DU rounds

[slo crostic]

I don't know what to say. I am appalled and disgusted by the way these people have been treated.
I feel sick just thinking about this.

*warning contains disturbing graphic images*
http://www.web-light.nl/VISIE/extremedeformities.html

One can only wonder what the consequences would be if the tables where turned.

 

[Tea]

I don't think I want to add one to their hit counter. I'll ignore the page and not click the link.

 

[The Giver]

From - http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/text/1007dufactsheet.htm

07 October 2002

Fact Sheet on the Health Effects of Depleted Uranium
Studies find no evidence linking DU to serious health risks

Following is a Department of State fact sheet on the health effects of depleted uranium, based on U.S., U.N. and other investigative sources:


World Health Organization and other scientific research studies indicate Depleted Uranium poses no serious health risks.


Depleted Uranium has not affected the health of Gulf War veterans.


There have been no independent studies related to Depleted Uranium inside Iraq. Since 1991, Iraq has refused to allow health inspectors assess the alleged impact of Depleted Uranium.


Depleted Uranium does not cause birth defects. Iraqi military use of chemical and nerve agents in the 1980's and 1990's is the likely cause of alleged birth defects among Iraqi children.

What is Depleted Uranium?

Depleted Uranium (DU) is what is left from natural uranium when most of the radioactive isotopes U234 and U235 have been removed. Depleted Uranium is forty percent less radioactive than the natural "background" uranium that is prevalent in the earth's air, water and soil. Depleted Uranium is hard and dense; it is almost twice as dense as lead.

What is DU used for?

Due to it density, depleted uranium is used in aprons to protect patients in hospitals and dentists' offices from excessive x-rays, and as ballast in 747 planes and in the keels of large sailboats.

Again, because of its strength and density, depleted uranium is sometimes used in defensive plating on armored vehicles and other platforms to deflect ammunition rounds that might otherwise kill or wound personnel inside the vehicle. It has been a component in munitions used against hostile tanks and other armored vehicles.

Isn't uranium highly radioactive and therefore dangerous to humans and the environment?

No. Studies conducted through March 2002 consistently indicate the health risks associate with radiation from exposures to depleted uranium are low - so low as to be statistically undetectable, with one potential exception: Radiation doses for soldiers with embedded fragments of depleted uranium.

Uranium is a naturally occurring chemical element that is mildly radioactive. Humans and animals have always ingested particles of this naturally occurring substance from the air, water and soil. Only when uranium is enriched to produce material for nuclear reactors is the radiation level hazardous, requiring very careful handling and storage. Depleted uranium is roughly 127 times less radioactive than 90% enriched uranium.

Natural and depleted uranium have not been linked to any health risks. There have been 16 epidemiological studies of some 30,000 workers in U.S. radiation industries. Some of these workers, particularly in the early days of the industry, had very significant exposures to uranium particles. According to scientists in the field, there have been no recorded cases of illness among these workers as a result of their exposure to uranium.

Can exposure to DU cause leukemia?

According to environmental health experts, it is medically impossible to contract leukemia as a result of exposure to uranium or depleted uranium.

Can exposure to DU cause cancer?

Cancer rates in almost 19,000 highly exposed uranium industry workers who worked at Oak Ridge National Laboratory projects between 1943 and 1947 have been examined, and no excess cancers were observed through 1974. Other epidemiological studies of lung cancer in uranium mill and metal processing plant workers have found either no excess cancers or attributed them to known carcinogens other than uranium, such as radon.

Can DU cause kidney damage?

Recent studies have examined possible health effect from exposure to depleted uranium from chemical heavy-metal effects, unrelated to radiation. The best understood of these potential health risks, as determined by high-dose animal experiments, is kidney damage.

These studies indicate, however, kidney damage would require an amount of uranium in the human body would have to absorb quantities well above the level present in soldiers who have survived a direct contact with vehicles struck by DU munitions.

Some media reports suggest that dust from depleted uranium munitions and armor has caused health effects among soldiers and civilians in areas where such armaments have been used.

According to a number of comprehensive studies and reviews, no health effects have been seen in U.S. soldiers who are known to have had substantial exposure to depleted uranium dust and fragments.


During the Gulf War, 15 U.S. Bradley Fighting Vehicles and nine Abrams tanks were mistakenly fired on and hit by shells containing depleted uranium. Thirty-three survivors of these incidents, roughly half of whom have retained fragments of depleted uranium in their bodies, have been studied in the Depleted Uranium Follow-Up Program (DUP) of the Baltimore Veterans' Affairs Medical Center.

To date, although these individuals have an array of health problems related to traumatic injuries resulting from their wounds, none of those studied had any clinically significant medical problems caused by the chemical or radiological toxicity of depleted uranium.

