Closed topic after facts checking

[Votingisanillusion]

A lot more DU was spread all over Iraq this time than during the first gulf war. It did not stay in Iraq. Good luck!

http://www.rense.com/general69/soar.htm

On the March 8, 2006 edition of the CNN American Morning program with Miles O'Brien and Soledad O'Brien, they made a startling announcement. On average there are 175,000 new cases of lung cancer each year in the United States. For just the months of January and February 2006 there are 172,000 confirmed, newly diagnosed cases of lung cancer. This is not just a little spike on the charts and much worse news is coming. That is already averaging this year about 6 times the normal incidence of new lung cancer cases in a year.

They tried to attribute it to second hand smoke, but second hand smoke and cigarettes are nothing compared to being exposed to Depleted Uranium ("DU") and particulates created by DU explosions. You can smoke for 30 years and not do the damage that DU can do to you in 30 days.

How long does it take to get lung cancer after being exposed to DU and nano-particulates? On average 2-5 years is the correct answer. We started bombing Afghanistan in October 2001 or four and a half years ago. We started bombing Iraq again in March 2003, or just shy of three years ago.

The effects of those bombing attacks were registered as far away as the UK according to the Aldermaston Report we and others released February 19, 2006. We do not know yet what was registered in the U.S. because the U.S. government is not saying and they definitely do not want you to know.

The link between DU exposure and lung cancer has been known for many years. The correlation between DU and lung cancer versus cigarettes and lung cancer is even stronger for DU.

They are making plans right now to bomb Iran, even knowing full well that they will be spreading more nuclear pollution.

Here are the action items that need to happen:

http://www.rense.com/general69/soar.htm

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Votingisanillusion

QFT.

 

[ntdz]

That's a load of crap, depleted Uranium from Iraq doesn't cause lung cancer in the States...

 

[lyssword]

depleted uranium = used in bombs? or where did it come from?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: ntdz
That's a load of crap, depleted Uranium from Iraq doesn't cause lung cancer in the States...

If the fine people at rense.com say it's true, it must be.

 

[Votingisanillusion]

About DU, you can believe the professional serial killers association known as the Pentagon...or the many independant studies that proved DU kills, as all heavy metals once in the lungs.
So far noone here cared to give an alternative explanation to this huge increase in lung cancer rate this year. Of course: DU is the only explanation. Why? You did not read this report, did you: http://www.llrc.org/du/subtopic/aldermastonrept.htm

Depleted uranium from Gulf War 2 "Shock and Awe" bombing in 2003 spread across Europe and reached Britain within 9 days.

This is fresh evidence that uranium armour piercing weaponry is illegal on account of its indiscriminate effects.

European Biology and Bioelectromagnetics ( http://www.ebab.eu.com ) has published a paper: Did the use of Uranium weapons in Gulf War 2 result in contamination of Europe? Evidence from the measurements of the Atomic Weapons Establishment, Aldermaston, Berkshire, UK. Chris Busby, Saoirse Morgan. Occasional Paper 2006/1, January 2006 Aberystwyth: Green Audit

