nyvegan
If you or I had anything to do with a genuine pentagon strike, government-side, we’d have produced bucketfuls of labelled titanium blades, and all the rest of the evidence, and said——there you are !
The incredible Condoleeeeeza said “noone would have imagined"etc.
thats no slip of the tongue, but an outright lie, a firing offence.
Posted by frog on Apr 23, 2006 at 5:50 PM
Condi lied. “noone would have imagined…..”
and then instructions went out to tear off the covers of the FEMA etc manuals—scope-sights on WTCs on front covers.
Posted by frog on Apr 23, 2006 at 5:53 PM
<i>If a party was behind one of the events, it was almost certainly a factor in the others. If the Pentagon was hit by a missile, then the whole story about hijackers falls apart. If the
Posted by Natalie on Apr 25, 2006 at 9:25 AM
Oh hello Natty, with the imminent collapse of the official conspiracy theory lie, Rabbit thought you would have been re-assigned by now. Still trying to hold back the tide Rabbit sees.
Flight 93 was shot down. ! .
Actually Rabbit knew it was the happy hooligans who shot it down about two years ago, just not the name of the pilot.
Posted by Rabbit on Apr 27, 2006 at 11:35 PM
Rabbit? What the?
BOTH those killer hurricanes George Bush directed your way missed their target?
Just kidding, nice to hear from you, as always ....... ;-)
This shill just stopped by a while back to post some new (to me) information, that being that the perimeter columns were observed bowing inward eight minutes before collapse. Of course the first thing that came to mind was that this was the thermite at work, but when I realized that the jet impact would certainly have dislodged it here at the impact zone, I came to suspect that maybe, just maybe, the mechanism of collapse had something to do with the effects of the fires in addition to the plane damage. Then I remembered the previous testimony I posted about police in helicopters observing extremely hot fires just before collapse and trying to warn others that they thought collapse was imminent.
This, along with the rather coarse testimony of the structural engineers from the firm of Penn & Teller really got me to wondering.
Aside from your link about flt. 93 being two years old and providing zero proof other than taking the word of a kook money-grubbing website editor, I have agreed in the past that it is a possibility that 93 was shot down. That does not disprove the ear-witnesssed intentions of the passengers to regain control of the plane. Whether they or a missile or both did the job, at least this one plane was prevented from hitting its target, which was likely the Capitol building or the Whitehouse.
And now I must start my list…..
Posted by Natalie on Apr 28, 2006 at 12:59 PM
Item 1: Operation Northwoods
“Loose Change”, (LC hereafter) tells us about a series of proposals that were allegedly presented by the military to officials in the JFK administration, some of which arguably involved deliberate acts of murder in order to justify military action against Cuba. Presumably, this is evidence that murdering thousands on 9/11 is well within America’s propensity.
First of all, one can’t help but notice the blind willingness of the LC “skeptics” to accept that the Northwoods documents are authentic. After listening to everyone from Alex Jones to Stephen Jones tell us that anything and everything coming from the Government is not to be trusted, why is this “revelation” treated as gospel, and not a second thought given to the possibility that the whole thing could be nothing more than disinformation or a hoax. (such as those obviously fabricated DNA results from the pentagon victims) If Northwoods had been legit, might it not be reasonable to suspect that liberals Macnamara and Sorenson would be eager to confirm it, so many years later, because after all it makes them look sensible for rejecting it, and it makes the “right wingers” in the military look bad. Others have pointed out that certain language in the documents is not likely to have been written by Americans, perhaps that the insertion of the documents could be the result of some kind of foreign subterfuge.
Lemnitzer and those who served with him in 1962 as chiefs of the nation’s military branches are dead. But two former top Kennedy administration officials said yesterday that they were unaware of Operation Northwoods and questioned whether such a plan was ever drafted. “I’ve never heard of Operation Northwoods. Never heard of it and don’t believe it,” said Theodore Sorenson, Kennedy’s White House special counsel. “Obviously, it would be totally illegal as well as totally unwise.” Robert S. McNamara, Kennedy’s defense secretary, said: “I never heard of it. I can’t believe the chiefs were talking about or engaged in what I would call CIA-type operations.” Bamford writes that besides the Joint Chiefs, then-Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul H. Nitze also favored “provoking a phony war with Cuba.” “There may be a piece of paper” on Northwoods, said McNamara. “I just cannot conceive of [Nitze] approving anything like that or doing it without talking to me.”
Be this as it may, I actually tend to suspect that the Northwoods proposals are likely authentic. But even if so, they are pretty small potatoes compared to the accusations about 9/11. Start some riots, down a “drone”, maybe kill some Cubans, maybe not. And, if legit, it would be evidence that the U.S. Government is not prone to approving wild schemes, and that wild schemes are not executed without approval. Even though the presence of a Soviet friend so close to the U.S. was an extremely dangerous threat, as evidenced by the subsequent Cuban Missile Crisis, the U.S. chose not to deceive the American and Cuban people. I wonder, again assuming legitimacy, if perhaps Kennedy wished he had approved it, while in the midst of the crisis.
Regardless, including “Northwoods” in LC unwittingly makes the case that America does not go around carelessly engaging in deceptive murderous schemes, even if they might have thought about it, and even if it might have actually been well advised in this case. If history had resulted in there being a permanent nuclear threat 90 miles from shore, I have a feeling that a vast majority of Americans would have approved in retrospect of a few innocent deaths, thereby justifying the invasion that would have prevented the fictional permanent Soviet missile presence.
With Northwoods, we’re talking about a peppering of deaths, at worst. Our suspected bomb planters had to know that the potential was there for many tens of thousands of innocent deaths.
Posted by Natalie on Apr 28, 2006 at 1:18 PM
Ah yes but Natalie the impossibility of the cell phone calls getting through from the height of flight 93 does render that part of the story to deception.
Like I said you should by now be redumdant. Have you not been keeping up with the recent devolments? There are a whole bunch more engineers and scientists and world leaders and media personalities swelling the ranks of those who know the official story is a lie.
Oh well, guess Rabbit will just have to bring you up to date. Later.
As for thsoe Cyclones, to be honest dearm Rabbit is a NOrthwester and has been through plenty of cyclones before. As a matter of fact the whole thing is being beat up a bit. We usually get three or four good Cyclones of these sort of strengths every wet season. The difference is only the world media. Notice how we just deal with it though? Not such a backwards colony that a single storms loses us a city I guess.
Posted by Rabbit on Apr 28, 2006 at 8:08 PM
A peppering of deaths is a completely different proposition I see now to you. It’s OK if the government kills off a few dozen people, (What is a peppering of deaths dear), but that doesn’t mean they would kill off a few thousand, is that your point sweetheart?
Well we traditionally use the FACT of Operation Northwoods to answer dildos like you who claim the US government would not kill ANY of it’s citizens in false terror attacks, and the scale doesn’t really change that fact for those of us who still maintain a real humanity and not just some fake pretence and hollow slogans.
You have not become any more charming in Rabit’s absence, you are still the banality of evil, the apologist for death and destruction. You do realise that Depleted Uranium is well and truly out of the bag now too don’t you?
You really may have to find a new cause soon, as both your babies are going to ground in the foreseeable future. Perhaps you could become an advocate for killing whales or baby seals?
Not up to your usual penchant for genocidal weapons of mass destruction, but one of these days you just might find your causes have been lost and left you behind. Like Golum in Lord of the Rings, you will be reduced to a snivelling, vicious and paranoid monster, waiting to pounce and suck the life out of unwary travellers.
Posted by Rabbit on Apr 29, 2006 at 2:17 AM
.. NATTY WROTE—-including “Northwoods” in LC unwittingly makes the case that America does not go around carelessly engaging in deceptive murderous schemes, even if they might have thought about it, and even if it might have actually been well advised in this case.
This ‘unwittingly makes’ no case whatsoever !
My cat left a bit of mouse in front of the door. She ate one mouse. This unwittingly makes the case that she does not regularly do so !
One Plan rejected by the White House now proves that similar plans have not been approved and executed ?
Similar Plans have been carried out, sometimes without Presidential approval ?
Operation Gladio was not about missles 60miles from the US, but killing civilians in false flag operations to discredit the ‘left’ parties in Europe.
Iran Contra was not falseflag, certainly, but was confusion of terrorists as freedom fighters by the Actor ?
Posted by frog on Apr 29, 2006 at 2:59 AM
“Ah yes but Natalie the impossibility of the cell phone calls getting through from the height of flight 93 does render that part of the story to deception.”
Rabbit, why is the idea that Islamic terrorists were foiled by ordinary Americans so distasteful to you? Is it because you so wanted to see the Whitehouse destroyed? Is it because it undermines your theory that there were no hijackers to begin with? After all, if one admits that the hijackers existed, then it becomes necessary to convince people of the even zanier notion that our government worked in concert with these goons to carry out their crash/fire/bomb plot. They are so inconvenient, aren’t they?
1) Cell phone calls can be made occasionally from airliners, sometimes even at cruising altitude.
2) There were several accounts of conversations between passengers and loved ones, and/or between passengers and airphone or 9/11 operators. Some perhaps from cell phones, probably most from airphones. The reporting on this aspect has routinely confused cell or mobile phone calls with airphone calls.
3) I’ve seen these people (that received the calls) interviewed. They are totally and completely credible. To think that all of them are part of some grand conspiracy is ridiculous. To suspect that they were all fooled by planted calls is also ridiculous, because some of the callers weren’t even originally scheduled to be on the ill-fated flights until the last minute. How would anyone know that these changes took place and be able to instantly change their calling plans?
Again, I don’t dispute the possibility that 93 was shot down, even though there is no concrete evidence for it. Yeah, there was some debris found, but the reasons for it could be several. Conversely, there is solid direct evidence that the passengers were, at the very least, part of what brought the flight down.
<i>“Like I said you should by now be redumdant.
Posted by Natalie on Apr 30, 2006 at 7:38 PM
<i>“Well we traditionally use the FACT of Operation Northwoods to answer dildos like you who claim the US government would not kill ANY of it
Posted by Natalie on Apr 30, 2006 at 7:59 PM
There’s a definite parallel between the collapse of the WTC buildings, and depleted uranium.
There has not been a shred of credible peer-reviewed evidence presented to back up wild claims such as thermite induced collapse or gruesome birth defects in Afgan children. Or any children for that matter. Sorry…..a bunch of un-sourced, undocumented likely doctored pics on Rense.com just doesn’t pass muster.
Nothing but nonsensical, unsupported rumor-based psuedo-scientific gossip, which is all rooted around the need to deny the threat of Islamic terrorism, and thereby the need to respond to it in any kind of forceful way.
Posted by Natalie on Apr 30, 2006 at 8:21 PM
Natalie the idea which is so distasteful to me is that ordinary Americans or indeed any people would be set up, murdered in a framed up attack and then lied to about it so their country could be turned into a global nightmare.
What is incredible is that anybody still remains clinging to the long since discredited pffoical pile of codswallop. Your stupid conspiracy theory was never a contender, which is why even in America you belong now to a small minority.
Posted by Rabbit on Apr 30, 2006 at 10:32 PM
The DU evidence is well and truly on the table, you beast. The photos above linked and the acompanying report are evidence in themselvs. Anyway that is becoming a mainstream issue at last and the outrage worldwide as wel as in the USA is growing. The horror of DU was always too big to keep secret longer than it took for the first symptoms to show, about three to five years.
A few recent articles, note your nemeses, the good Dr Leuren Moret and Doug Rokke are going from strength to strength.
Death sentence
<i>Terry Jemison of the Department of Veterans Affairs reported this week to the American Free Press that
Posted by Rabbit on May 1, 2006 at 12:21 AM
Seems like when you say there is no evidence or studies what you actually mean is there are none which you care to recognise. Eventually Karma will catch up with you my dear, ask not for whom the bell tolls.
More of the sort of support you personally are giving the troops.
<i>Not only were soldiers exposed to DU on and off the battlefields, but they brought it home. DU in the semen of soldiers internally contaminated their wives, partners and girlfriends. Tragically, some women in their 20s and 30s who were sexual partners of exposed soldiers developed endometriosis and were forced to have hysterectomies because of health problems.
In a group of 251 soldiers from a study group in Mississippi who had all had normal babies before the Gulf War, 67 percent of their post-war babies were born with severe birth defects. They were born with missing legs, arms, organs or eyes or had immune system and blood diseases. In some veterans
Posted by Rabbit on May 1, 2006 at 12:29 AM
Item 2: Remotely controlled Boeing 720 was used for crash/fuel research in late 1984.
I guess this is suppose to butter us up to the possibility that jets were flown by remote control into their targets on 9/11. Well, I suppose this is pretty good proof that remote control operation would have theoretically been possible; however, the practicality of this being used on 9/11 to hit relatively small targets is questionable.
Not to mention all the other evidence that there were indeed hijackers on board controlling the situation and not computers. Communications from passengers describing the situation, the voice of the hijackers mistakenly transmitted to controllers, etc.
I noticed some pretty sloppy journalism here. LC claims the jet had 10 takeoffs and 13 landings. I don’t know how you can get more landings than takeoffs, but what do I know? According to the NASA page on the event, there were 15 takeoffs and 14 landings…..just as one might expect when the final “landing” was not a landing but a crash. A small point perhaps, but evidence yet of an apparent lack of concern for accuracy. Or perhaps I’m missing something.
Item 3: Twin towers depicted as being “in the cross hairs” in gubmint training manual in 1997.
Well Duh. If the fact that al Qaeda targeted the towers in 1993 in an attempt to topple one onto the other isn’t sufficient cause to designate the towers as a “target” of terrorism in a manual of instructions for dealing with a possible terrorist attack, then I give up. I just should have known that the real reason for the picture was that some itchy in the know artist couldn’t help himself and let the whole future plot about 9/11/01 out of the bag.
Stupid brain.
Posted by Natalie on May 1, 2006 at 12:38 AM
Here is a list of Scholars for 911 Truth. Among them wil be found engineers, architects, firemen, professors and politicians.
Of course they just might all be Bush haters too, that does kind of come with the territory, after all, how could anyone realise the truth and not hate the bastards who did it?
Well what about that? Natty the list is so long, that it would take about ten postings to get it all here. So here instead is a link to the list, you will find all manner of people represented, this doesn’t have to fit into any arbitrary requirements you may choose to create, it is an impressive list of intelligent and educated people.
List of Scholars for 9/11 Truth This is only one organisation of course, though it is currently something of a flagship. Read the roll and it is obvious why this would be.
Now could we see a similar list of supporters for the official story please? You can include the US government, which gives you at least one name already..
Oh and BTW going back to Operation Northwoods, you talk as if the government volunteered the information, excuse me but it was uncovered by investigative reporting, despite the government attempts to coverup. Remember Oliver North dearie? Rabbit does anyway.
Posted by Rabbit on May 1, 2006 at 12:54 AM
Rabbit has no idea what you are just now babbling on about girl, and has frankly wasted enough time on you for a day, but you just sank out of sight again as usual once your pretentious prattling posts are answered. Now you babble on for a bit and if nobody else swats your dribble off the table Rabbit will be by, by and by to clean up any mess you make.
Do read all the lovely links Rabbit has left you, others will, then you at least know what you are contending with. It is hard to pity you, but when you continue dribbling long after your false rhetoric has dried up due to factual refutation, is pathetic.
It must be obvious to even a dunce like you that the old line that there are no qualified people who dispute the official 911 lies, is redundant, patently false. At the same time your favorite mantra that there is no evidence or scientific studies about the effects of DU, is complete garbage. The proof is covered in the few posts Rabbit has made here today. Thus you are as usual .............wrong.
Probably you’ll get sick and die from lung cancer too now, isn’t it grand to know you’ve helped bring that day about? Lung cancer looks a hell of a lot better than the lot of those deformed babies though.
Posted by Rabbit on May 1, 2006 at 12:59 AM
“US Lung Cancer Rates soar, due to DU. See, if you wait long enough, the proof will be arriving in your own backyard.”
Funny, upon examining the transcript of the CNN show referenced by Rense, I could find no mention of any increase in lung cancer rates, and certainly not of DU.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0603/08/ltm.05.html
Do you think this might be why the Rense article failed to reference the transcript?
Perhaps I’m missing something.
Posted by Natalie on May 1, 2006 at 1:05 AM
You are as usual missing something yes. Everything which disputes your bullshit. Read all the articles, and no cherry picking. Why do I even bother? The facts are there, must Rabbit quote things again?
Posted by Rabbit on May 1, 2006 at 1:09 AM
Do you not even comprehend what I’m saying to you? Your Rense article specifically references the CNN program on March 6, and specifically says that they said things they apparently never said, according to their transcipt. Rense doesn’t link you to the transcript.
Does this not mean anything at all to you?
Posted by Natalie on May 1, 2006 at 1:24 AM
Natalie as always your red herrings are as smelly as your overall game. The lung cancer rates are being acurately reported, and it isn’t only on CNN. I neither know nor care what CNN has recorded as it’s transcripts. I have seen how even here in Oz transcripts of TV programs get edited if there is anything too controversial in there. Though after looking yes they do mention those figures, at least the average of 177, 000 as being normal. People who I trust more than them claim it was said there and I choose to believe them. The point is not whether or not CNN aired it, but whether or not it is true. Nobody said by the way that CNN mentioned DU, that is another of Natty’s smelly red fish. It was pointed out they tried to spin it as second hand tobacco smoke which is roundly refuted.
Anyway even if half the reports of DU were bogus, it wouldn’t change the other half.
Depleted Uranium Links.
Do the actual facts, irrespective of who reports them not matter to you? It is you who is being ignorant, as always.
Posted by Rabbit on May 1, 2006 at 1:51 AM
Nor was it specifically a Rense article, as I’ve told you before foolish one, Rense is just a nexus, they report, you decide. Ironically enough.
Why do you not mention the other link anyway, it appears to be independent of the hoopla surrounding the article by Karl W B Schwarz, of Nano-technologies, which you deceptively identify as a Rense article as if such things are common. Rip Rense is actually not that prolific, and to my knowledge Karl is not a Rense staff writer.
As always Rabbit must beat out the truth in morse code on your head for you to face it which means only that you duck and dive for new cover. More smelly fish to hide your trail, of deciet.
<u>LUNG CANCER EPIDEMIC FROM DU HAS BEGUN IN U.S.</u>
By Dr. James Howenstine, MD.
April 6, 2006
In the year 2005 there were 175,000 new cases of lung cancer in the United States. The months of January and February of 2006 have already yielded 172,000 new cases of lung cancer in our nation. What has lead to this shocking new development?
Posted by Rabbit on May 1, 2006 at 2:05 AM
“List of Scholars for 9/11 Truth This is only one organisation of course, though it is currently something of a flagship. Read the roll and it is obvious why this would be.
Now could we see a similar list of supporters for the official story please? You can include the US government, which gives you at least one name already..”
This is what a list of “scholars” should look like. Notice the ability to click on a persons name and get a complete bio, including type and origin of college degrees, and work experience.
Posted by Natalie on May 1, 2006 at 2:08 AM
According to the CDC, lung cancer incidence and death have been steadily falling for males, and have been leveling off for females for quite some time now.
They claim the latest year that statistics are available is 2002. I wonder how Dr. James comes about his statistics. He doesn’t say. Does it not strike you as a little outlandish that they would increase that much? This trend would amount to somthing like a 600 percent increase by the end of the year. And all that DU got over here how? I don’t see a big spike after the Gulf War. Why not? It only takes a couple years for the cancer to show up, right? Unlike Northwoods, these charts are probably faked.
Posted by Natalie on May 1, 2006 at 2:27 AM
“Do the actual facts, irrespective of who reports them not matter to you? It is you who is being ignorant, as always.”
You’ve helped to demonstrate, Rabbit, by hightlighting Rense, that it certainly does matter who reports “facts”. I’ve repeatedly demonstrated how articles that appear on Rense routinely ignore, manipulate, or exclude facts.
The CNN thing is just the latest example.
There was the story about one of the 9/11 flights supposedly landing in Cleveland that had deliberately twisted information from a local tv station.
There was the thing about the Windsor tower fire, where we were told that it had similar construction to the twin towers.
There was the deliberate manipulation of the quote by Bill Manning.
I am interested in the actual facts regarding lung cancer rates. Can you point me to a source that is credible? Somehow I think a 600% increase would garner some pretty spectacular news coverage.
Don’t you?
Posted by Natalie on May 1, 2006 at 10:03 AM
Natalie, Nat the slimy sleazy stinky strumpetty BAT!
Rabbit has repeatedly pointed out to you that Rense contains 95% of reports from mainstream news, and doesn’t write independent articles as far as anything Rabbit would post as a source for you, deceitful Vampire.
As for this hilarious little fart;
This is what a list of “scholars” should look like. Notice the ability to click on a persons name and get a complete bio, including type and origin of college degrees, and work experience. ,............^^...............yes dear, all thirteen of them.
and the link which it includes; thankyou for clearly illustrating the poverty of the case against the list of eminent people who have stood for the opposing case. That of questioning the official crap story.
Get a grip Natalie.
You just gave us a list of seventeen people, (with a generous counting) who support the official garbage, the overall qualifications of whom are lower on a mean than those who have opposed it in writing via Scholars for 9/11 Truth.
Rabbit has not stopped to count the number of Scholars, but he gave up trying to post the list since it was going to take ten separate postings of this space limited, less than six thousand characters, site.
As for the format of the listings, what the fuck has that got to do with anything you foolish creature of the darkness?
If you doubt the existence of any of the list go look it up Natty.
Your denial doesn’t actually have any bearing on reality. History is full of people and their sycophants who denied the truth of their own reality until it all came crashing down. You are no anomaly, traditionally you comprise about one third of the population, and that, interestingly enough is about the exact percentage support your viewpoints still hold in the failed state of the USA. about 32% support these days, for those who DO take notice of polls?
The final “Backwash” portion as Mr Colbert would put it.
You are of no more consequence than that your denial and subsequent confusion will place you in the best position to absorb the worst of the impact of whatever hell is fast approaching our world. You are nothing more than a bunch of stupid woolly animals who may offer some buffer zone for a few crucial moments, long enough for the poeple that matter to live another day.
Rabbit bids you adieu foolish reptilian crossling.
Posted by Rabbit on May 3, 2006 at 12:55 AM
Rabbit can hop back .................on the rebound so to speak…........... it is after all what helps make him Rabbit.
The following small bundle of crap, presented by the Bat, shows clearly what a dirth of real solid evidence it possesses.
<blockquote>There was the story about one of the 9/11 flights supposedly landing in Cleveland that had deliberately twisted information from a local tv station.
There was the thing about the Windsor tower fire, where we were told that it had similar construction to the twin towers.
There was the deliberate manipulation of the quote by Bill Manning.
I am interested in the actual facts regarding lung cancer rates. Can you point me to a source that is credible? Somehow I think a 600% increase would garner some pretty spectacular news coverage.
Don
Posted by Rabbit on May 3, 2006 at 1:14 AM
DU
Posted by frog on May 3, 2006 at 5:15 PM
<i>“The Uranium Medical Research Centre (UMRC) is one organization that has effectively used the Internet (through media stories and list serves) to raise funds and spin myths about DU. UMRC has successfully exploited scientific uncertainty and government negligence to promote its goals, which seem to be a mixture of ideology, publicity, and fundraising. UMRC
Posted by Natalie on May 4, 2006 at 1:20 AM
Interesting article Natalie, though your conclusion seems to be somewhat less than admitting to the thrust of fahey’s own concerns:
As I unearthed pieces to the puzzle with information obtained through
the Freedom of Information Act and from credible activists working with the Military
Toxics Project and National Gulf War Resource Center, I helped to demonstrate the
pattern of lies and deception about DU propagated by the Department of Defense and
Department of Veterans Affairs. My first written statement, presented in November 1995
to an advisory committee to President Clinton, articulated the message I have been
promoting ever since: “Depleted Uranium: Objective Research and Analysis Needed”.
Do you agree with Fahey, or is it your position that all the questions about DU have been satisfactorily answered?
As to Fahey’s argument dismissing the speculations of the ‘far left’, he makes a common error of reasoning, to which you have demonstrated a very strong susceptiblity, that speculation from circumstantial evidence should be summarily dismissed merely because it doesn’t rise to the unattainable standard of absolute proof.
For example, Fahey writes:
Activists
frequently advance claims that large quantities of DU are used in conventional bunker
busting munitions, fuel air explosives, and cluster bombs,23 but these activists offer no
convincing supporting evidence to back up their assertions.
Contrary to what Fahey asserts,the primary source that he cites second hand doesn’t make any truth claims, but speculates with conditional language on what might be true using available information from reliable sources and eye witness accounts:
Posted by luminous beauty on May 4, 2006 at 8:56 AM
Significantly more uranium than in DU bullets would be used in weapons developed under a Hard or Deeply Buried Target Defeat Capability (HDBTDC) programme launched by the US military in the mid 1990s [www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/hdbtdc.htm]. The weapons must be able to penetrate targets in hardened buildings, or underground. This can be accomplished with a high density penetrating warheads with smart fuses that delay detonation until the weapon is in the desired space, for example, on the lowest level of a multi-level concrete building. The weapons also need to neutralize chemical and biological agents before they escape into the environment, by using incendiary warheads.
Owing to its density, uranium “ depleted or not “ can double the penetration power relative to older weapons. Currently, over 20 weapon systems against hard and buried targets, stocked for imminent “wars on terror”, are most likely made of uranium. New versions are under development and testing. The biggest of them, Big BLU, contains several tons of a “dense metal” in the penetrator alone. The mysterious metal must be uranium, since as dense and harder tungsten would be prohibitively expensive, less workable and not readily ignitable. Dr. Asaf Durakovic measured very significantly higher levels of uranium in Afghanis near targets hit by penetrating bombs and missiles. His team noticed the weapons punched through several concrete floors and walls, then buried 3 to 4 meters in the earth before exploding. [www.umrc.net]. Were they used in foreseeable war scenarios, the weapons would produce contamination levels significantly higher than from DU bullets in the Gulf War.
For its pyrophoric properties, i.e. spontaneous burning in air when in fine form (swarfs, metallic dust), uranium in an incendiary warhead could be effective in neutralizing biological or chemical weapons facilities hidden underground or in concrete structures. Powdered uranium could be the incendiary agent in the last stage of a warhead in a penetrating weapon cased or ballasted with uranium. The incendiary warhead would add its mass to the weapon’s penetrating impact.
The shaped charge technology also employs uranium. By focusing explosives in one direction e.g. by containing them with a conical or concave hemisphere metal liner, detonation compresses and squeezes the liner forward, forming a jet of molten metal traveling as fast as 10 km/s. Jane’s website indicated some time ago that DU was used as “liners in shaped charge warheads”. Guided weapons ranging from Maverick and Hellfire missiles to torpedoes, sub-munitions in cluster bombs and the first stage of BROACH MWS warheads use this technology. At his website Williams provides an in-depth, up-to-date review of both the HDBTDC and shaped charge weaponry.
Fahey makes many unsubstantiated assertions of his own when claiming the unreliability of reporters on no more grounds than the assertion that they are activists, that they have political bias, and the ever popular post hoc ergo propter hoc guilt by association because unaffiliated groups use their speculations for propaganda purposes. Another favorite fallacy of yours, Nat.
Do the speculations of anti-DU advocates tend to the extremes of extrapolation? In some cases, undoubtedly, though not necessarily outside of the realms of possibility. In other cases, as in the explosion of otherwise inexplicable birth defects and cancers among Afghanis, Iraqis and US military personnel, perhaps not extreme enough. However, without increased transparency and accountability, we’ll never know the truth. Do you not agree?
Posted by luminous beauty on May 4, 2006 at 8:57 AM
“Do the speculations of anti-DU advocates tend to the extremes of extrapolation? In some cases, undoubtedly. In other cases, as in the explosion of otherwise inexplicable birth defects among Afghanis, Iraqis and US military personnel, perhaps not extreme enough. However, without increased tranparency and accountability, we’ll never know the truth, will we? Do you not agree?”
The point is, Luminous, that no credible evidence or commonly accepted scientific studies are ever provided to back up wild claims such as “exploding birth defects among Afghanis, Iraqis, and U.S. military personnel.” Rabbit’s Rense page of horrors is a good example. Just a bunch of pictures….absolutely no proof whatsoever.
Contrarily, there have been numerous studies by numerous organizations that do employ peer-reviewable scientific methods that have concluded that the danger from DU is not zero, but is hardly anywhere near the scale some would like you to believe.
From reading and analyzing the quality of the arguments coming from both sides for some time, my current position reflects that of the above paragraph. I believe we should make policy based on properly conducted analysis, not on anti-war emotion, which seems to saturate the anti-DU argument. I am certainly not above admitting being wrong on this, and welcome the increased testing and “accountability” that has been recently demanded by various states, which has ironically, as the article says, been prompted by such emotion.
My belief is that the results of these tests will be consistent with all the other studies. The danger is that due to the emotional club being constantly swung on the other side, any conclusions reached that don’t agree with their apocalyptic views will not be accepted.
Posted by Natalie on May 4, 2006 at 9:38 AM
Natalie,
You say, “Just a bunch of pictures….absolutely no proof whatsoever”
Do you think those pictures and others from Iraq and reliable reports of increased birth defects among US military are not evidence?
Proof only proceeds from rigorous investigation of the evidence.
Do you doubt that such investigations have been stymied by the DOD as documented in the Fahey report which you yourself cite?
Do you think such intransigence can be overcome by attacking, denigrating and dismissing off-hand those who call for such investigations?
Do you deny that the calls for studies in the states that you now say you are willing to allow to go forward would have ever come about without the efforts of the very activists you have previously dismissed with hand-waving about ‘exaggerated claims’ and ‘political bias’?
I’m glad you admit to the possibility of being shown wrong in the future. It is truly refreshing. Your belief, however, amounts to nothing but Panglossian optimism with a strong dose of denial. It would be more credible if you admitted to the possibility of having been wrong in the past.
Posted by luminous beauty on May 4, 2006 at 10:20 AM
NATTY
On page 20 Dan Fahey recounts how he proved that the DOD were lying, his words, , from their own sources.
In 2006 they are still at it. stars and stripes diane stearns northern arizona university
Fahey also admits that “comprehensive studies of exposed veterans and civilians do not appear likely to take place”.
If you don’t “look”.........................., you won’t fucking “find” ! !
Natty, your ‘numerous studies’ have not yet included one that is approaching conclusive or even a serious attempt, epidemiologically, because that would take money and time, which have not been allocated.
John Pilger, the STAR OZ reporter, interviewed many Iraqi doctors in the 90’s, who were not propagandists for saddam , just, you know, ‘doctors’—those people in white coats with stethoscopes—-, facing an unprecedented explosion in malformed babies.
PS
Natty, you may have heard of the Downing Street Memos ? Mick Smith who exposed them and I have both seen at first hand, and discussed, the UK MoD doing exactly this sort of cover-up defensive PR job. He writes for the london Times, and is not actually an anarchist…..
MoD, DOD, VA, same lying animals on both sides of the Atlantic.
PPS
Nice to see you Luminous One.
Posted by frog on May 4, 2006 at 1:31 PM
Hello everyone,
Frog, thanks for the link to the ICH article. I had already read it at Global Research but it was very interesting to read the comments in the discussion forum at the depleted uranium article at ICH because of who was there doing the discussing.
I found an old friend, and I use that term very loosely.
Our dear friend Ramjet, also known as Roger Helbig, also known as Lt. Col. Roger Helbig USAF (ret) was there up to his old tricks telling everyone how great depleted uranium is.
The last time I encountered Roger was on the depleted uranium discussion here on ITT many months ago and that’s where I met Natalie too.
Do you remember Roger, Natalie?
Posted by David in Canada on May 4, 2006 at 4:33 PM
Frog wrote:
<i>“John Pilger, the STAR OZ reporter, interviewed many Iraqi doctors in the 90
Posted by Natalie on May 5, 2006 at 12:24 AM
Hi Luminous Beauty,
Thanks for the great links.
Natalie,
Does the evidence that Luminous Beauty provided by those links qualify as commonly accepted scientific studies and does that evidence begin to back up wild claims ???
You say that the danger from DU is not zero, but is hardly anywhere near the scale some would like you to believe.
Dangerous, but not too dangerous?
Radioactive and toxic nuclear waste seems to be dangerous enough that the EPA considers it a hazard and has regulations galore for disposing (storing) of it. Nobody seems to want a nuclear waste storage facility in their backyards. I wonder why? Could it be the stuff is toxic and very dangerous?
But it would seem that if the warmongers turn some of that nuclear waste into bombs then the regulations are convienently forgotten and ignored.
Depleted uranium munitions have turned Afghanistan and Iraq into toxic dumps and sickened and killed many innocent people.
I pray for the day when those responsible for using these weapons in the commission of war crimes will be brought to justice.
Posted by David in Canada on May 5, 2006 at 10:14 AM
Yes, very good, quality information, Luminous. Credible.
Take notice, everyone.
That’s what I’m talkin’ bout.
I only have time for a short note, and wll analyze the info in greater depth later.
Posted by Natalie on May 5, 2006 at 10:31 AM
Hi Lume, Hi Froggy, Hi Dave, wow, Roger Ramjet, still alive and kicking and calling for his mama, (his googoo) Depleted Uranium.
Actually the rabbit has long since drifted the interesting hypothesis that Natalie is Natalie Helbig, and this could explain their mutual need for the most horrible of genocidal weapons on the planet. Some sort of Unnatural father daughter relationship. Helbig the mediocrity is actually ex Pentagon as it happens too, Frog. He is retired, after a very mediocre desk jockey career. Now he concentrates on ensuring that American Servicemen and women will be exposed to depleted uranium without interruption when they are sent off to do the bidding of the War Whores in the Pentagon.
Notice the actual person Natalie Helbig is ideally placed to be a paid shill. Nat the Bat has incredibly never let slip even the most mundane detail about who she is, just like a shill. She has never actually seriously disputed the rabbit’s suggested ID either and this would at least be an easy one to prove is wrong, were it so, as we all know, yet she relies on no more that her usual grobble to deny it.
Natty has been crushed by the comments and links provided by the rest of you, so Rabbit shall head off for ICH. He craves the blood of a certain Pentagon Shill!
By the way Nat, a picture tells a thousand words. The pictures are real, the studies and evidence presented by my comrades are real, the denial you are craving is reaL, BUT IT IS FADING FAST!
A number of new studies which have well and truly shown DU to be a real disaster unfolding across Europe, the Middle East and the USA, where it has been extensively tested, are going public even as we fence, if the grovelling slipping sliding in the mud you do could be called fencing.
Posted by Rabbit on May 5, 2006 at 7:36 PM
Nat has just grown wings as she does and will now if history dictates, dissapear for a while since she has been wacked out of kilter with too much truth. As usual the fascinating part where she claims interest is noted, and as always at such moments of truth, the caveat that “She is just too busy right now to confirm it is anything of note” but that she will be “BACK REAL SOON TO GIVE AN OPINION” Yeh sure! She will be back sooner or later, ignoring and whoring for lies like always.
She will return in a few days or weeks, ignoring the sources after all, or she will be back only after a miraculous “new” supporter leaps in, Roger Ramjet for example? Get the old man back onto ITT, for us, go on Natty. Tell Daddy, the Rabbit ate his flowers. Tell him Rabbit shits in his eye.
Depleted Uranium
Just something more we are imagining maybe?
Dr. Jawad Al-Ali (55), director of the Oncology Center at the largest hospital in Basra, Iraq stated, at a recent ( 2003) conference in Japan:
“Two strange phenomena have come about in Basra which I have never seen before. The first is double and triple cancers in one patient. For example, leukemia and cancer of the stomach. We had one patient with 2 cancers - one in his stomach and kidney. Months later, primary cancer was developing in his other kidney—he had three different cancer types. The second is the clustering of cancer in families. We have 58 families here with more than one person affected by cancer. Dr Yasin, a general Surgeon here has two uncles, a sister and cousin affected with cancer. Dr Mazen, another specialist, has six family members suffering from cancer. My wife has nine members of her family with cancer”.
“Children in particular are susceptible to DU poisoning. They have a much higher absorption rate as their blood is being used to build and nourish their bones and they have a lot of soft tissues. Bone cancer and leukemia used to be diseases affecting them the most, however, cancer of the lymph system which can develop anywhere on the body, and has rarely been seen before the age of 12 is now also common.”,
“We were accused of spreading propaganda for Saddam before the war. When I have gone to do talks I have had people accuse me of being pro-Saddam. Sometimes I feel afraid to even talk. Regime people have been stealing my data and calling it their own, and using it for their own agendas. The Kuwaitis banned me from entering Kuwait - we were accused of being Saddam supporters.”
Note the date of that quote above, it was no accident, the issue is not new.
Natalie is the winged harbinger of Genocide, the Vampire Vermin.
Posted by Rabbit on May 5, 2006 at 7:54 PM
Actually the rabbit has long since drifted the interesting hypothesis that Natalie is Natalie Helbig, and this could explain their mutual need for the most horrible of genocidal weapons on the planet. Some sort of Unnatural father daughter relationship.
With a job like this, I must make pretty good money. I must have a nice car. I’m gonna check my driveway.
Posted by Natalie on May 7, 2006 at 4:00 PM
The first study linked above by luminous beauty is called “Teratogenicity of depleted uranium aerosols: A review from an epidemiological perspective”, by Rita Hindin, et al.
This presentation is head and shoulders above say, a Rense page of horrors or an ICH litany of recycled unverifiable hyperbole. It appears to be basically a report on a lot of other reports, and not strictly a research paper done by an expert in the field. Which is fine, except that I got the impression that the author(s) want DU to be the culprit a little too much. They ignore many factors that would tend to steer one away from even the tentative, cautious conclusions they draw. Their main error is that of omission, IMHO.
Non-the-less, the report is forthcoming when it admits that studies from Iraq are puzzling. (could that be because they are hopelessly contaminated, unreliable, politicized and unverifiable?) It also admits that at worst, Iraqi defect rates are still better than in the U.S. (so hardly the epidemic often portrayed) It lists other possible reasons for supposed increases, but suspiciously does not quantify or put in perspective the unspeakable massive abuses committed by Saddam Hussein against southern Iraqis, and their potential teratogenicity.
Rita says:
<i>The data are enigmatic for several reasons. There are jarring differences between the reported data and what would be expected based on malformation registries in the West. The most striking are:
i) The very low incidence of malformations reported pre-war. While the data indicate dramatic increases in incidence of malformations since the 1991 war, they start from such a low level in 1990, pre-war, that they often only reach the baseline Western levels by 1999 - 2000. Does the low Iraqi baseline reflect a truly lesser incidence of birth defects in Iraq at that time as compared to the West
Posted by Natalie on May 9, 2006 at 9:24 PM
pg. 2
There’s no mention of Saddam’s chemical warfare/genocidal activity both pre and post war, anywhere in the report, which would be a far more likely explanation than DU for a variety of maladies in heaven knows how many places in Iraq. (captured Iraqi documentation is currently being translated that may shed light on specific areas that were targeted, and when.) And there is no mention of the possibility that disbursement of Sadddam’s chemical/biological/radiological agents (due to U.S. bombardment) could be a factor.
“On the first day of my visit to the labor and gynecological ward in the hospital, there were no women in normal labor and no one had recently delivered a normal baby. Three women had just miscarried. The staff in the labor ward told of the very large proportion of pregnancies in which there were major malformations. In addition to fetal losses and perinatal deaths, there is also a very large number of infant deaths. The frequencies of these in the Halabjan women is more than four times greater than that in the neighboring city of Soulemaneya. The findings of serious congenital malformations with genetic causes occurring in children born years after the chemical attack suggest that the effects from these chemical warfare agents are transmitted to succeeding generations.”
Back to Rita’s report…
For the Iraqi population the 1991 Gulf War was the prelude to various new exposures and circumstances that could be teratogenic—- sanctions-induced deprivations such as poverty, malnutrition and degradation of the health care infrastructure. But such circumstances, without specific chemical or radiologic exposures, do not lead to the observed pattern of increasing rates for classes of congenital malformations, notwithstanding the fact that malnutrition does contribute to certain birth defects…..
Again, the true horrific scope of the devastation visited upon southern Iraqis is ignored. “Various new exposures and circumstances”? Gosh, does Rita have a soft spot for suave Saddam? It is assumed, I guess, that nothing Saddam employed to reduce the population of the Marsh Arabs, for instance, from 250,000 to 40,000 could have involved the use of any “teratogenic” agents. Or did it?
Populations of towns in northern Iraq, especially the town of Halabja, represent the largest civilian populations ever exposed to chemical and biological weapons. 250 population centers and 31 uninhabited strategic areas are known to have been attacked by Iraqi forces from April 1987 to August 1988. In addition to chemical weapons use, for which there is forensic evidence, the Iraqi regime may also have used weaponized biological and radiological agents during the attacks. The population of northern Iraq is 4 million, and initial estimates suggest that as many as 250,000 people may have been exposed at some level. Saddam’s regime also used chemical weapons against Shi’ites and marsh Arabs in southern Iraq following the Gulf War. Additionally, an estimated 100,000 Iranian soldiers also survived Iraqi chemical attacks during the Iran-Iraq War.
Of all the atrocities committed with weapons of mass destruction, none proved more horrific than the attack on Halabja, which took place over three days in March 1988. Halabja was bombarded with a concoction of chemical weapons which included mustard gas, and the nerve gases sarin, tabun and VX. Five to seven thousand people of 80,000 inhabitants died immediately and a further 20,000 to 30,000 were injured, many severely. Initial studies indicate approximately 52% of current inhabitants were exposed at the time of the attack.
cont…..
Posted by Natalie on May 9, 2006 at 9:25 PM
pg. 3
While these weapons had many terrible direct effects such as immediate death, or skin and eye burns, Iraqi government documents indicate they were used deliberately for known long-term effects, including cancers, birth defects, neurological problems and infertility. Inexpensive in terms of death per unit cost, there is evidence that these weapons were used in different combinations by Ba’ath forces attempting to discern their effectiveness as weapons of terror and war. It is believed that the Iraqi arsenal included at least a dozen chemical and biological agents, including those mentioned above, and others such as anthrax, hemorrhagic conjunctivitis virus and rotavirus (causes gastroenteritis and diarrhea in infants and children).
In December 1995, the UN Secretary General, reporting UNSCOM’s findings to the Security Council, documented the weaponization of irradiated zirconium in 1000-pound bombs, which had been test dropped in patterns calculated to deliver 2 curies of radiation over an area of one square kilometer. While thus appearing to deliver conventional munitions, the radiation delivered can sterilize as much as 30% of those exposed and causes birth defects and cancers. Irradiated zirconium’s short half-life enabled reentry into attack sites after two to three months, when no traces of radiation would be found.
Perhaps the most telling paragraph in Rita’s report is this one:
Sunny Miller, executive director of Traprock Peace Center of Deerfield, MA hosted a presentation by Damacio Lopez (director of IDUST, International Depleted Uranium Study Team) which Rita Hindin attended and that eventually led to the writing of this paper. Our appreciation. Thanks to Len Dietz, Dan Bishop (of IDUST) and Tom Fasy (Mt. Sinai Medical Center, NYC) for their assistance early on explicating DU toxicology, and to the Uranium Weapons Study Team (of Traprock Peace Center) for thoughtful conversations and support to explore leads and deepen understanding of DU. Thanks to the conveners and attendees of the World Uranium Weapons Conference Hamburg Germany, October 16 – 19, 2003. Of greatest importance, Rita’s attendance afforded her the opportunity to share thoughtful conversation with and learn from Iraqi researchers, Drs. Jennan Hassan, Jawad Al-Ali and Souad Al-Azzawi. We offer deep thanks, appreciation and respect for the information they shared, and for work that they and their colleagues are doing. We deeply appreciate the reporters and activists who have managed, against great odds, to report bits of information out of Iraq and who, as responsible, thoughtful citizens of many countries, assert their dignity and demand appropriate response to the challenges posed by DU aerosols….. Jaime DeLemos helped us figure out the chemistry of depleted uranium…...
This paragraph is illuminating in several ways. First of all, we note the affection for the Traprock Peace Center and iDUST, which are both full of supremely biased anti-war “peace” activists and are fans of part-time conspiracy “missile hit the pentagon” kooks like Doug Rokke and Lauren Moret. (Rokke has claimed that 30 of his fellow team are now dead from DU, but when pressed for proof, he quickly changes the subject.)
