America's Use of Radiological Weapons

[mhgaffney]

America's Use of Radiological Weapons

by
Mark H. Gaffney

More and more frequently, one hears the charge that America's use of depleted uranium (DU) weapons in Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia was a war crime. In 2004, for example, a tribunal in Japan convicted George W. Bush in absentia for crimes against humanity. Is America headed for a showdown with the world over depleted uranium?

For my full report go to

http://www.rense.com/general77/radiol.htm

[mhgaffney]

After I posted the above article I heard from an Afghani who sent me photos of Afghani babies -- with birth defects -- taken after the US invasion. The photos are similar to those taken in Basra -- and they must be seen to be believed.

Warning. These are not for the squeamish.

http://www.afghanistanafterdemocracy.com/page11.html

If this is what democracy brings, the Afghanis would be better off under the Taliban -- or Attila.

[TheDave]

Brought to you by the guy who thinks Uranium decays into iron...:thumbs:

[TheDave]

and that Bush used "mini-nukes" on 9/11...:thumbs:

[TheDave]

...and that Bush will cancel the '08 elections...:thumbs:

[W*GS]

More self-congratulatory masturbation on gaffney's part...

[TheDave]

...And that the MOB killed JFK...:thumbs:

[TheDave]

...AND that Abraham Lincoln was a claravoyant...:Thumbs:

[TheDave]

...AND that we will bomb Iran last April...:thumbs:

[mhgaffney]

Here's a response by a man who read the paper:

Dear Sir;

Your 23 page article (yes I down loaded it) on this subject must truly be the most defining and comprehensive one on this issue that I have ever read! And, certainly, anyone who would aspire to an opinion on the subject would, at the very least, have to read your excellent article for credibility. I have always thought DU to be pretty nasty stuff, but, I had no idea of how nasty it was, nor of all the related peripheral information you provided. Great job. I hope you don't receive any anonymous threats, but, if your article were to become more popularly known, the wealthy mad men that are running our country and the world into the ground, would deem you a subvervise (to their plans anyway).

I have just finished watching the DVD "What a way to go", and I can only shake my head, as not only does mankind face an eminent Malthusian fate with Peak Oil, but, also a nuclear one with DU. I have just retired and today (24th) is my 62nd birthday, but, there can be nothing happy about it, as I watch the world go to hell and extinction.

Thanks for the Great article, good luck, and be safe

[Rohirrim]

Abraham Lincoln wasn't clairvoyant?

[mhgaffney]

Here's what a Viet Nam veteran thought about it:

Dear Mark,
I have been following the depleted uranium problem for many years and your article puts all the facts on the table. This gestapo government has done everything in their power to keep the DU problem hidden. But it has not worked. Thanks to people like you. And (www.netctr.com) and (www.iraq-war.ru/) who have been on this problem for years. The Vietnam Veterans Against the War (vvaw@vvaw.org) contact point Ward Reily have been advising returning veterans on this problem for years. I am pleased to see the lid come off this coverup. Our gestapo government makes Hitler look like a nice guy. The true terrorists are right here. I hope enough people wake up to this fact before it's to late. Thank you again Mark. Norman Davis, Vietnam vet.

[mhgaffney]

This guy wrote from Berlin:

Dear Mr Gaffney,

I have just read your most excellent depleted uranium essay and wish to compliment you
for an exceptionally well-written and comprehensively researched and referenced piece of writing.
I have already forwarded this essay to several people and will further send
it to any and everyone I can think of.

On the ever so slight off-chance that there really is a God somewhere (or Gods),
that could actually give a **** about not only humanity but this planet itself,
may He, She, It, They have pity on our mortal souls.

To paraphrase a guy who may or may not have existed in a historical context,
"Forgive them Father for they know not what they do."

Unfortunately though, forgiveness based on not knowing what we do just isn't on the
agenda, is it? Because we know damned-well what we do.

Thanks for this essay.

Will have a look at your website.

Peace and warmest regards,

R. Schramm in Berlin

[W*GS]

Here's a PM I got:

"You hit the nail on the head. Gaffney is a ****ing moron".

I must be right, then, because someone else out there agreed with me, and their response was completely unprompted and not made up by me in any way, shape or form.

[defenseman]

Okay, this BS has got to stop. Ghaffboy is stirring the pot and I bet you a dime to a dollar he cannot answer the following questions with respect to depleted uranium:

1) Where does it come from?
2) ARE unexpended rounds a safety hazard?
3) What are the contact rad levels of an unexpended round?
4) What forms of radiation are emitted from DU and are they lethal long term , considering both external and internal exposure?
5) What methods are employed to 'shield' soldiers from unexpended rounds and is it really required?
6) Who gets more radiation on a daily basis than a soldier stationed in iraq, a soldier who is carrying unexpended rounds with him as he walks around?
7) What's the "primary" source of radiation from DU? Is this source mitigated for the soldier? Any other sources of radiation from DU? What are their comparative levels wrt the average adult walking around in the good ole US of A.?

ANSWERS PLEASE, Ghaffboy!!!!!!!
Lots more where this came from. I've operated nuclear reactors for many years and I'm quite aware of the affects of all types of radiation , both internal and external exposure. Ok ghaff, answer the questions and sell me on expended uranium risk ....I'll be waiting....dman

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Okay, this BS has got to stop. Ghaffboy is stirring the pot and I bet you a dime to a dollar he cannot answer the following questions with respect to depleted uranium:

1) Where does it come from?
2) ARE unexpended rounds a safety hazard?
3) What are the contact rad levels of an unexpended round?
4) What forms of radiation are emitted from DU and are they lethal long term , considering both external and internal exposure?
5) What methods are employed to 'shield' soldiers from unexpended rounds and is it really required?
6) Who gets more radiation on a daily basis than a soldier stationed in iraq, a soldier who is carrying unexpended rounds with him as he walks around?
7) What's the "primary" source of radiation from DU? Is this source mitigated for the soldier? Any other sources of radiation from DU? What are their comparative levels wrt the average adult walking around in the good ole US of A.?

ANSWERS PLEASE, Ghaffboy!!!!!!!
Lots more where this came from. I've operated nuclear reactors for many years and I'm quite aware of the affects of all types of radiation , both internal and external exposure. Ok ghaff, answer the questions and sell me on expended uranium risk ....I'll be waiting....dman

:oyvey:

Sounds like the sort of spin job/sales pitch you would get from the merchants who peddle these DU munitions.

That is, the same kind of snow job you get from the tobacco companies that try to minimize the dangers of their "product."

In fact, have you ever noticed how the average right-winger's position on just about any issue reads like it was scripted by the special interests to whom the GOP politicians he supports are beholden?

[Hotrod]

Gaff is still peddling bull**** I see

[defenseman]

:oyvey:

Sounds like the sort of spin job/sales pitch you would get from the merchants who peddle these DU munitions.

That is, the same kind of snow job you get from the tobacco companies that try to minimize the dangers of their "product."

In fact, have you ever noticed how the average right-winger's position on just about any issue reads like it was scripted by the special interests to whom the GOP politicians he supports are beholden?

SINCE, you've taken up a position in support of ghaffboy, ANSWER THE QUESTIONS smart guy?!!!!!!!!!!! If you can, then support the claim you endorse....dman

*Looks like to me, you've attempted to spin, JUST BECAUSE it's not what you believe. Answer the questions, get some facts to support, then come back when you believe you have a leg to stand on. Until then, butt out...Ghaff can attempt to support this garbage, he doesn't need mommy to cover his back.

[Bronco Bob]

Okay, this BS has got to stop. Ghaffboy is stirring the pot and I bet you a dime to a dollar he cannot answer the following questions with respect to depleted uranium:

1) Where does it come from?
2) ARE unexpended rounds a safety hazard?
3) What are the contact rad levels of an unexpended round?
4) What forms of radiation are emitted from DU and are they lethal long term , considering both external and internal exposure?
5) What methods are employed to 'shield' soldiers from unexpended rounds and is it really required?
6) Who gets more radiation on a daily basis than a soldier stationed in iraq, a soldier who is carrying unexpended rounds with him as he walks around?
7) What's the "primary" source of radiation from DU? Is this source mitigated for the soldier? Any other sources of radiation from DU? What are their comparative levels wrt the average adult walking around in the good ole US of A.?

ANSWERS PLEASE, Ghaffboy!!!!!!!
Lots more where this came from. I've operated nuclear reactors for many years and I'm quite aware of the affects of all types of radiation , both internal and external exposure. Ok ghaff, answer the questions and sell me on expended uranium risk ....I'll be waiting....dman

As many here know, I'm hardly a defender of Gaffney. But another problem
with depleted uranium in the environment besides its radioactivity is that
uranium is a heavy metal, like lead.
Most people are aware of the dangers of lead in the environment. Lead
has been well established to a cause of cancer, brain damage in children,
reduced fertility, miscarriages, and birth defects.
That's why lead is being phased out in solder for electronic equipment and
is no longer used in plumbing, paint, or as a gasoline additive. (Many of the
recalled Chinese imports were recalled because they had lead paint on them.)
Research has shown that uranium has the same kinds of toxic effects in humans as lead.
In fact the chemical toxicity of uranium is greater than its radiological toxicity.

