|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Apr 28th, 2003 01:15 PM | ||||
| El Blanco |
Quote:
Quote:
One more time for our short bus riders: WE DO NOT PUT DEPLETED URANIUM IN BUNKER BUSTERS!! It would be a waste. The BB already wipes out the underground bunker. It causes the structure to collapse on itself. What purpose would the DU serve? Is Saddam hidding the Death Star under Iraq? Do yourself a favor, give up on the technical and scientific side of this conversation. You are outgunned. |
|||
| Apr 28th, 2003 08:09 AM | ||||
| ranxer |
Ga you exaggerate.. 'du is killing the world' come on! why would you paint my view as such? what source have you posted that i have ignored? i'm simply posting some of the stuff i've run across.. and the du subject is not going away.. at the same time its very hard to verify because the folks that speak out are in a lot of trouble for speaking out! did you know that if a soldier claims to suffer radiation symptoms they can be kicked out of the service? ..healthcare denied.. if they persue same anyway thier records of service can be 'lost.' so its a very hard situation and the government is maintaining nearly complete denial.. so i realize im not going to get far very fast on this subject. |
|||
| Apr 28th, 2003 03:18 AM | ||||
| GAsux |
You know The thing I really love about Ranxer is his clever use of sources. It's such an obvious theme. Discredit the sources of anything that refutes your point of view, particularly when it comes from "mainstream" media, all the while posting link upon link to your "alternative" news as some kind of gold standard. As if something must be truthful simply because it didn't come from mainsteam media. You know, the National Enquirer is "alternative", but I don't suppose there is much truth to the story that some woman in Alabama is having an Elvis/BigFoot baby. You can't have it both ways my friend. You can't in good faith ignore or deny a source simply because it's statements refute your position. I am quite positive that I could provide just as many links as to the inconclusive proof of the effects as you have provided here in your defense. In the end, in my mind, they basically equal out with no clear answer. But in your mind, you'll say that my sources are bogus, and amount to nothing more than clear attempts to disinform the people by the government, regardless of the source. But you're right. Since you are convinced that DU is killing the world, and you've even provided a source that says PERHAPS it's true although studies are inconclusive, you are surely right, and everyone else is surely wrong. |
|||
| Apr 27th, 2003 09:21 PM | ||||
| ranxer | well, there's a difference between practice and the real thing.. i assume that makes a difference on the munitions being used.. maybe not with small arms but surely a bunker buster(etc) isnt 'tested' in a ground fight practice. not to mention the fact that most of the time ive been involved with 'practice' fighting we didnt stand around the targets as the dust settled or live around the areas we did our firing of weapons. | |||
| Apr 27th, 2003 05:45 PM | ||||
| Abcdxxxx | I'm not in the military but I think the points ben made a few times over that live ammunition is used for training all the time, without the effects you're talking about. | |||
| Apr 27th, 2003 05:03 PM | ||||
| ranxer | handling it is not the problem.. its the effect after the rounds are fired that is the problem. | |||
| Apr 27th, 2003 01:12 PM | ||||
| El Blanco | Yes, its there, I think we all agree the DU has been used. But, all you have is half an unfinished study. You still can't explain why the thousands of men and women who handle tons of it day after day aren't showing any side effects. | |||
| Apr 27th, 2003 01:50 AM | ||||
| ranxer |
the du sitting next to you on the sofa isn't gonna have much effect, most of the radiation is such that it can't go through the skin.. its the after impact du that is the problem. but its not known well thus a mysterious syndrome gulf war one was complicated by the blowing up of chemical and biological weapons factories.. i sure hope we checked which way the wind was blowing! not to mention the oil fires. the world health organization said Potential health effects of exposure to depleted uranium In the kidneys, the proximal tubules (the main filtering component of the kidney) are considered to be the main site of potential damage from chemical toxicity of uranium. There is limited information from human studies indicating that the severity of effects on kidney function and the time taken for renal function to return to normal both increase with the level of uranium exposure. thats after unfinished study more on use of du: http://traprockpeace.org/rosenfeldapril03.html (It is denser and more penetrating than lead, burns as it flies, and breaks up and vaporizes on impact -- which makes it very deadly. Each round fired by a tank shoots one 10-pound uranium dart that, in addition to destroying targets, scatters into burning fragments and creates a cloud of uranium particles as small as one micron. Particles that small can enter lung tissue and remain embedded. Efforts to contact Pentagon officials for comment at the Office of the Special Assistant for Gulf War Illnesses and officials at the Veterans Administration who deal with DU-related illness were not returned. What Rokke and other outspoken Desert Storm veterans fear is today's troops are being exposed to many of the same battlefield conditions that they believe are responsible for Gulf War Syndrome. These illnesses have left 221,000 veterans on medical