RadioBanter

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)
-   Shortwave (https://www.radiobanter.com/shortwave/)
-   -   US admits use of white phosphorous against people in Iraq (https://www.radiobanter.com/shortwave/82144-re-us-admits-use-white-phosphorous-against-people-iraq.html)

RTO Trainer November 17th 05 03:47 PM

US admits use of white phosphorous against people in Iraq
 
jesus mu-shu dumplings wrote:
US admits use of white phosphorous in Iraq
http://www.dawn.com/2005/11/17/top13.htm

WASHINGTON, Nov 16: The Pentagon has admitted that
US troops used white phosphorus as a weapon against
insurgents in the Iraqi city of Fallujah last November.
"It was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy
combatants," military spokesman Lt-Col Barry Venable
told the BBC in Washington.

snip

White phosphorous, in a form used by the military, ignites when
it is exposed to oxygen, producing such heat that it bursts into a
yellow flame and produces a dense white smoke. It is used to
mark enemy targets and to produce smoke for concealing troop
movements. It can also be used as an incendiary device to
firebomb enemy positions. It continues to burn until deprived
of oxygen and, if extinguished with water, can later reignite
if the particles dry out and are exposed again to the air.


Not exactly. It can burn all the way through and out the other side.
No need to stop at the bone. Water will not extinguish it. It will
stop burning when it is deprived of oxygen or consumed.

White phosphorous can cause painful burn injuries to
exposed human flesh. If particles of ignited white phosphorus
land on a person's skin, they can continue to burn right
through flesh to the bone. Toxic phosphoric acid can
also be released into wounds, risking phosphorus poisoning.
Exposure to white phosphorus smoke in the air can also
cause liver, kidney, heart, lung or bone damage and even death.


Phosphorus isn't toxic enough to kill except in extremely large
quantities. This kind of poisioning will make you sick, little else.
The internal damage depicted here is unsupported by any information I
have seen.

A former US soldier who served in Iraq says breathing in
smoke close to a shell caused the throat and lungs to blister
until the victim suffocated, with the phosphorus continuing
to burn them from the inside.


He was discussing things he does not know about. False.

Despite initial denials, the Pentagon has now acknowledged on
Tuesday that US troops had used the substance as
an incendiary weapon against insurgent strongholds there.


The Pentagon has not denied the use of White Phosphorus.

The UN Convention bans the use of incendiary weapons against civilans,
not against humans.
See for yourself:
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/515?OpenDocument

Of course any deliberate engagement or targeting of civilians is
already a war crime. so that the US has not signed this one is not of
especial import except to say that we aren't bound by it expressly.

White Phosphorus is not banned.

It also isn't a chemical weapon.
We are signtory to the Chemical Weapons Convention which defines
chemical weapons. See he
http://www.opcw.org/html/db/cwc/eng/cwc_frameset.html

So it isn't a chemical weapon and it isn't banned.

Indiscriminate use is. The stories circulating do not support that
contention. See he
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004...q/19_30_504_10...


Bogert received the coordinates for the targets and recorded them on a
map. This is proper procedure. He's receiving coordinates from a
Forward Observer, indirect fire weapons never see their targets, the
FOs do. The coordinates are plotted so that it is known what was
ordered where. There is also a verification that takes place in the
call for indirect fire to avoid problems with numerical transposition
or other mistakes.


Howard C. Berkowitz November 17th 05 04:49 PM

US admits use of white phosphorous against people in Iraq
 
In article .com, RTO
Trainer wrote:

jesus mu-shu dumplings wrote:
US admits use of white phosphorous in Iraq
http://www.dawn.com/2005/11/17/top13.htm

WASHINGTON, Nov 16: The Pentagon has admitted that
US troops used white phosphorus as a weapon against
insurgents in the Iraqi city of Fallujah last November.
"It was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy
combatants," military spokesman Lt-Col Barry Venable
told the BBC in Washington.

snip

White phosphorous, in a form used by the military, ignites when
it is exposed to oxygen, producing such heat that it bursts into a
yellow flame and produces a dense white smoke. It is used to
mark enemy targets and to produce smoke for concealing troop
movements. It can also be used as an incendiary device to
firebomb enemy positions. It continues to burn until deprived
of oxygen and, if extinguished with water, can later reignite
if the particles dry out and are exposed again to the air.


Not exactly. It can burn all the way through and out the other side.
No need to stop at the bone. Water will not extinguish it. It will
stop burning when it is deprived of oxygen or consumed.


