Author Topic: Look forward to Gulf War Syndrome II (Read 2611 times)

Curval · « **Reply #30 on:** September 02, 2003, 08:07:38 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Raubvogel
Why we would hit a water supply with DU?

Of course no one *****es about the environmental and health catastrophe created by setting thousands of oil wells on fire....

Must focus on the evil amreekans....

Raub...I think the focus on this stuff is the effects of exposure by American troops...not the Iraqis....it is for me at least.

If a depleted uranium shell hits an Iraqi tank...and then US forces pass by and breath in the dust created by the explosion...then they potentially get sick.

Isn't that what the concern is all about?

Dowding · « **Reply #31 on:** September 02, 2003, 08:11:11 AM »

I don't think SirLoin meant the hitting of water pipes with DU rounds - more the contamination of the water table through rainfall, weathering etc of the DU contaminated sites.

Tuomio · « **Reply #32 on:** September 02, 2003, 08:18:41 AM »

Lets face it, no matter what scientifical evidence you bring up or how much reasoning, the fact is that when you have word "uranium" on ANYTHING, these solar panel lovers will be crying and ranting against it.

Depleted <- see that magic word, its no longer radioactive in the context of being harmfull to biological matter via radiation. Sure you can bring up some laboratory equipment and see some radiation, but i bet you wont find many metals on this planet that wouldnt radiate. Radiation is allover and everywhere. Back when i was in army we had this device which constantly registered radiation. It showed some 0,14 microSieverts constantly and im not sure whether bringing a DU round near it would make any difference to that reading.

DU round is dangerous, mostly when its shot at 1400m/s towards you. It also belongs in the "heavy metals" category, like lead (used almost in all bullets) and mercury. Heavy metals are quite dangerous (and sometimes lethal) if you get them in your system for long perioids. And i mean an amount that you can see with your eyes. Some dust particles in the air aint going to cut it. If you can poop that thing out theres nothing to worry about. Get 10 mg of DU in your lungs and you might have problem, but same in your stomach and the problem will be in your local wastepipes about 5 hours later.

If you plan to go on vacation in Iraq, dont push sharp metal objects found near destroyed tanks under your skin. If you do, contact the nearest bookstore and pick up book by Darwin, Charles named "Why me?", read it before you die (in week or so).

capt. apathy · « **Reply #33 on:** September 02, 2003, 09:03:37 AM »

Quote

And i mean an amount that you can see with your eyes. Some dust particles in the air aint going to cut it. If you can poop that thing out theres nothing to worry about. Get 10 mg of DU in your lungs and you might have problem, but same in your stomach and the problem will be in your local wastepipes about 5 hours later.

where do you get that? what makes you think you need to be able to see it for it to be dangerous?

I've found the PEL for DU, (as a toxic metal not inclusive of radiation, these are the permisable levels NOT SAFE levels). the PEL for DU is .05mg/m3 or 1/20,000th of a gram per cubic meter of air (the same as lead). to a limit of 40 hours per week. (or about 1/80,000th of a gram if you are going to breath it 'round the clock'.

do you really think you can spot 1/20,000th of a gram supended in a cubic meter of air?

if you have a little trouble getting your mind around 1/20,000th of a gram, take a typical 115 grain 9mm bullet and cut it into about 150,000 equal peices. if you can spot one of those (or more likely, several smaller peices totaling up to that weight) suspended in 260 gallons of air you have really good eyes. much better than mine. if I had eyes like that we could save a fortune on air monitoring tools at work.

Dowding · « **Reply #34 on:** September 02, 2003, 09:06:41 AM »

Particulate size and ionizing properties are very important when talking about ingestion and inhalation. That is the issue. No-one really takes any direct radiation threat seriously, so I would drop that straw man argument Tuomio.

capt. apathy · « **Reply #35 on:** September 02, 2003, 09:08:21 AM »

absolutely, and actually the smaller the peices the more dangerous they are.

Dowding · « **Reply #36 on:** September 02, 2003, 09:10:18 AM »

Yup. It's why wood dust is regarded as harmful (specifically carcinogenic), requiring increased PPE and paper dust is considered to be generally harmless.

Saurdaukar · « **Reply #37 on:** September 02, 2003, 09:54:48 AM »

LOL - this thread is awesome! Damn superior Amereekan military equipment! Nevermind the mortors, missiles, arty shells, and bullets of the 7.62 variety - its the DUST from our own shells impacting the inferior armor of the soon to be subjugated that causes harm!

Perhaps a Sergeon General's warning is in order: "WARNING: Breathing in a combat zone can be hazerdous to your heath!"

Wulfie, youre my new hero! Amereekah Uber Alles!!

capt. apathy · « **Reply #38 on:** September 02, 2003, 10:07:31 AM »

is the equipment really superior if it kills your own troops? if our weapons are poisonous, does that mean we are using chemical weapons in our effort to 'protect the world from chemical weapons'?

reasonable questions if you're a thinking man.

btw- to those that would know. are DU rounds jacketed, or fired in a sabot? or does the DU directly contact the barrel?

