Go Back   Natural Medicine Talk > Health > General Discussions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-14-2007, 08:27 AM
Marcus Marcus is offline
Enlightener
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 500
Marcus is on a distinguished road
Default DU - the facts

"Yes, the World Health Organisation announced in April 2003 that cancer will increase globally by 50 per cent by 2020, and diabetes will increase from 30 million cases globally to 230 million cases over the next 20 years. There is a global epidemic of lung cancer now and a huge increase in diabetes cases, which can only be explained by a global environmental event such as global pollution of the atmosphere with DU."

http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2007/M...-Ali1aug07.htm
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-14-2007, 12:05 PM
pinballdoctor's Avatar
pinballdoctor pinballdoctor is offline
Lecturer
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Saskatchewan Canada
Posts: 1,917
pinballdoctor will become famous soon enough
Default

I agree that depleted uranium has an enormous effect on health, especially considering the fact that it is blowing around constantly because the area is mostly sand, and there is little to catch and trap the uranium.
I do not agree that a huge increase in type 2 diabetes is caused by depleted uranium. It is caused by BAD DIET and LACK OF EXERCISE.
__________________
Let Food Be Your Medicine And Medicine Be Your Food.(Hippocrates)
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-14-2007, 12:55 PM
bifrost99 bifrost99 is offline
Beloved Mentor
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 555
bifrost99 will become famous soon enough
Default

Sounds like another panic button to me.

Hints:
Quote:
Uranium when it burns is hotter than the sun
For one, how can it be hotter than the sun unless it's a nuclear explosion? And I don't think she's referring to that when she says uranium burning.

Quote:
...when a DU weapon burns
And for this one, DU does not burn unless it's powdered or sliced very thinly. It is a very dense metal used for ammo and shielding, even for shielding against x-rays ( a radioactive substance to shield against radioactivity? )

Quote:
These tiny radioactive particles are all over the world in two weeks.
Err... doesn't that depend on how many particles there are to spread? If DU is so tiny, it burns because of its pyrophoricity. So nothing to spread. If it's big enough to remain a solid without burning, then it's too dense to spread all over the world.

And DU is only 60% the radiation of the natural isotope. I read in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science that Denver has radiation levels higher than allowed safety standards because of the uranium (natural isotope) in its landscape. And Denver has only two-thirds the cancer rate of the national average. We should learn more about hormesis, which simply says that something extremely toxic in high doses can actually have beneficial effects in low doses. The book also shows how nuclear plant workers (a lot of nuclear plants in submarines) and builders have a lot lower cancer rate than those not exposed to low level radiation. The same for atomic bomb survivors, as well as those exposed in the Chernobyl disaster. The feared harm on these exposed people never came about, and they even seem to have better health than the unexposed population. So even her example of Chernobyl is completely wrong!

Quote:
The US is using thousands of tons of DU in dirty bombs, dirty missiles and dirty bullets all over the Middle East and Central Asia.
Hmm... the use of DU in weapons is not for its radiation ("dirty"), but for its density. By calling DU weapons "dirty," this girl is exposing her ignorance. For one, DU's use is mainly on bullets, not missiles or bombs (except in fission and nuclear bombs). And she completely ignores the fact that DU is being used in armor plating of army vehicles of US soldiers. Is the US killing her own soldiers? I wouldn't think so.

Quote:
AA: When I visited Iraq before the war, I saw babies in hospitals dying of leukaemia. Would that have been from DU exposure?

LM: Yes, the DNA is damaged but the babies were also exposed while in their mothers' wombs.
I don't know if this is a typo. But how could it be DU when the war which used DU hasn't even started?

I didn't bother to read the rest.

Why not just read about DU and make our own conclusions? The claims I read so far border on the absurd.

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

Gerry
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-14-2007, 01:49 PM
Marcus Marcus is offline
Enlightener
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 500
Marcus is on a distinguished road
Default

Dr Howenstine




Depleted Uranium, Anthrax Vaccine & The Gulf War Syndrome, Part 1

Dr. James Howenstine, MD. | August 8 2005

More and more veterans have become chronically ill from a multitude of symptoms since the end of Gulf War I. For many years the U.S. government denied any responsibility for their mysterious symptoms. Only 7,035 men were injured in this war. A total of 580,400 soldiers served in the first Gulf War. By the end of 2000 325,000 of these troops had become disabled This means that 56 % of those who served in the first Gulf War were disabled within less than 10 years.

In August 2004 American Free Press reported that eight out of twenty men serving in one unit during the 2003 invasion of Iraq had developed malignancies. This translates into 40 % of the soldiers in that one unit developing malignancies within a 16 month period of time. What is causing these terrible health problems?

Nine members of the National Guard from New York State recently returned from Iraq. These persons were deployed as Military Police. Two manmade forms of uranium were found in urine specimens from 4 of these 9 soldiers. Certainly soldiers in combat roles would be expected to have even greater exposure to inhaling depleted uranium dust.

Since 1943 the military has been aware of the extreme toxicity of uranium as a gas. A Oct 30, 1943 memo from Manhattan Project physicist James B. Conant to Brig. General L.B. Abrams stated that as a gas warfare instrument the radioactive material would be ground into microscopic particles forming dust and smoke and could be distributed by ground fired projectiles, land vehicles or aerial bombs. In this form it would be inhaled by personnel. They estimated that one millionth of a gram would be fatal. There are no known methods of treatment for such casualties.

The depleted uranium DU was also recommended as a permanent terrain contaminant which could be used to destroy populations by contaminating water supplies and agricultural land with radioactive dust. Current estimates suggest that the damaged soil in Iraq, Yugoslavia and Afghanistan will need four and a half billion years to recover from the radioactive effect of DU.