A survey of publicly available studies concludes the health risks to the general population in and near a war zone are low.

Among the U.S. and international groups whose research support the this finding are the World Health Organization; the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP); the United States Veterans Administration; the RAND Corporation; and Britain's Royal Society.

There countless things which have been proven to cause birth defects. But DU is not one of them. DU munitions shortened the Gulf war and saved coalition lives.

 

[jtr1962]

Unfortunately, I looked at that right before dinner. If those images are for real, then they're appalling, although I suspect some of them may have been fakes sent in by someone with an axe to grind. And if they are real, I certainly hope those infants were humanely euthanized. I couldn't imagine anyone living with the health and psychological problems associated with those kinds of deformities.

As to what caused them, DU is one possible candidate, but there are loads of others. Saddam has long used all sorts of nasty chemicals in warfare that could cause thse types of defects. Furthermore, he tried to burn Iraq's oilfields during the Gulf War, sending millions of tons of toxic chemicals into the air. Exhaust from internal combustion engines is highly carcinogenic and can cause those kinds of birth defects. In fact, in parts of NYC where there are high concentrations of industry and internal combustion electrical plants near residential areas there are larger than normal incidences of asthma, premature births, and birth defects, including some as horrendous as those shown in the picture. Sadly, these is one of those dirty little secrets that the auto and oil companies would rather the general public not be aware of.

All the pictures tell me is that war causes atrocities. No kidding, I already knew that. Best we avoid war except when absolutely necessary. I don't believe at this point that an attack on Iraq is justified. Not when the results will be more of the same, and the only reason for an attack is to keep oil prices low. In a decade, the oil will be worthless anyway, maybe before, so what's the point?. BTW, many Gulf War vets are suffering from mysterious illnesses as well, and not getting proper treatment, so the lack of concern of the US does not extend solely to Iraqi children. We did a good enough job here experimenting on our own, especially at the height of the Cold War. Many involved in secret projects became ill and died because the government refused to tell doctors what chemicals they had been exposed to.

 

[slo crostic]

As with all contraversial topics like this one, there are differing viewpoints. Obviously it would be best for governments and arms manufacturers to prove the safeness of DU because it is a highly effective tool in warfare. But clearly there is another side to this story.

From this site

The uranium coating is safe to the touch, but becomes dangerously radioactive inside the human body, according to some experts.

...and

After the Gulf War, it seems to me like there should be a lot of finely powdered U-238 all over Iraq. When it rains (and it does rain in the desert), it seems to me that the U-238 will go into the water supply.

...and from here

What do you tell soldiers exposed to burning D.U. rounds? And what do you tell at least thirty-three U.S. veterans who, like Wheat, were left with D.U. shrapnel wounds?

The last question is the one researchers at the Defense Department's Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute (AFRRI) in Bethesda, Maryland, are trying to answer. AFRRI scientists have been trying to determine the effects of embedded D.U. by inserting shrapnel-like pellets of the substance into the legs of rats. According to abstracts of preliminary results of the studies obtained by The Nation, AFRRI scientists have discovered that D.U. leads to the occurrence of oncogenes, tumorous growths believed to be the precursors to cancerous growth in cells, and that it kills suppressor genes. They also found that embedded D.U., unlike most metals, dissolves and is spread through the body, depositing itself in organs like the spleen and the brain; and that a pregnant female rat will pass depleted uranium along to a developing fetus.

What it all boils down to is, who do you want to believe? Or maybe, who is the most convincing liar?

 

[The Giver]

Believe the science. And there is none to date which supports the claims of these people.

 

[slo crostic]

The Defense Department's Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute tests seem scientifically proven to me.

 

[The Giver]

Proved what? That it causes a possible precursor to cancerous cells in rats? That's not the issue is it? It is not surprising that any metal inserted in the human body would be absorbed is it? But that's not the issue either, no one has said the mother of these children had shrapnel in them. Finally, no where do they address birth defects in humans whatsoever.

 

[slo crostic]

Why are cancerous cells in rats "not the issue" here. As you well know, medical science has used rats for many years to test if pharmaceuticals are safe for human use. If U238 can cause cancer in rats, it is almost 100% possible it does the same in humans. Likewise, if a pregnant female rat will pass depleted uranium along to a developing fetus, then one can only presume the same will happen in humans.

That's right, no one did say the mother of these children had shrapnel in them, but it does seem there is a lot of finely powdered U238 all over Iraq which could have been inhaled by the mother to be, whilst pregnant. Or perhaps even the U238 has already gotten into the water table, and crops in the area have been affected.

