An Alternate View of Yesterday's "Victory"

[LarreeMP3]

And it's not like I "like" thinking this way. I am not a prejudice or racist person. I am an individualist. In other words, you are either an a**hole or you're not!

[Seismic Anamoly]

Thanks, Spit...have gotten a lot of Hate Mail about that tune, mostly from cowards who use anonymous e-mail addys, and I'm LOVIN' every one of them; saving them for posting at my place....much appreciate the compliment...



And I couldn't agree more, Larree...never forget Leon Klinghoffer.

Quote:

---

Let's roll.

---

Edited by: Seismic Anamoly at: 4/17/03 2:39:00 am

[RonOnGuitar]

"there has been NO press coverage on DU in recent years (that I know of)"



That's the problem Debbie - you've only been looking at what reasonable people dismiss as nutcase webpages instead of relying on dependable factual real-world resources. Reputable science and scientists are in agreement with the WHO that the politcally-motivated panic the fringe looneys have whipped up in the unwary is more dangerous than any imagined DU danger;

=====

Depleted uranium illness is 'fantasy': MD

Canadian Press

Sunday, April 13, 2003



One of the highest ranking medical officers in the Canadian Forces has dismissed as a "fantasy" a series of media reports linking the use of radioactive weapons with a wide range of illnesses suffered by some Gulf War veterans.



In a memo to military brass, Col. Ken Scott says reports about depleted uranium munitions are an overblown fiction.



"The appetite of our journalists for media friendly fantasy fed to them by special interest groups... will unfortunately perpetuate the mythology currently in existence concerning the illnesses in Gulf War veterans,'" Scott wrote in a 1999 memo.



The document was obtained under the Access to Information Act.



Depleted uranium -- a waste product from nuclear reactors -- is used to coat munitions used for piercing heavy armour.



When they explode, the coated shells release a fine dust that poses an extreme health hazard if inhaled, critics say.



As a result, the use of such weapons may be responsible for many serious ailments among troops from the United States, Canada, Britain and other NATO countries, some reports have said.



In a recent interview, Scott, who runs the military's Gulf War clinic in Ottawa, stood by his earlier comments, saying media coverage of the topic in Canada is aimed at spreading fear.



"There has been a loss of balance in the reporting of this issue," said Scott. "The coverage has not only been oriented towards generating fear in soldiers, but in the Canadian public in general."



Stephen Kimber, a journalism professor at the University of Kings College in Halifax, said the military is blaming journalists for its failure to communicate its side of the story.



"The coverage has been fair, from what I've seen," he said. "Journalists have tried to get a balance. When they haven't succeeded, it doesn't seem to me that they've been caught the fantasies of special interests. It's because they haven't gotten substantive responses from the military."



Kimber noted there are credible scientists and medical officials who have come forward to raise concerns about these weapons, and the media have a responsibility to report what they have said.



A Nova Scotia woman, whose husband served in the Gulf War and died with depleted uranium in his bones, said that far from being duped, the media hasn't been aggressive enough in reporting on the issue.



"I would like the media to challenge the spin doctors and the military more. I think they should push a little harder," said Sue Riordon, widow of Capt. Terry Riordon.



Scott said sensational stories highlighting unexplained illnesses and cancers in soldiers who served in the first Gulf War and the Balkans are always given prominent attention by the mainstream media.



When scientific investigation or scholarly papers disavow any connection, he said, the media give it little or no attention.



"There is a disconnect between the reports you will see in the scientific literature and what you will see in the (mainstream) press," Scott said.



Many journalists who've covered the topic don't have science backgrounds and don't take the time to understand the issue, he said.



"Knowledge of science in Canada and the United States isn't very good and sometimes that would make journalists susceptible to advocacy groups and pseudo-science."

canada.com/national/story...FFF6DBF3F7

===============

The fact is people who are hit by artillery or who eat artillery shells that may contain DU will have much more pressing issues to deal with than anything dealing with any imagined dangers!



Ron

[debbie mannas]

The starting quote is from a doctor in the Canadian Military. For God's Sake. What else dyu expect him to say??



The sources I am quoting, ARE independent scientists, NOT the press. You have not read my posts properly.



From your post Ron,



********************



"A Nova Scotia woman, whose husband served in the Gulf War and died with depleted uranium in his bones, said that far from being duped, the media hasn't been aggressive enough in reporting on the issue.



"I would like the media to challenge the spin doctors and the military more. I think they should push a little harder," said Sue Riordon, widow of Capt. Terry Riordon."



