Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Depleted Uranium Contamination:


  • Please log in to reply
42 replies to this topic

#31    Karlis

Karlis

  • Member
  • 8,614 posts
  • Joined:19 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 03 April 2012 - 01:37 PM

If the following survey takes place, the published results should be of interest regarding the impact of Depleted Uranium on health.


Iraq congenital birth defect survey to begin in April
The  World Health Organisation and the Iraqi Ministry of Health are set to  begin work on a pilot assessment of congenital birth defects in six  Iraqi governorates.29 March 2012 - ICBUW A project to examine the rates of congenital birth defects such as heart and neurological problems is due to start next month.

Significant international concern has been generated over reports from  medical staff in cities such as Fallujah and Baghdad of spiralling rates  of congenital birth defects.

ICBUW welcomes this long overdue attention on these disturbing problems  but emphasised that the process must be as transparent and wide ranging  as possible to ensure that all environmental risk factors, including  contamination from depleted uranium munitions and other toxic remnants  of war are taken into account.
Source



Huge rise in birth defects in Falluja:
Iraqi former battle zone sees abnormal clusters of infant tumours and deformities:''

Doctors in Iraq's  war-ravaged enclave of Falluja are dealing with up to 15 times as many  chronic deformities in infants, compared to a year ago, and a spike in  early life cancers that may be linked to toxic materials left over from  the fighting.

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

The rise in frequency is stark from two admissions a fortnight a year  ago to two a day now. "Most are in the head and spinal cord, but there  are also many deficiencies in lower limbs," he said. "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."
Source


#32    socrates.junior

socrates.junior

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,183 posts
  • Joined:23 Mar 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

  • Nothing is worse than active ignorance. - Goethe

Posted 03 April 2012 - 03:17 PM

View PostRafterman, on 03 April 2012 - 01:00 PM, said:

Feel free to explain the differences.

Simple, it's the type of uranium they use as fuel for nuclear reactors. Pure uranium, with enriched 235U. But of course, you could've read that yourself...

Quote

Fine, you don't like that one.  Try this one:

So it's a toxic heavy metal? Sounds legit to me. Pretty long list of problems that DU has, so it seems.

I'll leave this right here. http://www.informati...article5749.htm

I love argument, I love debate. I don't expect anyone to just sit there and agree with me, that's not their job. -Margaret Thatcher

#33    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,373 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 04 April 2012 - 12:55 PM

Yes Rafterman, I am biased in favor of the truth.  Send me to Gitmo.

Your earlier post, pointing out that the toxicity of DU is not so much its low radioactivity, but rather its heavy metal status, was spot on.


#34    Rafterman

Rafterman

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,549 posts
  • Joined:27 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Upstate

Posted 04 April 2012 - 11:48 PM

View Postsocrates.junior, on 03 April 2012 - 03:17 PM, said:

Simple, it's the type of uranium they use as fuel for nuclear reactors. Pure uranium, with enriched 235U. But of course, you could've read that yourself...



So it's a toxic heavy metal? Sounds legit to me. Pretty long list of problems that DU has, so it seems.

I'll leave this right here. http://www.informati...article5749.htm

Regardless, DU is not dangerous due to its radioactivity.

That's exactly what we were saying, was it not?  DU is no more harmful than lead which has been used in munitions for centuries.

Sorry but I'll stick with the WHO vs the conspiracy site of the week.

Edited by Rafterman, 04 April 2012 - 11:53 PM.

"You can't have freedom of religion without having freedom from the religious beliefs of other people."

#35    Rafterman

Rafterman

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,549 posts
  • Joined:27 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Upstate

Posted 04 April 2012 - 11:50 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 04 April 2012 - 12:55 PM, said:

Yes Rafterman, I am biased in favor of the truth.  Send me to Gitmo.

Your earlier post, pointing out that the toxicity of DU is not so much its low radioactivity, but rather its heavy metal status, was spot on.

But it's the radioactivity that makes it the big boogie man, isn't it.

It's a heavy metal no different than lead which has been used in munitions for hundreds of years.

In other words, it's not a "crime against humanity" or a "weapon of mass destruction" as some claim and frankly it's only dangerous if you're on the receiving end of it.

Edited by Rafterman, 04 April 2012 - 11:54 PM.

"You can't have freedom of religion without having freedom from the religious beliefs of other people."

#36    socrates.junior

socrates.junior

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,183 posts
  • Joined:23 Mar 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

  • Nothing is worse than active ignorance. - Goethe

Posted 05 April 2012 - 03:19 AM

View PostRafterman, on 04 April 2012 - 11:48 PM, said:

Regardless, DU is not dangerous due to its radioactivity.

That's exactly what we were saying, was it not?  DU is no more harmful than lead which has been used in munitions for centuries.

Sorry but I'll stick with the WHO vs the conspiracy site of the week.

If you actually read the article (PS, it's becoming a bad habit, your lack of reading) you'd see that the person quoted was the top radiation and health expert employed by the WHO. So, yeah, by all means, stick with the WHO.