Some of the uranium from shells vaporizes into particles measuring 1/10 of a micron. These particles enter the atmosphere and later fall to the ground with rain. Radioactive debris has been found at both the North and South Poles. In gaseous form the chemically toxic and radioactive uranium easily enters the body through the skin or when inhaled into the lungs. Clothing and gas masks are easily penetrated. Large missiles and bombs can disperse nearly 100 % of the DU into the atmosphere whereas only 30 % of a tank shell disperses when fired. Any soldier or civilian who breathes this gas has a permanent dose of radioactive uranium RAU.

Uranium is quite dense so it is ideal for penetrating armor. The radioactive uranium is shaped into a penetrating rod 18 inches long and 3?4 inch in diameter. When these shells are fired some of the uranium contacts air and explodes into flame (pyrophoric quality).

Scientists studying the biologic effects of radiation in the 1960s reported that radioactive uranium targets the DNA. Marion Fulk, a nuclear physical chemist, who had worked for both the Manhattan project and the Livermore Nuclear Weapon Lab interprets the new and rapid development of malignancies in soldiers from the 2003 war as “spectacular and a matter of concern.” She states “This is the perfect weapon (DU) for killing lots of people.”

There are three effects of depleted uranium on biologic systems –radiation, chemical and particulate. The particulate effect of nano-sized particles is the most important of these three. This appears immediately after exposure and targets the master code of DNA. Simply stated depleted uranium “trashes the body.” The DNA damage is so severe these patients develop multiple simultaneous cancers from different causes. This new syndrome has never been reported before and is unique to internal depleted uranium exposure. Such patients were seen in civilians in Yugoslavia after NATO bombing using DU bombs. There is currently an epidemic of cancer in Iraqi children.

Another horrifying consequence of DU exposure is damage to sperm causing many severe deformities in the children born to veterans of the first Gulf War. A group of 251 soldiers from Mississippi, who all had normal babies before service in Iraq, were studied. Sixty seven percent of their post war babies were born with severe birth defects. These children were missing legs, arms, organs or eyes and had immune system and blood diseases. In some Gulf War veterans families the only normal children are those who were born before serving in Iraq. The Department of Defense denies any knowledge of birth defects in Gulf War I veterans.

How Much Depleted Uranium Has Been Used?

Depleted uranium weapons were developed by the U.S. Navy in 1968. Depleted uranium weapons were given to and used by Israel with U.S. supervision in the Yom Kippur War in 1973 against the Arabs nations. Military research detailed the use of DU weapons at military testing grounds, bombing and gunnery ranges and civilian labs under contracts between 1974-1999. Presently 42 states have contamination from the manufacture, testing and deployment of depleted uranium. The United States has sold DU weapons to 29 countries.

In Gulf War I DU weapons were used against Iraq. Between 315 and 350 tons of depleted uranium was used in that war. The current Iraq war has expended an estimated 5 times more tonnage of DU than was used in the first Gulf War.

Japanese professor, Dr. K. Yagasaki, has calculated that 800 tons of depleted uranium is the atomicity equivalent of 83,000 bombs the size of the one which struck Nagasaki. The U.S. has used more depleted uranium since 1991 than the atomicity equivalent of 400,000 Nagasaki bombs. This includes four nuclear wars (Iraq twice, Yugoslavia and Afghanistan) and is 10 times the amount of radiation released into the air from atmospheric testing. Experts from the Department of Defense say that the U.S. has 100 million tons of DU. Using up the DU in wars afford a convenient way to dispose of some of the radioactive uranium and thus avoid some of the huge expense that careful disposing of tons of DU would entail.

The “clean up” of 34 Abrams tanks and Bradley armored vehicles that were erroneously hit by U.S. missiles during this first Gulf war was supervised by Dr. Doug Rokke. Today he is suffering ill effects from DU that entered his body in the clean up. One of the problems he has is brittle teeth. The uranium displaces calcium in both teeth and bones resulting in teeth that break. The majority of U.S. casualties in this war were from “friendly fire.” Dr. Rokke relates that DU is used because it is the most effective weapon at killing and destroying everything it hits.

Thousands of tons of depleted uranium were used for decades at four bombing and gunnery ranges in Fallon, Nevada. This usage is no doubt responsible for the fastest growing leukemia cluster in the U.S. The military has denied that DU has anything to do with this cluster. The medical profession has been involved in the cover-up—just as they were hiding the adverse effects that low level radiation from atmospheric testing and nuclear power plants were producing.

A physician in Northern California was being trained in the Pentagon with other physicians months before the 2003 Gulf War started. They were told to diagnose and treat soldiers returning from the 2003 war for mental problems only. Medical professionals in hospitals and facilities treating returning soldiers were threatened with $10,000 fines if they talked about the soldiers or their medical problems. They were also threatened with jail[1] terms.

Senator Paul Wellstone informed Joyce Riley R.N., executive director of the American Gulf War Veterans Association, that 95 % of Gulf War I veterans had been recycled out of the military by 1995. Any of those continuing in military service were carefully isolated from each other, preventing critical information from being shared with new troops. One has to wonder if his airplane crash was really an accident.

My initial reaction to the 1993 Gulf War was that it was all about oil which we desperately needed. Now it appears that I was wrong. Currently there is strong evidence that we are preparing to invade Iran. Whether this invasion will be preceded by another “terrorist” attack on the U.S. is obviously unknown. Perhaps a nuclear attack on a U.S. city by “Arabs” would attract sufficient public opinion approval to warrant another U.S. invasion of a sovereign nation.

My impression currently is that there may be a more insidious and sinister aspect to the invasion of Iraq. Could we be using this nuclear war as a way to lower the population of an Arab nation? Exposing all the citizens in a nation to a daily dose of radioactive uranium dust would be certain to produce very premature deaths and inability to reproduce. These irradiated nations will have huge problems with illness of their citizens and the inability of most parents to produce healthy children for succeeding generations.