[defenseman]

As many here know, I'm hardly a defender of Gaffney. But another problem
with depleted uranium in the environment besides its radioactivity is that
uranium is a heavy metal, like lead.
Most people are aware of the dangers of lead in the environment. Lead
has been well established to a cause of cancer, brain damage in children,
reduced fertility, miscarriages, and birth defects.
That's why lead is being phased out in solder for electronic equipment and
is no longer used in plumbing, paint, or as a gasoline additive. (Many of the
recalled Chinese imports were recalled because they had lead paint on them.)
Research has shown that uranium has the same kinds of toxic effects in humans as lead.
In fact the chemical toxicity of uranium is greater than its radiological toxicity.

Great. So, will DU cause child deformoties? Yes or no. And how does it accomplish this? Need an exact answer if in fact you do support the notion that it does cause deformities. I await your response................dman

[Bronco Bob]

Great. So, will DU cause child deformoties? Yes or no. And how does it accomplish this? Need an exact answer if in fact you do support the notion that it does cause deformities. I await your response................dman

I would guess the same way lead does. Lead is toxic because it mimics other biologically important metals such as calcium, iron and zinc. Lead is able to bind to and interact with the same proteins and molecules as these metals, but after displacement, those molecules function differently and fail to carry out the same reactions, such as in producing enzymes necessary for certain biological processes. So perhaps DU interferes with some sort of genetic markers that a developing fetus depends on, sort of like drugs such as thalidomide did.

[alkemical]

Well the military admitted to using DU in hawaii:

http://bigislandweekly.com/articles/2007/02/28/read/news/news02.txt

http://maluaina888.blogspot.com/

http://www.hawaiitribune-herald.com/articles/2007/08/21/local_news/local01.txt

http://www.protecthawaii.ws/

http://www.noduhawaii.com/index.html

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

SINCE, you've taken up a position in support of ghaffboy, ANSWER THE QUESTIONS smart guy?!!!!!!!!!!! If you can, then support the claim you endorse....dman

All you have done on this thread is ask questions.

You haven't actually countered any of the facts or claims in the article.

And you're busting my chops for not supporting my "claim?"

Too funny. :rofl:

Answer the questions, get some facts to support, then come back when you believe you have a leg to stand on.

Instead of this silly Q&A thing, why don't you post some facts that you believe would refute the contents of the article?

A point by point refutation would really impress me. :D

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/tom-bug-bombs.jpg

[W*GS]

All you have done on this thread is ask questions.

This from the guy who absolutely refuses to answer any.

Obviously, if there isn't a "bartcop" JPG that you can use, you're silent.

Why?

[Rigs11]

This from the guy who absolutely refuses to answer any.

Obviously, if there isn't a "bartcop" JPG that you can use, you're silent.

Why?

What a laugh. I've asked you on many a time to explain your everlasting support for the jews and you always chicken out.You're not only a republican posing as a libertarian, but you're also a hypocrite.

[Rigs11]

Following the first gulf war, scientists at the Basra hospital and university have monitored the incidence of leukaemias and other malignancies among children in the Basra area, and of congenital malformations in newborn children. The data for the period 1990–2001 show an incidence increase of 426% for general malignancies, 366% for leukemias and of over 600% for birth defects, with all series showing a roughly increasing pattern with time. These data, being the largest set of epidemiological data available for the Iraqi population, have received considerable attention; and since it reported a very large increase in those pathologies which are known or strongly suspected to be related to uranium poisoning, it has been natural to consider the possibility that such increase had indeed been caused by depleted uranium contamination. The connection, however, is far from being obvious or proven: first of all, there is a considerable delay (at least ten years) between the occurrence of contaminations and the peak of incidence of malformations and malignancies, which leads to speculative hypotheses about the process of accumulation of uranium in the human body; and secondarily, there could be other causes or concurrent causes, for example different kinds of pollution related or unrelated to the war (e.g. burning oil wells), or the 1990–2003 Iraq sanctions which led to a collapse of the Iraqi economy and in general to a dramatic impoverishment of the population with a sharp decrease of nutritional and hygienic conditions (which alone, however, cannot explain why the increase in congenital defects is the highest observed). In general, the prevailing scientific view on the matter [26],[27],[28] is that such data, and other scarce data available, do not conclusively prove a poisoning effect of depleted uranium; but that the possibility exists and cannot be ruled out either, and so a precautionary principle would suggest to suspend

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium#Ammunition

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You're not only a republican posing as a libertarian, but you're also a hypocrite.

Yep.

It's hard to believe W*GS isn't receiving some sort of kickback for all the time and energy he's put into deflecting criticism of BushCo and the GOP over the past seven years.

:D

[Atlas]

America's Use of Radiological Weapons

by
Mark H. Gaffney

More and more frequently, one hears the charge that America's use of depleted uranium (DU) weapons in Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia was a war crime. In 2004, for example, a tribunal in Japan convicted George W. Bush in absentia for crimes against humanity. Is America headed for a showdown with the world over depleted uranium?

For my full report go to

http://www.rense.com/general77/radiol.htm


This really isn't news. America has been using depleated uranium since before the first gulf war. The uranium shells are a very good weapon they cut through tanks' armour like butter and then bounce around inside of them making a very very painful death for anyone unlucky enough to be in there.

What's worse is that these tanks still litter the Iraq country side and they are still radioactive. Iraqi kids think they are cool to play in and Iraqi's spend hours and days trying to take these tanks apart for parts.

We are creating thousands of birth defects and early onset of cancer but again few people care and the people that doing are labled bleeding heart liberals.

[Atlas]

Reading these posts are amazing. Some of you people are idiots. I'll let you figure out which ones.

Not that any of you can read but here is one of a million articles you can find.

Iraqi cancers, birth defects blamed on U.S. depleted uranium

By LARRY JOHNSON
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER FOREIGN DESK EDITOR

SOUTHERN DEMILITARIZED ZONE, Iraq -- On the "Highway of Death," 11 miles north of the Kuwait border, a collection of tanks, armored personnel carriers and other military vehicles are rusting in the desert.

They also are radiating nuclear energy.


http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20021112/226Iraq08_cancerchildmom.jpg
Six-year-old Fatma Rakwan, being held by her mother at the Basra Hospital for Maternity and Children, was recently diagnosed with leukemia.
In 1991, the United States and its Persian Gulf War allies blasted the vehicles with armor-piercing shells made of depleted uranium -- the first time such weapons had been used in warfare -- as the Iraqis retreated from Kuwait. The devastating results gave the highway its name.

Today, nearly 12 years after the use of the super-tough weapons was credited with bringing the war to a swift conclusion, the battlefield remains a radioactive toxic wasteland -- and depleted uranium munitions remain a mystery.

Although the Pentagon has sent mixed signals about the effects of depleted uranium, Iraqi doctors believe that it is responsible for a significant increase in cancer and birth defects in the region. Many researchers outside Iraq, and several U.S. veterans organizations, agree; they also suspect depleted uranium of playing a role in Gulf War Syndrome, the still-unexplained malady that has plagued hundreds of thousands of Gulf War veterans.

Depleted uranium is a problem in other former war zones as well. Yesterday, U.N. experts said they found radioactive hot spots in Bosnia resulting from the use of depleted uranium during NATO air strikes in 1995.

With another war in Iraq perhaps imminent, scientists and others are concerned that the side effects of depleted uranium munitions -- still a major part of the U.S. arsenal -- will cause serious illnesses or deaths in a new generation of U.S. soldiers as well as Iraqis.


THE DANGERS

Depleted uranium, known as DU, is a highly dense metal that is the byproduct of the process during which fissionable uranium used to manufacture nuclear bombs and reactor fuel is separated from natural uranium. DU remains radioactive for about 4.5 billion years.

Uranium, a weakly radioactive element, occurs naturally in soil and water everywhere on Earth, but mainly in trace quantities. Humans ingest it daily in minute quantities.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20021112/226Iraq07_geigertanks.jpg
Dr. Khajak Vartaanian, a radiation expert, holds a Geiger counter next to a hole in an Iraqi tank destroyed by depleted uranium weapons in the Persian Gulf War in 1991. The shell holes show 1,000 times the normal background radiation level.
DU shell holes in the vehicles along the Highway of Death are 1,000 times more radioactive than background radiation, according to Geiger counter readings done for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer by Dr. Khajak Vartaanian, a nuclear medicine expert from the Iraq Department of Radiation Protection in Basra, and Col. Amal Kassim of the Iraqi navy.

The desert around the vehicles was 100 times more radioactive than background radiation; Basra, a city of 1 million people, some 125 miles away, registered only slightly above background radiation level.

But the radioactivity is only one concern about DU munitions.

A second, potentially more serious hazard is created when a DU round hits its target. As much as 70 percent of the projectile can burn up on impact, creating a firestorm of ceramic DU oxide particles. The residue of this firestorm is an extremely fine ceramic 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 lodged in the soil, the munitions can pollute the environment and create up to a hundredfold increase in uranium levels in ground water, according to the U.N. Environmental Program.

Studies show it can remain in human organs for years.

The U.S. Army acknowledges the hazards in a training manual, in which it requires that anyone who comes within 25 meters of any DU-contaminated equipment or terrain wear respiratory and skin protection, and states that "contamination will make food and water unsafe for consumption."

Just six months before the Gulf War, the Army released a report on DU predicting that large amounts of DU dust could be inhaled by soldiers and civilians during and after combat.

