Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Erlkonig on September 01, 2003, 07:30:57 PM
-
Our armed forces seriously need to reconsider the use of depleted uranium in armor-piercing ammunition. Is the performance gap between DU and other dense alloys really worth exposing our troops and the people we are ostensibly trying to help to dangerous levels of radiation? According to the article below, "Veterans of the first Gulf War believe that DU exposure has played a role in leaving more than 5,000 of them chronically ill and almost 600 dead." That's more than 3 times the numbered killed in action, say nothing of the disabled. This time around, we used 3-6 times the DU used in 1991, in areas smaller and more populated. It's looking like our troops will be in theater much longer than 1991 as well.
Article here. (http://www.drudgereport.com/flash4.htm)
PAPER: DANGEROUSLY HIGH LEVELS OF RADIATION MEASURED AROUND BAGHDAD
Mon Sep 01 2003 15:05:42 ET
EXPRESS [LONDON]
SOLDIERS and civilians in Iraq face a health timebomb after dangerously high levels of radiation were measured around Baghdad.
Levels between 1,000 and 1,900 times higher than normal were recorded at four sites around the Iraqi capital where depleted uranium (DU) munitions have been used across wide areas.
Experts estimate that Britain and the US used 1,100 to 2,200 tons of armour-piercing shells made of DU during attacks on Iraqi forces.
That figure eclipses the 375tons used in the 1991 Gulf War. Unlike that largely desert-based conflict, most of the rounds fired in March and April were in heavily residential areas.
DU rounds are highly combustible and tiny particles of the radioactive material are left on the battleground.
If inhaled the material can attack the body causing cancers, chronic illness, long-term disabilities and genetic birth defects - none of which will be apparent for at least five years.
Veterans of the first Gulf War believe that DU exposure has played a role in leaving more than 5,000 of them chronically ill and almost 600 dead.
The Royal Society, Britain's leading scientific body, described America's failure to confirm how much or where they used DU rounds as an "appalling situation".
Professor Brian Spratt, chairman of the society's working group on DU, said: "The Americans are really giving us no information at all and think it is a pretty appalling situation that they are not taking this seriously at all.
"We really need someone like the UN Environment Programme or the World Health Organisation to get into Iraq and start testing civilians and soldiers for uranium exposure."
Evidence of massive uranium radiation has emerged in recent weeks. The Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle analysed swabs from bullet holes in Iraqi tanks and confirmed elevated radiation levels.
Last month Scott Peterson, of the respected Christian Science Monitor, took Geiger counter readings at several sites in Baghdad. Near the Republican Palace, his radiation readings were the "hottest" in Iraq at nearly 1,900 times background radiation levels.
Even the Ministry of Defence, which has consistently refused to accept there are dangers involved in DU exposure or that it has played role in Gulf War illnesses is addressing the problem. Soldiers returning from this year's conflict will be routinely tested for uranium poisoning. Professor Malcolm Hooper, who sits on two committees advising the Government on Gulf health issues, said he is not surprised by the radiation levels.
He said: "Really these things are dirty bombs. Exactly the sort of device that President Bush and Prime Minister Blair keep talking about being in the hands of terrorists."
Dozens of US soldiers, backed by armoured vehicles and helicopter gunships, searched farms on the outskirts of the northern Iraqi city of Mosul yesterday in their hunt for followers of Saddam Hussein.
THOUSANDS of Iraqis packed into northern Baghdad yesterday for the funeral of Ayatollah Mohammed Baqer al-Hakim, a Shi'ite Muslim cleric slain by a car bomb which also killed scores of his followers.
A senior official in Hakim's Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) said the Americans bore some blame for Friday's attack as they had failed to ensure adequate security measures.
Up to five suspects, all of them Iraqi, have been detained over the car bomb attack, the local governor said yesterday.
END
-
I caught a veterans meeting on public access a couple weeks ago (I think it was from the Sea-Tac area).
they where discussing the exact same thing. one statistic they threw out there was info from a local hospital in Iraq. before gulf war I, this hospital saw about 4 cancer cases a month. 4 years later it was in the low 30's.
combine that with the diseases of veterans and geneticly transfered problems there kids are having something is deffinately causing sickness. maybe it's the DU, maybe breathing in smoke from burning oil wells, what ever the cause it should at least have a study on the effects of DU.
-
I think DU has little effect. I believe its all the junk they pumped into our veins before the war that the FDA never approved. Combine that with the burning oil fields and destroying chem agents and you have a deadly mixture.