Who is going to be willing to work in irradiated oil fields knowing that their life expectancy will be reduced by many years and that there is a strong possibility that they will probably never be able to have normal children. Even salaries of a million dollars annually do not sound very attractive to me to work in those irradiation contaminated oil fields.

The new book The High Priests of War documents how Henry Kissinger had planned an attack against the Arab world in the late 1960s and early 1970s. This nicely coincided with a Middle Eastern oil crisis and the development of DU war capabilities.

Mr. Kissinger had been previously involved in plans (later implemented) to lower the population of blacks in Africa by using bio-warfare[2] programs (vaccines contaminated with HIV virus). This CIA plot was code named PROJECT MKNAOMI. The details about the development of the HIV vaccine in the NIH Cancer Division are well documented in Leonard G. Horowtz’s book Emerging Viruses AIDS and Ebola Nature, Accident or Intentional?

When David J. Smith asked Vietnam Special Ops Green Beret Captain John McCarthy “who could have devised this omnicidal plan to use depleted uranium to destroy the genetic code and genetic future of large populations of Arabs and Moslems in the Middle East and Central Asia where most of the world’s oil deposits are located?” he replied “It has all the handprints of Henry Kissinger.”
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-14-2007, 02:15 PM
bifrost99 bifrost99 is offline
Beloved Mentor
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 555
bifrost99 will become famous soon enough
Default

Thanks for the article, Arrowwind. Just shows I have more to learn.

Anyway, I still wonder about the reasoning. The article seems to mix up, or rather, lump uranium as only one substance. Sure the radioactive uranium does cause harm from its radioactivity, but there's U-235 and there's U-238 (DU). And their radiation effects are entirely different.

Quote:
The depleted uranium DU was also recommended as a permanent terrain contaminant which could be used to destroy populations by contaminating water supplies and agricultural land with radioactive dust. Current estimates suggest that the damaged soil in Iraq, Yugoslavia and Afghanistan will need four and a half billion years to recover from the radioactive effect of DU.
If they want to contaminate, why use something less radioactive than the natural isotope? I doubt they could duplicate Denver's radiation levels with that.

As for the billion years mentioned, that's based on half-life of a material, which is not necessarily the same as its harm, as pointed out in The PIG to Science.

Quote:
When these shells are fired some of the uranium contacts air and explodes into flame (pyrophoric quality).
Not the whole shell. DU only burns when it's powdered. This doctor seems to be espousing the same myths as the lady earlier? Or maybe I just need to do more research myself.

Anyway, as for the Gulf War Syndrome, I tend to consider the blame placed on aspartame. From what I gather, a lot of the drinks of the soldiers were the "diet" type, containing aspartame. While aspartame itself can be considered harmless, high temperatures cause it to breakdown into toxic products including formaldehyde, methanol, and diketopiperazine. The drinks, while probably taken in cold, were said to have been exposed to high temperatures during transport. This would explain both the immediate and long term effects seen in Gulf War Syndrome. DU would not explain immediate effects.

Will study more about DU.

Gerry
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-15-2007, 10:44 AM
Marcus Marcus is offline
Enlightener
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 500
Marcus is on a distinguished road
Default

weblink:www.heartoftheearth.org/iraq.htm
please go to this site and click on Dr. Rokke’s radio interview. If you decide to look no further into the DU issue at least listen to this interview.

Dr. Rokke recommends this site: weblink:www.traprockpeace.org/depleted_uranium.html for further information on DU

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

http://www.thewe.cc/contents/more/ar...llet_links.htm

www.thewe.cc/contents/more/archive/du.html

www.theportlandalliance.org/2005/oct/dubill.htm

www.umrc.net/

www.bellona.org/articles/Dep_Ur


www.tracypress.com/content/view/7479/2244/


Thursday 25th November 2004

Weapons of Self-Destruction
When began to voice fears first warned, then fired

Dr. Asaf Durakovic, 64, is a retired U.S. Army colonel and the former head of nuclear medicine at a veterans’ hospital in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dr. Durakovic reports finding D.U. in the urine of 18 out of 30 Desert Storm veterans, sometimes up to a decade after they were exposed, and in his view D.U. fragments are both a significant cause of Gulf War syndrome and a hazard to civilians for an indefinite period of time.
He says that when he began to voice these fears inside the military he was first warned, then fired: he now operates from Toronto, Canada, at the independent Uranium Medical Research Centre.

In December 2003, Dr. Durakovic analyzed the urine of nine members of the 442nd.

With funds supplied by the New York Daily News, which first published the results, Durakovic sent the samples to a laboratory in Germany that has some of the world’s most advanced mass-spectrometry equipment.

He concluded that Ramos, Vega, Sergeant Agustin Matos, and Corporal Anthony Yonnone were "internally contaminated by depleted uranium (D.U.) as a result of exposure through [the] respiratory pathway."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Thursday 25th November 2004
Weapons of Self-Destruction

Unborn children

Yet another Pentagon-funded study suggested that D.U. might have effects on unborn children.

After finding that pregnant rats transmitted D.U. to their offspring through the placenta, the study concluded: "Fetal exposure to uranium during critical prenatal development may adversely impact the future behavioral and neurological development of offspring."

In September 2004, the New York Daily News reported that Gerard Darren Matthew, who had served in Iraq with the 719th Transportation Company, which is based in Harlem, had tested positive for D.U. after suffering migraines, fatigue, and a burning sensation when urinating.

Following his return, his wife became pregnant, and their daughter, Victoria Claudette, was born missing three fingers.