I believe, through the research I have done, that U238 is harmful once it has entered the human body and due to this fact DU ammunition should be banned worldwide.

 

[The Giver]

Why are cancerous cells in rats "not the issue" here.

Because I thought the issue was the birth defects depicted in those horrid photographs which are being blamed on the U.S. without any substantiation whatever. I thought that was why this thread was begun.

 

[blakerwry]

I am a US citizen, but I will try to speak with as little bias as possible.

Those pictures are absolutely horrid. They make me sick.

From my knowledge of UD as a chemical that could be harmfull to adults and as a terotogen that could harm forming babies I do not perceive it to be a threat.

I know it is not a radioactive threat to adults (unless fragments are physically placed into the body), as clearly stated by sound scientific study.

However, as a teratogen it may be possible that UD has unknown effects on zygotes and embryos. It would, of course, be unethical to study these effects in humans. Similar studies on radiation have been done in Hiroshima, Japan. and found that radiation can be a harmfull teratogen.. specifically there have been several cases of mental retardation of babies that were in the fetal stage when the bomb detonated. However, from what I have read, the health problems from uranium are more related to it being a heavy metal.(Just as you would not drink water with a lead bullet sitting in the bottom of the glass)

If a pregnant mother absorbed (either through water, air or food) larger than normal doses of UD during the first few weeksof pregnancy (Zygote) and pased it onto her baby, the baby would most likely not form at all and the mother would probably not even know she was pregnent.

If the doses came after the woman became pregnant, aprox week 2-8 of pregnancy during the Embryo stage you would see alot of the deformaties listed here... 2 heads, missing eyes, missing genetalia, etc... This is the stage during prenatal developement when the major organs form and a teratogen during this time frame could prevent these organs from forming or could make these organs form irregualrly.

The final stage would the Fetus(9th week on). During this stage the already formed organs begin to grow rapidly... this accounts for the rest of the deformaties you see here where some organs are over/under developed.


Keep in mind that the time frame for what we see here is basically 7 months...

I don't pretend to know how long the Depleated uranium will stay in the water source... I imagine for decades... but if people were still getting it in the same quantities as they were 1-8 months before these pictures were taken then we would probably not be seeing any (or very little) births from these regions.

From what I have read most of the DU is concentrated in a single area known as the "highway of death".. however cities located ~100 miles away show little effect of radiation from this area. Leading me to believe that you will be safe if you do not live in these few isolated regions.

 

[blakerwry]

Most of these pictures I can neither absolutely refute the possibility of nor absolutely confirm of UD being the cause.

However, the picture of the older child absolutely is fake unless perhaps he has swallowd several spent bullets. And in that case even a lead bullet would probably cause some type of mild brain damage.


Iraqi doctors are not exactly at the fore-front of technology, but I have to wonder that if there were birth defect problems within the year foillowing the gulf war if it is likely that they would still be occuring now. If the problems are continuing I think you would literally have to be living on top of the spent bullets or be getting water from a source that directly flows over a battleground.

 

[Jake the Dog]

regardless of the fact those particular babies shown in those particular images were or were not deformed from being exposed to DU, it has been medically proven that fired DU round can cause such horrendous deformations to the human fetus. see: “URANIUM PROJECTILES - SEVERELY MAIMED SOLDIERS, DEFORMED BABIES, DYING CHILDREN" (Published by AHRIMAN - Verlag, ISBN: 3-89484-805-7)

I have a meaty question for y'all:

is right to potentially inflict such gruesome harm on the innocent offspring of even your worst enemy?

 

[blakerwry]

Jake, i will not believe what is in that book unless I have read it and know the test methodologies so I can decide formyself if his tests are valid internally and externally and if the claims match what the findings show.

My guess is that the "scientist" who wrote the book uses correlational studies he did himself.FYI, but correlational studies do not show cause and effect.

I would like to see 2 or more corresponding studies done using laboratory experiments on animals preferably mice then primate (no offense Tea).

 

[blakerwry]

is right to potentially inflict such gruesome harm on the innocent offspring of even your worst enemy?

To inflict such things to your worst human enemy... it is certainly ethically wrong.

I would even have problems inflicting it upon mamals... but i would have no qualms about bugs. I could inflict such pain onto cockroaches without much moral delema.

 

[Jake the Dog]

fair enough blakerwry, it's your prerogative to 'guess' that he's a scientist, to 'guess' that the book contains data gathered himself and 'guess' he uses correlational methods to conclude a result.

it’s also my prerogative to consult my wife (Kirsty), who's a microbiologist with 2 years medical training, and ask her if she could verify whether the author, being Prof Dr.Siegwart-Horst Günther, has a reputable scientific reputation. I asked Kirsty as she would know when and how to find this out.