Rita was inspired to write this paper by attending an event sponsored by Traprock, and thanks them for “deepening my understanding” of DU. A more biased and warped source of understanding could hardly be found. The authors’ agenda becomes crystal clear with the sentence about “asserting their dignity and demanding appropriate response”. I’m sorry, the little disclaimer in the report about “no competing interests” suddenly rings untrue.
cont…..
Posted by Natalie on May 9, 2006 at 9:28 PM
pg. 4
Finally, it’s obvious that the writers have little expertise on the subject personally, which is O.K., but the aura of a research paper is pierced by the realization that this is just a rather selective report on a lot of other reports, with all conclusions seeming to want to paint DU as the prime suspect in everything, when according to a plethora of studies by folks that do have genuine expertise in the field, DU is probably the least likely factor in any rise in incidence of birth defects, anywhere.
To her credit, Rita includes reference to a large study published in the New England Journal of Medicine that found NO connection between service in the gulf war and any rise in birth defects. This study used actual military hospital and service records, whereas many others use questionnaires, which, as honest studies usually point out, are subject to “recall” bias.
....In the multivariate analysis, there was no significant association for either men or women between service in the Gulf War and the risk of any birth defect or of severe birth defects in their children. (full text available after free registration)
Rita pays short shrift to actual examples of definite DU exposure—the men that were victims of DU friendly fire during the gulf war. These men have still shown few or no ill effects, and U.S. soldiers, at least, I believe have no history of increased birth defects. This would seem to me to be of the utmost relevance in a quest for the truth about the danger posed by DU, especially the aerosol aspect. Why is this particular body of evidence ignored?
To conclude, the paper provides only partially informed speculation, not proof, that DU is responsible for a rise in birth defects anywhere, and honestly admits as much. A nice article, professionally written and probably honest in what it chooses to report about, but lacking in that it only presents a rather selective picture of the DU controversy. No mention is made of Saddam’s definite role in increased birth defects in northern Iraq, and no consideration is given to the likelihood that he duplicated some of his practices in areas that were also subject to U.S. DU “contamination”. And btw, could there possibly have been any movement of people away from areas that were unquestionably chemically attacked? (no, why in the world would they move?) Also, the vast body of professional physics and medical literature that would tend to rule out DU as a significant teratogen is not examined.
Posted by Natalie on May 9, 2006 at 9:30 PM
I can only assume that reference to the study “Miscarriage, stillbirth and congenital malformation in the offspring of UK veterans of the first Gulf war” is an example of balance being exercised by luminous beauty:
Conclusion….. We found no evidence for a link between paternal deployment to the Gulf war and increased risk of stillbirth, chromosomal malformations, or congenital syndromes. Associations were found between fathers’ service in the Gulf war and increased risk of miscarriage and less well-defined malformations, but these findings need to be interpreted with caution as such outcomes are susceptible to recall bias. The finding of a possible relationship with renal anomalies requires further investigation. There was no evidence of an association between risk of miscarriage and mothers’ service in the gulf.
At any rate, there’s obviously no conclusive evidence presented here to suggest that service in the gulf war has resulted in significant reproductive problems. Not that it would be that surprising if there were, after all, troops were subjected to a lot of extraordinary substances and pollutants, not to mention all the vaccinations they received. The mistake would be to assume that DU is at the top of the list of possible causes of problems, when it should be way down toward the bottom.
Posted by Natalie on May 10, 2006 at 1:54 AM
All I can say Nat is that your talent for cherry-picking only the words that support your position from an abstract, argumentum ad hominem, and post hoc ergo propter hoc are marvelously consistent.
Tell us again how Fireman Bill was supporting the fire caused collapse hypothesis of the WTC when he was explicitly criticizing it. I love that. It’s such a perfect example of irrational bias.
Posted by luminous beauty on May 10, 2006 at 6:17 AM
All I can say Nat is that your talent for cherry-picking only the words that support your position from an abstract, argumentum ad hominem, and post hoc ergo propter hoc are marvelously consistent.
That’s all you can say? You don’t find it odd that a paper purporting to determine the possible role of DU in teratogenicity glosses over far more probable causes of it, and ignores the likely possibility that the Iraq data it does choose to highlight has been fudged? Or that the only example of actual human inhalation/ingestion/insertion of DU into the human body (friendly fire) is barely even addressed?
Tell us again how Fireman Bill was supporting the fire caused collapse hypothesis of the WTC when he was explicitly criticizing it. I love that. It’s such a perfect example of irrational bias.
“However, respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers. Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time. Of course, in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced, this could remain just unexplored theory.” ......... Bill Manning Fire Engineering January 2002
Tell us again how Fireman Bill is criticizing his own theory. And tell us why a “scholar” such as Steven Jones would deliberately leave out the above bolded sentence from his rather selective reproduction in his report of Manning’s editorial. Tell us why EVERY 911 “truth” site does.
In English, please!
Posted by Natalie on May 10, 2006 at 9:51 PM
Natalie,
You say, “a paper purporting to determine the possible role of DU in teratogenicity glosses over far more probable causes of it.
This is what you call ‘glossing over’:
The issue of how to distinguish the role of DU from that of other suspected teratogens is serious and complex. The response to this challenge is built on the interface of laboratory research and population studies; its glue is the application of epidemiological principles of inference. Laboratory and animal research are proceeding apace and are suggesting plausible pathways by which internalized DU aerosols could be mutagenic and/or teratogenic. As animal studies come to provide more detail about the internal migration of inhaled ceramic DU and its decay particles, inference regarding possible teratogenic pathways for specific birth defects can be refined.
A 1994 U.S. General Accounting Office report identified 21 reproductive toxicants and teratogens, including DU, that were present in the 1991 Gulf War environment [68]. A commonality of excessive occurrence of a particular birth defect among offspring of American veterans, and offspring of Iraqi veterans and resident civilians would decrease the likelihood that certain of those 21 toxins had a causal role in the elevated rate of occurrence of that defect among American veterans’ offspring. For example, Iraqis did not receive the “medications and vaccines administered to Gulf War veterans”. Therefore, a similar or identical excess of a particular class of birth defects among offspring of DU-exposed Americans and Iraqis could not uniformly be attributed to those medications and vaccines.
It is from this vantage that the Socorro case study is of particular significance. By trans-national standards, the rate of occurrence of hydrocephalus in Basra during the years 1999 and 2000 was very high. (This, notwithstanding the need for clarification of the 1990–1998 registry data regarding occurrence.) If DU is the sole, or one of a small group of, risky exposure(s) shared by residents of the Iraqi war region and residents of the rural Socorro, New Mexico munitions testing region, then the likelihood of a causal role for DU in the genesis of hydrocephalus is increased.
Posted by luminous beauty on May 11, 2006 at 9:00 AM
<blockquote>More generally, serious effort needs to be directed toward disentangling the role of DU from that of other potential teratogens in tandem with which DU exposure has frequently occurred. This task becomes less daunting, though more urgent, as the contexts in which DU munitions have been exploded increases. The identities of the “other potential teratogens” disbursed into the environment by the crash of an airplane carrying DU in a civilian area differ, at least somewhat, from those disbursed by DU fires in a combat zone. In response to “widespread distress” about crash-associated risk, a theoretical physics-based model of the 1992 event was developed. While that theoretical study did not include any assessment of the health status of the exposed population (and their offspring), the authors concluded that it was “improbable” that the DU that had burnt and aerosolized as a result of the crash precipitated health problems [69]. Such a purely theoretical approach seems inadequate, especially in light of the popular perception of a post-crash regional increase in malformed births [61]. Furthermore, associations documented in an unexpected context that cohere with findings of planned analyses are highly informative. Conversely, absence of observed associations in small, unexpectedly exposed populations would be less informative.
In addition to Socorro, New Mexico there are 50 other US sites where DU munitions are/have been developed, produced, tested. How many of these sites are located in areas where comprehensive birth defects registries exist? What about other countries? Could assays for DU biomarkers be done on groups of male and female parents of children with and without birth defects resident near such facilities?
For the Iraqi population the 1991 Gulf War was the prelude to various new exposures and circumstances that could be teratogenic
Posted by luminous beauty on May 11, 2006 at 9:02 AM
A cohort study from Kerala, India is a particularly apropos example of a well-executed investigation that was able to detect differences in the occurrence of birth defects (and other untoward pregnancy outcomes) among population groups [70]. In a genetic epidemiological and fertility survey conducted among 700,000 people in regions with normal background radiation (85 to 110 mR/yr) and high background radiation (735 – 563 mR/yr) – from thorium monazite in the soil – Padmanabham et al used personalized, direct contact with families to document a statistically significant increase in congenital malformations and other birth outcomes in the area with higher background exposure. Besides ionizing radiation, consanguinity and nearness of spouse’s birthplace were included as additional risk factors for each birth outcome. This study is a model for an investigation of the incidence of birth defects (and other pregnancy outcomes) in regions of Iraq with and without contamination by DU aerosols. Ideally the regions being compared would be as similar as possible on other criteria including distribution of occupations and religion, economic situation, culture, or would allow for “control” of differences, as in the model of the Kerala study. (Of course, this study is also informative because though the radiation exposure in the Kerala region is due to radon, the case for teratogenicity related to increased radiation exposure is made.)
The study of Abushaban et al [56] is an assessment of the impact of DU on one class of birth defects in the absence of sanctions. In Kuwait, where there was DU (and other wartime) exposure(s) but no post-war sanctions, the post-war incidence of cardiac malformations overall and of numerous specific sub-categories was elevated. Kuwaiti trend data regarding prevalence of other classes of birth defects, particularly those elevated in Iraqi and other DU-exposed databases, could be highly informative.
I hardly think your characterization is either fair or accurate.
Posted by luminous beauty on May 11, 2006 at 9:04 AM
You go on, ” ... ignores the likely possibility that the Iraq data it does choose to highlight has been fudged?”
Do you have any evidence of this beyond your hand-waving and politically biased speculation? Doesn’t the corroboration of Iraqi studies by non-Iraqi doctors count for anything?
“Gunther, S-H. Uran-Geschosse: Schwergeschaedigte Soldaten, missgebildete Neugeborene, sterbende Kinder Uranium Projectiles: Severely Maimed Soldiers, Deformed Babies, Dying Children. Projetiles d’uranium: Militaires gravement mutiles, nouveau-nes defformes, enfants mourants AHRIMAN-Verlag GmbH. Freibburg, Germany; 2000.”
Or is the fact that he was in country observing automatically discredit him, in your mind, as dupe? Wouldn’t be fair to mention that if Iraqi doctors had been forced to ‘fudge’ their studies, they would now be denouncing them? Contrarily, they are pleading for help in what they say are renewed problems with birth defects since GWII, exasperated by the degradation of medical resources since the invasion, and there is evidence the US government has been instrumental in halting UN WHO teams from entering Iraq to aid and investigate. Does this not indicate some warped bias on your side.
In the second study you comment on you quote the conclusion:
Conclusion….. We found no evidence for a link between paternal deployment to the Gulf war and increased risk of stillbirth, chromosomal malformations, or congenital syndromes. Associations were found between fathers’ service in the Gulf war and increased risk of miscarriage and less well-defined malformations, but these findings need to be interpreted with caution as such outcomes are susceptible to recall bias. The finding of a possible relationship with renal anomalies requires further investigation. There was no evidence of an association between risk of miscarriage and mothers’ service in the gulf.
However if you examine the actual data, there are significant increases of <u>clinically confirmed</u> “less well defined malformations” . Very puzzling, that.
Still, they say further investigation is needed. Doesn’t this mean anything to you?
It is obvious there are many unanswered questions for which many people would like answers. You, apparently, are arguing we should just shut our traps and believe what the government is telling us, Everyone who asks questions or presents evidence, no matter their expertise or their sincerity, is in your mind ‘warped and biased’. Anyone who believes there are problems with DU are politically compromised because of association with others who believe there are problems with DU. Such is the circular reasoning you employ, yet we are to believe you are objective and the limited studies you cite are conclusive. Why?
Posted by luminous beauty on May 11, 2006 at 10:34 AM
As to Fireman Bill;
Here is the entire quote from Manning in Jones:
8. I totally agree with the urgent yet reasoned assessment of expert fire-protection engineers, as boldly editorialized in the journal Fire Engineering:
Respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating [result] has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers.
Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the “official investigation” blessed by FEMA… is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members- described by one close source as a “tourist trip”-no one’s checking the evidence for anything.
Some citizens are taking to the streets to protest the investigation sellout. Sally Regenhard, for one, wants to know why and how the building fell as it did upon her unfortunate son Christian, an FDNY probationary firefighter. And so do we.
Clearly, there are burning questions that need answers. Based on the incident’s magnitude alone, a full-throttle, fully resourced, forensic investigation is imperative . More important, from a moral standpoint, [are considerations] for the… present and future generations… (Manning, 2002; emphasis added).
It should be obvious to even a casual reader that the emphasis here is not on the theory of fuel vs. content fires, but that the ” ‘official investigation’ ... is a half-baked farce”, and that “a full-throttle, fully resourced, forensic investigation is imperative.”
It is not at all clear in the entire quote from Manning’s article that he actually believes the content fire theory is tenable or not, only that it has “emerged” in light of the inadequacy the jet fuel theory. What is explicitly undeniable is that he believes, “...in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced, this could remain just unexplored theory.”
Your insistence on making the content fire theory the central point of Jones’ contention is a straw man.
Posted by luminous beauty on May 11, 2006 at 10:38 AM
The content fire theory is addressed elsewhere:
<blockquote>But here we note from the recent NIST report that:
Posted by luminous beauty on May 11, 2006 at 10:44 AM
Natalie,
You say, “a paper purporting to determine the possible role of DU in teratogenicity glosses over far more probable causes of it. This is what you call “glossing over”:
Wow, you’re really obfuscating my point. However, your reproduction of all those paragraphs of the report helps to sustain it. Which is, again, not that the report doesn’t make a weak case for a remote possibility of a connection between DU exposure and some birth defects, but that far more likely causes of birth defects, specifically chemical and/or radiological agents deployed by Saddam, and other factors important to consider, are referenced nowhere in the report.
If the author was engaged in a serious effort to find the true cause(s) of birth defects in Iraq or anywhere, she would not ignore this aspect. She would not ignore the medical history of DU friendly fire victims. She would not ignore the very real and common sense possibility that medical records from Basra were created a certain way acccording to orders, or perhaps with an eye toward pleasing their benevolent leader. This leads me to suspect that she is engaging in propaganda. Her associations with obvious propagandists are additional evidence of this.
I see little more than hopeful far-reaching speculation, in the authors analysis of selected studies, that DU is somehow the “common thread” to any specific medical problems of Iraqis or US/UK veterans. Point me to the smoking gun, if there is one.
Re-reading what you pasted, I see more subtle evidence that the author is not unbiased, contrary to her claim of having no competing interests:
For the Iraqi population the 1991 Gulf War was the prelude to various new exposures and circumstances that could be teratogenic—sanctions-induced deprivations such as poverty, malnutrition and degradation of the health care infrastructure. But such circumstances, without specific chemical or radiologic exposures, do not lead to the observed pattern of increasing rates for classes of congenital malformations, notwithstanding the fact that malnutrition does contribute to certain birth defects. If a comparable birth defects registry (1990 - 2000) were available for births in a section of northern Iraq not exposed to DU bombardment, it could help distinguish between war-induced and post-war exposures.
So, we see that Rita buys into all of Saddam’s propaganda, assuming without question that all Iraq’s problems were the fault of the sanctions, and not the way Saddam prioritized what was still allowed him. Reading this paragraph you’d think you were a student in an Iraqi government school. Total whitewash of history. No chemical or radiological exposure? We don’t even raise the possibility? When speaking of Northern Iraq, it’s like she’s operating in some alternative reality, where well known cases of chemical attack simply never happened.
I hardly think your characterization is either fair or accurate.
I think I was being too charitable. The more I read the report, the more I realize that it’s a nothing more than a fancy shmancy piece of propaganda, masquerading as a valid scientific endeavor.
more later…....must go on trip for a few days.
Posted by Natalie on May 13, 2006 at 8:30 AM
I’m sorry Nat, but epidemiological studies don’t work in the way that you seem to think that they should. They are primarily interested in trying to remove wheat from the chaff in the attempt to isolate a single causal factor in a given phenomenon. In the case in point, what is the effect of DU poisoning within the reported health problems that do exist. Synergistic effects of multiple causes is the topic for a different paper after some appropriate values for comparison are available from the accumulated evidence. You are putting the cart before the horse. It is obvious, your ideological blinders see propaganda where sincerely objective attempts to understand one particular part of a complex problem are at play.
The subtlety of your evidence is so subtle as to be undiscernable. I really don’t understand the meaning you give to the statements you highlight. It seems you are giving them a significance contrary to their context, which is the difficulty of making hard and fast conclusions without more discriminating data. Are you saying that sanctions related health problems didn’t exist? Is the fact that the researchers don’t make claims as to where the fault for those problems lies really evidence of bias? A very odd and intrinsically biased conclusion. You are not trying to understand what is happening so much as evading blame by trying to pin it on others who are merely pointing out the problem. A classic case of psychological projection of sub-conscious guilt.
My recollection of Baathist propaganda is that they were more concerned with minimizing the effects of sanctions. They were essentially denying the high child mortality and general health-care problems, and were more involved in the building of monumental edifices to display how strong they still were in spite of the destruction of the first Gulf War. It was NGOs who were crying in the wilderness raising concerns about the deleterious effects of sanctions on the Iraqi populace to whom Saddam was typically showing callous indifference. It is right-wing propaganda that painted such concerns as being pro-Saddam. Do you deny that your side engages in propaganda? If you have some primary sourced evidence contemporary of the period to show you are not engaging in a willful re-writing of history, I’d be willing to look at it.
Posted by luminous beauty on May 13, 2006 at 11:02 AM
I’m sorry Nat, but epidemiological studies don’t work in the way that you seem to think that they should. They are primarily interested in trying to remove wheat from the chaff in the attempt to isolate a single causal factor in a given phenomenon.
Understood, however, why do the authors speculate, as if confused, as to why would all these defects would be showing up in the absence of “specific chemical or radiologic exposures”, as per my quoting of them above in my previous post. They are ignoring reports (and common sense) that there were indeed such exposures. This study is not entirely clinical in nature, it engages in much discussion as to causes. So when I suspect bias, it is because it is selective in said discussion, and that is also why I don’t rate this as a true “epidemiological study”, although it certainly gives that initial appearance. Rather, it is a selective report on a lot of other reports, and its discussion and speculation ignore extremely relevant aspects.
It is obvious, your ideological blinders see propaganda where sincerely objective attempts to understand one particular part of a complex problem are at play.
No, they are NOT objective attempts, as I have demonstrated. THEY are the ones who have the blinders on. THEY are the ones who ignore tons of authoritative information that makes their attempt to blame DU for any malady anywhere, unfounded.
Are you saying that sanctions related health problems didn’t exist? Is the fact that the researchers don’t make claims as to where the fault for those problems lies really evidence of bias? A very odd and intrinsically biased conclusion. You are not trying to understand what is happening so much as evading blame by trying to pin it on others who are merely pointing out the problem. A classic case of psychological projection of sub-conscious guilt.
What are you, some kind of shrink? :-) I have simply pointed out, that in addition to ignoring Saddam’s chemical and radiological attacks on his own people, the authors also neglect to implicate him for his role in deciding priorities during sanctions. Not conclusive by itself, but seemingly a pattern. Evading blame? Who’s really evading blame? I would say that it’s the authors of this report, on behalf of Saddam Hussein.
cont….....
Posted by Natalie on May 16, 2006 at 2:03 PM
pg. 2
My recollection of Baathist propaganda is that they were more concerned with minimizing the effects of sanctions.
My recollection is different. In addition to NGOs and others whining about the effects of sanctions and of course ignoring the real culprit, Saddam’s regime was the most potent cheerleader, for it was best positioned to manufacture false propaganda. No doubt that Saddam was concerned with looking strong and defiant for his people and other Arab nations, but he was also engaged in evoking sympathy for, and falsely assigning blame for, problems HE created by putting his own power and health/wealth WAY above that of his people.
There’s getting to be quite a pattern here regarding responsibility for the events of 9/11, and for the well-being of the Iraqi people. It was not Islamic murderers that were responsible for the towers falling, it was the United States. It was not Saddam and his Baathist regime that was responsible for supposed 500,000 dead Iraqi babies, it was of course the sanctions. It was not the effects of chemical and radiological weapons used by Saddam, and the resulting extreme stress that were responsible for alleged birth defects in Iraq, it had to be the DU.
You folks don’t want to be thought of as Saddam / terrorist apologists, but you then behave in an identical manner to someone who indeed is.
If you have some primary sourced evidence contemporary of the period to show you are not engaging in a willful re-writing of history, I’d be willing to look at it.
I hope you’re willing to look at this. It is certainly primary sourced, and refers to the period in question. There wasn’t a whole lot of Internet going on in 1991, so news reports of the day will have to be found by someone with access to more expensive cataloguing services than I can afford. (LexisNexis) Or, at last resort, a library.
Doctors in Baghdad have revealed that the ‘dead baby parades’ frequently used by Saddam Hussein’s regime to embarrass the West were a cynical charade.
A staple of Saddam Hussein’s propaganda machine for a decade, the ‘parades’ involved using convoys of taxis, with the tiny coffins of dead infants strapped to their roofs - allegedly killed by United Nations sanctions - being driven through the streets of Baghdad, past crowds of women screaming anti-Western slogans.
The moving scenes were often filmed by visiting television crews and provided valuable ammunition to anti-sanctions activists such as British Labour MP George Galloway, who blamed Western governments for the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children…....
....... Dr Amer Abdul al-Jalil, the deputy resident at the hospital, said: “Sanctions did not kill these children - Saddam killed them. The internal sanctions by the regime were very effective. Those who died prematurely usually died because their mothers lived in impoverished areas neglected by the government.” (©Telegraph, London)
To not suspect that Basra birth defect records are tainted is to be downright obtuse. Rita, call your office.
Posted by Natalie on May 16, 2006 at 2:08 PM
Nat,
A simple question:
If Basra records are suspicious, is the proper course to try to ascertain through diligent investigation whether they are or not reasonably accurate, or dismiss them out of hand and believe for a fact they are wildly inaccurate merely on the basis of your suspicions?
Posted by luminous beauty on May 16, 2006 at 2:37 PM
luminous asked:
“If Basra records are suspicious, is the proper course to try to ascertain through diligent investigation whether they are or not reasonably accurate, or dismiss them out of hand and believe for a fact they are wildly inaccurate merely on the basis of your suspicions?”
I would be all for the UN, the W.H.O., the Royal Society, RAND, anyone who are genuine, relevant, accredited degree-holding, unbiased professionals going in and investigating the heck out of Basra, Bahgdad, or wherever. Interestingly, the W.H.O. offered to come in and determine the cause of alleged illnesses in 1998, but Saddam refused. You can choose to give him the benefit of the doubt as to his motivations for refusing, but based on his past record, I choose to not.
However there’s no reason to believe that results from investigating Iraq would be any different from those obtained in Kosovo, or those from gulf war DU victims, that is, precious little evidence will be found to link DU to anything, other than to perhaps fear.
It’s not accurate to say that I’ve stated fact based only on my suspiciouns. It is accurate that I’ve expressed substantial doubt about the reliability of information coming out of Saddam’s Iraq, especially concerning a likely avenue of exploitation, and I’ve provided independent evidence to back up my reasoning.
You have basically buoyed what has been my point from day one on this issue, with the studies you highlighted. Which is, that while there may be some small risk from exposure to DU in certain unlikely circumstances, there is no reason to believe outlandish and ghoulish claims about its connection to birth defects, cancer, or any other illness. In addition to well-established knowledge of the physical properties of both natural and depleted uranium, there have been numerous, large-scale investigations into their effects on human physiology by both government and non-government entities with similar negative results, independent of the absence of reliable data from Iraq.
To directly answer your question, yes, the preferred and proper course is diligent investigation, if and when that is possible. I would welcome it, with the hope that the real culprit behind illnesses and deaths in Iraq will become obvious and undeniable.
Posted by Natalie on May 17, 2006 at 1:17 AM
Nat,
If the results of rigorous investigation show, contrary to your hopes, that inhalation of micro-sized uranium dust does contribute to serious health problems, then what will you say?
Posted by luminous beauty on May 17, 2006 at 7:21 AM
Natty
always amusing to see you in “sweet reasonable” mode .
In another age you would have been debating how many angels could have danced on the head of a pin, or calling for someone to be burned at the stake, but now we have you as an arch-defender of the US DoD and the mad murderer GWB.
“Diligent investigation” my arse . The DoD ain’t even thinking eventually one day perhaps ever going to do any of that. You admit that multiple vaccinations may have had something to do with subsequent problems, therefore not DU-caused, but fail to draw the consequences of your own statement. No DoD research, yet again.
Denis Halliday and Hans von Sponeck resigned from well-paying jobs at the UN in Iraq. Why ?
Some of my friends believe you are a paid shill, well it is either that or you are a little crazy, because your tooth and claw defence against every criticism of Bushworld is worthy of a highly paid and unscrupulous defence lawyer, or a fanatic.
Well , 29% of amerricans still think GWB is doing a good job, I’d love to know what a bad job looks like.
Posted by frog on May 17, 2006 at 7:16 PM
If the results of rigorous investigation show, contrary to your hopes, that inhalation of micro-sized uranium dust does contribute to serious health problems, then what will you say?
Then I will say I am sorry and that I was wrong, obviously. Fortunately, I will be in good company. Hundreds of highly qualified professionals in the fields of radiation/health/physics/ will be sorry as well.
But I don’t expect that to be the case, and of course biased pseudo-science is not admissible.
What will it take to convince you that you might be wrong, and that you have helped contribute to a myth that has done great damage to our country? Will you be sorry that you have helped to mislead thousands of unsophisticated and easily brain-washed muslim youths, and given them one more misguided reason to kill or maim innocent people?
Will you be sorry that you have unwarrantably scared veterans into thinking that they are hopelessly poisoned by radiation and should expect to die a painful and premature death, and made them fear the consequences of having children? Will you be sorry that you have distracted sufferers of gulf war syndrome from finding what might be the *real cause of their problems?
* No sign of 2003 war syndrome
By Nic Fleming, Medical Correspondent
(Filed: 16/05/2006)
The apparent lack of post-conflict symptoms in troops who served in Iraq supports the view that vaccines and anti-nerve agents were to blame for Gulf War Syndrome, scientists said yesterday.
Researchers found no significant increases in mental and physical health problems in soldiers deployed against Saddam Hussein’s forces three years ago.
In the second of two studies of the health of veterans published today Professor Simon Wessely of King’s College London examined the health of 3,600 British regular soldiers deployed in the 2003 Iraq war and 4,300 non-deployed colleagues.
Prof Wessely said: “Is there an Iraq war syndrome? The answer is no, at least not yet.”
The findings indicated that factors common to the wars against Iraq in 1991 and 2003, such as the use of depleted uranium in shells and pesticides, were unlikely to be the main cause of Gulf War Syndrome.
Posted by Natalie on May 17, 2006 at 7:36 PM
Hi to all the shiny ones.
Is there enough fried Bat for a rabbit to have a small piece? Perhaps a leg or a wing?
Notice I do that Natalie still refuses to prove she isn’t Natalie Helbig.
Your Daddy was on ICH spruiking for the Uranium Death again, Batty Nat. He got totally rolled of course. But then she probably knew that, they will have communicated at one of the re-education sessions they attended together. You’ve been getting new program lately haven’t you shill? Your mob of propagandists has a little trick up its sleeve about the Pentagon, and you gave the game away yourself some time ago. Too bad for you it won’t help. I’m not even commenting on the big nothing which was released after all the fanfare as if it was going to be something significant by the way. 911 was an inside job and most of the world knows it now.
The more the controlled media tries to spin and fight any truthful look at things the more people are realising 911 is a lie. Once the credibility is lost, any further attempts to crank the machine only results in more people reconsidering what they’ve bought before.
The 911 lie has finally gotten caught in a catch 22 of it’s own making.
The more they now try to prop up a disintegrating story, the more obvious it is that it needs propping up. If indeed there was any chance of the official lie gaining pre-eminence, then it would have been gaining, not losing ground. The same can be said of the deliberate coverups and lies about depleted uranium of which you are an active participant Natalie. Rabbit still mainatins the possibility is strong that Natalie is a Helbig. Did you get the email the rabbit sent the other day? If that wasn’t you dear bat, then why did Rabbit get no response? It was read I know that.
As for what sort of money you make, we wouldn’t really know, but then maybe you are actually making a subtle boast? You see there is nothing in any of the info about this person which suggests she should be making big money anyway. Hell, Rabbit has friends in Academia who have far more impressive contributions than that bureacratic twaddle being peddled by Natalie Helbig, yet they are not well paid. The interesting thing is the perfecttion of the placement. You are a shill, we know that. You have performed the duties of a shill without any deviation. You have followed the US government Shills handbook to the letter, you still do. Natalie Helbig is a Shill for government, that would certainly seem to be a fair reading of her profile.
Anyway, you must prove you are not Natalie Helbig!
Iraq had to PROVE it didn’t have WMDs, Your pig masters are demanding Iran must PROVE they are not trying to build Nukes, (why when they are so easy to buy I wonder), and Natty the weird glowing moon Bat of endless death is required forthwith to prove she isn’t Natalie Helbig. Anyway you are. AND your internet profile is not very impressive. If you are paid anything at all on the basis of that bit of dribble then you should consider yourself lucky.
The bat is a bit stringy, I think we’ve overcooked it a bit guys.
Posted by Rabbit on May 17, 2006 at 10:06 PM
Natty quotes
“Those who died prematurely usually died because their mothers lived in impoverished areas neglected by the government.”
That could as truthfully be written about the USA and thus Bush given “credit” directly for the deaths of babies in the USA.
The fact remains that sanctions killed half a million or more, and this was acknowledged by the US administration and is an established fact even in the media la la land which is a result of a controlled media.
Just chewing on the fried bat here, obviously nothing too serious being contributed. Lume you are absolutely firing on all eight cyliners on these two issues and deserve more than the cravenness of our Natalie as a reward.
Rabbit salutes the excellence of the contribution to both 911 and DU, especially the context, a few savings in favorites there thanks.
If on the internet we were able to apply electric shocks to each other upon winning a debating point, and further supposing we had web cams to observe each other, then Natalie would by now be just a black crispy thing hanging from the ceiling.
Much like what happens to innocents who get caught up in the warmongering death and destruction ofr which Natalie is some sort of sick and unholy cheerleader.
Sometimes Rabbit in his spiritual empathy is able to discern for a moment the true karmic significance of the words and intentions of Natty the poisoned Bat and is left shivering in anticipation of the flames she will endure. The rude pleasure the grim satisfaction makes me feel like a rather wicked rabbit for a moment.
In truth the rabbit may watch her cooking over the flames for an hour or two before begginning to feel some sympathy when the time comes.
The gruesome photos linked to above are real, they as well as the testimony of the doctors and witnesses and victims is more than enough evidence to convince a court of law, in any jurisdiction. We may have to wait awhile but eventually the courts will convene, and when they do Natty and Co can grizzle about not being convinced all they like.
The rope will not care.
I sincerly believe one of the skills all good survivalists should learn is how to make a proper hangmans noose! Should these beasts and their beast servants be allowed to escape if in the end the whole ship sinks and we are reduced in civilization and technology? NO we should be prepared to round them up in the event we can’t stop them in time, round up the ones who were responsible and hang them.
Summarily if necessary. Thjey must be eliminated, as many as possible and thus we may hope to somehow give our race a better chance the next time it manages to rise up and reach for the stars. Maybe just maybe the problem is genetic and if we are reduced in numbers anyway from their efforts, the chance of reducing their genetic heritage will be greater.
Posted by Rabbit on May 17, 2006 at 10:35 PM
Natty the rhetorical Bat, would you care to list any <u>damage</u> that the majority of us who resist the use of depleted uranium weapons have caused the USA?
This crappy line has been bandied about by rightwing dickheads now for a while, but it leaves me bemused every time? How many lives have been lost? How many Cancers and how many Birth defects can be potentially even, attributed to those who oppose the use of Dirty Bombs and Bullets?
Illegal Weapons of mass and indiscrimiante destruction, that’s the definition of Depleted Uranium Weapons under International Treaties.
How many wounded are there because of our opposition to the stuff and how much of the environment has been damaged? (let alone poisoned for billions of years) How long will the effects of our opposition be experienced due to deformed births, cancers and other diseases? Just a rough figure if you like.
As for the last bit of your post. You are a complete dildo. Anyone who is trying to make the conclusion you highlight in bold is also.
Prof Wessely said: “Is there an Iraq war syndrome? The answer is no, at least not yet.â€
NOT YET is about right, and the fact that he said it so tells its own story you poxed reptile heart.
Depleted Uranium Poisoning has an effective incubation period of about 4-5 years.
Therefore a study which occurs no more than three years after the latest Nuclear Holocaust in and since 2003, is of absolutely NO worth! Zilch, ZERO, Zippo. NIL dear dil.
You are either a fool or you presume to suppose we are.
More NON Rense sources, just for Natalie How many independant sources is that now? Rabbit has posted reference to at least seven hundred, maybe closer to one thousand sources in the past year or two, to you, which unanimously conclude the toxicity of Depleted Uranium weapons. No exaggeration. Want to deny it BAT? Just try, I’ll unload the lot in the next post after. Here is a start, at leasts the first six hundred. If you have any doubt that this is the shill from hell, nice Frog, dare to delv into this one.
True some of these 1000 have ALSO been referenced by the NEWS site Rense, Natty has this idea that if Rense recognises it then Rip Rense must have written it or something. She still hasn’t logged onto the realisation of independant news sources.
In the interests of serious scientific analysis, despite Natty’s protests, some more studies of Reproductive and developmental toxicity of natural and depleted uranium. Just mice of course but they are not much different to Rabbits or Bats. Oh and “look Ma, no Rense”
There is a very good reason that Natalie is able to discard all evidence and studies and reports and articles out of hand, and rabbit is surprised really that we still bother, any of us. She has long since made it clear that all our sources are completely BIASED. They are all either emphatically or implicitly ANTI-BUSH. This means they cannot possibly be truthful since their only desire in the world is to bring down BUSH> Isn’t that right Natty? They and of course we are all anti Bushites which of course means we would say anything to harm him.
Until any of us can produce a source who is positively PRO BUSH but which decries either the laughable fantasy of 911 or admit the long since predicted and now documented fdact of Deplted Uranium poisoning, we are wasting our time.
The window of opportunity for such a witness is also closing quickly. Already one would be required to search among the dwindling 25% supporters.
Not because we need any more proof that the truth is in, but as more of the studies come to light and especially noting the four to five year time period before the true effects were noticed is presented the following.
DEPLETED URANIUM AND HEALTH OF PEOPLE IN BASRAH: AN EPIDE-MIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE.
Posted by Rabbit on May 17, 2006 at 11:35 PM
What does a NUKED BAT look like?
Lume has of course got the needed tools for the Bat trap? Rabbit is quite sure these studies are saved in his faves, but suspects Lume has better ones?
See you tomorrow, here it’s night. Hoping for a more tenderised piece of bat tomorrow.
Posted by Rabbit on May 18, 2006 at 4:20 AM
Nat,
Very gracious of you to admit you’d be so very contrite, yet still proud of your self and your company, if found wrong. No mention of responsibility for the very real and very horrific suffering these weapons may have inflicted upon innocent populations.
On the other hand, you think if I am proven wrong (meaning, I suppose, that I believe what you apparently believe I believe, that the dangers of exposure to DU dust are already proven true, and not what I actually believe; which is that there are, from my own humble reading of a broad sampling of the available literature, serious unanswered questions, and there is, as yet not seriously rebutted by established empirical methods of falsification, credible real world evidence of the toxicity of DU dust) I should accept responsibility for some mythical damage that my mere questioning of the conventional wisdom has somehow inflicted upon the US, responsibility for the fear and uncertainty of service people seeking explanations for their as yet unexplained and often officially unacknowledged health problems, and even responsibility for giving aid and comfort to our presumed enemies. Wow! Did I mention projection? I think I did.
Actually, if ever such open, transparent, complete and reliable studies are ever done, I will feel only relief that the pursuit of truth has been honorably served, regardless of the final conclusions. Unlike you, I believe this can only be done by honestly examining all sides of every question, on the basis of empirical verification and rigorous analysis of the physical evidence, and not by acrimoniously excluding those with whom I disagree on mere political grounds, or by touting limited and inconclusive studies as being, in fact, comprehensive and conclusive. What’s with that?
It won’t mean I will admit that skepticism of opaque and marginally accountable governmental secrecy is, in this case or any other, unwarranted. I’m afraid that can only happen if all such opaque secrecy is finally and verifiably dismantled and universally abandoned. Or, perhaps, under the administration of torture or the threat of torture to those I love. I am, after all, only human.
Posted by luminous beauty on May 18, 2006 at 8:31 AM
Froggy, you are overly focused on the DOD. In addition to military studies, several other government and non-government scientific organizations all over the world have all concluded that DU is not much of a danger at all.
You make an astute observation in that hey, the military blew it on vaccinations, so why trust it on DU? It’s apples and oranges, though, because uranium is a long-known quantity, and its (non) effect on humans has been studied and documented for decades. I don’t think the same could be said about the vaccinations ...... this is where anger and resources should be directed, even though it’s far less glamorous.
And yes, I know, the aerosol aspect is the current focus of those fantasizing that the world is being irradiated and mutated by blowing winds and glowing dust, but the quantities are miniscule, and the radioactivity is extremely weak.
I would wager that the resignations of Halliday and von Sponeck were not entirely for honorable reasons, given that there was a lot of money to be had for assisting Iraq in ending the sanctions. Plus, the oil for food program they helped administer was a hopelessly corrupt mess, and they probably knew it. Time to bail? What’s your take on it?
As for GWB’s approval ratings, they’re pretty much on par with most US president’s lows at some point in their terms:
Johnson: 35%
Nixon: 24%
Ford: 37%
Carter: 28%
Reagan: 35%
Bush I: 29%
Clinton: 37%
I hear France’s leaders don’t rate so high these days, either. I’d be pissed too if I learned I might not be entitled to a job for life no matter what!
Posted by Natalie on May 18, 2006 at 9:45 AM
lume,
Sorry if I misinterpreted your position. Perhaps we’re really not that far apart on the issue, as I’m sure you’re not blind to the consensus in the scientific community that would contrast with much of what has been put forth by those arguing against DU.
I’m not against further study, but on the other hand, there HAS been a lot of study. Don’t you think it’s somewhat of a red herring to use the fact that there has been some reluctance by the military to provide information, in order to characterize the whole “pro DU” argument as being somehow limited and inconclusive? There have been substantial studies/evaluations done by the prestigious (I gather) Royal Society, the W.H.O., RAND, the UNEP*, the National Institutes of Health/National Academy of Sciences, The European Commission, the CDC, The U.S. National Defense Research Institute, and others.
My main point, again, is that this issue and any possible debate on it has been poisoned by overblown and in many cases wholly invented claims put forth by ridiculously biased individuals that have no real motivation other than to hobble the ability of anyone to use military force for any reason anywhere anytime. The web is overflowing with their nonsense, and a lot of people fail to recognize it for the propaganda that it is.
I’m not saying that’s you, and I remember you agreeing with this in a limited way, but you seemed to welcome their antics as a mechanism to get “further study”.
The problem in my mind with these tactics, is that their toxic and, thanks to the web, prolific nature do great unwarranted PR damage, and end up inflaming emotions unjustly. Their indoctrinating style is such that even if DU is further proven relatively harmless by however much further study is done, people exposed to the propaganda will remain unmoved.
Please discuss further whether you really believe it is helpful or even wise to employ emotional scare-tactics based on untruths or exaggeration, in order to get what you want.
* A report on the UNEP’s findings:
The team, led by physical chemist Pier Roberto Danesi, former director of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA’s) laboratory in Siebersdorf, Austria, confirmed that some patches of soil from known impact sites in Kosovo are tainted with DU. But the amounts, the team maintains, are so tiny that the radioactivity poses virtually no cancer risk. Moreover, Danesi’s group found no evidence of elevated plutonium levels in the soil. Their findings jibe with those of other bodies, including the U.K.‘s Royal Society and the European Union, that have surveyed the DU literature. “There is a consensus now that DU does not represent a health threat”, says Danesi. The latest findings, asserts radiochemist Corrado Testa of the University of Urbino in Italy, “confirm that there is no risk from DU.”
They found that in the most contaminated places, a few milligrams of soil could contain hundreds of thousands of DU particles,—but still not a high enough concentration to elevate cancer risk, Danesi says. Plutonium levels in the Kosovo soil—about 1 becquerel per kilogram—accorded with global levels of fallout from atmospheric nuclear tests. For comparison, soil levels in the Alps, near Salzburg, are nine times as high, thanks to Chornobyl. “As far as the plutonium is concerned, you could feed this soil to someone and he’d be fine,” Danesi says. His team will elaborate on its findings in companion articles in the December [2002] issue of the Journal of Environmental Radioactivity. [M]aintains Testa, “for me this is a false problem. We could be spending money on more urgent problems”—toxic solvents, heavy metals, and organic pollutants, to name a few, he says.
Yes, many, many far more urgent problems.
Posted by Natalie on May 18, 2006 at 1:39 PM
As usual give the Bat a millimeter and it sets up for a long race.
Natty the whole angle of discussion about Uranium Munitions is being falsely presented by YOU as having to do with its gamma radiation.
For the benefit of viewers at home, I will point out that the danger comes not from Gamma radiation which is admittedly minimal. The real horror of Depleted Uranium Weapons is the Alpha and Beta radiation. This would seem to be extraordinary for such radiation is stopped by even clothing, and certainly hasn’t any real danger past a few millimeters.
The answer to why the stuff is a BANNED CHEMICAL WEAPON, comes from the unique toxicity of Uranium particles. Especially in the form of Ceramic Uranium Oxide Vapours. These partciles are small enough to actually enter the body through inspiration after which they are in fact of precisely the small size necessary to enter cells. There, in direct contact with the cell, the Alpha and Beta radiation which is worst because of its low levels. If the radiation was stronger it would simply kill the cell, but unfortunately this is not what happens. The Nano sized particles emit radiation which alters the DNA of the cell, and the Uranium particle never stops emitting that radiation and it never leaves the body. The result is of course totally predictable and the studies have been referenced above which support the contention. Cancers, Leukeamias etc.
The first and most obvious cancer effects are Lung Cancer not surprisingly and these cancers have been soaring everywhere Uranium Munitions have been deployed. This cancer will be the first to be expected, other types will take longer. The worst of them will have appeared within about ten years though others will continue for the rest of the subjects lives. In fact it is unlikely the places exposed will ever see a return to previous levels of Birth defects and stillbirths as well as previous much lower rates of cancer in the population.
You are furthermore deliberately misrepresenting the doubt about what actually is causing the effects observed in Gulf War Syndrome. There is no credible way of arguing that there can be much doubt about whether or not it is the DU. The answer was given above in the quote by Lume.
The same sorts of abnormalities and disease being experienced by Gulf War Vets, there and here in Oz too by the way, are being experienced by the Iraqi population in those areas hardest hit with Uranium Munitions…..AND THEY DIDN’T GET ANY VACCINATIONS, HENCE THE VACINATIONS CAN BE RULED OUT AS BEING THE LIKELY CAUSE.
Trying to debate any sort of science with you is a complete waste of time. Either you know absolutely nothing about science, or you presume that nobody else does. Most people who completed high school should be quite capable of following the science and medicine involved, it isn’t complex. You pretend that it is, and keep on saying that, but it is simple, the stuff was known to be a deadly poison way back when they had yet to build the first Atom bombs and it is recorded in history that the Americans were intending to use Uranium as a dirty bomb at least if they failed to be able to get a Fission reaction happening. There was no doubt in 1947 that Uranium, vaporised, is a deadly weapon of mass and indiscriminate destruction.
We are in 2006, mad bat, even school kids today can explain the effects of nano sized radioactive particles on cells. They certainly can understand it.