I love argument, I love debate. I don't expect anyone to just sit there and agree with me, that's not their job. -Margaret Thatcher

#37    Rafterman

Rafterman

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,549 posts
  • Joined:27 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Upstate

Posted 05 April 2012 - 11:09 AM

View Postsocrates.junior, on 05 April 2012 - 03:19 AM, said:

If you actually read the article (PS, it's becoming a bad habit, your lack of reading) you'd see that the person quoted was the top radiation and health expert employed by the WHO. So, yeah, by all means, stick with the WHO.

You do love your little barbs don't you.  You know what they say about folks who are quick to jump to the personal attack.

And, yes, I will stick with the WHO over an anonymous, agenda-driven clearly anti-war site that claims to give me the news that CNN and Fox won't.  Does nothing set off your skeptical radar?

As to the piece itself (which was read by the way), Baverstock is clearly an agenda driven academic (adjunct professor by the way).  One look at his website and writings would tell anyone that he would have a difficult time approaching the question without bias.  He also appears to support the original idea of the OP that DU contamination is carried on the wind to places like Asia and Europe (funny I thought prevailing winds only went one direction), which isn't the case.

But, please, keep trolling those conspiracy sites and sharing with us the information that "the mainstream media doesn't want us to know".

"You can't have freedom of religion without having freedom from the religious beliefs of other people."

#38    socrates.junior

socrates.junior

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,183 posts
  • Joined:23 Mar 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

  • Nothing is worse than active ignorance. - Goethe

Posted 05 April 2012 - 11:18 PM

View PostRafterman, on 05 April 2012 - 11:09 AM, said:

You do love your little barbs don't you.  You know what they say about folks who are quick to jump to the personal attack.

The only reason I'm doing it is because you're failing to recognize obvious points from any of the sources you use, or the articles posted. I don't know, you could be reading and ignoring them, but I can't judge that.

Quote

And, yes, I will stick with the WHO over an anonymous, agenda-driven clearly anti-war site that claims to give me the news that CNN and Fox won't.  Does nothing set off your skeptical radar?

Ah yes, CNN and Fox, the very essences of responsible and balanced journalism. BS. If anything, those two media outlets set off my skeptical radar.

Quote

As to the piece itself (which was read by the way), Baverstock is clearly an agenda driven academic (adjunct professor by the way).  One look at his website and writings would tell anyone that he would have a difficult time approaching the question without bias.  He also appears to support the original idea of the OP that DU contamination is carried on the wind to places like Asia and Europe (funny I thought prevailing winds only went one direction), which isn't the case.

So because you disagree with him, you dismiss him as an "agenda driven academic". Well God save us from those agenda driven academics, who are also the ones who actually understand the science behind this. Baverstock was the chief radiation and health adviser to the WHO for 11 years. I'm confused now, should we believe or disbelieve the WHO? Because you can't have your cake and eat it too. Otherwise the WHO both knows what it's talking about and doesn't...all at the same time. That sets off my skeptical radar.

I love argument, I love debate. I don't expect anyone to just sit there and agree with me, that's not their job. -Margaret Thatcher

#39    Rafterman

Rafterman

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,549 posts
  • Joined:27 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Upstate

Posted 05 April 2012 - 11:48 PM

View Postsocrates.junior, on 05 April 2012 - 11:18 PM, said:



So because you disagree with him, you dismiss him as an "agenda driven academic". Well God save us from those agenda driven academics, who are also the ones who actually understand the science behind this. Baverstock was the chief radiation and health adviser to the WHO for 11 years. I'm confused now, should we believe or disbelieve the WHO? Because you can't have your cake and eat it too. Otherwise the WHO both knows what it's talking about and doesn't...all at the same time. That sets off my skeptical radar.

I can only judge his work by what's on his site and his political blogs.  In doing so I'm convinced that he has a problem with bias.  

As to his role at the WHO, did you ever think there's a reason why he's no longer there?  Why is such a noted scientist with such a stellar academic and professional record an adjunct professor in Finland?  I would think that someone of his stature would be a chaired professor at MIT or CalTech.  Clearly his theories are not mainstream and his scholarship seems to be relegated to conspiracy sites - perhaps that should tell you something.

"You can't have freedom of religion without having freedom from the religious beliefs of other people."

#40    socrates.junior

socrates.junior

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,183 posts
  • Joined:23 Mar 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

  • Nothing is worse than active ignorance. - Goethe

Posted 06 April 2012 - 12:15 AM

View PostRafterman, on 05 April 2012 - 11:48 PM, said:

I can only judge his work by what's on his site and his political blogs.  In doing so I'm convinced that he has a problem with bias.  

As to his role at the WHO, did you ever think there's a reason why he's no longer there?  Why is such a noted scientist with such a stellar academic and professional record an adjunct professor in Finland?  I would think that someone of his stature would be a chaired professor at MIT or CalTech.  Clearly his theories are not mainstream and his scholarship seems to be relegated to conspiracy sites - perhaps that should tell you something.

Where does the bias come in? Is it because he disagrees with your view on DU?