disability and another 51,000 seeking that status from the Veterans Administration as of May 2002. Nichols' lobbying sparked Congress to pass a 1997 law requiring the Pentagon to conduct a physical and take blood samples of all soldiers before and after deployment. In a House hearing on March 25 on that requirement, Public Law 105-85, Pentagon officials said the military had not conducted those baseline tests for Iraq War soldiers, saying they asked troops to fill out a questionnaire instead. oops i've heard various descriptions of the amount of du. each type of round has its own variation but its usually a solid rod. tanks have an apporximate 3.25 by 18 inch rod that is depleted uranium, the dod said it was coated at one point to confuse the issue. the nightmare is coming.. the brits are keeping track of some of the effects.. http://traprockpeace.org/ducleanup.html By Alex Kirby BBC News Online environment correspondent 4-24-2003 People in Iraq need urgent advice on avoiding exposure to depleted uranium (DU), the United Nations has said. It wants the US and UK to provide precise details of sites targeted with DU weapons. The Royal Society, the UK's national science academy, is also demanding targeting data to enable a clean-up to begin. It says it is "highly unsatisfactory" to continue using DU without knowing people's exposure levels. "It is vital that this monitoring takes place, and that it takes place within a matter of months." Professor Spratt called as well for monitoring of DU levels in a wide sample of soldiers, including "foot soldiers and field hospital staff across Iraq", and Iraqi civilians. He said: "It is highly unsatisfactory to deploy a large amount of a material that is weakly radioactive and chemically toxic without knowing how much soldiers and civilians have been exposed to it." The UK has said it will make available records of its use of DU rounds. It offers veterans voluntary DU tests. The US says it has no plans for any DU clean-up in Iraq. It does not test all exposed veterans. DU, left over after natural uranium has been enriched, is 1.7 times denser than lead, and effective for destroying armoured vehicles. When a weapon with a DU tip or core strikes a solid object, like the side of a tank, it goes straight through before erupting in burning vapour which settles as dust. Unep found DU traces in air and water in Bosnia-Herzegovina up to seven years after the weapons had been fired there. we are selling du to 17 countries last i heard anytime they describe our missle as penetrating you can bet its got a du portion in it. its been called a giant leap in weapons tech and they(dod and our administration) say that du is harmless so its a safe bet they are using it in a lot more than tank shells.. the A-10 warthog can shoot 4000 rounds a minute thats estimated 2.25 lbs of solid uranium in the munition so thats a ton and half du per minute. i can't find a listing of how much is in what so there's no way to know at this point how much is there and how much is in the like vaporized version and how much is in fragments. we're now putting du in consumer goods. damn see http://www.umrc.net/ DU is a byproduct of the uranium enrichment process. Presently there is no acceptable solution for safe disposal of radioactive waste. The laws and precautions governing its use have largely been discarded since large-scale military use made them impractical. Depleted uranium is also now being made available to be recycled as an element going into manufacturing of consumer or industrial products. The enrichment process also creates small quantities of the man-made isotopes U236 and Plutonium (Pu239). These isotopes are included in the “depleted” uranium mass as it is too expensive to extract them. For every grams of enriched uranium that is produced there are 7 grams of Depleted Uranium. This results in huge stockpiles of radioactive waste. It is estimated that there is over one million tons of DU stockpiled in the U.S. The quantities of plutonium in these stockpiles are a well-kept secret. It is routinely measured but not publicly reported. we've made every blunder under the sun so much so that i question which are errors to a degree that's disturbing |
|||
| Apr 26th, 2003 01:55 PM | ||||
| El Blanco |
Quote:
A big hole does not mean WMD. And we don't put DU in our bombs. It would be a waste. DU goes coats bullets for armor peircing. Quote:
Besides, so what? Scientific studies have proven that a body can easily handle the DU in rounds even if you ingest it (unless it goes directly to your stomack via a bullet), so all this crap about our DU rounds causing cancer in Iraq is just that....crap. If it is so cancerous, why don't Forts Bragg and Benning have insanly high cancer rates? They store warehouses full of DU and fire thousands upon thousands of round a day. Were are the tumors? |
|||
| Apr 26th, 2003 12:17 AM | ||||
| Abcdxxxx | Do you get a penny for every time you type "depleted uranium" ? | |||
| Apr 25th, 2003 09:17 PM | ||||
| ranxer |
omg wmd's? you havnt seen the craters we've left? holy chowder batman you can't tell me they dont have depleted uranium in those mothers! oops, i can't tell you they do.. but if they do.. the halflife of the dust is 4.5 billion years! nuclear wastelands again in metropolitan areas.. this really was a nuclear war folks, we're just in denial. most of the munition we've been shooting iraq up with has had at the very least 4 pounds of solid du in them.. the nightmare has just begun  Quote:
 course saddam doesnt seem capable of that for he wasnt anywhere near loved by his people, whew. still arabs vs americans is very much a huge problem thanks to bush jr. and all his funders/profiteersstill the osama's and other fundamentalists have been tremendously enabled by this bush crime.. Damnit, what do we do now? Dont we need to work with international agencies to gain credibilty as fast as possible? no? then its bush/american hedgemony.. no? |
|||
| Apr 22nd, 2003 08:07 PM | ||||
| El Blanco |
Quote:
And in case you didn't get it the first time, NO, a MOAB is not a WMD. Classifying a WMD has little if anything to do with how big the explosion is. A real simple way to figure out if a weapon is WMD is if there is an after effect on the enviorment. |
|||
| Apr 22nd, 2003 05:32 PM | ||||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Seth- He (ABC) was actually responding to comments I had made earlier....I think. |
|||
| Apr 22nd, 2003 05:13 PM | ||||
| Abcdxxxx |
gee, maybe that's because i tend to only post on the one topic i have a background and interests in ? trust me, once this middle east shit blows over i'll start rallying around saving the rainforest and freeing tibet...and i'll make lots of posts about it.... maybe i'll even throw my hat in all that religion talk you post about non-stop? see you at the ren. fair. |
|||
| Apr 22nd, 2003 02:44 PM | ||||
| Sethomas | Your post didn't have enough relevance to merit a response. I could have made that statement after any of your posts... ain't that something? | |||
| Apr 22nd, 2003 10:31 AM | ||||
| Abcdxxxx | Hey guys..... Talking in the "interests of Israel" was all Seth got from my comments. Ain't that something? | |||
| Apr 22nd, 2003 09:41 AM | ||||
| VinceZeb | Sethomas, it was actually a KITH skit. | |||
| Apr 22nd, 2003 09:38 AM | ||||
| AChimp |
I think that the MOAB can be safely classified as a WMD. There's nothing small about destroying everything a few hundred yards in every direction. Also, the U.S. military has small tactical nukes that can be put inside Howitzer shells. Each mini-nuke is a warhead equivalent to a couple kilotons. They're meant for taking out tank platoons, although if they were ever used, all of America's allies would disappear in the blink of an eye. |
|||
| Apr 22nd, 2003 01:58 AM | ||||
| Sethomas |
You remind me of an SNL skit in which an office worker can't complete a sentence without the word "ascertain", but in your case it's Israeli interests. (This is where you mindlessly accuse me of anti-Semitism.) |
|||
| Apr 22nd, 2003 01:44 AM | ||||
| Abcdxxxx |
The hope within the Arab world is that they can turn Iraq into the West Bank, complete with American left dissention backing them up. Saddam didn't put up much fight regardless of his capabilities, and yet he still remains a threat, and so does Iraq. The original commentary posted is premature and meaningless. Just days before the war Ali Khamenehi, the "Supreme Guide" of the ruling mullahs in Tehran, prophesied that Iraq would become " a quagmire" for the American "Great Satan," signaling its "final destruction." Bashar called on Arabs to prepare for "holy war" against "the invaders." Syria and Iran together control five Iraqi Shiite groups, and have forbidden them from taken part in a new government. Someone provided the Shiites with rather slick looking protest signs in perfect hand written English and organized rallies. It's also evident that Syria had formed partnerships with Iraq uniting them as one, and as a backup visited Iran several times in the past year (as opposed to just one visit during the previous Thirty years). It's no secret that Saddam funded aspects of the Palestinian intifada, partnered with Arafat, and has studied the situation in the West Bank. It is an absolute that he has rubbed shoulders or given a public nod to virtually every criminal minded leader in that region, and we've seen paid mercenaries step up to the plate in ways his own army was able to. Obviously something is going on there. What's happening is intentional, and contrary to the above commentary, Iraq and it's partner nations are still a great threat. |
|||
| Apr 21st, 2003 09:54 PM | ||||
| El Blanco |
Its isn't the missiles we worried about, its what they put in the warheads. Those are the WMD. Think about what a nuclear, chemical, or biological weapon does after the explosion. Radiation, toxins, bacteria, virus or something along those lines settle in the area, making it inhabbitable. They also get into the air and can blow around to the surrounding region. A bunker buster pierces the ground, explodes, and thats it. Target destroyed, send in your troops. No enviormental damage (except a little jet fuel). That land can be used as soon as the fires from the underground structure are put out. |
|||
| Apr 21st, 2003 12:19 AM | ||||
| KevinTheOmnivore | Forgive me, a "big bomb" should NEVER go on such a list.......but those Iraqi missiles that go 1/2 a centimeter further than regulation certainly must! | |||
| Apr 20th, 2003 09:52 PM | ||||
| El Blanco |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You have a funky defenition of WMD. What exactly do you include in it? |
|||
| Apr 20th, 2003 09:31 PM | ||||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Quote:
Also, how are they not WMD??? Aren't they "mini-nukes," despite what you've claimed about their inability to become so...? |
|||
| Apr 20th, 2003 09:11 PM | ||||
| El Blanco | No, I was pointing out to when you mistakenly implied that bunker busters were WMD. I thought you could add warheads to them, but apparently, that can't be done. That doesn't concede my point. | |||
| This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread. | ||||