Unlike Lume, I am not prepared to pander to you. I do understand the chemistry, and even if there was not a massive amount of solid evidence which proves the dangers beyond any doubt, I would have no problem knowing it to be true. The science is just not that complex. You pretending it is, is only degrading your own profile though exactly how you could get any lower than a known government shill for Depleted Uranium and the lies about 911 is a puzzle.
I’m sure you’ll show us how. You are the queen of duplicity for sure.
By the way, isn’t it good to know you have NEVER had a single supporter of any substance, in one, is it two years? You are not only stupid, a liar and a beast of murder, you are also the most singularly unsuccessful debater on this forum.
Ignoring the taunts of the rabbit doesn’t make them go away either you moonbat. Just shows your paucity of character.
By the way little flitter flatter Bat, funny you mention those Presidntial poll comparisons. Those were the polls which preceded the demise of each of those who are down there in the below 30’s. In Bush’s case he has still got enough time to reach the lowest of any President ever. I expect to see him in the teens eventually. Just before you get full martial law. After that, I guess we’ll be seeing reports of 100% support again eh?
Posted by Rabbit on May 18, 2006 at 7:43 PM
Lume Natty thinks you and she are not too far removed in opinion about DU. Is that so?
Oh just to show what a non issue Depleted Uranium is NOT, even when it’s not being made into dirty bombs and blown about the world, consider this.
The most substantial political debate is currently underway in OZ, and it is hotting up fast. Australia is considering selling our Uranium further afield after having been very conservative about doing so in the past. Oz has major Uranium resources of course. The problem is that we are being asked to take back the Depleted Uranium. This is simply not something anybody, with a few exceptions is even prepared to consider doing. NO fucking way is the response in public and at a political level.
Now why would that be if it is so safe? This won’t even be getting vaporised over the countryside. Oh no, this depleted uranium will of course be in special storage and buried deep underground. The answer is still NO FUCKING WAY! Now why would that be if it is so safe?
The answer is there as plain as the evil in your foul soul Natalie.
I wish you a long journey to the end of a short rope one day.
The final sentence of the evil Bat, claiming other more urgent problems is a joke. What could be more serious and urgent than the creeping Nuclear Holocaust the beast men are engaging in?
Posted by Rabbit on May 18, 2006 at 7:45 PM
The following is revision but should be mentioned again, since Natty seems to forget how simple is the science and what is known.
This is excerpted from <u>Contamination of Persian Gulf War Veterans and Others by Depleted Uranium</u> by Leonard A. Dietz
(last updated in 1999.)
Pathways of DU and Its Radiations into the Body
Routes of intake or pathways of uranium particles into the body include the respiratory tract, the gastrointestinal tract and the skin, through abrasions or wounds. The International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP) has developed a biokinetic model that describes the behavior of uranium within the human body (Ref. 29). The model takes into account aerosol particle size, chemical form, and the excretion rates of absorbed uranium from individual vital organs and bones. Radioactive particles reach the gastrointestinal tract by ingestion and by transfer from the respiratory tract. The model shows that for an acute intake of uranium aerosol particles of uranium dioxide or U3O8, urinary excretion of the inhaled uranium can continue for years.
Exposure to gamma rays emitted from DU is another pathway into the body. Crews are exposed to the equivalent of one chest X-ray for every 20-30 hours they spend in an Abrams tank armed with DU ammunition (Ref. 30). The U.S. Army measured a gamma dose rate of 250 millirems per hour at the surface of a penetrator (Ref. 31). This dose rate is consistent with the 233 millirads per hour dose rate for an unspecified mass of DU listed on a U.S. Department of Labor Material Safety Data Sheet issued to Nuclear Metals, Inc. (Ref. 32). For gamma rays, the rad and rem dose units are equal. At body contact, the 250 millirems per hour is equivalent to a dose rate of up to approximately 50 chest X-rays per hour. Whole penetrators or large fragments of penetrators fired from tank cannon and left on a battlefield have this amount of surface radioactivity.
(29) International Commission on Radiation Protection Publication 54, book, Individual Monitoring for Intakes of Radionuclides by Workers: Design and Interpretation, Pergamon Press, 1988.
(30) Bukowski, G. and Lopez, D. A., Uranium Battlefields Home & Abroad: Depleted Uranium Use by the U.S. Department of Defense , March, 1993, p. 50.
(31) Skogman, D. P., Headquarters, U.S. Army Armament, Munitions and Chemical Command, Rock Is., IL 61299, May 24, 1991, photocopy of document in Uranium Battlefields Home & Abroad: Depleted Uranium Use by the U.S. Department of Defense, by Bukowski, G. and Lopez, D. A., p. 98.
(32) Bukowski, G. and Lopez, D. A., see pp. 131-132 for photocopy of Material Safety Data Sheet, op. cit.
Posted by Rabbit on May 18, 2006 at 9:37 PM
How the U.S. Military Views the Safety of DU Munitions
In a letter to Senator Sam Nunn, a representative of the U.S. Air Force stated, “...these projectiles are no more hazardous to store, transport, or employ than those composed of lead or copper” (Ref. 39). This view is echoed in the U.S. Army report to Congress that states, “The health risks associated with using DU in peacetime are minimal. This includes risks associated with transporting, storing and handling intact DU munitions and armor during peacetime” (Ref. 40). Neither the Air Force nor the Army has publicly presented an analysis of the health risks to soldiers and to others who inhale or ingest radioactive fallout particles of DU, or the health risks of living in an environment contaminated with DU after these munitions have been fired: these are the real safety issues they ignore. Furthermore, a General Accounting Office report to Congress states, “...Army officials believe that DU protective methods can be ignored during battle and other life-threatening situations because DU-related health risks are greatly outweighed by the risks of combat” (Ref. 41). The Army must know that it would be extremely difficult to provide breathing masks that can efficiently remove all of the respirable DU particles from air breathed by soldiers. Even if highly efficient air filters are used by troops, their surroundings will still be contaminated. The surface of the ground, vegetation, equipment, uniforms and other garments contaminated with DU particles will become secondary sources of airborne DU aerosols whenever they are disturbed or moved, thereby presenting an insurmountable radiological containment and decontamination problem on the battlefield. In the AEPI report, (Ref. 42) the Army judges it an acceptable risk if its personnel become exposed in an unprotected fashion to the combustion products of fired DU munitions on the battlefield or elsewhere. This report contains much technical information about DU, but many of the assertions and conclusions in the report are not supported by the technical and scientific data presented. A rebuttal to the AEPI report pointing out some major inconsistencies in the Army report has been published by the Military Toxics Project (Ref. 43).
The three references cited above clearly indicate that the U.S. military’s concern for the safety of DU munitions ends at the muzzle of the cannon. Whatever happens becomes someone else’s problem after a round is fired and its DU metal penetrator strikes armor, partially burns up and injects a huge number of chemically poisonous, radioactive DU aerosol particles into the atmosphere.
(39) Washabaugh, Lt. Col. W. M., U.S. Air Force, Congressional Inquiry Div., Office of Legislative Liaison, letter to Sen. Sam Nunn, Chm. Senate Armed Services Comm., Nov. 8, 1990.
(40) Summary Report to Congress, p. 3, op. cit.
(41) Operation Desert Storm, p. 4, op. cit.
(42) “Health and Environmental Consequences of Depleted Uranium Use in the U.S. Army: Technical Report,” op. cit.
(43) “Radioactive Battlefields of the 1990s, the United States Army’s use of Depleted Uranium and Its Consequences for Human Health and the Environment,” by the Military Toxics Project’s Depleted Uranium Citizens’ Network, January 16, 1996.
(44) Summary Report to Congress, p. 2, op. cit.
(45) Helmkamp, J. C., “United States Military Casualty Comparison During the Persian Gulf War,” Journal of Occupational Medicine, Vol. 36, June 6, 1994, p. 614.
(46) Flanders, L., “Mal de Guerre,” The Nation (magazine), March 7, 1994, p. 292.
Posted by Rabbit on May 18, 2006 at 9:41 PM
Exposure of U.S. Soldiers and Illnesses in Their Families
Thirty-six U.S. soldiers, including 22 with embedded fragments of DU in their bodies, have sought or reported for medical treatment (Ref. 44). They were in vehicles hit by DU munitions. Another report states there were 35 casualties and 72 wounded in crews of U.S. tanks and Bradley Fighting vehicles in so-called “friendly fire” incidents (Ref. 45). This includes the 36 above and is the total number of service personnel officially admitted to have been exposed to significant quantities of DU aerosol dust and DU fragments during the fighting.
On an NBC Dateline program, (Ref. 6) Sgt. Daryll Clark describes how he and twelve others were in an advanced position in the desert when someone radioed them that 20 Iraqi tanks were approaching his forward radar unit. He called for air support, and shortly a flight of A-10 Warthogs arrived and destroyed all of the tanks with DU-tipped 30-mm cannon rounds. Clark describes how he and the men with him were coughing and choking on smoke from the burning tanks, but mixed with it was DU aerosol dust, which he and the others breathed. He has had chronic respiratory problems since the war and his daughter Kennedy was born in September 1992 with purple welts called hemangioma covering not only her face and body, but some internal organs as well. Kennedy has serious breathing problems and was born without a thyroid. Clark stated that a geneticist told him that he could have ingested some radiation and that it could affect sperm cells. Almost three years after his exposure to DU, Clark’s urine tested positive for uranium.
Army nurse 1st. Sgt. Carol Picou also is featured in the NBC documentary. She and seven other women in her medical team were in a forward position, ahead of the main U.S. forces and surrounded by burning Iraqi tanks and vehicles when they stopped and became exposed to DU from the burning destroyed Iraqi armor. Doctor Thomas Callender of Lafayette, Louisiana has examined Picou and said on the program that her outcome bears a striking similarity to other individuals who had exposures to ingested radioactive elements. Picou has been given a medical discharge.
The 7 medical personnel with Picou and the 12 soldiers with Clark probably became contaminated with DU. These 21 soldiers are not included in the official list of those recognized by the U.S. government as having been exposed to DU. Given the large tonnage of uranium penetrators in cannon rounds that were fired on the battlefields in Iraq and Kuwait, it is likely that many thousands of other soldiers also became contaminated with DU. The U.S. Army and the Veterans Administration balk at giving urinalysis tests and “in vivo” tests (whole-body counting of gamma rays) to measure the amount of DU in the lungs and other body organs of Gulf War veterans.
An astonishingly high rate of birth defects in the families of Gulf War veterans is especially troubling. For example, Laura Flanders reports that the Veterans Administration conducted a state-wide survey of 251 Gulf War veterans families in Mississippi (Ref. 46). Of their children conceived and born since the war, 67% have illnesses rated severe or have missing eyes, missing ears, blood infections, respiratory problems and fused fingers. Flanders goes on to say that the birth defects are consistent with the effects of radiation from DU and infection from sand fly bites. Others blame experimental vaccines, chemical warfare pills, the insect repellent DEET and smoke from oil well fires for causing birth defects.
Posted by Rabbit on May 18, 2006 at 9:43 PM
DU has both chemical and radiological effects. As a heavy metal it is chemically toxic which poses a risk to health additional to its radioactivity. Ingested DU tends to concentrate in the bones, liver and especially the kidney. The majority of DU ingested is excreted but some may remain for life [2]. In the kidney it can increase the risk of renal damage [5, 16]. In response to a recent report by the Royal Society on health hazards of DU, one scientist wrote;
Posted by Rabbit on May 18, 2006 at 10:13 PM
1. www.iacenter.org/depleted/metal-leftbooks.htm
2. www.iacenter.org/depleted/du_iraq.htm
3. www.cadu.org.uk
4. www.gulflink.osd.mil/faq_17apr.htm
5. www.ippnw.org
6. www.cadu.org.uk/info/military/7_1.htm
7. www.eoslifework.co.uk/du2012.htm
8. www.iacenter.org/depleted/du_greektr.htm
9. www.umrc.net/downloads/health_consequences_of_radiological_warfare.pdf
10. www.news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/europe/2001/depleted_uranium/default/stm
11. www.iacenter.org/israel_du.htm
12. www.mod.uk/issues/depleted_uranium/middle_east_2003.htm
13. www.iacenter.org/du_warcrime.htm
14. www.chugoku_up.co.jp/abom/uran/index_e.html
15. www.pandoraproject.org
16. www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/
17. www.cadu.org.uk/info/reports/monk
18. www.rimbaud.freeserve.co.uk/iraq.htm
19. www.royalsoc.ac.uk/du/intro.htm
The conservative tone of this report belies the claim of Natty that hysteria reigns within anti-DU circles. There is not consensus on how bad the problem is, but there is consensus in all circles that there is a problem. That is how you read such language, Moonbat Nat.
Basically scientists who are a notoriously conservative lot when it comes to hard claims, are saying that there is certainly problems, and they understand the exact nature and routes of the risk. They are simply saying that they are unable to put an upper limit on the total problem. The reasons are lack of overall data. The data that is in, which includes limited epidemiological studies as it happens, is all pointing in the same direction regarding the actual damage and risk of damage.
Now anyone with an ounce of common sense can look to the epidemiological studies already made, and project the likely outcomes of the wider studies which will eventually be done, have no fear. Neither you nor all the bought and paid for Shills the US corporatocracy can muster with its borrowed economy, will stop the time and tide.
Posted by Rabbit on May 18, 2006 at 10:13 PM
Dr Rosalie Bertell.
A response to the report by the royal society. I’ve told you before that the Royal Society is a scientific brothel.
Teratogenicity of depleted uranium aerosols:A review from an epidemiological perspective I know Lume gave you this, but how about you read it again. It really is the answer to your doubts, but as has been pointed out, you don’t really understand what an epidemiological study is do you?
That is recent, Jan 2005, and includes epidemiological studies, is taken from such a perspective in fact..
Nat admit it you don’t honestly even know what half the words you use mean do you? You still mix up science and faith for example.
You are unable to navigate the precision and factual basis of scientifc language.
A Bat might say she knows the sun will rise tomorrow and base this view on faith.
A scientist would prefer to say:
Based on a long history of observations of its daily behaviour, and thereby projecting its previous course of activity into the future, it can be said with some degree of certainty that the sun will rise as expected tomorrow. It should furthermore be possible to predict this same course of Solar activity another week from now. The degree of accuracy of such a prediction would however be reduced proportionally. It would require further studies and observations to be able to increase the assurance of the sun continuing to rise, the further one attempts to predict into the future. Indeed the probability of the sun rising tomorrow can never achieve an absolute status and the probability of our predictions being completely wrong is a complete unknown. The answer as always is only that we can decrease the realm of uncertainty with wider range of data, but we cannot eliminate it entirely.
The scientist is actually never going to say he knows the sun will rise tomorrow. If he does, he is not a scientist really even if he calls himself one. You cannot on the other hand claim the scientist above is saying he doubts the sun is going to rise. But that in essence is what you are doing .
Now Natalie prove that you are a two faced liar and denialist, all over again. Or just bugger off, because you are boring beyond belief. You are as ignorant a lying reptile as ever and I tire quickly of smashing your feeble efforts at shilling.
As I’ve said often, as shills go you are as ineffective as they come, but then your assignments are no-brainers anyway.
The coverup! Now lets look at what Natty is all about.
Posted by Rabbit on May 18, 2006 at 10:59 PM
Gosh, for someone so boring, Rabbit, I certainly seem to have initiated quite a surge in your beta brain wave activity, not to mention that of your finger tips.
Thank you for your recent contributions, but before considering this further input from you to be at all credible, I’m going to have to insist that you provide some kind of documentation to back-up the claim contained in your prior link, which for some reason wasn’t reflected in the actual CNN transcript:
“On the March 8, 2006 edition of the CNN American Morning program with Miles O’Brien and Soledad O’Brien, they made a startling announcement. On average there are 175,000 new cases of lung cancer each year in the United States. For just the months of January and February 2006 there are 172,000 confirmed, newly diagnosed cases of lung cancer. This is not just a little spike on the charts and much worse news is coming. That is already averaging this year about 6 times the normal incidence of new lung cancer cases in a year.”
And please also, in a bewilderingly similar vein, strangely provided by you as presumably another independent source, for this one:
“In the year 2005 there were 175,000 new cases of lung cancer in the United States. The months of January and February of 2006 have already yielded 172,000 new cases of lung cancer in our nation. What has lead to this shocking new development?”
What is the source of these shocking new statistics?
Posted by Natalie on May 19, 2006 at 1:02 AM
As always you attribute so much effort to such small things really. I was reading and posting as part of the learning process and out of a genuine desire to see you fail in your efforts to even feel like you help the cover up of the truth.
It is too late to go back. If you failed to keep up back there that’s your problem, the rabbit ALREADY ANSWERED your whinge about the sources and provided the links beyond CNN at May 1, 2006 at 3:05 AM. Pay attention!
Besides which you are casting your red herrings to the wind.
I do not have to prove any credibility, it isn’t Rabbit doing the epidemiological studies merely pointing them out. But there you have some studies, quite a few actually, all of which point as detailed by me above, that there is a significant problem, the exact extent of which is as yet undefineable due to uncubation periods but which is already clearly a problem of gargantuan significance., ignorant reptile mind. You have failed completely to realise the Teratogenicity of depleted uranium aerosols: A review from an epidemiological perspective source given is highly significant, and if you comprehend the language which you clearly do not, then the prognosis is grim. Didn’t those ratios and the discussion of the non targeted samplings of teratogenetic efects measured compared to the controls, mean anything to you? Of course you have not read it, I keep forgetting.
Your are a waste of time Nat but it is good to know you are such a dope, always hoping you are a highly paid shill. It would be great to know the government actually considers your efforts to be worth anything.
Crispy foolish Bat! You as always want to avoid the hard things and fiddle with the loose strands as if pulling a single thread will weaken the tapestry to any degree.
Go and do some learning yourself. You could do with the experience.
Posted by Rabbit on May 19, 2006 at 4:02 AM
Rabbit asks:
Lume Natty thinks you and she are not too far removed in opinion about DU. Is that so?
In her dreams, Rabbit. The one thing we really know about Nat, besides her unremitting shilling for the government, is that we know nothing at all.
Isn’t that strange? After two years of conversation, not a clue as to her real occupation, family background, personal history, geographical home. Not a single genuine human trait about her has been revealed. Not even her gender. We know how uncertain that can be by mere inference from a name.
Still, I have myself learned a lot by butting heads with Nat and her ilk.
I’ve been trying to draw her out by non-judgmental questioning with some limited success, but every time I get close to a revelation, she reverts to PR mode, like a turtle withdrawing into its shell. And her PR mode is invariably vicious. She characterizes all critics with nasty hyperbole and unsubstantiated and partisan attacks upon their credibility, and in turn accuses them of employing those same methods. It is a very, very, very pathological pattern of behavior.
In Nat’s case it is not so much the ordinary neurotic ego compensation of an individual, but her super-ego identification with the paternal figure represented by the government. Her unexamined fear of exposure of her genuine self is thus effectively shielded.
Sorry about the Freudisms, but they are more simply expressed and easily comprehended than other more modern forms of analysis, and they do provide a rough fit.
My point here is that there is a powerful socially enabled pathological stream of denial and projection that has been reinforced by decades of patriotic indoctrination within the population of the US and other westernized countries. Such pathologies are very difficult to treat even when individuals admit to the problem. There is need for caution when dealing with such individuals, for their own sakes as well as the harm they are capable of inflicting on the larger society as a cohesive group, because direct confrontation invariably drives them to reassert their conditioning. Nonetheless, consistent, patient and honest questioning that goes to the heart of their motivations is the only way to reach such persons.
The fact that this pathology has succeeded in corrupting and gaining power within the institutions of governance is nothing particularly new, but never has it been so stark in its obviousness in nominally democratic societies. Whether Natalie chooses to continue in her role as a true believer in this hubristic enterprise or come to her senses and seek healing for the terribly destructive schisms within the human community this social pathology represents is ultimately up to her. We should be encouraging her to see that she is really the victim of powerful psychological forces outside of her control, that her loyalty, while ordinarily an admirable trait, is being cruelly exploited for horrific ends, and that she really does have the capacity within her to overcome the invidious illness with which she has been so sorrowfully infected. Otherwise, we are just engaging in unresolvable alienating and oppositional rhetorical argument, since reason and science have no real effect on her thinking.
So be nice, Conejo. She knows not what she does. ;-)
Posted by luminous beauty on May 19, 2006 at 10:18 AM
Right on, Luminous Beauty.
... in her role as a true believer ...
Ding ding ding! And what a role! I can almost believe that she believes .
... come to her senses and seek healing ... We should be encouraging her ...
Natalie, we love you and want to help you get well.
Posted by David in Canada on May 19, 2006 at 2:30 PM
<i>It is too late to go back. If you failed to keep up back there that
Posted by Natalie on May 19, 2006 at 5:58 PM
That’s a beautifully written block of psycho-babble, luminous. It’s looking like you really are a shrink.
You have a way with words, but I’m afraid they add up to not much more than a huge pile of hypocrisy.
You talk about me accusing sources of bias, and questioning their credibility on that basis, yet I remember several instances of you doing the exact same thing.
You question my mental health, but fail to recognize that I’m the one who has merely cited the consensus in the scientific and medical community regarding DU, and in the engineering community regarding the collapse of the towers—and that you are the one who has sided with what most people would classify as the kook fringe.
You allude to me being unreachable, yet you yourself have never demonstrated other than that. Never admitting that yeah, perhaps the fact that not even one structural or fire engineer believes the WTC was bombed might bring one pause, or that the huge volume of literature pointing out the relative benignity of DU, even aerosols, might just be worth considering.
Of course this is fine, it’s your position, but do you really have the right to say that me stubbornly standing by mine is somehow illegitimate, and is an indication that I need some kind of help? That’s hypocritical crazy talk, is it not??
Yes, you people who unswervingly believe in fairy tales about bombs in buildings, missiles in pentagons, six-fold increases in lung cancer in two months, hijackers and Barbara Olson still being alive, the innocence of Usama, and in the reliability of Saddam’s science are calling me stubborn and crazy. Priceless.
Thanks for your concern, Dave. I love you too. But I’m doing absolutely fine. It’s ya’all I’m worried about.
Posted by Natalie on May 19, 2006 at 6:03 PM
Natalie
Damn, the first part of this long post, dealing with the logic, or rather its lack, in your style of argumentation, as well as certain details as to the specifics of this discussion, got lost. For some reason my posts are only going through on the second attempt. Maybe I’ll try to reconstruct it later.
I’m not alluding to you being unreachable, Nat, I’m alluding to the fact that you never reach out in any ordinary human and personal fashion as people in extended social situations are prone to do. I’m somewhat reserved myself, but you make me feel positively garrulous. That is one reason why Rabbit is so mean to you. It’s part of his Aries nature to see people who are unobvious about themselves as stand-offish, deceptive and arrogant, even if they are just shy and self-conscious. Something that doesn’t happen much with Aries personalities. In this case, it seems to me, as a Libra, that he might be correct. I like to keep both sides in balance, but you aren’t giving me much with which to defend you. In fact, your intransigence sometimes leaves me with little recourse but to mock. Please forgive me.
Please feel free to take this astrological analysis, as well as all ‘psycho-babble’ in which I may have indulged, with a grain of salt. It is only a framework for developing understanding and broadening relationships, not necessarily a determinative description of reality.
I don’t think you’re crazy, Nat. I think your ordinary human feelings are being manipulated and are undermining your reason and making you unnecessarily defensive. If you understand what I wrote, I’m not saying you are suffering from an individual pathology, but are the victim of a broad and invidious social pathology. One whose roots are not constrained merely by our current set of political divisions, but are deeply ingrained in human history. A struggle that is engaged in every human breast between individual freedom of conscience and submission to the given order. There are no real sides in this struggle, just a platform for the growth of wisdom. Together we can build a framework to try and develop some kind of mutual understanding, but only if you are willing.
I don’t find it as easy as David to offer unconditional love, but I am always willing to be friends, even if we don’t see eye to eye.
Posted by luminous beauty on May 20, 2006 at 9:33 AM
Natalie, the errors and non-sequitors you employ are just too numerous for me with limited time to respond in the detail they justly deserve.
For a single example, consider your laughable suggestion that the Hinden, Brugge, Pannikar study relies on what you call ‘Saddam’s science’. You yourself point to a doctor in Saddam City, where support for Hussein is still widespread, who denounces propaganda uses of infant corpses during the sanctions period. How much more likely is it doctors in Basra, where Saddam was widely hated, would denounce politically manipulated research? Yet the doctors involved in the Basra studies, reaffirmed and expanded on their findings in Oct. ‘03, half a year after Saddam was removed from power. Why would they do that? Is the notoriety worth it? Do you think that the progressive deterioration of medical care and the fleeing of medical professionals because of security concerns throughout Iraq, or the US’s kybosh of WHO investigations has helped to ascertain the truth of the matter? You think?
The risibility of your suggestion turns quite grim when you consider the responsibility of the US government and particularly members of the current administration for their roles in supplying Iraq with the scientific and technological means to develop WMDs in the first place.
You keep saying there are these mountains of studies that show that Uranium is relatively harmless, yet you link to general fact sheets and press releases that explicitly or implicitly admit that there are health risks to DU, yet seek to minimize those risks, and refer to the same small group of limited studies that really don’t prove anything.
The DoD press release is an example of what they don’t reveal about their 6 million dollar study being of much more interest than the blatant propaganda in the bulk of the article. What were the ordnances used? How many in each test? What extent of penetration of the interiors of the vehicles by projectiles was achieved in the tests? Breached is a very indistinct term. Were the vehicles just static platforms or were the air circulation systems in use? What was the level of contamination on the outside of the vehicles? To what degree were real-world battle conditions simulated?
The same with the 911 attacks. You say there is a broad and loudly affirmative consensus among independent structural engineers certifying the government reports. All I hear is a profound silence.
Posted by luminous beauty on May 20, 2006 at 1:57 PM
luminous,
I’m glad to see that you weren’t accusing me of being unreachable, and that you don’t think I’m crazy. And I’m glad to learn that your Freudian characterization of me as just an unknowing cog in perhaps a slightly suspicious gear in an evil machine is quite possibly “not necessarily a determinative description of reality.” (wink and a smile)
I’m certainly very happy to be your friend, as I’m sure we both have the same wishes for world peace, prosperity and security; just different opinions on how to achieve these. You are an extremely talented writer and thinker, and you never fail to put out a well reasoned rebuttal, not that it’s really that hard in my case. (I know what you’re thinking, creepy, huh?)
I’ve been very reluctant to share personal details here, I guess mainly because the treatment I get isn’t really conducive to it. My initial entry into the DU debate was I thought polite, though perhaps pointed, but apparently simply due to the fact that I dared to disagree with the apocalyptic views of certain individuals, I was quickly deemed a “govt. shill”, a vampire, a death merchant, and even laughably had Rabbit fantasizing that I was related to Roger Helbig. I chose to simply try to stick to the facts, as I saw them, and for the most part ignore the static, which I consider irrelevant to the subject at hand.
I’ll just say that I’m an oridnary nobody, with a son that I love, and a low paying job that I hate. Never graduated college, although I went for a couple years, but other things got in the way.
So….. you think I’m wrong to infer that Rita’s analysis relies on Saddam’s science. Actually, I wasn’t thinking mainly of her, but about all the references I’ve read to the guys from Basra U., and the whole lot of what was coming out of Iraq in the form of manufactured media events aimed at ending the sanctions. But fair enough. You make a case about motivations—I’ll attempt to make the opposite case.
You say that support for Hussein is still widespread in Saddam City. Although I can’t say what the situation is there currently, you must know that at the time of the invasion, and presumably at the time of the Dr’s admissions about staging dead baby parades, Saddam city was a Shia district. From my previous reference:
“We were not allowed to return the babies to their mothers for immediate burial, as is the Muslim tradition, but were told they must be kept for what became known as ‘the taxi parade,”’ said Dr Hussein al-Douri, the deputy director of the Ibn al-Baladi hospital in Saddam City, a Shia district in eastern Baghdad.
*Here is additional evidence that Saddam City wasn’t exactly a hotbed of Saddam enthusiasts:
* Marine commanders reported Iraqi artillery firing indiscriminately into Saddam City, a poor Shiite neighborhood that had erupted into a frenzy of celebration and looting Wednesday afternoon.
During the celebrations, a Shiite leader told the crowd that “the tyrant of the world is finished, thanks to the coalition. Thank God for Iraq, the victorious.”
I think it’s fair to assume that the doctors were Shia, and were happy to rid their consciences of what they were forced to do.
cont…...
Posted by Natalie on May 20, 2006 at 7:48 PM
pg. 2…..
Conversely, I find a *lot that makes me suspect that the guys that put out the studies in Basra were heavily under the control of the Baath party, in fact likely Baathists themselves, although I haven’t found anything to confirm the latter.
* Thus, from 1979 onward, Basrah University had not only suffered from three wars and sanctions, but also from the central government’s intentional neglect, oppression and disrespect for higher education......
.......Professor Salman never thought he’d be in such a position of responsibility, but following the regime change a few months ago, his fellow teachers elected him Chancellor in recognition of his years of sincere dedication to research and academic life. During Saddam’s reign, however, Professor Salman had been ignored and neglected, and was not promoted in 34 years of service, because he wasn’t a Ba’athist........
........I had ranked first in our group and he had ranked second. In the second year of our studies, however, we were told that the University had made a mistake to accept us as students, because we were not party members. What followed was worse and beyond the scope of this article, but Prof. Ali suffered immensely from the regime during the 1990s….....
What’s more, their data, even assuming that it is accurate, (and even assuming the researchers aren’t Saddamites) doesn’t really look to me that remarkable. We’re talking at most about an increase of 3 or 4 defects in 100,000 in the period between 1990 and 1998. (see table 5) And certainly the authors have made no convincing argument that the increase was due to DU. They had not the equipment nor the expertise. (That’s our fault, I know!)
The DoD press release is an example of what they don’t reveal about their 6 million dollar study being of much more interest than the blatant propaganda in the bulk of the article.
Now, now, questioning the integrity of my sources? OK for you, but not for me??? ;-)
The details you rightly wonder about are layed out in the report itself. The entire report is certainly not a “general fact sheet or press release”, as you wrongly describe things like the RAND report, the Royal Society reports, the W.H.O. reports, or the UNEP reports. As well as another one that also deals with aerosols that I forgot about until looking back at that old DU thread.
As for the towers and engineers, I would encourage the good folks at Scholars for “truth” to commission a Zogby poll of engineers. With all their speaking fees, surely they could afford it. Somehow I doubt it will be forthcoming. Wouldn’t it be reasonable to assume that the scholars would have made an attempt to reach out to the structural, civil, and fire engineering communities? And if not, why not I wonder. So far, their listing of supporters is pretty vacant of certified professionals in these fields.
Posted by Natalie on May 20, 2006 at 7:52 PM
Nat,
I fail to see how neglect is a motivation for researchers loyalty, even if they were Baath Party members. That is exactly the kind of internalized conflict I’m talking about. You too are caught between doing what you know is right and doing what you must to get along. We’re all in the same boat. Even those who think they are in positions of power have sublimated their own autonomy to the externalized dictates that their position requires of them. It is trivial that they represent themselves as the protectors of the powerless. It is how the illusion of leadership is maintained, whether it is Saddam Hussein or George Bush or your boss. Succumbing to the given order for the false promise of security is the losers game of sycophancy that keeps all of us from assuming the rights and responsibilities for having real input into the decisions that most directly influence our lives.
We are comparatively few that are struggling to question authority and speak truth to power. Most people are anxious to keep their heads low and not stick their necks out. To defend their position, it is encumbent on those power holders of whatever political stripe, and their sycophants, to identify those who question their authority as decievers, enemies, conspirators or unconscious dupes of shadowy evil forces that only seek to destroy and harm. Pounding a constant drumbeat, they imbue us with their own self-aggrandizing and self-enriching motivations. Even courageous little rags like In These Times are limited in their scope and their ability to articulate a true picture of the way things really are by economic realities and the relentless pressures of authoritarian conventions. If Jimmy Weinstein had not been the fortunate recipient of modest inherited wealth, ITT would not likely even exist. That our voices are heard at all over the ubiquitous blaring propaganda of the richly subsidized organs of the gate-keepers of power, which includes all the corporate owned media, even those considered putatively ‘liberal’, is an amazing testament to the tenacious human desire for genuine freedom.
Do you really think peace groups offer handsome speaking fees? I have to say, my hometown peace center has had plenty of speakers who came to us on their own dime. The usual compensation is a place to crash in the home of a member, maybe dinner at a modestly priced restaurant or more often a pot luck, and passing the hat for a full tank of gas for the trip to their next stop. Occasionally we’ve dipped in the kitty to pay for a plane ticket. Sometimes high profile personalities will come to promote fund-raisers; for our benefit, not theirs.
The idea that peace activists have huge piles of cash to throw around for research, PR or anything else is ridiculous. Most everything that gets done is done on a voluntary basis. What fund-raising we do is almost entirely committed to rent, postage and electricity. We do offer a modest scholarship for our annual essay contest, and spend a few grand for an annual outdoor retreat for kids, subsidized by a small trust fund and private donations. Our newsletter does not pay for itself from adverts and subscriptions. It is every month subsidized out of the meager retirement pay of our editor in chief. It is printed entirely gratis by a retired hobbyist on end-rolls of donated newsprint. I served as art director for a couple of years and had to supply my own media and materials, or go begging. It took several months one time to raise the money to have our donated copier fixed.
This, in a fairly wealthy community with a relatively high level of support. Where I now live, in Shasta County, things are much tougher.
Posted by luminous beauty on May 21, 2006 at 10:51 AM
There is an old joke, that has long served as a cautionary tale to researchers, about the man searching for his lost wallet under a streetlight when he’d actually lost it in a darkened alleyway because the light was better. This is a simply understood explanation for the kind of cynical manipulation of data that the Sandia, WHO, UNEP, and RS reports have all relied on to present their minimalized findings.
For example, the Sandia report, which relies on the Capstone data for their theoretical calculations. (Just so you know, by citing both, you aren’t really citing different studies.) sets as its lower limit a particle size of 0.5 microns. They then use a median derived value between upper and lower limits for their calculations for atmospheric dispersal, bodily distribution and renal elimination and cancer risk. This slight of hand is almost insignificant next to the fact that particles of less than 0.5 are precisely those that are the most harmful, the most difficult for the body to eliminate, and the least prone to precipitate out of the atmosphere in real world conditions, which, once again, their theoretical model only approximates from still air indoor experimental data. It appears this was also the lower detection limit for the equipment in the Capstone tests. Therefore particles below that size are treated as if they don’t even exist.
This is one of the questions that Doug Rokke raises. His team was the operational unit that actually did the field work and suffered almost immediate sickness as a result of the protective gear they were using not being able to filter out particles of this small size. It is grossly disengenous of the DoD to say that he wasn’t in charge of the field work, but that the civilian bean-counters who were merely supervising the experiments were.
That Rokke isn’t willing to give up the names of his team is not so much a sign of dishonesty as an indication of how seriously he takes his commission. The reciprocation of loyalty is that one’s men protect their superiors in the field and officers defend their men off the field. In spite of what you might believe, most ordinary people do not want to become the object of public scrutiny and potential scorn and notoriety. From this POV, Rokke is showing some genuine honor, no matter how much we all would like to know in order to determine the truth of what he claims. I personally find the official memos he has to be quite revealing enough as to the DoD’s duplicity, when considered along-side the facts of their report as I’ve laid them out.
There is also a bunch of hand-waving to dismiss ‘hot-spot’ calculations of radiation densities to arrive at the benign cancer risk numbers they give, and similar dismissal of more current research that shows real cancer risks in mice and rats, for older out-dated petri-dish experiments that have null results. As has been pointed out above there are more recent studies that not only show elevated statistical risks for DU, but reveal determinative causal pathways and actual measured damage to DNA by micro-particles of Uranium.
Posted by luminous beauty on May 21, 2006 at 2:17 PM
Brilliant Lume, your posts are absolutely spot on, and the humble hopper salutes your mind. How I wish I’d read the bit that got lost. If it was anything like what happens to me like that, then it was probably the best yet.
Natalie, Scoffing at Lume’s excellent analysis does nothing but further highlight the flaws of character, reasoning and humanity which are yours.
If it wasn’t long since obvious you are way out of your depth in every respect that counts, then it is now.
Like Lume Rabbit too has learned much from butting heads with you.
Learned more about the US government, it’s propaganda efforts and the paucity of intelligent help seemingly available to it.
Learned just how poverty stricken is the actual case for their lies. You’ve obviously done your best but have never raised the believability of the government lies, never won a single supporter and never bested anybody on a single point of substance.
Thus, best of all, I have learned that come what may, it is only a matter of time now before your snow shack of lies (No castle!) melts in the sunlight of truth.
The simple fact is you are losing support day by day.
22% support for the Shrub in New York now, that’s a big drop from 87% isn’t it?
No need to comment. We know that even another false flag attack won’t raise that by much for long. We don’t need to even hear what a complete idiot like you has to say about it. You can’t stop the tide.
Upon reflection Rabbit has not been fair to the Lung Cancer referance, I see that Doctor Howenstine only referenced the Story on CNN, which has been removed from their transcript on the net. This is a common practice for TV stations who have been contacted by “certain forces” about a story they have aired. Too late to stop the story but at least they remove it from the transcript. Such actions show more than they hide to those who are paying atention. In case you think this in anyway negates the truth of the possible effects DU in America may already be showing up in health effects, I give you the following.
Lung Cancer figures and some context. Note the last sentence. Obviously to an open mind, considering all possibilities mentioned, the most likely cause, and certainly a candidate, is Depleted Uranium. As usual the fact that the government hides information pertinent to the truth, such as how much DU is floating around America, makes itm harder to pin down, but that is why have have minds which can reason.
Scientists Study Depleted Uranium link to Gulf War Syndrome. For those who are truly attempting to understand. A few interesting tidbits in that, the weakening of the nose brain barrier by desert storms for a start.
You are out of your depth as said, deeply and horribly out of your depth.
Your initial appearance on the Radiocative Wounds of War thread showed a complete lack of honesty, your claims of non-bias WERE ELIMINATED IN YOUR SECOND POST, by yourself by the amount of conviction you immediately brought to a supposedly little understood issue by yourself.
The very thread followed an article which was itself a strong testimony to the Teratological dangers of Depleted Uranium Weapons. The only people who came onto that thread after reading the article by Dave Lindorff, who were not expressing outrage, were a handful of people all of whom were positively identified as stooges for the military. You were not identified as such, but have never wavered in your stubborn faith based support for Uranium Weapons since then. Even though new studies have come out since you began to shill on the issue, you have waved them away with the same arguments and air of disdain.
That itself puts the lie to all your claims of open mindedness. You showed absolutely no ability to discern and merely jumped on the bandwagon with Helbig, and never even faltered a step when he was quickly PROVEN to being a Pentagon Stooge. In fact he is infamous on the entire internet spectrum for his shilling. As always you lie and lie and lie, yet nobody believes you. Reading between the lines, Lume and even Dave are mocking you, clown. In some ways Rabbit is showing a nicer front, for he is not playing you for a complete idiot, but rather has given you credit for knowing what you are doing. Maybe as Lume is saying, (and Freud isn’t wrong, just simpler than Jung I agree) you really are just a dittohead drone?
Like I said, I wish you a long drop on a short rope, Natalie Moonbat Helbig.
May your dark and ugly soul be dropped permanently into the gruesome pit when judgement day, in whatever form comes…...................ok ok….............Unless you repent and mend your ways. ........^^...........
Posted by Rabbit on May 21, 2006 at 6:12 PM
Oh Lume. When one writes a long post, often it goes missing simply because the chance for someone else to post in the meantime is increased. Instead of returning to ones too long post and thus giving one a chance to cut some of it, the post gets lost. Not sure of the technical terms but it is the fact that the page has been updated in the meantime that means your work in progress in the comment box is lost with the old page reload. If you are lucky enough that nobody else posts between your first opening the page and downloading the comment, you’ll get it back intact.
If only one could always remember to copy the text before hitting the button, then salvation is at hand.
This forum has become much more user friendly now, maybe too much. Notice one can edit posts from way back, thus allowing the dishonest to go back and change what they say. Obviously not a problem with Natty for she simply never changes what she says.
By the way, I find it hard to believe Natty has a child, or if she does then I am concerned for it. Nobody could defend the indefensible the way she has. My dislike of Nat has less to do with her witholding anything, less to do with her complete lack of honesty or decency. It is entirely based upon the fact that she is knowingly supporting the most horrible war crimes and historical lies. Maybe she is deluded about 911, but nobody who has looked at even a fraction of what she has supposedly read about DU now can support it. Even from the simple human perspective of caution at least. Thus a mother she cannot be. Mothers are always cautious. They do not weait for the proof that their child is being poisoned. If they become aware that there might even be a chance the child is in danger, they always err on the side of caution.
Being a father, or mother tends to make one much more sensitive to the plight of children everywhere. Natty has seen photographic evidence of what is happening to Children, and more than enough information to at least show Uranium Weapons are the most likely cause. Thus her refusal to even entertain the idea that she is wrong, is enough to convince me she is no mother, unless she is a psychopath.
Of course there is that old chestnut about victims of abuse who seem unable to recognise/admit when their own children are being abused, and maybe there is something in this. Perhaps Daddy Helbig used to dip her dummy in Uranium Slurry?
The ludicrous nature of Nattys claims of lack of proof, or evidence about this stuff, is evident in her complete lack of comprehension of the conclusions to the very epidemiological studies she demands. which are not new Nat, you’ve ignored them ages ago already, as always lying
It is also patently obvious that Natty has no idea what form such Proof might take, or what actually constitutes evidence in biological feedback mechanisms.
How does the stupid girl think Thalidimide or Aspartame have been proven to be as dangerous as what they were?
YOU’RE COMPLETELY OUT OF YOUR INTELLECTUAL DEPTH NATALIE!
Posted by Rabbit on May 21, 2006 at 6:51 PM
News for those who want to know.
7 April 2006 Uranium’s Effect On DNA Established
Still no pause to think there might be more to it than our desire to support the enemies of freedom or something?
Posted by Rabbit on May 21, 2006 at 8:03 PM
Hello Rabbit
I noticed the very first Nattypost was answered by jsalsman, 27aug05, with a ref to DNA changes.
That first post showed the Bat to be a lover of DDT, GMO’s, and Pesticides in general, and an enemy of the same scare-mongering unscientific kooky fringe who pointed out years ago that coaldust killed miners, and asbestos killed shipbuilders. .
Natty as War-Lover ——
”“”....My main point, again, is that this issue and any possible debate on it has been poisoned by overblown and in many cases wholly invented claims put forth by ridiculously biased individuals that have no real motivation other than to hobble the ability of anyone to use military force for any reason anywhere anytime. The web is overflowing with their nonsense, and a lot of people fail to recognize it for the propaganda that it is….”“”
Sure some of the antiDU stuff may be exaggerated, but those epidemiological studies are very difficult to do, particularly with too small samples. As with GMO’s, if you do not look, you sure won’t find.
Still, I found the Nattypost above revealing, as she shows no comprehension that it might not be a good idea to hobble war-making capabilities, even to a small extent !
Some blindness there, difficult to imagine in a genuine “loving parent”.
Posted by frog on May 22, 2006 at 9:57 AM
You have it Frog, and can see why she has stunk the place up since she was first spewed forth like the results of a long weekend of relentless partying.
The DU issue rolls on regardless of the shill in the mill. Since her debut the issue has become much better supported by studies and evidence, but not a single moment’s pause have we seen, in the complete craven love of DU and yes, “WAR anywhere, anytime” she said it herself. She is nothing but a fucking evil blood sucking demon, and that is being polite. Over time many have gone from questioning the Rabbit’s vitriol towards the beast to actually questioning how Rabbit could remain so calm and polite in retrospect, while communicating with the foul monstrosity for so long. It is not easy Frog.. it is not easy, but having allies as luminous, as curious or as amphibious as ye all makes it easier to bear.
Here is a recent Zogby Poll which shows that Natty the Batty is finally, officially part of a crazy and shrinking Minority. 70 millions Americans don’t accept the official lie.