Infantry were identified as potentially receiving the highest exposures, and the expected health outcomes included cancers and kidney problems.

The report also warned that public knowledge of the health and environmental effects of depleted uranium could lead to efforts to ban DU munitions.

But today the Pentagon plays down the effects. Officials refer queries on DU munitions to the latest government report on the subject, last updated on Dec. 13, 2000, which said DU is "40 percent less radioactive than natural uranium."

The report also said, "Gulf War exposures to depleted uranium (DU) have not to date produced any observable adverse health effects attributable to DU's chemical toxicity or low-level radiation. . . ."

In response to written queries, the Defense Department said, "The U.S. Military Services use DU munitions because of DU's superior lethality against armor and other hard targets."

It said DU munitions are "war reserve munitions; that is, used for combat and not fired for training purposes," with the exception that DU munitions may be fired at sea for weapon calibration purposes.

In addition to Iraq and Bosnia, DU munitions were used in Kosovo and Serbia in 1999.


http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20021112/226Iraq08_cancerboys.jpg
Hamdin and his brother Amhid are receiving follow-up treatment after being treated successfully for leukemia two years ago at the Basra Hospital for Maternity and Children.
Also in 1999, a United Nations subcommission considered DU hazardous enough to call for an initiative banning its use worldwide. The initiative has remained in committee, blocked primarily by the United States, according to Karen Parker, a lawyer with the International Educational Development/Humanitarian Law Project, which has consultative status at the United Nations.

Parker, who first raised the DU issue in the United Nations in 1996, contends that DU "violates the existing law and customs of war."

She said there are four rules derived from all of humanitarian law regarding weapons:


Weapons may only be used in the legal field of battle, defined as legal military targets of the enemy in war. Weapons may not have an adverse effect off the legal field of battle.


Weapons can only be used for the duration of an armed conflict. A weapon that is used or continues to act after the war is over violates this criterion.


Weapons may not be unduly inhumane.


Weapons may not have an unduly negative effect on the natural environment.

"Depleted uranium fails all four of these rules," Parker said last week.

On Oct. 17, 2001, Rep. Cynthia McKinney, D-Ga., introduced a bill calling for "the suspension of the use, sale, development, production, testing, and export of depleted uranium munitions pending the outcome of certain studies of the health effects of such munitions. . . ."

More than a year later, the bill -- co-sponsored by Reps. Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico; Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis.; Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio; Barbara Lee, D-Ca.; and Jim McDermott, D-Wash. -- remains in committee awaiting comment from the Defense Department.


THE STUDIES

Gulf War veterans faced a wide array of potentially toxic materials during the war: smoke from oil and chemical fires, insecticides, pesticides, vaccinations and DU.

Of the 696,778 troops who served during the recognized conflict phase (1990-1991) of the Gulf War, at least 20,6861 have applied for VA medical benefits. As of May 2002, 159,238 veterans have been awarded service-connected disability by the Department of Veterans Affairs for health effects collectively known as the Gulf War Syndrome.


http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20021112/226Iraq08_cancerdeath.jpg
The woman in the foreground shares a room with four other cancer patients at the Saddam Teaching Hospital in Basra. The patient lying on the bed behind died earlier in the day on which this photograph was taken.
There have been many studies on Gulf War Syndrome over the years, as well as on possible long-term health hazards of DU munitions. Most have been inconclusive. But some researchers said the previous studies on DU, conducted by groups and agencies ranging from the World Health Organization to the Rand Corp. to the investigative arm of Congress, weren't looking in the right place -- at the effects of inhaled DU.

Dr. Asaf Durakovic, director of the private, non-profit Uranium Medical Research Centre in Canada and the United States, and center research associates Patricia Horan and Leonard Dietz, published a unique study in the August issue of Military Medicine medical journal.

The study is believed to be the first to look at inhaled DU among Gulf War veterans, using the ultrasensitive technique of thermal ionization mass spectrometry, which enabled them to easily distinguish between natural uranium and DU.

The study, which examined British, Canadian and U.S. veterans, all suffering typical Gulf War Syndrome ailments, found that, nine years after the war, 14 of 27 veterans studied had DU in their urine. DU also was found in the lung and bone of a deceased Gulf War veteran.

That no governmental study has been done on inhaled DU "amounts to a massive malpractice," Dietz said in an interview last week.


THE ACTIVIST

Dr. Doug Rokke was an Army health physicist assigned in 1991 to the command staff of the 12th Preventive Medicine Command and 3rd U.S. Army Medical Command headquarters. Rokke was recalled to active duty 20 years after serving in Vietnam, from his research job with the University of Illinois Physics Department, and sent to the Gulf to take charge of the DU cleanup operation.

Today, in poor health, he has become an outspoken opponent of the use of DU munitions.

"DU is the stuff of nightmares," said Rokke, who said he has reactive airway disease, neurological damage, cataracts and kidney problems, and receives a 40 percent disability payment from the government. He blames his health problems on exposure to DU.

Rokke and his primary team of about 100 performed their cleanup task without any specialized training or protective gear. Today, Rokke said, at least 30 members of the team are dead, and most of the others -- including Rokke -- have serious health problems.

Rokke said: "Verified adverse health effects from personal experience, physicians and from personal reports from individuals with known DU exposures include reactive airway disease, neurological abnormalities, kidney stones and chronic kidney pain, rashes, vision degradation and night vision losses, lymphoma, various forms of skin and organ cancer, neuropsychological disorders, uranium in semen, sexual dysfunction and birth defects in offspring.

"This whole thing is a crime against God and humanity."

Speaking from his home in Rantoul, Ill., where he works as a substitute high school science teacher, Rokke said, "When we went to the Gulf, we were all really healthy, and we got trashed."

Rokke, an Army Reserve major who describes himself as "a patriot to the right of Rush Limbaugh," said hearing the latest Pentagon statements on DU is especially frustrating now that another war against Iraq appears likely.

"Since 1991, numerous U.S. Department of Defense reports have said that the consequences of DU were unknown," Rokke said. "That is a lie. We warned them in 1991 after the Gulf War, but because of liability issues, they continue to ignore the problem." Rokke worked until 1996 for the military, developing DU training and management procedures. The procedures were ignored, he said.

"Their arrogance is beyond comprehension," he said. "We have spread radioactive waste all over the place and refused medical treatment to people . . . it's all arrogance.

"DU is a snapshot of technology gone crazy."


BIRTH DEFECTS IN IRAQ

At the Saddam Teaching Hospital in Basra, Dr. Jawad Al-Ali, a British-trained oncologist, displays, in four gaily colored photo albums, what he says are actual snapshots of the nightmares.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20021112/226Iraq08_cancerdeath.jpg
This picture is from one of four albums shown by Dr. Jawad Al-Ali that are filled with photos of deformed infants -- examples, he says, of the surge in birth defects in southern Iraq that he blames on depleted uranium.
The photos represent the surge in birth defects -- in 1989 there were 11 per 100,000 births; in 2001 there were 116 per 100,000 births -- that even before they heard about DU, had doctors in southern Iraq making comparisons to the birth defects that followed the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in WWII.

There were photos of infants born without brains, with their internal organs outside their bodies, without sexual organs, without spines, and the list of deformities went on and on. There also were photos of cancer patients.

Cancer has increased dramatically in southern Iraq. In 1988, 34 people died of cancer; in 1998, 450 died of cancer; in 2001 there were 603 cancer deaths.

On a tour of one ward of the hospital, doctors pointed out boys and girls who were suffering from leukemia. Most of the children die, the doctors said, because there are insufficient drugs available for their treatment.

There was one notable exception, a young boy whose family was able to buy the expensive drugs on the black market.

Al-Ali said it defies logic to absolve DU of blame when veterans of the Gulf War and of the fighting in the Balkans share common illnesses with children in southern Iraq.

"The cause of all of these cancers and deformities remains theoretical because we can't confirm the presence of uranium in tissue or urine with the equipment we have," said Al-Ali. "And because of the sanctions, we can't get the equipment we need."

[Atlas]

I have personally talked to a soldier over there that did radiological testing of these tanks. He said that the ones from 1991 are still radioactive and he had no doubt that they pose long term health consequences for the local populace.

[defenseman]

This from the guy who absolutely refuses to answer any.

Obviously, if there isn't a "bartcop" JPG that you can use, you're silent.

Why?

exactly...dman

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Two pages later, and dman has still yet to offer more than some silly Q&A by way of rebuttal of the original article.

Why?

[baja]

Abraham Lincoln wasn't clairvoyant?

Everyone is clairvoyant, they just don't know how to use the ability or even believe that they possess it.

[baja]

Two pages later, and dman has still yet to offer more than some silly Q&A by way of rebuttal of the original article.

Why?

Because he, like every other military man that eats at a mess hall, has been fed chemical laced food that keeps him unable to think out of the provided box.

[alkemical]

Everyone is clairvoyant, they just don't know how to use the ability or even believe that they possess it.

From my POV you have to find a way to 'use it'. Mine is the cards.

[W*GS]

What a laugh. I've asked you on many a time to explain your everlasting support for the jews and you always chicken out.

I've asked you why you hate Jews - but we all know it's the standard left-wing anti-Semitism rearing its ugly head, with a healthy dose of moral equivalency.

You're not only a republican posing as a libertarian, but you're also a hypocrite.