***********************



And here's the story of Terry Riordon:



www.umrc.net/captainRiordon.asp



Terry Riordon was a member of the Canadian Armed Forces serving in the Gulf War. He passed away in April 1999 at age 45. The official cause of death was Gulf War Syndrome.



Terry went to the Persian Gulf in December 26, 1990 with honor, dignity and pride - serving his country as Captain J. Terry Riordon of the Canadian Armed Forces. Terry left Canada a very fit man who did cross-country skiing and ran in marathons. On his return only two months later he could barely walk.



He returned to Canada in February 1991 with documented loss of motor control, chronic fatigue, respiratory difficulties, chest pain, difficulty breathing, sleep problems, short-term memory loss, testicle pain, body pains, aching bones, diarrhea, and depression. After his death Depleted Uranium (DU) contamination was discovered in his lungs and bones.



For eight years he suffered his innumerable ailments and struggled with the military bureaucracy and the system to get proper diagnosis and treatment. His wife, Susan Riordon, speaks most eloquently of the nightmare of physical, mental and emotional hardship endured not just by Terry but his entire family.



He was ultimately unsuccessful it getting the answers or help he needed in his lifetime. His final wish was to donate his body to independent research on DU. That was Terry's gift to all who served in the Persian Gulf. He wanted his body to supply the answers to years of suffering and frustration. Through his gift UMRC was able to have obtain conclusive evidence of internal DU contamination in his lungs and bones.



Even after death Terry continues to contribute to his country and his fellow veterans.



You can honour Terry Riordon's memory and other veterans who gave their lives and health for Canada. UMRC has established the "Terry Riordon Memorial Fund" to help make possible scientific research on DU and informed medical diagnosis of Canadian veterans.



By making a financial donation, you are supporting essential work that has as yet to be undertaken seriously by agencies in Canada.



All contributions are tax deductible in Canada and the US. Donations are made payable to Uranium Medical Research Centre (UMRC). Please indicate that the donation is directed to the "Terry Riordon Memorial Fund". UMRC will administer the funds for the specific use of veterans related research and diagnosis.



UMRC is pleased to be supported by Susan Riordon, Captain Riordon's widow. She is also the Chair, Canadian Peacekeeping Veteran Association (CPVA) - Atlantic Regional.

[RonOnGuitar]

There's just is no evidence of the DU panic being anything more than politically-inspired pipedream. As noted, all reputable physicians, scientists and agencies have concluded from their investigations that there is little or no health risk involved. The impressive list includes the World Health Organization and the World Federation of Scientists.



What you're relying on for some very bad information is what the article noted as "advocacy groups and pseudo-science". Nothing at all scientific, just some "activists" at a website with too much free time and very active imaginations.



Even the *out-of-context* quote from the article in your post was by an "activist". A tragically misguided one to be sure, but no expert - certainly not on par with the WHO. Many people cannot accept the death of a close friend or family member and seek to find "reasons" where there are none. Disease and death comes to all and no one should believe themselves (or friends, or family) to be an exception. The measure of character lies not in seeking to lay blame when such personal tragedy strikes, but rather in learning to accept that life is often not fair.



There is no shortage of real problems to panic about. SARS threatens to kills untold numbers if not controlled, for example.



Frankly, the DU myth belongs in the "Urban Legend" files. No doubt the pseudo-scientists are sincere believers in the DU story. There are pseudo-scientists warning of alien abductions with as much conviction. They can call up loads of people who have been abducted and taken for UFO joyrides. Like the "UMRC", they have organizations and websites. It is wise to remember "caveat emptor" before buying a line that world reknowned and established authorities(e.g. WHO) reject.



Ron

[debbie mannas]

I pretty sure who's misguided here, and it aint the "activist".



The very least the government can do, knowing the dangers, and in the "absence" (HA!) of proper studies, is discontinue DU usage until its safety is proven.



www.newscientist.com/news...ns99993627



Depleted uranium casts shadow over peace in Iraq



19:00 15 April 03



Exclusive from New Scientist Print Edition



Wrecked tanks and vehicles litter the Iraqi countryside. Ruined buildings dominate towns and cities. Many were blown to pieces by shells tipped with depleted uranium, a material that the US and Britain say poses no long-term health or environmental risks. But many Iraqis, and a growing band of scientists, are not so sure.



Last week, the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) announced it wanted to send a scientific team into Iraq as soon as possible to examine the effects of depleted uranium (DU). People's fears that DU leaves a deadly legacy must be addressed, says UNEP. Some scientists go further. Evidence is emerging that DU affects our bodies in ways we do not fully understand, they say, and the legacy could be real.