Kirsty was able to tell me that he does indeed have a reputable standing in the scientific community. his work, partly in this area of study did in fact earn him a nomination for a Nobel Peace Prize two years ago.

 

[The Giver]

Jake,

Earning a Nobel Peace Prize nomination is commendable but it doesn't really tell us if the man has done studies or not on whether DU causes birth defects. I suspect he has not or the web would be full of his work, but I can't find anything at all! I suspect that he is simply assuming and has no studies to substantiate his claims.

Apparently he is the man who took those pictures linked to above.

In short I don't believe he has done any scientific studies to back up his claims. But I'm open to being corrected on that.

 

[blakerwry]

I assume he is most likely using correlational studies to substantiate (notice i didn't say prove) his claims because to make a sound deductive argument that would prove his claims he would have needed to do experiments on humans.

Conducting such research on humans would be amoral and just completely disgusting.

If he had enough time, how could make an inductive argument that makes a good case for his claims... but I don't know if he has had the time or not really..

And if he has had reletively little time to collect data before he made his claims the most probable route he took was to do correlational studies. Measuring the amount of uranium or radiation in an area and then measuring the number of birth defects in those areas and looking for a relation...

But without the book or the author I have no way of knowing he even did that much.. he might have just went over to Iraq.. saw some people that had health problems and made a hypothesis that it was the DU that caused the problem.

 

[time]

I have no opinion on the thread topic (I've followed Tea's lead), but I do think people are playing fast and loose with someone's reputation here. The Nobel Committee doesn't accept nominations for any Tom, Dick or Harry.

Blakerwry, the extension of your argument is that the claims are impossible to prove. Some people will take that as proof that the claims are untrue.

What little I can contribute is that there's lots of stuff you can safely touch, yet which may be lethal when ingested or inhaled. The fact that uranium occurs naturally certainly doesn't make it safe! Try eating it or wearing a necklace made from it 24 hours a day. Yes, it's a heavy metal, but it also decays into radioactive isotopes, which are definitely not friendly once inside the body, and exceptionally hard to get rid of.

However, on the arguments presented by thread participants, I have trouble believing that civilians could easily inhale or ingest munitions fragments. But I really couldn't say ...

 

[Jake the Dog]

Giver,

my point was that Prof Dr.Siegwart-Horst Günther is a man of professional and well respected standing in the scientific community and being nominated for a Nobel Prize does give him credibility wouldn't you say. so, having a resected opinion as he would have, how then can anyone here, who does no know of him presume to claim his scientific claims are baseless and unsubstantiated?

During the weeks of the bombing of Serbia, after Professor Günther had long presented his documentation to the ministeries, Minister J. Fischer of the Greens still presented the lie, that you could safely proceed on the assumption that »no dangers for man an environment could come from uranium missiles«, while at the same time the British Ministery of Defence had given order to their soldiers not to go near any objects that might have been the target of uranium missiles; and if this should be absolutely unavoidable in some cases, they should only do so under special instructions, with a special protective suit and a special breathing apparatus. Years after the publication of the first edition of this documentation, unfortunately, but still about one year before Fischer's lie, the British medical journal »Lancet« had also pointed to a strong rise of the carcinoma rate as a result of the use of uranium projectiles. Meanwhile a British team confirmed Günther's studies and a British enterprise for the disposal of nuclear waste refused to carry out an order by Kuwait and remove depleted uranium from Kuwaiti territory as being too dangerous. Recently, British physicans noted grave symptoms also in British soldiers deployed to Serbia which they attribute to the effects of depleted uranium and experts meanwhile also admit, that the so-called Gulf War-Syndrome in NATO soldiers does not have any other cause. By now, more than four thousand GIs and at least one hundred British soldiers are said to have died from »Morbus Günther« and other symptoms resulting from the use of depleted uranium. (There is, however, no reason whatsoever to mourn for those people, after all - cf. Matth. 26, 52.)

for more info, see http://www.ahriman.com/en/guenther.htm or http://www.sdnl.nl/gunther-home.htm. the latter link is in German and priovides more links to Dutch and German web pages on Dr.Günther and his research into DU after affects. rather than take my word for it, perhaps Buck may provde siome translations for you.



blakerwry,

you have admitted that you don't have any knowledge of Prof Dr.Siegwart-Horst Günther or his studies. what I find confusing is that you dismiss his 'claims' using a presumption. without any knowledge on him, his books or his studies, can you tell me with what knowledge are you basing your presumption on?

 

[Jake the Dog]

aaarg, please ignore my many typos in my post above... I know they're there.