You're a left-winger posing as a human being.

[W*GS]

Yep.

It's hard to believe W*GS isn't receiving some sort of kickback for all the time and energy he's put into deflecting criticism of BushCo and the GOP over the past seven years.

Examples?

What "rewards" have you received for blowing Chavez?

[Bronco Bob]

I have personally talked to a soldier over there that did radiological testing of these tanks. He said that the ones from 1991 are still radioactive and he had no doubt that they pose long term health consequences for the local populace.

That's not surprising that they would still be radioactive.
Uranium238 has a half life of 4.5 billion years. So in 4.5
billion years half the uranium will still be in these tanks
and scattered about Iraq. (As a reference, the earth
itself is 4.5 billion years old)
But from a mammalian point of view the biggest danger from
uranium isn't it's radioactivity. Uranium is actually a rather
weak alpha particle emitter and skin or even a piece of paper
will block alpha particles. (An alpha particle is just an ionized
helium atom). The main problem is uranium is a heavy metal
like lead, and the same kinds of problems lead causes in regards
to being a toxin is the problems uranium causes.
That's what causes the cancers and the birth defects,
not the radioactivity.
Not saying uranium isn't a problem, but lay people seem to
be concentrating on the wrong problem with uranium,
the radioactivity instead of its chemical toxicity.

[Odysseus]

Reading these posts are amazing. Some of you people are idiots. I'll let you figure out which ones.

Not that any of you can read but here is one of a million articles you can find.

Iraqi cancers, birth defects blamed on U.S. depleted uranium

By LARRY JOHNSON
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER FOREIGN DESK EDITOR

SOUTHERN DEMILITARIZED ZONE, Iraq -- On the "Highway of Death," 11 miles north of the Kuwait border, a collection of tanks, armored personnel carriers and other military vehicles are rusting in the desert.

They also are radiating nuclear energy.


http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20021112/226Iraq08_cancerchildmom.jpg
Six-year-old Fatma Rakwan, being held by her mother at the Basra Hospital for Maternity and Children, was recently diagnosed with leukemia.
In 1991, the United States and its Persian Gulf War allies blasted the vehicles with armor-piercing shells made of depleted uranium -- the first time such weapons had been used in warfare -- as the Iraqis retreated from Kuwait. The devastating results gave the highway its name.

Today, nearly 12 years after the use of the super-tough weapons was credited with bringing the war to a swift conclusion, the battlefield remains a radioactive toxic wasteland -- and depleted uranium munitions remain a mystery.

Although the Pentagon has sent mixed signals about the effects of depleted uranium, Iraqi doctors believe that it is responsible for a significant increase in cancer and birth defects in the region. Many researchers outside Iraq, and several U.S. veterans organizations, agree; they also suspect depleted uranium of playing a role in Gulf War Syndrome, the still-unexplained malady that has plagued hundreds of thousands of Gulf War veterans.

Depleted uranium is a problem in other former war zones as well. Yesterday, U.N. experts said they found radioactive hot spots in Bosnia resulting from the use of depleted uranium during NATO air strikes in 1995.

With another war in Iraq perhaps imminent, scientists and others are concerned that the side effects of depleted uranium munitions -- still a major part of the U.S. arsenal -- will cause serious illnesses or deaths in a new generation of U.S. soldiers as well as Iraqis.


THE DANGERS

Depleted uranium, known as DU, is a highly dense metal that is the byproduct of the process during which fissionable uranium used to manufacture nuclear bombs and reactor fuel is separated from natural uranium. DU remains radioactive for about 4.5 billion years.

Uranium, a weakly radioactive element, occurs naturally in soil and water everywhere on Earth, but mainly in trace quantities. Humans ingest it daily in minute quantities.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20021112/226Iraq07_geigertanks.jpg
Dr. Khajak Vartaanian, a radiation expert, holds a Geiger counter next to a hole in an Iraqi tank destroyed by depleted uranium weapons in the Persian Gulf War in 1991. The shell holes show 1,000 times the normal background radiation level.
DU shell holes in the vehicles along the Highway of Death are 1,000 times more radioactive than background radiation, according to Geiger counter readings done for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer by Dr. Khajak Vartaanian, a nuclear medicine expert from the Iraq Department of Radiation Protection in Basra, and Col. Amal Kassim of the Iraqi navy.

The desert around the vehicles was 100 times more radioactive than background radiation; Basra, a city of 1 million people, some 125 miles away, registered only slightly above background radiation level.

But the radioactivity is only one concern about DU munitions.

A second, potentially more serious hazard is created when a DU round hits its target. As much as 70 percent of the projectile can burn up on impact, creating a firestorm of ceramic DU oxide particles. The residue of this firestorm is an extremely fine ceramic 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 lodged in the soil, the munitions can pollute the environment and create up to a hundredfold increase in uranium levels in ground water, according to the U.N. Environmental Program.

Studies show it can remain in human organs for years.

The U.S. Army acknowledges the hazards in a training manual, in which it requires that anyone who comes within 25 meters of any DU-contaminated equipment or terrain wear respiratory and skin protection, and states that "contamination will make food and water unsafe for consumption."

Just six months before the Gulf War, the Army released a report on DU predicting that large amounts of DU dust could be inhaled by soldiers and civilians during and after combat.

Infantry were identified as potentially receiving the highest exposures, and the expected health outcomes included cancers and kidney problems.

The report also warned that public knowledge of the health and environmental effects of depleted uranium could lead to efforts to ban DU munitions.

But today the Pentagon plays down the effects. Officials refer queries on DU munitions to the latest government report on the subject, last updated on Dec. 13, 2000, which said DU is "40 percent less radioactive than natural uranium."

The report also said, "Gulf War exposures to depleted uranium (DU) have not to date produced any observable adverse health effects attributable to DU's chemical toxicity or low-level radiation. . . ."

In response to written queries, the Defense Department said, "The U.S. Military Services use DU munitions because of DU's superior lethality against armor and other hard targets."

It said DU munitions are "war reserve munitions; that is, used for combat and not fired for training purposes," with the exception that DU munitions may be fired at sea for weapon calibration purposes.

In addition to Iraq and Bosnia, DU munitions were used in Kosovo and Serbia in 1999.


http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20021112/226Iraq08_cancerboys.jpg
Hamdin and his brother Amhid are receiving follow-up treatment after being treated successfully for leukemia two years ago at the Basra Hospital for Maternity and Children.
Also in 1999, a United Nations subcommission considered DU hazardous enough to call for an initiative banning its use worldwide. The initiative has remained in committee, blocked primarily by the United States, according to Karen Parker, a lawyer with the International Educational Development/Humanitarian Law Project, which has consultative status at the United Nations.

Parker, who first raised the DU issue in the United Nations in 1996, contends that DU "violates the existing law and customs of war."

She said there are four rules derived from all of humanitarian law regarding weapons:


Weapons may only be used in the legal field of battle, defined as legal military targets of the enemy in war. Weapons may not have an adverse effect off the legal field of battle.


Weapons can only be used for the duration of an armed conflict. A weapon that is used or continues to act after the war is over violates this criterion.


Weapons may not be unduly inhumane.


Weapons may not have an unduly negative effect on the natural environment.

"Depleted uranium fails all four of these rules," Parker said last week.

On Oct. 17, 2001, Rep. Cynthia McKinney, D-Ga., introduced a bill calling for "the suspension of the use, sale, development, production, testing, and export of depleted uranium munitions pending the outcome of certain studies of the health effects of such munitions. . . ."

More than a year later, the bill -- co-sponsored by Reps. Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico; Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis.; Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio; Barbara Lee, D-Ca.; and Jim McDermott, D-Wash. -- remains in committee awaiting comment from the Defense Department.


THE STUDIES

Gulf War veterans faced a wide array of potentially toxic materials during the war: smoke from oil and chemical fires, insecticides, pesticides, vaccinations and DU.

Of the 696,778 troops who served during the recognized conflict phase (1990-1991) of the Gulf War, at least 20,6861 have applied for VA medical benefits. As of May 2002, 159,238 veterans have been awarded service-connected disability by the Department of Veterans Affairs for health effects collectively known as the Gulf War Syndrome.


http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20021112/226Iraq08_cancerdeath.jpg
The woman in the foreground shares a room with four other cancer patients at the Saddam Teaching Hospital in Basra. The patient lying on the bed behind died earlier in the day on which this photograph was taken.
There have been many studies on Gulf War Syndrome over the years, as well as on possible long-term health hazards of DU munitions. Most have been inconclusive. But some researchers said the previous studies on DU, conducted by groups and agencies ranging from the World Health Organization to the Rand Corp. to the investigative arm of Congress, weren't looking in the right place -- at the effects of inhaled DU.

Dr. Asaf Durakovic, director of the private, non-profit Uranium Medical Research Centre in Canada and the United States, and center research associates Patricia Horan and Leonard Dietz, published a unique study in the August issue of Military Medicine medical journal.

The study is believed to be the first to look at inhaled DU among Gulf War veterans, using the ultrasensitive technique of thermal ionization mass spectrometry, which enabled them to easily distinguish between natural uranium and DU.

The study, which examined British, Canadian and U.S. veterans, all suffering typical Gulf War Syndrome ailments, found that, nine years after the war, 14 of 27 veterans studied had DU in their urine. DU also was found in the lung and bone of a deceased Gulf War veteran.

