Re: [Biofuel] Depleted Uranium Shells Used by U.S. Military Worse Than Nuclear Weapons
Dr Hari Sharma is a retired Prof here at UW where I work. His life became somewhat difficult as a result of the research he began about the so called gulf war syndrome. I talked to people who were involved. Here is a more dtailed reference to his work. I'm sure I could dig up the original papers if I really wanted to. http://www.begegnungszentrum.at/texte/bertell/bertell2-du.htm Joe Craig Barrett wrote: Hi The linked article (the second reference from the Gulf War page) also doesn't really give anything useful. It gives numbers, but not reasons. 11000 dead, but how many actually died due to the Gulf War? Perhaps the eminent scientist is being misquoted and did actually specifically say that all of those 11000 deaths have been linked to DU, but how to tell from the article? I haven't read the report, perhaps I will if I can find it and have time, but how many other eminent scientists have reproduced the testing that Leuren presumably did to come to his conclusion? Where are the references to the supporting work? Wikipedia is not the most reliable source of information, but it comes up as the first link when searching Google for Leuren Moret and it's less than complimentary. Fair enough, it refers to mainstream scientists and, of course, it's always possible they have their own agenda, but it makes me wonder about the 'eminent' qualification in the Natural News article. On the other hand, you don't give any references for your statements. Fair enough. I read a WHO page (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/), probably the same one Chip read, that intimated DU was no big deal, while nevertheless giving some info on possible effects and how to treat exposure. Other pages I found (I don't have the links anymore) were pages of anti DU groups saying it's bad, but not giving any reason why. Wikipedia (insofar as it can be trusted) says the jury's out and that no one has yet provided any hard evidence that DU is a significant threat. As to the second bit, I couldn't find anything about the UN, how exactly would I provide references that don't exist? Nevertheless, where are there references to the studies that show the high toxicity of DU and the fact that the UN has declared it an illegal weapon of mass destruction? Where is the reference to the UK AEA study that concludes that 500k cancer deaths would result from 50t of DU dust and where is the reference to the follow up that determined how many cancer deaths actually resulted? The first one may be overkill to provide, but the follow up is what's important. There's one somewhat meaningful reference, and it's not even at the point where the reference should be, i.e. in the last paragraph where the numbers of dead and disabled Gulf War veterans are mentioned. The problem I have is this - an article that is written with a bunch of vague, wishy-washy statements disguised as arguments. Numbers are bandied about, but they don't actually say anything. If someone wants to be taken seriously with something like that the argument had better be sound. How many people are going to spend hours of their day trawling the internet trying to determine if there's any substance to what's said? Most people simply don't have that kind of time on their hands. Don't give me meaningless stuff like 35% of Gulf War veterans are dead or on permanent disability, tell me that 35% of Gulf War veterans' deaths or permanent disabilities have been directly linked to DU by several independent scientific studies. It's not a question of whether the information is out there somewhere, it's the fact that nothing of actual substance was presented in the article in support of its conclusion which is presented in the headline. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Keith Addison Sent: 21 May 2008 07:16 PM To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Depleted Uranium Shells Used by U.S. Military Worse Than Nuclear Weapons Hello Craig H... while DU may be dangerous, this article doesn't help much with the way it's written - poor use of statistics, no references to support its claims. Not so, there are plenty of references. Every word in the text that's coloured blue is a cross-ref. With this NaturalNews site most of them are internal links to other articles and resources at the site, but it's easy to find your way. Eg, clicking on Gulf War (blue) takes you to a page called Gulf War news and articles, quite good resources: http://www.naturalnews.com/Gulf_War.html The 2nd item is another NaturalNews feature, by a different author: Depleted uranium has killed 11,000 U.S. military veterans; mainstream media ignores story: http://www.NaturalNews.com/020978.html That's also cross-reffed. For instance, the 2nd paragraph says however, a special report published by eminent scientist Leuren Moret naming depleted uranium as the definitive cause of 'Gulf War Syndrome
Re: [Biofuel] Depleted Uranium Shells Used by U.S. Military Worse Than Nuclear Weapons
Another reference quite detailed. http://www.iicph.org/docs/du_update_1_3.htm Joe Craig Barrett wrote: Hi The linked article (the second reference from the Gulf War page) also doesn't really give anything useful. It gives numbers, but not reasons. 11000 dead, but how many actually died due to the Gulf War? Perhaps the eminent scientist is being misquoted and did actually specifically say that all of those 11000 deaths have been linked to DU, but how to tell from the article? I haven't read the report, perhaps I will if I can find it and have time, but how many other eminent scientists have reproduced the testing that Leuren presumably did to come to his conclusion? Where are the references to the supporting work? Wikipedia is not the most reliable source of information, but it comes up as the first link when searching Google for Leuren Moret and it's less than complimentary. Fair enough, it refers to mainstream scientists and, of course, it's always possible they have their own agenda, but it makes me wonder about the 'eminent' qualification in the Natural News article. On the other hand, you don't give any references for your statements. Fair enough. I read a WHO page (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/), probably the same one Chip read, that intimated DU was no big deal, while nevertheless giving some info on possible effects and how to treat exposure. Other pages I found (I don't have the links anymore) were pages of anti DU groups saying it's bad, but not giving any reason why. Wikipedia (insofar as it can be trusted) says the jury's out and that no one has yet provided any hard evidence that DU is a significant threat. As to the second bit, I couldn't find anything about the UN, how exactly would I provide references that don't exist? Nevertheless, where are there references to the studies that show the high toxicity of DU and the fact that the UN has declared it an illegal weapon of mass destruction? Where is the reference to the UK AEA study that concludes that 