What’s the 411 on 9/11?

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’:

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.

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 � 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.

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.

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 clinically confirmed “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:

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.

The content fire theory is addressed elsewhere:

But here we note from the recent NIST report that:  �The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes� and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in a given location. (NIST, 2005; p. 179, emphasis added.) Certainly jet fuel burning was not enough to raise steel to sustained temperatures above 800oC. But we continue:

Once more than half of the columns in the critical floor.. suffer buckling (stage 3), the weight of the upper part of the structure above this floor can no longer be supported, and so the upper part starts falling down onto the lower part below��(Bazant and Zhou, 2002, p. 2.)

Bazant & Zhou do not explain how �more than half of the columns in the critical floor [can] suffer buckling� at the same time to precipitate the complete and nearly symmetrical collapse observed. There were 47 huge steel core columns in each Tower, and 24 such support columns in WTC 7 (NIST 2005; NISTb, 2005). 

They do NOT explain how steel-column temperatures above 800oC were achieved near-simultaneously due to burning office materials.  NIST notes that office materials in an area burn for about 15-20 minutes, then are consumed away (NIST, 2005, pp. 117, 179).  This is evidently not long enough to raise steel column temperatures above 800oC as required in the Bazant & Zhou model, given the enormous heat sinks of the structures.  And to have three buildings completely collapse due to this unlikely mechanism on the same day strains credulity.  Moreover, the Final NIST report on the Towers admits:

Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250�C� Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 �C. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 �C.  (NIST, 2005, pp. 176-177; emphasis added.)

Is there even the tiniest bit of comprehension stirring in your brain, Nat?

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.

....... 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 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 damage 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.”

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 Contamination of Persian Gulf War Veterans and Others by Depleted Uranium 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.

(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.

(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; �the report never quite says what is clearly stated between the lines: the levels of chemical toxicity are higher than admitted by the politicians and military, who dismiss the concept of chemical toxicity by saying the non sequitur, �the DU is not radioactive�� [17].

The US Department of Defense admits; �if DU enters the body it has the potential to generate significant medical consequences� [2]. While clothes and skin block the majority of radiation from DU outside the body, once inhaled or ingested, small amounts of beta and gamma radiation would be able to penetrate deep cell tissue. The IPPNW (International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War) says that �even low doses of low-level radiation can cause some damage to DNA in living cells, whether enough to significantly increase the risk of cancer and other acute health effects is a matter of much debate�until now there has been no conclusive evidence but this [is not] evidence that there are no health effects�[5].

There has been a lot of publicity over cancer cases occurring soon after conflict which most sides agree are unlikely to be caused solely by DU exposure, the general period for development of cancer being between 5 and 10 years. However the IPPNW feel that this possibility cannot be ruled out [5].

Dr. Alim Yacoub* et al of Basra University conducted an epidemiological study into incidences of malignancies in children under fifteen years old, in the Basra area (an area bombed with DU during the first Gulf War). They found that in the years 1990 to 1997 there was a 120% rise in the number of general malignancies, while over the 1990 to 1999 period, there was a 242% rise. Leukaemia was seen to rise 100% in the 1990 to 1999 period with a similar steeper increase in the last 2 years [2]. They noted an �abnormal increase in the incidence of cancer of the blood, lungs, digestive system, and skin� as well as �a notable increase in the incidence of congenital diseases and foetal anomalies�. This is certainly not proof of a link, as stated above it is difficult to ascertain a particular cause of any epidemiological findings. Smoke from oil fires in the area would have released carcinogens, and any possible DU effects cannot be isolated, but it is certainly food for thought. Once ingested DU can enter the bloodstream and will pass through the placenta to an unborn child, [2]. The WTO notes that children are sometimes more likely to be exposed due to hand to mouth activities [16]. Another source quoted epidemiological research showing a three-fold increase in occurrence of cancer in Bosnia between 1995 and 1997 [18].

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.

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!

Well, no, you pay attention!  Your “answer” of May 1 to my “whinge” was noted in my above post.  Also evident, if you had been paying attention!, would have been the fact that in your “answer”, the exact same statistics are simply reproduced, again without substantiation.  So I guess one might conclude that your “answer” was not an answer at all, but merely a repetition of what I suspect is a wholly invented claim.  Again....on what do they base their statistics?

Besides which you are casting your red herrings to the wind.

No, not at all.  You have provided a perfect example of the nonsense that dominates the anti-DU movement.  Of course now you wish to pretend that it’s all irrelevant.  If so, then why did you bother to present it in the first place?

I do not have to prove any credibility, it isn�t Rabbit doing the epidemiological studies merely pointing them out.

Well, at least you’re finally pointing out something that approaches the realm of credibility.  I read the teratogenicity of DU aerosol study referenced by luminous, and gave my lengthy opinion of it above, as I can only assume you are aware.  You seem to think that it is some kind of iron-clad proof of DU guilt, a conclusion the authors certainly don’t come to.  Perhaps you can point out the smoking gun in the study, and explain to me why the authors displayed a reluctance to discuss other far more likely causes of birth defects in Basra that might also happen to reflect poorly on someone other than the U.S.

You don’t have to prove any credibility?  I guess that’s why you haven’t yet.  You could start with the lung cancer rates.

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.