News Iraq: Depleted Uranium & War Crimes

[username]

The more I learn about this stuff the worse it seems can it really be called a weapon of mass destruction should the 'coalition' in iraq be prosecuted for war crimes.

Biased information but it gets the point across.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/B2E2DF9B-1E0C-43F4-BBF6-074C1367E27C.htm

 

[graphic7]

What's new?

There were never any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and none will ever be found. I wouldn't mind seeing the Bush administration prosecuted for ignorance, but that will never happen. This is the sort of thing that happens when an idiot (take a look at his college transcript) gets in office.

*Awaits for the "Dubya" to express his garbage*

 

[Evo]

Let's be nice. If you take a jab at someone, they will jab back, then it quickly deteriorates from there.

 

[PRBot.Com]

There were never any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq...

Actually that is a LIE. he used them against Iran and his own people.

Perhaps he destroyed the rest in anticipation of a gree light from the UN inspectors.

But let's be honest here. yes there were WMDs.

 

[russ_watters]

The more I learn about this stuff the worse it seems can it really be called a weapon of mass destruction should the 'coalition' in iraq be prosecuted for war crimes.

Biased information but it gets the point across.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/B2E2DF9B-1E0C-43F4-BBF6-074C1367E27C.htm

Biased information yes. Point? No. No point, just USA bashing. This is an old and tired subject.

graphic7 - again, your post has nothing at all to do with the link.

 

[username]

I was hoping that somebody with some insight into what the long term biological effects of exposure to this level of radiation might be?

EDIT: Why is it an old and tired subject the effects (if any) of DU will only just start to become apparent, DU is still being used and could be ruining thousands of peoples lives, as far as I know anyway. btw: its not just the US that uses DU munitions.

 

[HazZy]

the level of radiation is miniscule, i believe the adverse effects are mainly due to the chemical toxicity of uranium, much like lead. i think the main problem here is that people see the word "uranium" and think of some green glowing "Captain Planet"-esque radioactive material, which simply isn't true.

the health effects of depleted uranium have been studied and it is not considered a radioactive hazard. you can read more about DU and uranium in general here if you want http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp150.html.

 

[member 5645]

the level of radiation is miniscule, i believe the adverse effects are mainly due to the chemical toxicity of uranium, much like lead. i think the main problem here is that people see the word "uranium" and think of some green glowing "Captain Planet"-esque radioactive material, which simply isn't true.

the health effects of depleted uranium have been studied and it is not considered a radioactive hazard. you can read more about DU and uranium in general here if you want http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp150.html.

Seconded, this is my understanding of it all.

 

[Smurf]

What I want to know is: What are the other toxic effects? and What happens if it is ingested, wouldn't the radiation be more damaging then?

 

[russ_watters]

EDIT: Why is it an old and tired subject the effects (if any) of DU will only just start to become apparent...

This is a conspiracy theory that has been going around for years. There isn't anything new coming out - DU has been well understood for decades. I've handled the munitions before (the Navy uses it in 20mm anti-air shells) - I wasn't worried then, and I'm not now.

HazZy is right - with the caveat that what makes it worse than lead is it oxidizes easier (it burns). Then its possible to breathe it.

We had a pretty long thread on this HERE

 

[graphic7]

Actually that is a LIE. he used them against Iran and his own people.

Perhaps he destroyed the rest in anticipation of a gree light from the UN inspectors.

But let's be honest here. yes there were WMDs.

And you're failing to mention that the United States gave him the materials necessary to make the weapons with full knowledge he was going to do so.

Again, biased propaganda.

 

[Smurf]

I'll take the liberty of pointing out that regardless of wether there have been WMDs at one point, there arnt anymore, or weren't when bush invaded, therefor it was a bs reason.

 

[graphic7]

But Smurf, let me emphasize again. If there were WMDs, we gave them to him - it's that simple.

 

[Smurf]

I believe the response to that when I pointed it out was something like:
We did give him the ingredients but we did not expect him to make Chemical and Biological weapons out of them, proove your assertations - Something along those lines.

 

[russ_watters]

But Smurf, let me emphasize again. If there were WMDs, we gave them to him - it's that simple.

So you first said there were never any, now you are admitting there were? Let's just be clear here...

 

[Smurf]

Don't try to turn this around russ, he said there are none now, which there arn't, but there were way back when Iran and Iraq were going at it, which there were. And the US did give them to him.

 

[kat]

I believe the response to that when I pointed it out was something like:
We did give him the ingredients but we did not expect him to make Chemical and Biological weapons out of them, proove your assertations - Something along those lines.