Ultimately, critics say, the Pentagon underestimates the dangers of D.U. because it measures them in the wrong way: by calculating the average amount of D.U. radiation produced throughout the body.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The above clips come from this site which is Arabic is origin. It may be slanted. But according to all my readings, concerned US and European physicians, the WHO, it does not seem too slanted. It is emotional. It is painful to look at. Remember one of the reasons we went to Iraq was to save people from Saddham Hussein and to bring Democracy to the people. Many Iraqi people wanted this freedom, wanted democracy. Most of Iraqis are not the enemy, but perpetual victims of war, crime, hatred and ignorance. 2 million have fled the country and hundreds of thousands displaced in their own land.

http://www.thewe.cc/weplanet/news/de...n_balkans.html
_________________
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-15-2007, 06:01 PM
bifrost99 bifrost99 is offline
Beloved Mentor
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 555
bifrost99 will become famous soon enough
Default

Ironically, the more I read about the radiation harm of DU, the less I believe in it because of the flawed, if not deceptive reasoning, behind the many claims.

Take the Rokke interview. It was made Nov 2002, while people were debating deposing Saddam or not. The interview sounds like an anti-war push, raising issues (DU, poor equipment, poor care, etc.) unrelated to what the war should have been all about (deposing Saddam). So he raises the issue: soldiers from Desert Storm were coming home sick and dying. But why blame depleted uranium? Rokke himself reveals that as early as November (Desert Storm started January), US blasted Saddam's weapons stockpiles, possibly releasing both poison gas and nuclear material. So why blame DU alone? Could it not have been the gas and nuclear material from those stockpiles? (Or the heated up aspartame in their drinks, as I would like to believe?)

From the interview, it seems that the only actual reference to DU harm were from those who suffered from friendly fire. (But don't soldiers suffer and die from friendly fire even if the ammo was non-DU?) But it's recognized that DU is a heavy metal, poisoning no differently from other heavy metals. But from radiation? Here again I hear Rokke lumping uranium radiation studies (1943 Manhattan project) instead of distinguishing between U-235 and U-238. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I learned from Wiki that they're entirely different, DU even being 60% less radioactive than the natural isotopes abundant in the Rockies (where people have 2/3 less cancer than the rest of the country).

So definitely, DU is harmful if it's some piece of shrapnel that you got from friendly fire. But not because of radiation, but from heavy metal poisoning. (Well, radiation may be significant depending on the size of the shrapnel imbedded?)

Shouldn't it be quite easy to prove DU's radiation harm? (It IS recognized as a heavy metal poison.) Just measure its emission levels and compare it with standards. Why doesn't Rokke just do that?

Shouldn't it be simple to prove Iraq's environmental contamination? Again, measure the radiation levels. (But no, it still could be from those blown up weapons stockpiles, so forget that. I'm keeping it in the post, though, just to show that something concrete can be done.) How about Kuwait? Wasn't Desert Storm mainly in Kuwait? Why no mention of it? (OK, I'm being naive. The radio interview was to go against the Iraq war.)

I search the 'net for harm of DU (radiation, that is), and here's a common citation:

Quote:
BASRA, Iraq - There is no question 12-month-old Mohammed is a very sick child.

His skin has a ghostly pallor. His left eye is sealed shut by the huge tumor ballooning from his cheek.

Mohammed is dying of Hodgkin's disease, and Dr. Mohammed Al-Dorky has little doubt about the cause.

"DU," he says.
Wow! How convincing!

How many people are out there with Hodgkin's who have not been exposed to DU? Oh, and by the way, did they measure DU excretion in the urine of that baby? Doing that could very easily establish if that baby did indeed have DU.

As for those who were excreting DU, were they sick? Sounds like Rokke himself was not sick when he was excreting DU (when he wasn't told)? and at very high levels, at that!

I look forward to finding more convincing evidence. So far, I've only seen claims that had obvious anti-war and anti-American slants. (Should those suicide-bombers jihadists be praised because they don't use DU in their explosives?)

The Wiki article gives a lot. DU is a heavy metal poison. DU has lower radiation than natural isotopes. DU burns up (phosphoricity) if in small sizes so I wonder how it can be spread in the air without burning (though I still have not seen what the end-product of such burning is)?

So is DU radiation harmful? Simple. How much radiation does it emit? How high (or low) is it compared to natural exposure?

Instead of all the "evidence" presented by obviously biased sources, with no scientific basis backing them, it should really be simple to use basic science to establish the harm of DU. Why don't proponents of the radiation harm of DU simply do that? (Maybe they can't? )

http://www.hpa.org.uk/radiation/faq/du/du8.htm
http://www.hpa.org.uk/radiation/faq/du/du9.htm

Again, just to clarify: My issue is with the radiation harm of DU. This radiation harm is the frightening picture being painted for us, but is it true?

Gerry
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-15-2007, 07:04 PM
Mad Scientest's Avatar
Mad Scientest Mad Scientest is offline
Lecturer
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Illinois
Posts: 2,077
Mad Scientest has a spectacular aura aboutMad Scientest has a spectacular aura aboutMad Scientest has a spectacular aura about
Default

Quote:
So is DU radiation harmful? Simple. How much radiation does it emit? How high (or low) is it compared to natural exposure?
To get the right answer one needs to ask the right question. That is the right question.

I do not doubt that the Gulf War Syndrome was real. But I what is causing it, the hot aspartame, the blowing up of Saddam's supposedly nonexistent chemical weapons, or perhaps the whole battery of vaccines that the troops got before being sent over there. Did this massive chemical cocktail do them more harm then good?

Are the current troops experiencing similar problems?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-16-2007, 01:38 AM
bifrost99 bifrost99 is offline
Beloved Mentor
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 555
bifrost99 will become famous soon enough
Default DU radiation - how deadly?

I did more of my own research about DU, and there's more on Wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-238

I don't know if I'm interpreting this right, but here's what I understand of it:

DU, which is mainly U-238, has a half-life of 4.46 billion years. (Many will think that this long decay period means harm. But actually, it's usually the opposite.) Meaning, for any amount of U-238, half would have decayed in 4.46 billion years, so the radiation that half emitted is spread over 4.46 billion years. Should we feel safe or what?