-
Uhh.....Hello? It's called DEPLETED Uranium because it is not a radioactive hazard. Any harm from it is attributable to heavy metal poisoning, similar to lead, mercury, etc, and can only happen from ingestion of the DU dust.
Be nice if people knew what they were talking about before they published crap like that.
-
I think most of the Gulf War Syndrome cases are from blowing up those chemical munitions. A whole lot of troops were exposed to that.
-
!sgurd od t'noD
-
Any harm from it is attributable to heavy metal poisoning, similar to lead, mercury, etc, and can only happen from ingestion of the DU dust.
what do you supose happens to those rounds after they hit a target? the ingestion of the dust can be from breathing, eating, whatever. even if the only hazard is a heavy metal type poisoning what is the PEL (permisable exposure level/ permisable not safe)for DU. has there even been a study?
the permisable level for lead (just for reference, and again not a safe level just alowable) is an amount aproxamately equal in size to one grain of powdered sugar. ingested once an hour for 40 hours per week.
again I've never seen PEL's for DU. at the very least it deserves a serious study.
-
What are durgs, and why shouldn't anyone do them?
-SW
-
I'm just glad we have so many experts on radiation and used uranium.
I feel so safe now.
Keep up the good work, you omnipotent watchdogs.
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
What are durgs, and why shouldn't anyone do them?
-SW
What are you talking about Mr. Wulfe :D
Are you on durgs? hehehe
-
Originally posted by Drunky
I'm just glad we have so many experts on radiation and used uranium.
I feel so safe now.
Keep up the good work, you omnipotent watchdogs.
I think you are being unfair to Raubvogel.
-
Why are you complaining about this erlkoning, shouldnt you be happpy that the evil nazi bush mercinary rapist army may be suffering in some way?
-
Shouldn't you be happy that the filthy, degenerate, flag-burning, Jew-hating, OBL-worshipping, Saddamite children and farm animals of Baghdad may be suffering in some way?
-
No, why would I? Remember I support the war which liberated them from continued decades of internatinal isolation, backwardness, torture, suffering, starvation and other benefits of Hussein family rule... To the best of my recollection you did not...
-
Focus gentlemen focus....must... stay...on...on...top...ic
-
The only way you can get enough DU in you to do harm is if you get shot with it or do something silly like eat a projectile. The radiation is just too weak to harm you unless you have a chunk of it in your body.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
No, why would I? Remember I support the war which liberated them from continued decades of internatinal isolation, backwardness, torture, suffering, starvation and other benefits of Hussein family rule... To the best of my recollection you did not...
I really am dumbfounded that you felt you needed to type this out.
-
It answers your question.... And of course it's the truth, IRRC you supported the continued rule of the Hussein family government in Iraq...
-
its simply ridikulous to claim DU ammunition would have any long term effects which could affect humans.
-
DU residue is very toxic - like other heavy metals - but it depends on the method of exposure.
Our guys aren't getting hammered by the DU I think - it's like others have said...reservists getting their immune systems creamed by too many shots in too short a time period, plus some experimental type shots where the alternative (no shot) would have been a guranteed fatality if the almost worst-case scenario wound up actually happening - and the military lives by planning for the worst case.
Then add in residue from demo'd chemical weapons stockpiles, eating and soaking in oil and sucking down 'fresh' combusted oil fumes (I always laugh my bellybutton off when someone who was not there uses the term 'exposed' when talking about exposure to the burning oil, non-burning oil, etc. - 'bathed in'/'saturated in' is a better term by far) and you are going to get sick.
I crawled all over some AFVs that had been killed with DU based rounds and I got the requisite warning about the toxicity. I was on a non-reserve 'shot schedule' and my sinuses were wrecked for a couple of months afterwards. That's the oil in one form or another.
So that's the deal with our guys I think. The kids in Iraq, I'd say DU residue, oil residue, poor drinking water outside of the major population centers (read: anywhere but Baghdad), etc. and subpar standards of medical care (S. Hussein chased all the British and U.S. trained Iraqi Doctors out of Iraq not too long after the Iran-Iraq war - I know because I've interviewed 5 or 6 directly and they are members of a close-knit group of ~300). And before we get the 'American Government likes to kill other people's kids' parade all cranked up keep in mind that during those sanctions the Doctors already over there were short of medical supplies, top line equipment, and outside specialists because Iraq 'didn't have the money' (the U.N. sanctions didn't apply to medical field expenditures for the most part). Compare that with the hundreds of millions in cash that was found tucked away in the homes and safe houses of senior Iraqi leadership.
