dorbie 0 #126 December 18, 2004 QuoteQuoteDeal with the facts dude. I'm trying, but you keep claiming a different set of "facts," yet you continually fail to document anything. Sorry, unless you can explain why you are qualified as an expert, I have to assume you are just someone who took a Chemistry class before moving on to software. I could be wrong, of course. You might have your PhD. in Chemistry, with radioactive elements being your area of expertise, but you just got bored with it and switched to software. Is that what makes you such an expert? Deal with the facts, dude. The shit is DANGEROUS. In what way, you've offered no evidence of that, just a lot of self reinforcing nonsense. You want to believe it's dangerous and accept everything that says it might be but deny everything that says it isn't. Then you use it as a political tool saying this dangerous stuff is affecting morale. No, your bullshit claims you'd like propagated would affect morale if there's any effect. You say I'm not an expert, big deal, it doesn't affect my calculations above, feel free to run over them and tell me why you think they're wrong. You can't because you know less than me but pretend to have expert backing. I've demonstrated why you're wrong and posted the calculations and all you can do is impugn my reputation. You'll call someone that agrees with you an expert at the drop of a hat "because he read 20 sources" turns out they're B.S. sources that turn out to be hysterical biased diatribes that call DU a WMD, but you'll impugn anyone who offers contrary reasoning. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #127 December 18, 2004 QuoteIn what way, you've offered no evidence of that, just a lot of self reinforcing nonsense. You should really reread the quote by the ECRR again, particularly the last sentence. QuoteThus the committee concludes that the epidemiological evidence of internal exposures must take precedence over mechanistic theory-based models in assessing radiation risk from internal sources. Now, I will ask again. What makes you more qualified than the experts?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #128 December 18, 2004 Quote Deal with the facts, dude. The shit is DANGEROUS. I'd love to. Unfortunately, you've posted so much BS along with the facts that I can't tell which are which, and the logical conclusion is to dismiss all of it until a better source of information comes along. The is frequently the problem with idealogical sources. While lies and hyperbole work great on the easily scared, it only serves to discredit the whole for those who choose to read more carefully. This isn't restricted to notions I'm opposed to. I'm often dismayed by things written by the NRA. Lying less then Sarah Brady isn't a good enough standard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #129 December 18, 2004 Of course the epidemiological evidence should take precedence, but you don't even know that some assertion of mystery illness is caused by DU. You're assuming it, if you assume the epidemiology with no causal link you've accomplished nothing, but you could claim anything if you start with the assumption that DU is the cause. That document is talking about all sorts of radioisotopes. The Europeans have looked at DU and are looking again and have found nothing. You claim I'm disagreeing with some expert because I'm disagreeing with you. I'm not, it's just another flaw in your reasoning. There's nothing in that reference that contradicts anything I've said. Even with ingested radioisotopes the dosage matters, it's absolutely critical, I've demonstrated with absolute clarity why U-238 delivers a very low dose. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #130 December 18, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteRubbish, oxidation does not affect radioactive decay. Geeze dude you just throw out this nonsense without a clue and imply a danger that doesn't exist. The only thing oxidation would do is marginally reduce the number of nuclei of U-238 in a microgram. i.e. reduce the radiation per microgram of any ingested material. Obviously you're totally unqualified to tell who the experts are. You still haven't admitted any of your errors and stand by your nonsense. All you say in the face of hard facts and explanations is I'm not an expert, no doubt because I don't agree with you, and throw out non sequiturs about oxidation. Get back to me when you can estimate the radiation doseage from a mass of a radioisotope and I might listen to you. Oxidation is what produces the aerosol of oxide particles that get ingested. It's the oxidation that makes it particularly hazardous. DU isn't pure U238 either. They can't get all the 235 out. I stated it was ingested that's what we're discussing. Restating an assumption to imply ignorance is a low tactic. I was also the first poster in this thread to point out that other isotopes of Uranium exist in DU and it depends entirely on how depleted the Uranium is, go look at the existing thread. Here's the post: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=1389976;page=4;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25;#1393787 So sorry, it must have been someone else posting under your name that wrote "The only thing oxidation would do is marginally reduce the number of nuclei of U-238 in a microgram. i.e. reduce the radiation per microgram of any ingested material." And since you acknowledge other nuclides in DU why did you try to mislead us with your calculation of disintegreation rates based on pure 238 (which, incidentally, completely ignored the exponential nature of radioactivity and therefore underestimates the current rate)? I don't think I'm the one employing "low tactics". If you think uranium oxide dust in aerosol form is so safe to breathe, why not volunteer to be a test subject? It is TRULY remarkable how so many of our wonderful and brave troops that we all support, suddenly become whining hypochondriacs when they return from a combat zone - according to the supporters of the right.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #131 December 18, 2004 Quote Of course the epidemiological evidence should take precedence, but you don't even know that some assertion of mystery illness is caused by DU. By your logic, there is no absolute proof that cigarettes cause lung cancer. Statistically, there seems to be a correllation. I understand, corellation does not prove causation, but it doesn't rule it out, either. How do you propose experimenting to find out if there is an interaction with the body that we don't yet understand? I don't think that you will find to many people lining up to be guinee pigs in a study to determine the critical dosages of aerosoled uranium. In leau of that, epidemiological evidence is the best we have. Personally, I don't feel the risk of using DU is worth taking. Maybe these experts in the field are wrong, and DU is safe enough to make popscicle sticks with. On the other hand, there might be a reason why they are experts in their field and you are a software engineer and I am a student again. Those guys might actually know what they are talking about. One more thing. I merely helped edit a paper over the course of a few weeks, read some of the sources, and thought it was pertinent in this particular thread. I didn't write it. I had no intention of defending it in depth. To be honest, I don't really even like chemistry. If you wonder if the basic premise of the paper is BS, ask Kallend. If he's not an expert, I'd be willing to bet he knows one.