500k cancer deaths would result from 50t of DU dust and where is the reference to the follow up that determined how many cancer deaths actually resulted? The first one may be overkill to provide, but the follow up is what's important. There's one somewhat meaningful reference, and it's not even at the point where the reference should be, i.e. in the last paragraph where the numbers of dead and disabled Gulf War veterans are mentioned. The problem I have is this - an article that is written with a bunch of vague, wishy-washy statements disguised as arguments. Numbers are bandied about, but they don't actually say anything. If someone wants to be taken seriously with something like that the argument had better be sound. How many people are going to spend hours of their day trawling the internet trying to determine if there's any substance to what's said? Most people simply don't have that kind of time on their hands. Don't give me meaningless stuff like 35% of Gulf War veterans are dead or on permanent disability, tell me that 35% of Gulf War veterans' deaths or permanent disabilities have been directly linked to DU by several independent scientific studies. It's not a question of whether the information is out there somewhere, it's the fact that nothing of actual substance was presented in the article in support of its conclusion which is presented in the headline. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Keith Addison Sent: 21 May 2008 07:16 PM To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Depleted Uranium Shells Used by U.S. Military Worse Than Nuclear Weapons Hello Craig H... while DU may be dangerous, this article doesn't help much with the way it's written - poor use of statistics, no references to support its claims. Not so, there are plenty of references. Every word in the text that's coloured blue is a cross-ref. With this NaturalNews site most of them are internal links to other articles and resources at the site, but it's easy to find your way. Eg, clicking on Gulf War (blue) takes you to a page called Gulf War news and articles, quite good resources: http://www.naturalnews.com/Gulf_War.html The 2nd item is another NaturalNews feature, by a different author: Depleted uranium has killed 11,000 U.S. military veterans; mainstream media ignores story: http://www.NaturalNews.com/020978.html That's also cross-reffed. For instance, the 2nd paragraph says however, a special report published by eminent scientist Leuren Moret naming depleted uranium as the definitive cause of 'Gulf War Syndrome'..., with depleted uranium in blue, and so on. You can keep going or you can pick up keywords along the way. Eg, search Google for Leuren Moret depleted uranium (no need for the quotes): Google: 27,400 results for Leuren Moret depleted uranium http://www.google.com/search?hl=enq=Leuren+Moret+depleted
Re: [Biofuel] Depleted Uranium Shells Used by U.S. Military Worse Than Nuclear Weapons
Is this another Holocaust denial/questioning, style, pissing match? Chris -Original Message- From: Craig Barrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Thu, 22 May 2008 1:40 pm Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Depleted Uranium Shells Used by U.S. Military Worse Than Nuclear Weapons If you say so. :-) ROFL :-) I don't think there's any need for me to spell out the difference between a genuine request for evidence and mere deliberate and cynical (criminal?) delaying tactics. And how does one know which is which? There are occasions when it's more justifiable to jump to the conclusion without any actual proof, but it's certainly not always appropriate. A company that has a history of going out and destroying with no regard for anything but profit, sure, but ExxonMobil is hardly the only company that asked for proof and for a long time there was huge debate about whether there really was sufficient evidence. Besides which, one example is hardly justification for throwing out the notion of wanting proof. I'll stick with the precautionary principle, you ride off into the sunset in your Ford Pinto. I've never had a Ford of any sort. You STILL didn't check the list archives, did you? If the other links you've considered to be good are anything to go by, why should I expect to find anything useful there? Besides which, that's merely continuing to avoid answering what I actually originally wrote. The original article made sweeping accusations without providing any arguments to support its conclusions. It had only one reference that was in any way linked to the headline and that contained info that not only was just as vague and of seemingly questionable origin, but didn't match up with the article's own statements. I've already said why I don't consider anything in the article to be an argument, so I won't bother to go into it. There may be evidence out there, but the article itself made no reference to any, it merely presented a lot of sleight of hand, which was my original complaint about it (though that's a different way of expressing it). And before you try to bring this up, no, I don't expect an article like that to have every possible link to every possible piece of information that is pertinent to the content of the article. But, as I said before, I do expect it to make an argument and support it. Cheers Craig -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Keith Addison Sent: 22 May 2008 08:10 PM To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Depleted Uranium Shells Used by U.S. Military Worse Than Nuclear Weapons Hello Craig If you say so. :-) snip ExxonMobil has every right to ask for the proof. If not, where does one draw the line? If you were running a business and I told you you had to spend a whole lot of money to change the way you do business based on a claim I had about damage you were causing, are you telling me you'd just make the expensive changes, possibly lose revenue, etc., simply on my say so? I know I wouldn't, I'd want the claim verified. There do at least appear to be fewer naysayers in the scientific community about global warming these days and while there are still those who're claiming it's not real, or at least that we're not causing it, are finding it harder and harder to support their stance. I don't think there's any need for me to spell out the difference between a genuine request for evidence and mere deliberate and cynical (criminal?) delaying tactics. I'll stick with the precautionary principle, you ride off into the sunset in your Ford Pinto. By the way, in case it's not clear, I'm enjoying this. I know that I have a tendency to get carried away and commit exactly the crimes I'm accusing others of doing. Having it pointed out to me is most welcome. Of course you're welcome to enjoy it, but I'm afraid you'll have to do so all by yourself. Most people simply don't have that kind of time on their hands, and that includes me. You STILL didn't check the list archives, did you? Best Keith ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/attachments/20080523/908a907a/attachment.html ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail
Re: [Biofuel] Depleted Uranium Shells Used by U.S. Military Worse Than Nuclear Weapons
Kirk McLoren wrote: doing on the quiet gets my vote. If you live near a reactor you need your own detection gear. That also includes people fabbing batteries for space (plutonium thermopiles). I guarantee mum is the word as liability is huge. Kirk To me, this is really heartbreaking in a lot of ways. This is so true of just about anything anymore. When I deconstruct these things, I think of things like families feeding their kids the 'good stuff' from the grocery store, cooked up in microwave ovens -assuring that whatever actual nutrition was left from the pre-processing, or the actual factory farm techniques employed are destroyed for certain- thinking they are doing the right thing, taking care of themselves and their kids, never realizing the damage that is taking place. It's really heartbreaking. This is in many ways the same. The legacy of misinformation, lies, et cetera. Sure, part of it is greed, but that's really only part. I honestly think that much of it is trying to cover a horrible mistake with a lie, with another mistake, with more and more lies and omissions, with a big paycheck waiting to salve the broken conscience. I know this to be absolutely true, that some go to their graves with a staggering burden of shame and sadness. What some of us call the 'Plan A' folks. yeah, the liability is huge. And many would use that as the excuse for not doing the right thing. 'If we tell the truth, we'd be sued into the ground'. Maybe, maybe not. What's probably more true, I think, is that when you finally realize that you have done the wrong thing, is to STOP DOING IT. And apologize. Yeah, sure, there will be hell to pay, but we are paying ourselves with hell many times magnified right now. This insanity has to stop, now is a good time. Sure, yesterday would have been better, and to have not done it at all would have been really good. But we aren't there. What folks really want to hear, is an apology. Then we can get on with the work that needs doing. For folks fearing liability, the liability isn't really what folks want. It's funny, and maybe counter intuitive, but one reason folks try to sue to death, is mostly to get some satisfaction, not to get the money. Oddly, *most* people, (I know folks really think this is crazy, but it's true) are NOT motivated by money. Yeah, the problems and challenges are huge, but the answers are stunningly simple. -- Chip Mefford Before Enlightenment; chop wood carry water After Enlightenment; chop wood carry water - Public Key http://www.well.com/user/cpm ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Depleted Uranium Shells Used by U.S. Military Worse Than Nuclear Weapons
Hello Chris Is this another Holocaust denial/questioning, style, pissing match? Well, it takes two to tango, but it only takes one to make a screwup. This is just a bit of very inept smokescreening. I wouldn't agree that the Holocaust denial/questioning discussion was just a pissing match. There were several, but I guess you mean the most recent one, a few months ago. It got a lot of things in perspective, much needed, and it wasn't only here, it's a trend, at last. The Holocaust can't be used as a big moral stick to defend colonial Zionism here anymore. Not for quite a long time: http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg35017.html [biofuel] Oil and Israel http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg35355.html Re: [biofuel] Re: Oil and Israel - Keith The more recent bout brought us to the ugly fact that genocides are a dime a dozen these days, just business-as-usual, for the last 100 years and more, Naomi Klein's disaster capitalism. One genocide is no worse than another. None of that can be overemphasized, especially because of the way it gets obscured so easily, sidelined, magicked out of the public eye. Look in exactly the same place for the causes of the current food crisis, eg. Anyway, re this little fracas, it's sad stuff like I said, but the bit about the Ford Pinto in the following message is a gem, amazing display of protected ignorance. I really couldn't figure out whether it made my day or ruined it, LOL! All over now. Best Keith Chris -Original Message- From: Craig Barrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Thu, 22 May 2008 1:40 pm Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Depleted Uranium Shells Used by U.S. Military Worse Than Nuclear Weapons If you say so. :-) ROFL :-) I don't think there's any need for me to spell out the difference between a genuine request for evidence and mere deliberate and cynical (criminal?) delaying tactics. And how does one know which is which? There are occasions when it's more justifiable to jump to the conclusion without any actual proof, but it's certainly not always appropriate. A company that has a history of going out and destroying with no regard for anything but profit, sure, but ExxonMobil is hardly the only company that asked for proof and for a long time there was huge debate about whether there really was sufficient evidence. Besides which, one example is hardly justification for throwing out the notion of wanting proof. I'll stick with the precautionary principle, you ride off into the sunset in your Ford Pinto. I've never had a Ford of any sort. You STILL didn't check the list archives, did you? If the other links you've considered to be good are anything to go by, why should I expect to find anything useful there? Besides which, that's merely continuing to avoid answering what I actually originally wrote. The original article made sweeping accusations without providing any arguments to support its conclusions. It had only one reference that was in any way linked to the headline and that contained info that not only was just as vague and of seemingly questionable origin, but didn't match up with the article's own statements. I've already said why I don't consider anything in the article to be an argument, so I won't bother to go into it. There may be evidence out there, but the article itself made no reference to any, it merely presented a lot of sleight of hand, which was my original complaint about it (though that's a different way of expressing it). And before you try to bring this up, no, I don't expect an article like that to have every possible link to every possible piece of information that is pertinent to the content of the article. But, as I said before, I do expect it to make an argument and support it. Cheers Craig -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Keith Addison Sent: 22 May 2008 08:10 PM To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Depleted Uranium Shells Used by U.S. Military Worse Than Nuclear Weapons Hello Craig If you say so. :-) snip ExxonMobil has every right to ask for the proof. If not, where does one draw the line? If you were running a business and I told you you had to spend a whole lot of money to change the way you do business based on a claim I had about damage you were causing, are you telling me you'd just make the expensive changes, possibly lose revenue, etc., simply on my say so? I know I wouldn't, I'd want the claim verified. There do at least appear to be fewer naysayers in the scientific community about global warming these days and while there are still those who're claiming it's not real, or at least that we're not causing it, are finding it harder and harder to support their stance. I don't think there's any need for me to spell out the difference between a genuine request for evidence and mere deliberate and cynical (criminal