DU residue is very very toxic if inhaled and fairly toxic if swallowed. It changes properties if exposed to human respiration which makes it deadly poisonous if inhaled as particles (in sort of the same way that mercury, if swallowed, will probably be passed out of the system of the person who swallowed it - but if absorbed thru the skin or inhaled is 100 times more dangerous - swallowing mercury from a thermometer is *not* the same as eating mercury tainted fish by the way - no experimentation please :)).
I don't think (i.e., I really, really hope) that you won't see a 'GWS II'. They are looking for it, the oil and vaccination factors aren't there, and for the people and especially the kids (because radiation, toxins, etc. hit kids *far* harder than adults - you're damaging the building blocks not the end product in a constant state of repair - remember the Russians evacuating children from a radius 3 times the size of the adult evacuation radius after Chernobyl?) the medical care standards are going to be much improved (not because Iraqi doctors are 2nd rate, but because they'll actually have the tools they need to get the job done).
Mike/wulfie
-
Originally posted by Fishu
its simply ridikulous to claim DU ammunition would have any long term effects which could affect humans.
Fishu you are the most disappointing representation of a Finn that I have ever come across. Congratulations on supporting the mean.
Sissu! 'Buddy'!
*Not*.
Mike/wulfie
p.s. What happened with you? Did one of Comrade Stalin's bastard, sickly, venal, cowardly, clueless offspring manage to somehow infiltrate Finland and get it on with some Hot Finnish Mama?
p.p.s. The reason I know you're a retard is that the U.S., U.K., and others have known about DU residue, etc. for no small # of years now. You're like a little geeky kid near the pits at Le Mans reminding everyone that 'driving too fast can lead to fatalities' in a really annoying, nasal voice.
-
No, why would I? Remember I support the war which liberated them from continued decades of internatinal isolation, backwardness, torture, suffering, starvation and other benefits of Hussein family rule...
oh, I must remember it wrong. I thought you supported the war to protect us from those 'weapons of mass destruction' that where a 'clear and present threat' to the welfare and safety of our country (as far as I know that threat is the only excuse for not getting congressional approval for any war).
but in my defense the war changes themes often enough it's hard to keep up.
we ought to return this war to the store. it ain't what we where sold.
-
Well I think I answered my own question about Fishu. He's a 'Chernobyl Baby'. Fishu - I hereby retract all statements made about you disfavorably comparing you to the other Finns I know - the bellybutton kicking, action-not-words, ***** all opressors because independence is where it's at, die under the table drowing in vodka and FPMO American Sailor bastard type Finns.
I realize now that it's not your fault.
Sincerely,
Mike/wulfie
Willing Servant of the Evil Opressor Known As the U.S.A.
p.s. Guess I'll be seing you in the audience when they round me up for the Hague. Don't be shocked if I don't bring a lawyer.
-
Here comes Boroda to defend Stalin... :)
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Here comes Boroda to defend Stalin... :)
Hey at least he plays the part. Boroda is like an evil, I don't care, kill-'em-all we're communist and can do no wrong Klingon. He follows the path of what he's supposed to be.
Look at it this way. If Boroda and I bought the farm on exactly the same day, and we're at indoc in Heaven, and some Angel goes "Boroda, you retard, Stalin is in hell he's the most evil leader in the history of mankind, if killing innocents were a soccer match between him and Hitler it would have been an 8-1 victory for Stalin and that's with no injury time" Boroda would probably honestly ask "really" and the Angel would say "damn straight" and then Boroda would most likely go "Son of a gun, I was wrong - first drink is on me - I get to stay here, right?". And if I was wrong about Stalin, and the Angel set the record straight - I get the feeling Boroda wouldn't gloat. He'd buy me a drink and enjoy the shocked look on my face until I took the escalator to Hell (because Uncle Joe would be upstairs). Think along the lines of the end of the movie 'Patton' - "I'll drink to that - one sonofa***** to another".
Fishu, extreme leftists, etc. would get such shocking news and secretly whisper amongst themselves that 'Satan tried to take over Heaven because Heaven Oppressed Evil people', i.e. 'Heaven', like the WTC, 'asked for it'. I don't really care what happens to him in his life - he's only a super lefty AH player with a truly warped sense of world history, right and wrong, etc. after all - and even then you can't hold him responsible - blame Chernobyl is what I say - but with his attitude I'd love to see one night of him being married in 10 or 15 years. It would be...'educational' I think.