“The poll is the first scientific survey of Americans’ belief in a 9/11 cover up or the need to investigate possible US government complicity, and was commissioned to inform deliberations at the June 2~4 “9/11: Revealing the Truth, Reclaiming Our Future” conference in Chicago. Poll results indicate 42% believe there has indeed been a cover up (with 10% unsure) and 45% think “Congress or an International Tribunal should re-investigate the attacks, including whether any US government officials consciously allowed or helped facilitate their success” (with 8% unsure). The poll of American residents was conducted from Friday, May 12 through Tuesday, May 16, 2004.” ......should be 2006 <u>Error in report.</u>.........^^..........
Considering the destruction both of Natty’s cases have taken you would expect any normal, even by internet standards, debate to be over. The Bat has lost, her case is not supportable and has taken numerous fatal shots. But no as she will now obediently prove, Natty is not moved an inch.
She still knows the government is 100% truthful, that Depleted Uranium Weapons are like mothers milk and even more important, and that the Evil Hate filled Muslims are the greatest threat to the safety of her imaginary child.
She still knows we are all enemies of freedom and democracy who are trying to stop “Wars everywhere and all the time”, her stated goal if I’m reading that right.
Posted by Rabbit on May 22, 2006 at 9:18 PM
Hey guys. I miss you. Yet I have found that roving itch I’ve had and am scratching it on the ICH board.
Defending DU. Tsk. Tsk. Oh, yeah, you can just ‘wipe the radioactive dust off your can of Satan’s Potted Meat Product’ and it will be fine’.
The deformities in these poor accursed babies have only been found in the presence of radioactive contamination, in all of recorded medical history which goes back at least 3,000 years. The Marshall Islands. Afghanistan. Iraq. I haven’t looked it up but how could the same thing not be happening wherever DU is used in weaponry ,or nuclear bombs have been set off, or nuclear waste has been dumped, or nuclear power plants have had mishaps that led to contamination of the air, water, or earth.
It hardly gets more real than radiation. Arguing that DU is not toxic is like arguing that lead and mercury aren’t toxic. Get fucking real.
Posted by wileywitch on May 22, 2006 at 9:55 PM
Hi, wiley,
Good to hear from you. Is ICH the Interagency Council on Homelessness?
Kudos for that.
Nat is so unquestioningly supportive of our military leadership. Who is supporting the ordinary grunt? I’d like her to watch this VIDEO and imagine this is her son just some few years down the road. One soldier’s testimony. How many more are too confused, intimidated, ashamed or so thoroughly indoctrinated to speak up.
Posted by luminous beauty on May 23, 2006 at 10:46 AM
Hey, Lumens, come to my website at wileywitch.livejournal.com.
ICH is the Information Clearinghouse. It has some issues.
Nat should enlist in the military—-the Army—-to get up close and personal. Since she is immune to the effects of radiation (which makes me suspect she’s a prion) then she will be a valuable asset in our mission to—-
Our mission to—-?
Nevermind.
Posted by wileywitch on May 23, 2006 at 11:28 AM
As I read these posts, I am reminded of a quote:
Posted by nyvegan on May 23, 2006 at 2:00 PM
Dear Nyvegan,
Your cursory glance at this discussion leads you to talk about small minds and incite us to elevate ourselves to “greatness”.
Somewhat condescending as an introduction of your goodself, but do not worry, we welcome serious allies.
Ideas are nothing without events and people . DISCUSS !
The stalwarts of this thread are wiley, rabbit, dave in canada, luminous beauty, and the Mighty Natalie who is a worthy partner and stimulant , becaus ‘she’ is an ardent supporter of the use of DU in weaponry, collaterally of GMOs and pesticides in agriculture, and naturally a believer in the Bush theory of 911.
Funny how those beliefs of hers hang so coherently together.
The rest of us have that human habit of discussing people, events , and ideas in varying proportions depending on the circumstances.
Have not yet read your link above, but the distinction between humane and inhumane weaponry begs more questions—maybe I would prefer cancer to some of the damage that 7.62mm or 5.56mm conventional ammo can do , ?
Posted by frog on May 23, 2006 at 5:42 PM
The UN commission statements on human rights have been quoted before, this is but the shadow of an earlier debate on an appropriate thread, in some ways.
They are part of the evidence given to support the contention that the USA is guilty of War Crimes and crimes against humanity. It is part of the basis of my argument that Bush and the various members of the warmongering Junta are war criminals and it has further been pointed out that Natalie is complicit in these crimes by virtue of her own efforts.
The thread is actually not being used for any purpose other than as a kind of cave for the Bat to dwell in and which we can come if the urge strikes us to throw stones at it.
Rabbit could propose we travelled via the magic carpetry of the net to some forum actually alive and dedicated to DU and bring our combined efforts to bear in the name of some serious netaction? We could thus become counterbalance to Roger and Natty’s concerted shilling.
No doubt we could take our pet shill Bat with us and she will also bring something special to the cause?
How cool, we would be a true multinational taskforce too.
France, Canada, USA and Australia. No doubt we would soon be joined by a Pommie or two. There are even a few Kiwi’s about and certainly Germans, like Anarcho-Sozi will soon appear. We will be an Anti-DU Multinational Internet Taskforce.
Just as Natty always feared, we will be in her words Anti-DU Shills!
Rabbit formally proposes we form a group and call it “Anti-DU Multinational Internet Taskforce”, with the lovely acronym of ADMIT.
Organisations must have good acronyms to be successful, everyone knows that.
Posted by Rabbit on May 23, 2006 at 8:11 PM
Has anyone been following the debate about the likely effects of a low flying 757 which is related to the question of what hit the Pentagon?
Like Jones and crew I am wary of what appears to be a concerted effort by government and complicit MSM to sideline any discussion about 911 to the Pentagon. Expecting like all others either some genuine footage or more likely properly doctored video of flight 77 going into the Pentagon, sooner or later.
Still at this point we can only speculate and the Jet Blast at such low altitude question stands as an interesting angle at this stage.
*Demo.
*Demo 2.
Posted by Rabbit on May 23, 2006 at 8:45 PM
Frog -
You may remember me from several posts under the story “Meat Industrial Complex”, or earliers posts in this forum. If you recall these posts, you may also recall that I think too much of this community to give the posts only ‘cursory glances’. I prefer to remain respectful in my comments and on-topic, as suggested by this site.
My post was in response to other posts on DU, and to the digression from the topic of our government
Posted by nyvegan on May 23, 2006 at 9:44 PM
ADMIT
Be a founding member of ADMIT.
THIS time they had a plan.
.....................^^........................
oh and by the way nyvegan, don’t forget Natty is a shill and is not really trying to engage in any dialogue. Her choice is to mask the truth not to seek it. As such she is useful as a foil. A contrast indeed. Trapped by her assignment from her masters she is yet bound to us in these issues, which is why the rabbit calls her our pet Bat.
Of course if by some grand miracle Natalie were actually to show she was turning away from denial and confusion, this rabbit would be the first to make kissy kissy faces at her.
From great hate can be born great love, as surely as the opposite has been claimed.
Personally though I think she is a lost soul. As an apparent spokesman for the perpetrators of these crimes, 911 and DU, she the person does actually come into it. Especially when her main means of trying to discredit any evidence or statements, or studies from anyone else invariably based on character assasination and innuendo.
Anyway, this is but a backwater, an unused room we are occupying. I propose we form ADMIT and sally forth. Thus to do some damage to the cause of criminal warmongering.
Posted by Rabbit on May 24, 2006 at 2:41 AM
nyvegan
How could I forget you? There is a new film “Fast Food Nation” to complement the brilliant book by Eric Schlosser.
Your point about the importance of getting through to the other 299million is well taken.
Tho I doubt they could all get onto any thread !
I see our job as defining limited objectives, such as reasoning hard with individuals who have enough honesty to read the links provided, and then each gets on with life spreading the word around them, for example. Another aim is to attempt to sort the good info from the bullshit, and then share.
A vital factor to remember is credibility. That farmer in Des Moines or Normandy will run a mile if he thinks I’m a nut. . You worked previously in wtc1, i spent years talking to fl84 wtc2 up to 1992,—- none of which proves we are correct in our suspicions, but does establish a little something in the mind of the listener….
Lapin
Good idea. We don’t send the whole platoon to post everywhere together, but intel on hot debates is good, so get a scout to report in ,and others can ‘lurk’ as Musketeer canuck puts it , and do the occasional rapier-thrust., as he does. I enjoy lurking, as I learn a lot , and this process is about informing oneself to be more useful…
Noticed an ICH thread today with 80posts in 2days—- like the bbc thing where u get 00’s of posts, too many bods repeat the same points, confuse the issue, and one can spend 25hrs a day just reading and not doing. A good duel is a mighty thing to learn from .
Sun out, grass drying, frog now off to mow a few lawns.
Posted by frog on May 24, 2006 at 7:15 AM
lazy frog paused to open a last site before putting ute and arse into gear and found this review of CONDI BOOK.via an article here
i’d often wondered what the media-hyped “great intellectual’s” reputation was based on, (her words have never betrayed any great ability or insight), the answer is——nowt.
No surprise, but another little piece of ammo, another detail for the big picture….
PS nyvegan—took me a while to get the html right, but I got there !
Posted by frog on May 24, 2006 at 8:13 AM
nyvegan , do try your hand at informationclearinghouse.info . (Sheesh, it’s been so long, I forgot the html code. Not that it takes me a long time to forget the html code). There I am talking to people about themselves, in an effort to get people to focus on the issues, instead of American bashing which is like having a foot-race with a three year old in the category of “sport”.
Somehow they don’t understand how focusing on the U.S. all the time, instead of learning about and discussing other nations and concepts is American exceptionalism, even thought they’re bashing the U.S. They are bashing the U.S. as if it were the only nation of its kind, always was, and always will be. It’s some kind of “demon seed anti-americanism” that almost always leaves our victims and our policies out of the discussion.
Many of them seem every bit as religious secular as the rightest right wing nut on the right is religiously anti-secular. America is “evil” and the world needs to destroy this “evil” so everyone can go back to living in the Edenic world that existed before the U.S. Riiiiiiiiight.
I’m also trying to get them to look at ideas that have a direct connection with reality—-ideas beyond the ones in their heads. Ideas that are having a broad impact on many people.
Posted by wileywitch on May 24, 2006 at 12:11 PM
Hi everyone,
Rabbit, the ADMIT acronym is clever but I have to respond when back a page ago you wrote to Natalie :
“Reading between the lines, Lume and even Dave are mocking you”
... and I wanted to clarify something. What you say is true but it is also true that I have goodwill, also known as love, towards Natalie. And my love is unconditional love, most days anyways, as Luminous Beauty mentioned. And I applaud your hope(?) that Natalie one day may turn away from denial and confusion and allow you to make kissy faces at her.
Natalie, you are welcome and I thank you for your concern. Sincerely and mockingly at the same time if that is possible and I think it is. If anyone needs how explained please let me know.
Luminous Beauty, thanks for being here and recognizing unconditional love when you see it.
Wiley, good to see you visiting here again.
Frog, good ideas. I scout about alot these days and if I see anything interesting you can be sure I will get the word out.
Nyvegan, good points you make. I appreciate polite words too, especially for a disagreement. I am sorry that this may be hard for you to hear, but .... I ate 3 slices of bacon and an egg today : )
At least it was an organic free range egg.
Posted by David in Canada on May 24, 2006 at 3:26 PM
Back to the main topic(s) and my decisive opinions.
Depleted Uranium Munitions- war crime.
9/11 - inside job.
One day, some day ... I hope my opinions will be proven and accepted as incontrovertable facts and the criminals are held accountable for their crimes.
Posted by David in Canada on May 24, 2006 at 3:27 PM
I’m onto your little tricks Dave, anyone who wants to know how to be sincerely and lovingly mocking can send $29.99.
Seriously, I wish I were a better librarian, I read an article recently saying that NATO uses DU munitions, and that China and Russia are using it as well. It seems like the people on all the fast-tracks in the arms race are morons. They’re all (no offense, Dave) monkey-see, monkey do.
I hope that your opinions will be acceptable as incontrovertable facts, Dave, so long as your opinions are incontrovertably correct, which I suspect them to be.
I reject the official stories and denials as completely as most here do.
Posted by wileywitch on May 24, 2006 at 3:45 PM
witch.
i read it too, there are zillions of tons of DU about, the frogs have 12000, and they are small even minute owners.
Being also a lousy librarian; some munitions makers are getting out of it, so back to conventionals.
if you hear that inhaling tungsten particles is also horrible, you saw it here first !
Posted by frog on May 24, 2006 at 4:43 PM
SCREAM. Oh, Frog! Oh, Frog, why are we so stuuuuuuuuuupiddd? Tungsten isn’t radioactive though, right? It’s wicked, but only once. Like that’s noble.
I wish something would put a fire under the UN’s butt. DU, mines, tactical nukes? Insane.
You’d think that by now so-called “advanced nations” would be able to send in a team of sharp-shooters to take out the big guys if regime change is what they’re really after.
Posted by wileywitch on May 24, 2006 at 5:25 PM
WITCH
I was , like you know, errrrr, ummmmm, ....joking, and being like wot I said before a lousy librarian, have lost the sauce, but somewhere there is a ‘relevant’ article on the danger of inhaling microparticles of tungsten.
And so I thought I might just get in a microsecond before the Radioactive Bat, for fun .
Posted by frog on May 24, 2006 at 6:27 PM
Don’t tease me. I’ve fallen for bad stories in two weeks. I don’t know what is up or down anymore. Except that bombing people and spreading radioactive waste hither and yon is a horrible thing to do to people.
Posted by wileywitch on May 24, 2006 at 9:32 PM
wileywitch -
Thank you for www.informationclearinghouse.info. I quickly found this: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12980.htm, and was reminded of the death and destruction I saw while participating in animal rescue in New Orleans after Katrina. I met two cops whose full-time job was retrieving dead bodies. In just their two precincts, they had almost as many as the total “official” body count for the entire city. They also had some great insights on the Administration’s lack of preparedness (I’m referring here to post-Katrina, not the lack of preparedness after 9/11, Iraq, container shipping, infrastructure protection, energy sources, etc.). The video reminds us that the “statistics” we see in the papers have faces and suffer every day.
David -
The world is, I think, quickly coming to the realization that use of DU is a war crime and 9/11 is an inside job. Last year, some people would walk away or give me odd glances when I mentioned these, but lately I’ve had new acquaintances in unrelated settings broach the topic with me.
However, I can’t resist pointing out the lies you’ve been fed with your “free-range” eggs and bacon. Please see my latest posting (along with the story and other postings) in a more directly relevant forum: http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/discuss/2525/
Frog -
Thanks again for “Fast Food Nation.” I’ll return the favor: Been Brown so Long, It Looked Like Green to Me: The Politics of Nature. Now, where are the (US) investigative journalists who will expose the “inside job” and war crimes?
Posted by nyvegan on May 24, 2006 at 9:41 PM
Mercy, mercy, mercy, mercy.
Posted by wileywitch on May 24, 2006 at 10:57 PM
Dave no need to explain that you are a “troll lover”, Rabbit was just too polite to mention it, but since you do. Yes there is a smirk on my face, well yes, Dave does kind of love everybody even the truly ugly among us. That is why he is a Monk. That won’t save you from being judged fit for the pit should he be on the heavenly jury though you demons. Rabbit is less pleasant basically, being an Aries prick and all..
Actually the thread on ICH following the video kerfuffle is worth a few shots from ADMIT troops. Wiley and Rabbit are riding a delicately balanced see-saw from time to time, but they both love each other enough that they are yet in balance. ICH needed a bit of controversy though and it has to Rabbit’s joy brought out some game. Some right wingjobs of both higher and lesser calibre and a probable person or two on the turn have descended. One called CombatJumpStar is someone from their side who is clearly on his way to ours. Maybe not this time, this issue, but one can see the signs of progress.
ICH The battle ground.
What I think is valuable about this ground is that it has attracted some serious attention and much of it is MIL. They need to hear the truth above all others, and DU has been mentioned a few times already. there is plenty of informed reserves to ensure the battle will be a complete rout.
Someone on ICH is doing smilies, which I loathe. But just as with things that go whizz and bang, I like to know how to make them anyway. Tried looking at the source page but it didn’t work. ho hum.
Rabbit thinks Dan is the man though. A gentleman and a scholar, like Dave troll-loving Monkey Fish.
Sorry NYvegan, though my heart says yes, my stomach yet craves meat. In spirit I am yet a vegetarian. Having gone through ten years of Budhism before embracing my Gnostic soul, our pet rabbit has yet taught me more about the meaning of true non violence and live and let live.
I strive to emulate him in my life, he is my hero, but to achieve his ability to thrive upon and enjoy nothing but food of a vegetable origin, is beyond my achievement yet. Even so, Rabbit and family lived an Organic permaculture lifestyle for a decade and have not forgotten our lessons. Compromise can also be Karma.
Posted by Rabbit on May 25, 2006 at 12:29 AM
..................^^.....................Where’s the Bat?
Posted by Rabbit on May 25, 2006 at 12:43 AM
nyvegan
thanks for the book, and also “Whiteout: the CIA, drugs and the press” by the same man..
I read the amazon reviews, and was pleased to see he appears optimistic—an attitude i share. Good stuff, lots to do ...
I eat ‘‘real’ free-range a few times a year, not yet maybe never a complete veggie, but cutting down on meat.
rabbit
thanks for ICH link, good work . The Bat is recharging, will be back soon.
Dan IS a scholar , no need to enrol, already there !
Posted by frog on May 25, 2006 at 6:43 AM
Yep, Rabbit has seen Frog earlier on the site. The ICH crowd are obviously a bit bemused by all the wingjobs they’ve attracted lately. Usually a site with little opposition, except internal squabbles.
I find this story of a couple finding DU from an Auction to be amusing.
Now why would the authorities treat it so seriously if the stuff was like birthday cake? Seems to me evryone involved in this are freaking out a bit. It is only a bit of solid, stable Depleted Uranium after all. Now if it was burnt and formed Ceramic vapour they might have something to worry about. The authorities mention if it was carried about it would give radiation sickness. I guess that is because they are civilians. Apparently it is safe for soldiers to handle. Isn’t it Natty?
Nat? Natty? Maybe we have made the Bat sad? Maybe she is on special assignment dealing with the hoped for fallout from the Macbeth Video. The shills seem to be working overtime trying to make something out of it.
Posted by Rabbit on May 25, 2006 at 5:46 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3050317.stm
Forgot html. Has everyone seen this BBC article? A Canadian doctor is finding high levels of uranium in Afghanis. Not DU, uranium. There is speculation that the U.S. might be using new uranium weapons.
Wouldn’t be out of character, but I looked up to see if there was natural uranium in Afghanistan. I read recently that Iran has a lot of uranium ore. It is naturally occurring in Afghanistan. I don’t know enough about it to know if the deep penetrating bombing could bring up radioactive dust from natural deposits and then contaminate the air, water, land, like all other vaporized heavy metals. But it’s a thought. The earthquakes in that region, could be a result of our bombing as well.
I think these possible consequences—-intended or not—-put carpet bombing and deep earth penetrators in the WMD category.
Rabbit, the reason I’m getting on people’s cases about the guilt tripping is not because I don’t think the U.S. is guilty, but because they are turning off most of the population at a time when most of the populations distrusts the MSM and authorities. This is the time to invite people to learn, not to kick them in the teeth and tell them that they are stupid. I’ve been in American activist circles Rabbit, and they are half responsible for where we are now. Over and over, I have seen them turn away people who cared, and cling to scammers.
I am radically opposed to this administration and aggressive attacks on nations, but these people get so full-up with their damnation and insults, that I almost want to stop caring sometimes. They have no political strategy or savvy at all.
Furthermore, the sins of today are enough to pick up and carry. I have to wonder how much these people really care about our victims and the suffering in the world. They have to go back five hundred years to make the load heavy enough? Christ, one day in Baghdad is how many lives in pain? I know that history is important, yadda, yadda, but it’s NOT a priority if you don’t know what’s going on today.
Posted by wileywitch on May 25, 2006 at 6:07 PM
Wiley
Most of the truly damning words against the USA are coming from foreigners, non-US as it happens. I know a few Americans do the self damning thing a bit, but mostly the heavy stuff is foreign. I’ve been paying close attention. Besides that the important point I think which has to be remembered that the majority of people who first believed in that video certainly on ICH, did so for an hour or two at most. They have been up front about that, and even though some, and that includes me, still see there as being a chance it is the real deal, we are not losing the plot.
It has been said repeatedly by many and nobody is arguing with them, that if true this does not by any means tar all US soldiers with the same brush. It neither claims to be nor can be interpreted as being representative of the whole situation. Beyond that though we must still state that it is not saying anything which was not already well documented. Frankly I feel you have read too much into Macbeth’;s words, probably because you have taken it very personally, to your credit, if not your peace of mind. Really he is but describing his (alleged) experience. So he like whistleblowers in Mai Lai is blowing the lid on something but not all things.
As for those non-americans who do attack america so strongly in words, unfortunately, being outside the US, does kind of give them every right to hate you. If American bombs and wars are happening in other countries, you cannot expect other countries citizens to observe the niceties by distinguishing between complicit Americans and the innocent Americans in all seriousness.
You are a democracy after all.
American bombs don’t see any difference between the Al-Queda leader and the innocent families also extinguished when one is dropped. It’s a bit much to expect the families to distinguish which Americans they then hate. Think of yourself as a kind of rhetorical collateral damage. The flip side of the collateral damage coin. You are innocent Wiley, but so was the collateral damage from the bomb.
It kind of goes with the territory as well coming from an allegedly democratic country.
About the Uranium. It is known that some of the Uranium being used in weapons by the pentagon is actually waste from reactors, not just “Depleted Uranium”, which is still not merely uranium ore, which is what occurs naturally. The fact that it is occurring has been established due to the presence of Plutonium (U-236) in some sampling taken of battlefields, if I remember correctly.
This is more likely what is being detected by the Canadian doctor, but I have yet to read the article.
Posted by Rabbit on May 25, 2006 at 8:28 PM
I see very little chance of the video being real, what bothers me is the lack of logic. And I bet, Rabbit, if ICH put up little flags, we’d see that a lot of the bashers ARE Americans and half the rest are ex-pats.
The timing is unfortunate, with the military ready to prosecute for war crimes that have been documented.
What bothers me is not that I am being insulted, but that Americans who want to figure out what is really going on because they don’t trust the authorities and the MSM anymore are met with sheer hatefulness. Why should they continue to look for the truth about what our government is doing in the face of that?
America may be dumbed down, Rabbit, but it’s not stupid enough to subject itself to that verbal abuse, half of which is irrational, and completely uninformative. Here is a board primarily populated with people who are opposed to the administration and imperialism, so this is where people come to tell us how much they hate America? Why don’t they go to the right wing sites? Or make their own?
I’d be perfectly happy to discuss any and all current evils and confess I share some blame, but WTF is anyone supposed to do about Colombus?——and this really kills me, Rabbit——think about it! Colombus was working for the Spanish Empire! And Custer? WTF. Our asshole government justifies the lunatic guilt trips against people who are opposed to our government?
What about the Iraqis and Afghanis?
Hating Americans is clearly more important to them than caring about humanity. They can hate me all they want, they don’t know who they’re hating; but can’t they hate for events in my lifetime, and why do they so seldom talk about our victims?
And why, since they are so ostensibly well-informed is that so seldom evident. I don’t know what the moderation was about , but cutting out the irrational, hatefilled screeds that had little or nothing to do with the topic wasn’t the point.
DU, btw, has been primarily made of waste from nuclear power plants all along. They can give away or sell nuclear wastes as scrap metal. Bizarre little loophole, is it not?—-because it’s cost prohibitive to dispose of it as best we can, which isn’t good enough anyway. It has been found in concrete, paints, consumer goods, a long sad list.
The Navy discovered that a whole set of their pots and pans was made with cobalt—-radioactive medical waste.
The Plutonium is a man-made element that is a by-product in the fuel cycle——trace amounts are in the Du. Plutonium is so toxic, that one grain in your lung WILL give you lung cancer. But to make large amounts of Plutonium, I think they need more processing. Highly Enriched Uranium (which is bomb grade material) is more efficient and costs less to produce than Plutonium (which is defininetly bomb grade material) as far as fuels go. Japan is making a lot of Plutonium for some reason.
According to that article it was not-depleted uranium that they were finding in Afghanis who had symptoms like Gulf War Syndrome. It was unprocessed uranium that was somehow disseminated in such a way that it could enter bodies. I fear we are already “testing” mini-nukes. But I don’t KNOW.
The bombing is wrong regardless. The radiation is about a million years more wrong.
Posted by wileywitch on May 25, 2006 at 9:27 PM
<i>“I fear we are already
Posted by David in Canada on May 25, 2006 at 9:46 PM
Rat bastards. “Tactical nukes” are not “mini”. It’s outrageous. Just the thought of it is maddening and sickening.
The people we need to open our borders to, and give land and financial and medical assistance to are the Afghanis and Iraqis. Because we ruined their land. Not just their “market” or their “job prospects”—-we ruined their land, their water, and their sky.
We’ll all get a taste of it eventually, but they received the most brutal assault and the brunt of the poisoning.
We can’t fix it.
We need to stop doing it. And just as is the case when parents neglect or abuse their children, the children go to other members of their family, and if no other family members can or will take them, they go to the state. If one member of society cannot be responsible, someone else gets stuck with the responsibility. No use in complaining, when it’s clear that the offending party will not stop without consequences or force. You don’t just stand by and watch them beat their children to death. The next in line who is aware and capable of being responsible, is responsible.
If the U.S. doesn’t stop, then our “allies” (this is really embarrassing for me to use this word in this context, but hey——they’re in NATO too) are obliged to stop us, and if our “allies” can’t, then whoever can must stop this administration and the license to murder that the U.N. and most Western States have given the U.S. and Israel for so long.
That’s not to deflect blame, just to put a little balance back into the picture. If a lot of countries, or royal familiies, and crime syndicates in those countries hadn’t benefitted from our imperialism it wouldn’t have happened. We aren’t magic. We are not exceptional people.
If it happens, it will hurt us. It will hurt me. I know that. That’s not, in the big scheme of things, unfair. I accept that. But that doesn’t mean I need to accept indiscriminate verbal abuse against my country and everybody in it from anybody who drops by and doesn’t even bother to address the topic. It is democratic—-I can talk back. And I will talk back.
Posted by wileywitch on May 25, 2006 at 10:21 PM
Wiley
Indiscriminat abuse ?
Water off a duck’s back is maybe a better response than getting worked up about it ?
As you say, very many foreign govts are to some degree complicit with the bush admin, so i just suggest to them that they do something at home rather than shooting their mouths off at “Amerika” .
“Activist Circles” are usually pretty ineffective, and can be counter-productive, I agree.
The next step on that one is obvious ?
Posted by frog on May 26, 2006 at 5:08 AM
Wiley
The bombing is wrong regardless. The radiation is about a million years more wrong.
Just to be pedantic, the radiation is more like 4.5 Billion years more wrong.
It was U-236 I was thinking of before and it isn’t the same as plutonium, which you know anyway.
As for the testing of Nuclear weapons in the battle field, I wouldn’t be surprised, there has been talk of it. They’ve certainly been testing some hell spawn beam weapons.
Many of the posters on ICH are foreign Wiley, they often say things which give it away. Quite a few Aussies sometimes actually.
I am often guilty of being harsh towards the Great Satan. When I allow myself to become real mean, it is always with the intention of really getting up the nose of some moron. It is usually no more than a mirroring of the sort of invective they like to direct at their anointed enemies though. Often I have to apologise and spell out caveats for the sake of the many decent ones I know are out there.
I will be the first to admit that we are culpable. Who cares if we would be shutdown as quickly as New Zealand when they tried to ban US Nuclear Warships from their own ports. We should be making a stand. Unfortunately with a similar form of the brainwashed sheeple, the same sort of false dichotomy in politics and a corporate controlled government as well, that isn’t very likely.
The main difference is that when our dickhead leaders tried to tell us that we were in danger from some Arabs in the middle east, most Aussies reacted with amusement, “pull the other one”, was the attitude.
We are still there and we are complicit and my feeling is that if we send troops to attack Iran, I hope they all come home in body bags.
There is no overweening patriotism in Aussies. If our country has become a disgusting dag hanging off the backside of the American sheep, then fuck Australia too. Where is the flag and a box of matches.
Is that wrong to wish death to our own troops? It must sound like the ultimate blasphemy to an American. I do know that it’s wrong to attack Iran. It is so wrong and so immoral. It would be great if nobody gets killed, but that isn’t the way it works. So it is simply a matter of the bad guys hopefully losing. If somebody must die then best it is the agressor. Too bad we are the bad guys. At least if we get lots of casualties our lazy self absorbed sheeple might sit up and take notice of what our government is doing in our name.
Posted by Rabbit on May 26, 2006 at 6:41 AM
wiley,
I’ve read with interest what you are trying to do at ICH. I think maybe you’re beating yourself up a little too much. It seems to me you have done well in encouraging and attracting a core of reasonable and cautious folk who are willing to sift through the inevitable chaff for the rare nuggets of illuminating fact. I have to confess my own chagrin at being taken in by Jesse McBeth’s sordid fabulations and initially ignoring the skeptical warning bells that were going on inside my head for the purely emotional response to the horrific nature of his ‘confession’. I’m glad that video was denounced and pulled so quickly, yet it needs be remembered as a cautionary note of our being too easily mislead by our all too human vulnerabilities.
That said, look out! Here comes some free advice.
It doesn’t seem likely that many people who are only expressing their feelings and reactions to events in such an anonymous medium as this are at all motivated to be discriminating and thoughtful in their posts. They are just venting their feelings after all; feelings of fear, dread, anxiety, anger, alienation and impotence, whether honest emotions or from behind a mask of sarcasm. It is the peculiarly absurd irrational side of human nature that we believe that kind venting of all the negativity we find inside ourselves will lead to some catharsis. Perhaps true to some degree if we keep it to ourselves by, say, beating on our pillow or cussing in the shower, but it is almost always a surprize when, in a social context, it leads to a vituperative and angry response. This is the very thing the ordinary troll relies on to spread flames, fury and confusion on a thread, no?
On a personal and private level, the best remedy for falling into this trap I know is the meditative method called ‘turning poison into medicine’. By imagining all the horror, pain and negativity of the world being drawn into the core of one’s being with one’s inbreath, and magically transformed into gentleness, friendliness and compassion and flowing out into the world on exhaling, it is possible for one to quickly regain one’s composure in the face of what seems to be intractable conflict. Simple, but effective.
Posted by luminous beauty on May 26, 2006 at 9:11 AM
In terms of communication, one thing that I have noticed is the ubiquity of the word ‘hate’. It seems such a hard, irrevocable and unyielding word. It seems that sense is only re-inforced by its every iteration. If our goal is indeed to put an end to hatred and the violence which it engenders, we should be attempting to wean people away from its overuse, and seeking to substitute more flexible, ameliorative and generous terminology in its place. ‘Anger’ is a step in that direction, insofar as it connotes a transient emotion and not so much a fixed and inflexible state of mind, but more deeply understood that it arises out of feelings of fear, anxiety, uncertainty, hopelessness and impotence. When we begin to recognize and admit those feelings and their connotations of helplessness and weakness, then, if they don’t completely fade away like the morning dew, they at least become workable by leaving open an avenue of mutual sympathy and working together to find solutions.
It is extremely difficult to create a safe and friendly space for such insights to develop. Especially when anyone can intrude with their seeming desire to explode that sense of communal interaction by anxiety driven needs of immediate judgement and resolution. Even more so by those contrarians who rely on derision and ridicule to disrupt and derail a conversation. We should maybe see that as a challenge to re-commit ourselves and our imaginations to patient, persistent and invigorating efforts towards open and inclusive acceptance, and the opportunity to learn what is effective in drawing such persons into a dialogue in which what is really important to each and every participant can be respectfully addressed, whether by soothing words or sometimes a hard kick in the pants or just standing up to a bullying attitude with equanimity. It’s useful sometimes to remember the hardest thing to do is also often the most rewarding.
Forgive me for going on in such a didactic fashion. I hope you see these little criticisms in the light of my deep admiration and as genuine encouragement for the worthy efforts you are making. I’ve glanced at your ijournal site, and am moved by the artwork you’ve posted there. I’ve a much ignored account there. I’ll try to get around to linking up with you, but until I get some much needed work done around here, I’m trying to reduce my internet addiction by just checking my e-mail in the mornings. I feel kind of guilty for spending so much time sparring with Natalie this last several days as it is.
And Rabbit, as cynical as you sometimes sound, you may unfortunately be right. I must admit I have, at times, never realized that I believed in something until I discovered it was wrong. We never seem to miss the water till the well goes dry. Having a wee bit of foresight is priceless, though.
Posted by luminous beauty on May 26, 2006 at 9:32 AM
I’ll come back and re-read these posts. Not finished with my first cup of coffee and am not ready to do justice in reply, except for where I only speak for myself.
It’s nice to see you guys.
I’m not as worked up as I appear to be, but actually, before the MaCBeth thing——if you go back on the threads you will see that the smart regulars, except for Dan (he’s bright and shiny) kept returning to the DemonSpawnofColombus theme. I’ve noticed they’ve laid off of it a little.
I don’t see it from my perspective as “an American” , except a little of the ‘hey—-your talking about my grandma (the woman’s a saint!), and my sisters and brothers’—- feelings which I dismiss before I write.
Mostly I think about those Iraqis who are sick and dying and living in constant terror. Would they be refreshed to hear that the primary topic of conversation is how much Americans suck and not what and how much Iraqis need ? Would reading anti-american graffiti make them feel better as they lie on dirty sheets without antibiotics?
Don’t you think it would be more healing to hear that Americans were talking to each other and Europeans about what we need to do, how we need to change, how helpless we feel sometimes in the face of these powers, too, and how much we want Iraqis to live in peace and be whole? Until the MacBeth thing that brought on a lot of freeper panty raids, the majority, if not all, people on most threads were opposed to the administration and imperialism.
Whether they are foreign or not, I have to wonder about the motives of people who keep turning the conversation back to the U.S. and its history. Isn’t that what Americans’ problem is? “We” only think about ourselves, and think “we’re” so exceptional?
I’m not sure why it’s hard for people to get that I am not talking about my own personal feelings. People trained to listen get it wrong. On three occassions I talked to psychiatrists about the false alarm I experienced. I said in no uncertain terms that although I knew we were targets, my own death was trivial. (There wasn’t a “me” there at the time, really.) Three years ago I seriously contemplated my own death for the first time. Until then, “death”—-unless referring to a specific dead person, meant extinction to me. I have been living with the fear of extinction for over twenty years. That’s what I wrestle with.
And on all three reports they wrote “she feared for her life”. I really feel like boxing ears sometimes. I need to remove some of the wax from my own ears as well, of course.
So when you see me respond to some jeers, keep in mind that it’s the problems and pain that isn’t being addressed, and the worthlessness of using that time to rehash American sins that bothers me. Really, who would want the American left (a generalization) to believe that most of the population is hopelessly stupid and incapable of learning? Who would benefit from that?
Posted by wileywitch on May 26, 2006 at 2:22 PM
The reason I think that so many turn the conversation back on Americans and their history is simple. Those who are yet blind, who spout the bullshit as if it is untouchable, are actually spouting garbage. They are repeating a very Americanised and sanitized version of history. They are invariably doing it in oder to cash in on the past glory, as if this somehow justifies the present.
The obvious reation of many to this, is to point out that history is not exactly in agreement with their programmed view.
Telling the idiots they are wrong now is all very well. The reply is essentially that the USA is somehow special, different to the rest. The hubris is astounding, almost as extraordinary as the ignorance, nay more so. The ignorance is deliberately instilled, it is cultivated actually and we too have our version of it. We have made a profound effort to whitewash our history of abuse of the Aborigines. We are brought up with the same mickey mouse version of modern history which tries to pretend that Adolf Hitler and the Nazi’s just popped up out of the ground one day, with no previous history or motive beyond world domination. The innocent Europeans, led by Britain then held the fort until Uncle Sam was able to turn his massive attention to saving everyone’s bacon.
Then the USA unselfishly re-built the world for everyone, and showed us all how a democracy worked.
Trying to tell anyone who believes that is the whole story, that the USA is not somehow special, is not the messiah, is quite impossible.
This leaves one little choice but to make them aware that the USA is not special, it was never the messiah, and has not special store of credibility to draw on. Torture by a USA which simply calls it rendition, or enhanced information gathering techniques is no less a base and evil thing than if it is simply called torture in a Soviet or Nazi dictatorship.
The idea of being called monsters, and war criminals. Of being feared and loathed. Is so novel to brainwashed Americans and pseudo-americans like us, that it takes a lot of repetition to make them realise it is real.
It is hard to imagine that a reasoned and polite argument is going to get through to people who are denying reality on a daily basis rather than face the fact that they are wrong about nearly every important fact upon which they supposedly form their opinions.
Rightly or wrongly many see a need for a national humiliation, before you as a nation are likely to be able to bring your country under humane control. As for not being anyone elses concern, the USA has made itself everybody elses concern by making a mess in everyone elses backyard. By making our business yours, you have made your business ours. If that situation is not to your liking, then it is your leaders you need to take it up with not us. (Understand I am not telling you this persanally, merely expressing the “outlander” attitude.)
The problem from here seems to be largely a national arrogance or hubris. The obvious counterforce to that in a human world, is humiliation.
Posted by Rabbit on May 26, 2006 at 7:37 PM
<i>Isn
Posted by Rabbit on May 26, 2006 at 7:43 PM
On the Macbeth video. I think you should read the comment by Objector on This link.
Like him I cannot avoid the feeling that Macbeth is genuine. I have withdrawn my support of the fact only, but my instintive reaction is still thus.
If it is definately a hoax, then I am seriously concerned about my instinct for it has always been my guiding light. If its true, think for a moment how seriously the Pentagon would take shutting him down, and then consider the enormous right wing, and only right wing reaction to it. The left is as I maintain being very cautious, almost silent about it, despite the right wing hysteria. If its true kids, this one is going to take the roof off this circus. It is one thing for us to know atrocities are happening, it is another entirely for it to be attested to publically.
Either way, the point to be gained from all this, is to be cautious. That means not only being prepared to step back if things don’t add up, as much as maintaining an open mind even after the initial debunking. If this story does yet pan out, the tables are going to be very abruptly turned on quite a few forums. I am the same way with much of the 911 evidence. Some things are easy to be sure of, oithers are not.
Once I was mostly convinced that a 757 did hit the Pentagon, but agreed it wasn’t certain, and there were questions, anomalies. These days I have a much larger body of questions and anomalies which point away from a big airliner at least. I am much more disinclined to accept flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Yet I have never committed myself on the case and that is because there is still too many questions unanswered. To say I am sure yet would be premature.
I’d rather say I believed this once but am inclined more to believe something different now, and then have to go back to the original position when the final truth is in, than to go from saying I believe this to I now know it’s false, thereafter having to do a complete backflip when the truth takes us back to the original premise. Less embarrassing for a start. Mostly though it is my scientific objectivity, I like to think.
The story so far is: The video comes out and the guy is convincing. At least the fact of the guy’s existence and some of his story has checked out. There are a number of questions about the guy himself which may reflect on either the truthfullness or the accuracy of what we so far know. There are anomalies in his uniform and story which still do not disprove his story, especially after reading Objector’s views.
There is no proof he is lying, unless a denial by the military is considered proof. No proof either way, but it will obviously come. My money is on legit, but I won’t defend it as being so yet, too little to go on and too far out of my experience.
Posted by Rabbit on May 26, 2006 at 8:56 PM
Of course, Lumens 4.5 billion. It’s too big! It’s too big!
I am worn out from news. Was in the middle of a DU article on Uruknet and had to stop.
What’s saddest of all, Rabbit, is the people who think they are so blessed to get the crumbs. I heard a southern black man use the expression “on the buggy” once, to describe somebody being let in for a while, and having a little creature comfort instead of walking. Most of Americans are “on the buggy”, and the wheels are about to fall off the buggy.
I’ve been very lucky in many ways——especially as a woman. I’ve had times when I did want ever I wanted to do from the time I got up to the time I went to bed every day. I went on long walks at three a clock in the morning and never worried about getting hurt, and was never threatened. Walked almost everywhere, was healthy, in touch with the seasons. My town was a joy.
I wish I could download some of the best times of my life into most American’s heads—-the television wasn’t there. Life can be so much richer than the American dream.
Then the Gulf War shot that to hell for me and a lot of other people. Every time we attack a country it corrodes our culture. War isn’t the only campaign either. I can’t put my finger quite on it, but there is a whole lot more being sold wholesale by the mass media than war. It’s like a big chute that steers everyone away from the real and toward the desire for the unattainable, or the poisoned apple.
Most Americans have no idea. It’s not because they’re stupid. The machine never slows down. It just keeps deforming thought, so much that people don’t give much thought to what is going on. It’s not innocence, but it’s not exactly an ignorance embraced for its own sake.
You have to be practically fringe to see it.
If shown the light, I think at least 80% of the population would at least want it.
Sorry I’m not addressing your posts and am rambling. But I need to fight the message that we’re hopeless cretins.
Posted by wileywitch on May 26, 2006 at 8:57 PM
Wow, gone for a few days and you folks have boosted this puppy into nine pages. I see a lot of angst and anger directed at myself, and America’s foreign policies. That’s fine, and perhaps some of what you say is justified.
However, consider the larger picture. Upwards of 250 million people were murdered by their own goverments in the 20th century alone, and I’m afraid the US is not much of a contributer to this total. When you also consider the supreme effort we’ve put forth in the last 50-75 years to work against this kind of murderous behavoir, things hopefully start to come into perspective.
I’m really not much on history, but I know enough to understand that America is inarguably the most benevolent world power in the history of the planet. Not perfect, of course, far from it, but stop to think who would likely be ruling your particular country if not for the decisive and determined efforts of the American soldier and those who ally with him/her. And of course, America is the foremost promoter of capatilism, one of the essential building blocks to a free, prosperous society, and the most effective antidote to poverty, hunger, and imperial ambition.
If yours had been the prevailing attitute in the last seven or so decades, suffice it to say that you would likely not be enjoying the freedom to convey that attitude today, and the means to do so in such an instantaneous and affordable manner would likely not exist either.
Imagine there’s no Google
I wonder if you can
No off-topic discussions, welcome to China,
former Iraq, and Iran
Imagine some perspective
I wonder if you can
Welcome to Cuba, North Korea
and Vietnam
Posted by Natalie on May 27, 2006 at 3:05 AM
A long time ago, nyvegan posted partially this:
2. Actually watch the video, and make a similar list of the things that are demonstrable, verifiable, and which are in keeping with the laws of nature (e.g., the melting point of titanium; the size of a hole in the Pentagon relative to the size of a 757. Also include those highly statistically improbable coincidences (e.g., a Pentagon planner evaluating the impact of a 757 crash into the Pentagon later becomes the pilot of a 757 plane that allegedly does precisely that; 3 skyscrapers collapsed within 7 hours of one another, when such collapses are unheard of. Another not mentioned in the video, but in the public record: building 7’s owner, Larry Silverstein, said in an interview “And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.” Even if someone chose to demolish the building, it would take weeks to study the structure, acquire and place charges, “pull it”.) Do not dismiss the video because it disagrees with your confirmation bias - please watch it, and go to the original videos they cite and review them if you question the author’s credibility.
I’m a little confused by your list criteria, but from this it appears you are assuming that everything in the Loose Change film is true and/or relevant. It would seem to me that the first step is to verify the truthfulness and relevance of items in the film, in order to be able to use it in any kind of meaningful analysis.
I started my own point by point analysis, but got sidetracked by arguments about DU. Subsequently, it came to my attention that *someone else has already done quite a lengthy critique, rendering my efforts rather obsolete, although some of our ideas are similar. It looks like you two are both from NY, and both are not fans of the President and/or his policies.
* My name is Mark Roberts, and I’m a tour guide in New York City. My first debunking effort was at the age of five, when I tried in vain to convince the kids at the school bus stop that there was no Santa Claus. I was eventually vindicated.
Email: itmatters@mail.com
His critique is here. (5.1 mb Microsoft Word document)
Posted by Natalie on May 27, 2006 at 3:10 AM
Rabbit said a while back:
Upon reflection Rabbit has not been fair to the Lung Cancer referance, I see that Doctor Howenstine only referenced the Story on CNN, which has been removed from their transcript on the net. This is a common practice for TV stations who have been contacted by certain forces about a story they have aired. Too late to stop the story but at least they remove it from the transcript. Such actions show more than they hide to those who are paying atention.