Now what is that radiation emitted in the process of decay?

Alpha waves. And these are virtually harmless: "Generally, external alpha radiation is not harmful because alpha particles are completely absorbed by a few centimeters of air. Even touching an alpha source is usually not harmful; the thin layer of dead skin cells in the outermost layer of the skin will absorb them."

So much for the fear of all those DU particles in the air emitting only alpha waves which are absorbed within a few centimeters of air, in very small amounts to last 4.6 billion years.

Even if ingested, the harm from radiation will only be in the immediate area: "However, if a substance radiating alpha particles is ingested, inhaled by, injected into, or introduced through the skin (shrapnel, corrosive chemicals) into an organism it may result in a high dose to that area." (Of course, this is apart from the toxicity caused by DU as a heavy metal.)

So, in 4.6 billion years, half of an amount of U-238 becomes thorium-234, which emits beta particles, and with the half life being some 24 days. So this substance decays faster, half turning into lead in less than a month. While we may have reason to fear thorium-234, it's beta particle emissions are easily stopped by spectacles or thick clothing. And only very small amounts of this are produced per given time from U-238. For a bullet, or even a shell, half of that becomes thorium-234 over 4.6 billion years, and as soon as any is formed, half decays to lead every 24 days.

Should we still be frightened of DU radiation?

The mere fact that U-238/DU is used to shield against radiation should have given us an immediate hint as to whether this DU radiation scare is valid. Obviously, it's not. So why the DU radiation scare campaign? Seems like more of anti-Americanism to me. 8)

(Again, I'm just dealing with DU's radiation. It is a heavy metal causing poisoning. But we don't ask keep our armed forces from using another heavy metal, lead, do we?)

Gerry
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-16-2007, 09:22 AM
Arrowwind09's Avatar
Arrowwind09 Arrowwind09 is offline
Standing at the Portal
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 6,554
Arrowwind09 has a spectacular aura aboutArrowwind09 has a spectacular aura about
Default

So Lets Look At Gamma Waves

Depleated Uranium

Wikipedia? I do not exactly trust this reference since the site is controlled by nonexperts who edit information according to their personal propaganda goals.I gave it the test one time, entering all the true information on the application of ozone therapy in Germany with references. No mention of cures or anything. Just that ozone is used by different medical facilities. It was deleted pretty dam fast.

You guys might want to go through this site.

It seems to me that folks in the US don’t like DU much and no one wants it in their back yard. We had lots of protests when the government wanted to transport it though the highway system in my fair city to get it to Yucca Mountain.

The problem of storing DU just won’t go away and local facilities that produce DU around the nation, well some of them have just turned into radiological dumps and consequently nightmares for clean up. If DU is so non toxic that it can be put into weaponry why is it that no one wants it near them?

I remember 30 years ago reading articles about Native Americans who were given housing by the government that was built on DU tailing piles that had been plowed under in Arizona. Every family had cancer. They had to abandon the homes.

It kind of reminds me of the fluoride issue. Here we have a toxic industrial waste that no one knows what to do with. So someone gets the brilliant idea that we should put it into drinking water and disperse of it all over the planet, where ever people can be conned into accepting it. Now those who say wait a minute and protest fluoridation of water are written off as conspiracy therorists, wacko’s, health nuts, and people who don’t care about kids teeth.

So it’s the same thing. We need to get rid of DU. We don’t really want to put in our drinking water like fluoride but we could bomb the hell out of people we hate with it and work at convincing everyone that it really is not so dangerous and really is necessary to fight a good war.

We have a lot of cancer in our community here. There are whole towns in Nevada where everyone, well lets say, an inordinate amount of folks have cancer. I have stood in patient rooms where the patient is dying and all the family is present. This has happened too many times for me to remember them all. Lots of folks in the room. Aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters, cousins.. They get to talking about cancer and how they all have it or have had it, Families loaded with it.. Lung cancer is the most prelevant of the different types, excluding common skin cancer. 95 percent of the lung cancer patients I see never smoked. But they all live downwind from nuclear testing sites, and DU weapon test sites as well are up wind here. Just my antidotal observations for what they are worth. (personally I think they are worth a hell of a lot. I see these things but its never noticed by the media or the government. Either they are blinded or I am crazy. But I know where I stand and I am not crazy. )

As children are more vulnerable to toxic lead exposure from soil contamination so they would be with this issue. Kids just get into dirt. But I think in this instance due to the dust factor more than just kids are affected.

This article explains that the dangerous rays in DU are gamma rays.

http://www.umrc.net/about_umrc.aspx

http://www.umrc.net/radiation_and_the_human_body.aspx
Radiation and the Human Body
In terms of pure physics, radiation is the process of transport of energy across space. Radioactivity is the process of decay of a physical element and involves the emitting of "bundles of energy", which may have a mass or not and may have an electric charge or not.
Relatively few natural elements undergo this process and they are called "radioactive" elements. Alpha and beta particles, gamma-rays are emitted when radioactive decay takes place.

When particles reach the human body they interact with its physical components. This interaction results in the deposit of part or all of the energy carried by the “intruder” particle. The particles are so tiny that their effect is not immediately sensed by the body. It is the consequences of this interaction that is felt inside the body - by disruption of the bonds that keep molecules together and by creating ions that further interact with our system.