Horn · « **Reply #39 on:** September 02, 2003, 10:10:08 AM »

Some resources:

http://www.thefourreasons.org/duresources.htm

h

Drunky · « **Reply #40 on:** September 02, 2003, 10:16:47 AM »

It's the radioactive sheep...or goats....whatever they have over there.

wulfie · « **Reply #41 on:** September 02, 2003, 10:50:39 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by capt. apathy
is the equipment really superior if it kills your own troops? if our weapons are poisonous, does that mean we are using chemical weapons in our effort to 'protect the world from chemical weapons'?

reasonable questions if you're a thinking man.

btw- to those that would know. are DU rounds jacketed, or fired in a sabot? or does the DU directly contact the barrel?

DU is used in sabots for the bigger weapons (like the M1A2 'Abrams' MA) and I *think* more of the penetrator is DU with smaller rounds like the 3cm GAU-8 rounds fired by the A-10.

APFSDSDU = Armor Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot Depleted Uranium.

They use it in penetrators because of its density - simple steel would shatter when impacting thick + hard armor at the velocities that these penetrators travel at.

DU really became widespread in the early 1980s when the West was trying to figure out how to make a KE AP round for the 105mm MA of most Western MBTs that could handle the best protected versions of the T-80 (the ones that the CAT1 Soviet armored units would have as they moved into W. Germany). No one really had any idea about the toxicity problems until they were used in actual battlefield conditions and in great numbers. Testing them or training with them didn't really give warning as the people coming into contact with the targets already knew to be careful. There's plenty of toxic things on shot up AFVs besides DU residue.

It's a widely misunderstood topic. I heard Former Attorney General-turned rabid delusional pyscho robot of the extreme left Ramsey Clark explain *live, during an interview on NPR* how U.S. cruise missile warheads were coated with depleted uranium (I am not making a single bit of this up) thus making them 'tactical nuclear weapons' being used against the people of Iraq.

Weather he really had no idea about DU and was lying to garner anti-war support, or he knows exactly what DU is and was using some 'key word' lying ('U.S., uranium, tactical nuclear weapon, people, Iraq) to garner anti-war support - any news entity charged with reporting on war, the military, etc. should know what the hell they are talking about. There have been numerous more benign examples of such idiocy on every TV news network in the U.S. over the past couple of years.

My dream has always been to somehow get myself live on Fox or CNN during some war 20+ years from now. Then some perky little blonde 'anchor woman' (read: 'knee woman' if you are the CEO of the corporation that owns the news outlet), while viewing real time video of some of our boys in combat, surreally chirps to me "So reports have the enemy being armed with the new SA-31X - what are your thoughts on that, Mike". The SA-31X would of course be a surface-to-air missile from the SA designation, but she'd have to have the 'X' in there to appear 'slick and intelligent' and as she looked at me with this really intelligent look - on live TV - I swear to whichever Gods have a room for me that I'd do this:

I'd clear my throat, and begin to look panicked. I'd look at her and say "Mmmmm, what weapon did you say they had again?"

She'd chirp "SA-31X".

And then I'd say "How far is this studio from the front lines in France?"

She'd chirp the answer.

And I'd stand up and go "I'm sorry I have to go RIGHT NOW could you please contact a cab and have it waiting at the curb to take me to the airport?". As I reached the edge of the set I'd 'lose control' and start screaming to the cameramen "Get your wives and kids and get the **** outa here we're DOOMED they've got SA-31X they could be hitting us here in New York with them in 4 minutes RUN MAN RUN FOR YOUR LIFE!"

I'd do this just to see if I could really get her to panick. I'd never appear on the news again - voluntarily that is, eheheh - but it would be worth a shot.

Mike/wulfie

Fishu · « **Reply #42 on:** September 02, 2003, 11:15:24 AM »

Wulfie,

Easy now.. read what Dowding said about it, hes got it.

Jack55 · « **Reply #43 on:** September 02, 2003, 11:28:46 AM »

Where bullets containing lead used in Iraq? What about the lead dust? Isn't it dangerous too?

Erlkonig · « **Reply #44 on:** September 02, 2003, 12:17:28 PM »

I kinda figured the Idiot Gallery would chime in with the tired, unoriginal, and witless "it's all about Amereeka!" response that usually gets dredged up when anything even remotely critical of the war is posted. Of course, the British also use DU in their ammunition.

wulfie, man, you on drugs? You spent 3 posts responding to Fishu's one-liner. Plenty of other people on this BBS get away with sarcasm without being Chernobyl babies or Stalin worshippers or Mini Cooper drivers or whatever wackiness you're attacking Fishu with now.