Perhaps there is confusion here about poisoning by phosphorus
ingestion, which the toxicology textbooks do cover since WP was once a
major ingredient in a rat poison, which somehow became popular for
suicide in some subcultures. Eating WP will usually kill by destroying
the kidneys, but if that is survived and the phosphate ion gets into
the system, it will bond to bone.

White phosphorous can cause painful burn injuries to
exposed human flesh. If particles of ignited white phosphorus
land on a person's skin, they can continue to burn right
through flesh to the bone. Toxic phosphoric acid can
also be released into wounds, risking phosphorus poisoning.


Clearly, this has to be quantified. Carbonated beverages, in the 19th
and early 20th century, were called "phosphates" as phosphoric acid was
used to generate carbon dioxide and still some flavoring. You will
still find it in the ingredients of many sodas, especially colas.

Phosphoric acid is a very good rust remover, which is why soaking a
part in Coca-Cola can work. More commonly, people use trisodium
phosphate, the active ingredient in many laundry detergents, for rust
removal.

Phosphorus is a normal and necessary component of the body; one of the
key energy transfer mechanisms is the reversible conversion of
adenosine triphosphate (ATP) to diphosphate (ADP). Ironically, too
much phosphorus, especially in laundry detergents, creates a water
purity problem: it overstimulates the growth of algae.

Exposure to white phosphorus smoke in the air can also
cause liver, kidney, heart, lung or bone damage and even death.


Phosphorus isn't toxic enough to kill except in extremely large
quantities. This kind of poisioning will make you sick, little else.
The internal damage depicted here is unsupported by any information I
have seen.

Despite initial denials, the Pentagon has now acknowledged on
Tuesday that US troops had used the substance as
an incendiary weapon against insurgent strongholds there.


The Pentagon has not denied the use of White Phosphorus.

The UN Convention bans the use of incendiary weapons against civilans,
not against humans.
See for yourself:
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/515?OpenDocument

Of course any deliberate engagement or targeting of civilians is
already a war crime. so that the US has not signed this one is not of
especial import except to say that we aren't bound by it expressly.

White Phosphorus is not banned.

It also isn't a chemical weapon.
We are signtory to the Chemical Weapons Convention which defines
chemical weapons. See he
http://www.opcw.org/html/db/cwc/eng/cwc_frameset.html

So it isn't a chemical weapon and it isn't banned.


SeeingEyeDog November 17th 05 11:52 PM

US admits use of white phosphorous against people in Iraq
 
Napalm or napalm-like incendiary weapons are not outlawed.
International law permits their use against military forces.

Incendiary devices like white phosphorous were banned by the Geneva
Convention.
The U.S. did not sign the relevant protocol to the convention.

The use of white phosphorus or fuel air explosives are not prohibited or
restricted by Protocol II: http://www.nawcwpns.navy.mil/~treaty/CCWC.html

What is restricted is the purposeful and malicious targeting or making
civilian populations the object of attack by incendiary weapons and
restricts the use of incendiary weapons against military targets located
within a concentration of civilians, and from what evidences are given and
shown, there is little to no evidence given to conclusively indicate or
prove that the US did in fact purposely and maliciously target civilians for
attack with white phosphorous or other incendiary weaponry or devices in or
within Fallujah.

What appears to be white phosphorous in the Italian Neo-Kommie propaganda
video has not been substantiated by any type of forensic evidence
whatsoever.

Probably will not be long before reports start circulating that the US
somehow used Agent Orange in Fallujah and parts of Iraq, as well.




The Meatball Preacher November 18th 05 01:14 AM

US admits use of white phosphorous against people in Iraq
 

"SeeingEyeDog" wrote in message
...

Probably will not be long before reports start circulating that the US
somehow used Agent Orange in Fallujah and parts of Iraq, as well.


We do know that the US has been using depleted uranium [DU]
in several types of ordinance. Nasty crap. Has a half life of
about 50K Years and atomizes into fine particles when it
is dispersed by the resulting explosive charge around which the
shaped DU is wrapped. Nice ****. Great way to get rid of
the depleted nuclear waste from our reactors eh folks ???

Parts of Iraq will literally be radioactive
HOT half a million Years from now.

This is FAR WORSE than any alleged uses of WP.
Adleast that crap is inert after it burns out. DU is HOT
for 50,000 Years !

See: http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/du.htm




[email protected] November 18th 05 03:40 AM

US admits use of white phosphorous against people in Iraq
 

SeeingEyeDog wrote:
Napalm or napalm-like incendiary weapons are not outlawed.
International law permits their use against military forces.