Abstract

Uranium weapons have been increasingly employed in battle action since their first use by the US and UK forces in the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Since then they have been used in the Balkans in the late 1990s, then Kosovo in 2000, probably in Afghanistan in 2002 and then also in the 2nd Gulf War (GW2) in March and April 2003. On impact, uranium penetrators burn fiercely to give an aerosol of sub micron diameter oxide particles which are largely insoluble and remain in the environment for many years. There is considerable public and scientific concern that these radioactive particles may remain suspended for long periods, or may become resuspended and are therefore available for inhalation by non combatants at some distance from the point of impact. Little research seems to have been carried out on the distance travelled by the uranium aerosols. The military maintain that the uranium remains near the point of impact, and the Royal Society report (2002) also states that the material does not travel more than some tens of metres. On the other hand, measurements of uranium in local populations in Kosovo some nine months after the use of uranium weapons all tested positive for depleted uranium in urine (Priest 2004) and The United Nations (UNEP) found uranium particles in air filters in Bosnia some years after its use. The question of the dispersion of uranium aerosols from the battlefield is of significant legal interest, since if a radioactive weapon resulted in the general contamination of the public in the country of deployment or elsewhere, the weapon would be classifiable as one of indiscriminate effect. There is now conceded to be no safe level of exposure to radiation. Further, there are major scientific questions over the risk models used to assess the health effects of uranium particle exposure from weapons use. In addition there is evidence of ill health in many of those exposed to uranium particles from Gulf veterans to the population of Iraq. In this paper we examine the trend in uranium shown by the measurements made on high volume air sampler filter systems deployed by the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) Aldermaston Berkshire UK. AWE have been routinely monitoring uranium in air since the early 1990s but since 2000 have carried out filter determinations from high volume air samplers (HVAS) every two weeks. They were required to set up these monitors in the late 1980s following the discovery of a child leukaemia cluster near the plant. There are monitors onsite but they also deploy them at various other sites some 15km distance from the plant. We have obtained their results using the Freedom of Information Act. Examination of the trends in uranium reported here show that there was a statistically significant increase in uranium in all the filters beginning at the start of GW2 and ending when it ended. Levels in the town of Reading exceeded the Environment Agency Reporting threshold of 1000nBq/m3 twice during the period. We report the weather conditions at the time and show that over the period there was a consistent flow of air from Iraq northwards and that the UK was in the centre of a anticyclone which drew air in from the south and from the south east. On the basis of the mean increase in uranium in air of about 500nBq/m3 we use respiration data on standard man to calculate that each person in the area inhaled some 23 million uranium particles of diameter 0.25 microns. We suggest that health data, particularly birth data be examined for possible effects from this exposure. As far as we know, this is the first evidence that uranium aerosols from battle use have been shown to travel so far.

Click here for Sunday Times report of 19th February 2006: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2047373,00.html

 

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: ntdz
That's a load of crap, depleted Uranium from Iraq doesn't cause lung cancer in the States...

If the fine people at rense.com say it's true, it must be.

lol.....i have toa dmit you got a laugh out of me..even though i agree with the sentiment of the OP....we shouldnt be using DU with that type of effects possible..that is friggin disgusting..even if it isnt in the united steates its inhumane and evil

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

OK... I read the link in the OP.

The link cites:

On the March 8, 2006 edition of the CNN American Morning program with Miles O'Brien and Soledad O'Brien, they made a startling announcement. On average there are 175,000 new cases of lung cancer each year in the United States. For just the months of January and February 2006 there are 172,000 confirmed, newly diagnosed cases of lung cancer. This is not just a little spike on the charts and much worse news is coming. That is already averaging this year about 6 times the normal incidence of new lung cancer cases in a year.

Based on that claim the link moved into tin-foil hat territory and said that our depleted uranium rounds in Afghanistan and Iraq are to blame.

So I went looking. On the CNN website they have a link to the transcript of the show mentioned in the OP link!

Cancer Discussion 3/8

This is a link to the page that has all the transcripts for that day. Link

There is only one link on the 3/8 show that addresses cancer. Read the link. (It's long) Nowhere in there does anyone make any claims as to 172,000 new lung cancer cases reported in Jan/Feb. Thus the OP's link is based on nothing.

So... I hereby enact my old trig teacher's rule: Fact without theory is trivia, theory without fact is bullsh|t. And in this case... alarmist BS.

 

[alchemize]

George Bush killed superman's wife!

 

[Votingisanillusion]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
OK... I read the link in the OP.

The link cites:

On the March 8, 2006 edition of the CNN American Morning program with Miles O'Brien and Soledad O'Brien, they made a startling announcement. On average there are 175,000 new cases of lung cancer each year in the United States. For just the months of January and February 2006 there are 172,000 confirmed, newly diagnosed cases of lung cancer. This is not just a little spike on the charts and much worse news is coming. That is already averaging this year about 6 times the normal incidence of new lung cancer cases in a year.

Based on that claim the link moved into tin-foil hat territory and said that our depleted uranium rounds in Afghanistan and Iraq are to blame.

So I went looking. On the CNN website they have a link to the transcript of the show mentioned in the OP link!

Cancer Discussion 3/8

This is a link to the page that has all the transcripts for that day. Link

There is only one link on the 3/8 show that addresses cancer. Read the link. (It's long) Nowhere in there does anyone make any claims as to 172,000 new lung cancer cases reported in Jan/Feb. Thus the OP's link is based on nothing.

So... I hereby enact my old trig teacher's rule: Fact without theory is trivia, theory without fact is bullsh|t. And in this case... alarmist BS.

You are right! I checked on several oncology sites and found no sign of such an increase either.

 

[jlmadyson]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Votingisanillusion

QFT.

lmao