Yes, yes, and surprise surprise ...there is a reason why there is a response that goes something like that...maybe it's time to jump on the logic wagon bucko...

Of course, this has nothing to do with DU, so again the left wing american bashing tag team takes us off into some tangential universe...

I believe that DU is found to be less dangerous then that which is found naturally occurring...here and there and everywhere...the person most in danger when dealing with DU is the soldier who is firing the weapon and handling the munition.

 

[Dissident Dan]

I believe that DU is found to be less dangerous then that which is found naturally occurring...here and there and everywhere...the person most in danger when dealing with DU is the soldier who is firing the weapon and handling the munition.

I believe that you are wrong, Kat. When the munition strikes a target, some of it vaporizes, which means that it has opportunity to spread around and be ingested or inhaled.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1506151.stm

 

[russ_watters]

Don't try to turn this around russ, he said there are none now...[emphasis added]

Actually, that's not what s/he said:

There were never any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq...[emphasis added]

If its an honest mistake, fine - but judging from recent posts, I don't think it was. That's why I pointed it out.

 

[russ_watters]

I believe that DU is found to be less dangerous then that which is found naturally occurring...here and there and everywhere...the person most in danger when dealing with DU is the soldier who is firing the weapon and handling the munition.

Well, if you want to be technical, the people in the most danger is the crew of the tank...

 

[graphic7]

I consider there to be quite a difference in the weapons he formed from the materials the United States gave him and the weapons that he *might've" manufactured on his own without any outside influence, especially the United States.

I was under the impression we gave Saddam the necessary materials in order for him to "defend" the Iraqi nation from Iran? This was during the Iraq-Iran war, by the way.

All I'm trying to point out is the irony - we give him weapons, yet we go looking for weapons after we have given them to him. Now, that's funny, but I can see something like that coming from the Bush administration. They are a bunch of comedians aren't they?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War

"Starting in 1982 with Iranian success on the battle field, the United States changed its less announced policy of backing Iraq to a clear direct support, supplying it with weapons and economic aid, and normalizing relations with the government (broken during the 1967 Six-Day War)."

Donald was even nice enough to give add a little photographic sentiment to this discussion:

http://www.photius.com/rogue_nations/rumsfeld_saddam.gif

 

[member 5645]

I believe that you are wrong, Kat. When the munition strikes a target, some of it vaporizes, which means that it has opportunity to spread around and be ingested or inhaled.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1506151.stm

DU dust is the problem, not DU in block form. You are correct.

 

[kat]

2 sides 2 every coin, I'm bettin Heads...that leaves U @ the tail end..

A very good article with the apropriate links:
Genocide?

Piercing through the depleted uranium myths

[/URL]

Is it as dangerous as Caldicott and Clark claim? A Department of Defense-sponsored review of the scientific literature by the RAND think tank concluded that "there are no peer reviewed published reports of detectable increases of cancer or other negative health effects from radiation exposure to inhaled or ingested natural uranium at levels far exceeding those likely in the Gulf." One need not be a conspiracy theorist to believe that the Defense Department's analysis and reporting on the substance's health and environmental consequences might be biased. But many independent organizations and scientists find little to worry about either.

What happens to DU if someone eats it? According to a European Union study released in 2001, "most of the ingested DU (between 98% and 99.8%, depending on the solubility of the uranium compound) will be rapidly eliminated in the faeces." The vast majority of any remaining uranium will be "rapidly cleared from the blood" in a few weeks. Similarly, the majority of inhaled DU dust will also be cleared via the bloodstream and kidneys. The EU report concluded that "exposure to DU could not produce any detectable health effects under realistic assumptions of the doses that would be received."

That said, DU is a heavy metal; and like lead, nickel, and other heavy metals, it is chemically toxic when consumed in large quantities, especially harming the kidneys. However, studies looking at likely exposures to DU during and after battles have found that its effects on the kidneys of soldiers and civilians are mild and transient.

Another 2001 report to the European Parliament compared exposures to DU to those experienced by uranium miners and concluded, "The fact that there is no evidence of an association between exposures—sometimes high and lasting since the beginning of the uranium industry—and health damages such as bone cancer, lymphatic or other forms of leukemia shows that these diseases as a consequence of an uranium exposure are either not present or very exceptional."