Were Fishu not a mentally crippled Chernobyl baby (i.e., he has an excuse), he'd be like a Klingon that gave up his knife and blaster to become a PI attorney. The only thing worse than stereotypical bad guys are stereotypical bad guys who take the fun out of stereotypical bad guys.
Mike/wulfie
-
Originally posted by Fishu
its simply ridikulous to claim DU ammunition would have any long term effects which could affect humans.
There's no way that Russian Mothers and Babies starved to death during the (non-U.N. Sanctioned) Siege of Leningrad. It's simply ridikulous.
But hey, those Mothers and Babies were preparing to take up arms against Finnland. 'They Asked For It'. So sayeth Osama Bin-Fishu.
Mike/wulfie
-
Easy, Wulfie. Fishu only posted a puerile statement involving the 'blitz' cliche. There were hundreds of other examples only very recently - 'arguing' for the other, pro-Bush side of course.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
The only way you can get enough DU in you to do harm is if you get shot with it or do something silly like eat a projectile. The radiation is just too weak to harm you unless you have a chunk of it in your body.
Or if a water supply is hit with these shells..Thousands died after Desert Storm because of this type of contamination and one can only imagine the fallout this time around.
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
Or if a water supply is hit with these shells..Thousands died after Desert Storm because of this type of contamination and one can only imagine the fallout this time around.
Sources?
-
Why we would hit a water supply with DU? :rolleyes:
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....
-
Originally posted by Raubvogel
Why we would hit a water supply with DU? :rolleyes:
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?
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
absolutely, and actually the smaller the peices the more dangerous they are.
-
Yup. It's why wood dust is regarded as harmful (specifically carcinogenic), requiring increased PPE and paper dust is considered to be generally harmless.
-
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!! :D
-
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?
-
Some resources:
http://www.thefourreasons.org/duresources.htm
h
-
It's the radioactive sheep...or goats....whatever they have over there.
-
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
-
Wulfie,
Easy now.. read what Dowding said about it, hes got it.
-
Where bullets containing lead used in Iraq? What about the lead dust? Isn't it dangerous too?
-
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.
-
Originally posted by Erlkonig
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.
Ummm. Define 'drugs' please. :) If you are talking about hashish, opium, mariahjiahwannah, coke, *illegal* speed, etc. then the answer would be, ummmmmm..."No". :)
And so what if I used three posts? It's not like a went and impugned the collective morality of the U.S.A. based on the decision to use nuclear weapons to end WW2 in the Pacific theater for example. And I didn't gloss over or ignore the fact that (at least) 2 million Japanese civilians dying from poison gas, artillery fire, bullets, etc. is *undoubtedly* *worse* than a couple hundred thousand dying before they knew what hit them. It's horrible that any innocents every have to die, but dead is dead and the fewer that die the better in every case is what I believe.
It's the classic debate of life and death issues between people that have had to make life and death decisions and people that will never have to make those decisions. Given your background I'm sure you know what I mean.
Anyways back to the point - you're a veteran and you are worried about GWS II because you empathize with guys who do what you used to do. I was worried about GWS I. I'm not overly worried about GWS II. Rest easy, at least until the next crisis comes up (and don't read any sarcasm into that statement there is none there).
Mike/wulfie
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy 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'.
[/B]
PEL stands for work safety limits per 8-hours right? So under these limits a person can do his regular work shift every whoopee day and he should live and prosper. Now how far away is that limit from something that can really, with a common sense taught as a no-no amount?
DU insoluble limit is 0,25 mg/m3 and lead is 0,05mg/m3. So this means that lead is more dangerous? Im not sure but dont they still commonly use lead in petroleum in third world countries?
Is soldiers PEL limits exeeded in Iraq?
Next is from
http://www.puaf.umd.edu/faculty/papers/fetter/sags-du.pdf
"Table 3 gives the maximum amount of uranium in the kidney following
the inhalation or ingestion of one gram of uranium aerosol. A uranium concentration
of 1 ppm in the kidney would result after inhaling 5 to 6 milligrams of
soluble uranium aerosol or 300 to 1400 milligrams of insoluble aerosol. For
comparison, the Health Physics Society estimates that the thresholds for transient
and permanent renal damage are 8 and 40 milligrams of inhaled soluble
uranium aerosol. Also note that a uranium concentration of 1 ppm in the
kidney would result after ingestion of 60 milligrams of soluble aerosol or 1400
milligrams of insoluble aerosol."