Well, he was there for 11 years. That's a fairly long time. Doesn't mean anything though, at this point, I guess. But this really doesn't mean anything. Non-"mainstream" theories are what anything new in the scientific world started out as. If you care to point out any inaccuracies in his science, I'd be glad to hear it. Because that's the real point here, right?

I love argument, I love debate. I don't expect anyone to just sit there and agree with me, that's not their job. -Margaret Thatcher

#41    Rafterman

Rafterman

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,549 posts
  • Joined:27 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Upstate

Posted 08 April 2012 - 12:54 PM

View Postsocrates.junior, on 06 April 2012 - 12:15 AM, said:

Where does the bias come in? Is it because he disagrees with your view on DU?

Well, he was there for 11 years. That's a fairly long time. Doesn't mean anything though, at this point, I guess. But this really doesn't mean anything. Non-"mainstream" theories are what anything new in the scientific world started out as. If you care to point out any inaccuracies in his science, I'd be glad to hear it. Because that's the real point here, right?

Well since neither one of us are qualified to do that, it would be pointless wouldn't it.

Like you, I can only go by what I find in other research and since mainstream science doesn't seem to share his belief that a handful of battlefields in Iraq are contaminating half the planet with DU dust, then I'm comfortable in saying he doesn't know what he's talking about.

But like most in science, I'm always open for reevaluating should new evidence come forth.  I'm not so confident that the good doctor in question could say the same.

"You can't have freedom of religion without having freedom from the religious beliefs of other people."

#42    greywolf59

greywolf59

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 1 posts
  • Joined:12 Apr 2012

Posted 12 April 2012 - 07:13 PM

Hi this is my first post so please bear with me. I read a lot of what is being said here. I would like to give the prospective of a former Air Force vet who handled spent A-10 projectiles.

I was stationed at Davis Monthan AFB from Sept 1978 - 1982 A-10 were pretty new back then. Most of the time the Ammo used were training rounds marked with, I think it was a red band on the bullet itself. The DU rounds I believe had a blue band, though I may have it backwards after all these years. I wasn't uncommon back then for them to use DU round toward the end of training against hard targets so the pilots could get a visual of the reaction to the ammo. It also wasn't uncommon for troops to pick up expended projectiles and keep them as a prize when they were out on the firing range.

  I work on the flight line a lot and was present when a flight of A-10's returned from a training mission at the proving grounds. As one A-10 taxi'd in he has a misfire or I should say he fire a burst of several rounds that struck a hanger. I already had a couple of training rounds I had picked up off of the firing range when, I had been towing target out to be shot up.
So a couple of us wander over to the hanger and before they closed the area picked up a couple of projectiles. What I had not noticed at the time was the projectile didn't have the same color band as the first ones I had gathered. They were slightly damaged but not as bad as the ones from the firing range.
So before I tell you the next part, I must set it up by saying 1980 DU round were not commonly known to us troops, we were at awl of the A-10 but it weapons system was classified. So I never heard of DU rounds till long after I had left DMAFB.

So back to the story all of us troops who work in the area I worked in had a habit of taking these rounds and tying a twine around them and wearing them around our necks. I did this from 1980-1984 or 85 when I stored all of my uniforms and medals in a storage container. I had the rounds till 2003 when my shed was blown down and the box of my medals and those keep sake items were scattered around my back yard. They are there still, I am sure.

I just haven't spent a great deal of time looking for them.

They say in their articles about touching these projectile is not that dangerous. They also told soldiers for years that being around them is ok too. But although I can't prove it. I wonder if that is what made me so sick for all these years.

A quick run down I contracted lung disease in 1990 at age 31 and by 1992 was in and out of hospitals. most of the time by ambulance. by 1995 It was said to be Asthma and COPD.
I also started getting skin diseases such as rashes and psoriasis at the same time. By 2001 I had skin cancer and scars that suddenly appeared where I was not wounded.
By 2003 I had a second case of skin cancer and muscle and bone pain so severe that I was given permanent supply of pain killers.
By 2010 I was diagnosed with polyps and large amount of them in my colon. I had 7 colonoscopies that year to remove them at the VA hospital.
The VA  hospital operated in late 2011, when I was diagnosed with colon cancer. They went ahead and operated to take out 1 1/2 feet of colon my appendices and lymph-nodes and the valve of my small intestine.

Still I am not 100% cured.

Now I can't say all or any my problems were caused by DU exposure, but I can't say it wasn't either. The VA won't say either way, but keep treating me.
So can just skin exposure cause health problems, I don't have the answer,but I would not handle them again if I had the chance to do over. If I find them in my yard, where they have to be... I would probably call the VA or Air Force and let them send someone to get them.

22 years of health problems and just a few years of handling the DU rounds... It wasn't worth it.

Greywolf59


#43    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,373 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 13 April 2012 - 05:57 PM

Interesting story Greywolf.  Sadly it is almost typical these days, rather like the Gulfwar Syndrome.

Just like the men who were exposed to radiation during the early days of nuclear weapon testing, the government acts first, and thinks later, regarding the health of its various guinea pigs in uniform.  Then it spends large amounts of time and propaganda denying that anything is wrong.  Maybe 10 or 15 years go by before it admits to what happened.  Consider Agent Orange....





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users