Posted on 10/26/2004 3:58:34 AM PDT by Robert Drobot
".....The AP also issued an update on the Pentagons response to a study which concluded, "powerful antibiotics did nothing to relieve the chronic health problems reported by Gulf War veterans".
Stephen L. Robinson, executive director of the National Gulf War Resource Center in Silver Spring, Md said, this confirms information that has already been out there,......We know that we can stop looking at this and we can focus research on other areas that might prove fruitful.
Joseph F. Collins, a VA Maryland Healthcare System researcher as said, "it will be a long time, if ever, before the cause of Gulf War illness is identified."
The initial AP story concluded:
The study was done by the Department of Veterans Affairs and was published today in the Annals of Internal Medicine. Researchers have found that veterans of the Persian Gulf war in 1990 and 1991 are more likely to suffer from a range of chronic symptoms......memory and thinking problems, debilitating fatigue, severe muscle and joint pain, depression, anxiety, insomnia, headaches and rashes.
Theories.....include stress, chemical or biological weapons.....depleted-uranium munitions, and vaccinations for anthrax and.....biological weapons. (Writers emphasis.)
This.....was the only information on the subject America was permitted to see.
The second October 19th news story - refused by every American.....media source - was prepared in Italy.
The headline read, "DEPLETED URANIUM: OBSERVATORY LAMENTS DENIAL ( 119 dead soldiers )". The first sentence may have been the reason for the censorship of this story from the American people:
According to the Italian Military Health Observatory a total of 109 Italian soldiers have died thus far due to exposure to depleted uranium.
Ed. Note: An inconsistency in the number total is apparent, but doesnt detract from the focus of the story. )
(Excerpt) Read more at home.earthlink.net ...
Each of the stories in question were placed on the internet (coincidentally? ) October 19, 2004.
Im presenting my concerns here in the hope that internet users may arrive at some measure of clarity regarding the use, and residual effects, of depleted uranium munitions, as well as its alleged safe use in the manufacturing of goods used in the civilian sector.
Very little literature directly addresses DU's health effects. However, extensive material deals with the effects of natural uranium, which is relevant to assessing DU's effects. Chemically, DU has the same properties as natural uranium. Radiologically, DU emits types of radiation similar to natural uranium's, but DU is 40% less radioactive than natural uranium.
Uranium is all around us. A heavy metal similar to tungsten and lead, it occurs in soils in typical concentrations of a few parts per million (equivalent to about half a teaspoon of uranium in a typical 8-cubic yard dump truck-load of dirt). The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) estimates there are typically 4 tons of uranium in 1 square mile of soil 1 foot deep[13] and that we add 180 metric tons (about 198 US tons) of uranium decay products to US agricultural lands each year due to the trace amounts of uranium in phosphate fertilizer.[14] We all take in uranium every day from the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the foods we eat. On average, every day each of us takes in 1.9 micrograms (about two-millionths of a gram) of uranium from food and water and inhales a very small fraction (7 x 10-3 or 0.007) of a microgram.Note that the uranium we're normally exposed to is 40% more radioactive than DU. It does seem to me that those who might be exposed should wear a breathing filter...in the U.S. army they would mainly be those who ventured near armored vehicles hit by American DU rounds.
Hope it was interesting...
I agree. In fact, we should be making many new pebble-bed nuclear reactors to replace coal-fired power plants. It would do a lot for air quality and reduce health problems (not to mention helping with greenhouse gases).
Try telling that to the "environmentalists" though... ;-)
Agreed.
Interesting point: disasters involving coal power (e.g. Aberfan) have killed more people than disasters involving nuclear power (Chernobyl).
The mysterious deleterious effects of depleted uranium are URBAN LEGEND, promulgated by anti-nuke eco-fanatics. The effects of uranium exposure are VERY well known, and do not include ANY of the symptoms supposedly exhibited by sufferers of the "Gulf War syndrome".
Consider this, at 8 cents per kilowatt hour, a typical rate, one kilogram of plutonium if it could be
converted to pure electrical energy would be worth 1.76 million dollars. (.08$ X 22,000,000 =
1,760,000$) Even at the typical heat engine efficiency of 20% that's still more than 300,000$ in
energy per kilogram!( That's worth about 25 times more than it's wieght in gold!) Only
environmentalist wackos in conjunction with the deadening hand of government could make such a
profit potential into such a dismal failure.
I suspect if nuclear power were widely adopted using new technology, the cost per kilowatt would fall by at least 50%.
Still, Pu would be quite valuable for something that's essentially a free by-product... ;-)
The permissible body burden of U-238 (depleted uranium) is 0.04 microcuries, which is about 120 milligrams. The level that can be tolerated is probably about 10 times as much. These values are based on the study of the radium dial painters.
My opinion is, the chemical toxicity of depleted uranium does outweigh the radiological hazard.
The target organs for uranium are the kidneys and bone.
I would much rather see enriched uranium being fired at our enemies.
I know I won't be the only one to do this, but...it's great somebody finally adresses the lethal effect of Democratic Undergound. Oh, wait....
Well, not "quite" free. To use it, the Pu has to be separated from the old fuel rods, and re-converted into new fuel rods (or pellets or whatever form your favorite reactor technology uses). This is necessary to remove the highly radioactive fission products formed during the burning of the U-235. These have to be removed as some of them have high neutron absorption cross sections (can soak up lots of neutrons) and can decrease the efficiency of the fission process.
Should we deny that reality as well?
BUMP!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.