Each particle emitted has a certain amount of energy. The energy multiplied by the total number of particles gives the total amount of "uninvited" energy released in the body. To illustrate this point, consider the number of alpha particles emitted by a single spherical pellet of uranium oxide (UO2) 0.0001 inch or 2.5 microns in diameter (equivalent to 1/40th the width of a human hair) and the dose rate it produces.
Tiny as it is, the 2.5 micron depleted uranium oxide pellet contains 210 billion atoms (2.1 x 10 to the power of 11) of U238. Each year, the pellet will emit an average 32.3 alpha particles. It also contains U234, 235, 236 which together yield an additional 5.3 alpha particles per year. Thus a single pellet of depleted UO2 will produce a total of 37.6 alpha particles per year.

The 37.6 alpha particles will deliver a radiation dose of 17 rads/year. With an RBE (Relative Biological Effectiveness) factor of 10, the dose rate is 170 rem/year for the surrounding body tissue. In the US, the Code of Federal Regulations regarding energy specifies an annual limit of 0.17 rem/year and a specific limit of 0.5 rem/year for an individual in the general population.

A quick calculation shows one single pellet delivers 1,000 times the annual limit. This number is multiplied by the total number of pellets present in the body. For example, if a single or series of exposures resulted in the presence of 10 pellets then the annual limit is exceeded by 10,000.

Another factor to consider is "permanence". Objects or particles less than 5 micron in diameter are considered respirable, meaning that it is small enough to enter into the lungs and become permanently trapped. If the body does not manage to somehow release it then the radiation is internalized and the dosage is permanent during the individual's lifetime and even remains in their physical remains after death.

http://www.umrc.net/abstracts.aspx

http://www.umrc.net/pdf/quantitative...fghanistan.pdf

The Quantitative Analysis of Uranium Isotopes in the Urine of the
Civilian Population of Eastern Afghanistan after
Operation Enduring Freedom*

Asaf Durakovic

The purpose of this study was to determine the concentrations and precise isotopic compositions of four
uranium isotopes (234U, 235U, 236U, and 238U) in urine specimens from the civilian population of
Afghanistan after Allied Forces Operation Enduring Freedom. Eight male civilians from Nangarhar-
Jalalabad region who presented with symptoms of fatigue, fever, musculoskeletal and neurological
alterations, headaches, and respiratory impairment after inhalation of dust during bombing raids in June
2002 had urine samples collected under controlled conditions and analyzed in duplicate for 234U, 235U, 236U, and 238U, with multicollector, inductively coupled, plasma ionization mass spectrometry. Control samples with an internal urine standard were analyzed with the same method.

The mean concentration of uranium in eight samples was found to be considerably greater (275.04 ng/L; SD, 137.80 ng/L; SE,
48.72 ng/L) than what is regarded as a reference range (1-20 ng/L). The 238U:235U ratio was 137.87 ± 0.20, which is consistent with that of natural uranium. The 234U: 238U ratio for the Afghan samples was 0.000055 ± 0.000001, also consistent with natural uranium. 236U, which usually forms a component of depleted uranium, was not detected (measured 236U: 234U ratio, < 10-7). Our results demonstrate that contamination in Afghanistan with a source consistent with natural uranium has resulted in total uranium concentrations up to 100 times higher than normal range for various geographic and environmental areas throughout the world. The cause of our findings is currently being evaluated as part of our ongoing research.



http://www.umrc.net/pdf/quantitative_analysis.pdf

The Quantitative Analysis of Depleted Uranium Isotopes in
British, Canadian, and U.S. Gulf War Veterans*

Asaf Durakovic†, Patricia Horan‡, Leonard Dietz†

The purpose of this work was to determine the concentration and ratio of uranium isotopes in allied forces Gulf War veterans. The 27 patients had their 24-hour urine samples analyzed for 234U, 235U, 236U
and 238U by mass spectrometry. The urine samples were evaporated and separated into isotopic dilution and concentration fraction by the chromatographic technique. The isotopic composition was measured by
a thermal ionization mass spectrometer using secondary multiplier (SEM) detector and ion counting system. The uranium blank control and SRM960 U isotopic standard were analyzed by the same procedure. Statistical analysis was done by unpaired t-test. The results confirm the presence of depleted uranium (DU) in 14 of 27 samples, with the 238U:235U ratio > 207.15. This is significantly different from natural uranium (p < 0.008) as well as from the DU shrapnel analysis, with 22.22% average value of DU
fraction, and warrants further investigation.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

* 11th International Congress of the International Radiation Protection Association, Madrid, Spain, May 23-28, 2004
† Uranium Medical Research Centre
‡ NERC Isotope Geosciences Laboratory, British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Notts, United Kingdom
The Urinary Concentration and Ratio of Uranium Isotopes in
Civilians of the Bibi Mahro Region after Recent Military
Operations in Eastern Afghanistan*

Asaf Durakovic†, Randall R. Parrish‡, Axel Gerdes‡, Isaac Zimmerman†

The aim of this work was to quantitatively evaluate the precise concentration and isotopic ratios of uranium isotopes in the urine of the civilians of eastern Afghanistan following the air raids during
Operation Enduring Freedom. Our previous studies reported unusually high concentrations of uranium in the Jalalabad and Kabul regions of Afghanistan.

The current study was conducted in a localized district of Bibi Mahro, Kabul, the area of intense bombing
raids. Six male subjects with the clinical presentation of non-specific multi-organ symptoms of respira-
tory, urinary, musculoskeletal, and neurological alterations had their urine samples collected by the field
research team under controlled conditions. All subjects were exposed to the inhalation of dust during the
bombing operations of Allied Forces in June, 2002. Twenty-four hours urine samples were analyzed for
234
U, 235U, 236U, and 238U by multicollector inductively-coupled plasma ionization mass spectrometry (MC-
ICP-MS) as duplicate specimens. Internal urine standard control samples were analyzed by the same
methodology.

