America ! Protector of Human Rights. ; - (

Depleted Uranium is part of an alloy called stabaloy that is found in the 25mm and 30mm rounds fired by the AV-8B and A-10 respectively and the 40mm long rod penetrator HVAPDS round fired by the M1A2 Abrams MBT. It is not part of the casing, explosive filler or any other component of the weapons you list. Thank you for illastrating the point I made earlier about the use of disinformation by certain members of this forum. I understand that the Taliban and their supporters would like to see the Coalition forces in Afghanastan deprived of the very effective close support provided by smart weapons and I believe that is what this thread is all about. "insert expletive here" you

Edited by DukeC

Originally posted by TeldeInduz Actually that WHO report quoted has been discredited by its author since from what I've found. http://www.sundayherald.com/40096 Also the IAEA is pro-nuclear as mentioned in the article. You're simply ignoring the facts, and the vast amount of scientific data. Here is just some of it.

Its a conspiracy! The WHO, NATO, the UN, the EC, the ICRC, the IAEA, ect., and most of the world's scientist are all in on the take.

Originally posted by TeldeInduz The evidence is clear that stenoses for example, are significantly more likely to occur amongst offspring of those parents who served in the Gulf versus those who did not.

TeldeInduz, the evidence is not clear. Gulf War vets were exposed to all kinds of insecticides, pesticides, chemicals, chemical fires and the continual smoke from those burning oil wells over Iraq. I still remember those suspicious vaccinations the troops recieved to protect themselves from anthrax and such. Dont see how anyone is supposed to discern all that from DU, especially all of the pre-war biological agents Saddam had and used. How is something that deserves more study itself be considered a deciding factor?

Over fifteen years and no facts, just anecdotal conclusions.

I agree that research must continue, but should the U.S. immediately drop to Tungsten based on theories,rense and a malizai flash video?

Originally posted by red clay        DU is used as an additive to the compounds used to make false teeth and crowns, it reproduces the luster of natural teeth.  Now I am not a big fan of the FDA, but I would imagine they have done some testing or at least closely examined health issues.

A practise stopped since early 80s

n one of the early NRPB reports (NRPB-R25, 1974), authored by Michael O�Riordan and John Hunt, the practice of putting radioactive fluorescers in false teeth and crowns (not fillings) was examined in some detail. Natural teeth fluoresce brilliant white in ultraviolet light and artificial porcelain teeth always looked very different until the 1940s when a mixture of trace amounts of uranium and cerium was added to dental porcelain to make artificial teeth look natural. Uranium salts fluoresced yellow and cerium fluoresced blue, and the combination gave a natural looking white. This led to wide exploitation in the 1950s and 1960s and, increasingly, depleted uranium (DU) was used rather than natural uranium. This had two benefits � it was cheaper and it was less radioactive. NRPB-R25 contained calculations and measurements of doses to soft tissue in the mouth assuming DU was used. The doses were nearly 30 mSv per year to the basal layer of the epithelium in the mouth, and this was in breach of the Medical and Dental Code of Practice in the 1970s.

This code set a limit of 15 mSv per year averaged over any organ, for practices with no obvious therapeutic or diagnostic benefit. The authors of NRPB-R25 therefore recommended that the practice be discontinued � and it was soon afterwards, especially as there were other methods available for making artificial teeth look natural.

--> http://www.hpa.org.uk/  (Health protection Agency)

------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------

CANCER TREND IN BASRAH AFTER GULF WARS> >

Review >>By> >

Dr.> >Asaad A. Ameer Khalaf> >

Oncology Center>, Basrah Teaching Hospital>, Basrah/Iraq> >

2005> >

>The rise in cancer, is it real?> >

   The phenomenal increase in the number of newly diagnosed cancers in Basrah during 90s and thereafter, as well as the most striking changes in the pattern of cancer mortality  have raised questions about what is/are going in this area. Cancer-phobia, now, is the most common chief complaint of the patients. So it is obvious for the general population, rather than oncologists, that the trend of cancer is increased in a noticeable way. Actually, we can say that this remarkable increase is unlikely to be just a simple reflection of population increase during the last 15 years. First; the annual population increase rate was almost the same for the last thirty years; yet, the significant rise in cancers seems to have been particularly rapid since the end of 1995. Second; the population has doubled, but the cancer registry reported 9-fold increase in cancer among children by the year 2003 as compared to 1990; and most of the new cancer cases came from areas immediately to the east of the main GW battlefields. (Figure II). >>

