Xander, thanks for spending the time to research what you wrote. BTW this is an interesting conversation we're having here. Wonder if anyone else knows it's going on.
I'm not really familiar with some the stuff on the plutonium bit other than what was at the BBC, etc so I dunno.
Now about it being highly radioactive. What I said in my original post was paraphrased from the linked article on that page. I agree that it is slightly radioactive and like you are saying it is NOT highly radioactive. I think I understand that more-or-less what you are talking about is about the radioactive part? All the previous posts I did with the links were my attempt to show that A LOT of people are getting sick and this is what I thought you were questioning but now that I re-read what you wrote and my original post I think I am understanding your point a bit better? Also, the article's author's definition of "highly" is anyone's guess.
What it seems like what the articles are talking about (and correct me if I'm wrong) is internal exposure.
Prominent scientists also worked to calm the uproar. Dr. John Boice, of the International Epidemiology Institute, told the New York Times, "To get leukemia you need to get the radiation to the bone marrow. The radiation does not go to the marrow. And Uranium 238 will not get to the bone marrow. I don't think it causes leukemia at all."(8) U.S. physicist Steve Fetter told the Times that uranium did not penetrate to bone and bone marrow where leukemia originates.
This slick obfuscation refers to external DU exposure and ignores the hazard from DU ingestion or inhalation. Jean Francois Lacronique, director of France's National Radiation Protection Agency, flatly contradicted NATO, saying, "U-238 has been found stored in bone, and if it gets into bone, it can reach the bone marrow."(9)
Dr. Frank von Hipple, author of a December 1999 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists article on DU, told me, "Yes, it does get to the bone. We looked at that in our study." And the December 2000 Science for Democratic Action -- from the Institute for Environmental and Energy Research (IEER) -- reports that, "Some [DU] particles remain in the body where they can build up in lung [tissue], or enter the blood stream where it can accumulate in bone tissue." Internal exposure, the IEER article says, "increases the risk of leukemia and lung, bone and soft tissue cancers, particularly when inhaled or ingested."
and it's making ppl sick. I guess this sums it up:
"It's true that DU is not very radioactive. But when you inhale it, it does go to the lymph nodes surrounding the lungs, and that means it could irradiate all the blood cells which pass through the nodes.
"Many experts say DU is more of a chemical threat than a radioactive one, and I think the chemical toxicity is an issue. The uranium atoms are chemically toxic, and they will visit every cell in the body where they may have an effect.
"And it would not be hard to absorb a serious dose of DU quite quickly. When it vaporises, it forms a very fine powder which can blow a long way.
The problem with it being very toxit and not breathing it is people over where this stuff (stuff=DU) is being used don't have a choice. They're all being exposed to it and it's causing skyrocketing birth defects and things of the like.............
Not all depleted uranium is used in weapons. In fact, most ISN'T.
agreed. But still, 270 tonnes of it have been fired during the wars in the Gulf and the Balkans.
IOW, as I mentioned above, the *radiation* hazards are not significant. This is obvious as few, if ANY sufferers of 'Gulf War Syndrome' show symptoms of radiation poisoning.
agreed. But like I said I wasn't trying to say that they were dying from radiation, although I admit my first post with the "highly radioactive" statement made it seem that way and made the post take on an 'air' of which I wasn't intending. I see that now. They're dying--for whatever reasons--from the DU that is being used. Whether the soldiers were in the Gulf or Balkans, whether the children were born from Americans or Iraqis in the Gulf, etc they're showing the same things at around the same time... something is going on. The EU even banned DU last year http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1121384.stm
To reply to an earlier post of yours that was a reply to my post, I agree, why not assasinate him instead of blasting their way in like it's some Dirty Harry movie. The legalities of it all concern me. Then again, the US isn't in the world court. *shrug*
So we assasinate him, Saddam's son takes over, we have bigger mess on our hands. *shrug* It's all a big mess. I think I'll join Ted Williams in the frig. Wake me up when it's all over.
3rd edit: took out the tongue-in-cheek comment about loving FredHall since I just saw his lastest thread.
Edited by - seawolf on 10 August 2002 19:54:45
Edited by - seawolf on 10 August 2002 19:56:6
Edited by - seawolf on 10 August 2002 20:24:11