That no governmental study has been done on inhaled DU "amounts to a massive malpractice," Dietz said in an interview last week.


THE ACTIVIST

Dr. Doug Rokke was an Army health physicist assigned in 1991 to the command staff of the 12th Preventive Medicine Command and 3rd U.S. Army Medical Command headquarters. Rokke was recalled to active duty 20 years after serving in Vietnam, from his research job with the University of Illinois Physics Department, and sent to the Gulf to take charge of the DU cleanup operation.

Today, in poor health, he has become an outspoken opponent of the use of DU munitions.

"DU is the stuff of nightmares," said Rokke, who said he has reactive airway disease, neurological damage, cataracts and kidney problems, and receives a 40 percent disability payment from the government. He blames his health problems on exposure to DU.

Rokke and his primary team of about 100 performed their cleanup task without any specialized training or protective gear. Today, Rokke said, at least 30 members of the team are dead, and most of the others -- including Rokke -- have serious health problems.

Rokke said: "Verified adverse health effects from personal experience, physicians and from personal reports from individuals with known DU exposures include reactive airway disease, neurological abnormalities, kidney stones and chronic kidney pain, rashes, vision degradation and night vision losses, lymphoma, various forms of skin and organ cancer, neuropsychological disorders, uranium in semen, sexual dysfunction and birth defects in offspring.

"This whole thing is a crime against God and humanity."

Speaking from his home in Rantoul, Ill., where he works as a substitute high school science teacher, Rokke said, "When we went to the Gulf, we were all really healthy, and we got trashed."

Rokke, an Army Reserve major who describes himself as "a patriot to the right of Rush Limbaugh," said hearing the latest Pentagon statements on DU is especially frustrating now that another war against Iraq appears likely.

"Since 1991, numerous U.S. Department of Defense reports have said that the consequences of DU were unknown," Rokke said. "That is a lie. We warned them in 1991 after the Gulf War, but because of liability issues, they continue to ignore the problem." Rokke worked until 1996 for the military, developing DU training and management procedures. The procedures were ignored, he said.

"Their arrogance is beyond comprehension," he said. "We have spread radioactive waste all over the place and refused medical treatment to people . . . it's all arrogance.

"DU is a snapshot of technology gone crazy."


BIRTH DEFECTS IN IRAQ

At the Saddam Teaching Hospital in Basra, Dr. Jawad Al-Ali, a British-trained oncologist, displays, in four gaily colored photo albums, what he says are actual snapshots of the nightmares.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20021112/226Iraq08_cancerdeath.jpg
This picture is from one of four albums shown by Dr. Jawad Al-Ali that are filled with photos of deformed infants -- examples, he says, of the surge in birth defects in southern Iraq that he blames on depleted uranium.
The photos represent the surge in birth defects -- in 1989 there were 11 per 100,000 births; in 2001 there were 116 per 100,000 births -- that even before they heard about DU, had doctors in southern Iraq making comparisons to the birth defects that followed the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in WWII.

There were photos of infants born without brains, with their internal organs outside their bodies, without sexual organs, without spines, and the list of deformities went on and on. There also were photos of cancer patients.

Cancer has increased dramatically in southern Iraq. In 1988, 34 people died of cancer; in 1998, 450 died of cancer; in 2001 there were 603 cancer deaths.

On a tour of one ward of the hospital, doctors pointed out boys and girls who were suffering from leukemia. Most of the children die, the doctors said, because there are insufficient drugs available for their treatment.

There was one notable exception, a young boy whose family was able to buy the expensive drugs on the black market.

Al-Ali said it defies logic to absolve DU of blame when veterans of the Gulf War and of the fighting in the Balkans share common illnesses with children in southern Iraq.

"The cause of all of these cancers and deformities remains theoretical because we can't confirm the presence of uranium in tissue or urine with the equipment we have," said Al-Ali. "And because of the sanctions, we can't get the equipment we need."

What he said.

[W*GS]

Not saying uranium isn't a problem, but lay people seem to be concentrating on the wrong problem with uranium, the radioactivity instead of its chemical toxicity.

Exactly. Uranium is much more dangerous chemically than radiologically.

But "radioactive" and "radiation" are hot-button words, so they get used.

[TailgateNut]

I can't wait to hear Dman's response to the above article. I would assume he has always lived in the "perfect" nuclear world, where all is contained and controlled, whereas the Iraquis are facing the total opposite!

[baja]

Dman will say acceptable collateral damage.

[Rigs11]

I've asked you why you hate Jews - but we all know it's the standard left-wing anti-Semitism rearing its ugly head, with a healthy dose of moral equivalency.



You're a left-winger posing as a human being.

What a crock, I asked you a question and you replied with one.And you would fit in nicely with the righties, whenever anyone questions our government's actions you immediately start labeling them as 'hating'. i don't hate the jews by any means, but I do question our government's complete support on their every decision, even ones that don't make sense. I also question if that support does more to create enemies towards us. THINK! It's patriotic.

[TailgateNut]

Reading his posts and replies gives me the impression that he is just like an old HS friend of mine. He joined the AF back in the 70's and retired about a year ago. Talk about being "shaped" and "brainwashed". It's really sad what the politics of the military will do to a human brain.
I'm glad I decided to call it quits when I did. 7yrs11mo. and 29 days was enough for me!

[baja]

7 yrs 11 mos 29 days, you better smoke some pot just to make sure you're yourself. ;D

[TailgateNut]

7 yrs 11 mos 29 days, you better smoke some pot just to make sure you're yourself. ;D


No worries, mate!

[defenseman]

Two pages later, and dman has still yet to offer more than some silly Q&A by way of rebuttal of the original article.

Why?

Ghaff needs to respond. Not me. You can if you desire, that is of course IF you have the level of knowledge to answer them.......dman

*I will rebutte when there is some sort of response to some very simple questions, at least from where I sit they are pretty basic. And a response of, pleassssse provide the answers doesn't wash. Do some damn homework on this stuff.

[defenseman]

Dman will say acceptable collateral damage.

In some cases, collateral damage is absolutely warranted. In '96 and '98, when WJC and operatives had OBL in their hand, absolutely warranted. However, he knuckled again. Too bad. Missed the chance, not once, but twice...dman

[baja]

In some cases, collateral damage is absolutely warranted. In '96 and '98, when WJC and operatives had OBL in their hand, absolutely warranted. However, he knuckled again. Too bad. Missed the chance, not once, but twice...dman

So what about the DU, you know the thing we are talking about.

[defenseman]

So what about the DU, you know the thing we are talking about.

Good article. Reasonably well written. One of the misnomers about "uranium" is exactly what BOB provided. 238, while a significant t1/2 life is present, ultimately the amount of radiation recieved from this is to the greatest extent minumum, if at all depending on time, distance and sheilding. In addition, DU , while still uranium, is much less than expended fuel. MUCH LESS I might add. That said, Bob is correct, Alpha's are the radiation source of significance from DU. Again, it's low energy and stopped with no more than a sheet of paper. DU also is a beta emitter and gamma emitter. Fact is on these two, you folks there in Denver recieve WAY MORE gamma radiation than being surrounded by tons of DU. Fact is, in Colorado your average whole body exposure to penetrating radiation, mostly gamma sources, is anywhere from two to three times that of lets say someone in Maryland. Background sources and altitude make up most of your exposure. Ever wonder why 'pilots' are somewhat limited on flying time. Radiation exposure is worked into the formula. Expended rounds of DU can cause problems if ingested. Agreed. As far as external exposure, ain't happenin. No DU particle will harm an human adult if it is maintained external to the body. If internalized, it can be an issue, again someone else here has brought it up, not because of rad levels associated with the particle , but it's chemical toxicity. That is the issue at hand. Ergo, to quote rad levels, in and around southern iraq, let alone a blown up tank of some sort, is of absolutely NO CONSEQUENCE. RAD LEVELS FROM DU do NOTHING to the human body whether it be external or internal exposure. Chemically, if enough is ingested, it may have some long term affects, that is a maybe. I'll get back to you...dman

*In short, the article is somewhat disingenious, in that, it talks about rad levels of the DU throughout the piece. WHO CARES!!!!! When in fact RAD LEVELS have ABSOLUTLEY NOTHING to do with it. In short, emitted radiation from DU won't kill you. You folks up there in the mountains of colorado have a better chance of developing problems due to radiation (whole body exposure) over a lifetime than the exposure to radiation from any and every DU round. Ergo, why talk about it.....I'll get back...

[Bronco Bob]

Exactly. Uranium is much more dangerous chemically than radiologically.

But "radioactive" and "radiation" are hot-button words, so they get used.

Precisely.
People seem to understand lead is toxic due to its chemical actions,
yet radiologically lead is one of the most inert substances in the universe.
They realize lead in fact protects people from radiation.
But throw in radioactive and people panic and start attributing any
ill effects of DU to its weak radioactivity. I'll bet they'd be
shocked to find out another one of the uses of DU is as shielding for
radiation sources used in medical and industrial radiography equipment
because DU is 70% denser than lead and so stops more radiation.

