US soldiers & Iraqi civilians: "Victims of US/British DU contamination?"

what data am I ignoring? also if mythology is something base on reason, logic and evidence unbiased by emotion and opinion then yes it is my mythology.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Mr. Fish and Chips,

"No one I know ingests montiors or fire alarms "

No one I know ingests sabot rounds

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

crazy151drinker,

Well then usually don't ingest sabot rounds they just get decapitated by them

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

so that how DU is lethal we should ban it!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The stuff gets oxidized crazy, it burns, it disintegrates upon impact and burns violently releasing dust. People do ingest sabot rounds after they are used, little guy.

WellCooked, You toss aside the research and work of Dr. Doug Rokke who is perhaps the number one most knowledgeable person on this subject who at one time thought the stuff was okay for deployment but changed his mind when he learned of the results of exposure first hand. You cite the WHO and another study but why not the other studies that disagree with those findings (such as NATO or the Royal Society of England)? Maybe you need to involve some emotion. What is it, do you think it is unfair to consider life as precious, to consider human welfare as important? Are those emotional biases that you have tossed out with your brains?

Again WHAT IS YOUR INVOLVEMENT IN THE MILITARY, WELLCOOKED? What is your agenda?

 

Mr. Chips, I have personally shot Sabot rounds so my involement in the Miltary is deep

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I am quite familiar with DU since ive handled it, shot it, and was protected by it.
Maybe people shouldnt play on burned out tanks.

 

Hey guy, people are being ordered to clean up around those tanks and salvage what they can with no warnings, no supplied masks, no gloves. They are US army personnel being ordered to do so by their commanders. See the video I linked to above.

Are you aware of how those munitions turn into dust? Some claim the dust can blow far and wide (I've heard up to 60 miles with some of those sand and dust storms that happen over there). Did you partake in Desert Storm or this second round of humanity betrayal? I understand we've practically doubled the amount of DU spreading over the first atrocity and not just bullets or anti tank projectiles but also the bombs of the heinous psychopathic "shock and awe" crap.

 

Thank you.

I'm sorry my post was too difficult for you to understand. Perhaps if you read it a few more times you will understand it.

And I think you have a problem with baseless personal attacks. Rather than attacking me personally, please explain, in your own words, the radiological hazards of DU. Quoting activist websites seems to be your mantra, but I've yet to see you formulate an opinion of your own.

The chemical hazards are well known and easily dealt with, and no more serious than the tungsten-cored AP rounds we were using in WWII and Korea. Nobody had a problem then.

 

Mr. Chips,

aaaaaaah what did I site again? please show me make sure they match up with what you claim.

No I have no agenda, I do not work for the military, and I have no emotion on this topic. seriously.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

DU (and some of the other isotopes that somehow make there way into the material as has been found by trusted and trustworthy researchers) is an alpha emitter and some of its daughter isotopes are beta and gamma emitters which are always coexisting with the base DU isotope. Stokey tried in another thread to make the same baseless argument and the citations he gave himself gave evidence that his opinion was far from science and reinforced what I am sharing.

You are an anti-science sort of guy, Stokey, twisting the facts to fit your desired beliefs. This is not a baseless smear. Remember when you posted that data that confirmed the radiation hazard of DU just as I repeat here and you said what kind of radiation it emitted was open to semantic interpretation? Your personality can't admit when you are wrong! Hell, you come here because the majority of folks in an online forum are lost and lonely and perfectly willing to play the charade that you are some kind of scientist when that is so far from the truth it is ridiculous. You got a problem with my citing web sites and informed individuals? Do you have a clue as to what science is? It's not just looking at the data that supports your own pet theories where physics is "open to semantic interpretation." You got to back up your claims and look at all sides.

