PDA

View Full Version : DU...the numbers and m.o.


stefan segal
10-31-2006, 10:45 AM
It seems that we have morphed from the world's bastion of freedom, into the mad dog... loosed into the world community...the repug dream come true.

Stefan



http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/du_death_toll.html

Of the 580,400 soldiers who served in Gulf War I, 11,000 are now dead, he said. By the year 2000, there were 325,000 on permanent medical disability. More than a decade later, more than half (56 percent) who served in Gulf War I have permanent medical problems. The disability rate for veterans of the world wars of the last century was 5 percent, rising to 10 percent in Vietnam.

“The VA secretary was aware of this fact as far back as 2000,” Bernklau said. “He and the Bush administration have been hiding these facts, but now, thanks to Moret’s report, it is far too big to hide or to cover up.”

Terry Johnson, public affairs specialist at the VA, recently reported that veterans of both Persian Gulf wars now on disability total 518,739, Bernklau said.

“The long-term effect of DU is a virtual death sentence,” Bernklau said. “Marion Fulk, a nuclear chemist, who retired from the Lawrence Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab, and was also involved in the Manhattan Project, interprets the new and rapid malignancies in the soldiers [from the second war] as ‘spectacular’—and a matter of concern.’ ”

While this important story appeared in a Washington newspaper and the wire services, it did not receive national exposure—a compelling sign that the American public is being kept in the dark about the terrible effects of this toxic weapon. (Veterans for Constitutional Law can be reached at (516) 474-4261.)

Linkster
10-31-2006, 03:02 PM
Im waiting for one of these supposed ex-scientists to come out with some actual proof of the particulate from DU - so far I have read the 17 studies that have been done in the radio-biological field and not one has shown a legitimate dispersal effect in the heat of battle - as far as the actual weapons that DU is used in, thats up in the air since the military is very tight lipped about which ammo actually uses it.

I will take a stand and totally disagree about the effects that they claim due to the alpha as I have tested workers from DOE sites for plutonium and DU and their levels are much higher than the levels they are talking about in the soldiers - so it would seem that the workforce at the Livermore lab would have a higher instance of effects - but for some reason they dont.

I also know for a fact - having seen the real time measurements - that the grass clippings and bark on the trees at Savannah River Facility is much higher in this heavy metal contamination than what these studies use for their levels - again - that would make about 20,000 workers a good study case in SC - you would expect that they would have a higher instance of cancers and mutations - however I sure dont remember ever reading any instances of it whatsoever

So for now I would say that a few disgruntled former employees with a good case of wanna-make-money-scaring-the-publicitis putting out some very non-specific studies without any actual charts or facts referenced.

stefan segal
10-31-2006, 11:28 PM
Linkster...I'm surprised you come down so hard on the gavernment NYET...even in the face of such widespread suffering from what once were healthy group of soldiers.

That you have all the testing of radioactivity strongly weighting your position, I think you and I both know...I from being intimate with U-238 over a lengthy period, and you...I suppose some work related information base upon which to draw..,know that the levels of what's considered dangerous to all...is actually only dangerous to some, while others tolerate much higher levels.

But be that as it may...you are also old enough to recognize the exact repeat process...taking forty years for the governmant to recognize and own it's culpability for agent orange...and as for recognizing patterns...not that you personally witnessed this, but no doubt at the level of awareness you exhibit, are still, no doubt well aware of the WW1 solldiers comming home mustard gassed and made invalid in patterns just as these "gulph war syndrome" soldiers.

What is the crux of my surprise in your hard stance, is your beady focus on levels of radioactivity...so exclusive, that it would pass in some circles for misdirection...when we both know the immediate (meaning this present generation) symptoms exhibited, are not due to radioactivity, but from the water soluable uranium salt which is highly toxic, and imbedds itself in the body much in the same locations and fashion as does lead and other heavy metals.

Your not now going to to tell me about the benign features of lead and heavy metals in the body...are you?

There are too many case histories of logged minute by minute horror stories...which the gov. brushes off their lives and the health of their progeny, as anecdotal non evidence...but I immagine which side you fall on in this argument, depends upon one's investment in piercing enemy tank armor or spending weapons money treating whiners...who aren't even fit to fight anymore.

Stefan

Abnormalia
11-01-2006, 02:05 AM
If you can get a better source than the americanfreepress you have me in arms.

Linkster
11-01-2006, 07:16 AM
Stefan - Im doing some quick research in some trade mags that I have archived - I will get back to you in this thread - I just found it off the scale that something that supposedly affects soldiers (and it doesnt matter if its waterborne or airborne or even if its intradermal which wouldnt happen in this case) - isnt affecting civilians working at much higher levels in their environment

stefan segal
11-01-2006, 08:50 AM
Good...Linkster, but I'm not referring to wsterbourne...the most deadly script is asperated into the lungs, which becomes lodged in the tissue, then in the presence of moisture, converts to a toxic uranium salt...so the harm is done chemically, rather than through radioactivity.

Stefan