All samples were processed by the procedure of uranium pre-concentration with co-precipitation, eva- poration, organic matter oxidation, ion-exchange chromatography, uranium purification, and mass spectrometry analysis by Thermo-Elemental Plasma54 multicollector ICP-MS with ion counting Daly® detector and multiple Faraday cups. The blank samples contained negligible concentration of less than 50
pg of total uranium. The chemical recovery was greater than 80% for most samples. Internal standard of the urine with 11 ng/L of uranium of natural atomic ratio 238U:235U of 137.88 was also analyzed, together
with certified isotopic standards of uranium. The results of all analyses were within the correct values for
the standards.

The mean concentration of uranium in all six samples was significantly higher (389 ng/L, SD 805, SE 329) than the normal population values (1-20 ng/L) with an exceedingly high concentration (2032 ng/L) in a
child, the sole survivor of a direct bomb impact on the family home. The 238U:235U ratio was 138.14 ± 0.13, consistent with natural uranium. The samples showed no evidence of detectable 236U with measured
ratio of 236U:238U < 10-6.

These results suggest that the civilian population of the Bibi Mahro region of eastern Afghanistan had significant elevation of total uranium concentration up to 200 times higher than the normal values of the
range of the world environmental and geographic areas. The explanation of our findings could be either of two possible mechanisms. 1) exposure to contaminated dust in the areas of the bombing raids by
natural uranium containing weapons or 2) unusual geological and environmental excessively high uranium levels contained in the soil or drinking water. Whereas some areas of central Asia have been
identified as high uranium regions in the water and soil as a result of uranium mining and processing, such circumstances have not been identified in the Bibi Mahro region of Afghanistan. An interdisciplin-
ary approach to testify these hypotheses is a part of our ongoing studies.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 10-18-2007, 04:42 AM
morgan33 morgan33 is offline
Explorer
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 65
morgan33 is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pinballdoctor
I agree that depleted uranium has an enormous effect on health, especially considering the fact that it is blowing around constantly because the area is mostly sand, and there is little to catch and trap the uranium.
I do not agree that a huge increase in type 2 diabetes is caused by depleted uranium. It is caused by BAD DIET and LACK OF EXERCISE.
If diabetes is caused by this, why did the Hep B vaccination program in infants in NZ cause such a noticeable increase in juvenile diabetes?

These children were far too young for diet and exercise to have had an impact.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10-18-2007, 08:39 PM
pinballdoctor's Avatar
pinballdoctor pinballdoctor is offline
Lecturer
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Saskatchewan Canada
Posts: 1,917
pinballdoctor will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by morgan33
Quote:
Originally Posted by pinballdoctor
I agree that depleted uranium has an enormous effect on health, especially considering the fact that it is blowing around constantly because the area is mostly sand, and there is little to catch and trap the uranium.
I do not agree that a huge increase in type 2 diabetes is caused by depleted uranium. It is caused by BAD DIET and LACK OF EXERCISE.
If diabetes is caused by this, why did the Hep B vaccination program in infants in NZ cause such a noticeable increase in juvenile diabetes?

These children were far too young for diet and exercise to have had an impact.
Morgan33, my comment was concerning type 2 diabetes, not type1.
It is my belief that type 1 diabetes is strongly linked to a combination of vaccines and dairy.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-19-2007, 08:18 PM
Iggy Dalrymple's Avatar
Iggy Dalrymple Iggy Dalrymple is offline
Enlightener
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 772
Iggy Dalrymple will become famous soon enough
Default

HOAX DU JOUR
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-19-2007, 08:22 PM
pinballdoctor's Avatar
pinballdoctor pinballdoctor is offline
Lecturer
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Saskatchewan Canada
Posts: 1,917
pinballdoctor will become famous soon enough
Default

That news report is from January 4, 2001.
Alot of uranium shells have been used since then, something like 350 tons.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10-20-2007, 04:07 AM
bifrost99 bifrost99 is offline
Beloved Mentor
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 555
bifrost99 will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arrowwind09
So Lets Look At Gamma Waves
Nope. There are no gamma rays from U-238. We won't be turning into Hulks.

Quote:
Wikipedia? I do not exactly trust this reference since the site is controlled by nonexperts who edit information according to their personal propaganda goals.
Wikipedia is a good start. In spite of the problems you point out, we can easily screen out facts from opinions. As for U-238, what is in Wiki is confirmed by other sources.


Quote:
I remember 30 years ago reading articles about Native Americans who were given housing by the government that was built on DU tailing piles that had been plowed under in Arizona. Every family had cancer. They had to abandon the homes.
If it's simply DU, which only emits alpha waves, it should not be the cause. Alpha waves are easily blocked by a piece of paper or spectacles, so how can they penetrate the layers above them if they were plowed under? Even in air, alpha particles have no longer any effect beyond a few centimeters from the source.

Quote:
We have a lot of cancer in our community here. There are whole towns in Nevada where everyone, well lets say, an inordinate amount of folks have cancer. I have stood in patient rooms where the patient is dying and all the family is present.
I don't get it. The mere passing through of DU was protested against, and yet there's still cancer in Nevada. Is it still attributable to DU?

The the PIG to Science, Denver or "the Rockies" have higher than allowable background radiation from its natural uranium (>90% U-238) deposits, and they have lower cancer rates than the rest of the US.

We might be blaming the wrong culprit.

Quote:
But they all live downwind from nuclear testing sites, and DU weapon test sites as well are up wind here. Just my antidotal observations for what they are worth.
Well, with what is known of DU, it should not be lumped with other nuclear material. Its radiation emission is far too weak (mere alpha waves) to be of any signficance. Probably it's the nuclear testing, just as Gulf War I syndrome could have been from Saddam's weapons that were blasted?

Quote:
This article explains that the dangerous rays in DU are gamma rays.

http://www.umrc.net/about_umrc.aspx

http://www.umrc.net/radiation_and_the_human_body.aspx
I did not see any mention of gamma rays being emitted by U-238. And in spite of all the alpha particles produced, alpha particles are virtually safe, even dead cells at the top layer of our skin can block them so that it's safe to touch alpha emitting substances.