   Improved registration could partly explain the increase in cancers. However, it could not explain the continuing rise even during the last 8 years or so, when the level of registration is almost the same. In addition, increased mortality due to cancers was substantial during the last ten years and this increase is very likely to reflect both increased incidence and case fatality. It is unlikely to reflect improved registration of deaths because death registration in Iraq is both compulsory and nearly complete with few exceptions. >>

  Lastly, the increased incidence of cancer could not reflect improved diagnosis during the last 15 years, given the restrictions due to economic embargo on Iraq till 2003. Indeed, we believe that tangible part of the increased risk of cancer must reflect real exposure to risk factors including the possibility of excess exposure to radiation as we shall see in the following sections.> >

 > >

  What are possible causes of the increase?> >

  Causes of cancer are multifactorial which involve in addition to inherited predisposition, such environmental factors as chemicals, ionising radiation and oncogen virus[7].> >

   Although there is a new phenomena, in 1990s, of reporting cancers in families (familial clustering[3]), but the data showing that the cancer increase is not true for all areas in similar density, and therefore strongely implicated a local factor(s). Hence, environment rather than genetic factors plays the principal role in causing the increased cancers in the area. >>

   The state of Iraq�s environment has influenced by decades of armed conflict, strict economic sanctions and the absence of environmental management principles in national planning. During 1991 a massive air campaign targeted Iraqi military forces and infrastructure, as well as numerous other sites including oil refineries, electrical power stations, and petrochemical facilities. DU was reportedly used extensively in the vicinity of Basrah during the Gulf Wars.> >

   This may involve any or all of the following potential risks to the environment and human health, based on UNEP�s findings in the Balkans:> >

�       Inhalation of DU dust at the time of munitions impact, leading to a potentially serious additional health risk to anyone in the immediate vicinity who survived the initial blast and subsequent fire;> >

�       Widespread, low-level contamination of the ground surface by DU;> >

�       Presence of intact DU penetrators buried in soft ground (which might be dug up and handled by unprotected individuals, leading to a low-level but unnecessary beta radiation dose to the skin);> >

�       Presence of DU penetrator fragments on the ground surface (which might be picked up and handled by unprotected individuals, including �souvenir� hunters, leading to a low-level but unnecessary radiation dose);> >

�       Possible migration of DU into ground water (and from there into drinking water supplies), through corrosion and dissolution of penetrators and penetrator fragments.> >

>complete article-->http://www.russfound.org/Enet/DrKhalafpap.htm>

>>>

 

Originally posted by cattus Its a conspiracy! The WHO, NATO, the UN, the EC, the ICRC, the IAEA, ect., and most of the world's scientist are all in on the take.

I dont believe it is, I was just quoting what what WHO's top radiation expert said. DU invetigations have massively increased over the last few years, and a lot of scientists do think they present health hazards. I havent seen the WHO study, but the ability of low level DU is known to induce tumours in bone cells (though the experimental models were mice, the fact is that biological cell susceptibility to DU does exist)

"To better assess the risk from low-dose radiation or DU, we have developed an in vivo leukemogenesis modelusing murine hematopoietic cells (FDC-P1). Intravenous injection of FDC-P1 cells into low-doseirradiated(60Co 200 cGy, whole body) syngeneic DBA/2 mice was followed by the development of leukemias in 90% ofall irradiated mice within 120 days. This approach was used to determine whether internal exposure to em-bedded DU pellets could induce leukemia in mice. For the first time, we have demonstrated leukemic trans-formation of hemopoietic cells in mice implanted with DU pellets (75% induction rate within 140 days)."