DU is both radioactive and toxic. Past studies of DU in the environment have concluded that neither of these effects poses a significant risk. But some researchers are beginning to suspect that in combination, the two effects could do significant harm. Nobody has taken a hard look at the combined effect of both, says Alexandra Miller, a radiobiologist with the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute in Bethesda, Maryland. "The bottom line is it might contribute to the risk."



She is not alone. The idea that chemical and radiological damage are reinforcing each other is very plausible and gaining momentum, says Carmel Mothersill, head of the Radiation and Environmental Science Centre at the Dublin Institute of Technology in Ireland. "The regulators don't know how to handle it. So they sweep it under the carpet."



Read "Before the dust settles", the New Scientist editorial on this story here.



A by-product of the uranium enrichment process, DU is chemically identical to natural uranium. But most of the 235 isotope has been extracted leaving mainly the non-fissionable 238 isotope. It is used to make the tips of armour-piercing shells because it is extremely dense: 1.7 times as dense as lead. Also, unlike other heavy metals that tend to flatten, or mushroom, upon impact, DU has the ability to "self-sharpen" as material spread out by the impact ignites and burns off as the munition pierces its target.



During the Gulf war in 1991, the US and Britain fired an estimated 350 tonnes of DU at Iraqi tanks, a figure likely to be matched in the course of the current conflict. In the years since then, doctors in southern Iraq have reported a marked increase in cancers and birth defects, and suspicion has grown that they were caused by DU contamination from tank battles on farmland west of Basra.



As the Pentagon and the Ministry of Defence point out, this claim has not been substantiated. Iraq did not allow the World Health Organization to carry out an independent assessment. Given its low radioactivity and our current understanding of radiobiology, DU cannot trigger such health effects, the British and American governments maintain.



But what if they are wrong? Though DU is 40 per cent less radioactive than natural uranium, Miller believes that its radiological and toxic effects might combine in subtle, unforeseen ways, making it more carcinogenic than thought. It's a controversial theory, but one for which Miller has increasing evidence.



Uranium is "genotoxic". It chemically alters DNA, switching on genes that would otherwise not be expressed. The fear is that the resulting abnormally high activity in cells could be a precursor to tumour growth.



But while the chemical toxicity of DU is reasonably well established, Mothersill points out that the radiological effects of DU are less clear. To gauge the risk from low-dose radiation, researchers extrapolate from tests using higher doses. But the relationship between dose and effect is not linear: at low doses radiation kills relatively fewer cells. And though that sounds like good news, it could mean that low radiation is having subtle effects that go unnoticed because cells are not dying, says Mothersill.



Miller has found one way this may happen. She has discovered the first direct evidence that radiation from DU damages chromosomes within cultured cells. The chromosomes break, and the fragments reform in a way that results in abnormal joins (Military Medicine, vol 167, p 120). Both the breaks and the joins are commonly found in tumour cells.



More crucially, she has recently found that DU radiation increases gene activity in cultured cells at doses of DU not known to cause chemical toxicity (Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry, in press). The possible consequences are made all the more uncertain because no one knows if genes switched on by DU radiation enhance the damage caused by genes switched on by DU's toxic effects, or vice versa. "I think that we assumed that we knew everything that we needed to know about uranium," says Miller. "This is something we have to consider now when we think about risk estimates."



Britain's Royal Society briefly referred to these synergistic effects in its report last year on the health effects of DU munitions. "There is a possibility of damage to DNA due to the chemical effects being enhanced by the effects of the alpha-particle irradiation." But it makes no recommendations for future research to evaluate the risks.





The bystander effect





Miller points to another reason to be concerned about DU: the so-called "bystander effect". There is a growing consensus among scientists that radiation damages more than just the cells it directly hits. In tests using equipment that allows single cells to be irradiated by individual alpha particles, gene expression increases both in irradiated cells, and in neighbouring cells that have not been exposed. "At high doses, 'bystander' is not an issue because you are killing so many cells. But at low doses that's not really true," says Miller. There is a danger that experiments not specifically looking for this effect could miss an important source of damage.



A body of research has also emerged over the past decade showing that the effects of radiation may not appear immediately. Damage to genes may be amplified as cells divide, so the full consequences may only appear many generations after the event that caused it.



And while the chemical toxicity of DU itself is more clear-cut, the possibility remains that there may still be some unforeseen synergistic effects at a genetic level. Other heavy metals, such as tungsten, nickel and cobalt are similarly genotoxic. When Miller and her team exposed human cells to a mixture of these metals, significantly more genes became activated than when the cells were exposed to the equivalent amount of each metal separately (Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry, in press).