"Toxic effects at levels of exposure to uranium lower than those required to
cause kidney damage have not been reported. However, there has been much
less study of low-dose effects of uranium than for lead. In the case of lead, significant biochemical and neurological effects have been found at blood levels
five to ten times smaller than those which cause kidney damage. Thus, we
cannot rule out the possibility that significantly lower uranium doses might
have adverse, but as yet unrecognized, health effects."
How much lead dust are soldiers exposed to, or even regular people living in the cities in -80:s? All these sensation news about DU are DIRECTLY (falsely) linked for radiation. They talk about toxicity and all, but what they wont tell that it isnt linked to radioactivity, but is completely different property of being heavy metal. If they would make up these stories about lead poisoning, people would laugh at them. But same story with DU and whoa we have a new religion.
Which one is more harmful to you, inhaling lead dust from destroyed tank or DU dust?
-
Originally posted by Horn
Some resources:
http://www.thefourreasons.org/duresources.htm
h
Finelly something that is reliable, i mean page that links to sites like "http://www.alkhilafah.info/massacres/iraq/" must be The Truth.
I used to think that content with less text and more pictures are for kids, but whadda ya know! (disclaimer, porn excluded)
-
Originally posted by wulfie
It's the classic debate of life and death issues between people that have had to make life and death decisions and people that will never have to make those decisions. Given your background I'm sure you know what I mean.
Anyways back to the point - you're a veteran and you are worried about GWS II because you empathize with guys who do what you used to do. I was worried about GWS I. I'm not overly worried about GWS II. Rest easy, at least until the next crisis comes up (and don't read any sarcasm into that statement there is none there).
Mike/wulfie
I think you mistake me for someone else - I am not a veteran.
-
Originally posted by Tuomio
Finelly something that is reliable, i mean page that links to sites like "http://www.alkhilafah.info/massacres/iraq/" must be The Truth.
I used to think that content with less text and more pictures are for kids, but whadda ya know! (disclaimer, porn excluded)
I see. So you would dispute this one?
http://www.antenna.nl/wise/uranium/pdf/dumyths.pdf
I don't think I mentioned "truth" anywhere.
:rolleyes:
h
-
Originally posted by Horn
I see. So you would dispute this one?
http://www.antenna.nl/wise/uranium/pdf/dumyths.pdf
I don't think I mentioned "truth" anywhere.
:rolleyes:
h
Many antiwar people see the antiwar "nonbiased.iraq.info" as an absolute truth. Being "nonprofitable" (usually pure lie) doesent mean nonbiased.
That article that you now linked starts with a words
"One overlooked but significant consequence of the Bush administration's plans to invade
Iraq is the renewed debate about weapons containing depleted uranium (DU). "
Ok so now i have my shields on, i scroll this and look for tables or data about what happens when person finds himself around an tank thats been destroyed by such round. Nada..
There isnt ANY info about the doses that man must ingest and the types of heavy metals to get yourself a problem. Sure, 900 000kg of DU is a big chunk, but where it currently exists in Afghanistan deserts? 30% of it perhaps 16,2 meters underground? How is it dispersed and in what forms, aerosol type is the worst and intact shell underground is no biggie. What happens to the DU aerosol when it finally soon after lands? What are the scenarios of people getting this stuff inside their bodies for long times?
All these questions and no answers from that lousy FAQ..Im no scientist, but if somebody wants to claim something like this:
"Despite the obvious limitations with the Iraqi studies, anti-DU activists and Iraqi doctors
have misleadingly pointed to the Iraqi studies and claims as proof that the effects of the
use of DU are equivalent to effects of the Chernobyl nuclear reactor accident. The
comparison to the Chernobyl accident, which has had quantifiable, widespread and
serious health and environmental effects, is inaccurate and inappropriate. Nonetheless,
among others, anti-DU activist Leuren Moret has claimed, "The use of depleted uranium
by the Department of Defense has created a slow Chernobyl in the Middle East." Iraqi
doctor Huda Ammash has even claimed the release of DU in Iraq is equivalent to 100
Chernobyl accidents. "
Its all about radiation again isnt it?
This guy better have very very good and simple statistics backing up on him. People getting sick from this "obvious" cause should be no big deal for scientists to identify and study. Basically most of that FAQ is filled with how the army is stupid, Maverics could all the job blah blah (quick scroll). If he thinks hes good army advisor he should maybe fill an application for such job.