[defenseman]

Precisely.
People seem to understand lead is toxic due to its chemical actions,
yet radiologically lead is one of the most inert substances in the universe.
They realize lead in fact protects people from radiation.
But throw in radioactive and people panic and start attributing any
ill effects of DU to its weak radioactivity. I'll bet they'd be
shocked to find out another one of the uses of DU is as shielding for
radiation sources used in medical and industrial radiography equipment
because DU is 70% denser than lead and so stops more radiation.

The american public is amazingly "ignorant" with respect to radiation, what it is and it's sources. How many people know they ingest uranium pretty much daily? How about very, very few, but they do in fact ingest it. And , 90% of it is gone in two to three days expelled via the kidneys and feces....dman

*How many know coal fired plants blanket more radioactive isotopes into the enviroment than nuclear power plants annually? Probably very few. Again, what is radiation and what is it's sources, pretty much total ignorance for the most part...

[Atlas]

Good article. Reasonably well written. One of the misnomers about "uranium" is exactly what BOB provided. 238, while a significant t1/2 life is present, ultimately the amount of radiation recieved from this is to the greatest extent minumum, if at all depending on time, distance and sheilding. In addition, DU , while still uranium, is much less than expended fuel. MUCH LESS I might add. That said, Bob is correct, Alpha's are the radiation source of significance from DU. Again, it's low energy and stopped with no more than a sheet of paper. DU also is a beta emitter and gamma emitter. Fact is on these two, you folks there in Denver recieve WAY MORE gamma radiation than being surrounded by tons of DU. Fact is, in Colorado your average whole body exposure to penetrating radiation, mostly gamma sources, is anywhere from two to three times that of lets say someone in Maryland. Background sources and altitude make up most of your exposure. Ever wonder why 'pilots' are somewhat limited on flying time. Radiation exposure is worked into the formula. Expended rounds of DU can cause problems if ingested. Agreed. As far as external exposure, ain't happenin. No DU particle will harm an human adult if it is maintained external to the body. If internalized, it can be an issue, again someone else here has brought it up, not because of rad levels associated with the particle , but it's chemical toxicity. That is the issue at hand. Ergo, to quote rad levels, in and around southern iraq, let alone a blown up tank of some sort, is of absolutely NO CONSEQUENCE. RAD LEVELS FROM DU do NOTHING to the human body whether it be external or internal exposure. Chemically, if enough is ingested, it may have some long term affects, that is a maybe. I'll get back to you...dman

*In short, the article is somewhat disingenious, in that, it talks about rad levels of the DU throughout the piece. WHO CARES!!!!! When in fact RAD LEVELS have ABSOLUTLEY NOTHING to do with it. In short, emitted radiation from DU won't kill you. You folks up there in the mountains of colorado have a better chance of developing problems due to radiation (whole body exposure) over a lifetime than the exposure to radiation from any and every DU round. Ergo, why talk about it.....I'll get back...

What the hell are you talking about? These tanks have over 1000 TIMES more radioactivity than a normal tank just sitting out there is hte desert.

Go from there and work your way back to what you just typed.

[Atlas]

The american public is amazingly "ignorant" with respect to radiation, what it is and it's sources. How many people know they ingest uranium pretty much daily? How about very, very few, but they do in fact ingest it. And , 90% of it is gone in two to three days expelled via the kidneys and feces....dman

*How many know coal fired plants blanket more radioactive isotopes into the enviroment than nuclear power plants annually? Probably very few. Again, what is radiation and what is it's sources, pretty much total ignorance for the most part...

Again.. Of course we injest uranium and all sorts of things everyday. Duh,
These tanks are 1000 times more radioactive than normal tanks. maybe we should make a nice silverware set out of them and send it to your house.

Would you use it? Of course not.

[W*GS]

What the hell are you talking about? These tanks have over 1000 TIMES more radioactivity than a normal tank just sitting out there is hte desert.

It's not the 1000x that's important - what's the absolute exposure level?

1000 times a very small number is still a small number.

[Bronco Bob]

Again.. Of course we injest uranium and all sorts of things everyday. Duh,
These tanks are 1000 times more radioactive than normal tanks. maybe we should make a nice silverware set out of them and send it to your house.

Would you use it? Of course not.


Only because uranium is chemically toxic. I wouldn't eat with utensils made
from lead or arsenic either. Never the less, no human cancer of any type has
ever been seen as a result of exposure to natural or depleted uranium.

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/phs150.html#

[DomCasual]

...AND that we will bomb Iran last April...:thumbs:

Post count whore.

[mhgaffney]

That's not surprising that they would still be radioactive.
Uranium238 has a half life of 4.5 billion years. So in 4.5
billion years half the uranium will still be in these tanks
and scattered about Iraq. (As a reference, the earth
itself is 4.5 billion years old)
But from a mammalian point of view the biggest danger from
uranium isn't it's radioactivity. Uranium is actually a rather
weak alpha particle emitter and skin or even a piece of paper
will block alpha particles. (An alpha particle is just an ionized
helium atom). The main problem is uranium is a heavy metal
like lead, and the same kinds of problems lead causes in regards
to being a toxin is the problems uranium causes.
That's what causes the cancers and the birth defects,
not the radioactivity.
Not saying uranium isn't a problem, but lay people seem to
be concentrating on the wrong problem with uranium,
the radioactivity instead of its chemical toxicity.


Once again, Bronco Bob gets it wrong.

Did you read the paper, Bronco? I'll answer the question for you. NOPE.

All of this is covered in the paper in detail. I won't repeat myself again -- here.

[mhgaffney]

Exactly. Uranium is much more dangerous chemically than radiologically.

But "radioactive" and "radiation" are hot-button words, so they get used.

In the paper I presented the scientific reasons why DU is so dangerous -- but of course you didn't read it.

Once DU is aerosolized the tiny uranium particles can pass through every blood barrier in the body. Once internalized -- uranium binds chemically to the DNA.

This close proximity turns out to be extremely dangerous -- for the reasons explained in the paper.

Once in the body -- Alpha particles are more than capable of causing birth defects and cancer.

[mhgaffney]

Okay, this BS has got to stop. Ghaffboy is stirring the pot and I bet you a dime to a dollar he cannot answer the following questions with respect to depleted uranium:

1) Where does it come from?
2) ARE unexpended rounds a safety hazard?
3) What are the contact rad levels of an unexpended round?
4) What forms of radiation are emitted from DU and are they lethal long term , considering both external and internal exposure?
5) What methods are employed to 'shield' soldiers from unexpended rounds and is it really required?
6) Who gets more radiation on a daily basis than a soldier stationed in iraq, a soldier who is carrying unexpended rounds with him as he walks around?
7) What's the "primary" source of radiation from DU? Is this source mitigated for the soldier? Any other sources of radiation from DU? What are their comparative levels wrt the average adult walking around in the good ole US of A.?

ANSWERS PLEASE, Ghaffboy!!!!!!!
Lots more where this came from. I've operated nuclear reactors for many years and I'm quite aware of the affects of all types of radiation , both internal and external exposure. Ok ghaff, answer the questions and sell me on expended uranium risk ....I'll be waiting....dman

If you had read the paper -- you would know it covers most of your questions in detail.

But of course you didn't read it. MHG

[mhgaffney]

Here's another letter from a serious person who DID read the paper.

Hello Mark,

I just had to email you to express my admiration for writing such a superb lengthy article on depleted uranium. It is almost exactly the sort of article I had wanted to write myself. I guess now I'll have to shoot for something even more in-depth.

I really think there is a need for this article at this point in time. You obviously wrote it with a great deal of attention to getting the quality of the words refined.

If you would agree, I would like to try and get the Part I segment republished at GNN.tv. I have been writing a blog there about DU (I hope you'll take a look.) although I haven't found the time to put together a proper article on the matter. They sometimes allow members to publish articles written by another person if direct permission has been given and the article is not widely circulated already. It would have the significant positive effect of making it listed in Google News. I don't think it is at the moment, as it hasn't been reprinted in any source they use.

Please check out my DU blog. It's at http://beagle17.gnn.tv

I also created a Website that features a BBS devoted to DU issues. I feel very strongly that this subject has been unfairly buried by the media, and I hope to encourage journalists to break this pattern by opening up some real public debate. That site is at: http://www.dubbs.info

Please reply to let me know about republishing on GNN.

Thanks,
Peter Dearman, Taipei

[ak1971]

When you start quoting Jonathon "The Impaler" Sharkey, I'll start listening.

[alkemical]

In the paper I presented the scientific reasons why DU is so dangerous -- but of course you didn't read it.

Once DU is aerosolized the tiny uranium particles can pass through every blood barrier in the body. Once internalized -- uranium binds chemically to the DNA.

This close proximity turns out to be extremely dangerous -- for the reasons explained in the paper.

Once in the body -- Alpha particles are more than capable of causing birth defects and cancer.

http://bigislandweekly.com/articles/2007/02/28/read/news/news02.txt

"The Pentagon claims that the low levels of radiation emitted from DU weaponry pose no health risks. Many scientists disagree with the way this conclusion is drawn. The military looks only at how the trillions of healthy cells that comprise the human body are affected by exposure to low dosages when handling the munitions. They ignore the fact that as DU munitions are exploded, they burst into flames and vaporize.

Dr. Helen Caldicott is the co-founder of Physicians for Social Responsibility, an organization of 23,000 doctors committed to educating their colleagues about the dangers of nuclear power, nuclear weapons and nuclear war. She also founded an international umbrella group called International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, which won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1985. Caldicott herself was personally nominated for the Nobel Prize by Nobel Laureate, Linus Pauling.