Miller and Mothersill say that recommended safe radiation limits are often based on the idea that only irradiated cells will be affected, and ignore both the bystander effect and the possible amplification over the generations. "Nothing should be written in stone when it comes to risk assessment," agrees Michael Clark at Britain's National Radiological Protection Board. But even if there were a case for re-evaluating the dosimetry for low-dose radiation, he says we should be cautious of the significance of Miller's lab-based research. "An in vitro effect is not a health effect."



Also, says Clark, everyone has traces of natural uranium in their bodies. "If there was some sort of subtle low-dose effect I think we would have seen it," he says. Because none has shown up in epidemiological studies, it seems unlikely there are any health effects associated with DU, which is less radioactive. But Miller is not convinced. While most people have small amounts of uranium in their bodies, she says no studies have been done to see whether this contributes to cases of cancer in society at large.



The military tends to dismiss such hazards as being of only theoretical significance, at least when it comes to civilians. According to the Pentagon, the only risk of exposure is during combat, when DU shells hit hard targets and the metal ignites. This creates clouds of uranium oxide dust that can be breathed in. But heavy oxide particles quickly settle, it says, limiting the risk of exposure. "A small dust particle is still very heavy," says Michael Kilpatrick of the US Deployment Health Support Directorate. "It stays on the ground."



That sounds reassuring until you read UNEP's latest report on DU left over from conflicts in former Yugoslavia in the mid-1990s. Last month, a team of experts collaborating with the International Atomic Energy Agency, WHO and NATO concluded that DU poses little risk in Bosnia although it can still be detected at many sites. Just 11 tonnes was fired in that conflict.



But evidence that DU may be moving through the ground and could contaminate local water supplies should be investigated further, UNEP says. And on rare occasions, wind or human activity may raise DU-laden dust that local people could inhale. The Royal Society admits that localised areas of DU contamination pose a risk, particularly to young children, and should be cleared up as a priority. They also recommend the environmental sampling of affected areas (see Royal Society Reports on DU, 2002", below).



Such evidence is partly why UNEP is keen to study DU fired during the present conflict in Iraq. Assessments in former Yugoslavia were made up to seven years after DU weapons were used, UNEP admits, and a more immediate study in Iraq would give us a much better understanding of how DU behaves in the environment. Any hazards such a study identifies could be dealt with immediately, says UNEP. And even now, an investigation in Iraq could reveal risks remaining from DU fired during the Gulf war in 1991.





Veterans show ill effects





Cracks are also appearing in the argument that DU munitions have not proven harmful even to troops. In the 1991 war, more than 100 coalition troops were exposed to DU after being accidentally fired on by their own forces. The majority inhaled uranium oxide, while the rest suffered shrapnel injuries. Some still have DU in their bodies. Britain and America point out that none has developed cancers or kidney problems, as might have been expected if DU posed a long-term danger.



But researchers at the Bremen Institute for Prevention Research, Social Medicine and Epidemiology in Germany have found that all is not well with the veterans. Last month they published results from tests in which they took blood samples from 16 of the soldiers, and counted the number of chromosomes in which broken strands of DNA had been incorrectly repaired. In veterans, these abnormalities occurred at five times the rate as in a control group of 40 healthy volunteers (Radiation Protection Dosimetry, vol 103, p 211). "Increased chromosomal aberrations are associated with an increased incidence of cancers," says team member Heike Schröder. The damage occurred, they say, because the soldiers inhaled DU particles in battle.



The NRPB is unconvinced. "It is possible that exposure to significant amounts of DU could cause excess chromosome aberrations, but this study has technical flaws," says Clark. "There are no proper controls to compare results with soldiers who were not exposed to DU. And some of the reported excess aberrations are well known to be linked to chemicals rather than radiation."





Tough decision to make





Deciding whether DU is to blame will be tough. Independent research may confirm that rates of cancer have increased in the Iraqi population. But the Iraqi government has used chemical weapons on its own people that can produce the same outcome, and it is impossible to know for sure who may have been exposed. Soldiers may similarly have been exposed to chemicals in 1991. The only way to resolve the issue is more research, says Dudley Goodhead, director of Britain's Medical Research Council's Radiation and Genome Stability Unit at Harwell, near Oxford. "It's something important that needs to be explained."



Miller admits it is entirely possible that DU contamination is safe. But many of the scientific investigations into DU have only just begun, and their results will be long coming. "None of this has been looked at or even thought about it until the last few years," she says. As the dust begins to settle in Iraq, it remains to be seen when the ravages of war will end.