Thank you for finally kind of admitting, Rabbit, that your previous sources alluding to a six-fold increase in lung cancer rates in the U.S. basically made it up. However, I see you stlll cling to the paranoid and ridiculous notion that the CNN transcripts were somehow cleansed.
Do you really think that CNN would agree to do that, especially considering all the negative focus all the media eagerly and regularly put on the war, the military, and the Bush administration? I mean, they weren’t even talking about DU, why would some supposed censor think this was a fact that would have to be expunged from the CNN transcript? What about all the VCR’s out there? Do you really think that such momentous news would escape the attention of the general public? Did you ever stop to think why there is no mention anywhere of the mysterious disappearance of the conversation from the CNN transcripts, when at least several hundred thousand people would have seen it, recorded it, and surely they would have been rightly shocked about it and surely would have been buzzing about the fact that they had seen it, and then when they went to the transcript to verify, it wasn’t there?
I’m “out of my depth”, and you can’t even recognize obvious nonsense?
*Here’s an example of how this kind of mis or rather dis information infects the stream of information people rely upon presumably to become accurately informed.
* And CNN reported the U.S. lung cancer rate jumped six-fold for the first two months of the year.
This is both an indication of a lack of fact-checking ability or more likely desire, and how something simply made up can masquerade across the web as fact.
I wonder what else might be made up???????
Posted by Natalie on May 27, 2006 at 11:28 AM
I noticed the very first Nattypost was answered by jsalsman, 27aug05, with a ref to DNA changes. That first post showed the Bat to be a lover of DDT, GMOs, and Pesticides in general, and an enemy of the same scare-mongering unscientific kooky fringe who pointed out years ago that coaldust killed miners, and asbestos killed shipbuilders.
Interesting, Frog, that you would mention James Salsman. He recognizes that there’s virtually no radiation danger associated with depleted uranium, and is not 100% comfortable with people using that as a device to discredit it. His contention is that DU vapors, oxides, fumes if you will, are the real culprit:
“The radioactivity of uranium is of essentially no consequence in relation to DNA damage compared with its chemical toxicity producing oxidative stress resulting in oxidation damage to DNA. Any discussion of U radioactivity in that context is tantamount to misdirection from the more hazardous chemical toxicity. This must be the 100th time I’ve had to explain this, and at least the 3rd or forth on this thread.”.....James Salsman pg. 2, “Radioactive” wounds of war.
” Regarding your comments, “why is the title of your article ‘RADIOACTIVE Wounds of War?’ You’re shilling for your target audience.” I feel ambivalent about this. On balance, I feel a better title would be, “Birth Defect-Inducing Wounds of War.” However, I find it hard to object to the title as it stands because I strongly feel this issue deserves more attention.”.....James Salsman pg. 2
And it would appear true that some researchers have been successful in demonstrating that certain changes can be affected in test cells or animals in the laboratory, by exposing them to these small particles. Others have not. Of course, there’s no shortage of substances that can be shown to have negative effects on cells, rats, mice, hamsters, rabbits and frogs.
The real doubt in my mind, and in that of many others, is whether these moderate laboratory results have any relevance to real world conditions. In other words, if these cells and animals were merely exposed to the miniscule amounts of these “vapors” that one might realistically encounter, even in the close proximity to a DU incident, would they show any ill-effects at all, ever?
Although the sample size is low, it is worth considering that the group of actual humans that actually inhaled what would be the largest concentration (resulting from a DU explosion) of these particles has shown few if any ill-effects after all these years from an encounter with the presumed “fumes of death”. Plus, they have DU shrapnel in their bodies to boot.
Strangely, an even smaller sample known as the members of Doug Rokke’s DU cleanup team are almost all dead and the rest are hopelessly ill. Stranger still, lung cancer rates in the U.S. are up 600% in just the last few months.
You mention DDT and GM foods in the context of caring about children. If one cares about children, does one advocate for the banning of things that have the ability to save millions of them from death? Most of us with computers and Internet connections are also lucky enough to live without the threat of catching malaria or dying of starvation. Isn’t it a little selfish and stubborn to deny others less fortunate, especially children, the ability to do so also, when claims of harm by these substances/technologies have been greatly exaggerated, and in may cases lied about?
Posted by Natalie on May 27, 2006 at 11:33 AM
Surely you know you’re adored Natalie. I heard you were here, stopped by and you were gone. Though I didn’t say it directly, the angst you see in my post is yours.
I see you’re as prolific as ever, and am relieved to see that you haven’t lost your verve.
Toodles, luv. I trust you’ll have company soon.
Posted by wileywitch on May 27, 2006 at 12:44 PM
NATTY, welcome back,
Last bit first—
Your first witness for the safety of DDT and GMO’s ( and nucular power) is a flack the Eco-Judas Dr Patrick Moore.
Your second witness, the site www. junkscience.com is another flack -shop for big business. Stephen J Milloyruns it.
Another article on Milloy and similar gave up this ltlle gem——
In February 2000, Avery was the featured expert for an ABC “20/20” story by television reporter John Stossel which speculated that “buying organic could kill you.” Stossel’s piece made no mention of Avery’s affiliation with the Hudson Institute, let alone any mention of the institute’s corporate funding from agrichemical and agribusiness heavyweights, including Monsanto, DuPont, Dow-Elanco, Sandoz, Ciba-Geigy, ConAgra, Cargill, and Procter & Gamble. Stossel also claimed that “20/20”‘s own laboratory tests had found as many pesticide residues on organic produce as on the conventionally grown variety—a claim the network would have to retract later when its researchers admitted that no such tests had been conducted.
I found that at Sheldon Rampton’s shit-digging on the Flack industry
We can see above a clear illustration of the quality and the hidden sponsors of your sources.
Posted by frog on May 28, 2006 at 5:58 PM
Frog, I love those guys. “Trust Us, We’re Experts” is a must read. I would recommend it especially to teenagers who need to rebel against something.
The Center for Democracy in Media and Spin of the Day is such a vital resource. Power to the watchdogs.
Posted by wileywitch on May 28, 2006 at 6:25 PM
Thanks for your research, frog,
I’ve been loathe to comment on Nat’s loathsome choice of references, but if I must I must. I’m certain without even blinking, she’ll dismiss Rampton as just another left-wing anti-business loony. Perhaps she’ll consider this review of Milloy’s screed from The Skeptical Enquirer , a source one would think would be his natural ally, that basically rips him a new one. It’s apparent that Hines is either unaware that Milloy has a degree in Biostatistics or is too polite to say he should know better. Either way it’s obvious that Milloy is a lying corporate shill and a pure unadulterated sack of shit.
Specifically concerning DDT and the host of lies that Milloy has engendered, this smackdown of his specious dissembing over Rachel Carson stands out.:
Posted by luminous beauty on May 28, 2006 at 7:41 PM
Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring is widely credited with starting the modern environmental movement. But its publication also marked the beginning of modern anti-environmentalism. In fact, the attacks on the book began even before it was published (Stauber and Rampton, chapter 9, Lear, chapters 17-19). What is remarkable is that the criticism continues even today, more than thirty five years after its publication. The latest assault comes in “100 things you should know about DDT” by J. Gordon Edwards and Steven Milloy. The authors write that:
Rachel Carson sounded the initial alarm against DDT, but represented the science of DDT erroneously in her 1962 book Silent Spring. Carson wrote “Dr. DeWitt’s now classic experiments [on quail and pheasants] have now established the fact that exposure to DDT, even when doing no observable harm to the birds, may seriously affect reproduction. Quail into whose diet DDT was introduced throughout the breeding season survived and even produced normal numbers of fertile eggs. But few of the eggs hatched.” DeWitt’s 1956 article (in Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry) actually yielded a very different conclusion. Quail were fed 200 parts per million of DDT in all of their food throughout the breeding season. DeWitt reports that 80% of their eggs hatched, compared with the “control”” birds which hatched 83.9% of their eggs. Carson also omitted mention of DeWitt’s report that “control” pheasants hatched only 57 percent of their eggs, while those that were fed high levels of DDT in all of their food for an entire year hatched more than 80% of their eggs.
But Carson (page 320) cited two papers by DeWitt. The first, published in 1955 in the same journal, very much supports Carson’s statement (page 674):
Hatchability of fertile eggs was appreciably below that of eggs from the control group, and the difference approached significance (P = 0.08). Many embryos appeared to develop normally during the early stages of incubation, but died during the hatching period. Mortality among chicks from this group was extremely high, and more than 50% died within the first 5 days after hatching.
While DeWitt’s second study (1956), which used lower amounts of pesticides in the diet, did not produce the same decrease in hatchability but it did find greatly increased mortality among quail chicks even when the chicks themselves received pesticide free diets. In the control group (table III) 83.3% survived at the end of six weeks. When the hens were fed 100 ppm of DDT year round only 7.1% were alive after six weeks. When hens received no DDT in the winter but 200 ppm in their food during the reproductive season only 12.9% were still alive after six weeks. Among the pheasants, which received lower doses of DDT than the quail, there was no increase in mortality.
Both Carson and DeWitt cite several other studies that support the claim that DDT and other pesticides are harmful to wildlife. While Carson may have been the first to bring the effects of pesticides to the public’s attention, their harmful effects were already known within the scientific community.
This is from Jim Norton’s info-pollution.com , which is an excellent anti-environmentalist de-bunking site. They have a whole page devoted to Steve Milloy. I’m not sure Nat will understand the sins of specious quote-mining exposed here, since she seems so enamored of the method herself, but here it is.
I haven’t heard of Dr. Strangewhore before, but the myth that DDT is banned as an agent against malaria, rather than as a crop pesticide, even in the US, is familiar old chestnut, much embraced by Milloy and his minions.
Posted by luminous beauty on May 28, 2006 at 7:42 PM
SAVE 53% OFFTHE NEWSSTAND PRICE!
Reader Comments
nyvegan
If you or I had anything to do with a genuine pentagon strike, government-side, we’d have produced bucketfuls of labelled titanium blades, and all the rest of the evidence, and said——there you are !
The incredible Condoleeeeeza said “noone would have imagined"etc.
thats no slip of the tongue, but an outright lie, a firing offence.
Condi lied. “noone would have imagined…..”
and then instructions went out to tear off the covers of the FEMA etc manuals—scope-sights on WTCs on front covers.
<i>If a party was behind one of the events, it was almost certainly a factor in the others. If the Pentagon was hit by a missile, then the whole story about hijackers falls apart. If the
Oh hello Natty, with the imminent collapse of the official conspiracy theory lie, Rabbit thought you would have been re-assigned by now. Still trying to hold back the tide Rabbit sees.
Flight 93 was shot down. ! .
Actually Rabbit knew it was the happy hooligans who shot it down about two years ago, just not the name of the pilot.
Rabbit? What the?
BOTH those killer hurricanes George Bush directed your way missed their target?
Just kidding, nice to hear from you, as always ....... ;-)
This shill just stopped by a while back to post some new (to me) information, that being that the perimeter columns were observed bowing inward eight minutes before collapse. Of course the first thing that came to mind was that this was the thermite at work, but when I realized that the jet impact would certainly have dislodged it here at the impact zone, I came to suspect that maybe, just maybe, the mechanism of collapse had something to do with the effects of the fires in addition to the plane damage. Then I remembered the previous testimony I posted about police in helicopters observing extremely hot fires just before collapse and trying to warn others that they thought collapse was imminent.
This, along with the rather coarse testimony of the structural engineers from the firm of Penn & Teller really got me to wondering.
Aside from your link about flt. 93 being two years old and providing zero proof other than taking the word of a kook money-grubbing website editor, I have agreed in the past that it is a possibility that 93 was shot down. That does not disprove the ear-witnesssed intentions of the passengers to regain control of the plane. Whether they or a missile or both did the job, at least this one plane was prevented from hitting its target, which was likely the Capitol building or the Whitehouse.
And now I must start my list…..
Item 1: Operation Northwoods
“Loose Change”, (LC hereafter) tells us about a series of proposals that were allegedly presented by the military to officials in the JFK administration, some of which arguably involved deliberate acts of murder in order to justify military action against Cuba. Presumably, this is evidence that murdering thousands on 9/11 is well within America’s propensity.
First of all, one can’t help but notice the blind willingness of the LC “skeptics” to accept that the Northwoods documents are authentic. After listening to everyone from Alex Jones to Stephen Jones tell us that anything and everything coming from the Government is not to be trusted, why is this “revelation” treated as gospel, and not a second thought given to the possibility that the whole thing could be nothing more than disinformation or a hoax. (such as those obviously fabricated DNA results from the pentagon victims) If Northwoods had been legit, might it not be reasonable to suspect that liberals Macnamara and Sorenson would be eager to confirm it, so many years later, because after all it makes them look sensible for rejecting it, and it makes the “right wingers” in the military look bad. Others have pointed out that certain language in the documents is not likely to have been written by Americans, perhaps that the insertion of the documents could be the result of some kind of foreign subterfuge.
Lemnitzer and those who served with him in 1962 as chiefs of the nation’s military branches are dead. But two former top Kennedy administration officials said yesterday that they were unaware of Operation Northwoods and questioned whether such a plan was ever drafted. “I’ve never heard of Operation Northwoods. Never heard of it and don’t believe it,” said Theodore Sorenson, Kennedy’s White House special counsel. “Obviously, it would be totally illegal as well as totally unwise.” Robert S. McNamara, Kennedy’s defense secretary, said: “I never heard of it. I can’t believe the chiefs were talking about or engaged in what I would call CIA-type operations.” Bamford writes that besides the Joint Chiefs, then-Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul H. Nitze also favored “provoking a phony war with Cuba.” “There may be a piece of paper” on Northwoods, said McNamara. “I just cannot conceive of [Nitze] approving anything like that or doing it without talking to me.”
Be this as it may, I actually tend to suspect that the Northwoods proposals are likely authentic. But even if so, they are pretty small potatoes compared to the accusations about 9/11. Start some riots, down a “drone”, maybe kill some Cubans, maybe not. And, if legit, it would be evidence that the U.S. Government is not prone to approving wild schemes, and that wild schemes are not executed without approval. Even though the presence of a Soviet friend so close to the U.S. was an extremely dangerous threat, as evidenced by the subsequent Cuban Missile Crisis, the U.S. chose not to deceive the American and Cuban people. I wonder, again assuming legitimacy, if perhaps Kennedy wished he had approved it, while in the midst of the crisis.
Regardless, including “Northwoods” in LC unwittingly makes the case that America does not go around carelessly engaging in deceptive murderous schemes, even if they might have thought about it, and even if it might have actually been well advised in this case. If history had resulted in there being a permanent nuclear threat 90 miles from shore, I have a feeling that a vast majority of Americans would have approved in retrospect of a few innocent deaths, thereby justifying the invasion that would have prevented the fictional permanent Soviet missile presence.
With Northwoods, we’re talking about a peppering of deaths, at worst. Our suspected bomb planters had to know that the potential was there for many tens of thousands of innocent deaths.
Ah yes but Natalie the impossibility of the cell phone calls getting through from the height of flight 93 does render that part of the story to deception.
Like I said you should by now be redumdant. Have you not been keeping up with the recent devolments? There are a whole bunch more engineers and scientists and world leaders and media personalities swelling the ranks of those who know the official story is a lie.
Oh well, guess Rabbit will just have to bring you up to date. Later.
As for thsoe Cyclones, to be honest dearm Rabbit is a NOrthwester and has been through plenty of cyclones before. As a matter of fact the whole thing is being beat up a bit. We usually get three or four good Cyclones of these sort of strengths every wet season. The difference is only the world media. Notice how we just deal with it though? Not such a backwards colony that a single storms loses us a city I guess.
The gaining of traction of the truth.
Let’s look at what we now know about what brought the buildings down.
See the naughty monkeys doing it. Dirty murdering traitors.
Only Thermite could do this. The slag on both sides of the cut is similar, definately not OXY Acetylene cut.
So how were those 911 Cel calls made?
How refreshing to dump all these facts which prove the falseness of the official lie upon a Batty Nat. Not opinions pet, just facts. Mostly not answers either, just big unanswerable questions, at least via the official lie.
Batty Natty, what the hell kind of garbage have you now sunk to spreading? Operation Northwoods is a myth is it deary?
Try the National Security Archives Goose.
You really are still playing with a short deck aren’t you.
A peppering of deaths is a completely different proposition I see now to you. It’s OK if the government kills off a few dozen people, (What is a peppering of deaths dear), but that doesn’t mean they would kill off a few thousand, is that your point sweetheart?
Well we traditionally use the FACT of Operation Northwoods to answer dildos like you who claim the US government would not kill ANY of it’s citizens in false terror attacks, and the scale doesn’t really change that fact for those of us who still maintain a real humanity and not just some fake pretence and hollow slogans.
You have not become any more charming in Rabit’s absence, you are still the banality of evil, the apologist for death and destruction. You do realise that Depleted Uranium is well and truly out of the bag now too don’t you?
You really may have to find a new cause soon, as both your babies are going to ground in the foreseeable future. Perhaps you could become an advocate for killing whales or baby seals?
Not up to your usual penchant for genocidal weapons of mass destruction, but one of these days you just might find your causes have been lost and left you behind. Like Golum in Lord of the Rings, you will be reduced to a snivelling, vicious and paranoid monster, waiting to pounce and suck the life out of unwary travellers.
Go on this journey, all those who seek the truth
The Pentagon story is definately one of the most mysterious. This is one article which caught the beady rabbit eye a little while ago.
This ‘unwittingly makes’ no case whatsoever !
My cat left a bit of mouse in front of the door. She ate one mouse. This unwittingly makes the case that she does not regularly do so !
One Plan rejected by the White House now proves that similar plans have not been approved and executed ?
Similar Plans have been carried out, sometimes without Presidential approval ?
Operation Gladio was not about missles 60miles from the US, but killing civilians in false flag operations to discredit the ‘left’ parties in Europe.
Iran Contra was not falseflag, certainly, but was confusion of terrorists as freedom fighters by the Actor ?
Especially for Nat.
The latest on the Depleted Uranium Weapons, Natalie’s first and greatest love..
How can you live with yourself? Is your denial really that impervious?
“Ah yes but Natalie the impossibility of the cell phone calls getting through from the height of flight 93 does render that part of the story to deception.”
Rabbit, why is the idea that Islamic terrorists were foiled by ordinary Americans so distasteful to you? Is it because you so wanted to see the Whitehouse destroyed? Is it because it undermines your theory that there were no hijackers to begin with? After all, if one admits that the hijackers existed, then it becomes necessary to convince people of the even zanier notion that our government worked in concert with these goons to carry out their crash/fire/bomb plot. They are so inconvenient, aren’t they?
1) Cell phone calls can be made occasionally from airliners, sometimes even at cruising altitude.
2) There were several accounts of conversations between passengers and loved ones, and/or between passengers and airphone or 9/11 operators. Some perhaps from cell phones, probably most from airphones. The reporting on this aspect has routinely confused cell or mobile phone calls with airphone calls.
3) I’ve seen these people (that received the calls) interviewed. They are totally and completely credible. To think that all of them are part of some grand conspiracy is ridiculous. To suspect that they were all fooled by planted calls is also ridiculous, because some of the callers weren’t even originally scheduled to be on the ill-fated flights until the last minute. How would anyone know that these changes took place and be able to instantly change their calling plans?
Again, I don’t dispute the possibility that 93 was shot down, even though there is no concrete evidence for it. Yeah, there was some debris found, but the reasons for it could be several. Conversely, there is solid direct evidence that the passengers were, at the very least, part of what brought the flight down.
<i>“Like I said you should by now be redumdant.
<i>“Well we traditionally use the FACT of Operation Northwoods to answer dildos like you who claim the US government would not kill ANY of it
There’s a definite parallel between the collapse of the WTC buildings, and depleted uranium.
There has not been a shred of credible peer-reviewed evidence presented to back up wild claims such as thermite induced collapse or gruesome birth defects in Afgan children. Or any children for that matter. Sorry…..a bunch of un-sourced, undocumented likely doctored pics on Rense.com just doesn’t pass muster.
Nothing but nonsensical, unsupported rumor-based psuedo-scientific gossip, which is all rooted around the need to deny the threat of Islamic terrorism, and thereby the need to respond to it in any kind of forceful way.
Natalie the idea which is so distasteful to me is that ordinary Americans or indeed any people would be set up, murdered in a framed up attack and then lied to about it so their country could be turned into a global nightmare.
What is incredible is that anybody still remains clinging to the long since discredited pffoical pile of codswallop. Your stupid conspiracy theory was never a contender, which is why even in America you belong now to a small minority.
The DU evidence is well and truly on the table, you beast. The photos above linked and the acompanying report are evidence in themselvs. Anyway that is becoming a mainstream issue at last and the outrage worldwide as wel as in the USA is growing. The horror of DU was always too big to keep secret longer than it took for the first symptoms to show, about three to five years.
A few recent articles, note your nemeses, the good Dr Leuren Moret and Doug Rokke are going from strength to strength.
Death sentence
<i>Terry Jemison of the Department of Veterans Affairs reported this week to the American Free Press that
Seems like when you say there is no evidence or studies what you actually mean is there are none which you care to recognise. Eventually Karma will catch up with you my dear, ask not for whom the bell tolls.
More of the sort of support you personally are giving the troops.
<i>Not only were soldiers exposed to DU on and off the battlefields, but they brought it home. DU in the semen of soldiers internally contaminated their wives, partners and girlfriends. Tragically, some women in their 20s and 30s who were sexual partners of exposed soldiers developed endometriosis and were forced to have hysterectomies because of health problems.
In a group of 251 soldiers from a study group in Mississippi who had all had normal babies before the Gulf War, 67 percent of their post-war babies were born with severe birth defects. They were born with missing legs, arms, organs or eyes or had immune system and blood diseases. In some veterans
Item 2: Remotely controlled Boeing 720 was used for crash/fuel research in late 1984.
I guess this is suppose to butter us up to the possibility that jets were flown by remote control into their targets on 9/11. Well, I suppose this is pretty good proof that remote control operation would have theoretically been possible; however, the practicality of this being used on 9/11 to hit relatively small targets is questionable.
Not to mention all the other evidence that there were indeed hijackers on board controlling the situation and not computers. Communications from passengers describing the situation, the voice of the hijackers mistakenly transmitted to controllers, etc.
I noticed some pretty sloppy journalism here. LC claims the jet had 10 takeoffs and 13 landings. I don’t know how you can get more landings than takeoffs, but what do I know? According to the NASA page on the event, there were 15 takeoffs and 14 landings…..just as one might expect when the final “landing” was not a landing but a crash. A small point perhaps, but evidence yet of an apparent lack of concern for accuracy. Or perhaps I’m missing something.
Item 3: Twin towers depicted as being “in the cross hairs” in gubmint training manual in 1997.
Well Duh. If the fact that al Qaeda targeted the towers in 1993 in an attempt to topple one onto the other isn’t sufficient cause to designate the towers as a “target” of terrorism in a manual of instructions for dealing with a possible terrorist attack, then I give up. I just should have known that the real reason for the picture was that some itchy in the know artist couldn’t help himself and let the whole future plot about 9/11/01 out of the bag.
Stupid brain.
Here is a list of Scholars for 911 Truth. Among them wil be found engineers, architects, firemen, professors and politicians.
Of course they just might all be Bush haters too, that does kind of come with the territory, after all, how could anyone realise the truth and not hate the bastards who did it?
Well what about that? Natty the list is so long, that it would take about ten postings to get it all here. So here instead is a link to the list, you will find all manner of people represented, this doesn’t have to fit into any arbitrary requirements you may choose to create, it is an impressive list of intelligent and educated people.
List of Scholars for 9/11 Truth This is only one organisation of course, though it is currently something of a flagship. Read the roll and it is obvious why this would be.
Now could we see a similar list of supporters for the official story please? You can include the US government, which gives you at least one name already..
Oh and BTW going back to Operation Northwoods, you talk as if the government volunteered the information, excuse me but it was uncovered by investigative reporting, despite the government attempts to coverup. Remember Oliver North dearie? Rabbit does anyway.
Rabbit has no idea what you are just now babbling on about girl, and has frankly wasted enough time on you for a day, but you just sank out of sight again as usual once your pretentious prattling posts are answered. Now you babble on for a bit and if nobody else swats your dribble off the table Rabbit will be by, by and by to clean up any mess you make.
Do read all the lovely links Rabbit has left you, others will, then you at least know what you are contending with. It is hard to pity you, but when you continue dribbling long after your false rhetoric has dried up due to factual refutation, is pathetic.
It must be obvious to even a dunce like you that the old line that there are no qualified people who dispute the official 911 lies, is redundant, patently false. At the same time your favorite mantra that there is no evidence or scientific studies about the effects of DU, is complete garbage. The proof is covered in the few posts Rabbit has made here today. Thus you are as usual .............wrong.
Probably you’ll get sick and die from lung cancer too now, isn’t it grand to know you’ve helped bring that day about? Lung cancer looks a hell of a lot better than the lot of those deformed babies though.
“US Lung Cancer Rates soar, due to DU. See, if you wait long enough, the proof will be arriving in your own backyard.”
Funny, upon examining the transcript of the CNN show referenced by Rense, I could find no mention of any increase in lung cancer rates, and certainly not of DU.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0603/08/ltm.05.html
Do you think this might be why the Rense article failed to reference the transcript?
Perhaps I’m missing something.
You are as usual missing something yes. Everything which disputes your bullshit. Read all the articles, and no cherry picking. Why do I even bother? The facts are there, must Rabbit quote things again?
Do you not even comprehend what I’m saying to you? Your Rense article specifically references the CNN program on March 6, and specifically says that they said things they apparently never said, according to their transcipt. Rense doesn’t link you to the transcript.
Does this not mean anything at all to you?
Natalie as always your red herrings are as smelly as your overall game. The lung cancer rates are being acurately reported, and it isn’t only on CNN. I neither know nor care what CNN has recorded as it’s transcripts. I have seen how even here in Oz transcripts of TV programs get edited if there is anything too controversial in there. Though after looking yes they do mention those figures, at least the average of 177, 000 as being normal. People who I trust more than them claim it was said there and I choose to believe them. The point is not whether or not CNN aired it, but whether or not it is true. Nobody said by the way that CNN mentioned DU, that is another of Natty’s smelly red fish. It was pointed out they tried to spin it as second hand tobacco smoke which is roundly refuted.
Anyway even if half the reports of DU were bogus, it wouldn’t change the other half.
Depleted Uranium Links.
Do the actual facts, irrespective of who reports them not matter to you? It is you who is being ignorant, as always.
Nor was it specifically a Rense article, as I’ve told you before foolish one, Rense is just a nexus, they report, you decide. Ironically enough.
Why do you not mention the other link anyway, it appears to be independent of the hoopla surrounding the article by Karl W B Schwarz, of Nano-technologies, which you deceptively identify as a Rense article as if such things are common. Rip Rense is actually not that prolific, and to my knowledge Karl is not a Rense staff writer.
As always Rabbit must beat out the truth in morse code on your head for you to face it which means only that you duck and dive for new cover. More smelly fish to hide your trail, of deciet.
“List of Scholars for 9/11 Truth This is only one organisation of course, though it is currently something of a flagship. Read the roll and it is obvious why this would be.
Now could we see a similar list of supporters for the official story please? You can include the US government, which gives you at least one name already..”
This is what a list of “scholars” should look like. Notice the ability to click on a persons name and get a complete bio, including type and origin of college degrees, and work experience.
According to the CDC, lung cancer incidence and death have been steadily falling for males, and have been leveling off for females for quite some time now.
They claim the latest year that statistics are available is 2002. I wonder how Dr. James comes about his statistics. He doesn’t say. Does it not strike you as a little outlandish that they would increase that much? This trend would amount to somthing like a 600 percent increase by the end of the year. And all that DU got over here how? I don’t see a big spike after the Gulf War. Why not? It only takes a couple years for the cancer to show up, right? Unlike Northwoods, these charts are probably faked.
“Do the actual facts, irrespective of who reports them not matter to you? It is you who is being ignorant, as always.”
You’ve helped to demonstrate, Rabbit, by hightlighting Rense, that it certainly does matter who reports “facts”. I’ve repeatedly demonstrated how articles that appear on Rense routinely ignore, manipulate, or exclude facts.
The CNN thing is just the latest example.
There was the story about one of the 9/11 flights supposedly landing in Cleveland that had deliberately twisted information from a local tv station.
There was the thing about the Windsor tower fire, where we were told that it had similar construction to the twin towers.
There was the deliberate manipulation of the quote by Bill Manning.
I am interested in the actual facts regarding lung cancer rates. Can you point me to a source that is credible? Somehow I think a 600% increase would garner some pretty spectacular news coverage.
Don’t you?
Natalie, Nat the slimy sleazy stinky strumpetty BAT!
Rabbit has repeatedly pointed out to you that Rense contains 95% of reports from mainstream news, and doesn’t write independent articles as far as anything Rabbit would post as a source for you, deceitful Vampire.
As for this hilarious little fart;
This is what a list of “scholars” should look like. Notice the ability to click on a persons name and get a complete bio, including type and origin of college degrees, and work experience. ,............^^...............yes dear, all thirteen of them.
and the link which it includes; thankyou for clearly illustrating the poverty of the case against the list of eminent people who have stood for the opposing case. That of questioning the official crap story.
Get a grip Natalie.
You just gave us a list of seventeen people, (with a generous counting) who support the official garbage, the overall qualifications of whom are lower on a mean than those who have opposed it in writing via Scholars for 9/11 Truth.
Rabbit has not stopped to count the number of Scholars, but he gave up trying to post the list since it was going to take ten separate postings of this space limited, less than six thousand characters, site.
As for the format of the listings, what the fuck has that got to do with anything you foolish creature of the darkness?
If you doubt the existence of any of the list go look it up Natty.
Your denial doesn’t actually have any bearing on reality. History is full of people and their sycophants who denied the truth of their own reality until it all came crashing down. You are no anomaly, traditionally you comprise about one third of the population, and that, interestingly enough is about the exact percentage support your viewpoints still hold in the failed state of the USA. about 32% support these days, for those who DO take notice of polls?
The final “Backwash” portion as Mr Colbert would put it.
You are of no more consequence than that your denial and subsequent confusion will place you in the best position to absorb the worst of the impact of whatever hell is fast approaching our world. You are nothing more than a bunch of stupid woolly animals who may offer some buffer zone for a few crucial moments, long enough for the poeple that matter to live another day.
Rabbit bids you adieu foolish reptilian crossling.
Rabbit can hop back .................on the rebound so to speak…........... it is after all what helps make him Rabbit.
The following small bundle of crap, presented by the Bat, shows clearly what a dirth of real solid evidence it possesses.
<blockquote>There was the story about one of the 9/11 flights supposedly landing in Cleveland that had deliberately twisted information from a local tv station.
There was the thing about the Windsor tower fire, where we were told that it had similar construction to the twin towers.
There was the deliberate manipulation of the quote by Bill Manning.
I am interested in the actual facts regarding lung cancer rates. Can you point me to a source that is credible? Somehow I think a 600% increase would garner some pretty spectacular news coverage.
Don
DU
<i>“The Uranium Medical Research Centre (UMRC) is one organization that has effectively used the Internet (through media stories and list serves) to raise funds and spin myths about DU. UMRC has successfully exploited scientific uncertainty and government negligence to promote its goals, which seem to be a mixture of ideology, publicity, and fundraising. UMRC
Interesting article Natalie, though your conclusion seems to be somewhat less than admitting to the thrust of fahey’s own concerns:
Do you agree with Fahey, or is it your position that all the questions about DU have been satisfactorily answered?
As to Fahey’s argument dismissing the speculations of the ‘far left’, he makes a common error of reasoning, to which you have demonstrated a very strong susceptiblity, that speculation from circumstantial evidence should be summarily dismissed merely because it doesn’t rise to the unattainable standard of absolute proof.
For example, Fahey writes:
Contrary to what Fahey asserts,the primary source that he cites second hand doesn’t make any truth claims, but speculates with conditional language on what might be true using available information from reliable sources and eye witness accounts:
Fahey makes many unsubstantiated assertions of his own when claiming the unreliability of reporters on no more grounds than the assertion that they are activists, that they have political bias, and the ever popular post hoc ergo propter hoc guilt by association because unaffiliated groups use their speculations for propaganda purposes. Another favorite fallacy of yours, Nat.
Do the speculations of anti-DU advocates tend to the extremes of extrapolation? In some cases, undoubtedly, though not necessarily outside of the realms of possibility. In other cases, as in the explosion of otherwise inexplicable birth defects and cancers among Afghanis, Iraqis and US military personnel, perhaps not extreme enough. However, without increased transparency and accountability, we’ll never know the truth. Do you not agree?
“Do the speculations of anti-DU advocates tend to the extremes of extrapolation? In some cases, undoubtedly. In other cases, as in the explosion of otherwise inexplicable birth defects among Afghanis, Iraqis and US military personnel, perhaps not extreme enough. However, without increased tranparency and accountability, we’ll never know the truth, will we? Do you not agree?”
The point is, Luminous, that no credible evidence or commonly accepted scientific studies are ever provided to back up wild claims such as “exploding birth defects among Afghanis, Iraqis, and U.S. military personnel.” Rabbit’s Rense page of horrors is a good example. Just a bunch of pictures….absolutely no proof whatsoever.
Contrarily, there have been numerous studies by numerous organizations that do employ peer-reviewable scientific methods that have concluded that the danger from DU is not zero, but is hardly anywhere near the scale some would like you to believe.
From reading and analyzing the quality of the arguments coming from both sides for some time, my current position reflects that of the above paragraph. I believe we should make policy based on properly conducted analysis, not on anti-war emotion, which seems to saturate the anti-DU argument. I am certainly not above admitting being wrong on this, and welcome the increased testing and “accountability” that has been recently demanded by various states, which has ironically, as the article says, been prompted by such emotion.
My belief is that the results of these tests will be consistent with all the other studies. The danger is that due to the emotional club being constantly swung on the other side, any conclusions reached that don’t agree with their apocalyptic views will not be accepted.
Natalie,
You say, “Just a bunch of pictures….absolutely no proof whatsoever”
Do you think those pictures and others from Iraq and reliable reports of increased birth defects among US military are not evidence?
Proof only proceeds from rigorous investigation of the evidence.
Do you doubt that such investigations have been stymied by the DOD as documented in the Fahey report which you yourself cite?
Do you think such intransigence can be overcome by attacking, denigrating and dismissing off-hand those who call for such investigations?
Do you deny that the calls for studies in the states that you now say you are willing to allow to go forward would have ever come about without the efforts of the very activists you have previously dismissed with hand-waving about ‘exaggerated claims’ and ‘political bias’?
I’m glad you admit to the possibility of being shown wrong in the future. It is truly refreshing. Your belief, however, amounts to nothing but Panglossian optimism with a strong dose of denial. It would be more credible if you admitted to the possibility of having been wrong in the past.
NATTY
On page 20 Dan Fahey recounts how he proved that the DOD were lying, his words, , from their own sources.
In 2006 they are still at it. stars and stripes diane stearns northern arizona university
Fahey also admits that “comprehensive studies of exposed veterans and civilians do not appear likely to take place”.
If you don’t “look”.........................., you won’t fucking “find” ! !
Natty, your ‘numerous studies’ have not yet included one that is approaching conclusive or even a serious attempt, epidemiologically, because that would take money and time, which have not been allocated.
John Pilger, the STAR OZ reporter, interviewed many Iraqi doctors in the 90’s, who were not propagandists for saddam , just, you know, ‘doctors’—those people in white coats with stethoscopes—-, facing an unprecedented explosion in malformed babies.
PS
Natty, you may have heard of the Downing Street Memos ? Mick Smith who exposed them and I have both seen at first hand, and discussed, the UK MoD doing exactly this sort of cover-up defensive PR job. He writes for the london Times, and is not actually an anarchist…..
MoD, DOD, VA, same lying animals on both sides of the Atlantic.
PPS
Nice to see you Luminous One.
Hello everyone,
Frog, thanks for the link to the ICH article. I had already read it at Global Research but it was very interesting to read the comments in the discussion forum at the depleted uranium article at ICH because of who was there doing the discussing.
I found an old friend, and I use that term very loosely.
Our dear friend Ramjet, also known as Roger Helbig, also known as Lt. Col. Roger Helbig USAF (ret) was there up to his old tricks telling everyone how great depleted uranium is.
The last time I encountered Roger was on the depleted uranium discussion here on ITT many months ago and that’s where I met Natalie too.
Do you remember Roger, Natalie?
Frog wrote:
<i>“John Pilger, the STAR OZ reporter, interviewed many Iraqi doctors in the 90
howdy all! frog, David, Rabbit.
The Bat is back!
” Depleted Uranium is simply not capable of producing an ‘unprecedented explosion in malformed babies’ “.
I can only assume this is meant in the same sarcastic tone as the rest of your post, Nat.
Teratogenicity of depleted uranium aerosols: A review from an epidemiological perspective
Reproductive and developmental toxicity of natural and depleted uranium: a review.
Pregnancy Outcomes Among U.S. Gulf War Veterans: A Population-Based Survey of 30,000 Veterans
Miscarriage, stillbirth and congenital malformation in the offspring of UK veterans of the first Gulf war
Just the tip of the epidemiological iceberg.
Looks like the long hairy arm of Saddam reaches deep into the US-Anglo medical research establishment.
Hi Luminous Beauty,
Thanks for the great links.
Natalie,
Does the evidence that Luminous Beauty provided by those links qualify as commonly accepted scientific studies and does that evidence begin to back up wild claims ???
You say that the danger from DU is not zero, but is hardly anywhere near the scale some would like you to believe.
Dangerous, but not too dangerous?
Radioactive and toxic nuclear waste seems to be dangerous enough that the EPA considers it a hazard and has regulations galore for disposing (storing) of it. Nobody seems to want a nuclear waste storage facility in their backyards. I wonder why? Could it be the stuff is toxic and very dangerous?
But it would seem that if the warmongers turn some of that nuclear waste into bombs then the regulations are convienently forgotten and ignored.
Depleted uranium munitions have turned Afghanistan and Iraq into toxic dumps and sickened and killed many innocent people.
I pray for the day when those responsible for using these weapons in the commission of war crimes will be brought to justice.
Yes, very good, quality information, Luminous. Credible.
Take notice, everyone.
That’s what I’m talkin’ bout.
I only have time for a short note, and wll analyze the info in greater depth later.
Hi Lume, Hi Froggy, Hi Dave, wow, Roger Ramjet, still alive and kicking and calling for his mama, (his googoo) Depleted Uranium.
Actually the rabbit has long since drifted the interesting hypothesis that Natalie is Natalie Helbig, and this could explain their mutual need for the most horrible of genocidal weapons on the planet. Some sort of Unnatural father daughter relationship. Helbig the mediocrity is actually ex Pentagon as it happens too, Frog. He is retired, after a very mediocre desk jockey career. Now he concentrates on ensuring that American Servicemen and women will be exposed to depleted uranium without interruption when they are sent off to do the bidding of the War Whores in the Pentagon.
Notice the actual person Natalie Helbig is ideally placed to be a paid shill. Nat the Bat has incredibly never let slip even the most mundane detail about who she is, just like a shill. She has never actually seriously disputed the rabbit’s suggested ID either and this would at least be an easy one to prove is wrong, were it so, as we all know, yet she relies on no more that her usual grobble to deny it.
Natty has been crushed by the comments and links provided by the rest of you, so Rabbit shall head off for ICH. He craves the blood of a certain Pentagon Shill!
By the way Nat, a picture tells a thousand words. The pictures are real, the studies and evidence presented by my comrades are real, the denial you are craving is reaL, BUT IT IS FADING FAST!
A number of new studies which have well and truly shown DU to be a real disaster unfolding across Europe, the Middle East and the USA, where it has been extensively tested, are going public even as we fence, if the grovelling slipping sliding in the mud you do could be called fencing.
Nat has just grown wings as she does and will now if history dictates, dissapear for a while since she has been wacked out of kilter with too much truth. As usual the fascinating part where she claims interest is noted, and as always at such moments of truth, the caveat that “She is just too busy right now to confirm it is anything of note” but that she will be “BACK REAL SOON TO GIVE AN OPINION” Yeh sure! She will be back sooner or later, ignoring and whoring for lies like always.
She will return in a few days or weeks, ignoring the sources after all, or she will be back only after a miraculous “new” supporter leaps in, Roger Ramjet for example? Get the old man back onto ITT, for us, go on Natty. Tell Daddy, the Rabbit ate his flowers. Tell him Rabbit shits in his eye.
Depleted Uranium
Just something more we are imagining maybe?
Note the date of that quote above, it was no accident, the issue is not new.
Natalie is the winged harbinger of Genocide, the Vampire Vermin.
Actually the rabbit has long since drifted the interesting hypothesis that Natalie is Natalie Helbig, and this could explain their mutual need for the most horrible of genocidal weapons on the planet. Some sort of Unnatural father daughter relationship.
With a job like this, I must make pretty good money. I must have a nice car. I’m gonna check my driveway.
The first study linked above by luminous beauty is called “Teratogenicity of depleted uranium aerosols: A review from an epidemiological perspective”, by Rita Hindin, et al.
This presentation is head and shoulders above say, a Rense page of horrors or an ICH litany of recycled unverifiable hyperbole. It appears to be basically a report on a lot of other reports, and not strictly a research paper done by an expert in the field. Which is fine, except that I got the impression that the author(s) want DU to be the culprit a little too much. They ignore many factors that would tend to steer one away from even the tentative, cautious conclusions they draw. Their main error is that of omission, IMHO.
Non-the-less, the report is forthcoming when it admits that studies from Iraq are puzzling. (could that be because they are hopelessly contaminated, unreliable, politicized and unverifiable?) It also admits that at worst, Iraqi defect rates are still better than in the U.S. (so hardly the epidemic often portrayed) It lists other possible reasons for supposed increases, but suspiciously does not quantify or put in perspective the unspeakable massive abuses committed by Saddam Hussein against southern Iraqis, and their potential teratogenicity.
Rita says:
<i>The data are enigmatic for several reasons. There are jarring differences between the reported data and what would be expected based on malformation registries in the West. The most striking are:
i) The very low incidence of malformations reported pre-war. While the data indicate dramatic increases in incidence of malformations since the 1991 war, they start from such a low level in 1990, pre-war, that they often only reach the baseline Western levels by 1999 - 2000. Does the low Iraqi baseline reflect a truly lesser incidence of birth defects in Iraq at that time as compared to the West
pg. 2
There’s no mention of Saddam’s chemical warfare/genocidal activity both pre and post war, anywhere in the report, which would be a far more likely explanation than DU for a variety of maladies in heaven knows how many places in Iraq. (captured Iraqi documentation is currently being translated that may shed light on specific areas that were targeted, and when.) And there is no mention of the possibility that disbursement of Sadddam’s chemical/biological/radiological agents (due to U.S. bombardment) could be a factor.
“On the first day of my visit to the labor and gynecological ward in the hospital, there were no women in normal labor and no one had recently delivered a normal baby. Three women had just miscarried. The staff in the labor ward told of the very large proportion of pregnancies in which there were major malformations. In addition to fetal losses and perinatal deaths, there is also a very large number of infant deaths. The frequencies of these in the Halabjan women is more than four times greater than that in the neighboring city of Soulemaneya. The findings of serious congenital malformations with genetic causes occurring in children born years after the chemical attack suggest that the effects from these chemical warfare agents are transmitted to succeeding generations.”
Back to Rita’s report…
For the Iraqi population the 1991 Gulf War was the prelude to various new exposures and circumstances that could be teratogenic—- sanctions-induced deprivations such as poverty, malnutrition and degradation of the health care infrastructure. But such circumstances, without specific chemical or radiologic exposures, do not lead to the observed pattern of increasing rates for classes of congenital malformations, notwithstanding the fact that malnutrition does contribute to certain birth defects…..
Again, the true horrific scope of the devastation visited upon southern Iraqis is ignored. “Various new exposures and circumstances”? Gosh, does Rita have a soft spot for suave Saddam? It is assumed, I guess, that nothing Saddam employed to reduce the population of the Marsh Arabs, for instance, from 250,000 to 40,000 could have involved the use of any “teratogenic” agents. Or did it?