Re: [Biofuel] Depleted Uranium Shells Used by U.S. Military Worse Than Nuclear Weapons
Hi The linked article (the second reference from the Gulf War page) also doesn't really give anything useful. It gives numbers, but not reasons. 11000 dead, but how many actually died due to the Gulf War? Perhaps the eminent scientist is being misquoted and did actually specifically say that all of those 11000 deaths have been linked to DU, but how to tell from the article? I haven't read the report, perhaps I will if I can find it and have time, but how many other eminent scientists have reproduced the testing that Leuren presumably did to come to his conclusion? Where are the references to the supporting work? Wikipedia is not the most reliable source of information, but it comes up as the first link when searching Google for Leuren Moret and it's less than complimentary. Fair enough, it refers to mainstream scientists and, of course, it's always possible they have their own agenda, but it makes me wonder about the 'eminent' qualification in the Natural News article. On the other hand, you don't give any references for your statements. Fair enough. I read a WHO page (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/), probably the same one Chip read, that intimated DU was no big deal, while nevertheless giving some info on possible effects and how to treat exposure. Other pages I found (I don't have the links anymore) were pages of anti DU groups saying it's bad, but not giving any reason why. Wikipedia (insofar as it can be trusted) says the jury's out and that no one has yet provided any hard evidence that DU is a significant threat. As to the second bit, I couldn't find anything about the UN, how exactly would I provide references that don't exist? Nevertheless, where are there references to the studies that show the high toxicity of DU and the fact that the UN has declared it an illegal weapon of mass destruction? Where is the reference to the UK AEA study that concludes that 500k cancer deaths would result from 50t of DU dust and where is the reference to the follow up that determined how many cancer deaths actually resulted? The first one may be overkill to provide, but the follow up is what's important. There's one somewhat meaningful reference, and it's not even at the point where the reference should be, i.e. in the last paragraph where the numbers of dead and disabled Gulf War veterans are mentioned. The problem I have is this - an article that is written with a bunch of vague, wishy-washy statements disguised as arguments. Numbers are bandied about, but they don't actually say anything. If someone wants to be taken seriously with something like that the argument had better be sound. How many people are going to spend hours of their day trawling the internet trying to determine if there's any substance to what's said? Most people simply don't have that kind of time on their hands. Don't give me meaningless stuff like 35% of Gulf War veterans are dead or on permanent disability, tell me that 35% of Gulf War veterans' deaths or permanent disabilities have been directly linked to DU by several independent scientific studies. It's not a question of whether the information is out there somewhere, it's the fact that nothing of actual substance was presented in the article in support of its conclusion which is presented in the headline. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Keith Addison Sent: 21 May 2008 07:16 PM To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Depleted Uranium Shells Used by U.S. Military Worse Than Nuclear Weapons Hello Craig H... while DU may be dangerous, this article doesn't help much with the way it's written - poor use of statistics, no references to support its claims. Not so, there are plenty of references. Every word in the text that's coloured blue is a cross-ref. With this NaturalNews site most of them are internal links to other articles and resources at the site, but it's easy to find your way. Eg, clicking on Gulf War (blue) takes you to a page called Gulf War news and articles, quite good resources: http://www.naturalnews.com/Gulf_War.html The 2nd item is another NaturalNews feature, by a different author: Depleted uranium has killed 11,000 U.S. military veterans; mainstream media ignores story: http://www.NaturalNews.com/020978.html That's also cross-reffed. For instance, the 2nd paragraph says however, a special report published by eminent scientist Leuren Moret naming depleted uranium as the definitive cause of 'Gulf War Syndrome'..., with depleted uranium in blue, and so on. You can keep going or you can pick up keywords along the way. Eg, search Google for Leuren Moret depleted uranium (no need for the quotes): Google: 27,400 results for Leuren Moret depleted uranium http://www.google.com/search?hl=enq=Leuren+Moret+depleted+uraniumbtnG=Goo gle+Search These are the first two results: Depleted Uranium: The Trojan Horse of Nuclear War LEUREN MORET
Re: [Biofuel] Depleted Uranium Shells Used by U.S. Military Worse Than Nuclear Weapons
. Numbers are bandied about, but they don't actually say anything. If someone wants to be taken seriously with something like that the argument had better be sound. How many people are going to spend hours of their day trawling the internet trying to determine if there's any substance to what's said? Most people simply don't have that kind of time on their hands. Don't give me meaningless stuff like 35% of Gulf War veterans are dead or on permanent disability, tell me that 35% of Gulf War veterans' deaths or permanent disabilities have been directly linked to DU by several independent scientific studies. It's not a question of whether the information is out there somewhere, it's the fact that nothing of actual substance was presented in the article in support of its conclusion which is presented in the headline. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Keith Addison Sent: 21 May 2008 07:16 PM To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Depleted Uranium Shells Used by U.S. Military Worse Than Nuclear Weapons Hello Craig H... while DU may be dangerous, this article doesn't help much with the way it's written - poor use of statistics, no references to support its claims. Not so, there are plenty of references. Every word in the text that's coloured blue is a cross-ref. With this NaturalNews site most of them are internal links to other articles and resources at the site, but it's easy to find your way. Eg, clicking on Gulf War (blue) takes you to a page called Gulf War news and articles, quite good resources: http://www.naturalnews.com/Gulf_War.html The 2nd item is another NaturalNews feature, by a different author: Depleted uranium has killed 11,000 U.S. military veterans; mainstream media ignores story: http://www.NaturalNews.com/020978.html That's also cross-reffed. For instance, the 2nd paragraph says however, a special report published by eminent scientist Leuren Moret naming depleted uranium as the definitive cause of 'Gulf War Syndrome'..., with depleted uranium in blue, and so on. You can keep going or you can pick up keywords along the way. Eg, search Google for Leuren Moret depleted uranium (no need for the quotes): Google: 27,400 results for Leuren Moret depleted uranium http://www.google.com/search?hl=enq=Leuren+Moret+depleted+uraniumbtnG=Goo gle+Search These are the first two results: Depleted Uranium: The Trojan Horse of Nuclear War LEUREN MORET ... LEUREN MORET. Since 1991, the United States has staged four wars using depleted uranium weaponry, illegal under all international treaties, conventions and ... http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2004/DU-Trojan-Horse1jul04.htm Leuren Moret Speaking on Depleted Uranium This event featured three speakers: Doug Rokke, a Vietnam and Gulf War I Veteran and the Army's expert on depleted uranium; Leuren Moret, a whistle-blower ... http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2003/DU-Leuren-Moret21apr03.htm The first is a substantial piece, much data given. At the top it's bylined: LEUREN MORET / World Affairs - The Journal of International Issues 1jul04, with [More by Leuren Moret], the name in blue, click on it and it gives you a Google site-search page showing 69 results at www.mindfully.org for Leuren Moret. You can check it all that way. On the other hand, you don't give any references for your statements. From what I've read..., I couldn't find anything about the UN declaring DU a weapon of mass destruction, but perhaps further searching... I'm certainly no fan of DU being used in weapons. However, when I read an article that is written with this sort of quality I find it encouraging me to ignore it because the author has made a number of allegations and has written in such a way as to make it appear as if an argument is being made where, upon inspection, it turns out that no actual supporting evidence is supplied to justify the conclusion. The inspection left something to be desired, IMHO. Actually you'll find a lot of information on DU in the list archives, url listed at the bottom of every list message: Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ Best Keith ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Depleted Uranium Shells Used by U.S. Military Worse Than Nuclear Weapons
Here in Florida we have 'gypsum stacks' which are huge piles of ... Gypsum a by-product from the processing of phosphate to fertilizer. It is somewhat (very low level) radio-active, and as such cannot be used for road beds, construction etc. I'll bet that DU is stronger, and worse for the imbibers. And excreted or not, we are seeing high rates of deformities in babies in Afghanistan, Iraq, (where the DU is used) and among returning soldiers' families as well. DU is a great way to dispose of waste products that normally would not be allowed to be disposed of most places in the US. Why not make it into munitions (yes, its high density makes it a perfect armor piercing weapon). The fact that it pollutes the immediate area, its users as well as anyone in the area of its firing is not important to the US Government, nor will it ever be. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chip Mefford Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 1:32 PM To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Depleted Uranium Shells Used by U.S. Military Worse Than Nuclear Weapons Chip Mefford wrote: Craig Barrett wrote: H... while DU may be dangerous, this article doesn't help much with the way it's written - poor use of statistics, no references to support its claims. It's exactly this kind of shoddy work that causes the raising of the skeptical eyebrow at those who're fighting against things like DU. This is a real pity because I think it hampers what might otherwise be a really good cause. Wholly agreed. SNIP I kinda want to change my language, but it's already posted, so I'll just add my after-thoughts. Point, my use of 'non-issue' just doesn't feel right. But it really does seem that the who has really played this down. Point. I agree with the basic premise of the original article. However, this statement The genetic future of the Iraqi people, for the most part, is destroyed. The environment now is completely radioactive. I've read before, elsewhere, I can't substantiate it. Against the background radiation of other areas in the region, yeah, it's up a bit. And it's my feeling/opinion, that a 'bit' is a huge amount, but with what passes for 'expertise' in these areas, folks seem to think that's okay, when going for health expert citations. See the who report I linked earlier. yes, I think that service folks are paying a terrible price, and the people of the area we all call Irag are paying a staggeringly price orders of magnitude above. This is all happening whether there is 'consensus' by us or not. Uranium is just fine, left in the ground, in it's natural state, unrefined, and not touched, the way it should be. Doing anything else with it, is just insane. That's my take. Proving that, otoh, has proven to be pretty difficult. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Depleted Uranium Shells Used by U.S. Military Worse Than Nuclear Weapons
a tendency to get carried away and commit exactly the crimes I'm accusing others of doing. Having it pointed out to me is most welcome. Cheers Craig -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Keith Addison Sent: 22 May 2008 01:20 PM To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Depleted Uranium Shells Used by U.S. Military Worse Than Nuclear Weapons Craig I didn't defend the article, all I did was debunk your statement that it didn't give any references. Your response is much the same: I haven't read the report, perhaps I will if I can find it and have time..., I don't have the links anymore... Other pages I found (I don't have the links anymore) were pages of anti DU groups saying it's bad, but not giving any reason why. Sure, anti-DU groups are bound to go about their campaign by saying it's bad but not giving any reason why. :-) Like this one: http://www.cadu.org.uk/info/index.htm Campaign Against Depleted Uranium (CADU) Information No shortage of reasons there. Nor here: http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/ International Coalition to Ban Depleted Uranium Now you didn't just blind-eye their reasons like you've been doing here did you? As to the second bit, I couldn't find anything about the UN, how exactly would I provide