According to Caldicott, up to 70% of the uranium released when DU munitions are exploded is converted into microscopic particles that can be inhaled or ingested immediately or when air, soil and water get contaminated. Once inside the human body, these particles kill or mutate the cells they come in contact with. Photographs of DU particles in living lung tissues show them as tiny sun-like, radiating objects. The half-life of this radioactive substance is 4.5 billion years."

"The AFRRI published its findings that DU transforms cells into tumorigenic phenotypes, is mutagenic, induces genetic instability and induces oncogenes, suggesting carcinogenicity. AFRRI's conclusion: "Strong evidence exists to support detailed study of DU carcinogenicity." In 1995, the AEPI admitted that DU may cause liver, lung and kidney damage."

[Bronco Bob]

http://bigislandweekly.com/articles/2007/02/28/read/news/news02.txt

"The Pentagon claims that the low levels of radiation emitted from DU weaponry pose no health risks. Many scientists disagree with the way this conclusion is drawn. The military looks only at how the trillions of healthy cells that comprise the human body are affected by exposure to low dosages when handling the munitions. They ignore the fact that as DU munitions are exploded, they burst into flames and vaporize.

Dr. Helen Caldicott is the co-founder of Physicians for Social Responsibility, an organization of 23,000 doctors committed to educating their colleagues about the dangers of nuclear power, nuclear weapons and nuclear war. She also founded an international umbrella group called International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, which won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1985. Caldicott herself was personally nominated for the Nobel Prize by Nobel Laureate, Linus Pauling.

According to Caldicott, up to 70% of the uranium released when DU munitions are exploded is converted into microscopic particles that can be inhaled or ingested immediately or when air, soil and water get contaminated. Once inside the human body, these particles kill or mutate the cells they come in contact with. Photographs of DU particles in living lung tissues show them as tiny sun-like, radiating objects. The half-life of this radioactive substance is 4.5 billion years."


Which means that DU is weakly radioactive. In other words it takes a long
time for most of the uranium atoms in a given amount of uranium to decay.
So in a microscopic amount of uranium, such as a dust particle, not very
many atoms are decaying at any given point in time.



"The AFRRI published its findings that DU transforms cells into tumorigenic phenotypes, is mutagenic, induces genetic instability and induces oncogenes, suggesting carcinogenicity. AFRRI's conclusion: "Strong evidence exists to support detailed study of DU carcinogenicity." In 1995, the AEPI admitted that DU may cause liver, lung and kidney damage."

These effects are because uranium is a chemically toxic metal. The same
effects are observed from the ingestion of lead, which isn't even weakly
radioactive.

[alkemical]

Which means that DU is weakly radioactive. In other words it takes a long
time for most of the uranium atoms in a given amount of uranium to decay.
So in a microscopic amount of uranium, such as a dust particle, not very
many atoms are decaying at any given point in time.



These effects are because uranium is a chemically toxic metal. The same
effects are observed from the ingestion of lead, which isn't even weakly
radioactive.

Would the "amount" of DU "inhaled"/ingested" though - according the the aritcle - when its "particle borne" be different than just 'eating it'?

I mean i'm not doubting the 'radioactivity' side of things - just would a combination of just be 'toxic' with even 'minor' radioactive charge mutate even to the slightest degree - any cells it would touch? Like lung cells, etc? Or would it 'hurt' more like asbestos?

[Bronco Bob]

Would the "amount" of DU "inhaled"/ingested" though - according the the aritcle - when its "particle borne" be different than just 'eating it'?

I mean i'm not doubting the 'radioactivity' side of things - just would a combination of just be 'toxic' with even 'minor' radioactive charge mutate even to the slightest degree - any cells it would touch? Like lung cells, etc? Or would it 'hurt' more like asbestos?

Well, any radioactive substance has the possibility of causing genetic mutations
which can lead to cancer and birth defects. I'm just saying the radioactivity
of depleted uranium is so weak that the toxic chemical reactions to uranium
are the larger problem. For example DU is 3 million times less radioactive
than radium still found in many old luminous watches and 10 million times
less radioactive than the Americium used in fire detectors.
Basically you'd die from the toxic effects of uranium long before you'd
have time to develop a cancer from it.

[alkemical]

Well, any radioactive substance has the possibility of causing genetic mutations
which can lead to cancer and birth defects. I'm just saying the radioactivity
of depleted uranium is so weak that the toxic chemical reactions to uranium
are the larger problem. For example DU is 3 million times less radioactive
than radium still found in many old luminous watches and 10 million times
less radioactive than the Americium used in fire detectors.
Basically you'd die from the toxic effects of uranium long before you'd
have time to develop a cancer from it.

But would the 'toxicity' alone be enough to cause birth defects? Also what amounts? I mean if it's on a battlefield the amount of DU would be "more" than "natrually occuring" materials, right?

I may have missed it, but why do the groups (from the bigislandweekly report) state that in an 'areosoled' form is it more dangerous than being 'inert'/'static' (I don't know which other word(s) to use, sorry)?
They cite that lung tissue did change after being exposed to 'airborne' DU.

[Bronco Bob]

Here's an article from the International Atomic Energy Agency website
talking about the health effects of DU. And the IAEA is hardly a mouthpiece
for Bush and the neocons.

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Features/DU/faq_depleted_uranium.shtml

Is DU a Health Hazard?


Based on credible scientific evidence, there is no proven link between DU exposure and increases in human cancers or other significant health or environmental impacts.
The most definitive study of DU exposure is of Gulf War veterans who have embedded DU shrapnel in their bodies that cannot be removed. To date none has developed any health abnormalities due to uranium chemical toxicity or radio toxicity.
It is a common misconception that radioactivity is the main health hazard of DU rather than chemical toxicity. Like other heavy metals, DU is potentially poisonous. In sufficient amounts, if DU is ingested or inhaled it can be harmful because of its chemical toxicity. High concentration could cause kidney damage.
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), very large amounts of DU dust would have to be inhaled to cause lung cancer from radio toxicity. Risks of other radiation-induced cancers, including leukemia, are considered to be very much lower still.

How can People be Exposed?

Inhalation: The main potential route of exposure is inhalation of DU dust, generated when DU ammunitions hit hard targets. Inhalation may lead to lungs and other organs being exposed. Those near the target immediately following impact are most likely to receive the highest doses. A potential pathway for those living in DU affected areas is via the inhalation of DU particles that initially settle in soil but are re-suspended through wind or human activities.
Ingestion: Children playing and adults working or living in former conflict zones could be exposed if they ingested, inadvertently or deliberately, DU contaminated soil. Uranium is not effectively transported in the food chain so transfer of DU from contaminated soil to drinking water or locally produced food is unlikely to harm people living or visiting the area.
Body contact: Contact exposure through skin is typically low and unimportant. Radiation skin burns (erythema) from touching DU are unlikely, even if it is held against the skin for a number of weeks. However, DU could enter the blood through open wounds or from embedded DU fragments.
Body retention: According to WHO: a) Practically all (98%) DU entering the body is excreted and never reaches the blood stream. b)Of the fraction of uranium absorbed into the blood, around 70% will be filtered by the kidney and excreted in the urine within 24 hours; this amount increases to 90% within a few days.

[alkemical]

Here's an article from the International Atomic Energy Agency website
talking about the health effects of DU. And the IAEA is hardly a mouthpiece
for Bush and the neocons.

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Features/DU/faq_depleted_uranium.shtml

Is DU a Health Hazard?


Based on credible scientific evidence, there is no proven link between DU exposure and increases in human cancers or other significant health or environmental impacts.
The most definitive study of DU exposure is of Gulf War veterans who have embedded DU shrapnel in their bodies that cannot be removed. To date none has developed any health abnormalities due to uranium chemical toxicity or radio toxicity.
It is a common misconception that radioactivity is the main health hazard of DU rather than chemical toxicity. Like other heavy metals, DU is potentially poisonous. In sufficient amounts, if DU is ingested or inhaled it can be harmful because of its chemical toxicity. High concentration could cause kidney damage.
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), very large amounts of DU dust would have to be inhaled to cause lung cancer from radio toxicity. Risks of other radiation-induced cancers, including leukemia, are considered to be very much lower still.

How can People be Exposed?

Inhalation: The main potential route of exposure is inhalation of DU dust, generated when DU ammunitions hit hard targets. Inhalation may lead to lungs and other organs being exposed. Those near the target immediately following impact are most likely to receive the highest doses. A potential pathway for those living in DU affected areas is via the inhalation of DU particles that initially settle in soil but are re-suspended through wind or human activities.
Ingestion: Children playing and adults working or living in former conflict zones could be exposed if they ingested, inadvertently or deliberately, DU contaminated soil. Uranium is not effectively transported in the food chain so transfer of DU from contaminated soil to drinking water or locally produced food is unlikely to harm people living or visiting the area.
Body contact: Contact exposure through skin is typically low and unimportant. Radiation skin burns (erythema) from touching DU are unlikely, even if it is held against the skin for a number of weeks. However, DU could enter the blood through open wounds or from embedded DU fragments.
Body retention: According to WHO: a) Practically all (98%) DU entering the body is excreted and never reaches the blood stream. b)Of the fraction of uranium absorbed into the blood, around 70% will be filtered by the kidney and excreted in the urine within 24 hours; this amount increases to 90% within a few days.