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #132 December 18, 2004 QuoteQuote Of course the epidemiological evidence should take precedence, but you don't even know that some assertion of mystery illness is caused by DU. By your logic, there is no absolute proof that cigarettes cause lung cancer. Statistically, there seems to be a correllation. I understand, corellation does not prove causation, but it doesn't rule it out, either. How do you propose experimenting to find out if there is an interaction with the body that we don't yet understand? I don't think that you will find to many people lining up to be guinee pigs in a study to determine the critical dosages of aerosoled uranium. In leau of that, epidemiological evidence is the best we have. Personally, I don't feel the risk of using DU is worth taking. Maybe these experts in the field are wrong, and DU is safe enough to make popscicle sticks with. On the other hand, there might be a reason why they are experts in their field and you are a software engineer and I am a student again. Those guys might actually know what they are talking about. One more thing. I merely helped edit a paper over the course of a few weeks, read some of the sources, and thought it was pertinent in this particular thread. I didn't write it. I had no intention of defending it in depth. To be honest, I don't really even like chemistry. If you wonder if the basic premise of the paper is BS, ask Kallend. If he's not an expert, I'd be willing to bet he knows one. I have been chairman of my university's Radiation Safety Committee since 1986. I have done research on uranium processing at Los Alamos. I do not claim to be an expert, except with respect to some of the people around here.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #133 December 18, 2004 QuoteI have been chairman of my university's Radiation Safety Committee since 1986. I have done research on uranium processing at Los Alamos. I do not claim to be an expert, except with respect to some of the people around here. I readily admit that I am one of those people around here.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #134 December 18, 2004 Quote So sorry, it must have been someone else posting under your name that wrote "The only thing oxidation would do is marginally reduce the number of nuclei of U-238 in a microgram. i.e. reduce the radiation per microgram of any ingested material." Disgracefully you distort what I wrote, here's the same quote: "The only thing oxidation would do is marginally reduce the number of nuclei of U-238 in a microgram. i.e. reduce the radiation per microgram of any ingested material." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #135 December 18, 2004 QuoteQuote So sorry, it must have been someone else posting under your name that wrote "The only thing oxidation would do is marginally reduce the number of nuclei of U-238 in a microgram. i.e. reduce the radiation per microgram of any ingested material." Disgracefully you distort what I wrote, here's the same quote: "The only thing oxidation would do is marginally reduce the number of nuclei of U-238 in a microgram. i.e. reduce the radiation per microgram of any ingested material." Look up the definition of "only".... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #136 December 18, 2004 Quote And since you acknowledge other nuclides in DU why did you try to mislead us with your calculation of disintegreation rates based on pure 238 (which, incidentally, completely ignored the exponential nature of radioactivity and therefore underestimates the current rate)? Yep it did that was a mean rate and a slight underestimate, but the effect wouldn't change the ballpark the figure was in as you should know. Additionally there's no misleading anyone with my isotope ratios in fact until your post I'm the only one in the thread who has pointed out that DU is not just pure D-238. DU typically has 0.2% D-235 and that has a half life of 710 million years. In other words it's presence would barely have affected the outcome. I'm puzzled about you raising these to try to attack me, I still say they're reasonable and in the right ballpark but you just tried to imply I've been dishonest over this. Don't you know DU has .2% U-235 and that has a 710million year half life? For a quick back of the envelope calculation that gets us in the right ballpark my results are reasonable and informative and I stick by them. As for the illness syndromes of Vets, I'm all for finding the cause, but depriving them of the best weapon for the job based on hysteria and scarce evidence is not the best solution. P.S. your corrections are welcome but not your attack implying I've been intentionally deceptive Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #137 December 18, 2004 "The only thing oxidation would do is marginally reduce the number of nuclei of U-238 in a microgram. i.e. reduce the radiation per microgram of any ingested material." Quote Look up the definition of "only". The assumption was that there was a microgram of ingested material and that was a set of conditions proposed by OTHERS. The word ingested is in the sentence. Geeze dude it's one thing to be pedantic another to ignore a word I wrote in the same sentence you're quoting. Go look at the context there was a context you know. If you try to critique me with this sort of childish nonsense you'll only come off looking silly. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #138 December 18, 2004 Quote "The only thing oxidation would do is marginally reduce the number of nuclei of U-238 in a microgram. i.e. reduce the radiation per microgram of any ingested material." Quote Look up the definition of "only". The assumption was that there was a microgram of ingested material and that was a set of conditions proposed by OTHERS. The word ingested is in the sentence. Geeze dude it's one thing to be pedantic another to ignore a word I wrote in the same sentence you're quoting. Go look at the context there was a context you know. If you try to critique me with this sort of childish nonsense you'll only come off looking silly. The relevant sentence (the one with "only") ends with the first period, after "microgram". And that sentence is incorrect. Period. No reason we should assume anything. Oxidation increases the amount of ingested material, so the total radiation dose is increased. You are simply trying to evade the issue that the pyrophoric properties of U make it a WORSE battlefield pollutant. As I suggested before, since you believe it is benign, why not volunteer as a test subject?