| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
IamSundog The FTMB member previously known as Sundog
Great Old One Joined: 11 Oct 2002 Total posts: 1572 Location: Right here Gender: Male |
 Posted: 26-07-2013 19:43 Post subject: |
 |
|
|
I ask this in all sincerity:
What reason is there for putting depleted uranium into ordinance?
Is some reasonable justification given - other than a desire to poison the enemy and their families, cities, water supply? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Mythopoeika Boring petty conservative
Joined: 18 Sep 2001 Total posts: 8820 Location: Not far from Bedford Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 26-07-2013 19:48 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Jonfairway wrote: | did you read that folks ?
25 % of the babies died first week
75% of the babies were DEFORMED at birth....
how much evidence do people need ? |
I'd say that is pretty obvious evidence of something catastrophic happening... seriously, the US must face a war crimes trial at some point...surely? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Cochise Great Old One Joined: 17 Jun 2011 Total posts: 989 Location: Gwynedd, Wales Age: 57 Gender: Male |
| Posted: 27-07-2013 07:50 Post subject: |
|
|
|
If a link can be _proved_ - not 'it is very likely' or 'there is a statistical correlation' or even 'this is terrible it must be the uranium' then most certainly the US should be tried for war crimes.
That 'proved' is not just scepticism - the defence will of course have access to the largest body of lawyers in the word, if the prosecution cannot prove their case with facts and proof of causation they won't win. The reports so far quoted here are not enough - any lawyer would drive a coach-and-horses through them. Co-incidence is not proof. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Monstrosa Joined: 07 Feb 2007 Total posts: 480 |
| Posted: 27-07-2013 08:26 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| IamSundog wrote: | I ask this in all sincerity:
What reason is there for putting depleted uranium into ordinance?
Is some reasonable justification given - other than a desire to poison the enemy and their families, cities, water supply? |
DU is dense, it gives greater penetration through armour (on tanks and bunkers for instance) it also fragments when it has penetrated giving a higher chance of killing enemy crew and personnel. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Pietro_Mercurios Heuristically Challenged
Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 27-07-2013 08:48 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Monstrosa wrote: | | IamSundog wrote: | I ask this in all sincerity:
What reason is there for putting depleted uranium into ordinance?
Is some reasonable justification given - other than a desire to poison the enemy and their families, cities, water supply? |
DU is dense, it gives greater penetration through armour (on tanks and bunkers for instance) it also fragments when it has penetrated giving a higher chance of killing enemy crew and personnel. |
Much heavier than lead and when it finally vapourises, inside its target, it takes everything with it. The key word there being, 'vapourises'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Cochise Great Old One Joined: 17 Jun 2011 Total posts: 989 Location: Gwynedd, Wales Age: 57 Gender: Male |
| Posted: 28-07-2013 06:29 Post subject: |
|
|
|
Shells of that kind (without uranium) have existed since WW2. So I don't really understand the need for uranium. I'm not up to date on anti-tank shells, haven't studied them since I did a project on WW2 ballistics about 40 years ago, but I thought the most effective design was HESH -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HESH
which kills the crew by causing the inside of the tank's hull to shatter.
There is also HEAT which on contact uses a shaped charge to act as a high-speed gas axe and burn its way into the tank, with of course horrible effects on the crew inside.
Very few people ever escape from a tank destroyed by anti-tank ordnance (as opposed to immobilised by high explosive or other battlefield risks), because even traditional solid anti-tank shells, if they penetrate, bounce around inside until all their energy is exhausted, with results on the crew that can be imagined.
My Uncle Doug used to drive a tank recovery vehicle in WW2, and he thought it was probably about the worst job in the entire war. Well, nearly the worst - he didn't have to clean the recovered tanks out.