Oh and this "4.9. Israel is using DU against the Palestinian people"
Were talking about serious non-biased data here folks!
" The adjective "depleted" by no means diminishes the
chemical and radioactive properties of DU, but it can affect how people perceive DU's
risks. "
Duck and cover, it might be the nuclear bullets! :eek:
-
I dont get it... Why would DU rounds affect the US military? Those rounds were not used against us. The only exposure would be loading the DU rounds. I am sure that a few troopers climbed on destroyed vehicles but let us remember that a large amount of vets affected were the folks in the rear.....
-
PEL stands for work safety limits per 8-hours right? So under these limits a person can do his regular work shift every whoopee day and he should live and prosper. Now how far away is that limit from something that can really, with a common sense taught as a no-no amount?
actually most experts believe most of our PEL's (this is a general statement, not specific to any one chemical) are above a safe level. in the process to determine the LEGAL PEL's scientists submit data then the industry argues what these limits would do to their profitability, loby heavily and put pressure on lawmakers, the PEL falls somewhere in between a safe level and a profitable level. (imagine if true PEL's for cigarette smoke where published and not prevented by money)
also these PEL's change often (usually more restrictive) as scientists collect more data and it becomes harder for a dollar to win out over the amount of info stacked against it, they bargain again and the PEL becomes more restrictive.
if you doubt this do a check on the PEL's for lead. I have the data but don't really feel like digging through the books to pull up the levels. if you look it up you will find that the levels have become signifigantly more restrictive as the years go by with the industry basicly being drug kicking and screaming the whole way.
or as another example this summer I attended a certification upgrade for HAZ-MAT instructor at the hanford site (real nasty place). while talking to the rad-tech there he told me the PEL for radiation is now 500 mrem per anum. my last nuke job was in '90 the pel then was nominaly 500mrem per quarter (you could easily be cleared for 1500 with nothing more than a signiture on a form), because they run calander quarters and the work stradled the quarter date I was allowed to take 2,700 mrem of radiation in less than 45 days. all perfectly legal.
did radiation become more dangerous in the last 13 years?
even if the levels for DU where below the PEL's (and afaik nobody bothered to check) that doesn't mean the levels where safe or that these guys don't have real health problems related to DU. don't be suprised to see a whole new batch of sick soldiers and deformed babies
-
I dont get it... Why would DU rounds affect the US military?
source (http://www.nuclearpolicy.org/NewsArticle.cfm?NewsID=333)
The new contract is for a test batch of 30-millimetre ammunition of the type used by American A-10 "tank buster" aircraft, which fired some 75 tonnes of DU during the recent Iraq conflict.
75 ton, that is just from the a-10 alone.
now add all the other weapons that used DU and throw in a couple sand storms.
-
At lest we aren't talking about those inhumane cluster bombs and napalm strikes or those evil neutron bombs that kill people and leave buildings standing, unlike "conventional" tac nukes that kill more people, level buildings and irridate the landscape :rolleyes:
BTW, how much more effective is DU than tungsten etc.?
Charon
-
Originally posted by jamusta
I dont get it... Why would DU rounds affect the US military? Those rounds were not used against us. The only exposure would be loading the DU rounds. I am sure that a few troopers climbed on destroyed vehicles but let us remember that a large amount of vets affected were the folks in the rear.....
A little theory..
US was pretty much all the time advancing rapidly (keyword: rapidly), so we could assume the leading forces were the ones who were least exposed to hazards of used DU rounds, since they were after all advancing most of the time ahead of the wastelands and when they created such a DU wasteland, they passed it quicly.
However these folks in the rear were all the time camping around these wastelands the advancing ones had created.
If assumed the DU rounds becomes harmful after been used, in form of a small particles, it would be even worse for the folks in the rear than for the advancing ones - since the particles hasn't yet had the time to spread around during the presence of advancing forces, but has had some time to spread around by the time rear elements arrives.
So the rear elements would been all the time bathing in a DU filled dust. (depending on the areas of course)
This would be only further magnified by the large open areas of the desert, where the wind blows rather freely and doesn't have much obstruction in the way, like in europe, where are plentiful amounts of trees, bushes, grass...
Desert conditions would also make it easier to inhale DU particles.
Then on to some other theories...
The origin for these harmful DU particles could be also be in the chemical reactions at the time it strikes some certain surface.