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #139 December 18, 2004 QuoteQuote "The only thing oxidation would do is marginally reduce the number of nuclei of U-238 in a microgram. i.e. reduce the radiation per microgram of any ingested material." Quote Look up the definition of "only". The assumption was that there was a microgram of ingested material and that was a set of conditions proposed by OTHERS. The word ingested is in the sentence. Geeze dude it's one thing to be pedantic another to ignore a word I wrote in the same sentence you're quoting. Go look at the context there was a context you know. If you try to critique me with this sort of childish nonsense you'll only come off looking silly. The relevant sentence (the one with "only") ends with the first period, after "microgram". And that sentence is incorrect. Period. No reason we should assume anything. Sigh.... Yep no reason you should infer anything from those other words you quoted. Just ignore them. (the explicit "i.e." ignore that too). Oxidation also has the effect of changing the appearance and chemistry of Uranium, do you think I explicitly meant to exclude that too? Like I said things have a context and now you're being impossible. It looks like I've gotten under your skin, and if this is the level of discussion it's time to stick a fork in this thread. It's been fun sir I salute you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites slug 1 #140 December 18, 2004 Hi Guy's and gals it took a long time to speed read thru all this stuff but i stuck with it and will admit that I don't understand any of it. Except During the initial phase of Iraqi freedom there was some more use of DU in destruction of more Iraqi heavy armor. During the current phase of ops in a guerilla/insurgent urban enviroment is there a need for the continued use of the penertration power of DU based weapons?. IMO the shortage of troops in the field and the backdoor draft are presently hurting the morale of our troops. The number of troops affected by PTSD may exceed the number affected by DU. Lets do what we gotta do in IRAQ once and get our soliders out. http://www.talkingproud.us/ article on Blind Bat missions dur VN and some of the mistakes made that led our loss of the war. In spite of the article Don't know if VN was winnable and don't know if Iraq is either. Useless loss of life is bad for morale and the long term mental health of our troops. It took the VA 15 years to acknowledge the adverse health effects of agent orange on our troops after the end of VN. R.I.P. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,106 #141 December 18, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuote Everything you've written underestimates or downplays the biological effect of these munitions. The implication is that you think troops complaining of Gulf War Syndrome are malingerers. So what do you believe is the SAFE amount of sub-micron size uranium oxide dust to inhale/ingest? IMO, DU will be to Iraq what Agent Orange was to VN - a self inflicted injury on our own boys.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gawain 0 #142 December 18, 2004 Just to point one more thing out about the original subject of this thread Bill: It wasn't until November of this year that US troops were fully out of the Balkans. That was a peacekeeping mission, saw very little conflict, more than 100,000 troops participated --- and it lasted nine years. Now, from the beginning, the President and other high ranking officials in our government have told us that this conflict (the war on terror) was going to last a very, very long time. They also told us that US involvement in Iraq would last several years. It was further explained at the onset, that the US would suffer more casualties in this war. I love how people are screaming about how long it's been, how they were uninformed, unprepared...total bullsh*t.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,106 #143 December 18, 2004 QuoteJust to point one more thing out about the original subject of this thread Bill: It wasn't until November of this year that US troops were fully out of the Balkans. That was a peacekeeping mission, saw very little conflict, more than 100,000 troops participated --- and it lasted nine years. Now, from the beginning, the President and other high ranking officials in our government have told us that this conflict (the war on terror) was going to last a very, very long time. They also told us that US involvement in Iraq would last several years. It was further explained at the onset, that the US would suffer more casualties in this war. I love how people are screaming about how long it's been, how they were uninformed, unprepared...total bullsh*t. Feb. 7, 2003: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy: "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months." * March 4, 2003: Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at a breakfast with reporters: "What you'd like to do is have it be a short, short conflict. . . . Iraq is much weaker than they were back in the '90s," when its forces were routed from Kuwait. * March 11, 2003: Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars: "The Iraqi people understand what this crisis is about. Like the people of France in the 1940s, they view us as their hoped-for liberator." * March 16, 2003: Vice President Cheney, on NBC's Meet the Press: "I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months."... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #144 December 18, 2004 QuoteNow, from the beginning, the President and other high ranking officials in our government have told us that this conflict (the war on terror) was going to last a very, very long time. They also told us that US involvement in Iraq would last several years. It was further explained at the onset, that the US would suffer more casualties in this war. I love how people are screaming about how long it's been, how they were uninformed, unprepared...total bullsh*t. The Defense Department relied on the Iraqi civilians welcoming our troops with open arms, after what we did to them in 1991. That is reckless and irresponsible leadership. Tell me, what reason did Shrub give for abandoning UN Weapons Inspection process, which worked, by the way, for invading Iraq and killing civilians. That Saddam was a tyrant is all the more reason to protect the civilians. After all, they had no say in what Saddam did. Its not like they were a democratic nation that could be held accountable for their governments actions. We are responsible for what Shrub does, if for know other reason than us allowing him to remain in office. If his foreign policy causes us problems with foreign minorities, we have no one to blame but ourselves. White House Switchboard: (202) 456-1414 U.S. Senate: (202) 224-3121 U.S. House of Representatives (202) 225-3121Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dorbie 0 #145 December 21, 2004 Quote Everything you've written underestimates or downplays the biological effect of these munitions. The implication is that you think troops complaining of Gulf War Syndrome are malingerers. So what do you believe is the SAFE amount of sub-micron size uranium oxide dust to inhale/ingest? IMO, DU will be to Iraq what Agent Orange was to VN - a self inflicted injury on our own boys. This is a misrepresentation of my position. Just because I don't subscribe to one unproven theory for gulf war syndrome does not mean I think troops are malingerers. Infact I have mentioned in this thread that there are numerous theories about gulf war syndrome. If we acted on everyone's pet theory over gulf war syndrome without evidence we'd be banning everything from vaccines to diet coke. If you're going to keep misrepresenting my position then perhaps you could explain to me how someone with your credentials could be apparently unaware of the isotope ratios in DU and that the half live of U-235 was 710 million years? Were you just unaware when you accused me of deliberately misleading everyone here or was it another cynical attempt to discredit any opposition using the flimsiest of pretexts? That's got to be pretty embarrassing, I mean U-235 isn't even 1% of natural Uranium and you accused me of dishonesty for not factoring it in DU. Not everything I've written underestimates the biological effects. I hear a lot of overblown hype and I'm the only person in this thread to do any *estimate* at all with any real numbers and as you know those numbers are still in the right ballpark. It doesn't significantly underestimate anything, it brings a reasonable estimate to bear on overblown claims w.r.t. the exposure discussed. Why you object to that and attack me for it is beyond me. I mean argue over the effects of the numbers by all means, argue that the quantities may be larger, but geeze dude attacking me for producing the numbers when they're a pretty darned good estimate is hardly the act of someone confident in their position. What do you want people to do? Ban DU without considering the evidence of the remarkably low radioactivity? If the quantities are higher fine, but claims that these miniscule quantities are fatal deserve scrutiny and I'm the only person in this thread to bring any scrutiny to bear. Your reaction to estimates of radiological activity speaks to your bias not mine. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #146 December 21, 2004 QuoteIf you're going to keep misrepresenting my position then perhaps you could explain to me how someone with your credentials could be apparently unaware of the isotope ratios in DU and that the half live of U-235 was 710 million years? Were you just unaware when you accused me of deliberately misleading everyone here or was it another cynical attempt to discredit any opposition using the flimsiest of pretexts? That's got to be pretty embarrassing, I mean U-235 isn't even 1% of natural Uranium and you accused me of dishonesty for not factoring it in DU. Not everything I've written underestimates the biological effects. I hear a lot of overblown hype and I'm the only person in this thread to do any *estimate* at all with any real numbers and as you know those numbers are still in the right ballpark. It doesn't significantly underestimate anything, it brings a reasonable estimate to bear on overblown claims w.r.t. the exposure discussed. Why you object to that and attack me for it is beyond me. I mean argue over the effects of the numbers by all means, argue that the quantities may be larger, but geeze dude attacking me for producing the numbers when they're a pretty darned good estimate is hardly the act of someone confident in their position. What do you want people to do? Ban DU without considering the evidence of the remarkably low radioactivity? If the quantities are higher fine, but claims that these miniscule quantities are fatal deserve scrutiny and I'm the only person in this thread to bring any scrutiny to bear. Your reaction to estimates of radiological activity speaks to your bias not mine. "In 2003 scientists from the Uranium Medical Research Center (UMRC) studied urine samples of Afghan civilians and found that 100% of the samples taken had levels of non-depleted uranium (NDU) 400% to 2000% higher than normal levels. The UMRC research team studied six sites, two in Kabul and others in the Jalalabad area. The civilians were tested four months after the attacks in Afghanistan by the United States and its allies. NDU is more radioactive than depleted uranium (DU), which itself is charged with causing many cancers and severe birth defects in the Iraqi population–especially children–over the past ten years. Four million pounds of radioactive uranium was dropped on Iraq in 2003 alone. Uranium dust will be in the bodies of our returning armed forces. Nine soldiers from the 442nd Military Police serving in Iraq were tested for DU contamination in December 2003. Conducted at the request of The News, as the U.S. government considers the cost of $1,000 per affected soldier prohibitive, the test found that four of the nine men were contaminated with high levels of DU, likely caused by inhaling dust from depleted uranium shells fired by U.S. troops. Several of the men had traces of another uranium isotope, U-236, that are produced only in a nuclear reaction process. ... At the Uranium Weapons Conference held October 2003 in Hamburg, Germany, independent scientists from around the world testified to a huge increase in birth deformities and cancers wherever NDU and DU had been used. Professor Katsuma Yagasaki, a scientist at the Ryukyus University, Okinawa calculated that the 800 tons of DU used in Afghanistan is the radioactive equivalent of 83,000 Nagasaki bombs. The amount of DU used in Iraq is equivalent to 250,000 Nagasaki bombs. At the Uranium Weapons Conference, a demonstration by British-trained oncologist Dr. Jawad Al-Ali showed photographs of the kinds of birth deformities and tumors he had observed at the Saddam Teaching Hospital in Basra just before the 2003 war. Cancer rates had increased dramatically over the previous fifteen years. In 1989 there were 11 abnormalities per 100,000 births; in 2001 there were 116 per 100,000—an increase of over a thousand percent. In 1989 34 people died of cancer; in 2001 there were 603 cancer deaths. The 2003 war has increased these figures exponentially. ... The smoking guns are Sgt. Hector Vega, Sgt. Ray Ramos, Sgt. Agustin Matos and Cpl. Anthony Yonnone from New York's 442nd Guard Unit—they are the first confirmed cases of inhaled uranium oxide exposure from the current Iraq conflict. Dr. Asaf Durokovic, professor of Nuclear Medicine at the Uranium Medical Research Centre http://www.umrc.net/ conducted the diagnostic tests. The story was released April 3, 2004 in the New York Daily News. There is no treatment and there is no cure." http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/4.htmlMath tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #147 December 21, 2004 QuoteProfessor Katsuma Yagasaki, a scientist at the Ryukyus University, Okinawa calculated that the 800 tons of DU used in Afghanistan is the radioactive equivalent of 83,000 Nagasaki bombs. The amount of DU used in Iraq is equivalent to 250,000 Nagasaki bombs. The blast on August 9th, 1945 lead to the deaths of approxiamately 70,000 people by the end of the year. 83,000x that would be 5.8B, the entire population of the Earth. How is anyone in Afghanistan or Iraq still alive? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #148 December 21, 2004 QuoteThe blast on August 9th, 1945 lead to the deaths of approxiamately 70,000 people by the end of the year. 83,000x that would be 5.8B, the entire population of the Earth. How is anyone in Afghanistan or Iraq still alive? I am not sure what the basis of the math is, but the order of magnatude suggests that he might be making a mass comparison. I am not, however, familiar enough with the specifications of the Nagasaki bomb, so cannot be sure.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #149 December 21, 2004 QuoteQuoteThe blast on August 9th, 1945 lead to the deaths of approxiamately 70,000 people by the end of the year. 83,000x that would be 5.8B, the entire population of the Earth. How is anyone in Afghanistan or Iraq still alive? I am not sure what the basis of the math is, but the order of magnatude suggests that he might be making a mass comparison. I am not, however, familiar enough with the specifications of the Nagasaki bomb, so cannot be sure. The basis of the math is similar to that of much else you have quoted. It looks good and sounds scary, but has far less significance than it pretends to. As bad as DU pollution may be, it's not the equlivient to thousands (or even dozens) atomic blasts. Being equilivent to one would be bad enough, and a claim worth considering. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #150 December 21, 2004 QuoteAs bad as DU pollution may be, it's not the equlivient to thousands (or even dozens) atomic blasts. Being equilivent to one would be bad enough, and a claim worth considering. I posted the info to highlight the amount of DU used in IRAQ and Afghanistan, and the known evidence of adverse consequences. I wasn't trying to compare to Nagasaki bombing. I personally do not have the understanding to make a comparison of an atomic explosion and aerosoled DU pollution. I do, however, find it very interesting that to of the military's former top experts on DU and Nuclear medicine both have launched similar campaigns against the use of DU. Along with large amounts of circumstantial evidence, it is hard to dismiss the idea that DU is much, much worse than the American public and our troops have been led to believe. Remember, we are not talking about isolated cases.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Page 6 of 7 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