Incendiary devices like white phosphorous were banned by the Geneva
Convention.
The U.S. did not sign the relevant protocol to the convention.


Use of incendiary devices agains civilains and "civilian objects" is
banned by a 1983 UN convention (Convention Concerning Some Conventional
Weapons) not the Geneva Conventions. I provided a link to it before.
The US did not sign the convention because the language was found to be
too broad.

The use of white phosphorus or fuel air explosives are not prohibited or
restricted by Protocol II: http://www.nawcwpns.navy.mil/~treaty/CCWC.html


Protocol III.

What is restricted is the purposeful and malicious targeting or making
civilian populations the object of attack by incendiary weapons and
restricts the use of incendiary weapons against military targets located
within a concentration of civilians, and from what evidences are given and
shown, there is little to no evidence given to conclusively indicate or
prove that the US did in fact purposely and maliciously target civilians for
attack with white phosphorous or other incendiary weaponry or devices in or
within Fallujah.

What appears to be white phosphorous in the Italian Neo-Kommie propaganda
video has not been substantiated by any type of forensic evidence
whatsoever.

Probably will not be long before reports start circulating that the US
somehow used Agent Orange in Fallujah and parts of Iraq, as well.



[email protected] November 18th 05 03:57 AM

US admits use of white phosphorous against people in Iraq
 

The Meatball Preacher wrote:
"SeeingEyeDog" wrote in message
...

Probably will not be long before reports start circulating that the US
somehow used Agent Orange in Fallujah and parts of Iraq, as well.


We do know that the US has been using depleted uranium [DU]
in several types of ordinance. Nasty crap. Has a half life of
about 50K Years and atomizes into fine particles when it
is dispersed by the resulting explosive charge around which the
shaped DU is wrapped. Nice ****. Great way to get rid of
the depleted nuclear waste from our reactors eh folks ???


DU is 0.7 times as radioactive as natural uranium, which is considered
"slightly radioactive". Since DU has a half-life of 4.5 billion years,
there is very little decay of those DU.

DU does not atomize. Recent research suggests that the particles of DU
when pulverized by such actions a armor impacts are too large to be
retained in the human body for any appreciable time and will be
rejected. If so, there is little or no danger that DU will build up in
a human even with repeated exposures.


[email protected] November 18th 05 04:29 AM

US admits use of white phosphorous against people in Iraq
 
Debunking yet another lie about Iraq. - John Metzler.
www.worldtribune.com
cuhulin


Carter-K8VT November 18th 05 12:11 PM

US admits use of white phosphorous against people in Iraq
 
wrote:

DU does not atomize.


That was the original thinking. Studies have since shown that DU
particles become small enough to become wind borne and have been found
up to 25 miles from the impact site.

Recent research suggests that the particles of DU
when pulverized by such actions a armor impacts are too large to be
retained in the human body for any appreciable time and will be
rejected. If so, there is little or no danger that DU will build up in
a human even with repeated exposures.


Also not true. The latest studies *have* found significant amounts of DU
retained in humans.

Howard C. Berkowitz November 18th 05 03:14 PM

US admits use of white phosphorous against people in Iraq
 
In article , Carter-K8VT
wrote:

wrote:

DU does not atomize.


That was the original thinking. Studies have since shown that DU
particles become small enough to become wind borne and have been found
up to 25 miles from the impact site.

Recent research suggests that the particles of DU
when pulverized by such actions a armor impacts are too large to be
retained in the human body for any appreciable time and will be
rejected. If so, there is little or no danger that DU will build up in
a human even with repeated exposures.


Also not true. The latest studies *have* found significant amounts of DU
retained in humans.


I'm interested in qualified scientific studies in this area. Have you
any citations?

Billzz November 18th 05 05:39 PM

US admits use of white phosphorous against people in Iraq
 
"Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote in message
...
In article , Carter-K8VT
wrote:

wrote:

DU does not atomize.


That was the original thinking. Studies have since shown that DU
particles become small enough to become wind borne and have been found
up to 25 miles from the impact site.

Recent research suggests that the particles of DU
when pulverized by such actions a armor impacts are too large to be
retained in the human body for any appreciable time and will be
rejected. If so, there is little or no danger that DU will build up in
a human even with repeated exposures.


Also not true. The latest studies *have* found significant amounts of DU
retained in humans.


I'm interested in qualified scientific studies in this area. Have you
any citations?


Just passing by...I had this cite which points to the RAND study...