Maybe it isn't the armour + DU, maybe it could be just as well sand + DU or something else like that?
Fairly certainly most of the DU rounds were missed and instead hit one the biggest targets on earth - the ground itself.
-
Depleted uranium rounds actually "self sharpen" as they penetrate armor, increasing the penetration; as opposed to tungsten and other metals which mushroom upon impact.
Standard Army training concerning depleted uranium warns soldiers to stay at least 50 meters from a vehicle suspected to have been hit with DU munitions. We receive yearly training on precautions to take and signs to identify DU munitions. Army doctrine calls for wearing gloves and donning protective mask if you must work in the area of a DU hit vehicle.
DU is heavy, I seriously doubt that the dust would be blown very far at all.
Personally, I'd rather fight a war knowing that we had weapons to put just about anything out of commission and increase my chances for survival than be equipped with something that is "safer" but might not kill the bad guys as well. Just my 2 cents.
-
When we reach the point at which the environment is the primary concern of War, then we will truly be a doomed species.
-
"Despite the obvious limitations with the Iraqi studies, anti-DU activists and Iraqi doctors
have misleadingly pointed to the Iraqi studies and claims as proof that the effects of the
use of DU are equivalent to effects of the Chernobyl nuclear reactor accident. The
comparison to the Chernobyl accident, which has had quantifiable, widespread and
serious health and environmental effects, is inaccurate and inappropriate. Nonetheless,
among others, anti-DU activist Leuren Moret has claimed, "The use of depleted uranium
by the Department of Defense has created a slow Chernobyl in the Middle East." Iraqi
doctor Huda Ammash has even claimed the release of DU in Iraq is equivalent to 100
Chernobyl accidents. "
Its all about radiation again isnt it?
This guy better have very very good and simple statistics backing up on him. People getting sick from this "obvious" cause should be no big deal for scientists to identify and study. Basically most of that FAQ is filled with how the army is stupid, Maverics could all the job blah blah (quick scroll). If he thinks hes good army advisor he should maybe fill an application for such job.
Read it again Tuomio. It's not about radiation at all. And scroll to the 35th and last page for your statistics.
h
-
Originally posted by Erlkonig
I think you mistake me for someone else - I am not a veteran.
I did mistake you for someone else who is a veteran. But if the cause of your post is honest concern for the guys serving in the military, then my sentiments are unchanged.
Mike/wulfie
-
Originally posted by Raubvogel
Depleted uranium rounds actually "self sharpen" as they penetrate armor, increasing the penetration; as opposed to tungsten and other metals which mushroom upon impact.
Standard Army training concerning depleted uranium warns soldiers to stay at least 50 meters from a vehicle suspected to have been hit with DU munitions. We receive yearly training on precautions to take and signs to identify DU munitions. Army doctrine calls for wearing gloves and donning protective mask if you must work in the area of a DU hit vehicle.
DU is heavy, I seriously doubt that the dust would be blown very far at all.
Personally, I'd rather fight a war knowing that we had weapons to put just about anything out of commission and increase my chances for survival than be equipped with something that is "safer" but might not kill the bad guys as well. Just my 2 cents.
Well you learn something new every day. I never knew they 'self-sharpened'. Do good guy mad scientists kick butt or what? :)
When did you get the 'stay 50 meters away' training? Before or after the '91 Gulf War?
Mike/wulfie
-
Originally posted by Raubvogel
DU is heavy, I seriously doubt that the dust would be blown very far at all.
Personally, I'd rather fight a war knowing that we had weapons to put just about anything out of commission and increase my chances for survival than be equipped with something that is "safer" but might not kill the bad guys as well. Just my 2 cents.
If as big particles of sand which can be seen with pure eye can be blown without a sand storm, I don't see why smaller particles of DU couldn't in the case it creates small particles upon impact.
Heavier or not, at a certain size it'll be light enough.
Most likely these particles created by DU round would be very small and numerous.
The impact force at which the DU round comes at, is quite extreme.
As seen from the battlefield, after the impact it can go through a tank and cause buildup of heat so fast the unbuttoned tank commanders can fry too fast to make a move and stick there burned, as if nothing had happened.
Has anyone ever studied what blows out of the tanks when DU projectile hits it and how much of the projectile is left after going through the object and how much is gone who knows where?
What comes to the usefulness of DU rounds during gulf war, can be argued whether those were all that necessary, considering how non-DU rounds would been still an overkill against whatever the Iraqis had.