I do have a problem with baseless personality attacks which is one of the reasons why I have no respect for your opinions. Your modus operandi is baseless persecution. I am working from established data here. Being a scientist doesn't mean you do intricate work involving math and physics to build weapons. That is just business as usual. All the degrees in the world and all the education you want to claim doesn't make you a scientist. Science is a method of fair information appraisal, and sharing that data fairly and squarely for the benefit of all. You are an anti-science personality and you've provided the basis for this claim yourself.

People, go and do your own research if you are interested in this stuff. Don't just take my word for it (which is why I try to give citations) and please don't go and take Stokey's word as science. He has demonstrated that he is a highly opinionated person with a desire to mislead and obfuscate with recourse to false ad hominem personality attacks and long winded posts of details that give only his opinion, not the opinion of well established, well respected and admired scientists and science.

 

Sure looks like you got some sort of agenda, WellCooked. In your personal data you claim science as an interest. Sure could of fooled me with your inability to see the data that makes your opinion appear quite shallow and non-scientific. How about your parents, any instance of blind subservience to the military-industrial-complex amongst your loved ones? Something is making you quite incapable of an unbiased perspective as far as this stuff goes.

 

BTW, going back over the long-winded post of Stokey's in this thread with the glossy photos, etc. I see he claims that U238 has no beta emitters in its decay path. That is 100% false as you can see from here http://www.health.state.ny.us/nysdoh/radon/chain.htm

It does appear that the gamma radiation found with the stuff is due to the contaminating isotopes of other radionuclides such as plutonium 239 and Uranium 236 http://www.balkanpeace.org/hed/archive/feb01/hed2634.shtml stuff that Stokey calls "utterly insignificant."

http://www.xs4all.nl/~stgvisie/VISIE/du-hiddencost.html

Can't handle the citations? Tough beans.

 

No, I said that U238 is an alpha emitter as it decays into Thorium-234. Thank you for backing up what I said.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Again, thanks for proving my point.

So, how does this last "citation" of shoddy editorialism discredit anything I've posted?

I'm sorry if you can't read my posts. I know they're a lot of words, but you probably should before attempting a hamfisted reply.

 

Perhaps I should cross post this from another board. I posted a link there to this one, so here: du . They destroyed the claim just as thoroughly. As for the clean up, the AF made just one mistake on composites, and fixed that. Perhaps the local people are unaware of the dangers. I certainly hope that they correct that problem quickly.

Note to those that go over there: They're a bit wierd and tend to hit stupid people over the head to try to make them see reason. Don't expect to flame or troll very long, and be nice.

 

Stokes, the post I refer to is on page one of this thread (the one with the color photos). See if you can refrain from editing that post so others can go look at it with the idea that it is unadulterated.

Stokes Pennwalt: "It may be that an isotope could emite alpha, beta, and gamma through three different decays, but in the case of U-238 it emits only alpha or a gamma; there is no U-238 mode that allows a beta decay."

I read that entire post as anyone might assume so it perplexes me why your reply should make the claim that I didn't. Why defend a post where I claim you have shared specific misinformation about the physics involved in determining the potential health effects of DU with a fairly obvious lie? Do you think that helps your position?

We are on a public forum and it is basically anarchic so the idea that "might makes right" and acceptance of the opinions that ensue from having that belief gets more support from other sycophants but there are those who are not duped. In many forums this crass ideological stance is practically all that remains, logic and reason are met with disdain and attack, with the logical and reasonable leaving rather than continuing to be harrassed. This venue caters to those who are persistent more than reasonable. Is it enough for you to appeal only to the unscrupulous? Is it enough for the owner and administrator of this forum? That would be nothing new.

I am simply amazed at your dysfunction. I think I have stated this before. I am not surprised. Psychosis is pandemic. I suggest you take a long hard look at yourself and your preoccupations. Conventional therapy is often in tune with this idea that power decides so if you do want to move to a place where you are building yourself a state of accumulating sustained options, and helping others to get there too, you would have to look hard to find the way but it is there. I'm not going to hold my breath.

