Their findings, that were accepted and endorsed by Del Ponte,[36] concluded that:
> 
> There is no specific treaty ban on the use of DU projectiles. There is a developing scientific debate and concern expressed regarding the impact of the use of such projectiles and it is possible that, in future, there will be a consensus view in international legal circles that use of such projectiles violate general principles of the law applicable to use of weapons in armed conflict. No such consensus exists at present.[37]_


I have no problems with wikipedia, a convenient source of information no more unreliable than most.

I know there are no specific treaties on DU, that is because it is relatively new and the countries that use it have power of veto at the Security Council. Because there have been no independent studies done, they all rely on data supplied by the Pentagon. Because the American and other governments continue to insist that DU is safe while blocking any research which might prove otherwise. America even doesn't decontaminate areas in case it is seen as an admission DU is toxic.

But under existing conventions, of which there are many including the Hague Conventions on use of poisons in warfare, I think the 1949 Geneva Convention Article 35 is quite specific:




> 3. It is prohibited to employ methods of means of warfare which are intended, or may be expected, to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment.


Or Article 55:




> 1. Care shall be taken in warfare to protect the natural environment against widespread, long-term and severe damage. This protection includes a prohibition of the use of methods or means of warfare which are intended or may be expected to cause such damage to the natural environment and thereby prejudice the health or survival of the population.

----------


## scotsboy

I agree Fred, which is why I dont think they should be used.........but I cannot see the radioactivity associated with DU being the cause of the genetic defects in Fallujah.

----------


## Anfield

TheDrunkenDuck, 
Thank you for your abusive PM's.  I will not reprint them, or report you,  as I believe everybody deserves a second chance.

I will however quote just one small part to show other Org members what contempt you hold for fellow human beings:


I know you are not alone in your thoughts, I am sure that every fighting force in the world from Government sponsored soldiers to  civilian freedom fighters have the same perverted logic.

----------


## bekisman

> TheDrunkenDuck, 
> Thank you for your abusive PM's. I will not reprint them, or report you, as I believe everybody deserves a second chance.I will however quote just one small part to show other Org members what contempt you hold for fellow human beings*:"..*_Not to worry though. I hit every Iraqi I meant to. I was pretty good that way. ."_ I know you are not alone in your thoughts, I am sure that every fighting force in the world from Government sponsored soldiers to civilian freedom fighters have the same perverted logic.


Oh dear - I got 12 infraction points for quoting a pm!..

I won't reproduce the ones you sent to me though (I learnt my lesson).

Me: 'same perverted logic' - nah, not me, no idea where you get this nonsense from, why not just take a deep breath, and relax... it's so much easier  :Wink:

----------


## Anfield

Bekiman
I think you will find that the only PM that I have ever sent to you,  was one requesting you to amend post no 313 on a different thread concerning Afghanistan.  The time of your edited post, in relation to the ones below it, shows quite clearly that you heeded my request to modify this post.

----------


## scotsboy

It would be remiss of me not to highlight a recent publication which provides succor to the position put forward by Fred. The document is published by the European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR), which may sound grand but it is in fact a  self-styled organization and has no formal links to any official bodies. If I can paraphrase Ron Brown the Principal Scientist at Defence Science & Technology Laboratory:
_After its initial publication the epidemiological studies cited by ECRR were investigated by thr Health Protection Agency (formerly National Radiological Protection Board) and the conclusions reached differed significantly from those found by ECRR. The methodologies used by ECRR to ascertain radiation risk from internal sources are not used by anyone else and not considered to have sound scientific basis. The information contains many misrepresentations of current scientific consensus, inconsistencies and unsubstantiated claims. The ECRR reports therefore provide no scientific basis for changing protection standards._

I would have just said it is mince.well its opinion, which is exactly what this is.

http://www.euradcom.org/publications...niumreport.pdf

----------


## fred

> It would be remiss of me not to highlight a recent publication which provides succor to the position put forward by Fred. The document is published by the European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR), which may sound grand but it is in fact a  self-styled organization and has no formal links to any official bodies. If I can paraphrase Ron Brown the Principal Scientist at Defence Science & Technology Laboratory:
> _After its initial publication the epidemiological studies cited by ECRR were investigated by thr Health Protection Agency (formerly National Radiological Protection Board) and the conclusions reached differed significantly from those found by ECRR. The methodologies used by ECRR to ascertain radiation risk from internal sources are not used by anyone else and not considered to have sound scientific basis. The information contains many misrepresentations of current scientific consensus, inconsistencies and unsubstantiated claims. The ECRR reports therefore provide no scientific basis for changing protection standards._
> 
> I would have just said it is mince.well its opinion, which is exactly what this is.
> 
> http://www.euradcom.org/publications...niumreport.pdf


Very nice strawman you have there scotsboy.

My problem is the former National Radiological Protection Board, in that the nation in question is one of the nations with a vested interest in not being held accountable for the effects of DU.

----------


## scotsboy

Yes, see your point. Here they are advising a school should be closed due to high radon concentrations (radon being progeny of Uranium).

http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Art...38746?UserKey=

Here is the same story as reported in The Sun (maybe they had Chris Busby as their Scientific Adviser) :Smile: 

http://www.thesun.co.uk/scotsol/home...-in-Moray.html

----------