references that don't exist? I don't think the fact that you couldn't find them means they don't exist. http://www.cadu.org.uk/info/campaign/27_3.htm UN General Assembly Passes DU Resolution See below for the full text of the resolution: 'Effects of the use of armaments and ammunitions containing depleted uranium' A/C.1/62/L.18/Rev.1 Full text (select your language of choice): http://www.un.org/Docs/journal/asp/ws.asp?m=A/C.1/62/L.18/rev.1 No difficulty finding it. You keep asking Where are the references? but it seems the last thing you want to find is references, whether they exist or not. You still haven't given any references for your own claims. How many people are going to spend hours of their day trawling the internet trying to determine if there's any substance to what's said? Most people simply don't have that kind of time on their hands. :-) So you think I do? Actually it only took two minutes, and it opened up a lot of angles for you to follow, if you'd wanted to, but you went and closed them all again. Did you check the list archives? No, right? 116 finds for Depleted uranium. It's a controversial subject, anything that criticises the glorious US military is a controversial subect. You remind me of what ExxonMobil's been saying about global warming for the last 20 years: Where's the proof? Where's the evidence? Where's the sound science? Better question: where's the precautionary principle? There's rather more than just a good case for applying it to DU, long since. Unless you also think the Ford Pinto was a great car. Keith ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Depleted Uranium Shells Used by U.S. Military Worse Than Nuclear Weapons
and to what extent DU is dangerous does match up with what WHO says and with all but one of the articles I read on the ICBUW site (which, admittedly, was only 3 of them). opened up a lot of angles for you to follow, if you'd wanted to, but you went and closed them all again I followed several of the links, read what was at all but one of the ones I followed, did other searches and yet I'm just closing the angles? I'm all for criticism, but an argument must be made. As I said in my original response, I'm not saying the claims aren't true, I'm just saying that what's presented doesn't actually constitute an argument and that does more damage than good, certainly for me. ExxonMobil has every right to ask for the proof. If not, where does one draw the line? If you were running a business and I told you you had to spend a whole lot of money to change the way you do business based on a claim I had about damage you were causing, are you telling me you'd just make the expensive changes, possibly lose revenue, etc., simply on my say so? I know I wouldn't, I'd want the claim verified. There do at least appear to be fewer naysayers in the scientific community about global warming these days and while there are still those who're claiming it's not real, or at least that we're not causing it, are finding it harder and harder to support their stance. By the way, in case it's not clear, I'm enjoying this. I know that I have a tendency to get carried away and commit exactly the crimes I'm accusing others of doing. Having it pointed out to me is most welcome. Cheers Craig -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Keith Addison Sent: 22 May 2008 01:20 PM To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Depleted Uranium Shells Used by U.S. Military Worse Than Nuclear Weapons Craig I didn't defend the article, all I did was debunk your statement that it didn't give any references. Your response is much the same: I haven't read the report, perhaps I will if I can find it and have time..., I don't have the links anymore... Other pages I found (I don't have the links anymore) were pages of anti DU groups saying it's bad, but not giving any reason why. Sure, anti-DU groups are bound to go about their campaign by saying it's bad but not giving any reason why. :-) Like this one: http://www.cadu.org.uk/info/index.htm Campaign Against Depleted Uranium (CADU) Information No shortage of reasons there. Nor here: http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/ International Coalition to Ban Depleted Uranium Now you didn't just blind-eye their reasons like you've been doing here did you? As to the second bit, I couldn't find anything about the UN, how exactly would I provide references that don't exist? I don't think the fact that you couldn't find them means they don't exist. http://www.cadu.org.uk/info/campaign/27_3.htm UN General Assembly Passes DU Resolution See below for the full text of the resolution: 'Effects of the use of armaments and ammunitions containing depleted uranium' A/C.1/62/L.18/Rev.1 Full text (select your language of choice): http://www.un.org/Docs/journal/asp/ws.asp?m=A/C.1/62/L.18/rev.1 No difficulty finding it. You keep asking Where are the references? but it seems the last thing you want to find is references, whether they exist or not. You still haven't given any references for your own claims. How many people are going to spend hours of their day trawling the internet trying to determine if there's any substance to what's said? Most people simply don't have that kind of time on their hands. :-) So you think I do? Actually it only took two minutes, and it opened up a lot of angles for you to follow, if you'd wanted to, but you went and closed them all again. Did you check the list archives? No, right? 116 finds for Depleted uranium. It's a controversial subject, anything that criticises the glorious US military is a controversial subect. You remind me of what ExxonMobil's been saying about global warming for the last 20 years: Where's the proof? Where's the evidence? Where's the sound science? Better question: where's the precautionary principle? There's rather more than just a good case for applying it to DU, long since. Unless you also think the Ford Pinto was a great car. Keith ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Depleted Uranium Shells Used by U.S. Military Worse Than Nuclear Weapons