Stokes Pennwalt: "it's not dangerous radiologically unless you sprinkle it on your food for years at a time"

How about if you breath it? How about if you drink it in your water? Guidelines for its use recommend limited time exposure and gloves because of the beta and gamma radiation. How many are aware of that as they come upon it in their environs? Please don't go about eating a bunch of the stuff to prove your point as I really doubt the validity of that claim of yours too. Raise enough suspicion through repeatedly giving misinformation and one can reasonably discredit a lot of the superlative examples you barf up.

Oh well, attempting to share reason in an online forum can seem kind of like pissing in the wind. The only thing I get out of this is some pointed self-education. Thanks for that any ways.

Edited for spelling and small addition

 

I believe in inherent good naturedness. When a person is not being altruistic I do believe they inadvertently want to be discovered so that their efforts might, at least subconsciously, lead to less real damage. Is there a word for this? It's when a person begins to feel guilty and starts waving flags about it usually through ineptness without admitting it to themselves. There's got to be a word.

 

This is correct. There are daughter isotopes of U-238 that have a beta function to them, but U-238 does not. This isn't exactly a complicated concept, so I'm perplexed as to why you seem to be unable to grasp it.

It's not dangerous then either. Radiologically. You will note that I said its hazards are strictly chemical, not radiological.

Those corrections made, you should slim down your posts a bit and remove the vapid rhetoric and failed personal attacks. I asked you to explain to us the dangers of DU munitions quite some time ago. I thought you'd be able to, being that you seem to embrace an anti-DU campaign with a quasi-religious fervor. But so far you haven't been able to. You accused WCF of having an agenda, but thus far your motives are the most suspicious out of anybody's here. You're not making much sense at all.

 

Stokes Pennwalt: "It may be that an isotope could emite alpha, beta, and gamma through three different decays, but in the case of U-238 it emits only alpha or a gamma; there is no U-238 mode that allows a beta decay."

Let's see now,

"It may be that an isotope could emite alpha, beta, and gamma through three different decays"

Okay, sure, no problem.

"but in the case of U-238"

Yes? U238 is an isotope that emits beta radiation through different decays, okay, so how is that different from the subject of the first phrase? Maybe it isn't three different decays, the beta starts with the first daughter radionuclide for U238. I can see that difference but U238 is an isotope that leads to daughter isotopes that emit beta radiation, just like the subject of the first phrase so "there is no U-238 mode that allows a beta decay" is wrong when you are making comparison to an isotope that leads to daughter isotopes that do. U238 does that too. The mode of decay of U238 leads to beta emitting daughter isotopes.

If it's just that you got the grammar and logic wrong, comparing an isotope and its decay products to just an isotope and not its decay products, I am perfectly willing to grant you the fallacy of being in error that way as any human can be but to feel that you can't even admit making a grammatical error in logic, to what extent should I trust anything you say? This is a quirk in your personality, this inability to see when you are absolutely wrong, this inability to admit it. This is not the way of a scientist, this is quite irrational behavior.

This is beginning to get quite boring to me. I'll let you "win" if you must persist with this insanity. I have better things to do. To the victor the prize. What prize? Well accolades from the peanut gallery, your hard earned reward. Speak up psychos, give the man some praise. He can hold onto his irrationality longer than I care to attempt to help him or others see through the megalomania.

 

*Claps with one hand*

 

Mr. Chips conseeds this is over, good thread closing time.

 

No comment about Stokes obvious dysfunction? Did some searching and believe the reasons why people behave this way is because of anomie which, in laymans terms, is because people don't know any better, don't have any compunction to keep their communications/thoughts/beliefs coherent. It is common. What about you, Fetus? What do you think about Stokes anti-scientific claims and his inability to own up to them? Isn't it at least interesting?

Maybe you are looking to make a killing in the biotech field and are practicing how to be a sycophant to big money. In which case practicing the art of selective ignorance might get you a ticket to ride, that is, until the biosphere collapses.

By the way, the spelling is "concedes." Another new word I got today is solecism.