There is nothing like studying war for turning you into a pacifist. There are plenty of links from the article above if you wish to horrify yourselves further. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Jonfairway Great Old One Joined: 09 Mar 2005 Total posts: 1163 Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 29-07-2013 13:04 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Quote: | If a link can be _proved_ - not 'it is very likely' or 'there is a statistical correlation' or even 'this is terrible it must be the uranium' then most certainly the US should be tried for war crimes.
That 'proved' is not just scepticism - the defence will of course have access to the largest body of lawyers in the word, if the prosecution cannot prove their case with facts and proof of causation they won't win. The reports so far quoted here are not enough - any lawyer would drive a coach-and-horses through them. Co-incidence is not proof. |
i disagree
and to make my point i wish to mention my other post "statins" which all the figures say ( NOT ) that it is eefective against heart failure !! the reports dont stack up at all and yet .... doctors everywhere are pushing them more than the drugs pushers on streets....
the stats if Faluja are far more convincing and yet they wouldn't hold any sway ?
i find that hard to believe...
| Quote: | Official Iraqi government statistics show that, prior to the outbreak of the First Gulf War in 1991, the rate of cancer cases in Iraq was 40 out of 100,000 people. By 1995, it had increased to 800 out of 100,000 people, and, by 2005, it had doubled to at least 1,600 out of 100,000 people. Current estimates show the increasing trend continuing.
As shocking as these statistics are, due to a lack of adequate documentation, research, and reporting of cases, the actual rate of cancer and other diseases is likely to be much higher than even these figures suggest. |
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/03/2013315171951838638.html
| Quote: | Dr Alani has visited Japan where she met with Japanese doctors who study birth defect rates they believe related to radiation from the US nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
She was told birth defect incidence rates there are between one and two per cent. Alani's log of cases of birth defects amounts to a rate of 14.7 per cent of all babies born in Fallujah, more than 14 times the rate in the effected areas of Japan. |
14 times higher !!!
if it isnt DU .. what could it be ?
| Quote: | | In cities like Basra and Fallujah, where American and British forces used heavy munitions at the start of the war, it is estimated that over half of all babies conceived after the start of the war were born with heart defects. According to a study published in the Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, between October 1994 and October 1995 the number of birth defects per 1,000 live births in Al Basrah Maternity Hospital was 1.37. In 2003, the number of birth defects in the same hospital was 23 per 1,000 livebirths. Within less than a decade, the occurrence of congenital birth defects increased 17-fold. |
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=75765
http://www.llrc.org/du/subtopic/durs.htm
plenty of evidence
plenty of i told you so
plenty of dead babies to back up his science
an increase of 17 fold of birth defects....
and it still increases...
yet this terrible issue is no where to be seen on national tv
hidden
buried
like the morals of the men in power using these weapons... buried....
22 years further on and still no outcry....
in fact they are still using them !!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Jonfairway Great Old One Joined: 09 Mar 2005 Total posts: 1163 Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 29-07-2013 13:08 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Quote: | Conflict and Health report on birth defects in Falluja
Authors blame US Uranium weaponry
In 2010 the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health published a paper showing high rates of birth defects and cancer in Fallujah, Iraq after heavy fighting in 2004 which involved the suspected use of Uranium weaponry. (Outline results are below together with internet links.)
A new paper published in Conflict and Health has analysed hair samples from parents of children born with congenital malformations in Fallujah. The hair had high levels of Calcium, Magnesium, Strontium, Aluminium, Bismuth, Mercury and Uranium. Of these, only Uranium is associated with cancer and birth defects. Uranium levels were significantly higher than expected on the basis of published measurements of uncontaminated populations. The levels were highest in the distal ends of the longest hair, which would have been growing in 2005.
The paper discusses the anomalously high genotoxic effects of Uranium.
Isotopic ratios of the Uranium in the hair samples showed the presence of Enriched Uranium which has also been found in recent battlefield samples in other middle-east war zones. One of the authors says "What we have found makes it perfectly clear that, in addition to armour-piercing rounds containing Uranium, a new generation of Uranium-based anti-personnel weapons exists. These uses of Uranium cause shocking increases in cancer and congenital illness in innocent civilians and in soldiers on both sides of a conflict."