Quote:
The 37.6 alpha particles will deliver a radiation dose of 17 rads/year. With an RBE (Relative Biological Effectiveness) factor of 10, the dose rate is 170 rem/year for the surrounding body tissue.
I wonder what the basis for this is? Alpha particles hardly penetrate the body at all. (We're dealing with radiation from the environment, aren't we?) I think there's a switch here, from alpha values, to values that apply to other types of radiation.

Quote:
In the US, the Code of Federal Regulations regarding energy specifies an annual limit of 0.17 rem/year and a specific limit of 0.5 rem/year for an individual in the general population.
Of what radiation? All?

Quote:
A quick calculation shows one single pellet delivers 1,000 times the annual limit. This number is multiplied by the total number of pellets present in the body. For example, if a single or series of exposures resulted in the presence of 10 pellets then the annual limit is exceeded by 10,000.
A single pellet, 37.6 alpha particles ONLY per year (which cannot even penetrate paper, and disappears -- becomes helium -- in a few centimeters of air), and suddenly it's 1000 times the annual limit? What's the basis? I'm lost here. And I think some switching is being done.

Then there's also the obvious switch: from dealing with radiation from the environment (which is obviously negligible for U-238) to having pellets within the body. Well, if we have pellets within the body, then the harm is more from heavy metal poisoning, right?

This switching back-and-forth from one issue to another is deceptive. We have two issues: environmental radiation from U-238, and poisoning if U-238 is within the body. Just because DU in the body is toxic does not mean that it would be toxic outside of the body (from its very weak type of radiation).

Quote:
Another factor to consider is "permanence". Objects or particles less than 5 micron in diameter are considered respirable, meaning that it is small enough to enter into the lungs and become permanently trapped. If the body does not manage to somehow release it then the radiation is internalized and the dosage is permanent during the individual's lifetime and even remains in their physical remains after death.
Again, the lumping up of radiation as only one type. Alpha radiation in direct contact with living cells can burn the cells and kill them. But then, this layer of dead cells becomes a shield to the rest of the body because alpha waves are too weak to penetrate them.

As for being "permanently trapped," how can this apply to DU when they are measuring its excretion in the urine? So the body is obviously capable of excreting this substance, right?

Quote:
The Quantitative Analysis of Uranium Isotopes in the Urine of the
Civilian Population of Eastern Afghanistan after
Operation Enduring Freedom*
If anything, this study showed it was not from DU, right?

Quote:
The Quantitative Analysis of Depleted Uranium Isotopes in
British, Canadian, and U.S. Gulf War Veterans*

Asaf Durakovic†, Patricia Horan‡, Leonard Dietz†
This study showed that 14 of 27 samples (soldiers?) were excreting DU, but supposedly at levels lower than from shrapnel (I hope I got that right?). So they had DU in their bodies, one way or another. It still does not prove that the DU radiation is of any harm. It only shows that DU can enter (probably via inhalation?) the body.

And why isn't anyone asking about the 13 negative samples? If these were 13 soldiers, why did they not get DU into their systems? (assuming they were in the same environment as the 14)


Quote:
The Urinary Concentration and Ratio of Uranium Isotopes in
Civilians of the Bibi Mahro Region after Recent Military
Operations in Eastern Afghanistan*
Same here. DU in body and urine. No proof that DU radiation is the cause of any harm. The harm, if any, is only if DU somehow enters. In the cases, people were in the vicinity of bombings, DURING the bombings. So it is expected that all that dust spreads up. But afterwards?

Quote:
1) exposure to contaminated dust in the areas of the bombing raids by natural uranium containing weapons
Who would put natural uranium in weapons?

That's expensive! So we're throwing away uranium instead of using them in reactors? Really suspicious of propaganda.

Quote:
2) unusual geological and environmental excessively high uranium levels contained in the soil or drinking water. Whereas some areas of central Asia have been
identified as high uranium regions in the water and soil as a result of uranium mining and processing, such circumstances have not been identified in the Bibi Mahro region of Afghanistan. An interdisciplin-
ary approach to testify these hypotheses is a part of our ongoing studies.
In short, they don't know, but it's still not DU.

So still, the scary picture of DU in the environment being a cause of radiation poisoning is far from the reality that the facts show.

To summarize what I recognize as facts:

1. DU/U-238 is a heavy metal poison and harms if it enters the body. However, the body excretes this metal in the urine.

2. The radiation emitted by U-238 is only alpha particles. These are virtually helium atoms without any electrons. Traveling in air, they become helium within a few centimeters from their source, getting electrons from other air molecules. Alpha particles cannot penetrate paper or spectacles (glass?).

3. Alpha particles hardly produce any harm because they cannot penetrate far. Even dead cells on the surface of our skin can allow us to touch a substance emitting alpha particles. On direct contact with living cells, they burn the cells in the immediate area, which then become shielding for other living cells.

I'm no proponent of DU use in weapons, but I don't like the roundabout reasoning being used as arguments. So far, they all seem invalid to me (the thing about radiation from environmental contamination with DU).

Gerry
Reply With Quote
Reply
Please reply to this thread with any new information or opinions.

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
D*facts Pregnancy Ted_Hutchinson Vitamins & Supplements 3 05-16-2010 05:03 PM
Cinnamon.....some facts egytas Nutrition 4 04-20-2010 11:12 AM
Mushrooms, Vitamin D and More Food Facts Harry Hirsute Vitamins & Supplements 29 05-24-2009 10:06 PM
Guillotine Facts Iggy Dalrymple Humor 0 11-26-2007 10:23 PM
Dr. Weil - The Facts on Flavonoids Harry Hirsute Nutrition 0 11-10-2007 04:35 PM