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/du.htm



David November 18th 05 09:09 PM

US admits use of white phosphorous against people in Iraq
 
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 10:14:40 -0500, "Howard C. Berkowitz"
wrote:

In article , Carter-K8VT
wrote:

wrote:

DU does not atomize.


That was the original thinking. Studies have since shown that DU
particles become small enough to become wind borne and have been found
up to 25 miles from the impact site.

Recent research suggests that the particles of DU
when pulverized by such actions a armor impacts are too large to be
retained in the human body for any appreciable time and will be
rejected. If so, there is little or no danger that DU will build up in
a human even with repeated exposures.


Also not true. The latest studies *have* found significant amounts of DU
retained in humans.


I'm interested in qualified scientific studies in this area. Have you
any citations?

http://www.thefourreasons.org/duresources.htm


[email protected] November 18th 05 09:16 PM

US admits use of white phosphorous against people in Iraq
 
The Pentagon's Plans to invade Venezuela. www.rense.com

Chavez is right,bush is crazy.So is cheney and the Pentagon.
cuhulin


Howard C. Berkowitz November 18th 05 09:17 PM

US admits use of white phosphorous against people in Iraq
 
In article , David
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 10:14:40 -0500, "Howard C. Berkowitz"
wrote:

In article , Carter-K8VT
wrote:

wrote:

DU does not atomize.

That was the original thinking. Studies have since shown that DU
particles become small enough to become wind borne and have been found
up to 25 miles from the impact site.

Recent research suggests that the particles of DU
when pulverized by such actions a armor impacts are too large to be
retained in the human body for any appreciable time and will be
rejected. If so, there is little or no danger that DU will build up in
a human even with repeated exposures.

Also not true. The latest studies *have* found significant amounts of DU
retained in humans.


I'm interested in qualified scientific studies in this area. Have you
any citations?

http://www.thefourreasons.org/duresources.htm


I'm afraid I was looking for recent studies from peer-reviewed medical
journals or conferences, or at least from research centers that
published the detailed experiements. This seems to be a bibliography at
a partisan site.

dxAce November 18th 05 09:29 PM

US admits use of white phosphorous against people in Iraq
 


"Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote:

In article , David
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 10:14:40 -0500, "Howard C. Berkowitz"
wrote:

In article , Carter-K8VT
wrote:

wrote:

DU does not atomize.

That was the original thinking. Studies have since shown that DU
particles become small enough to become wind borne and have been found
up to 25 miles from the impact site.

Recent research suggests that the particles of DU
when pulverized by such actions a armor impacts are too large to be
retained in the human body for any appreciable time and will be
rejected. If so, there is little or no danger that DU will build up in
a human even with repeated exposures.

Also not true. The latest studies *have* found significant amounts of DU
retained in humans.

I'm interested in qualified scientific studies in this area. Have you
any citations?

http://www.thefourreasons.org/duresources.htm


I'm afraid I was looking for recent studies from peer-reviewed medical
journals or conferences, or at least from research centers that
published the detailed experiements. This seems to be a bibliography at
a partisan site.


The 'tard boy Rickets posts a lot of flawed material.

dxAce
Michigan
USA



[email protected] November 18th 05 10:31 PM

US admits use of white phosphorous against people in Iraq
 

Carter-K8VT wrote:
wrote:

DU does not atomize.


That was the original thinking. Studies have since shown that DU
particles become small enough to become wind borne and have been found
up to 25 miles from the impact site.

Recent research suggests that the particles of DU
when pulverized by such actions a armor impacts are too large to be
retained in the human body for any appreciable time and will be
rejected. If so, there is little or no danger that DU will build up in
a human even with repeated exposures.


Also not true. The latest studies *have* found significant amounts of DU
retained in humans.


This is someting I've been trying to follow. Can you offer a poiner to
a study or a sory about it?

Failing that, do you know how long between exposure and measuring the
DU in the system?


[email protected] November 18th 05 11:27 PM

US admits use of white phosphorous against people in Iraq
 
Depleted Uranium Tank Ammunition sharpens upon impact and also self
ignites (very high heat) causing atomized particles which carry far and
wide in the air and that stuff gets into body tissues and body organs
and lungs.There are some Depleted Uranium contaminated Tanks in Kansas
sitting out in open areas and kids have been playing on those Tanks.I
think it was at www.rense.com (scroll down the middle isle at
rense.com) where I read an article about that earlier this week.
cuhulin


[email protected] November 18th 05 11:28 PM

US admits use of white phosphorous against people in Iraq
 
What's that rto mean?
cuhulin


[email protected] November 18th 05 11:29 PM

US admits use of white phosphorous against people in Iraq
 
I see you use gmail.
cuhulin


[email protected] November 18th 05 11:32 PM

US admits use of white phosphorous against people in Iraq
 
www.devilfinder.com What happens upon impact of depleted uranium
tank shells?