slug 1 #140 December 18, 2004 Hi Guy's and gals it took a long time to speed read thru all this stuff but i stuck with it and will admit that I don't understand any of it. Except During the initial phase of Iraqi freedom there was some more use of DU in destruction of more Iraqi heavy armor. During the current phase of ops in a guerilla/insurgent urban enviroment is there a need for the continued use of the penertration power of DU based weapons?. IMO the shortage of troops in the field and the backdoor draft are presently hurting the morale of our troops. The number of troops affected by PTSD may exceed the number affected by DU. Lets do what we gotta do in IRAQ once and get our soliders out. http://www.talkingproud.us/ article on Blind Bat missions dur VN and some of the mistakes made that led our loss of the war. In spite of the article Don't know if VN was winnable and don't know if Iraq is either. Useless loss of life is bad for morale and the long term mental health of our troops. It took the VA 15 years to acknowledge the adverse health effects of agent orange on our troops after the end of VN. R.I.P. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #141 December 18, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuote Everything you've written underestimates or downplays the biological effect of these munitions. The implication is that you think troops complaining of Gulf War Syndrome are malingerers. So what do you believe is the SAFE amount of sub-micron size uranium oxide dust to inhale/ingest? IMO, DU will be to Iraq what Agent Orange was to VN - a self inflicted injury on our own boys.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gawain 0 #142 December 18, 2004 Just to point one more thing out about the original subject of this thread Bill: It wasn't until November of this year that US troops were fully out of the Balkans. That was a peacekeeping mission, saw very little conflict, more than 100,000 troops participated --- and it lasted nine years. Now, from the beginning, the President and other high ranking officials in our government have told us that this conflict (the war on terror) was going to last a very, very long time. They also told us that US involvement in Iraq would last several years. It was further explained at the onset, that the US would suffer more casualties in this war. I love how people are screaming about how long it's been, how they were uninformed, unprepared...total bullsh*t.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,106 #143 December 18, 2004 QuoteJust to point one more thing out about the original subject of this thread Bill: It wasn't until November of this year that US troops were fully out of the Balkans. That was a peacekeeping mission, saw very little conflict, more than 100,000 troops participated --- and it lasted nine years. Now, from the beginning, the President and other high ranking officials in our government have told us that this conflict (the war on terror) was going to last a very, very long time. They also told us that US involvement in Iraq would last several years. It was further explained at the onset, that the US would suffer more casualties in this war. I love how people are screaming about how long it's been, how they were uninformed, unprepared...total bullsh*t. Feb. 7, 2003: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy: "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months." * March 4, 2003: Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at a breakfast with reporters: "What you'd like to do is have it be a short, short conflict. . . . Iraq is much weaker than they were back in the '90s," when its forces were routed from Kuwait. * March 11, 2003: Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars: "The Iraqi people understand what this crisis is about. Like the people of France in the 1940s, they view us as their hoped-for liberator." * March 16, 2003: Vice President Cheney, on NBC's Meet the Press: "I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months."... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #144 December 18, 2004 QuoteNow, from the beginning, the President and other high ranking officials in our government have told us that this conflict (the war on terror) was going to last a very, very long time. They also told us that US involvement in Iraq would last several years. It was further explained at the onset, that the US would suffer more casualties in this war. I love how people are screaming about how long it's been, how they were uninformed, unprepared...total bullsh*t. The Defense Department relied on the Iraqi civilians welcoming our troops with open arms, after what we did to them in 1991. That is reckless and irresponsible leadership. Tell me, what reason did Shrub give for abandoning UN Weapons Inspection process, which worked, by the way, for invading Iraq and killing civilians. That Saddam was a tyrant is all the more reason to protect the civilians. After all, they had no say in what Saddam did. Its not like they were a democratic nation that could be held accountable for their governments actions. We are responsible for what Shrub does, if for know other reason than us allowing him to remain in office. If his foreign policy causes us problems with foreign minorities, we have no one to blame but ourselves. White House Switchboard: (202) 456-1414 U.S. Senate: (202) 224-3121 U.S. House of Representatives (202) 225-3121Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dorbie 0 #145 December 21, 2004 Quote Everything you've written underestimates or downplays the biological effect of these munitions. The implication is that you think troops complaining of Gulf War Syndrome are malingerers. So what do you believe is the SAFE amount of sub-micron size uranium oxide dust to inhale/ingest? IMO, DU will be to Iraq what Agent Orange was to VN - a self inflicted injury on our own boys. This is a misrepresentation of my position. Just because I don't subscribe to one unproven theory for gulf war syndrome does not mean I think troops are malingerers. Infact I have mentioned in this thread that there are numerous theories about gulf war syndrome. If we acted on everyone's pet theory over gulf war syndrome without evidence we'd be banning everything from vaccines to diet coke. If you're going to keep misrepresenting my position then perhaps you could explain to me how someone with your credentials could be apparently unaware of the isotope ratios in DU and that the half live of U-235 was 710 million years? Were you just unaware when you accused me of deliberately misleading