![]() |
|
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. |
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. |
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. |
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 |
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. |
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. |
US admits use of white phosphorous against people in Iraq
|
US admits use of white phosphorous against people in Iraq
|
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? |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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? |
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 |
US admits use of white phosphorous against people in Iraq
What's that rto mean?
cuhulin |
US admits use of white phosphorous against people in Iraq
I see you use gmail.
cuhulin |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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. |
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. |
US admits use of white phosphorous against people in Iraq
|
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 |
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. |
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 |
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 |
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. |
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