You should get in touch with Dr.Joyce Riley.She can tell you all about
depleted uranium.
cuhulin


David November 19th 05 01:33 AM

US admits use of white phosphorous against people in Iraq
 
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 16:17:45 -0500, "Howard C. Berkowitz"
wrote:

In article , David
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 10:14:40 -0500, "Howard C. Berkowitz"
wrote:

In article , Carter-K8VT
wrote:

wrote:

DU does not atomize.

That was the original thinking. Studies have since shown that DU
particles become small enough to become wind borne and have been found
up to 25 miles from the impact site.

Recent research suggests that the particles of DU
when pulverized by such actions a armor impacts are too large to be
retained in the human body for any appreciable time and will be
rejected. If so, there is little or no danger that DU will build up in
a human even with repeated exposures.

Also not true. The latest studies *have* found significant amounts of DU
retained in humans.

I'm interested in qualified scientific studies in this area. Have you
any citations?

http://www.thefourreasons.org/duresources.htm


I'm afraid I was looking for recent studies from peer-reviewed medical
journals or conferences, or at least from research centers that
published the detailed experiements. This seems to be a bibliography at
a partisan site.

Here you go. Peer review to your heart's content:

http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiatio.../en/index.html


m II November 19th 05 03:56 AM

US admits use of white phosphorous against people in Iraq
 
wrote:

DU does not atomize. Recent research suggests that the particles of DU
when pulverized by such actions a armor impacts are too large to be
retained in the human body for any appreciable time and will be
rejected. If so, there is little or no danger that DU will build up in
a human even with repeated exposures.




http://www.firethistime.org/extremedeformities.htm

Colin Campbell November 19th 05 04:16 PM

US admits use of white phosphorous against people in Iraq
 
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 03:56:21 GMT, m II wrote:

wrote:

DU does not atomize. Recent research suggests that the particles of DU
when pulverized by such actions a armor impacts are too large to be
retained in the human body for any appreciable time and will be
rejected. If so, there is little or no danger that DU will build up in
a human even with repeated exposures.




http://www.firethistime.org/extremedeformities.htm


How about something from a website that is based on something other
than BS?

(Hint: compare the NIOSH safety information for DU and note those
pictures do not match the known human health effects of DU.)

Well, I guess that there are fools everywhere who are fooled by
politically-motivated BS and a picture.




--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.

clifto November 19th 05 09:27 PM

US admits use of white phosphorous against people in Iraq
 
David wrote:
wrote:
Carter-K8VT wrote:
Also not true. The latest studies *have* found significant amounts of DU
retained in humans.


I'm interested in qualified scientific studies in this area. Have you
any citations?


http://www.thefourreasons.org/duresources.htm


You'll have to be a LOT more specific than a pointer to a hippie commune.
The first two articles I looked through had zero evidence of any such
thing, only stating that fine particles of uranium in the environment
are hazardous without showing that any fine particles are actually put
in the environment from DU ammunition use.

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.

clifto November 19th 05 09:35 PM

US admits use of white phosphorous against people in Iraq
 
David wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
I'm interested in qualified scientific studies in this area. Have you
any citations?

http://www.thefourreasons.org/duresources.htm


I'm afraid I was looking for recent studies from peer-reviewed medical
journals or conferences, or at least from research centers that
published the detailed experiements. This seems to be a bibliography at
a partisan site.


Here you go. Peer review to your heart's content:

http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiatio.../en/index.html


More of the same. DU will hurt you IF YOU CAN MANAGE TO GET ANY IN YOU.
We knew that.

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.

clifto November 19th 05 09:38 PM

US admits use of white phosphorous against people in Iraq
 
m II wrote:
http://www.firethistime.org/extremedeformities.htm


What an extreme waste of time this is chasing shadows! I didn't have to
be a doctor to see *immediately* that this bozo was talking about
nutritional deficiencies; folate is not a component of DU.

"My own opinion is that DU is a catalyst, magnifying the problems brought
about by poor nutrition."

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.