A-10's perhaps had most use of the DU rounds, considering how their cannon is nowhere near equal to what 120mm tank cannon can throw at the target even without DU rounds.
-
DU rounds are also pyrophoric - the fragments ignite in air, torching the interior of the target vehicle.
see the link in my previous post
DU is heavy, I seriously doubt that the dust would be blown very far at all.
after it ignites it would be thoroughly atomized, no problem getting or keeping it airborne. also in this form it would be at it's most dangerous, as it would be easily ingested through the lungs.
-
Originally posted by wulfie
Well you learn something new every day. I never knew they 'self-sharpened'. Do good guy mad scientists kick butt or what? :)
When did you get the 'stay 50 meters away' training? Before or after the '91 Gulf War?
Mike/wulfie
Afterwards of course. ;) After I had already climbed all over a bunch of T-72s and T-62s heh.
No Gulf War syndrome here, might be a little demented, but physically I feel fine :)
-
Originally posted by Raubvogel
Afterwards of course. ;) After I had already climbed all over a bunch of T-72s and T-62s heh.
"...great minds, they think alike." :)
What unit and where were you? I always wonder if I caught a ride at one point or another on one of your unit's whirlybirds.
Mike/wulfie
-
Ok I see how it could spread...You can teach an old dog new tricks...It makes since if that much DU rounds were fired.
-
Wulfie:
I was with the 11th Aviation Brigade, 7th/159th Avn Bn out of Stuttgart Germany. We supported 7th Corps, but mostly the 2nd ACR, 1st CAV, and 1st ID. Was at IPS#3 (Iraqi Pumping Station 3), Quasimah (sp?), then followed the 2nd ACR on their rampage. Worked mostly with Q Troop, 2nd ACR myself. Being a Corps asset, my unit was just plugged in wherever we were needed.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
oh, I must remember it wrong. I thought you supported the war to protect us from those 'weapons of mass destruction' that where a 'clear and present threat' to the welfare and safety of our country (as far as I know that threat is the only excuse for not getting congressional approval for any war).
but in my defense the war changes themes often enough it's hard to keep up.
we ought to return this war to the store. it ain't what we where sold.
So anyone found the following yet.
1. Saddam Hussein
2. WMD's
3. Osama
4. Way out of the mess
5. Way to get rid of the morons running America these days
-
So anyone found the following yet.
1. Saddam Hussein
2. WMD's
3. Osama
4. Way out of the mess
5. Way to get rid of the morons running America these days
no, but I'm fairly sure that #1 & 3 exist
-
From a 1999 Rand Report, "A Review of the Scientific Literature as it Pertains to Gulf War Illnesses: Volume 7 Depleted Uranium," indicates no evidence of harmful health effects directly linked to depleted uranium exposures at levels experienced by Gulf War veterans.
Exposure to uranium at high doses can cause kidney problems. However, no increase in kidney disease has been observed in relatively large occupational populations chronically exposed to natural uranium at concentrations above normal ambient levels.
Researchers at the Baltimore VA Medical Center are following the group of Gulf War Veterans with the greatest exposure to depleted uranium, veterans with embedded fragments. Although these individuals have an array of health problems, many of which are related to their combat injuries, researchers say "To date no manifestations of kidney disease attributable to the chemical toxicity of depleted uranium have been found; neither do these individuals appear to have manifestations attributable to radiation effects."
-
Horn, i fail to see any information about DU harms in that .pdf. Besides the radiation claims, which you just denied..Just look at the table of contents and you see what the author represents. Yeah, the title tries to convince you about these silly contents being "myths", but they hardly are represented as such when you read them..
I linked an document, that suggested 300-1400mg of ingested DU dust causing kidney damage. 300mg on cubic meter of air would exceed PEL ratings 1200 fold..THAT would ring some alarms on GI safety regulators wouldnt it? And it STILL would be just whole another issue of ingesting all that stuff on cubic meter of air inside your body.
Capt. Were those limits tightened because of safety marginal increase, or has some new scientific evidence popped up? Many many regulations are pushed to silly (maybe wrong adjective in radiation limits, but still) extents with political reasons. Especially things with "radiation" tag on it. And no matter whats reason, it has nothing to do with depleted uranium and its effects for populations. Id still like to hear whether its more dangerous to breathe lead dust than DU dust, PEL suggests that lead is 5 times more dangerous.
And my other question, is PEL ratings exceeded in Iraq currently? If not, then what is the problem? I know, its the radiation, again, round we go.