Populations of towns in northern Iraq, especially the town of Halabja, represent the largest civilian populations ever exposed to chemical and biological weapons. 250 population centers and 31 uninhabited strategic areas are known to have been attacked by Iraqi forces from April 1987 to August 1988. In addition to chemical weapons use, for which there is forensic evidence, the Iraqi regime may also have used weaponized biological and radiological agents during the attacks. The population of northern Iraq is 4 million, and initial estimates suggest that as many as 250,000 people may have been exposed at some level. Saddam’s regime also used chemical weapons against Shi’ites and marsh Arabs in southern Iraq following the Gulf War. Additionally, an estimated 100,000 Iranian soldiers also survived Iraqi chemical attacks during the Iran-Iraq War.
Of all the atrocities committed with weapons of mass destruction, none proved more horrific than the attack on Halabja, which took place over three days in March 1988. Halabja was bombarded with a concoction of chemical weapons which included mustard gas, and the nerve gases sarin, tabun and VX. Five to seven thousand people of 80,000 inhabitants died immediately and a further 20,000 to 30,000 were injured, many severely. Initial studies indicate approximately 52% of current inhabitants were exposed at the time of the attack.
cont…..
pg. 3
While these weapons had many terrible direct effects such as immediate death, or skin and eye burns, Iraqi government documents indicate they were used deliberately for known long-term effects, including cancers, birth defects, neurological problems and infertility. Inexpensive in terms of death per unit cost, there is evidence that these weapons were used in different combinations by Ba’ath forces attempting to discern their effectiveness as weapons of terror and war. It is believed that the Iraqi arsenal included at least a dozen chemical and biological agents, including those mentioned above, and others such as anthrax, hemorrhagic conjunctivitis virus and rotavirus (causes gastroenteritis and diarrhea in infants and children).
In December 1995, the UN Secretary General, reporting UNSCOM’s findings to the Security Council, documented the weaponization of irradiated zirconium in 1000-pound bombs, which had been test dropped in patterns calculated to deliver 2 curies of radiation over an area of one square kilometer. While thus appearing to deliver conventional munitions, the radiation delivered can sterilize as much as 30% of those exposed and causes birth defects and cancers. Irradiated zirconium’s short half-life enabled reentry into attack sites after two to three months, when no traces of radiation would be found.
Perhaps the most telling paragraph in Rita’s report is this one:
Sunny Miller, executive director of Traprock Peace Center of Deerfield, MA hosted a presentation by Damacio Lopez (director of IDUST, International Depleted Uranium Study Team) which Rita Hindin attended and that eventually led to the writing of this paper. Our appreciation. Thanks to Len Dietz, Dan Bishop (of IDUST) and Tom Fasy (Mt. Sinai Medical Center, NYC) for their assistance early on explicating DU toxicology, and to the Uranium Weapons Study Team (of Traprock Peace Center) for thoughtful conversations and support to explore leads and deepen understanding of DU. Thanks to the conveners and attendees of the World Uranium Weapons Conference Hamburg Germany, October 16 – 19, 2003. Of greatest importance, Rita’s attendance afforded her the opportunity to share thoughtful conversation with and learn from Iraqi researchers, Drs. Jennan Hassan, Jawad Al-Ali and Souad Al-Azzawi. We offer deep thanks, appreciation and respect for the information they shared, and for work that they and their colleagues are doing. We deeply appreciate the reporters and activists who have managed, against great odds, to report bits of information out of Iraq and who, as responsible, thoughtful citizens of many countries, assert their dignity and demand appropriate response to the challenges posed by DU aerosols….. Jaime DeLemos helped us figure out the chemistry of depleted uranium…...
This paragraph is illuminating in several ways. First of all, we note the affection for the Traprock Peace Center and iDUST, which are both full of supremely biased anti-war “peace” activists and are fans of part-time conspiracy “missile hit the pentagon” kooks like Doug Rokke and Lauren Moret. (Rokke has claimed that 30 of his fellow team are now dead from DU, but when pressed for proof, he quickly changes the subject.)
Rita was inspired to write this paper by attending an event sponsored by Traprock, and thanks them for “deepening my understanding” of DU. A more biased and warped source of understanding could hardly be found. The authors’ agenda becomes crystal clear with the sentence about “asserting their dignity and demanding appropriate response”. I’m sorry, the little disclaimer in the report about “no competing interests” suddenly rings untrue.
cont…..
pg. 4
Finally, it’s obvious that the writers have little expertise on the subject personally, which is O.K., but the aura of a research paper is pierced by the realization that this is just a rather selective report on a lot of other reports, with all conclusions seeming to want to paint DU as the prime suspect in everything, when according to a plethora of studies by folks that do have genuine expertise in the field, DU is probably the least likely factor in any rise in incidence of birth defects, anywhere.
To her credit, Rita includes reference to a large study published in the New England Journal of Medicine that found NO connection between service in the gulf war and any rise in birth defects. This study used actual military hospital and service records, whereas many others use questionnaires, which, as honest studies usually point out, are subject to “recall” bias.
....In the multivariate analysis, there was no significant association for either men or women between service in the Gulf War and the risk of any birth defect or of severe birth defects in their children. (full text available after free registration)
Rita pays short shrift to actual examples of definite DU exposure—the men that were victims of DU friendly fire during the gulf war. These men have still shown few or no ill effects, and U.S. soldiers, at least, I believe have no history of increased birth defects. This would seem to me to be of the utmost relevance in a quest for the truth about the danger posed by DU, especially the aerosol aspect. Why is this particular body of evidence ignored?
To conclude, the paper provides only partially informed speculation, not proof, that DU is responsible for a rise in birth defects anywhere, and honestly admits as much. A nice article, professionally written and probably honest in what it chooses to report about, but lacking in that it only presents a rather selective picture of the DU controversy. No mention is made of Saddam’s definite role in increased birth defects in northern Iraq, and no consideration is given to the likelihood that he duplicated some of his practices in areas that were also subject to U.S. DU “contamination”. And btw, could there possibly have been any movement of people away from areas that were unquestionably chemically attacked? (no, why in the world would they move?) Also, the vast body of professional physics and medical literature that would tend to rule out DU as a significant teratogen is not examined.
I can only assume that reference to the study “Miscarriage, stillbirth and congenital malformation in the offspring of UK veterans of the first Gulf war” is an example of balance being exercised by luminous beauty:
Conclusion….. We found no evidence for a link between paternal deployment to the Gulf war and increased risk of stillbirth, chromosomal malformations, or congenital syndromes. Associations were found between fathers’ service in the Gulf war and increased risk of miscarriage and less well-defined malformations, but these findings need to be interpreted with caution as such outcomes are susceptible to recall bias. The finding of a possible relationship with renal anomalies requires further investigation. There was no evidence of an association between risk of miscarriage and mothers’ service in the gulf.
At any rate, there’s obviously no conclusive evidence presented here to suggest that service in the gulf war has resulted in significant reproductive problems. Not that it would be that surprising if there were, after all, troops were subjected to a lot of extraordinary substances and pollutants, not to mention all the vaccinations they received. The mistake would be to assume that DU is at the top of the list of possible causes of problems, when it should be way down toward the bottom.
All I can say Nat is that your talent for cherry-picking only the words that support your position from an abstract, argumentum ad hominem, and post hoc ergo propter hoc are marvelously consistent.
Tell us again how Fireman Bill was supporting the fire caused collapse hypothesis of the WTC when he was explicitly criticizing it. I love that. It’s such a perfect example of irrational bias.
All I can say Nat is that your talent for cherry-picking only the words that support your position from an abstract, argumentum ad hominem, and post hoc ergo propter hoc are marvelously consistent.
That’s all you can say? You don’t find it odd that a paper purporting to determine the possible role of DU in teratogenicity glosses over far more probable causes of it, and ignores the likely possibility that the Iraq data it does choose to highlight has been fudged? Or that the only example of actual human inhalation/ingestion/insertion of DU into the human body (friendly fire) is barely even addressed?
Tell us again how Fireman Bill was supporting the fire caused collapse hypothesis of the WTC when he was explicitly criticizing it. I love that. It’s such a perfect example of irrational bias.
“However, respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers. Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time. Of course, in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced, this could remain just unexplored theory.” ......... Bill Manning Fire Engineering January 2002
Tell us again how Fireman Bill is criticizing his own theory. And tell us why a “scholar” such as Steven Jones would deliberately leave out the above bolded sentence from his rather selective reproduction in his report of Manning’s editorial. Tell us why EVERY 911 “truth” site does.
In English, please!
Natalie,
You say, “a paper purporting to determine the possible role of DU in teratogenicity glosses over far more probable causes of it.
This is what you call ‘glossing over’:
<blockquote>More generally, serious effort needs to be directed toward disentangling the role of DU from that of other potential teratogens in tandem with which DU exposure has frequently occurred. This task becomes less daunting, though more urgent, as the contexts in which DU munitions have been exploded increases. The identities of the “other potential teratogens” disbursed into the environment by the crash of an airplane carrying DU in a civilian area differ, at least somewhat, from those disbursed by DU fires in a combat zone. In response to “widespread distress” about crash-associated risk, a theoretical physics-based model of the 1992 event was developed. While that theoretical study did not include any assessment of the health status of the exposed population (and their offspring), the authors concluded that it was “improbable” that the DU that had burnt and aerosolized as a result of the crash precipitated health problems [69]. Such a purely theoretical approach seems inadequate, especially in light of the popular perception of a post-crash regional increase in malformed births [61]. Furthermore, associations documented in an unexpected context that cohere with findings of planned analyses are highly informative. Conversely, absence of observed associations in small, unexpectedly exposed populations would be less informative.
In addition to Socorro, New Mexico there are 50 other US sites where DU munitions are/have been developed, produced, tested. How many of these sites are located in areas where comprehensive birth defects registries exist? What about other countries? Could assays for DU biomarkers be done on groups of male and female parents of children with and without birth defects resident near such facilities?
For the Iraqi population the 1991 Gulf War was the prelude to various new exposures and circumstances that could be teratogenic
I hardly think your characterization is either fair or accurate.
You go on, ” ... ignores the likely possibility that the Iraq data it does choose to highlight has been fudged?”
Do you have any evidence of this beyond your hand-waving and politically biased speculation? Doesn’t the corroboration of Iraqi studies by non-Iraqi doctors count for anything?
“Gunther, S-H. Uran-Geschosse: Schwergeschaedigte Soldaten, missgebildete Neugeborene, sterbende Kinder Uranium Projectiles: Severely Maimed Soldiers, Deformed Babies, Dying Children. Projetiles d’uranium: Militaires gravement mutiles, nouveau-nes defformes, enfants mourants AHRIMAN-Verlag GmbH. Freibburg, Germany; 2000.”
Or is the fact that he was in country observing automatically discredit him, in your mind, as dupe? Wouldn’t be fair to mention that if Iraqi doctors had been forced to ‘fudge’ their studies, they would now be denouncing them? Contrarily, they are pleading for help in what they say are renewed problems with birth defects since GWII, exasperated by the degradation of medical resources since the invasion, and there is evidence the US government has been instrumental in halting UN WHO teams from entering Iraq to aid and investigate. Does this not indicate some warped bias on your side.
In the second study you comment on you quote the conclusion:
However if you examine the actual data, there are significant increases of <u>clinically confirmed</u> “less well defined malformations” . Very puzzling, that.
Still, they say further investigation is needed. Doesn’t this mean anything to you?
It is obvious there are many unanswered questions for which many people would like answers. You, apparently, are arguing we should just shut our traps and believe what the government is telling us, Everyone who asks questions or presents evidence, no matter their expertise or their sincerity, is in your mind ‘warped and biased’. Anyone who believes there are problems with DU are politically compromised because of association with others who believe there are problems with DU. Such is the circular reasoning you employ, yet we are to believe you are objective and the limited studies you cite are conclusive. Why?
As to Fireman Bill;
Here is the entire quote from Manning in Jones:
It should be obvious to even a casual reader that the emphasis here is not on the theory of fuel vs. content fires, but that the ” ‘official investigation’ ... is a half-baked farce”, and that “a full-throttle, fully resourced, forensic investigation is imperative.”
It is not at all clear in the entire quote from Manning’s article that he actually believes the content fire theory is tenable or not, only that it has “emerged” in light of the inadequacy the jet fuel theory. What is explicitly undeniable is that he believes, “...in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced, this could remain just unexplored theory.”
Your insistence on making the content fire theory the central point of Jones’ contention is a straw man.
The content fire theory is addressed elsewhere:
<blockquote>But here we note from the recent NIST report that:
Natalie,
You say, “a paper purporting to determine the possible role of DU in teratogenicity glosses over far more probable causes of it. This is what you call “glossing over”:
Wow, you’re really obfuscating my point. However, your reproduction of all those paragraphs of the report helps to sustain it. Which is, again, not that the report doesn’t make a weak case for a remote possibility of a connection between DU exposure and some birth defects, but that far more likely causes of birth defects, specifically chemical and/or radiological agents deployed by Saddam, and other factors important to consider, are referenced nowhere in the report.
If the author was engaged in a serious effort to find the true cause(s) of birth defects in Iraq or anywhere, she would not ignore this aspect. She would not ignore the medical history of DU friendly fire victims. She would not ignore the very real and common sense possibility that medical records from Basra were created a certain way acccording to orders, or perhaps with an eye toward pleasing their benevolent leader. This leads me to suspect that she is engaging in propaganda. Her associations with obvious propagandists are additional evidence of this.
I see little more than hopeful far-reaching speculation, in the authors analysis of selected studies, that DU is somehow the “common thread” to any specific medical problems of Iraqis or US/UK veterans. Point me to the smoking gun, if there is one.
Re-reading what you pasted, I see more subtle evidence that the author is not unbiased, contrary to her claim of having no competing interests:
For the Iraqi population the 1991 Gulf War was the prelude to various new exposures and circumstances that could be teratogenic—sanctions-induced deprivations such as poverty, malnutrition and degradation of the health care infrastructure. But such circumstances, without specific chemical or radiologic exposures, do not lead to the observed pattern of increasing rates for classes of congenital malformations, notwithstanding the fact that malnutrition does contribute to certain birth defects. If a comparable birth defects registry (1990 - 2000) were available for births in a section of northern Iraq not exposed to DU bombardment, it could help distinguish between war-induced and post-war exposures.
So, we see that Rita buys into all of Saddam’s propaganda, assuming without question that all Iraq’s problems were the fault of the sanctions, and not the way Saddam prioritized what was still allowed him. Reading this paragraph you’d think you were a student in an Iraqi government school. Total whitewash of history. No chemical or radiological exposure? We don’t even raise the possibility? When speaking of Northern Iraq, it’s like she’s operating in some alternative reality, where well known cases of chemical attack simply never happened.
I hardly think your characterization is either fair or accurate.
I think I was being too charitable. The more I read the report, the more I realize that it’s a nothing more than a fancy shmancy piece of propaganda, masquerading as a valid scientific endeavor.
more later…....must go on trip for a few days.
I’m sorry Nat, but epidemiological studies don’t work in the way that you seem to think that they should. They are primarily interested in trying to remove wheat from the chaff in the attempt to isolate a single causal factor in a given phenomenon. In the case in point, what is the effect of DU poisoning within the reported health problems that do exist. Synergistic effects of multiple causes is the topic for a different paper after some appropriate values for comparison are available from the accumulated evidence. You are putting the cart before the horse. It is obvious, your ideological blinders see propaganda where sincerely objective attempts to understand one particular part of a complex problem are at play.
The subtlety of your evidence is so subtle as to be undiscernable. I really don’t understand the meaning you give to the statements you highlight. It seems you are giving them a significance contrary to their context, which is the difficulty of making hard and fast conclusions without more discriminating data. Are you saying that sanctions related health problems didn’t exist? Is the fact that the researchers don’t make claims as to where the fault for those problems lies really evidence of bias? A very odd and intrinsically biased conclusion. You are not trying to understand what is happening so much as evading blame by trying to pin it on others who are merely pointing out the problem. A classic case of psychological projection of sub-conscious guilt.
My recollection of Baathist propaganda is that they were more concerned with minimizing the effects of sanctions. They were essentially denying the high child mortality and general health-care problems, and were more involved in the building of monumental edifices to display how strong they still were in spite of the destruction of the first Gulf War. It was NGOs who were crying in the wilderness raising concerns about the deleterious effects of sanctions on the Iraqi populace to whom Saddam was typically showing callous indifference. It is right-wing propaganda that painted such concerns as being pro-Saddam. Do you deny that your side engages in propaganda? If you have some primary sourced evidence contemporary of the period to show you are not engaging in a willful re-writing of history, I’d be willing to look at it.
I’m sorry Nat, but epidemiological studies don’t work in the way that you seem to think that they should. They are primarily interested in trying to remove wheat from the chaff in the attempt to isolate a single causal factor in a given phenomenon.
Understood, however, why do the authors speculate, as if confused, as to why would all these defects would be showing up in the absence of “specific chemical or radiologic exposures”, as per my quoting of them above in my previous post. They are ignoring reports (and common sense) that there were indeed such exposures. This study is not entirely clinical in nature, it engages in much discussion as to causes. So when I suspect bias, it is because it is selective in said discussion, and that is also why I don’t rate this as a true “epidemiological study”, although it certainly gives that initial appearance. Rather, it is a selective report on a lot of other reports, and its discussion and speculation ignore extremely relevant aspects.
It is obvious, your ideological blinders see propaganda where sincerely objective attempts to understand one particular part of a complex problem are at play.
No, they are NOT objective attempts, as I have demonstrated. THEY are the ones who have the blinders on. THEY are the ones who ignore tons of authoritative information that makes their attempt to blame DU for any malady anywhere, unfounded.
Are you saying that sanctions related health problems didn’t exist? Is the fact that the researchers don’t make claims as to where the fault for those problems lies really evidence of bias? A very odd and intrinsically biased conclusion. You are not trying to understand what is happening so much as evading blame by trying to pin it on others who are merely pointing out the problem. A classic case of psychological projection of sub-conscious guilt.
What are you, some kind of shrink? :-) I have simply pointed out, that in addition to ignoring Saddam’s chemical and radiological attacks on his own people, the authors also neglect to implicate him for his role in deciding priorities during sanctions. Not conclusive by itself, but seemingly a pattern. Evading blame? Who’s really evading blame? I would say that it’s the authors of this report, on behalf of Saddam Hussein.
cont….....
pg. 2
My recollection of Baathist propaganda is that they were more concerned with minimizing the effects of sanctions.
My recollection is different. In addition to NGOs and others whining about the effects of sanctions and of course ignoring the real culprit, Saddam’s regime was the most potent cheerleader, for it was best positioned to manufacture false propaganda. No doubt that Saddam was concerned with looking strong and defiant for his people and other Arab nations, but he was also engaged in evoking sympathy for, and falsely assigning blame for, problems HE created by putting his own power and health/wealth WAY above that of his people.
There’s getting to be quite a pattern here regarding responsibility for the events of 9/11, and for the well-being of the Iraqi people. It was not Islamic murderers that were responsible for the towers falling, it was the United States. It was not Saddam and his Baathist regime that was responsible for supposed 500,000 dead Iraqi babies, it was of course the sanctions. It was not the effects of chemical and radiological weapons used by Saddam, and the resulting extreme stress that were responsible for alleged birth defects in Iraq, it had to be the DU.
You folks don’t want to be thought of as Saddam / terrorist apologists, but you then behave in an identical manner to someone who indeed is.
If you have some primary sourced evidence contemporary of the period to show you are not engaging in a willful re-writing of history, I’d be willing to look at it.
I hope you’re willing to look at this. It is certainly primary sourced, and refers to the period in question. There wasn’t a whole lot of Internet going on in 1991, so news reports of the day will have to be found by someone with access to more expensive cataloguing services than I can afford. (LexisNexis) Or, at last resort, a library.
Doctors in Baghdad have revealed that the ‘dead baby parades’ frequently used by Saddam Hussein’s regime to embarrass the West were a cynical charade.
A staple of Saddam Hussein’s propaganda machine for a decade, the ‘parades’ involved using convoys of taxis, with the tiny coffins of dead infants strapped to their roofs - allegedly killed by United Nations sanctions - being driven through the streets of Baghdad, past crowds of women screaming anti-Western slogans.
The moving scenes were often filmed by visiting television crews and provided valuable ammunition to anti-sanctions activists such as British Labour MP George Galloway, who blamed Western governments for the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children…....
....... Dr Amer Abdul al-Jalil, the deputy resident at the hospital, said: “Sanctions did not kill these children - Saddam killed them. The internal sanctions by the regime were very effective. Those who died prematurely usually died because their mothers lived in impoverished areas neglected by the government.” (©Telegraph, London)
To not suspect that Basra birth defect records are tainted is to be downright obtuse. Rita, call your office.
Nat,
A simple question:
If Basra records are suspicious, is the proper course to try to ascertain through diligent investigation whether they are or not reasonably accurate, or dismiss them out of hand and believe for a fact they are wildly inaccurate merely on the basis of your suspicions?
luminous asked:
“If Basra records are suspicious, is the proper course to try to ascertain through diligent investigation whether they are or not reasonably accurate, or dismiss them out of hand and believe for a fact they are wildly inaccurate merely on the basis of your suspicions?”
I would be all for the UN, the W.H.O., the Royal Society, RAND, anyone who are genuine, relevant, accredited degree-holding, unbiased professionals going in and investigating the heck out of Basra, Bahgdad, or wherever. Interestingly, the W.H.O. offered to come in and determine the cause of alleged illnesses in 1998, but Saddam refused. You can choose to give him the benefit of the doubt as to his motivations for refusing, but based on his past record, I choose to not.
However there’s no reason to believe that results from investigating Iraq would be any different from those obtained in Kosovo, or those from gulf war DU victims, that is, precious little evidence will be found to link DU to anything, other than to perhaps fear.
It’s not accurate to say that I’ve stated fact based only on my suspiciouns. It is accurate that I’ve expressed substantial doubt about the reliability of information coming out of Saddam’s Iraq, especially concerning a likely avenue of exploitation, and I’ve provided independent evidence to back up my reasoning.
You have basically buoyed what has been my point from day one on this issue, with the studies you highlighted. Which is, that while there may be some small risk from exposure to DU in certain unlikely circumstances, there is no reason to believe outlandish and ghoulish claims about its connection to birth defects, cancer, or any other illness. In addition to well-established knowledge of the physical properties of both natural and depleted uranium, there have been numerous, large-scale investigations into their effects on human physiology by both government and non-government entities with similar negative results, independent of the absence of reliable data from Iraq.
To directly answer your question, yes, the preferred and proper course is diligent investigation, if and when that is possible. I would welcome it, with the hope that the real culprit behind illnesses and deaths in Iraq will become obvious and undeniable.
Nat,
If the results of rigorous investigation show, contrary to your hopes, that inhalation of micro-sized uranium dust does contribute to serious health problems, then what will you say?
Natty
always amusing to see you in “sweet reasonable” mode .
In another age you would have been debating how many angels could have danced on the head of a pin, or calling for someone to be burned at the stake, but now we have you as an arch-defender of the US DoD and the mad murderer GWB.
“Diligent investigation” my arse . The DoD ain’t even thinking eventually one day perhaps ever going to do any of that. You admit that multiple vaccinations may have had something to do with subsequent problems, therefore not DU-caused, but fail to draw the consequences of your own statement. No DoD research, yet again.
Denis Halliday and Hans von Sponeck resigned from well-paying jobs at the UN in Iraq. Why ?
Some of my friends believe you are a paid shill, well it is either that or you are a little crazy, because your tooth and claw defence against every criticism of Bushworld is worthy of a highly paid and unscrupulous defence lawyer, or a fanatic.
Well , 29% of amerricans still think GWB is doing a good job, I’d love to know what a bad job looks like.
If the results of rigorous investigation show, contrary to your hopes, that inhalation of micro-sized uranium dust does contribute to serious health problems, then what will you say?
Then I will say I am sorry and that I was wrong, obviously. Fortunately, I will be in good company. Hundreds of highly qualified professionals in the fields of radiation/health/physics/ will be sorry as well.
But I don’t expect that to be the case, and of course biased pseudo-science is not admissible.
What will it take to convince you that you might be wrong, and that you have helped contribute to a myth that has done great damage to our country? Will you be sorry that you have helped to mislead thousands of unsophisticated and easily brain-washed muslim youths, and given them one more misguided reason to kill or maim innocent people?
Will you be sorry that you have unwarrantably scared veterans into thinking that they are hopelessly poisoned by radiation and should expect to die a painful and premature death, and made them fear the consequences of having children? Will you be sorry that you have distracted sufferers of gulf war syndrome from finding what might be the *real cause of their problems?
* No sign of 2003 war syndrome
By Nic Fleming, Medical Correspondent
(Filed: 16/05/2006)
The apparent lack of post-conflict symptoms in troops who served in Iraq supports the view that vaccines and anti-nerve agents were to blame for Gulf War Syndrome, scientists said yesterday.
Researchers found no significant increases in mental and physical health problems in soldiers deployed against Saddam Hussein’s forces three years ago.
In the second of two studies of the health of veterans published today Professor Simon Wessely of King’s College London examined the health of 3,600 British regular soldiers deployed in the 2003 Iraq war and 4,300 non-deployed colleagues.
Prof Wessely said: “Is there an Iraq war syndrome? The answer is no, at least not yet.”
The findings indicated that factors common to the wars against Iraq in 1991 and 2003, such as the use of depleted uranium in shells and pesticides, were unlikely to be the main cause of Gulf War Syndrome.
Hi to all the shiny ones.
Is there enough fried Bat for a rabbit to have a small piece? Perhaps a leg or a wing?
Notice I do that Natalie still refuses to prove she isn’t Natalie Helbig.
Your Daddy was on ICH spruiking for the Uranium Death again, Batty Nat. He got totally rolled of course. But then she probably knew that, they will have communicated at one of the re-education sessions they attended together. You’ve been getting new program lately haven’t you shill? Your mob of propagandists has a little trick up its sleeve about the Pentagon, and you gave the game away yourself some time ago. Too bad for you it won’t help. I’m not even commenting on the big nothing which was released after all the fanfare as if it was going to be something significant by the way. 911 was an inside job and most of the world knows it now.
The more the controlled media tries to spin and fight any truthful look at things the more people are realising 911 is a lie. Once the credibility is lost, any further attempts to crank the machine only results in more people reconsidering what they’ve bought before.
The 911 lie has finally gotten caught in a catch 22 of it’s own making.
The more they now try to prop up a disintegrating story, the more obvious it is that it needs propping up. If indeed there was any chance of the official lie gaining pre-eminence, then it would have been gaining, not losing ground. The same can be said of the deliberate coverups and lies about depleted uranium of which you are an active participant Natalie. Rabbit still mainatins the possibility is strong that Natalie is a Helbig. Did you get the email the rabbit sent the other day? If that wasn’t you dear bat, then why did Rabbit get no response? It was read I know that.
As for what sort of money you make, we wouldn’t really know, but then maybe you are actually making a subtle boast? You see there is nothing in any of the info about this person which suggests she should be making big money anyway. Hell, Rabbit has friends in Academia who have far more impressive contributions than that bureacratic twaddle being peddled by Natalie Helbig, yet they are not well paid. The interesting thing is the perfecttion of the placement. You are a shill, we know that. You have performed the duties of a shill without any deviation. You have followed the US government Shills handbook to the letter, you still do. Natalie Helbig is a Shill for government, that would certainly seem to be a fair reading of her profile.
Anyway, you must prove you are not Natalie Helbig!
Iraq had to PROVE it didn’t have WMDs, Your pig masters are demanding Iran must PROVE they are not trying to build Nukes, (why when they are so easy to buy I wonder), and Natty the weird glowing moon Bat of endless death is required forthwith to prove she isn’t Natalie Helbig. Anyway you are. AND your internet profile is not very impressive. If you are paid anything at all on the basis of that bit of dribble then you should consider yourself lucky.
The bat is a bit stringy, I think we’ve overcooked it a bit guys.
Natty quotes
“Those who died prematurely usually died because their mothers lived in impoverished areas neglected by the government.”
That could as truthfully be written about the USA and thus Bush given “credit” directly for the deaths of babies in the USA.
The fact remains that sanctions killed half a million or more, and this was acknowledged by the US administration and is an established fact even in the media la la land which is a result of a controlled media.
Just chewing on the fried bat here, obviously nothing too serious being contributed. Lume you are absolutely firing on all eight cyliners on these two issues and deserve more than the cravenness of our Natalie as a reward.
Rabbit salutes the excellence of the contribution to both 911 and DU, especially the context, a few savings in favorites there thanks.
If on the internet we were able to apply electric shocks to each other upon winning a debating point, and further supposing we had web cams to observe each other, then Natalie would by now be just a black crispy thing hanging from the ceiling.
Much like what happens to innocents who get caught up in the warmongering death and destruction ofr which Natalie is some sort of sick and unholy cheerleader.
Sometimes Rabbit in his spiritual empathy is able to discern for a moment the true karmic significance of the words and intentions of Natty the poisoned Bat and is left shivering in anticipation of the flames she will endure. The rude pleasure the grim satisfaction makes me feel like a rather wicked rabbit for a moment.
In truth the rabbit may watch her cooking over the flames for an hour or two before begginning to feel some sympathy when the time comes.
The gruesome photos linked to above are real, they as well as the testimony of the doctors and witnesses and victims is more than enough evidence to convince a court of law, in any jurisdiction. We may have to wait awhile but eventually the courts will convene, and when they do Natty and Co can grizzle about not being convinced all they like.
The rope will not care.
I sincerly believe one of the skills all good survivalists should learn is how to make a proper hangmans noose! Should these beasts and their beast servants be allowed to escape if in the end the whole ship sinks and we are reduced in civilization and technology? NO we should be prepared to round them up in the event we can’t stop them in time, round up the ones who were responsible and hang them.
Summarily if necessary. Thjey must be eliminated, as many as possible and thus we may hope to somehow give our race a better chance the next time it manages to rise up and reach for the stars. Maybe just maybe the problem is genetic and if we are reduced in numbers anyway from their efforts, the chance of reducing their genetic heritage will be greater.
Natty the rhetorical Bat, would you care to list any <u>damage</u> that the majority of us who resist the use of depleted uranium weapons have caused the USA?
This crappy line has been bandied about by rightwing dickheads now for a while, but it leaves me bemused every time? How many lives have been lost? How many Cancers and how many Birth defects can be potentially even, attributed to those who oppose the use of Dirty Bombs and Bullets?
Illegal Weapons of mass and indiscrimiante destruction, that’s the definition of Depleted Uranium Weapons under International Treaties.
How many wounded are there because of our opposition to the stuff and how much of the environment has been damaged? (let alone poisoned for billions of years) How long will the effects of our opposition be experienced due to deformed births, cancers and other diseases? Just a rough figure if you like.
As for the last bit of your post. You are a complete dildo. Anyone who is trying to make the conclusion you highlight in bold is also.
Prof Wessely said: “Is there an Iraq war syndrome? The answer is no, at least not yet.â€
NOT YET is about right, and the fact that he said it so tells its own story you poxed reptile heart.
Depleted Uranium Poisoning has an effective incubation period of about 4-5 years.
Therefore a study which occurs no more than three years after the latest Nuclear Holocaust in and since 2003, is of absolutely NO worth! Zilch, ZERO, Zippo. NIL dear dil.
You are either a fool or you presume to suppose we are.
More NON Rense sources, just for Natalie How many independant sources is that now? Rabbit has posted reference to at least seven hundred, maybe closer to one thousand sources in the past year or two, to you, which unanimously conclude the toxicity of Depleted Uranium weapons. No exaggeration. Want to deny it BAT? Just try, I’ll unload the lot in the next post after. Here is a start, at leasts the first six hundred. If you have any doubt that this is the shill from hell, nice Frog, dare to delv into this one.
True some of these 1000 have ALSO been referenced by the NEWS site Rense, Natty has this idea that if Rense recognises it then Rip Rense must have written it or something. She still hasn’t logged onto the realisation of independant news sources.
In the interests of serious scientific analysis, despite Natty’s protests, some more studies of Reproductive and developmental toxicity of natural and depleted uranium. Just mice of course but they are not much different to Rabbits or Bats. Oh and “look Ma, no Rense”
There is a very good reason that Natalie is able to discard all evidence and studies and reports and articles out of hand, and rabbit is surprised really that we still bother, any of us. She has long since made it clear that all our sources are completely BIASED. They are all either emphatically or implicitly ANTI-BUSH. This means they cannot possibly be truthful since their only desire in the world is to bring down BUSH> Isn’t that right Natty? They and of course we are all anti Bushites which of course means we would say anything to harm him.
Until any of us can produce a source who is positively PRO BUSH but which decries either the laughable fantasy of 911 or admit the long since predicted and now documented fdact of Deplted Uranium poisoning, we are wasting our time.
The window of opportunity for such a witness is also closing quickly. Already one would be required to search among the dwindling 25% supporters.
Not because we need any more proof that the truth is in, but as more of the studies come to light and especially noting the four to five year time period before the true effects were noticed is presented the following.
DEPLETED URANIUM AND HEALTH OF PEOPLE IN BASRAH: AN EPIDE-MIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE.
What does a NUKED BAT look like?
Lume has of course got the needed tools for the Bat trap? Rabbit is quite sure these studies are saved in his faves, but suspects Lume has better ones?
See you tomorrow, here it’s night. Hoping for a more tenderised piece of bat tomorrow.
Nat,
Very gracious of you to admit you’d be so very contrite, yet still proud of your self and your company, if found wrong. No mention of responsibility for the very real and very horrific suffering these weapons may have inflicted upon innocent populations.
On the other hand, you think if I am proven wrong (meaning, I suppose, that I believe what you apparently believe I believe, that the dangers of exposure to DU dust are already proven true, and not what I actually believe; which is that there are, from my own humble reading of a broad sampling of the available literature, serious unanswered questions, and there is, as yet not seriously rebutted by established empirical methods of falsification, credible real world evidence of the toxicity of DU dust) I should accept responsibility for some mythical damage that my mere questioning of the conventional wisdom has somehow inflicted upon the US, responsibility for the fear and uncertainty of service people seeking explanations for their as yet unexplained and often officially unacknowledged health problems, and even responsibility for giving aid and comfort to our presumed enemies. Wow! Did I mention projection? I think I did.
Actually, if ever such open, transparent, complete and reliable studies are ever done, I will feel only relief that the pursuit of truth has been honorably served, regardless of the final conclusions. Unlike you, I believe this can only be done by honestly examining all sides of every question, on the basis of empirical verification and rigorous analysis of the physical evidence, and not by acrimoniously excluding those with whom I disagree on mere political grounds, or by touting limited and inconclusive studies as being, in fact, comprehensive and conclusive. What’s with that?
It won’t mean I will admit that skepticism of opaque and marginally accountable governmental secrecy is, in this case or any other, unwarranted. I’m afraid that can only happen if all such opaque secrecy is finally and verifiably dismantled and universally abandoned. Or, perhaps, under the administration of torture or the threat of torture to those I love. I am, after all, only human.
Froggy, you are overly focused on the DOD. In addition to military studies, several other government and non-government scientific organizations all over the world have all concluded that DU is not much of a danger at all.
You make an astute observation in that hey, the military blew it on vaccinations, so why trust it on DU? It’s apples and oranges, though, because uranium is a long-known quantity, and its (non) effect on humans has been studied and documented for decades. I don’t think the same could be said about the vaccinations ...... this is where anger and resources should be directed, even though it’s far less glamorous.
And yes, I know, the aerosol aspect is the current focus of those fantasizing that the world is being irradiated and mutated by blowing winds and glowing dust, but the quantities are miniscule, and the radioactivity is extremely weak.
I would wager that the resignations of Halliday and von Sponeck were not entirely for honorable reasons, given that there was a lot of money to be had for assisting Iraq in ending the sanctions. Plus, the oil for food program they helped administer was a hopelessly corrupt mess, and they probably knew it. Time to bail? What’s your take on it?
As for GWB’s approval ratings, they’re pretty much on par with most US president’s lows at some point in their terms:
Johnson: 35%
Nixon: 24%
Ford: 37%
Carter: 28%
Reagan: 35%
Bush I: 29%
Clinton: 37%
I hear France’s leaders don’t rate so high these days, either. I’d be pissed too if I learned I might not be entitled to a job for life no matter what!
lume,
Sorry if I misinterpreted your position. Perhaps we’re really not that far apart on the issue, as I’m sure you’re not blind to the consensus in the scientific community that would contrast with much of what has been put forth by those arguing against DU.
I’m not against further study, but on the other hand, there HAS been a lot of study. Don’t you think it’s somewhat of a red herring to use the fact that there has been some reluctance by the military to provide information, in order to characterize the whole “pro DU” argument as being somehow limited and inconclusive? There have been substantial studies/evaluations done by the prestigious (I gather) Royal Society, the W.H.O., RAND, the UNEP*, the National Institutes of Health/National Academy of Sciences, The European Commission, the CDC, The U.S. National Defense Research Institute, and others.
My main point, again, is that this issue and any possible debate on it has been poisoned by overblown and in many cases wholly invented claims put forth by ridiculously biased individuals that have no real motivation other than to hobble the ability of anyone to use military force for any reason anywhere anytime. The web is overflowing with their nonsense, and a lot of people fail to recognize it for the propaganda that it is.
I’m not saying that’s you, and I remember you agreeing with this in a limited way, but you seemed to welcome their antics as a mechanism to get “further study”.
The problem in my mind with these tactics, is that their toxic and, thanks to the web, prolific nature do great unwarranted PR damage, and end up inflaming emotions unjustly. Their indoctrinating style is such that even if DU is further proven relatively harmless by however much further study is done, people exposed to the propaganda will remain unmoved.
Please discuss further whether you really believe it is helpful or even wise to employ emotional scare-tactics based on untruths or exaggeration, in order to get what you want.
* A report on the UNEP’s findings:
The team, led by physical chemist Pier Roberto Danesi, former director of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA’s) laboratory in Siebersdorf, Austria, confirmed that some patches of soil from known impact sites in Kosovo are tainted with DU. But the amounts, the team maintains, are so tiny that the radioactivity poses virtually no cancer risk. Moreover, Danesi’s group found no evidence of elevated plutonium levels in the soil. Their findings jibe with those of other bodies, including the U.K.‘s Royal Society and the European Union, that have surveyed the DU literature. “There is a consensus now that DU does not represent a health threat”, says Danesi. The latest findings, asserts radiochemist Corrado Testa of the University of Urbino in Italy, “confirm that there is no risk from DU.”
They found that in the most contaminated places, a few milligrams of soil could contain hundreds of thousands of DU particles,—but still not a high enough concentration to elevate cancer risk, Danesi says. Plutonium levels in the Kosovo soil—about 1 becquerel per kilogram—accorded with global levels of fallout from atmospheric nuclear tests. For comparison, soil levels in the Alps, near Salzburg, are nine times as high, thanks to Chornobyl. “As far as the plutonium is concerned, you could feed this soil to someone and he’d be fine,” Danesi says. His team will elaborate on its findings in companion articles in the December [2002] issue of the Journal of Environmental Radioactivity. [M]aintains Testa, “for me this is a false problem. We could be spending money on more urgent problems”—toxic solvents, heavy metals, and organic pollutants, to name a few, he says.
Yes, many, many far more urgent problems.
As usual give the Bat a millimeter and it sets up for a long race.
Natty the whole angle of discussion about Uranium Munitions is being falsely presented by YOU as having to do with its gamma radiation.
For the benefit of viewers at home, I will point out that the danger comes not from Gamma radiation which is admittedly minimal. The real horror of Depleted Uranium Weapons is the Alpha and Beta radiation. This would seem to be extraordinary for such radiation is stopped by even clothing, and certainly hasn’t any real danger past a few millimeters.
The answer to why the stuff is a BANNED CHEMICAL WEAPON, comes from the unique toxicity of Uranium particles. Especially in the form of Ceramic Uranium Oxide Vapours. These partciles are small enough to actually enter the body through inspiration after which they are in fact of precisely the small size necessary to enter cells. There, in direct contact with the cell, the Alpha and Beta radiation which is worst because of its low levels. If the radiation was stronger it would simply kill the cell, but unfortunately this is not what happens. The Nano sized particles emit radiation which alters the DNA of the cell, and the Uranium particle never stops emitting that radiation and it never leaves the body. The result is of course totally predictable and the studies have been referenced above which support the contention. Cancers, Leukeamias etc.
The first and most obvious cancer effects are Lung Cancer not surprisingly and these cancers have been soaring everywhere Uranium Munitions have been deployed. This cancer will be the first to be expected, other types will take longer. The worst of them will have appeared within about ten years though others will continue for the rest of the subjects lives. In fact it is unlikely the places exposed will ever see a return to previous levels of Birth defects and stillbirths as well as previous much lower rates of cancer in the population.
You are furthermore deliberately misrepresenting the doubt about what actually is causing the effects observed in Gulf War Syndrome. There is no credible way of arguing that there can be much doubt about whether or not it is the DU. The answer was given above in the quote by Lume.
The same sorts of abnormalities and disease being experienced by Gulf War Vets, there and here in Oz too by the way, are being experienced by the Iraqi population in those areas hardest hit with Uranium Munitions…..AND THEY DIDN’T GET ANY VACCINATIONS, HENCE THE VACINATIONS CAN BE RULED OUT AS BEING THE LIKELY CAUSE.
Trying to debate any sort of science with you is a complete waste of time. Either you know absolutely nothing about science, or you presume that nobody else does. Most people who completed high school should be quite capable of following the science and medicine involved, it isn’t complex. You pretend that it is, and keep on saying that, but it is simple, the stuff was known to be a deadly poison way back when they had yet to build the first Atom bombs and it is recorded in history that the Americans were intending to use Uranium as a dirty bomb at least if they failed to be able to get a Fission reaction happening. There was no doubt in 1947 that Uranium, vaporised, is a deadly weapon of mass and indiscriminate destruction.
We are in 2006, mad bat, even school kids today can explain the effects of nano sized radioactive particles on cells. They certainly can understand it.
Unlike Lume, I am not prepared to pander to you. I do understand the chemistry, and even if there was not a massive amount of solid evidence which proves the dangers beyond any doubt, I would have no problem knowing it to be true. The science is just not that complex. You pretending it is, is only degrading your own profile though exactly how you could get any lower than a known government shill for Depleted Uranium and the lies about 911 is a puzzle.
I’m sure you’ll show us how. You are the queen of duplicity for sure.
By the way, isn’t it good to know you have NEVER had a single supporter of any substance, in one, is it two years? You are not only stupid, a liar and a beast of murder, you are also the most singularly unsuccessful debater on this forum.
Ignoring the taunts of the rabbit doesn’t make them go away either you moonbat. Just shows your paucity of character.
By the way little flitter flatter Bat, funny you mention those Presidntial poll comparisons. Those were the polls which preceded the demise of each of those who are down there in the below 30’s. In Bush’s case he has still got enough time to reach the lowest of any President ever. I expect to see him in the teens eventually. Just before you get full martial law. After that, I guess we’ll be seeing reports of 100% support again eh?
Lume Natty thinks you and she are not too far removed in opinion about DU. Is that so?
Oh just to show what a non issue Depleted Uranium is NOT, even when it’s not being made into dirty bombs and blown about the world, consider this.
The most substantial political debate is currently underway in OZ, and it is hotting up fast. Australia is considering selling our Uranium further afield after having been very conservative about doing so in the past. Oz has major Uranium resources of course. The problem is that we are being asked to take back the Depleted Uranium. This is simply not something anybody, with a few exceptions is even prepared to consider doing. NO fucking way is the response in public and at a political level.
Now why would that be if it is so safe? This won’t even be getting vaporised over the countryside. Oh no, this depleted uranium will of course be in special storage and buried deep underground. The answer is still NO FUCKING WAY! Now why would that be if it is so safe?
The answer is there as plain as the evil in your foul soul Natalie.
I wish you a long journey to the end of a short rope one day.
The final sentence of the evil Bat, claiming other more urgent problems is a joke. What could be more serious and urgent than the creeping Nuclear Holocaust the beast men are engaging in?