[email protected] November 19th 05 10:13 PM

US admits use of white phosphorous against people in Iraq
 
You ever breathed welding fumes for a considerable lenght of time
before? Breathing atomized particles of depleted uranium is much,much
worse.
cuhulin


John Barnard November 20th 05 03:29 AM

US admits use of white phosphorous against people in Iraq
 


"Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote:

In article , David
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 10:14:40 -0500, "Howard C. Berkowitz"
wrote:

In article , Carter-K8VT
wrote:

wrote:

DU does not atomize.

That was the original thinking. Studies have since shown that DU
particles become small enough to become wind borne and have been found
up to 25 miles from the impact site.

Recent research suggests that the particles of DU
when pulverized by such actions a armor impacts are too large to be
retained in the human body for any appreciable time and will be
rejected. If so, there is little or no danger that DU will build up in
a human even with repeated exposures.

Also not true. The latest studies *have* found significant amounts of DU
retained in humans.

I'm interested in qualified scientific studies in this area. Have you
any citations?

http://www.thefourreasons.org/duresources.htm


I'm afraid I was looking for recent studies from peer-reviewed medical
journals or conferences, or at least from research centers that
published the detailed experiements. This seems to be a bibliography at
a partisan site.


Here goes with the publications:

1. Arh Hig Rada Toksikol. 2005 Sep;56(3):227-32.
2. Health Phys. 2005 Sep;89(3):267-73
3. Appl Radiat Isot. 2005 Sep;63(3):381-99
4.Mil Med. 2005 Apr;170(4):277-84
5. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2005;32(1):58-60

I could list a total of about 146 papers but I'd prefer not to do so.

JB


dxAce November 20th 05 03:38 AM

US admits use of white phosphorous against people in Iraq
 


John Barnard wrote:

"Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote:

In article , David
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 10:14:40 -0500, "Howard C. Berkowitz"
wrote:

In article , Carter-K8VT
wrote:

wrote:

DU does not atomize.

That was the original thinking. Studies have since shown that DU
particles become small enough to become wind borne and have been found
up to 25 miles from the impact site.

Recent research suggests that the particles of DU
when pulverized by such actions a armor impacts are too large to be
retained in the human body for any appreciable time and will be
rejected. If so, there is little or no danger that DU will build up in
a human even with repeated exposures.

Also not true. The latest studies *have* found significant amounts of DU
retained in humans.

I'm interested in qualified scientific studies in this area. Have you
any citations?
http://www.thefourreasons.org/duresources.htm


I'm afraid I was looking for recent studies from peer-reviewed medical
journals or conferences, or at least from research centers that
published the detailed experiements. This seems to be a bibliography at
a partisan site.


Here goes with the publications:

1. Arh Hig Rada Toksikol. 2005 Sep;56(3):227-32.
2. Health Phys. 2005 Sep;89(3):267-73
3. Appl Radiat Isot. 2005 Sep;63(3):381-99
4.Mil Med. 2005 Apr;170(4):277-84
5. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2005;32(1):58-60

I could list a total of about 146 papers but I'd prefer not to do so.


Speaking of papers, is there a particular brand you prefer for your weed?

dxAce
Michigan
USA



dxAce November 20th 05 03:42 AM

US admits use of white phosphorous against people in Iraq
 


John Barnard wrote:

"Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote:

In article , David
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 10:14:40 -0500, "Howard C. Berkowitz"
wrote:

In article , Carter-K8VT
wrote:

wrote:

DU does not atomize.

That was the original thinking. Studies have since shown that DU
particles become small enough to become wind borne and have been found
up to 25 miles from the impact site.

Recent research suggests that the particles of DU
when pulverized by such actions a armor impacts are too large to be
retained in the human body for any appreciable time and will be
rejected. If so, there is little or no danger that DU will build up in
a human even with repeated exposures.

Also not true. The latest studies *have* found significant amounts of DU
retained in humans.

I'm interested in qualified scientific studies in this area. Have you
any citations?
http://www.thefourreasons.org/duresources.htm


I'm afraid I was looking for recent studies from peer-reviewed medical
journals or conferences, or at least from research centers that
published the detailed experiements. This seems to be a bibliography at
a partisan site.


Here goes with the publications:

1. Arh Hig Rada Toksikol. 2005 Sep;56(3):227-32.
2. Health Phys. 2005 Sep;89(3):267-73
3. Appl Radiat Isot. 2005 Sep;63(3):381-99
4.Mil Med. 2005 Apr;170(4):277-84
5. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2005;32(1):58-60

I could list a total of about 146 papers but I'd prefer not to do so.


I think there are many here who would prefer that you didn't as well.