Hi Andy I wonder what happened to the US plans to recycle radioactive nuclear wastes into common household appliances like kitchen cutlery and babies' prams and so on? The proposals came up a couple of times. Did they just drop it or are they going ahead without telling anybody? Similar sort of insanity to industry's reycling thousands of tons of hazwastes - lead, arsenic, cadmium, mercury and so on - as fill for fertiliser, which US farmers happily spread on their fields to grow their food crops. All perfectly legal too. The fact that it pollutes the immediate area, its users as well as anyone in the area of its firing is not important to the US Government, nor will it ever be. I'm sure you're right about that. :-( Best Keith Here in Florida we have 'gypsum stacks' which are huge piles of ... Gypsum a by-product from the processing of phosphate to fertilizer. It is somewhat (very low level) radio-active, and as such cannot be used for road beds, construction etc. I'll bet that DU is stronger, and worse for the imbibers. And excreted or not, we are seeing high rates of deformities in babies in Afghanistan, Iraq, (where the DU is used) and among returning soldiers' families as well. DU is a great way to dispose of waste products that normally would not be allowed to be disposed of most places in the US. Why not make it into munitions (yes, its high density makes it a perfect armor piercing weapon). The fact that it pollutes the immediate area, its users as well as anyone in the area of its firing is not important to the US Government, nor will it ever be. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chip Mefford Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 1:32 PM To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Depleted Uranium Shells Used by U.S. Military Worse Than Nuclear Weapons Chip Mefford wrote: Craig Barrett wrote: H... while DU may be dangerous, this article doesn't help much with the way it's written - poor use of statistics, no references to support its claims. It's exactly this kind of shoddy work that causes the raising of the skeptical eyebrow at those who're fighting against things like DU. This is a real pity because I think it hampers what might otherwise be a really good cause. Wholly agreed. SNIP I kinda want to change my language, but it's already posted, so I'll just add my after-thoughts. Point, my use of 'non-issue' just doesn't feel right. But it really does seem that the who has really played this down. Point. I agree with the basic premise of the original article. However, this statement The genetic future of the Iraqi people, for the most part, is destroyed. The environment now is completely radioactive. I've read before, elsewhere, I can't substantiate it. Against the background radiation of other areas in the region, yeah, it's up a bit. And it's my feeling/opinion, that a 'bit' is a huge amount, but with what passes for 'expertise' in these areas, folks seem to think that's okay, when going for health expert citations. See the who report I linked earlier. yes, I think that service folks are paying a terrible price, and the people of the area we all call Irag are paying a staggeringly price orders of magnitude above. This is all happening whether there is 'consensus' by us or not. Uranium is just fine, left in the ground, in it's natural state, unrefined, and not touched, the way it should be. Doing anything else with it, is just insane. That's my take. Proving that, otoh, has proven to be pretty difficult. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Depleted Uranium Shells Used by U.S. Military Worse Than Nuclear Weapons
doing on the quiet gets my vote. If you live near a reactor you need your own detection gear. That also includes people fabbing batteries for space (plutonium thermopiles). I guarantee mum is the word as liability is huge. Kirk Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Andy I wonder what happened to the US plans to recycle radioactive nuclear wastes into common household appliances like kitchen cutlery and babies' prams and so on? The proposals came up a couple of times. Did they just drop it or are they going ahead without telling anybody? Similar sort of insanity to industry's reycling thousands of tons of hazwastes - lead, arsenic, cadmium, mercury and so on - as fill for fertiliser, which US farmers happily spread on their fields to grow their food crops. All perfectly legal too. The fact that it pollutes the immediate area, its users as well as anyone in the area of its firing is not important to the US Government, nor will it ever be. I'm sure you're right about that. :-( Best Keith Here in Florida we have 'gypsum stacks' which are huge piles of ... Gypsum a by-product from the processing of phosphate to fertilizer. It is somewhat (very low level) radio-active, and as such cannot be used for road beds, construction etc. I'll bet that DU is stronger, and worse for the imbibers. And excreted or not, we are seeing high rates of deformities in babies in Afghanistan, Iraq, (where the DU is used) and among returning soldiers' families as well. DU is a great way to dispose of waste products that normally would not be allowed to be disposed of most places in the US. Why not make it into munitions (yes, its high density makes it a perfect armor piercing weapon). The fact that it pollutes the immediate area, its users as well as anyone in the area of its firing is not important to the US Government, nor will it ever be. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chip Mefford Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 1:32 PM To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Depleted Uranium Shells Used by U.S. Military Worse Than Nuclear Weapons Chip Mefford wrote: Craig Barrett wrote: H... while DU may be dangerous, this article doesn't help much with the way it's written - poor use of statistics, no references to support its claims. It's exactly this kind of shoddy work that causes the raising of the skeptical eyebrow at those who're fighting against things like DU. This is a real pity because I think it hampers what might otherwise be a really good cause. Wholly agreed. SNIP I kinda want to change my language, but it's already posted, so I'll just add my after-thoughts. Point, my use of 'non-issue' just doesn't feel right. But it really does seem that the who has really played this down. Point. I agree with the basic premise of the original article. However, this statement The genetic future of the Iraqi people, for the most part, is destroyed. The environment now is completely radioactive. I've read before, elsewhere, I can't substantiate it. Against the background radiation of other areas in the region, yeah, it's up a bit. And it's my feeling/opinion, that a 'bit' is a huge amount, but with what passes for 'expertise' in these areas, folks seem to think that's okay, when going for health expert citations. See the who report I linked earlier. yes, I think that service folks are paying a terrible price, and the people of the area we all call Irag are paying a staggeringly price orders of magnitude above. This is all happening whether there is 'consensus' by us or not. Uranium is just fine, left in the ground, in it's natural state, unrefined, and not touched, the way it should be. Doing anything else with it, is just insane. That's my take. Proving that, otoh, has proven to be pretty difficult. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/attachments/20080522/323751ca/attachment.html ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Depleted Uranium Shells Used by U.S. Military Worse Than Nuclear Weapons