everyone here or was it another cynical attempt to discredit any opposition using the flimsiest of pretexts? That's got to be pretty embarrassing, I mean U-235 isn't even 1% of natural Uranium and you accused me of dishonesty for not factoring it in DU. Not everything I've written underestimates the biological effects. I hear a lot of overblown hype and I'm the only person in this thread to do any *estimate* at all with any real numbers and as you know those numbers are still in the right ballpark. It doesn't significantly underestimate anything, it brings a reasonable estimate to bear on overblown claims w.r.t. the exposure discussed. Why you object to that and attack me for it is beyond me. I mean argue over the effects of the numbers by all means, argue that the quantities may be larger, but geeze dude attacking me for producing the numbers when they're a pretty darned good estimate is hardly the act of someone confident in their position. What do you want people to do? Ban DU without considering the evidence of the remarkably low radioactivity? If the quantities are higher fine, but claims that these miniscule quantities are fatal deserve scrutiny and I'm the only person in this thread to bring any scrutiny to bear. Your reaction to estimates of radiological activity speaks to your bias not mine. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #146 December 21, 2004 QuoteIf you're going to keep misrepresenting my position then perhaps you could explain to me how someone with your credentials could be apparently unaware of the isotope ratios in DU and that the half live of U-235 was 710 million years? Were you just unaware when you accused me of deliberately misleading everyone here or was it another cynical attempt to discredit any opposition using the flimsiest of pretexts? That's got to be pretty embarrassing, I mean U-235 isn't even 1% of natural Uranium and you accused me of dishonesty for not factoring it in DU. Not everything I've written underestimates the biological effects. I hear a lot of overblown hype and I'm the only person in this thread to do any *estimate* at all with any real numbers and as you know those numbers are still in the right ballpark. It doesn't significantly underestimate anything, it brings a reasonable estimate to bear on overblown claims w.r.t. the exposure discussed. Why you object to that and attack me for it is beyond me. I mean argue over the effects of the numbers by all means, argue that the quantities may be larger, but geeze dude attacking me for producing the numbers when they're a pretty darned good estimate is hardly the act of someone confident in their position. What do you want people to do? Ban DU without considering the evidence of the remarkably low radioactivity? If the quantities are higher fine, but claims that these miniscule quantities are fatal deserve scrutiny and I'm the only person in this thread to bring any scrutiny to bear. Your reaction to estimates of radiological activity speaks to your bias not mine. "In 2003 scientists from the Uranium Medical Research Center (UMRC) studied urine samples of Afghan civilians and found that 100% of the samples taken had levels of non-depleted uranium (NDU) 400% to 2000% higher than normal levels. The UMRC research team studied six sites, two in Kabul and others in the Jalalabad area. The civilians were tested four months after the attacks in Afghanistan by the United States and its allies. NDU is more radioactive than depleted uranium (DU), which itself is charged with causing many cancers and severe birth defects in the Iraqi population–especially children–over the past ten years. Four million pounds of radioactive uranium was dropped on Iraq in 2003 alone. Uranium dust will be in the bodies of our returning armed forces. Nine soldiers from the 442nd Military Police serving in Iraq were tested for DU contamination in December 2003. Conducted at the request of The News, as the U.S. government considers the cost of $1,000 per affected soldier prohibitive, the test found that four of the nine men were contaminated with high levels of DU, likely caused by inhaling dust from depleted uranium shells fired by U.S. troops. Several of the men had traces of another uranium isotope, U-236, that are produced only in a nuclear reaction process. ... At the Uranium Weapons Conference held October 2003 in Hamburg, Germany, independent scientists from around the world testified to a huge increase in birth deformities and cancers wherever NDU and DU had been used. Professor Katsuma Yagasaki, a scientist at the Ryukyus University, Okinawa calculated that the 800 tons of DU used in Afghanistan is the radioactive equivalent of 83,000 Nagasaki bombs. The amount of DU used in Iraq is equivalent to 250,000 Nagasaki bombs. At the Uranium Weapons Conference, a demonstration by British-trained oncologist Dr. Jawad Al-Ali showed photographs of the kinds of birth deformities and tumors he had observed at the Saddam Teaching Hospital in Basra just before the 2003 war. Cancer rates had increased dramatically over the previous fifteen years. In 1989 there were 11 abnormalities per 100,000 births; in 2001 there were 116 per 100,000—an increase of over a thousand percent. In 1989 34 people died of cancer; in 2001 there were 603 cancer deaths. The 2003 war has increased these figures exponentially. ... The smoking guns are Sgt. Hector Vega, Sgt. Ray Ramos, Sgt. Agustin Matos and Cpl. Anthony Yonnone from New York's 442nd Guard Unit—they are the first confirmed cases of inhaled uranium oxide exposure from the current Iraq conflict. Dr. Asaf Durokovic, professor of Nuclear Medicine at the Uranium Medical Research Centre http://www.umrc.net/ conducted the diagnostic tests. The story was released April 3, 2004 in the New York Daily News. There is no treatment and there is no cure." http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/4.htmlMath tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #147 December 21, 2004 QuoteProfessor Katsuma Yagasaki, a scientist at the Ryukyus University, Okinawa calculated that the 800 tons of DU used in Afghanistan is the radioactive equivalent of 83,000 Nagasaki bombs. The amount of DU used in Iraq is equivalent to 250,000 Nagasaki bombs. The blast on August 9th, 1945 lead to the deaths of approxiamately 70,000 people by the end of the year. 83,000x that would be 5.8B, the entire population of the Earth. How is anyone in Afghanistan or Iraq still alive? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #148 December 21, 2004 QuoteThe blast on August 9th, 1945 lead to the deaths of approxiamately 70,000 people by the end of the year. 83,000x that would be 5.8B, the entire population of the Earth. How is anyone in Afghanistan or Iraq still alive? I am not sure what the basis of the math is, but the order of magnatude suggests that he might be making a mass comparison. I am not, however, familiar enough with the specifications of the Nagasaki bomb, so cannot be sure.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #149 December 21, 2004 QuoteQuoteThe blast on August 9th, 1945 lead to the deaths of approxiamately 70,000 people by the end of the year. 83,000x that would be 5.8B, the entire population of the Earth. How is anyone in Afghanistan or Iraq still alive? I am not sure what the basis of the math is, but the order of magnatude suggests that he might be making a mass comparison. I am not, however, familiar enough with the specifications of the Nagasaki bomb, so cannot be sure. The basis of the math is similar to that of much else you have quoted. It looks good and sounds scary, but has far less significance than it pretends to. As bad as DU pollution may be, it's not the equlivient to thousands (or even dozens) atomic blasts. Being equilivent to one would be bad enough, and a claim worth considering. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #150 December 21, 2004 QuoteAs bad as DU pollution may be, it's not the equlivient to thousands (or even dozens) atomic blasts. Being equilivent to one would be bad enough, and a claim worth considering. I posted the info to highlight the amount of DU used in IRAQ and Afghanistan, and the known evidence of adverse consequences. I wasn't trying to compare to Nagasaki bombing. I personally do not have the understanding to make a comparison of an atomic explosion and aerosoled DU pollution. I do, however, find it very interesting that to of the military's former top experts on DU and Nuclear medicine both have launched similar campaigns against the use of DU. Along with large amounts of circumstantial evidence, it is hard to dismiss the idea that DU is much, much worse than the American public and our troops have been led to believe. Remember, we are not talking about isolated cases.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Page 6 of 7 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
Gawain 0 #142 December 18, 2004 Just to point one more thing out about the original subject of this thread Bill: It wasn't until November of this year that US troops were fully out of the Balkans. That was a peacekeeping mission, saw very little conflict, more than 100,000 troops participated --- and it lasted nine years. Now, from the beginning, the President and other high ranking officials in our government have told us that this conflict (the war on terror) was going to last a very, very long time. They also told us that US involvement in Iraq would last several years. It was further explained at the onset, that the US would suffer more casualties in this war. I love how people are screaming about how long it's been, how they were uninformed, unprepared...total bullsh*t.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #143 December 18, 2004 QuoteJust to point one more thing out about the original subject of this thread Bill: It wasn't until November of this year that US troops were fully out of the Balkans. That was a peacekeeping mission, saw very little conflict, more than 100,000 troops participated --- and it lasted nine years. Now, from the beginning, the President and other high ranking officials in our government have told us that this conflict (the war on terror) was going to last a very, very long time. They also told us that US involvement in Iraq would last several years. It was further explained at the onset, that the US would suffer more casualties in this war. I love how people are screaming about how long it's been, how they were uninformed, unprepared...total bullsh*t. Feb. 7, 2003: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy: "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months." * March 4, 2003: Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at a breakfast with reporters: "What you'd like to do is have it be a short, short conflict. . . . Iraq is much weaker than they were back in the '90s," when its forces were routed from Kuwait. * March 11, 2003: Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars: "The Iraqi people understand what this crisis is about. Like the people of France in the 1940s, they view us as their hoped-for liberator." * March 16, 2003: Vice President Cheney, on NBC's Meet the Press: "I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months."... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #144 December 18, 2004 QuoteNow, from the beginning, the President and other high ranking officials in our government have told us that this conflict (the war on terror) was going to last a very, very long time. They also told us that US involvement in Iraq would last several years. It was further explained at the onset, that the US would suffer more casualties in this war. I love how people are screaming about how long it's been, how they were uninformed, unprepared...total bullsh*t. The Defense Department relied on the Iraqi civilians welcoming our troops with open arms, after what we did to them in 1991. That is reckless and irresponsible leadership. Tell me, what reason did Shrub give for abandoning UN Weapons Inspection process, which worked, by the way, for invading Iraq and killing civilians. That Saddam was a tyrant is all the more reason to protect the civilians. After all, they had no say in what Saddam did. Its not like they were a democratic nation that could be held accountable for their governments actions. We are responsible for what Shrub does, if for know other reason than us allowing him to remain in office. If his foreign policy causes us problems with foreign minorities, we have no one to blame but ourselves. White House Switchboard: (202) 456-1414 U.S. Senate: (202) 224-3121 U.S. House of Representatives (202) 225-3121Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #145 December 21, 2004 Quote Everything you've written underestimates or downplays the biological effect of these munitions. The implication is that you think troops complaining of Gulf War Syndrome are malingerers. So what do you believe is the SAFE amount of sub-micron size uranium oxide dust to inhale/ingest? IMO, DU will be to Iraq what Agent Orange was to VN - a self inflicted injury on our own boys. This is a misrepresentation of my position. Just because I don't subscribe to one unproven theory for gulf war syndrome does not mean I think troops are malingerers. Infact I have mentioned in this thread that there are numerous theories about gulf war syndrome. If we acted on everyone's pet theory over gulf war syndrome without evidence we'd be banning everything from vaccines to diet coke. If you're going to keep misrepresenting my position then perhaps you could explain to me how someone with your credentials could be apparently unaware of the isotope ratios in DU and that the half live of U-235 was 710 million years? Were you just unaware when you accused me of deliberately misleading everyone here or was it another cynical attempt to discredit any opposition using the flimsiest of pretexts? That's got to be pretty embarrassing, I mean U-235 isn't even 1% of natural Uranium and you accused me of dishonesty for not factoring it in DU. Not everything I've written underestimates the biological effects. I hear a lot of overblown hype and I'm the only person in this thread to do any *estimate* at all with any real numbers and as you know those numbers are still in the right ballpark. It doesn't significantly underestimate anything, it brings a reasonable estimate to bear on overblown claims w.r.t. the exposure discussed. Why you object to that and attack me for it is beyond me. I mean argue over the effects of the numbers by all means, argue that the quantities may be larger, but geeze dude attacking me for producing the numbers when they're a pretty darned good estimate is hardly the act of someone confident in their position. What do you want people to do? Ban DU without considering the evidence of the remarkably low radioactivity? If the quantities are higher fine, but claims that these miniscule quantities are fatal deserve scrutiny and I'm the only person in this thread to bring any scrutiny to bear. Your reaction to estimates of radiological activity speaks to your bias not mine. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #146 December 21, 2004 QuoteIf you're going to keep misrepresenting my position then perhaps you could explain to me how someone with your credentials could be apparently unaware of the isotope ratios in DU and that the half live of U-235 was 710 million years? Were you just unaware when you accused me of deliberately misleading everyone here or was it another cynical attempt to discredit any opposition using the flimsiest of pretexts? That's got to be pretty embarrassing, I mean U-235 isn't even 1% of natural Uranium and you accused me of dishonesty for not factoring it in DU. Not everything I've written underestimates the biological effects. I hear a lot of overblown hype and I'm the only person in this thread to do any *estimate* at all with any real numbers and as you know those numbers are still in the right ballpark. It doesn't significantly underestimate anything, it brings a reasonable estimate to bear on overblown claims w.r.t. the exposure discussed. Why you object to that and attack me for it is beyond me. I mean argue over the effects of the numbers by all means, argue that the quantities may be larger, but geeze dude attacking me for producing the numbers when they're a pretty darned good estimate is hardly the act of someone confident in their position. What do you want people to do? Ban DU without considering the evidence of the remarkably low radioactivity? If the quantities are higher fine, but claims that these miniscule quantities are fatal deserve scrutiny and I'm the only person in this thread to bring any scrutiny to bear. Your reaction to estimates of radiological activity speaks to your bias not mine. "In 2003 scientists from the Uranium Medical Research Center (UMRC) studied urine samples of Afghan civilians and found that 100% of the samples taken had levels of non-depleted uranium (NDU) 400% to 2000% higher than normal levels. The UMRC research team studied six sites, two in Kabul and others in the Jalalabad area. The civilians were tested four months after the attacks in Afghanistan by the United States and its allies. NDU is more radioactive than depleted uranium (DU), which itself is charged with causing many cancers and severe birth defects in the Iraqi population–especially children–over the past ten years. Four million pounds of radioactive uranium was dropped on Iraq in 2003 alone. Uranium dust will be in the bodies of our returning armed forces. Nine soldiers from the 442nd Military Police serving in Iraq were tested for DU contamination in December 2003. Conducted at the request of The News, as the U.S. government considers the cost of $1,000 per affected soldier prohibitive, the test found that four of the nine men were contaminated with high levels of DU, likely caused by inhaling dust from depleted uranium shells fired by U.S. troops. Several of the men had traces of another uranium isotope, U-236, that are produced only in a nuclear reaction process. ... At the Uranium Weapons Conference held October 2003 in Hamburg, Germany, independent scientists from around the world testified to a huge increase in birth deformities and cancers wherever NDU and DU had been used. Professor Katsuma Yagasaki, a scientist at the Ryukyus University, Okinawa calculated that the 800 tons of DU used in Afghanistan is the radioactive equivalent of 83,000 Nagasaki bombs. The amount of DU used in Iraq is equivalent to 250,000 Nagasaki bombs. At the Uranium Weapons Conference, a demonstration by British-trained oncologist Dr. Jawad Al-Ali showed photographs of the kinds of birth deformities and tumors he had observed at the Saddam Teaching Hospital in Basra just before the 2003 war. Cancer rates had increased dramatically over the previous fifteen years. In 1989 there were 11 abnormalities per 100,000 births; in 2001 there were 116 per 100,000—an increase of over a thousand percent. In 1989 34 people died of cancer; in 2001 there were 603 cancer deaths. The 2003 war has increased these figures exponentially. ... The smoking guns are Sgt. Hector Vega, Sgt. Ray Ramos, Sgt. Agustin Matos and Cpl. Anthony Yonnone from New York's 442nd Guard Unit—they are the first confirmed cases of inhaled uranium oxide exposure from the current Iraq conflict. Dr. Asaf Durokovic, professor of Nuclear Medicine at the Uranium Medical Research Centre http://www.umrc.net/ conducted the diagnostic tests. The story was released April 3, 2004 in the New York Daily News. There is no treatment and there is no cure." http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/4.htmlMath tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #147 December 21, 2004 QuoteProfessor Katsuma Yagasaki, a scientist at the Ryukyus University, Okinawa calculated that the 800 tons of DU used in Afghanistan is the radioactive equivalent of 83,000 Nagasaki bombs. The amount of DU used in Iraq is equivalent to 250,000 Nagasaki bombs. The blast on August 9th, 1945 lead to the deaths of approxiamately 70,000 people by the end of the year. 83,000x that would be 5.8B, the entire population of the Earth. How is anyone in Afghanistan or Iraq still alive? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #148 December 21, 2004 QuoteThe blast on August 9th, 1945 lead to the deaths of approxiamately 70,000 people by the end of the year. 83,000x that would be 5.8B, the entire population of the Earth. How is anyone in Afghanistan or Iraq still alive? I am not sure what the basis of the math is, but the order of magnatude suggests that he might be making a mass comparison. I am not, however, familiar enough with the specifications of the Nagasaki bomb, so cannot be sure.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #149 December 21, 2004 QuoteQuoteThe blast on August 9th, 1945 lead to the deaths of approxiamately 70,000 people by the end of the year. 83,000x that would be 5.8B, the entire population of the Earth. How is anyone in Afghanistan or Iraq still alive? I am not sure what the basis of the math is, but the order of magnatude suggests that he might be making a mass comparison. I am not, however, familiar enough with the specifications of the Nagasaki bomb, so cannot be sure. The basis of the math is similar to that of much else you have quoted. It looks good and sounds scary, but has far less significance than it pretends to. As bad as DU pollution may be, it's not the equlivient to thousands (or even dozens) atomic blasts. Being equilivent to one would be bad enough, and a claim worth considering. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #150 December 21, 2004 QuoteAs bad as DU pollution may be, it's not the equlivient to thousands (or even dozens) atomic blasts. Being equilivent to one would be bad enough, and a claim worth considering. I posted the info to highlight the amount of DU used in IRAQ and Afghanistan, and the known evidence of adverse consequences. I wasn't trying to compare to Nagasaki bombing. I personally do not have the understanding to make a comparison of an atomic explosion and aerosoled DU pollution. I do, however, find it very interesting that to of the military's former top experts on DU and Nuclear medicine both have launched similar campaigns against the use of DU. Along with large amounts of circumstantial evidence, it is hard to dismiss the idea that DU is much, much worse than the American public and our troops have been led to believe. Remember, we are not talking about isolated cases.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)