http://www.afrri.usuhs.mil/www/outreach/pdf/miller_NATO_2005 .pdf 

DU is also known to affect gene expression in human cells

"Our data show for the first time that DU and rWNiCo can activate gene expression through several signal transduction pathways that may be involved in the toxicity and tumorigenicity of both DU and HMTAs."

http://www.springerlink.com/(p5s4rq452sqia3v3nilxyb2q)/app/h ome/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,27,30; journal,30,438;linkingpublicationresults,1:102965,1

The number of tonnes of DU dropped will be partly aerolized, and this will be approximating to tonnes rather than hundreds of grams for which NY state court orders ordering the shut down of facilities have been obtained (National Lead industry, ny).

Originally posted by cattus Gharanai, lets have your statistical report.

Dear Cattus,
I am sorry that I couldn't had replied you that's because I had some real life works so now I am replying you regarding the report you asked, I am sorry to say that I did searched for it but didn't came up with sufficient info so I don't have it at the moment but mean while you may visit below link to know how cruel has US been.

http://www.cursor.org/stories/civilian_deaths.htm

Originally posted by TeldeInduz I havent seen the WHO study, but the ability of low level DU is known to induce tumours in bone cells (though the experimental models were mice, the fact is that biological cell susceptibility to DU does exist)

In mice,TeldeInduz.. would you not agree that this is a long way from Mohammed Miraki and his rense "exclusive"?

Originally posted by TeldeInduz DU is also known to affect gene expression in human cells "Our data show for the first time that DU and rWNiCo can activate gene expression through several signal transduction pathways that may be involved in the toxicity and tumorigenicity of both DU and HMTAs." http://www.springerlink.com/(p5s4rq452sqia3v3nilxyb2q)/app/h ome/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,27,30; journal,30,438;linkingpublicationresults,1:102965,1

So? All it states is that DU and Tungsten alloys have a tumorigenic transforming "potential". Rather inconclusive. Its from Jan 2004, is there a follow up study?



Over half dozen politically motivated web sites linked since I last posted and not ONE scientific peer reviewed study that confirms what all the activist say.

Originally posted by World Health Organization POTENTIAL HEALTH EFFECTS OF EXPOSURE TO DEPLETED URANIUM "No reproductive or developmental effects have been reported in humans."

Originally posted by cattus Originally posted by TeldeInduz I havent seen the WHO study, but the ability of low level DU is known to induce tumours in bone cells (though the experimental models were mice, the fact is that biological cell susceptibility to DU does exist) In mice,TeldeInduz.. would you not agree that this is a long way from Mohammed Miraki and his rense "exclusive"?

The reports quoted were in mice, because they cant do the same experiment in humans for obvious reasons. The WHO also do their experiements in non human subjects.

Sure, I dont really read Rense, but it doesnt mean that the information isnt true. There's evidence from peer reviewed journals that DU does cause an increase in birth abnormalities, as I've quoted before.

Originally posted by Cattus Originally posted by TeldeInduz DU is also known to affect gene expression in human cells "Our data show for the first time that DU and rWNiCo can activate gene expression through several signal transduction pathways that may be involved in the toxicity and tumorigenicity of both DU and HMTAs." http://www.springerlink.com/(p5s4rq452sqia3v3nilxyb2q)/app/h ome/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,27,30; journal,30,438;linkingpublicationresults,1:102965,1 So? All it states is that DU and Tungsten alloys have a tumorigenic transforming "potential". Rather inconclusive. Its from Jan 2004, is there a follow up study?

I dont know, will look, but the report shows that cells can be induced into this state using DU. Whether this is what happens in humans on the battlefield is a different matter, and so far that has been difficult to prove because of technology inadequacies etc, but if you take all the evidence as a whole it's clearer. A definite proof like you're asking would probably not be possible until the mechanism is better understood, but also measurement of DU isotopes has only been possible recently.

Originally posted by Cattus Over half dozen politically motivated web sites linked since I last posted and not ONE scientific peer reviewed study that confirms what all the activist say. Originally posted by World Health Organization POTENTIAL HEALTH EFFECTS OF EXPOSURE TO DEPLETED URANIUM "No reproductive or developmental effects have been reported in humans."