I guess with the health issues of people from Gulf War I, and what hawaii is claiming - it doesn't match what the gov't and other people say. That's where the disconnect is for me.

[baja]

I guess with the health issues of people from Gulf War I, and what hawaii is claiming - it doesn't match what the gov't and other people say. That's where the disconnect is for me.

What you don't believe what the govn. tells you are you a commie?

[mhgaffney]

Well, any radioactive substance has the possibility of causing genetic mutations
which can lead to cancer and birth defects. I'm just saying the radioactivity
of depleted uranium is so weak that the toxic chemical reactions to uranium
are the larger problem. For example DU is 3 million times less radioactive
than radium still found in many old luminous watches and 10 million times
less radioactive than the Americium used in fire detectors.
Basically you'd die from the toxic effects of uranium long before you'd
have time to develop a cancer from it.

Like a stooge -- Bronco merely regurgitates the official Pentagon line.

It's the same old argument that denies that leaked radiation could possibly be causing cancer clusters downwind from nuclear plants.

As I explained in the paper -- the government's way of calculating cancer risk is seriously flawed. The method grew out of the studies of Hiroshima survivors -- it was assumed that the total exposure was a brief but intense burst of neutrons and gamma rays. All of the post WW II studies were designed to screen for burst effects -- For example, the sampling was limited to survivors within 2,000 yards of the epi center. This method guaranteed that many cancers and birth defects caused by wide ranging fallout -- low level radiation -- would go undetected.

The calculated risk was an averaged over the whole body. This has also led scientists to calculate vanishingly small risk for low level radiation.

But this conclusion is wrong. Research done in the last ten years has shown that low level radiation is worse -- as much as a thousand times worse -- per unit exposure -- than high level radiation.

The reason has to do with biology -- not physics. All of this is explained in my paper. Unfortunately, many people use this board for recreation -- to vent spleen and ridicule others -- rather than for educational purposes.

The fact is that once uranium is aerosolized into sub micron sized particles -- it behaves like a gas -- and easily gets into the body. Don't believe Bob when he tells you that alpha particles are harmless -- that's pure unadultrated BS.

The worst thing that can happen to you is to inhale uranium -- once it gets into your lungs it goes through the system. It has a special affinity for DNA -- which is why it accumulates in semen -- and causes mutations, i.e., birth defects. It also causes cancer for the same reason.

The chemical toxicity is only half the problem. In fact, there is a synergistic effect. The combination of chemical and radiological effects are as much as 8 times worse than the sum of both. This was shown by one of the DoD's own scientists, Alice Miller. It's probably why they muzzled her -- barred her from talking to the press -- and cut her grant money for continuing DU research.

If you don't look - you won't find the truth.

That's a truism -- that the folks who use this board would do well to ponder. MHG

[mhgaffney]

How interesting that Bob cites the IAEA on DU -- given the way the IAEA helped cover up the effects of Chernobyl.

I suggest you check out other sources - -- and not rely on the IAEA.

[mhgaffney]

Here's a good essay about Chernobyl -- by Jay Gould.

The author says that the effects were so bad they hastened the collapse of the USSR -- and he may be right.

http://www.ratical.org/radiation/Chernobyl/ChernobylCoSS.html

[W*GS]

Another one of gaffney's obsessions, I see...

[Bronco Bob]

Another one of gaffney's obsessions, I see...

As usual if other sources don't agree with Gaffney's sources, they are part
of the vast conspiracy. Only those sources that agree with Gaffney are
to be relied upon.

[Atlas]

It's not the 1000x that's important - what's the absolute exposure level?

1000 times a very small number is still a small number.

No it's not. Not when the tank is just sitting out there in the city markets and still sitting there in the neighborhood it was destroyed in. Not when there are children playing in it and when there are passerbys continuosly exposed to it.

Whatever. You guys only make yourselves look more "stoopider" everytime you deny something that is a given fact.

[mhgaffney]

As usual if other sources don't agree with Gaffney's sources, they are part
of the vast conspiracy. Only those sources that agree with Gaffney are
to be relied upon.

I produced a 12,000 word comprehensive paper about DU weapons. My sources are footnoted -- but of course since you didn't bother to read the paper you wouldn't know.

The article breaks new ground by providing a detailed analysis of why the standard radiation risk model is wrong. You are certainly welcome to disagree. In fact, if you find a problem in the paper -- with my logic or my sources -- I'd like to hear about it.

But of course to do that you'd have to do some reading --

Given the way Bush lied to get us into Iraq, and given the way the US military turned its back on the hundreds of thousands of veterans now suffering from Gulf War Sickness -- a repeat of the Agent Orange fiasco -- you are nothng short of a dupe to swallow uncritically the official line on DU.

These weapons are a big money maker for the military industrial complex -- you know, the guys that Dwight Eisenhower warned us about.

Next thing you'll be accusing Ike of being a conspiracy theorist...

The problem is that vacant space between your ears.

[Bronco Bob]

I produced a 12,000 word comprehensive paper about DU weapons. My sources are footnoted -- but of course since you didn't bother to read the paper you wouldn't know.

The article breaks new ground by providing a detailed analysis of why the standard radiation risk model is wrong. You are certainly welcome to disagree. In fact, if you find a problem in the paper -- with my logic or my sources -- I'd like to hear about it.

But of course to do that you'd have to do some reading --



Yeah, big deal, you have no life, so you spend your time writing fairy tales
based on other fairy tales written by other nuts. Sorry, if I want to
read fairy tales I'll read the Bible or the Koran or Alice in Wonderland.


Given the way Bush lied to get us into Iraq, and given the way the US military turned its back on the hundreds of thousands of veterans now suffering from Gulf War Sickness -- a repeat of the Agent Orange fiasco -- you are nothng short of a dupe to swallow uncritically the official line on DU.


Yes, and now I suppose Bush controls the IAEA and the WHO
and so got them to phony up the data.
There are GW soldiers with pieces of DU shrapnel embedded in their
bodies that have suffered no ill effects from it.


These weapons are a big money maker for the military industrial complex -- you know, the guys that Dwight Eisenhower warned us about.

Next thing you'll be accusing Ike of being a conspiracy theorist...



Show me anywhere where Ike said DU causes cancer.
Hell, a lot of the open air A-bomb tests took place under
Ike's administration. There was a real source of highly radioactive
materials being spread into the atmosphere. Radioactive
materials that are still in the environment, far more radioactive
than DU.


The problem is that vacant space between your ears.

The problem with you is that you are an arrogant A-hole know it
all that is so obsessed with your conspiracy whack-a-tudes that
you believe any crap that floats down the pike as long as it fits
your tin hat version of the world.

[alkemical]

As usual if other sources don't agree with Gaffney's sources, they are part
of the vast conspiracy. Only those sources that agree with Gaffney are
to be relied upon.

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

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

[mhgaffney]

Only one of Bronco Bob's comments above deserves a response. (The rest are garbage.)

The IAEA is in the business of promoting nuclear power -- which is why their views about the risks of radiation must be taken with a heavy dose of salt. We had the same problem many years ago with the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) here in the US -- which is why the agency was eventually split in two -- and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was created just to regulate nuclear energy. The old EAC couldn't be trusted to tell the truth about the risks -- same with the IAEA.

You can't trust the fox to guard the henhouse. But of course you -- being a stooge for the powers that be -- haven't figured this out yet.

[Bronco Bob]

Only one of Bronco Bob's comments above deserves a response. (The rest are garbage.)

The IAEA is in the business of promoting nuclear power -- which is why their views about the risks of radiation must be taken with a heavy dose of salt. We had the same problem many years ago with the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) here in the US -- which is why the agency was eventually split in two -- and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was created just to regulate nuclear energy. The old EAC couldn't be trusted to tell the truth about the risks -- same with the IAEA.


You can't trust the fox to guard the henhouse. But of course you -- being a stooge for the powers that be -- haven't figured this out yet.

Yes, the whole world is being run by a vast right wing conspiracy that
only Gaffney has the inside dope on. Yet oddly enough this powerful
conspiracy doesn't have the power to suppress the mighty Gaffney.

Never mind that the IAEA is a UN organization.
http://www.iaea.org/About/index.html

Never mind that the IAEA opposed Bush invading Iraq.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/13/sproject.irq.inspections/index.html

Never mind that the IAEA is at odds with Bush's assessment of Iran's nuclear program.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/30/AR2007083000460.html

Never mind that the right wing constantly carps on the UN being
out to destroy America and has as one of its goals to get the
US out of the UN.
http://www.getusout.org/

Now all of a sudden because the IAEA submits an honest assessment
of DU that doesn't fit in with Gaffney's tin hat view of the world,
the IAEA is part of the Bush Cabal's military industrial complex.

[mhgaffney]

The IAEA is credible when they are monitoring nuclear proliferation.

They are less than credible when reporting about the effects of Chernobyl -- or about the risk of radiation in general.

For the simple reason I stated. This is why we now have a separate DOE and an NRC in the US. One agency to promote nuclear energy -- another to regulate it.

[mhgaffney]

Here is a report to the British Parliament by a PhD chemist -- confirming the main points of my article posted at the top of this thread.

http://www.idust.net/Docs/EnviroAudit.htm