PDA

View Full Version : Depleted Uranium


D_Raay
12-06-2004, 04:33 PM
Very graphic...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/12/1/05542/6088

Not a cheerful subject, but one that is neglected by the media.

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

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

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

Shortly after his return, his wife, Janice, became pregnant. On June 29, she gave birth to a baby girl, Victoria Claudette.

Diaries :: Avila's diary ::

The baby was missing three fingers and most of her right hand.

Matthew and his wife believe Victoria's shocking deformity has something to do with her father's illness and the war - especially since there is no history of birth defects in either of their families.

They have seen photos of Iraqi babies born with deformities that are eerily similar.

In June, Matthew contacted the Daily News and asked us to arrange independent laboratory screening for his urine. This was after The News had reported that four of seven soldiers from another National Guard unit, the 442nd Military Police, had tested positive for depleted uranium (DU).

The independent test of Matthew's urine found him positive for DU - low-level radioactive waste produced in nuclear plants during the enrichment of natural uranium.

Because it is twice as heavy as lead, DU has been used by the Pentagon since the Persian Gulf War in certain types of "tank-buster" shells, as well as for armor-plating in Abrams tanks.

Exposure to radioactivity has been associated in some studies with birth defects in the children of exposed parents.

DEPLETED URANIUM

WHAT IT IS:
Depleted uranium is a highly dense, toxic and radioactive metal that is the byproduct of the process during which fissionable uranium used to make nuclear bombs and reactor fuel is separated from natural uranium. The U.S. uses it for bullets and shells.

WHAT IT DOES:
Depleted uranium contains the highly toxic U-238 isotope, which has a radioactive half-life of about 4.5 billion years. As U-238 breaks down, an ongoing process, it creates protactinium-234, which radiates potent beta particles that may cause cancer as well as mutations in body cells that could lead to birth defects.

A February, 2004, U.K. Pension Appeal Tribunal Service decision in Edinburgh implicated depleted uranium directly in the birth defects of children fathered by Gulf War veteran Kenny Duncan, of Clackmannan, U.K.

The incidence of birth defects are skyrocketing after having laid dormant for several years. Congenital malformations in Basrah's civilian population soared 600% in 2000 from just-above-baseline levels in 1997. Very frightening similar incidence rate patterns have been observed in U.K. and U.S. troops. We have no idea how much damage has already been done, and we have no idea when it will end.

HOW IT SPREADS:
When a depleted uranium round hits a hard target, as much as 70 percent of the projectile can burn on impact, creating a firestorm of depleted uranium particles. The toxic residue of this firestorm is an extremely fine insoluble uranium dust that can be spread by the wind, inhaled and absorbed into the human body and absorbed by plants and animals, becoming part of the food chain. Once in the soil, it can pollute the environment and create up to a hundredfold increase in uranium levels in ground water, according to the U.N. Environmental Program.
---
At the bottom of the page from the link I provided there is a short video on this. Warning though extremely graphic and disturbing.
http://www.ericblumrich.com/pl_lo.html

GreenEarthAl
12-06-2004, 05:22 PM
If you'd like, I can commission another study that says the results are inconclusive.

When are you people going to wake up and accept that the results are inconclusive. No matter how many real world examples you can point to, it doesn't change the fact that Pentagon funded reports show that the results are INCONCLUSIVE. Ergo, you may NOT conclude that there's anything wrong with using uranium based munitions.

It also makes a fine sandwhich spread.

Echewta
12-06-2004, 06:19 PM
As long as its not on our shores.

ASsman
12-06-2004, 06:20 PM
If you'd like, I can commission another study that says the results are inconclusive.

When are you people going to wake up and accept that the results are inconclusive. No matter how many real world examples you can point to, it doesn't change the fact that Pentagon funded reports show that the results are INCONCLUSIVE. Ergo, you may NOT conclude that there's anything wrong with using uranium based munitions.

It also makes a fine sandwhich spread.

Hmmmm, sarcasm I dare say.

Jasonik
12-06-2004, 07:14 PM
The isotopic composition of an element makes no substantial difference to its chemical properties but may influence its radiological properties though modification of its specific activity. Since 235U and 234U have higher specific activities than 238U, the radiological toxicity of DU is expected to be lower than that of natural uranium by about 40%.


This and other perspicuous facts (http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/DU-Radiological-Toxicity-WHO5nov01.htm).

D_Raay
12-06-2004, 11:53 PM
All well and good, but can you just explain the massive spikes in birth defects?
Not to mention the very nature of said effects?

i'mcrafty
12-06-2004, 11:56 PM
wow depressing pics and with that i go nigh-night

D_Raay
12-07-2004, 12:05 AM
Ergo, you may NOT conclude that there's anything wrong with using uranium based munitions.
Are you being sarcastic? If not then whether they can be deemed 100% accurate is a fact that remains to be seen I guess. What comes to mind for me is the current flurry of new drugs on the market. They may do this.. they may do that.. some serious side effects MAY occur... OOOOOOOOPPPPPSSSS fucking Vioxx....
During dinner tonight I saw 3 different drug ads on a major network all with announcements that they may have serious side effects for different types of people, and people should consult their doctor before using. Are you fucking kidding me?!! How about not making, for the most part unnecessary, drugs that may kill someone if their doctor happens to mis-diagnose them? And this after all the news coming out that the FDA may not be doing it's job correctly.

Just more American self-deluded BULLSHIT. It's to be expected I guess.

So forgive me if I take things like a substance we use in ammunition and shells that MAY be causing horrific birth defects seriously.

GreenEarthAl
12-07-2004, 08:40 AM
Yeah but we don't have to worry about it yet because the results are inconclusive.

Just like we don't have to worry about the greenhouse gases because the effects are not proven.

As was pointed out we don't have to worry about prescription drugs, they may cause side effects yes... BUT... they also might not. The purple pill might be right for you and it might not even cause side effects.

From the 1920s to the 1970s the gasoline industry spent millions convincing us that leaded gasoline may not be bad.

9 out of 10 doctors agreed that doctors couldn't agree on anything when it came to the risks associated with smoking.

My point is... start smoking.

D_Raay
12-07-2004, 12:32 PM
Ah phew, you WERE being sarcastic, almost thought you weren't you GEA.