I posted a peer reviewed journal showing that malformations are more common in those infants of deployed fathers vs infants of (same) fathers before deployment.

Statistically Significant Findings in the Study by Araneta et al. (2003) [50] of Birth Defects among US Veterans Deployed and Not Deployed in the 1991 Gulf War

Birth defect Comparison groups Relative risk (95% c. i., p-value) Father was a veteran Aortic valve stenosis Infants conceived post-war, to deployed fathers vs. non-deployed fathers 6.0 (1.2�31.0, p = 0.026) Infants of deployed fathers, those conceived post vs. those conceived pre-war ^16.3 (0.09�294, p = 0.011) Renal agenesis or hypoplasia Infants of deployed fathers, those conceived post vs. those conceived pre-war ^16.3 (0.09�294, p = 0.011) Tricuspid valve insufficiency Infants conceived post-war, to deployed fathers vs. non-deployed fathers 2.7 (1.1�6.6, p = 0.039) Mother was a veteran father may or may not have been a veteran Hypospadias and epispadias Infants conceived post-war, to deployed fathers vs. non-deployed mothers 6.3 (1.5�26.3, p = 0.015)

http://www.ehjournal.net/content/4/1/17  It's pretty good evidence, though you could say is it down to DU, or something in Iraq. But if you believe http://www.uraniumconference.org/fasy_jun_14_03.pdf  (data quoted in Table 1 of Hindin ehjournal Congenital Malformations Surveillance Data from One of Basra's Three Main Maternal and Children's Hospitals, Iraq 1990 � 2001 [43, 44] (Number and Rate of All Malformations Combined) Year No. of Births No. of congenital malformations Congenital malformation incidence rate/1000 births 1990 12,161 37 3.04 1991 9,845 28 2.84 1992 11,800 23 1.95 1993 12,416 28 1.31 1994 12,250 36 2.93 1995 10,576 46 4.35 1996 10,470 48 4.56 1997 13,653 32 2.34 1998 10,186 79 7.76 1999 13,905 136 9.78 2000 12,560 221 17.6 2001 11,445 254 22.19 http://www.ehjournal.net/content/4/1/17) then you'll also find the same trend amongst Iraqis, which would make it likely that the pollutant had occurred since the invasion.

Edited by TeldeInduz

Duke

Ur personal attacks are getting beyond the threshold probably because ur finding it increasingly difficult to defend ur corner and present a coherent argument.

Anybody can return adequate responses to cheap remarks but to do so will stifle debate over an issue which is obviously controversial.

If u continue to try to make personal attacks and to start a flame, u will be reported to the modz.

By the way US is not in Afghanistan because of 911, but that is a seperate issue.

Originally posted by malizai_ Duke Ur personal attacks are getting beyond the threshold probably because ur finding it increasingly difficult to defend ur corner and present a coherent argument. Anybody can return adequate responses to cheap remarks but to do so will stifle debate over an issue which is obviously controversial. If u continue to try to make personal attacks and to start a flame, u will be reported to the modz. By the way US is not in Afghanistan because of 911, but that is a seperate issue.

I'm not making a personal attack, I'm completely serious. As far as I'm concerned you and your colleages aren't here for honest discussion, you're here to advance a religious and political agenda that personally disgusts me. I'm just voicing that disgust.

And yes, the Coalition forces are in Afghanastan because of 9/11. You can try and cloud the issue all you want, the fact is Al Qaeda was under Taliban protection and was allowed to train for and mount the worst terrorist attack in history in relative freedom. If after the attack the Taliban had come to it's senses(if they have any) and rounded up and deported every member of Al Qaeda to the U.S. for trial then you can claim that the occupation of Afghanastan is illegitimate. The fact they didn't makes it clear that the Taliban and Al Qaeda are one and the same and have forfited any right to exist.

Edited by DukeC

American Imperialism is well known,but i must admit that Talibans where pretty much bastards.