The following is revision but should be mentioned again, since Natty seems to forget how simple is the science and what is known.
This is excerpted from <u>Contamination of Persian Gulf War Veterans and Others by Depleted Uranium</u> by Leonard A. Dietz
(last updated in 1999.)
Pathways of DU and Its Radiations into the Body
Routes of intake or pathways of uranium particles into the body include the respiratory tract, the gastrointestinal tract and the skin, through abrasions or wounds. The International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP) has developed a biokinetic model that describes the behavior of uranium within the human body (Ref. 29). The model takes into account aerosol particle size, chemical form, and the excretion rates of absorbed uranium from individual vital organs and bones. Radioactive particles reach the gastrointestinal tract by ingestion and by transfer from the respiratory tract. The model shows that for an acute intake of uranium aerosol particles of uranium dioxide or U3O8, urinary excretion of the inhaled uranium can continue for years.
Exposure to gamma rays emitted from DU is another pathway into the body. Crews are exposed to the equivalent of one chest X-ray for every 20-30 hours they spend in an Abrams tank armed with DU ammunition (Ref. 30). The U.S. Army measured a gamma dose rate of 250 millirems per hour at the surface of a penetrator (Ref. 31). This dose rate is consistent with the 233 millirads per hour dose rate for an unspecified mass of DU listed on a U.S. Department of Labor Material Safety Data Sheet issued to Nuclear Metals, Inc. (Ref. 32). For gamma rays, the rad and rem dose units are equal. At body contact, the 250 millirems per hour is equivalent to a dose rate of up to approximately 50 chest X-rays per hour. Whole penetrators or large fragments of penetrators fired from tank cannon and left on a battlefield have this amount of surface radioactivity.
(29) International Commission on Radiation Protection Publication 54, book, Individual Monitoring for Intakes of Radionuclides by Workers: Design and Interpretation, Pergamon Press, 1988.
(30) Bukowski, G. and Lopez, D. A., Uranium Battlefields Home & Abroad: Depleted Uranium Use by the U.S. Department of Defense , March, 1993, p. 50.
(31) Skogman, D. P., Headquarters, U.S. Army Armament, Munitions and Chemical Command, Rock Is., IL 61299, May 24, 1991, photocopy of document in Uranium Battlefields Home & Abroad: Depleted Uranium Use by the U.S. Department of Defense, by Bukowski, G. and Lopez, D. A., p. 98.
(32) Bukowski, G. and Lopez, D. A., see pp. 131-132 for photocopy of Material Safety Data Sheet, op. cit.
How the U.S. Military Views the Safety of DU Munitions
In a letter to Senator Sam Nunn, a representative of the U.S. Air Force stated, “...these projectiles are no more hazardous to store, transport, or employ than those composed of lead or copper” (Ref. 39). This view is echoed in the U.S. Army report to Congress that states, “The health risks associated with using DU in peacetime are minimal. This includes risks associated with transporting, storing and handling intact DU munitions and armor during peacetime” (Ref. 40). Neither the Air Force nor the Army has publicly presented an analysis of the health risks to soldiers and to others who inhale or ingest radioactive fallout particles of DU, or the health risks of living in an environment contaminated with DU after these munitions have been fired: these are the real safety issues they ignore. Furthermore, a General Accounting Office report to Congress states, “...Army officials believe that DU protective methods can be ignored during battle and other life-threatening situations because DU-related health risks are greatly outweighed by the risks of combat” (Ref. 41). The Army must know that it would be extremely difficult to provide breathing masks that can efficiently remove all of the respirable DU particles from air breathed by soldiers. Even if highly efficient air filters are used by troops, their surroundings will still be contaminated. The surface of the ground, vegetation, equipment, uniforms and other garments contaminated with DU particles will become secondary sources of airborne DU aerosols whenever they are disturbed or moved, thereby presenting an insurmountable radiological containment and decontamination problem on the battlefield. In the AEPI report, (Ref. 42) the Army judges it an acceptable risk if its personnel become exposed in an unprotected fashion to the combustion products of fired DU munitions on the battlefield or elsewhere. This report contains much technical information about DU, but many of the assertions and conclusions in the report are not supported by the technical and scientific data presented. A rebuttal to the AEPI report pointing out some major inconsistencies in the Army report has been published by the Military Toxics Project (Ref. 43).
The three references cited above clearly indicate that the U.S. military’s concern for the safety of DU munitions ends at the muzzle of the cannon. Whatever happens becomes someone else’s problem after a round is fired and its DU metal penetrator strikes armor, partially burns up and injects a huge number of chemically poisonous, radioactive DU aerosol particles into the atmosphere.
(39) Washabaugh, Lt. Col. W. M., U.S. Air Force, Congressional Inquiry Div., Office of Legislative Liaison, letter to Sen. Sam Nunn, Chm. Senate Armed Services Comm., Nov. 8, 1990.
(40) Summary Report to Congress, p. 3, op. cit.
(41) Operation Desert Storm, p. 4, op. cit.
(42) “Health and Environmental Consequences of Depleted Uranium Use in the U.S. Army: Technical Report,” op. cit.
(43) “Radioactive Battlefields of the 1990s, the United States Army’s use of Depleted Uranium and Its Consequences for Human Health and the Environment,” by the Military Toxics Project’s Depleted Uranium Citizens’ Network, January 16, 1996.
(44) Summary Report to Congress, p. 2, op. cit.
(45) Helmkamp, J. C., “United States Military Casualty Comparison During the Persian Gulf War,” Journal of Occupational Medicine, Vol. 36, June 6, 1994, p. 614.
(46) Flanders, L., “Mal de Guerre,” The Nation (magazine), March 7, 1994, p. 292.
Exposure of U.S. Soldiers and Illnesses in Their Families
Thirty-six U.S. soldiers, including 22 with embedded fragments of DU in their bodies, have sought or reported for medical treatment (Ref. 44). They were in vehicles hit by DU munitions. Another report states there were 35 casualties and 72 wounded in crews of U.S. tanks and Bradley Fighting vehicles in so-called “friendly fire” incidents (Ref. 45). This includes the 36 above and is the total number of service personnel officially admitted to have been exposed to significant quantities of DU aerosol dust and DU fragments during the fighting.
On an NBC Dateline program, (Ref. 6) Sgt. Daryll Clark describes how he and twelve others were in an advanced position in the desert when someone radioed them that 20 Iraqi tanks were approaching his forward radar unit. He called for air support, and shortly a flight of A-10 Warthogs arrived and destroyed all of the tanks with DU-tipped 30-mm cannon rounds. Clark describes how he and the men with him were coughing and choking on smoke from the burning tanks, but mixed with it was DU aerosol dust, which he and the others breathed. He has had chronic respiratory problems since the war and his daughter Kennedy was born in September 1992 with purple welts called hemangioma covering not only her face and body, but some internal organs as well. Kennedy has serious breathing problems and was born without a thyroid. Clark stated that a geneticist told him that he could have ingested some radiation and that it could affect sperm cells. Almost three years after his exposure to DU, Clark’s urine tested positive for uranium.
Army nurse 1st. Sgt. Carol Picou also is featured in the NBC documentary. She and seven other women in her medical team were in a forward position, ahead of the main U.S. forces and surrounded by burning Iraqi tanks and vehicles when they stopped and became exposed to DU from the burning destroyed Iraqi armor. Doctor Thomas Callender of Lafayette, Louisiana has examined Picou and said on the program that her outcome bears a striking similarity to other individuals who had exposures to ingested radioactive elements. Picou has been given a medical discharge.
The 7 medical personnel with Picou and the 12 soldiers with Clark probably became contaminated with DU. These 21 soldiers are not included in the official list of those recognized by the U.S. government as having been exposed to DU. Given the large tonnage of uranium penetrators in cannon rounds that were fired on the battlefields in Iraq and Kuwait, it is likely that many thousands of other soldiers also became contaminated with DU. The U.S. Army and the Veterans Administration balk at giving urinalysis tests and “in vivo” tests (whole-body counting of gamma rays) to measure the amount of DU in the lungs and other body organs of Gulf War veterans.
An astonishingly high rate of birth defects in the families of Gulf War veterans is especially troubling. For example, Laura Flanders reports that the Veterans Administration conducted a state-wide survey of 251 Gulf War veterans families in Mississippi (Ref. 46). Of their children conceived and born since the war, 67% have illnesses rated severe or have missing eyes, missing ears, blood infections, respiratory problems and fused fingers. Flanders goes on to say that the birth defects are consistent with the effects of radiation from DU and infection from sand fly bites. Others blame experimental vaccines, chemical warfare pills, the insect repellent DEET and smoke from oil well fires for causing birth defects.
DU has both chemical and radiological effects. As a heavy metal it is chemically toxic which poses a risk to health additional to its radioactivity. Ingested DU tends to concentrate in the bones, liver and especially the kidney. The majority of DU ingested is excreted but some may remain for life [2]. In the kidney it can increase the risk of renal damage [5, 16]. In response to a recent report by the Royal Society on health hazards of DU, one scientist wrote;
1. www.iacenter.org/depleted/metal-leftbooks.htm
2. www.iacenter.org/depleted/du_iraq.htm
3. www.cadu.org.uk
4. www.gulflink.osd.mil/faq_17apr.htm
5. www.ippnw.org
6. www.cadu.org.uk/info/military/7_1.htm
7. www.eoslifework.co.uk/du2012.htm
8. www.iacenter.org/depleted/du_greektr.htm
9. www.umrc.net/downloads/health_consequences_of_radiological_warfare.pdf
10. www.news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/europe/2001/depleted_uranium/default/stm
11. www.iacenter.org/israel_du.htm
12. www.mod.uk/issues/depleted_uranium/middle_east_2003.htm
13. www.iacenter.org/du_warcrime.htm
14. www.chugoku_up.co.jp/abom/uran/index_e.html
15. www.pandoraproject.org
16. www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/
17. www.cadu.org.uk/info/reports/monk
18. www.rimbaud.freeserve.co.uk/iraq.htm
19. www.royalsoc.ac.uk/du/intro.htm
The conservative tone of this report belies the claim of Natty that hysteria reigns within anti-DU circles. There is not consensus on how bad the problem is, but there is consensus in all circles that there is a problem. That is how you read such language, Moonbat Nat.
Basically scientists who are a notoriously conservative lot when it comes to hard claims, are saying that there is certainly problems, and they understand the exact nature and routes of the risk. They are simply saying that they are unable to put an upper limit on the total problem. The reasons are lack of overall data. The data that is in, which includes limited epidemiological studies as it happens, is all pointing in the same direction regarding the actual damage and risk of damage.
Now anyone with an ounce of common sense can look to the epidemiological studies already made, and project the likely outcomes of the wider studies which will eventually be done, have no fear. Neither you nor all the bought and paid for Shills the US corporatocracy can muster with its borrowed economy, will stop the time and tide.
Dr Rosalie Bertell.
A response to the report by the royal society. I’ve told you before that the Royal Society is a scientific brothel.
Teratogenicity of depleted uranium aerosols:A review from an epidemiological perspective I know Lume gave you this, but how about you read it again. It really is the answer to your doubts, but as has been pointed out, you don’t really understand what an epidemiological study is do you?
That is recent, Jan 2005, and includes epidemiological studies, is taken from such a perspective in fact..
Nat admit it you don’t honestly even know what half the words you use mean do you? You still mix up science and faith for example.
You are unable to navigate the precision and factual basis of scientifc language.
A Bat might say she knows the sun will rise tomorrow and base this view on faith.
A scientist would prefer to say:
Based on a long history of observations of its daily behaviour, and thereby projecting its previous course of activity into the future, it can be said with some degree of certainty that the sun will rise as expected tomorrow. It should furthermore be possible to predict this same course of Solar activity another week from now. The degree of accuracy of such a prediction would however be reduced proportionally. It would require further studies and observations to be able to increase the assurance of the sun continuing to rise, the further one attempts to predict into the future. Indeed the probability of the sun rising tomorrow can never achieve an absolute status and the probability of our predictions being completely wrong is a complete unknown. The answer as always is only that we can decrease the realm of uncertainty with wider range of data, but we cannot eliminate it entirely.
The scientist is actually never going to say he knows the sun will rise tomorrow. If he does, he is not a scientist really even if he calls himself one. You cannot on the other hand claim the scientist above is saying he doubts the sun is going to rise. But that in essence is what you are doing .
Now Natalie prove that you are a two faced liar and denialist, all over again. Or just bugger off, because you are boring beyond belief. You are as ignorant a lying reptile as ever and I tire quickly of smashing your feeble efforts at shilling.
As I’ve said often, as shills go you are as ineffective as they come, but then your assignments are no-brainers anyway.
The coverup! Now lets look at what Natty is all about.
Gosh, for someone so boring, Rabbit, I certainly seem to have initiated quite a surge in your beta brain wave activity, not to mention that of your finger tips.
Thank you for your recent contributions, but before considering this further input from you to be at all credible, I’m going to have to insist that you provide some kind of documentation to back-up the claim contained in your prior link, which for some reason wasn’t reflected in the actual CNN transcript:
“On the March 8, 2006 edition of the CNN American Morning program with Miles O’Brien and Soledad O’Brien, they made a startling announcement. On average there are 175,000 new cases of lung cancer each year in the United States. For just the months of January and February 2006 there are 172,000 confirmed, newly diagnosed cases of lung cancer. This is not just a little spike on the charts and much worse news is coming. That is already averaging this year about 6 times the normal incidence of new lung cancer cases in a year.”
And please also, in a bewilderingly similar vein, strangely provided by you as presumably another independent source, for this one:
“In the year 2005 there were 175,000 new cases of lung cancer in the United States. The months of January and February of 2006 have already yielded 172,000 new cases of lung cancer in our nation. What has lead to this shocking new development?”
What is the source of these shocking new statistics?
As always you attribute so much effort to such small things really. I was reading and posting as part of the learning process and out of a genuine desire to see you fail in your efforts to even feel like you help the cover up of the truth.
It is too late to go back. If you failed to keep up back there that’s your problem, the rabbit ALREADY ANSWERED your whinge about the sources and provided the links beyond CNN at May 1, 2006 at 3:05 AM. Pay attention!
Besides which you are casting your red herrings to the wind.
I do not have to prove any credibility, it isn’t Rabbit doing the epidemiological studies merely pointing them out. But there you have some studies, quite a few actually, all of which point as detailed by me above, that there is a significant problem, the exact extent of which is as yet undefineable due to uncubation periods but which is already clearly a problem of gargantuan significance., ignorant reptile mind. You have failed completely to realise the Teratogenicity of depleted uranium aerosols: A review from an epidemiological perspective source given is highly significant, and if you comprehend the language which you clearly do not, then the prognosis is grim. Didn’t those ratios and the discussion of the non targeted samplings of teratogenetic efects measured compared to the controls, mean anything to you? Of course you have not read it, I keep forgetting.
Your are a waste of time Nat but it is good to know you are such a dope, always hoping you are a highly paid shill. It would be great to know the government actually considers your efforts to be worth anything.
Crispy foolish Bat! You as always want to avoid the hard things and fiddle with the loose strands as if pulling a single thread will weaken the tapestry to any degree.
Go and do some learning yourself. You could do with the experience.
Rabbit asks:
Lume Natty thinks you and she are not too far removed in opinion about DU. Is that so?
In her dreams, Rabbit. The one thing we really know about Nat, besides her unremitting shilling for the government, is that we know nothing at all.
Isn’t that strange? After two years of conversation, not a clue as to her real occupation, family background, personal history, geographical home. Not a single genuine human trait about her has been revealed. Not even her gender. We know how uncertain that can be by mere inference from a name.
Still, I have myself learned a lot by butting heads with Nat and her ilk.
I’ve been trying to draw her out by non-judgmental questioning with some limited success, but every time I get close to a revelation, she reverts to PR mode, like a turtle withdrawing into its shell. And her PR mode is invariably vicious. She characterizes all critics with nasty hyperbole and unsubstantiated and partisan attacks upon their credibility, and in turn accuses them of employing those same methods. It is a very, very, very pathological pattern of behavior.
In Nat’s case it is not so much the ordinary neurotic ego compensation of an individual, but her super-ego identification with the paternal figure represented by the government. Her unexamined fear of exposure of her genuine self is thus effectively shielded.
Sorry about the Freudisms, but they are more simply expressed and easily comprehended than other more modern forms of analysis, and they do provide a rough fit.
My point here is that there is a powerful socially enabled pathological stream of denial and projection that has been reinforced by decades of patriotic indoctrination within the population of the US and other westernized countries. Such pathologies are very difficult to treat even when individuals admit to the problem. There is need for caution when dealing with such individuals, for their own sakes as well as the harm they are capable of inflicting on the larger society as a cohesive group, because direct confrontation invariably drives them to reassert their conditioning. Nonetheless, consistent, patient and honest questioning that goes to the heart of their motivations is the only way to reach such persons.
The fact that this pathology has succeeded in corrupting and gaining power within the institutions of governance is nothing particularly new, but never has it been so stark in its obviousness in nominally democratic societies. Whether Natalie chooses to continue in her role as a true believer in this hubristic enterprise or come to her senses and seek healing for the terribly destructive schisms within the human community this social pathology represents is ultimately up to her. We should be encouraging her to see that she is really the victim of powerful psychological forces outside of her control, that her loyalty, while ordinarily an admirable trait, is being cruelly exploited for horrific ends, and that she really does have the capacity within her to overcome the invidious illness with which she has been so sorrowfully infected. Otherwise, we are just engaging in unresolvable alienating and oppositional rhetorical argument, since reason and science have no real effect on her thinking.
So be nice, Conejo. She knows not what she does. ;-)
Right on, Luminous Beauty.
... in her role as a true believer ...
Ding ding ding! And what a role! I can almost believe that she believes .
... come to her senses and seek healing ... We should be encouraging her ...
Natalie, we love you and want to help you get well.
<i>It is too late to go back. If you failed to keep up back there that
That’s a beautifully written block of psycho-babble, luminous. It’s looking like you really are a shrink.
You have a way with words, but I’m afraid they add up to not much more than a huge pile of hypocrisy.
You talk about me accusing sources of bias, and questioning their credibility on that basis, yet I remember several instances of you doing the exact same thing.
You question my mental health, but fail to recognize that I’m the one who has merely cited the consensus in the scientific and medical community regarding DU, and in the engineering community regarding the collapse of the towers—and that you are the one who has sided with what most people would classify as the kook fringe.
You allude to me being unreachable, yet you yourself have never demonstrated other than that. Never admitting that yeah, perhaps the fact that not even one structural or fire engineer believes the WTC was bombed might bring one pause, or that the huge volume of literature pointing out the relative benignity of DU, even aerosols, might just be worth considering.
Of course this is fine, it’s your position, but do you really have the right to say that me stubbornly standing by mine is somehow illegitimate, and is an indication that I need some kind of help? That’s hypocritical crazy talk, is it not??
Yes, you people who unswervingly believe in fairy tales about bombs in buildings, missiles in pentagons, six-fold increases in lung cancer in two months, hijackers and Barbara Olson still being alive, the innocence of Usama, and in the reliability of Saddam’s science are calling me stubborn and crazy. Priceless.
Thanks for your concern, Dave. I love you too. But I’m doing absolutely fine. It’s ya’all I’m worried about.
Natalie
Damn, the first part of this long post, dealing with the logic, or rather its lack, in your style of argumentation, as well as certain details as to the specifics of this discussion, got lost. For some reason my posts are only going through on the second attempt. Maybe I’ll try to reconstruct it later.
I’m not alluding to you being unreachable, Nat, I’m alluding to the fact that you never reach out in any ordinary human and personal fashion as people in extended social situations are prone to do. I’m somewhat reserved myself, but you make me feel positively garrulous. That is one reason why Rabbit is so mean to you. It’s part of his Aries nature to see people who are unobvious about themselves as stand-offish, deceptive and arrogant, even if they are just shy and self-conscious. Something that doesn’t happen much with Aries personalities. In this case, it seems to me, as a Libra, that he might be correct. I like to keep both sides in balance, but you aren’t giving me much with which to defend you. In fact, your intransigence sometimes leaves me with little recourse but to mock. Please forgive me.
Please feel free to take this astrological analysis, as well as all ‘psycho-babble’ in which I may have indulged, with a grain of salt. It is only a framework for developing understanding and broadening relationships, not necessarily a determinative description of reality.
I don’t think you’re crazy, Nat. I think your ordinary human feelings are being manipulated and are undermining your reason and making you unnecessarily defensive. If you understand what I wrote, I’m not saying you are suffering from an individual pathology, but are the victim of a broad and invidious social pathology. One whose roots are not constrained merely by our current set of political divisions, but are deeply ingrained in human history. A struggle that is engaged in every human breast between individual freedom of conscience and submission to the given order. There are no real sides in this struggle, just a platform for the growth of wisdom. Together we can build a framework to try and develop some kind of mutual understanding, but only if you are willing.
I don’t find it as easy as David to offer unconditional love, but I am always willing to be friends, even if we don’t see eye to eye.
Natalie, the errors and non-sequitors you employ are just too numerous for me with limited time to respond in the detail they justly deserve.
For a single example, consider your laughable suggestion that the Hinden, Brugge, Pannikar study relies on what you call ‘Saddam’s science’. You yourself point to a doctor in Saddam City, where support for Hussein is still widespread, who denounces propaganda uses of infant corpses during the sanctions period. How much more likely is it doctors in Basra, where Saddam was widely hated, would denounce politically manipulated research? Yet the doctors involved in the Basra studies, reaffirmed and expanded on their findings in Oct. ‘03, half a year after Saddam was removed from power. Why would they do that? Is the notoriety worth it? Do you think that the progressive deterioration of medical care and the fleeing of medical professionals because of security concerns throughout Iraq, or the US’s kybosh of WHO investigations has helped to ascertain the truth of the matter? You think?
The risibility of your suggestion turns quite grim when you consider the responsibility of the US government and particularly members of the current administration for their roles in supplying Iraq with the scientific and technological means to develop WMDs in the first place.
You keep saying there are these mountains of studies that show that Uranium is relatively harmless, yet you link to general fact sheets and press releases that explicitly or implicitly admit that there are health risks to DU, yet seek to minimize those risks, and refer to the same small group of limited studies that really don’t prove anything.
The DoD press release is an example of what they don’t reveal about their 6 million dollar study being of much more interest than the blatant propaganda in the bulk of the article. What were the ordnances used? How many in each test? What extent of penetration of the interiors of the vehicles by projectiles was achieved in the tests? Breached is a very indistinct term. Were the vehicles just static platforms or were the air circulation systems in use? What was the level of contamination on the outside of the vehicles? To what degree were real-world battle conditions simulated?
The same with the 911 attacks. You say there is a broad and loudly affirmative consensus among independent structural engineers certifying the government reports. All I hear is a profound silence.
luminous,
I’m glad to see that you weren’t accusing me of being unreachable, and that you don’t think I’m crazy. And I’m glad to learn that your Freudian characterization of me as just an unknowing cog in perhaps a slightly suspicious gear in an evil machine is quite possibly “not necessarily a determinative description of reality.” (wink and a smile)
I’m certainly very happy to be your friend, as I’m sure we both have the same wishes for world peace, prosperity and security; just different opinions on how to achieve these. You are an extremely talented writer and thinker, and you never fail to put out a well reasoned rebuttal, not that it’s really that hard in my case. (I know what you’re thinking, creepy, huh?)
I’ve been very reluctant to share personal details here, I guess mainly because the treatment I get isn’t really conducive to it. My initial entry into the DU debate was I thought polite, though perhaps pointed, but apparently simply due to the fact that I dared to disagree with the apocalyptic views of certain individuals, I was quickly deemed a “govt. shill”, a vampire, a death merchant, and even laughably had Rabbit fantasizing that I was related to Roger Helbig. I chose to simply try to stick to the facts, as I saw them, and for the most part ignore the static, which I consider irrelevant to the subject at hand.
I’ll just say that I’m an oridnary nobody, with a son that I love, and a low paying job that I hate. Never graduated college, although I went for a couple years, but other things got in the way.
So….. you think I’m wrong to infer that Rita’s analysis relies on Saddam’s science. Actually, I wasn’t thinking mainly of her, but about all the references I’ve read to the guys from Basra U., and the whole lot of what was coming out of Iraq in the form of manufactured media events aimed at ending the sanctions. But fair enough. You make a case about motivations—I’ll attempt to make the opposite case.
You say that support for Hussein is still widespread in Saddam City. Although I can’t say what the situation is there currently, you must know that at the time of the invasion, and presumably at the time of the Dr’s admissions about staging dead baby parades, Saddam city was a Shia district. From my previous reference:
“We were not allowed to return the babies to their mothers for immediate burial, as is the Muslim tradition, but were told they must be kept for what became known as ‘the taxi parade,”’ said Dr Hussein al-Douri, the deputy director of the Ibn al-Baladi hospital in Saddam City, a Shia district in eastern Baghdad.
*Here is additional evidence that Saddam City wasn’t exactly a hotbed of Saddam enthusiasts:
* Marine commanders reported Iraqi artillery firing indiscriminately into Saddam City, a poor Shiite neighborhood that had erupted into a frenzy of celebration and looting Wednesday afternoon.
During the celebrations, a Shiite leader told the crowd that “the tyrant of the world is finished, thanks to the coalition. Thank God for Iraq, the victorious.”
I think it’s fair to assume that the doctors were Shia, and were happy to rid their consciences of what they were forced to do.
cont…...
pg. 2…..
Conversely, I find a *lot that makes me suspect that the guys that put out the studies in Basra were heavily under the control of the Baath party, in fact likely Baathists themselves, although I haven’t found anything to confirm the latter.
* Thus, from 1979 onward, Basrah University had not only suffered from three wars and sanctions, but also from the central government’s intentional neglect, oppression and disrespect for higher education......
.......Professor Salman never thought he’d be in such a position of responsibility, but following the regime change a few months ago, his fellow teachers elected him Chancellor in recognition of his years of sincere dedication to research and academic life. During Saddam’s reign, however, Professor Salman had been ignored and neglected, and was not promoted in 34 years of service, because he wasn’t a Ba’athist........
........I had ranked first in our group and he had ranked second. In the second year of our studies, however, we were told that the University had made a mistake to accept us as students, because we were not party members. What followed was worse and beyond the scope of this article, but Prof. Ali suffered immensely from the regime during the 1990s….....
What’s more, their data, even assuming that it is accurate, (and even assuming the researchers aren’t Saddamites) doesn’t really look to me that remarkable. We’re talking at most about an increase of 3 or 4 defects in 100,000 in the period between 1990 and 1998. (see table 5) And certainly the authors have made no convincing argument that the increase was due to DU. They had not the equipment nor the expertise. (That’s our fault, I know!)
The DoD press release is an example of what they don’t reveal about their 6 million dollar study being of much more interest than the blatant propaganda in the bulk of the article.
Now, now, questioning the integrity of my sources? OK for you, but not for me??? ;-)
The details you rightly wonder about are layed out in the report itself. The entire report is certainly not a “general fact sheet or press release”, as you wrongly describe things like the RAND report, the Royal Society reports, the W.H.O. reports, or the UNEP reports. As well as another one that also deals with aerosols that I forgot about until looking back at that old DU thread.
As for the towers and engineers, I would encourage the good folks at Scholars for “truth” to commission a Zogby poll of engineers. With all their speaking fees, surely they could afford it. Somehow I doubt it will be forthcoming. Wouldn’t it be reasonable to assume that the scholars would have made an attempt to reach out to the structural, civil, and fire engineering communities? And if not, why not I wonder. So far, their listing of supporters is pretty vacant of certified professionals in these fields.
Nat,
I fail to see how neglect is a motivation for researchers loyalty, even if they were Baath Party members. That is exactly the kind of internalized conflict I’m talking about. You too are caught between doing what you know is right and doing what you must to get along. We’re all in the same boat. Even those who think they are in positions of power have sublimated their own autonomy to the externalized dictates that their position requires of them. It is trivial that they represent themselves as the protectors of the powerless. It is how the illusion of leadership is maintained, whether it is Saddam Hussein or George Bush or your boss. Succumbing to the given order for the false promise of security is the losers game of sycophancy that keeps all of us from assuming the rights and responsibilities for having real input into the decisions that most directly influence our lives.
We are comparatively few that are struggling to question authority and speak truth to power. Most people are anxious to keep their heads low and not stick their necks out. To defend their position, it is encumbent on those power holders of whatever political stripe, and their sycophants, to identify those who question their authority as decievers, enemies, conspirators or unconscious dupes of shadowy evil forces that only seek to destroy and harm. Pounding a constant drumbeat, they imbue us with their own self-aggrandizing and self-enriching motivations. Even courageous little rags like In These Times are limited in their scope and their ability to articulate a true picture of the way things really are by economic realities and the relentless pressures of authoritarian conventions. If Jimmy Weinstein had not been the fortunate recipient of modest inherited wealth, ITT would not likely even exist. That our voices are heard at all over the ubiquitous blaring propaganda of the richly subsidized organs of the gate-keepers of power, which includes all the corporate owned media, even those considered putatively ‘liberal’, is an amazing testament to the tenacious human desire for genuine freedom.
Do you really think peace groups offer handsome speaking fees? I have to say, my hometown peace center has had plenty of speakers who came to us on their own dime. The usual compensation is a place to crash in the home of a member, maybe dinner at a modestly priced restaurant or more often a pot luck, and passing the hat for a full tank of gas for the trip to their next stop. Occasionally we’ve dipped in the kitty to pay for a plane ticket. Sometimes high profile personalities will come to promote fund-raisers; for our benefit, not theirs.
The idea that peace activists have huge piles of cash to throw around for research, PR or anything else is ridiculous. Most everything that gets done is done on a voluntary basis. What fund-raising we do is almost entirely committed to rent, postage and electricity. We do offer a modest scholarship for our annual essay contest, and spend a few grand for an annual outdoor retreat for kids, subsidized by a small trust fund and private donations. Our newsletter does not pay for itself from adverts and subscriptions. It is every month subsidized out of the meager retirement pay of our editor in chief. It is printed entirely gratis by a retired hobbyist on end-rolls of donated newsprint. I served as art director for a couple of years and had to supply my own media and materials, or go begging. It took several months one time to raise the money to have our donated copier fixed.
This, in a fairly wealthy community with a relatively high level of support. Where I now live, in Shasta County, things are much tougher.
There is an old joke, that has long served as a cautionary tale to researchers, about the man searching for his lost wallet under a streetlight when he’d actually lost it in a darkened alleyway because the light was better. This is a simply understood explanation for the kind of cynical manipulation of data that the Sandia, WHO, UNEP, and RS reports have all relied on to present their minimalized findings.
For example, the Sandia report, which relies on the Capstone data for their theoretical calculations. (Just so you know, by citing both, you aren’t really citing different studies.) sets as its lower limit a particle size of 0.5 microns. They then use a median derived value between upper and lower limits for their calculations for atmospheric dispersal, bodily distribution and renal elimination and cancer risk. This slight of hand is almost insignificant next to the fact that particles of less than 0.5 are precisely those that are the most harmful, the most difficult for the body to eliminate, and the least prone to precipitate out of the atmosphere in real world conditions, which, once again, their theoretical model only approximates from still air indoor experimental data. It appears this was also the lower detection limit for the equipment in the Capstone tests. Therefore particles below that size are treated as if they don’t even exist.
This is one of the questions that Doug Rokke raises. His team was the operational unit that actually did the field work and suffered almost immediate sickness as a result of the protective gear they were using not being able to filter out particles of this small size. It is grossly disengenous of the DoD to say that he wasn’t in charge of the field work, but that the civilian bean-counters who were merely supervising the experiments were.
That Rokke isn’t willing to give up the names of his team is not so much a sign of dishonesty as an indication of how seriously he takes his commission. The reciprocation of loyalty is that one’s men protect their superiors in the field and officers defend their men off the field. In spite of what you might believe, most ordinary people do not want to become the object of public scrutiny and potential scorn and notoriety. From this POV, Rokke is showing some genuine honor, no matter how much we all would like to know in order to determine the truth of what he claims. I personally find the official memos he has to be quite revealing enough as to the DoD’s duplicity, when considered along-side the facts of their report as I’ve laid them out.
There is also a bunch of hand-waving to dismiss ‘hot-spot’ calculations of radiation densities to arrive at the benign cancer risk numbers they give, and similar dismissal of more current research that shows real cancer risks in mice and rats, for older out-dated petri-dish experiments that have null results. As has been pointed out above there are more recent studies that not only show elevated statistical risks for DU, but reveal determinative causal pathways and actual measured damage to DNA by micro-particles of Uranium.
Brilliant Lume, your posts are absolutely spot on, and the humble hopper salutes your mind. How I wish I’d read the bit that got lost. If it was anything like what happens to me like that, then it was probably the best yet.
Natalie, Scoffing at Lume’s excellent analysis does nothing but further highlight the flaws of character, reasoning and humanity which are yours.
If it wasn’t long since obvious you are way out of your depth in every respect that counts, then it is now.
Like Lume Rabbit too has learned much from butting heads with you.
Learned more about the US government, it’s propaganda efforts and the paucity of intelligent help seemingly available to it.
Learned just how poverty stricken is the actual case for their lies. You’ve obviously done your best but have never raised the believability of the government lies, never won a single supporter and never bested anybody on a single point of substance.
Thus, best of all, I have learned that come what may, it is only a matter of time now before your snow shack of lies (No castle!) melts in the sunlight of truth.
The simple fact is you are losing support day by day.
22% support for the Shrub in New York now, that’s a big drop from 87% isn’t it?
No need to comment. We know that even another false flag attack won’t raise that by much for long. We don’t need to even hear what a complete idiot like you has to say about it. You can’t stop the tide.
Upon reflection Rabbit has not been fair to the Lung Cancer referance, I see that Doctor Howenstine only referenced the Story on CNN, which has been removed from their transcript on the net. This is a common practice for TV stations who have been contacted by “certain forces” about a story they have aired. Too late to stop the story but at least they remove it from the transcript. Such actions show more than they hide to those who are paying atention. In case you think this in anyway negates the truth of the possible effects DU in America may already be showing up in health effects, I give you the following.
Lung Cancer figures and some context. Note the last sentence. Obviously to an open mind, considering all possibilities mentioned, the most likely cause, and certainly a candidate, is Depleted Uranium. As usual the fact that the government hides information pertinent to the truth, such as how much DU is floating around America, makes itm harder to pin down, but that is why have have minds which can reason.
Scientists Study Depleted Uranium link to Gulf War Syndrome. For those who are truly attempting to understand. A few interesting tidbits in that, the weakening of the nose brain barrier by desert storms for a start.
You are out of your depth as said, deeply and horribly out of your depth.
Your initial appearance on the Radiocative Wounds of War thread showed a complete lack of honesty, your claims of non-bias WERE ELIMINATED IN YOUR SECOND POST, by yourself by the amount of conviction you immediately brought to a supposedly little understood issue by yourself.
The very thread followed an article which was itself a strong testimony to the Teratological dangers of Depleted Uranium Weapons. The only people who came onto that thread after reading the article by Dave Lindorff, who were not expressing outrage, were a handful of people all of whom were positively identified as stooges for the military. You were not identified as such, but have never wavered in your stubborn faith based support for Uranium Weapons since then. Even though new studies have come out since you began to shill on the issue, you have waved them away with the same arguments and air of disdain.
That itself puts the lie to all your claims of open mindedness. You showed absolutely no ability to discern and merely jumped on the bandwagon with Helbig, and never even faltered a step when he was quickly PROVEN to being a Pentagon Stooge. In fact he is infamous on the entire internet spectrum for his shilling. As always you lie and lie and lie, yet nobody believes you. Reading between the lines, Lume and even Dave are mocking you, clown. In some ways Rabbit is showing a nicer front, for he is not playing you for a complete idiot, but rather has given you credit for knowing what you are doing. Maybe as Lume is saying, (and Freud isn’t wrong, just simpler than Jung I agree) you really are just a dittohead drone?
Like I said, I wish you a long drop on a short rope, Natalie Moonbat Helbig.
May your dark and ugly soul be dropped permanently into the gruesome pit when judgement day, in whatever form comes…...................ok ok….............Unless you repent and mend your ways. ........^^...........
Oh Lume. When one writes a long post, often it goes missing simply because the chance for someone else to post in the meantime is increased. Instead of returning to ones too long post and thus giving one a chance to cut some of it, the post gets lost. Not sure of the technical terms but it is the fact that the page has been updated in the meantime that means your work in progress in the comment box is lost with the old page reload. If you are lucky enough that nobody else posts between your first opening the page and downloading the comment, you’ll get it back intact.
If only one could always remember to copy the text before hitting the button, then salvation is at hand.
This forum has become much more user friendly now, maybe too much. Notice one can edit posts from way back, thus allowing the dishonest to go back and change what they say. Obviously not a problem with Natty for she simply never changes what she says.
By the way, I find it hard to believe Natty has a child, or if she does then I am concerned for it. Nobody could defend the indefensible the way she has. My dislike of Nat has less to do with her witholding anything, less to do with her complete lack of honesty or decency. It is entirely based upon the fact that she is knowingly supporting the most horrible war crimes and historical lies. Maybe she is deluded about 911, but nobody who has looked at even a fraction of what she has supposedly read about DU now can support it. Even from the simple human perspective of caution at least. Thus a mother she cannot be. Mothers are always cautious. They do not weait for the proof that their child is being poisoned. If they become aware that there might even be a chance the child is in danger, they always err on the side of caution.
Being a father, or mother tends to make one much more sensitive to the plight of children everywhere. Natty has seen photographic evidence of what is happening to Children, and more than enough information to at least show Uranium Weapons are the most likely cause. Thus her refusal to even entertain the idea that she is wrong, is enough to convince me she is no mother, unless she is a psychopath.
Of course there is that old chestnut about victims of abuse who seem unable to recognise/admit when their own children are being abused, and maybe there is something in this. Perhaps Daddy Helbig used to dip her dummy in Uranium Slurry?
The ludicrous nature of Nattys claims of lack of proof, or evidence about this stuff, is evident in her complete lack of comprehension of the conclusions to the very epidemiological studies she demands. which are not new Nat, you’ve ignored them ages ago already, as always lying
It is also patently obvious that Natty has no idea what form such Proof might take, or what actually constitutes evidence in biological feedback mechanisms.
How does the stupid girl think Thalidimide or Aspartame have been proven to be as dangerous as what they were?
YOU’RE COMPLETELY OUT OF YOUR INTELLECTUAL DEPTH NATALIE!
News for those who want to know.
7 April 2006 Uranium’s Effect On DNA Established
Still no pause to think there might be more to it than our desire to support the enemies of freedom or something?
Hello Rabbit
I noticed the very first Nattypost was answered by jsalsman, 27aug05, with a ref to DNA changes.
That first post showed the Bat to be a lover of DDT, GMO’s, and Pesticides in general, and an enemy of the same scare-mongering unscientific kooky fringe who pointed out years ago that coaldust killed miners, and asbestos killed shipbuilders. .
Natty as War-Lover ——
Sure some of the antiDU stuff may be exaggerated, but those epidemiological studies are very difficult to do, particularly with too small samples. As with GMO’s, if you do not look, you sure won’t find.
Still, I found the Nattypost above revealing, as she shows no comprehension that it might not be a good idea to hobble war-making capabilities, even to a small extent !
Some blindness there, difficult to imagine in a genuine “loving parent”.
You have it Frog, and can see why she has stunk the place up since she was first spewed forth like the results of a long weekend of relentless partying.
The DU issue rolls on regardless of the shill in the mill. Since her debut the issue has become much better supported by studies and evidence, but not a single moment’s pause have we seen, in the complete craven love of DU and yes, “WAR anywhere, anytime” she said it herself. She is nothing but a fucking evil blood sucking demon, and that is being polite. Over time many have gone from questioning the Rabbit’s vitriol towards the beast to actually questioning how Rabbit could remain so calm and polite in retrospect, while communicating with the foul monstrosity for so long. It is not easy Frog.. it is not easy, but having allies as luminous, as curious or as amphibious as ye all makes it easier to bear.
Here is a recent Zogby Poll which shows that Natty the Batty is finally, officially part of a crazy and shrinking Minority. 70 millions Americans don’t accept the official lie.
“The poll is the first scientific survey of Americans’ belief in a 9/11 cover up or the need to investigate possible US government complicity, and was commissioned to inform deliberations at the June 2~4 “9/11: Revealing the Truth, Reclaiming Our Future” conference in Chicago. Poll results indicate 42% believe there has indeed been a cover up (with 10% unsure) and 45% think “Congress or an International Tribunal should re-investigate the attacks, including whether any US government officials consciously allowed or helped facilitate their success” (with 8% unsure). The poll of American residents was conducted from Friday, May 12 through Tuesday, May 16, 2004.” ......should be 2006 <u>Error in report.</u>.........^^..........
Considering the destruction both of Natty’s cases have taken you would expect any normal, even by internet standards, debate to be over. The Bat has lost, her case is not supportable and has taken numerous fatal shots. But no as she will now obediently prove, Natty is not moved an inch.
She still knows the government is 100% truthful, that Depleted Uranium Weapons are like mothers milk and even more important, and that the Evil Hate filled Muslims are the greatest threat to the safety of her imaginary child.
She still knows we are all enemies of freedom and democracy who are trying to stop “Wars everywhere and all the time”, her stated goal if I’m reading that right.
Hey guys. I miss you. Yet I have found that roving itch I’ve had and am scratching it on the ICH board.
Defending DU. Tsk. Tsk. Oh, yeah, you can just ‘wipe the radioactive dust off your can of Satan’s Potted Meat Product’ and it will be fine’.
The deformities in these poor accursed babies have only been found in the presence of radioactive contamination, in all of recorded medical history which goes back at least 3,000 years. The Marshall Islands. Afghanistan. Iraq. I haven’t looked it up but how could the same thing not be happening wherever DU is used in weaponry ,or nuclear bombs have been set off, or nuclear waste has been dumped, or nuclear power plants have had mishaps that led to contamination of the air, water, or earth.
It hardly gets more real than radiation. Arguing that DU is not toxic is like arguing that lead and mercury aren’t toxic. Get fucking real.
Hi, wiley,
Good to hear from you. Is ICH the Interagency Council on Homelessness?
Kudos for that.
Nat is so unquestioningly supportive of our military leadership. Who is supporting the ordinary grunt? I’d like her to watch this VIDEO and imagine this is her son just some few years down the road. One soldier’s testimony. How many more are too confused, intimidated, ashamed or so thoroughly indoctrinated to speak up.
Hey, Lumens, come to my website at wileywitch.livejournal.com.
ICH is the Information Clearinghouse. It has some issues.
Nat should enlist in the military—-the Army—-to get up close and personal. Since she is immune to the effects of radiation (which makes me suspect she’s a prion) then she will be a valuable asset in our mission to—-
Our mission to—-?
Nevermind.
As I read these posts, I am reminded of a quote:
Dear Nyvegan,
Your cursory glance at this discussion leads you to talk about small minds and incite us to elevate ourselves to “greatness”.
Somewhat condescending as an introduction of your goodself, but do not worry, we welcome serious allies.
Ideas are nothing without events and people . DISCUSS !
The stalwarts of this thread are wiley, rabbit, dave in canada, luminous beauty, and the Mighty Natalie who is a worthy partner and stimulant , becaus ‘she’ is an ardent supporter of the use of DU in weaponry, collaterally of GMOs and pesticides in agriculture, and naturally a believer in the Bush theory of 911.
Funny how those beliefs of hers hang so coherently together.
The rest of us have that human habit of discussing people, events , and ideas in varying proportions depending on the circumstances.
Have not yet read your link above, but the distinction between humane and inhumane weaponry begs more questions—maybe I would prefer cancer to some of the damage that 7.62mm or 5.56mm conventional ammo can do , ?
The UN commission statements on human rights have been quoted before, this is but the shadow of an earlier debate on an appropriate thread, in some ways.
They are part of the evidence given to support the contention that the USA is guilty of War Crimes and crimes against humanity. It is part of the basis of my argument that Bush and the various members of the warmongering Junta are war criminals and it has further been pointed out that Natalie is complicit in these crimes by virtue of her own efforts.
The thread is actually not being used for any purpose other than as a kind of cave for the Bat to dwell in and which we can come if the urge strikes us to throw stones at it.