LMAO at Dr. CanaDork.

dxAce
Michigan
USA



John Barnard November 20th 05 04:04 AM

US admits use of white phosphorous against people in Iraq
 


wrote:

Carter-K8VT wrote:
wrote:

DU does not atomize.


That was the original thinking. Studies have since shown that DU
particles become small enough to become wind borne and have been found
up to 25 miles from the impact site.

Recent research suggests that the particles of DU
when pulverized by such actions a armor impacts are too large to be
retained in the human body for any appreciable time and will be
rejected. If so, there is little or no danger that DU will build up in
a human even with repeated exposures.


Also not true. The latest studies *have* found significant amounts of DU
retained in humans.


This is someting I've been trying to follow. Can you offer a poiner to
a study or a sory about it?

Failing that, do you know how long between exposure and measuring the
DU in the system?


This may help with what you want:

Biokinetic modeling of uranium in man after injection and ingestion
Radiat Environ Biophys. 2005 May;44(1):29-40. Epub 2005 Apr 14

JB


John Barnard November 20th 05 04:23 AM

US admits use of white phosphorous against people in Iraq
 


Colin Campbell wrote:

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 03:56:21 GMT, m II wrote:

wrote:

DU does not atomize. Recent research suggests that the particles of DU
when pulverized by such actions a armor impacts are too large to be
retained in the human body for any appreciable time and will be
rejected. If so, there is little or no danger that DU will build up in
a human even with repeated exposures.




http://www.firethistime.org/extremedeformities.htm


How about something from a website that is based on something other
than BS?

(Hint: compare the NIOSH safety information for DU and note those
pictures do not match the known human health effects of DU.)

Well, I guess that there are fools everywhere who are fooled by
politically-motivated BS and a picture.

--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.


The NIOSH IDLH (immediately dangerous to life and health) level is only 10
mg/L and PELs are only about 0.25 mg/L. I compared the NIOSH safety
information and it shows the problems listed for human and animal exposure and
NOT for fetal exposure. Low-level radiation exposure can certainly cause a
number of birth defects. Folate deficiency can explain some of the photos
especially those involving neural tube defects.

JB


[email protected] November 20th 05 04:50 PM

US admits use of white phosphorous against people in Iraq
 

wrote:
Depleted Uranium Tank Ammunition sharpens upon impact and also self
ignites (very high heat) causing atomized particles which carry far and
wide in the air and that stuff gets into body tissues and body organs
and lungs.There are some Depleted Uranium contaminated Tanks in Kansas
sitting out in open areas and kids have been playing on those Tanks.I
think it was at
www.rense.com (scroll down the middle isle at
rense.com) where I read an article about that earlier this week.
cuhulin


You descrbe a pyrophoric reaction. I knwo about it. However, as I've
already said, teh research I've seen suggests that it does not atomize.
That the partilces that do result do get into lungs and other organs,
but are too large to be retained.


[email protected] November 20th 05 04:53 PM

US admits use of white phosphorous against people in Iraq
 

John Barnard wrote:
Colin Campbell wrote:

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 03:56:21 GMT, m II wrote:

wrote:

DU does not atomize. Recent research suggests that the particles of DU
when pulverized by such actions a armor impacts are too large to be
retained in the human body for any appreciable time and will be
rejected. If so, there is little or no danger that DU will build up in
a human even with repeated exposures.




http://www.firethistime.org/extremedeformities.htm


How about something from a website that is based on something other
than BS?

(Hint: compare the NIOSH safety information for DU and note those
pictures do not match the known human health effects of DU.)

Well, I guess that there are fools everywhere who are fooled by
politically-motivated BS and a picture.

--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.


The NIOSH IDLH (immediately dangerous to life and health) level is only 10
mg/L and PELs are only about 0.25 mg/L. I compared the NIOSH safety
information and it shows the problems listed for human and animal exposure and
NOT for fetal exposure. Low-level radiation exposure can certainly cause a
number of birth defects. Folate deficiency can explain some of the photos
especially those involving neural tube defects.


DU is primarilly an alpha emitter.

To expose a feuts, you'll have to get the DU into the uterus.