See more discussion on this LLRC Press release
The paper "Uranium and other contaminants in hair from the parents of children with congenital anomalies in Fallujah, Iraq", authors Samira Alaani, Muhammed Tafash, Christopher Busby, Malak Hamdan and Eleonore Blaurock-Busch, is a free download
The 2010 survey
Outline results of the paper published in 2010 by International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (IJERPH): rates of disease (compared with neighbouring countries) were
Cancer all ages, 4 times higher;
Childhood cancer 0-14 years, 12.6 times higher;
Leukaemia in the age groups 0-34 years, 38.5 times higher;
Lymphoma 0-34 years, 9.24 times higher;
Female breast cancer 0-44 years, 9.7 times higher;
Brain tumours all ages, 7.4 times higher;
Infant mortality 4.2 times higher.
There was also a serious depression in the proportion of boy babies born, an effect also observed in studies of the bombs dropped on Japan in 1945. |
http://www.llrc.org/
leukaemia in the age groups 0 to 34 38 times higher ??????
WHAT !!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Cochise Great Old One Joined: 17 Jun 2011 Total posts: 989 Location: Gwynedd, Wales Age: 57 Gender: Male |
| Posted: 30-07-2013 08:06 Post subject: |
|
|
|
Convincing people like doctors to do something is not the same as winning a case in a court of law, especially given the budget of the US. The case would have to be rock solid. The defence doesn't have to find out what did cause the problems, the prosecution has to prove it was the DU.
Incidentally I agree about statins - even though I think the statistics in there favour are woefully distorted, even though when I've tried them they give me serious side effects, the doctors still want to push them every visit I have. It doesn't make sense at any level - its not like the country needs more old people. But that discussion is probably on-going elsewhere. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| SHAYBARSABE Great Old One Joined: 05 May 2009 Total posts: 1345 Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 30-07-2013 23:17 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Jonfairway wrote: | did you read that folks ?
25 % of the babies died first week
75% of the babies were DEFORMED at birth....
how much evidence do people need ? |
But what could be done about the DU if it was in the air? Evacuate everyone? What about wind? Can the stuff be captured? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Analis Great Old One Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Total posts: 838 Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 31-07-2013 08:27 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Cochise wrote: | | Shells of that kind (without uranium) have existed since WW2. So I don't really understand the need for uranium. |
The use of depleted uranium was intended to pierce new improved tank armours. Remember that depleted uranium was also in use for the newest armours. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Analis Great Old One Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Total posts: 838 Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 31-07-2013 08:27 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Cochise wrote: | | Shells of that kind (without uranium) have existed since WW2. So I don't really understand the need for uranium. |
The use of depleted uranium was intended to pierce new improved tank armours. Remember that depleted uranium was also in use for the newest armours. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Jonfairway Great Old One Joined: 09 Mar 2005 Total posts: 1163 Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 31-07-2013 08:29 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Quote: | | But what could be done about the DU if it was in the air? Evacuate everyone? What about wind? Can the stuff be captured? |
two things -- they could clean up the ground now..... dust is not in air now
and
they could say ban DU weapons ?
so this does not happen again at least |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Jonfairway Great Old One Joined: 09 Mar 2005 Total posts: 1163 Gender: Unknown |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Jonfairway Great Old One Joined: 09 Mar 2005 Total posts: 1163 Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 31-07-2013 12:44 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Quote: | The UK government insisted that it would continue to deploy DU weapons when needed. "There is no reliable scientific or medical evidence to suggest DU causes ill health and the UK is therefore one of various countries that do not favour adopting a precautionary approach to its use," a UK government spokeswoman told the Guardian.
"While UK armed forces have not needed to use DU since 2003, it would be wrong to deny them the potential future use of a legitimate and effective capability." |
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/mar/06/iraq-depleted-uranium-clean-up-contamination-spreads
oh yeah !!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