Royal Society reports on DU, 2002 - Conclusions



• Most soldiers have a negligible risk of dying of cancer caused by radiation from battlefield DU. It will be undetectable above the risk of dying from cancer over a normal lifetime. Soldiers should not suffer adverse effects on the kidney or other organs.



• A few soldiers, for instance those who clean up vehicles struck by DU, may have an excess risk of lung cancer and may develop short-term kidney damage.



• People living in areas where DU was deployed have a negligible risk of developing cancers as a result of inhaling DU resuspended in the air. But it is uncertain how much DU is inhaled in years following a conflict. Most people should not suffer any effects on kidney function from inhaled DU.



• Ingestion of DU from contaminated water and food, and from soil, will be highly variable and may be significant in some cases: for example, children playing in areas where DU shells have impacted.



Royal Society reports on DU, 2002 - Recommendations



• Long-term epidemiological studies of soldiers exposed to DU, and environmental sampling, particularly of water and milk, should be undertaken. Information about DU levels should be given to local populations, and contaminated areas cleaned up.



• British veterans exposed to high levels of DU should be identified and independently evaluated. An independent study of anecdotal reports of death and illness in US veterans linked to DU is required.



• In any future conflict using DU munitions, tests of kidney function should be completed on soldiers as soon after exposure as practical.



• Better estimates of DU levels in the air around tanks, and models of DU oxide behaviour during impact, are required. More information is needed on the bioavailability of DU and titanium products from munitions, and whether these concentrate in plants and animals.



The full Royal Society reports can be obtained here and here (pdf files).





Duncan Graham-Rowe, with additional reporting by Rob Edwards

[Seismic Anamoly]

Quote:

---

all the wishful thinking in the world wont make IT go away.

---

Or US, either...

[DreamTone7]

Quote:

"But researchers at the Bremen Institute for Prevention Research, Social Medicine and Epidemiology in Germany have found that all is not well with the veterans. Last month they published results from tests in which they took blood samples from 16 of the soldiers, and counted the number of chromosomes in which broken strands of DNA had been incorrectly repaired. In veterans, these abnormalities occurred at five times the rate as in a control group of 40 healthy volunteers (Radiation Protection Dosimetry, vol 103, p 211). "Increased chromosomal aberrations are associated with an increased incidence of cancers," says team member Heike Schröder. The damage occurred, they say, because the soldiers inhaled DU particles in battle."



Oh yeah? Based on what scientific facts or evidence? I could say it was because they all ate cornflakes for breakfast and have as much credibility! Your post also states that exposure to chemical weapons has the same effect as that that has been been credited in this post to DU. So now I can say they had cornflakes with acetone (a known carcinogen), but it was definitely the cornflakes that caused their problems.

[debbie mannas]

why you choose to believe the the greedy corrupt people in your government, the military, the CIA...over people who are trying to do some good in this world??



You'd rather question scientific findings because you think you know more than the scientists, or because you don't believe their methods, or haven't bothered to research the subject further (or all the above). But let the Defense dept or bush feed you any crap and you swallow it hook like and sinker.



I've seen you make wrong assumptions about things just because you didnt bother to dig further.



None so blind as those who will not see.

[Seismic Anamoly]

Quote:

---

None so blind as those who will not see.

---

What they are viewing makes all the difference.

[DreamTone7]

Debbie, all governments have corruption to a certain extent....it's the nature of the beast. I don't deny this. Find a place to let off some steam. Night-night.

[Phil Frazier]

No amount of info will change anyone's mind because info is interpreted according to one's bias. It gets down to believing what we are conditioned to and have convinced ourselves to believe.

[debbie mannas]

"to a certain extent"?



You know this and then believe the lies they feed you??

[Seismic Anamoly]

Quote:

---

...info is interpreted according to one's bias. It gets down to believing what we are conditioned to and have convinced ourselves to believe.

---

Ya hit the nail on the head, Phil; well said.



Some folks, however, blow a head gasket when others refuse to accept their viewpoints; sad situation for them, I guess. Most just keep truckin'.

[DreamTone7]

Hello again, Debbie. If the government tells me the sky is blue, I will agree with them. That does not necessarily mean I believe everything they say, nor does it mean I am relying on them for info. It means I agree, and nothing more.



On the other hand, you seem to be relying on the media and other sources that have an agenda to push for info. What Phil said seems to apply to you in spades. You are persistent, I'll give you that. But you make it hard for me to believe that you are more than just a moughtpiece for the media.....whether you realize it or not. Sorry if that offends you.....it's just they way I see it.