[email protected] November 20th 05 04:53 PM

US admits use of white phosphorous against people in Iraq
 

wrote:
What's that rto mean?
cuhulin


Radio Telephone Operator


[email protected] November 20th 05 05:24 PM

US admits use of white phosphorous against people in Iraq
 
I don't know if it is really an anology to DU Tank rounds/Ammunition,but
I know SABOT Tank rounds create a jet flame like a very hot cutting
torch just before they strike the side of a Tank.That creates a hole in
the side of the Tank for the round,which is about the same size as a
silver dollar,to enter the Tank and cause all kinds of damage.I am not
an expert on DU Tank Ammunition and other types of DU Ammunition because
that didn't exist when I went to Armor Ammunition School at Fort
Knox,Kentucky in 1963.An article says DU Ammunition self sharpens and
gets very hot upon impact with whatever.There are vapors created and
that stuff gets inside of peoples bodies.
cuhulin


clifto November 21st 05 04:30 AM

US admits use of white phosphorous against people in Iraq
 
John Barnard wrote:
wrote:
Carter-K8VT wrote:
wrote:

DU does not atomize.

That was the original thinking. Studies have since shown that DU
particles become small enough to become wind borne and have been found
up to 25 miles from the impact site.

Recent research suggests that the particles of DU
when pulverized by such actions a armor impacts are too large to be
retained in the human body for any appreciable time and will be
rejected. If so, there is little or no danger that DU will build up in
a human even with repeated exposures.

Also not true. The latest studies *have* found significant amounts of DU
retained in humans.


This is someting I've been trying to follow. Can you offer a poiner to
a study or a sory about it?

Failing that, do you know how long between exposure and measuring the
DU in the system?


This may help with what you want:

Biokinetic modeling of uranium in man after injection and ingestion
Radiat Environ Biophys. 2005 May;44(1):29-40. Epub 2005 Apr 14


The original subject was how the DU gets from our bullets buried deep
in the sands of the desert to the innards of humans. He wanted to know
how long it takes from the bullet hitting the sand to the DU appearing
in some humans' innards. You listed an article whose title alone tells
us it's not relevant.

As simply as I can phrase the question: how does the DU get from the
bullet deep in the sand of Iraq to the innards of humans?

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.

John Barnard November 29th 05 05:36 AM

US admits use of white phosphorous against people in Iraq
 


Colin Campbell wrote:

On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 20:41:54 GMT, John Barnard wrote:

Now consider just how much 0.25 mg/L is. And ask yourself - exactly
where will it be possible to find areas in Iraq where human exposures
are this high?

Even if every gram of DU fired in Iraq was atomized - do the math and
see how low the exposures would be after dispersal.


You have no clue of how little 250 micrograms is, do you?


Yes I do.

Did you do the math like I suggested?

--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.


And try reading the material in the following site. Your math fails in the
face of empirical evidence!

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/document.asp?id=1431

JB


John Barnard November 29th 05 05:38 AM

US admits use of white phosphorous against people in Iraq
 


Colin Campbell wrote:

On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 20:40:48 GMT, John Barnard wrote:

Yep,

It doesn't matter if it comes from ingestion or inhalation once it gets into the
body, it can still cause quite a bit of damage. It doesn't have to cross the
placental barrier to cause damage. The early-stages of development are fairly
sensitive to radiation and teratogens.


First question is:

Will it actually cross the placental barrier?

and the second question is - just how high a dose does the mother need
to get enough to cause this? (And is it realistic to believe that she
could have gotten this dose?)

Basically - you have no idea what you are talking about and are simply
making things up.

--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.


Ignoring the potential radiological effects, the chemical toxicity is
well-documented. You can't ignore the data on the matter.

Check out : http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/document.asp?id=1431

Read through the annexes and take a look at the data.

JB


Colin Campbell November 29th 05 06:20 AM

US admits use of white phosphorous against people in Iraq
 
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 05:38:03 GMT, John Barnard wrote:


Ignoring the potential radiological effects, the chemical toxicity is
well-documented. You can't ignore the data on the matter.

Check out : http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/document.asp?id=1431


Yes, it has a similar human health hazard to that of metallic lead.

I am still waiting for some evidence that DU dust is suspended in the
atmosphere.



--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.

[email protected] November 29th 05 03:55 PM

US admits use of white phosphorous against people in Iraq
 
I dont know much about DU,but I do believe it is dangerous to humans and
animals.I would think the DU dust does settle down onto the ground and
most everything else too and the winds do carry it far and
wide,including getting into the water.When I was in boot camp at Fort
Gordon,Georgia,we trained with the old WW II/Korea era M-1 Garand
Rifles.One day we praticed firing dummy SABOT rounds with the Rifles.An
odd looking device that fits onto the Rifles and the device holds the
SABOT rounds onto the Rifles and you have to hold those Rifles with the
SABOT rounds attached to them in a certain way or they will knock the
crap out of you.
cuhulin



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:43 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com