Rabbit could propose we travelled via the magic carpetry of the net to some forum actually alive and dedicated to DU and bring our combined efforts to bear in the name of some serious netaction? We could thus become counterbalance to Roger and Natty’s concerted shilling.
No doubt we could take our pet shill Bat with us and she will also bring something special to the cause?
How cool, we would be a true multinational taskforce too.
France, Canada, USA and Australia. No doubt we would soon be joined by a Pommie or two. There are even a few Kiwi’s about and certainly Germans, like Anarcho-Sozi will soon appear. We will be an Anti-DU Multinational Internet Taskforce.
Just as Natty always feared, we will be in her words Anti-DU Shills!
Rabbit formally proposes we form a group and call it “Anti-DU Multinational Internet Taskforce”, with the lovely acronym of ADMIT.
Organisations must have good acronyms to be successful, everyone knows that.
Has anyone been following the debate about the likely effects of a low flying 757 which is related to the question of what hit the Pentagon?
Like Jones and crew I am wary of what appears to be a concerted effort by government and complicit MSM to sideline any discussion about 911 to the Pentagon. Expecting like all others either some genuine footage or more likely properly doctored video of flight 77 going into the Pentagon, sooner or later.
Still at this point we can only speculate and the Jet Blast at such low altitude question stands as an interesting angle at this stage.
*Demo.
*Demo 2.
Frog -
You may remember me from several posts under the story “Meat Industrial Complex”, or earliers posts in this forum. If you recall these posts, you may also recall that I think too much of this community to give the posts only ‘cursory glances’. I prefer to remain respectful in my comments and on-topic, as suggested by this site.
My post was in response to other posts on DU, and to the digression from the topic of our government
ADMIT
Be a founding member of ADMIT.
THIS time they had a plan.
.....................^^........................
oh and by the way nyvegan, don’t forget Natty is a shill and is not really trying to engage in any dialogue. Her choice is to mask the truth not to seek it. As such she is useful as a foil. A contrast indeed. Trapped by her assignment from her masters she is yet bound to us in these issues, which is why the rabbit calls her our pet Bat.
Of course if by some grand miracle Natalie were actually to show she was turning away from denial and confusion, this rabbit would be the first to make kissy kissy faces at her.
From great hate can be born great love, as surely as the opposite has been claimed.
Personally though I think she is a lost soul. As an apparent spokesman for the perpetrators of these crimes, 911 and DU, she the person does actually come into it. Especially when her main means of trying to discredit any evidence or statements, or studies from anyone else invariably based on character assasination and innuendo.
Anyway, this is but a backwater, an unused room we are occupying. I propose we form ADMIT and sally forth. Thus to do some damage to the cause of criminal warmongering.
nyvegan
How could I forget you? There is a new film “Fast Food Nation” to complement the brilliant book by Eric Schlosser.
Your point about the importance of getting through to the other 299million is well taken.
Tho I doubt they could all get onto any thread !
I see our job as defining limited objectives, such as reasoning hard with individuals who have enough honesty to read the links provided, and then each gets on with life spreading the word around them, for example. Another aim is to attempt to sort the good info from the bullshit, and then share.
A vital factor to remember is credibility. That farmer in Des Moines or Normandy will run a mile if he thinks I’m a nut. . You worked previously in wtc1, i spent years talking to fl84 wtc2 up to 1992,—- none of which proves we are correct in our suspicions, but does establish a little something in the mind of the listener….
Lapin
Good idea. We don’t send the whole platoon to post everywhere together, but intel on hot debates is good, so get a scout to report in ,and others can ‘lurk’ as Musketeer canuck puts it , and do the occasional rapier-thrust., as he does. I enjoy lurking, as I learn a lot , and this process is about informing oneself to be more useful…
Noticed an ICH thread today with 80posts in 2days—- like the bbc thing where u get 00’s of posts, too many bods repeat the same points, confuse the issue, and one can spend 25hrs a day just reading and not doing. A good duel is a mighty thing to learn from .
Sun out, grass drying, frog now off to mow a few lawns.
lazy frog paused to open a last site before putting ute and arse into gear and found this review of CONDI BOOK.via an article here
i’d often wondered what the media-hyped “great intellectual’s” reputation was based on, (her words have never betrayed any great ability or insight), the answer is——nowt.
No surprise, but another little piece of ammo, another detail for the big picture….
PS nyvegan—took me a while to get the html right, but I got there !
nyvegan , do try your hand at informationclearinghouse.info . (Sheesh, it’s been so long, I forgot the html code. Not that it takes me a long time to forget the html code). There I am talking to people about themselves, in an effort to get people to focus on the issues, instead of American bashing which is like having a foot-race with a three year old in the category of “sport”.
Somehow they don’t understand how focusing on the U.S. all the time, instead of learning about and discussing other nations and concepts is American exceptionalism, even thought they’re bashing the U.S. They are bashing the U.S. as if it were the only nation of its kind, always was, and always will be. It’s some kind of “demon seed anti-americanism” that almost always leaves our victims and our policies out of the discussion.
Many of them seem every bit as religious secular as the rightest right wing nut on the right is religiously anti-secular. America is “evil” and the world needs to destroy this “evil” so everyone can go back to living in the Edenic world that existed before the U.S. Riiiiiiiiight.
I’m also trying to get them to look at ideas that have a direct connection with reality—-ideas beyond the ones in their heads. Ideas that are having a broad impact on many people.
Hi everyone,
Rabbit, the ADMIT acronym is clever but I have to respond when back a page ago you wrote to Natalie :
“Reading between the lines, Lume and even Dave are mocking you”
... and I wanted to clarify something. What you say is true but it is also true that I have goodwill, also known as love, towards Natalie. And my love is unconditional love, most days anyways, as Luminous Beauty mentioned. And I applaud your hope(?) that Natalie one day may turn away from denial and confusion and allow you to make kissy faces at her.
Natalie, you are welcome and I thank you for your concern. Sincerely and mockingly at the same time if that is possible and I think it is. If anyone needs how explained please let me know.
Luminous Beauty, thanks for being here and recognizing unconditional love when you see it.
Wiley, good to see you visiting here again.
Frog, good ideas. I scout about alot these days and if I see anything interesting you can be sure I will get the word out.
Nyvegan, good points you make. I appreciate polite words too, especially for a disagreement. I am sorry that this may be hard for you to hear, but .... I ate 3 slices of bacon and an egg today : )
At least it was an organic free range egg.
Back to the main topic(s) and my decisive opinions.
Depleted Uranium Munitions- war crime.
9/11 - inside job.
One day, some day ... I hope my opinions will be proven and accepted as incontrovertable facts and the criminals are held accountable for their crimes.
I’m onto your little tricks Dave, anyone who wants to know how to be sincerely and lovingly mocking can send $29.99.
Seriously, I wish I were a better librarian, I read an article recently saying that NATO uses DU munitions, and that China and Russia are using it as well. It seems like the people on all the fast-tracks in the arms race are morons. They’re all (no offense, Dave) monkey-see, monkey do.
I hope that your opinions will be acceptable as incontrovertable facts, Dave, so long as your opinions are incontrovertably correct, which I suspect them to be.
I reject the official stories and denials as completely as most here do.
witch.
i read it too, there are zillions of tons of DU about, the frogs have 12000, and they are small even minute owners.
Being also a lousy librarian; some munitions makers are getting out of it, so back to conventionals.
if you hear that inhaling tungsten particles is also horrible, you saw it here first !
SCREAM. Oh, Frog! Oh, Frog, why are we so stuuuuuuuuuupiddd? Tungsten isn’t radioactive though, right? It’s wicked, but only once. Like that’s noble.
I wish something would put a fire under the UN’s butt. DU, mines, tactical nukes? Insane.
You’d think that by now so-called “advanced nations” would be able to send in a team of sharp-shooters to take out the big guys if regime change is what they’re really after.
WITCH
I was , like you know, errrrr, ummmmm, ....joking, and being like wot I said before a lousy librarian, have lost the sauce, but somewhere there is a ‘relevant’ article on the danger of inhaling microparticles of tungsten.
And so I thought I might just get in a microsecond before the Radioactive Bat, for fun .
Don’t tease me. I’ve fallen for bad stories in two weeks. I don’t know what is up or down anymore. Except that bombing people and spreading radioactive waste hither and yon is a horrible thing to do to people.
wileywitch -
Thank you for www.informationclearinghouse.info. I quickly found this: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12980.htm, and was reminded of the death and destruction I saw while participating in animal rescue in New Orleans after Katrina. I met two cops whose full-time job was retrieving dead bodies. In just their two precincts, they had almost as many as the total “official” body count for the entire city. They also had some great insights on the Administration’s lack of preparedness (I’m referring here to post-Katrina, not the lack of preparedness after 9/11, Iraq, container shipping, infrastructure protection, energy sources, etc.). The video reminds us that the “statistics” we see in the papers have faces and suffer every day.
David -
The world is, I think, quickly coming to the realization that use of DU is a war crime and 9/11 is an inside job. Last year, some people would walk away or give me odd glances when I mentioned these, but lately I’ve had new acquaintances in unrelated settings broach the topic with me.
However, I can’t resist pointing out the lies you’ve been fed with your “free-range” eggs and bacon. Please see my latest posting (along with the story and other postings) in a more directly relevant forum: http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/discuss/2525/
Frog -
Thanks again for “Fast Food Nation.” I’ll return the favor: Been Brown so Long, It Looked Like Green to Me: The Politics of Nature. Now, where are the (US) investigative journalists who will expose the “inside job” and war crimes?
Mercy, mercy, mercy, mercy.
Dave no need to explain that you are a “troll lover”, Rabbit was just too polite to mention it, but since you do. Yes there is a smirk on my face, well yes, Dave does kind of love everybody even the truly ugly among us. That is why he is a Monk. That won’t save you from being judged fit for the pit should he be on the heavenly jury though you demons. Rabbit is less pleasant basically, being an Aries prick and all..
Actually the thread on ICH following the video kerfuffle is worth a few shots from ADMIT troops. Wiley and Rabbit are riding a delicately balanced see-saw from time to time, but they both love each other enough that they are yet in balance. ICH needed a bit of controversy though and it has to Rabbit’s joy brought out some game. Some right wingjobs of both higher and lesser calibre and a probable person or two on the turn have descended. One called CombatJumpStar is someone from their side who is clearly on his way to ours. Maybe not this time, this issue, but one can see the signs of progress.
ICH The battle ground.
What I think is valuable about this ground is that it has attracted some serious attention and much of it is MIL. They need to hear the truth above all others, and DU has been mentioned a few times already. there is plenty of informed reserves to ensure the battle will be a complete rout.
Someone on ICH is doing smilies, which I loathe. But just as with things that go whizz and bang, I like to know how to make them anyway. Tried looking at the source page but it didn’t work. ho hum.
Rabbit thinks Dan is the man though. A gentleman and a scholar, like Dave troll-loving Monkey Fish.
Sorry NYvegan, though my heart says yes, my stomach yet craves meat. In spirit I am yet a vegetarian. Having gone through ten years of Budhism before embracing my Gnostic soul, our pet rabbit has yet taught me more about the meaning of true non violence and live and let live.
I strive to emulate him in my life, he is my hero, but to achieve his ability to thrive upon and enjoy nothing but food of a vegetable origin, is beyond my achievement yet. Even so, Rabbit and family lived an Organic permaculture lifestyle for a decade and have not forgotten our lessons. Compromise can also be Karma.
..................^^.....................Where’s the Bat?
nyvegan
thanks for the book, and also “Whiteout: the CIA, drugs and the press” by the same man..
I read the amazon reviews, and was pleased to see he appears optimistic—an attitude i share. Good stuff, lots to do ...
I eat ‘‘real’ free-range a few times a year, not yet maybe never a complete veggie, but cutting down on meat.
rabbit
thanks for ICH link, good work . The Bat is recharging, will be back soon.
Dan IS a scholar , no need to enrol, already there !
Yep, Rabbit has seen Frog earlier on the site. The ICH crowd are obviously a bit bemused by all the wingjobs they’ve attracted lately. Usually a site with little opposition, except internal squabbles.
I find this story of a couple finding DU from an Auction to be amusing.
Now why would the authorities treat it so seriously if the stuff was like birthday cake? Seems to me evryone involved in this are freaking out a bit. It is only a bit of solid, stable Depleted Uranium after all. Now if it was burnt and formed Ceramic vapour they might have something to worry about. The authorities mention if it was carried about it would give radiation sickness. I guess that is because they are civilians. Apparently it is safe for soldiers to handle. Isn’t it Natty?
Nat? Natty? Maybe we have made the Bat sad? Maybe she is on special assignment dealing with the hoped for fallout from the Macbeth Video. The shills seem to be working overtime trying to make something out of it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3050317.stm
Forgot html. Has everyone seen this BBC article? A Canadian doctor is finding high levels of uranium in Afghanis. Not DU, uranium. There is speculation that the U.S. might be using new uranium weapons.
Wouldn’t be out of character, but I looked up to see if there was natural uranium in Afghanistan. I read recently that Iran has a lot of uranium ore. It is naturally occurring in Afghanistan. I don’t know enough about it to know if the deep penetrating bombing could bring up radioactive dust from natural deposits and then contaminate the air, water, land, like all other vaporized heavy metals. But it’s a thought. The earthquakes in that region, could be a result of our bombing as well.
I think these possible consequences—-intended or not—-put carpet bombing and deep earth penetrators in the WMD category.
Rabbit, the reason I’m getting on people’s cases about the guilt tripping is not because I don’t think the U.S. is guilty, but because they are turning off most of the population at a time when most of the populations distrusts the MSM and authorities. This is the time to invite people to learn, not to kick them in the teeth and tell them that they are stupid. I’ve been in American activist circles Rabbit, and they are half responsible for where we are now. Over and over, I have seen them turn away people who cared, and cling to scammers.
I am radically opposed to this administration and aggressive attacks on nations, but these people get so full-up with their damnation and insults, that I almost want to stop caring sometimes. They have no political strategy or savvy at all.
Furthermore, the sins of today are enough to pick up and carry. I have to wonder how much these people really care about our victims and the suffering in the world. They have to go back five hundred years to make the load heavy enough? Christ, one day in Baghdad is how many lives in pain? I know that history is important, yadda, yadda, but it’s NOT a priority if you don’t know what’s going on today.
Wiley
Most of the truly damning words against the USA are coming from foreigners, non-US as it happens. I know a few Americans do the self damning thing a bit, but mostly the heavy stuff is foreign. I’ve been paying close attention. Besides that the important point I think which has to be remembered that the majority of people who first believed in that video certainly on ICH, did so for an hour or two at most. They have been up front about that, and even though some, and that includes me, still see there as being a chance it is the real deal, we are not losing the plot.
It has been said repeatedly by many and nobody is arguing with them, that if true this does not by any means tar all US soldiers with the same brush. It neither claims to be nor can be interpreted as being representative of the whole situation. Beyond that though we must still state that it is not saying anything which was not already well documented. Frankly I feel you have read too much into Macbeth’;s words, probably because you have taken it very personally, to your credit, if not your peace of mind. Really he is but describing his (alleged) experience. So he like whistleblowers in Mai Lai is blowing the lid on something but not all things.
As for those non-americans who do attack america so strongly in words, unfortunately, being outside the US, does kind of give them every right to hate you. If American bombs and wars are happening in other countries, you cannot expect other countries citizens to observe the niceties by distinguishing between complicit Americans and the innocent Americans in all seriousness.
You are a democracy after all.
American bombs don’t see any difference between the Al-Queda leader and the innocent families also extinguished when one is dropped. It’s a bit much to expect the families to distinguish which Americans they then hate. Think of yourself as a kind of rhetorical collateral damage. The flip side of the collateral damage coin. You are innocent Wiley, but so was the collateral damage from the bomb.
It kind of goes with the territory as well coming from an allegedly democratic country.
About the Uranium. It is known that some of the Uranium being used in weapons by the pentagon is actually waste from reactors, not just “Depleted Uranium”, which is still not merely uranium ore, which is what occurs naturally. The fact that it is occurring has been established due to the presence of Plutonium (U-236) in some sampling taken of battlefields, if I remember correctly.
This is more likely what is being detected by the Canadian doctor, but I have yet to read the article.
I see very little chance of the video being real, what bothers me is the lack of logic. And I bet, Rabbit, if ICH put up little flags, we’d see that a lot of the bashers ARE Americans and half the rest are ex-pats.
The timing is unfortunate, with the military ready to prosecute for war crimes that have been documented.
What bothers me is not that I am being insulted, but that Americans who want to figure out what is really going on because they don’t trust the authorities and the MSM anymore are met with sheer hatefulness. Why should they continue to look for the truth about what our government is doing in the face of that?
America may be dumbed down, Rabbit, but it’s not stupid enough to subject itself to that verbal abuse, half of which is irrational, and completely uninformative. Here is a board primarily populated with people who are opposed to the administration and imperialism, so this is where people come to tell us how much they hate America? Why don’t they go to the right wing sites? Or make their own?
I’d be perfectly happy to discuss any and all current evils and confess I share some blame, but WTF is anyone supposed to do about Colombus?——and this really kills me, Rabbit——think about it! Colombus was working for the Spanish Empire! And Custer? WTF. Our asshole government justifies the lunatic guilt trips against people who are opposed to our government?
What about the Iraqis and Afghanis?
Hating Americans is clearly more important to them than caring about humanity. They can hate me all they want, they don’t know who they’re hating; but can’t they hate for events in my lifetime, and why do they so seldom talk about our victims?
And why, since they are so ostensibly well-informed is that so seldom evident. I don’t know what the moderation was about , but cutting out the irrational, hatefilled screeds that had little or nothing to do with the topic wasn’t the point.
DU, btw, has been primarily made of waste from nuclear power plants all along. They can give away or sell nuclear wastes as scrap metal. Bizarre little loophole, is it not?—-because it’s cost prohibitive to dispose of it as best we can, which isn’t good enough anyway. It has been found in concrete, paints, consumer goods, a long sad list.
The Navy discovered that a whole set of their pots and pans was made with cobalt—-radioactive medical waste.
The Plutonium is a man-made element that is a by-product in the fuel cycle——trace amounts are in the Du. Plutonium is so toxic, that one grain in your lung WILL give you lung cancer. But to make large amounts of Plutonium, I think they need more processing. Highly Enriched Uranium (which is bomb grade material) is more efficient and costs less to produce than Plutonium (which is defininetly bomb grade material) as far as fuels go. Japan is making a lot of Plutonium for some reason.
According to that article it was not-depleted uranium that they were finding in Afghanis who had symptoms like Gulf War Syndrome. It was unprocessed uranium that was somehow disseminated in such a way that it could enter bodies. I fear we are already “testing” mini-nukes. But I don’t KNOW.
The bombing is wrong regardless. The radiation is about a million years more wrong.
<i>“I fear we are already
Rat bastards. “Tactical nukes” are not “mini”. It’s outrageous. Just the thought of it is maddening and sickening.
The people we need to open our borders to, and give land and financial and medical assistance to are the Afghanis and Iraqis. Because we ruined their land. Not just their “market” or their “job prospects”—-we ruined their land, their water, and their sky.
We’ll all get a taste of it eventually, but they received the most brutal assault and the brunt of the poisoning.
We can’t fix it.
We need to stop doing it. And just as is the case when parents neglect or abuse their children, the children go to other members of their family, and if no other family members can or will take them, they go to the state. If one member of society cannot be responsible, someone else gets stuck with the responsibility. No use in complaining, when it’s clear that the offending party will not stop without consequences or force. You don’t just stand by and watch them beat their children to death. The next in line who is aware and capable of being responsible, is responsible.
If the U.S. doesn’t stop, then our “allies” (this is really embarrassing for me to use this word in this context, but hey——they’re in NATO too) are obliged to stop us, and if our “allies” can’t, then whoever can must stop this administration and the license to murder that the U.N. and most Western States have given the U.S. and Israel for so long.
That’s not to deflect blame, just to put a little balance back into the picture. If a lot of countries, or royal familiies, and crime syndicates in those countries hadn’t benefitted from our imperialism it wouldn’t have happened. We aren’t magic. We are not exceptional people.
If it happens, it will hurt us. It will hurt me. I know that. That’s not, in the big scheme of things, unfair. I accept that. But that doesn’t mean I need to accept indiscriminate verbal abuse against my country and everybody in it from anybody who drops by and doesn’t even bother to address the topic. It is democratic—-I can talk back. And I will talk back.
On the Rat Bastards theme, and highly relevant to this topic, i heard this on the BBC last night. ronald maddison bbcnews—relatives of serviceman killed by UK govt scientists in 1953 finally compensated !
Also sent it to the Downing Street Memos man, who like me , remembers being propositioned for the same sort of experimentation.
Wiley
Indiscriminat abuse ?
Water off a duck’s back is maybe a better response than getting worked up about it ?
As you say, very many foreign govts are to some degree complicit with the bush admin, so i just suggest to them that they do something at home rather than shooting their mouths off at “Amerika” .
“Activist Circles” are usually pretty ineffective, and can be counter-productive, I agree.
The next step on that one is obvious ?
Wiley
The bombing is wrong regardless. The radiation is about a million years more wrong.
Just to be pedantic, the radiation is more like 4.5 Billion years more wrong.
It was U-236 I was thinking of before and it isn’t the same as plutonium, which you know anyway.
As for the testing of Nuclear weapons in the battle field, I wouldn’t be surprised, there has been talk of it. They’ve certainly been testing some hell spawn beam weapons.
Many of the posters on ICH are foreign Wiley, they often say things which give it away. Quite a few Aussies sometimes actually.
I am often guilty of being harsh towards the Great Satan. When I allow myself to become real mean, it is always with the intention of really getting up the nose of some moron. It is usually no more than a mirroring of the sort of invective they like to direct at their anointed enemies though. Often I have to apologise and spell out caveats for the sake of the many decent ones I know are out there.
I will be the first to admit that we are culpable. Who cares if we would be shutdown as quickly as New Zealand when they tried to ban US Nuclear Warships from their own ports. We should be making a stand. Unfortunately with a similar form of the brainwashed sheeple, the same sort of false dichotomy in politics and a corporate controlled government as well, that isn’t very likely.
The main difference is that when our dickhead leaders tried to tell us that we were in danger from some Arabs in the middle east, most Aussies reacted with amusement, “pull the other one”, was the attitude.
We are still there and we are complicit and my feeling is that if we send troops to attack Iran, I hope they all come home in body bags.
There is no overweening patriotism in Aussies. If our country has become a disgusting dag hanging off the backside of the American sheep, then fuck Australia too. Where is the flag and a box of matches.
Is that wrong to wish death to our own troops? It must sound like the ultimate blasphemy to an American. I do know that it’s wrong to attack Iran. It is so wrong and so immoral. It would be great if nobody gets killed, but that isn’t the way it works. So it is simply a matter of the bad guys hopefully losing. If somebody must die then best it is the agressor. Too bad we are the bad guys. At least if we get lots of casualties our lazy self absorbed sheeple might sit up and take notice of what our government is doing in our name.
wiley,
I’ve read with interest what you are trying to do at ICH. I think maybe you’re beating yourself up a little too much. It seems to me you have done well in encouraging and attracting a core of reasonable and cautious folk who are willing to sift through the inevitable chaff for the rare nuggets of illuminating fact. I have to confess my own chagrin at being taken in by Jesse McBeth’s sordid fabulations and initially ignoring the skeptical warning bells that were going on inside my head for the purely emotional response to the horrific nature of his ‘confession’. I’m glad that video was denounced and pulled so quickly, yet it needs be remembered as a cautionary note of our being too easily mislead by our all too human vulnerabilities.
That said, look out! Here comes some free advice.
It doesn’t seem likely that many people who are only expressing their feelings and reactions to events in such an anonymous medium as this are at all motivated to be discriminating and thoughtful in their posts. They are just venting their feelings after all; feelings of fear, dread, anxiety, anger, alienation and impotence, whether honest emotions or from behind a mask of sarcasm. It is the peculiarly absurd irrational side of human nature that we believe that kind venting of all the negativity we find inside ourselves will lead to some catharsis. Perhaps true to some degree if we keep it to ourselves by, say, beating on our pillow or cussing in the shower, but it is almost always a surprize when, in a social context, it leads to a vituperative and angry response. This is the very thing the ordinary troll relies on to spread flames, fury and confusion on a thread, no?
On a personal and private level, the best remedy for falling into this trap I know is the meditative method called ‘turning poison into medicine’. By imagining all the horror, pain and negativity of the world being drawn into the core of one’s being with one’s inbreath, and magically transformed into gentleness, friendliness and compassion and flowing out into the world on exhaling, it is possible for one to quickly regain one’s composure in the face of what seems to be intractable conflict. Simple, but effective.
In terms of communication, one thing that I have noticed is the ubiquity of the word ‘hate’. It seems such a hard, irrevocable and unyielding word. It seems that sense is only re-inforced by its every iteration. If our goal is indeed to put an end to hatred and the violence which it engenders, we should be attempting to wean people away from its overuse, and seeking to substitute more flexible, ameliorative and generous terminology in its place. ‘Anger’ is a step in that direction, insofar as it connotes a transient emotion and not so much a fixed and inflexible state of mind, but more deeply understood that it arises out of feelings of fear, anxiety, uncertainty, hopelessness and impotence. When we begin to recognize and admit those feelings and their connotations of helplessness and weakness, then, if they don’t completely fade away like the morning dew, they at least become workable by leaving open an avenue of mutual sympathy and working together to find solutions.
It is extremely difficult to create a safe and friendly space for such insights to develop. Especially when anyone can intrude with their seeming desire to explode that sense of communal interaction by anxiety driven needs of immediate judgement and resolution. Even more so by those contrarians who rely on derision and ridicule to disrupt and derail a conversation. We should maybe see that as a challenge to re-commit ourselves and our imaginations to patient, persistent and invigorating efforts towards open and inclusive acceptance, and the opportunity to learn what is effective in drawing such persons into a dialogue in which what is really important to each and every participant can be respectfully addressed, whether by soothing words or sometimes a hard kick in the pants or just standing up to a bullying attitude with equanimity. It’s useful sometimes to remember the hardest thing to do is also often the most rewarding.
Forgive me for going on in such a didactic fashion. I hope you see these little criticisms in the light of my deep admiration and as genuine encouragement for the worthy efforts you are making. I’ve glanced at your ijournal site, and am moved by the artwork you’ve posted there. I’ve a much ignored account there. I’ll try to get around to linking up with you, but until I get some much needed work done around here, I’m trying to reduce my internet addiction by just checking my e-mail in the mornings. I feel kind of guilty for spending so much time sparring with Natalie this last several days as it is.
And Rabbit, as cynical as you sometimes sound, you may unfortunately be right. I must admit I have, at times, never realized that I believed in something until I discovered it was wrong. We never seem to miss the water till the well goes dry. Having a wee bit of foresight is priceless, though.
I’ll come back and re-read these posts. Not finished with my first cup of coffee and am not ready to do justice in reply, except for where I only speak for myself.
It’s nice to see you guys.
I’m not as worked up as I appear to be, but actually, before the MaCBeth thing——if you go back on the threads you will see that the smart regulars, except for Dan (he’s bright and shiny) kept returning to the DemonSpawnofColombus theme. I’ve noticed they’ve laid off of it a little.
I don’t see it from my perspective as “an American” , except a little of the ‘hey—-your talking about my grandma (the woman’s a saint!), and my sisters and brothers’—- feelings which I dismiss before I write.
Mostly I think about those Iraqis who are sick and dying and living in constant terror. Would they be refreshed to hear that the primary topic of conversation is how much Americans suck and not what and how much Iraqis need ? Would reading anti-american graffiti make them feel better as they lie on dirty sheets without antibiotics?
Don’t you think it would be more healing to hear that Americans were talking to each other and Europeans about what we need to do, how we need to change, how helpless we feel sometimes in the face of these powers, too, and how much we want Iraqis to live in peace and be whole? Until the MacBeth thing that brought on a lot of freeper panty raids, the majority, if not all, people on most threads were opposed to the administration and imperialism.
Whether they are foreign or not, I have to wonder about the motives of people who keep turning the conversation back to the U.S. and its history. Isn’t that what Americans’ problem is? “We” only think about ourselves, and think “we’re” so exceptional?
I’m not sure why it’s hard for people to get that I am not talking about my own personal feelings. People trained to listen get it wrong. On three occassions I talked to psychiatrists about the false alarm I experienced. I said in no uncertain terms that although I knew we were targets, my own death was trivial. (There wasn’t a “me” there at the time, really.) Three years ago I seriously contemplated my own death for the first time. Until then, “death”—-unless referring to a specific dead person, meant extinction to me. I have been living with the fear of extinction for over twenty years. That’s what I wrestle with.
And on all three reports they wrote “she feared for her life”. I really feel like boxing ears sometimes. I need to remove some of the wax from my own ears as well, of course.
So when you see me respond to some jeers, keep in mind that it’s the problems and pain that isn’t being addressed, and the worthlessness of using that time to rehash American sins that bothers me. Really, who would want the American left (a generalization) to believe that most of the population is hopelessly stupid and incapable of learning? Who would benefit from that?
The reason I think that so many turn the conversation back on Americans and their history is simple. Those who are yet blind, who spout the bullshit as if it is untouchable, are actually spouting garbage. They are repeating a very Americanised and sanitized version of history. They are invariably doing it in oder to cash in on the past glory, as if this somehow justifies the present.
The obvious reation of many to this, is to point out that history is not exactly in agreement with their programmed view.
Telling the idiots they are wrong now is all very well. The reply is essentially that the USA is somehow special, different to the rest. The hubris is astounding, almost as extraordinary as the ignorance, nay more so. The ignorance is deliberately instilled, it is cultivated actually and we too have our version of it. We have made a profound effort to whitewash our history of abuse of the Aborigines. We are brought up with the same mickey mouse version of modern history which tries to pretend that Adolf Hitler and the Nazi’s just popped up out of the ground one day, with no previous history or motive beyond world domination. The innocent Europeans, led by Britain then held the fort until Uncle Sam was able to turn his massive attention to saving everyone’s bacon.
Then the USA unselfishly re-built the world for everyone, and showed us all how a democracy worked.
Trying to tell anyone who believes that is the whole story, that the USA is not somehow special, is not the messiah, is quite impossible.
This leaves one little choice but to make them aware that the USA is not special, it was never the messiah, and has not special store of credibility to draw on. Torture by a USA which simply calls it rendition, or enhanced information gathering techniques is no less a base and evil thing than if it is simply called torture in a Soviet or Nazi dictatorship.
The idea of being called monsters, and war criminals. Of being feared and loathed. Is so novel to brainwashed Americans and pseudo-americans like us, that it takes a lot of repetition to make them realise it is real.
It is hard to imagine that a reasoned and polite argument is going to get through to people who are denying reality on a daily basis rather than face the fact that they are wrong about nearly every important fact upon which they supposedly form their opinions.
Rightly or wrongly many see a need for a national humiliation, before you as a nation are likely to be able to bring your country under humane control. As for not being anyone elses concern, the USA has made itself everybody elses concern by making a mess in everyone elses backyard. By making our business yours, you have made your business ours. If that situation is not to your liking, then it is your leaders you need to take it up with not us. (Understand I am not telling you this persanally, merely expressing the “outlander” attitude.)
The problem from here seems to be largely a national arrogance or hubris. The obvious counterforce to that in a human world, is humiliation.
<i>Isn
On the Macbeth video. I think you should read the comment by Objector on This link.
Like him I cannot avoid the feeling that Macbeth is genuine. I have withdrawn my support of the fact only, but my instintive reaction is still thus.
If it is definately a hoax, then I am seriously concerned about my instinct for it has always been my guiding light. If its true, think for a moment how seriously the Pentagon would take shutting him down, and then consider the enormous right wing, and only right wing reaction to it. The left is as I maintain being very cautious, almost silent about it, despite the right wing hysteria. If its true kids, this one is going to take the roof off this circus. It is one thing for us to know atrocities are happening, it is another entirely for it to be attested to publically.
Either way, the point to be gained from all this, is to be cautious. That means not only being prepared to step back if things don’t add up, as much as maintaining an open mind even after the initial debunking. If this story does yet pan out, the tables are going to be very abruptly turned on quite a few forums. I am the same way with much of the 911 evidence. Some things are easy to be sure of, oithers are not.
Once I was mostly convinced that a 757 did hit the Pentagon, but agreed it wasn’t certain, and there were questions, anomalies. These days I have a much larger body of questions and anomalies which point away from a big airliner at least. I am much more disinclined to accept flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Yet I have never committed myself on the case and that is because there is still too many questions unanswered. To say I am sure yet would be premature.
I’d rather say I believed this once but am inclined more to believe something different now, and then have to go back to the original position when the final truth is in, than to go from saying I believe this to I now know it’s false, thereafter having to do a complete backflip when the truth takes us back to the original premise. Less embarrassing for a start. Mostly though it is my scientific objectivity, I like to think.
The story so far is: The video comes out and the guy is convincing. At least the fact of the guy’s existence and some of his story has checked out. There are a number of questions about the guy himself which may reflect on either the truthfullness or the accuracy of what we so far know. There are anomalies in his uniform and story which still do not disprove his story, especially after reading Objector’s views.
There is no proof he is lying, unless a denial by the military is considered proof. No proof either way, but it will obviously come. My money is on legit, but I won’t defend it as being so yet, too little to go on and too far out of my experience.
Of course, Lumens 4.5 billion. It’s too big! It’s too big!
I am worn out from news. Was in the middle of a DU article on Uruknet and had to stop.
What’s saddest of all, Rabbit, is the people who think they are so blessed to get the crumbs. I heard a southern black man use the expression “on the buggy” once, to describe somebody being let in for a while, and having a little creature comfort instead of walking. Most of Americans are “on the buggy”, and the wheels are about to fall off the buggy.
I’ve been very lucky in many ways——especially as a woman. I’ve had times when I did want ever I wanted to do from the time I got up to the time I went to bed every day. I went on long walks at three a clock in the morning and never worried about getting hurt, and was never threatened. Walked almost everywhere, was healthy, in touch with the seasons. My town was a joy.
I wish I could download some of the best times of my life into most American’s heads—-the television wasn’t there. Life can be so much richer than the American dream.
Then the Gulf War shot that to hell for me and a lot of other people. Every time we attack a country it corrodes our culture. War isn’t the only campaign either. I can’t put my finger quite on it, but there is a whole lot more being sold wholesale by the mass media than war. It’s like a big chute that steers everyone away from the real and toward the desire for the unattainable, or the poisoned apple.
Most Americans have no idea. It’s not because they’re stupid. The machine never slows down. It just keeps deforming thought, so much that people don’t give much thought to what is going on. It’s not innocence, but it’s not exactly an ignorance embraced for its own sake.
You have to be practically fringe to see it.
If shown the light, I think at least 80% of the population would at least want it.
Sorry I’m not addressing your posts and am rambling. But I need to fight the message that we’re hopeless cretins.
Wow, gone for a few days and you folks have boosted this puppy into nine pages. I see a lot of angst and anger directed at myself, and America’s foreign policies. That’s fine, and perhaps some of what you say is justified.
However, consider the larger picture. Upwards of 250 million people were murdered by their own goverments in the 20th century alone, and I’m afraid the US is not much of a contributer to this total. When you also consider the supreme effort we’ve put forth in the last 50-75 years to work against this kind of murderous behavoir, things hopefully start to come into perspective.
I’m really not much on history, but I know enough to understand that America is inarguably the most benevolent world power in the history of the planet. Not perfect, of course, far from it, but stop to think who would likely be ruling your particular country if not for the decisive and determined efforts of the American soldier and those who ally with him/her. And of course, America is the foremost promoter of capatilism, one of the essential building blocks to a free, prosperous society, and the most effective antidote to poverty, hunger, and imperial ambition.
If yours had been the prevailing attitute in the last seven or so decades, suffice it to say that you would likely not be enjoying the freedom to convey that attitude today, and the means to do so in such an instantaneous and affordable manner would likely not exist either.
Imagine there’s no Google
I wonder if you can
No off-topic discussions, welcome to China,
former Iraq, and Iran
Imagine some perspective
I wonder if you can
Welcome to Cuba, North Korea
and Vietnam
A long time ago, nyvegan posted partially this:
2. Actually watch the video, and make a similar list of the things that are demonstrable, verifiable, and which are in keeping with the laws of nature (e.g., the melting point of titanium; the size of a hole in the Pentagon relative to the size of a 757. Also include those highly statistically improbable coincidences (e.g., a Pentagon planner evaluating the impact of a 757 crash into the Pentagon later becomes the pilot of a 757 plane that allegedly does precisely that; 3 skyscrapers collapsed within 7 hours of one another, when such collapses are unheard of. Another not mentioned in the video, but in the public record: building 7’s owner, Larry Silverstein, said in an interview “And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.” Even if someone chose to demolish the building, it would take weeks to study the structure, acquire and place charges, “pull it”.) Do not dismiss the video because it disagrees with your confirmation bias - please watch it, and go to the original videos they cite and review them if you question the author’s credibility.
I’m a little confused by your list criteria, but from this it appears you are assuming that everything in the Loose Change film is true and/or relevant. It would seem to me that the first step is to verify the truthfulness and relevance of items in the film, in order to be able to use it in any kind of meaningful analysis.
I started my own point by point analysis, but got sidetracked by arguments about DU. Subsequently, it came to my attention that *someone else has already done quite a lengthy critique, rendering my efforts rather obsolete, although some of our ideas are similar. It looks like you two are both from NY, and both are not fans of the President and/or his policies.
* My name is Mark Roberts, and I’m a tour guide in New York City. My first debunking effort was at the age of five, when I tried in vain to convince the kids at the school bus stop that there was no Santa Claus. I was eventually vindicated.
Email: itmatters@mail.com
His critique is here. (5.1 mb Microsoft Word document)
Rabbit said a while back:
Upon reflection Rabbit has not been fair to the Lung Cancer referance, I see that Doctor Howenstine only referenced the Story on CNN, which has been removed from their transcript on the net. This is a common practice for TV stations who have been contacted by certain forces about a story they have aired. Too late to stop the story but at least they remove it from the transcript. Such actions show more than they hide to those who are paying atention.
Thank you for finally kind of admitting, Rabbit, that your previous sources alluding to a six-fold increase in lung cancer rates in the U.S. basically made it up. However, I see you stlll cling to the paranoid and ridiculous notion that the CNN transcripts were somehow cleansed.
Do you really think that CNN would agree to do that, especially considering all the negative focus all the media eagerly and regularly put on the war, the military, and the Bush administration? I mean, they weren’t even talking about DU, why would some supposed censor think this was a fact that would have to be expunged from the CNN transcript? What about all the VCR’s out there? Do you really think that such momentous news would escape the attention of the general public? Did you ever stop to think why there is no mention anywhere of the mysterious disappearance of the conversation from the CNN transcripts, when at least several hundred thousand people would have seen it, recorded it, and surely they would have been rightly shocked about it and surely would have been buzzing about the fact that they had seen it, and then when they went to the transcript to verify, it wasn’t there?
I’m “out of my depth”, and you can’t even recognize obvious nonsense?
*Here’s an example of how this kind of mis or rather dis information infects the stream of information people rely upon presumably to become accurately informed.
* And CNN reported the U.S. lung cancer rate jumped six-fold for the first two months of the year.
This is both an indication of a lack of fact-checking ability or more likely desire, and how something simply made up can masquerade across the web as fact.
I wonder what else might be made up???????
I noticed the very first Nattypost was answered by jsalsman, 27aug05, with a ref to DNA changes. That first post showed the Bat to be a lover of DDT, GMOs, and Pesticides in general, and an enemy of the same scare-mongering unscientific kooky fringe who pointed out years ago that coaldust killed miners, and asbestos killed shipbuilders.
Interesting, Frog, that you would mention James Salsman. He recognizes that there’s virtually no radiation danger associated with depleted uranium, and is not 100% comfortable with people using that as a device to discredit it. His contention is that DU vapors, oxides, fumes if you will, are the real culprit:
“The radioactivity of uranium is of essentially no consequence in relation to DNA damage compared with its chemical toxicity producing oxidative stress resulting in oxidation damage to DNA. Any discussion of U radioactivity in that context is tantamount to misdirection from the more hazardous chemical toxicity. This must be the 100th time I’ve had to explain this, and at least the 3rd or forth on this thread.”.....James Salsman pg. 2, “Radioactive” wounds of war.
” Regarding your comments, “why is the title of your article ‘RADIOACTIVE Wounds of War?’ You’re shilling for your target audience.” I feel ambivalent about this. On balance, I feel a better title would be, “Birth Defect-Inducing Wounds of War.” However, I find it hard to object to the title as it stands because I strongly feel this issue deserves more attention.”.....James Salsman pg. 2
And it would appear true that some researchers have been successful in demonstrating that certain changes can be affected in test cells or animals in the laboratory, by exposing them to these small particles. Others have not. Of course, there’s no shortage of substances that can be shown to have negative effects on cells, rats, mice, hamsters, rabbits and frogs.
The real doubt in my mind, and in that of many others, is whether these moderate laboratory results have any relevance to real world conditions. In other words, if these cells and animals were merely exposed to the miniscule amounts of these “vapors” that one might realistically encounter, even in the close proximity to a DU incident, would they show any ill-effects at all, ever?
Although the sample size is low, it is worth considering that the group of actual humans that actually inhaled what would be the largest concentration (resulting from a DU explosion) of these particles has shown few if any ill-effects after all these years from an encounter with the presumed “fumes of death”. Plus, they have DU shrapnel in their bodies to boot.
Strangely, an even smaller sample known as the members of Doug Rokke’s DU cleanup team are almost all dead and the rest are hopelessly ill. Stranger still, lung cancer rates in the U.S. are up 600% in just the last few months.
You mention DDT and GM foods in the context of caring about children. If one cares about children, does one advocate for the banning of things that have the ability to save millions of them from death? Most of us with computers and Internet connections are also lucky enough to live without the threat of catching malaria or dying of starvation. Isn’t it a little selfish and stubborn to deny others less fortunate, especially children, the ability to do so also, when claims of harm by these substances/technologies have been greatly exaggerated, and in may cases lied about?
Surely you know you’re adored Natalie. I heard you were here, stopped by and you were gone. Though I didn’t say it directly, the angst you see in my post is yours.
I see you’re as prolific as ever, and am relieved to see that you haven’t lost your verve.
Toodles, luv. I trust you’ll have company soon.
NATTY, welcome back,
Last bit first—
Your first witness for the safety of DDT and GMO’s ( and nucular power) is a flack the Eco-Judas Dr Patrick Moore.
Your second witness, the site www. junkscience.com is another flack -shop for big business. Stephen J Milloyruns it.
Another article on Milloy and similar gave up this ltlle gem——
I found that at Sheldon Rampton’s shit-digging on the Flack industry
We can see above a clear illustration of the quality and the hidden sponsors of your sources.
Frog, I love those guys. “Trust Us, We’re Experts” is a must read. I would recommend it especially to teenagers who need to rebel against something.
The Center for Democracy in Media and Spin of the Day is such a vital resource. Power to the watchdogs.
Thanks for your research, frog,
I’ve been loathe to comment on Nat’s loathsome choice of references, but if I must I must. I’m certain without even blinking, she’ll dismiss Rampton as just another left-wing anti-business loony. Perhaps she’ll consider this review of Milloy’s screed from The Skeptical Enquirer , a source one would think would be his natural ally, that basically rips him a new one. It’s apparent that Hines is either unaware that Milloy has a degree in Biostatistics or is too polite to say he should know better. Either way it’s obvious that Milloy is a lying corporate shill and a pure unadulterated sack of shit.
Specifically concerning DDT and the host of lies that Milloy has engendered, this smackdown of his specious dissembing over Rachel Carson stands out.:
This is from Jim Norton’s info-pollution.com , which is an excellent anti-environmentalist de-bunking site. They have a whole page devoted to Steve Milloy. I’m not sure Nat will understand the sins of specious quote-mining exposed here, since she seems so enamored of the method herself, but here it is.
I haven’t heard of Dr. Strangewhore before, but the myth that DDT is banned as an agent against malaria, rather than as a crop pesticide, even in the US, is familiar old chestnut, much embraced by Milloy and his minions.
register a new account »Posting Security