The World Health Organization agrees that DU is not a great health risk. Its 2003 fact sheet on the topic declares that "because DU is only weakly radioactive, very large amounts of dust (on the order of grams) would have to be inhaled for the additional risk of lung cancer to be detectable in an exposed group. Risks for other radiation-induced cancers, including leukaemia, are considered to be very much lower than for lung cancer." Another WHO report found, "The radiological hazard is likely to be very small. No increase of leukemia or other cancers has been established following exposure to uranium or DU."

 

[member 5645]

I consider there to be quite a difference in the weapons he formed from the materials the United States gave him and the weapons that he *might've" manufactured on his own without any outside influence, especially the United States.

I was under the impression we gave Saddam the necessary materials in order for him to "defend" the Iraqi nation from Iran? This was during the Iraq-Iran war, by the way.

All I'm trying to point out is the irony - we give him weapons, yet we go looking for weapons after we have given them to him. Now, that's funny, but I can see something like that coming from the Bush administration. They are a bunch of comedians aren't they?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War

"Starting in 1982 with Iranian success on the battle field, the United States changed its less announced policy of backing Iraq to a clear direct support, supplying it with weapons and economic aid, and normalizing relations with the government (broken during the 1967 Six-Day War)."

Donald was even nice enough to give add a little photographic sentiment to this discussion:

http://www.photius.com/rogue_nations/rumsfeld_saddam.gif

Timeline:
We give Saddam weapons.
Saddam invades Kuwait
UN retaliates
Armistace signed on the condition of disarming
UN weapons instpectors destory tons of weapons (long range missiles etc.)
Saddam's son in law escapes to Jordan, tells on Saddam's secret weapons stash
Saddam confronted, admits to anthrax, VX, etc. stockpiles (yes, more than we ever gave him, and substances he was not given). Says he will destroy them all.
Saddam lures son in law back to Iraq, has him executed.

Time passes, no one does anything.

Un presses saddam on WMD. Saddam says he destroyed them. Blix says soil samples show that the admitted amounts weren't destroyed at that spot. There are unanswered questions still.

Saddam hasn't cooperated, we go to war per the armistace, and subsequent resolutions.

 

[russ_watters]

I consider there to be quite a difference in the weapons he formed from the materials the United States gave him and the weapons that he *might've" manufactured on his own without any outside influence, especially the United States.

Well, I should hope so: your previous statement (which you still haven't retracted) was quite unequivocal at face value. Perhaps we need to break it down to clarify:

There were never any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq...

Perhaps you should clarify what you mean by "weapons of mass destruction" and "never"...

I guess if by "never" you mean 'last year,' then maybe that makes the statement true (or, at least, not explicitly false). But I have difficulty accepting that definition for that word.

 

[username]

This is a conspiracy theory that has been going around for years. There isn't anything new coming out - DU has been well understood for decades.

I agree it does seem to be a bit of a conspiracy theory, but why I said that is because DU has not been used like in kosovo (or maybe that was the first proper investigation?) for that long and the effects would only just be showing up now e.g. leukemia so until now a proper assessment can not be made, think I read that in the WHO report created a few years ago. Certaintly seems like a risky policy.

EDIT: Thanks for link kat in it I found the newer and updated WHO report which seems like it has everything you need to know if I can make any sense of it.

 

[russ_watters]

I agree it does seem to be a bit of a conspiracy theory, but why I said that is because DU has not been used like in kosovo (or maybe that was the first proper investigation?) for that long and the effects would only just be showing up now e.g. leukemia so until now a proper assessment can not be made, think I read that in the WHO report created a few years ago. Certaintly seems like a risky policy.

A war-zone is probably the worst place to try to get a good study of short/long term effects of the tools of warfare. Information is just too chaotic to be reliable. The stuff has been used in practice ranges for decades, you'd think if there was any real issue, it would have surfaced by now.

 

[Smurf]

Well, if you want to be technical, the people in the most danger is the crew of the tank...

Really? I thought it was the person they were shooting at. my bad.

meh,correct me if I am wrong (which I think I am) but from my understanding depleted uranium is called depleted because it is no longer radioactive.. but its still decaying, so wouldn't it still be harmfull to anyone who inhales some of it.

 

[HazZy]

if they can live for thousands of years ;)

EDIT: but yeah it is dangerous to inhale it because of the properties of heavy metals, uranium has basically the same effects as mercury would if ingested, nothing more nothing less. i'd say breathing in lead would be much more dangerous then DU, but this is only an assumption.

 

[russ_watters]

Really? I thought it was the person they were shooting at. my bad.

Sorry, I wasn't clear: I was thinking about A-10's and their 30mm DU, anti-tank shells.