Just check the ingredients (if you can) used to manufacture charcoal briquettes. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Keith Addison Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 2:10 PM To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Depleted Uranium Shells Used by U.S. Military Worse Than Nuclear Weapons Hi Andy I wonder what happened to the US plans to recycle radioactive nuclear wastes into common household appliances like kitchen cutlery and babies' prams and so on? The proposals came up a couple of times. Did they just drop it or are they going ahead without telling anybody? Similar sort of insanity to industry's reycling thousands of tons of hazwastes - lead, arsenic, cadmium, mercury and so on - as fill for fertiliser, which US farmers happily spread on their fields to grow their food crops. All perfectly legal too. The fact that it pollutes the immediate area, its users as well as anyone in the area of its firing is not important to the US Government, nor will it ever be. I'm sure you're right about that. :-( Best Keith Here in Florida we have 'gypsum stacks' which are huge piles of ... Gypsum a by-product from the processing of phosphate to fertilizer. It is somewhat (very low level) radio-active, and as such cannot be used for road beds, construction etc. I'll bet that DU is stronger, and worse for the imbibers. And excreted or not, we are seeing high rates of deformities in babies in Afghanistan, Iraq, (where the DU is used) and among returning soldiers' families as well. DU is a great way to dispose of waste products that normally would not be allowed to be disposed of most places in the US. Why not make it into munitions (yes, its high density makes it a perfect armor piercing weapon). The fact that it pollutes the immediate area, its users as well as anyone in the area of its firing is not important to the US Government, nor will it ever be. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chip Mefford Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 1:32 PM To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Depleted Uranium Shells Used by U.S. Military Worse Than Nuclear Weapons Chip Mefford wrote: Craig Barrett wrote: H... while DU may be dangerous, this article doesn't help much with the way it's written - poor use of statistics, no references to support its claims. It's exactly this kind of shoddy work that causes the raising of the skeptical eyebrow at those who're fighting against things like DU. This is a real pity because I think it hampers what might otherwise be a really good cause. Wholly agreed. SNIP I kinda want to change my language, but it's already posted, so I'll just add my after-thoughts. Point, my use of 'non-issue' just doesn't feel right. But it really does seem that the who has really played this down. Point. I agree with the basic premise of the original article. However, this statement The genetic future of the Iraqi people, for the most part, is destroyed. The environment now is completely radioactive. I've read before, elsewhere, I can't substantiate it. Against the background radiation of other areas in the region, yeah, it's up a bit. And it's my feeling/opinion, that a 'bit' is a huge amount, but with what passes for 'expertise' in these areas, folks seem to think that's okay, when going for health expert citations. See the who report I linked earlier. yes, I think that service folks are paying a terrible price, and the people of the area we all call Irag are paying a staggeringly price orders of magnitude above. This is all happening whether there is 'consensus' by us or not. Uranium is just fine, left in the ground, in it's natural state, unrefined, and not touched, the way it should be. Doing anything else with it, is just insane. That's my take. Proving that, otoh, has proven to be pretty difficult. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Depleted Uranium Shells Used by U.S. Military Worse Than Nuclear Weapons
If you say so. :-) ROFL :-) I don't think there's any need for me to spell out the difference between a genuine request for evidence and mere deliberate and cynical (criminal?) delaying tactics. And how does one know which is which? There are occasions when it's more justifiable to jump to the conclusion without any actual proof, but it's certainly not always appropriate. A company that has a history of going out and destroying with no regard for anything but profit, sure, but ExxonMobil is hardly the only company that asked for proof and for a long time there was huge debate about whether there really was sufficient evidence. Besides which, one example is hardly justification for throwing out the notion of wanting proof. I'll stick with the precautionary principle, you ride off into the sunset in your Ford Pinto. I've never had a Ford of any sort. You STILL didn't check the list archives, did you? If the other links you've considered to be good are anything to go by, why should I expect to find anything useful there? Besides which, that's merely continuing to avoid answering what I actually originally wrote. The original article made sweeping accusations without providing any arguments to support its conclusions. It had only one reference that was in any way linked to the headline and that contained info that not only was just as vague and of seemingly questionable origin, but didn't match up with the article's own statements. I've already said why I don't consider anything in the article to be an argument, so I won't bother to go into it. There may be evidence out there, but the article itself made no reference to any, it merely presented a lot of sleight of hand, which was my original complaint about it (though that's a different way of expressing it). And before you try to bring this up, no, I don't expect an article like that to have every possible link to every possible piece of information that is pertinent to the content of the article. But, as I said before, I do expect it to make an argument and support it. Cheers Craig -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Keith Addison Sent: 22 May 2008 08:10 PM To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Depleted Uranium Shells Used by U.S. Military Worse Than Nuclear Weapons Hello Craig If you say so. :-) snip ExxonMobil has every right to ask for the proof. If not, where does one draw the line? If you were running a business and I told you you had to spend a whole lot of money to change the way you do business based on a claim I had about damage you were causing, are you telling me you'd just make the expensive changes, possibly lose revenue, etc., simply on my say so? I know I wouldn't, I'd want the claim verified. There do at least appear to be fewer naysayers in the scientific community about global warming these days and while there are still those who're claiming it's not real, or at least that we're not causing it, are finding it harder and harder to support their stance. I don't think there's any need for me to spell out the difference between a genuine request for evidence and mere deliberate and cynical (criminal?) delaying tactics. I'll stick with the precautionary principle, you ride off into the sunset in your Ford Pinto. By the way, in case it's not clear, I'm enjoying this. I know that I have a tendency to get carried away and commit exactly the crimes I'm accusing others of doing. Having it pointed out to me is most welcome. Of course you're welcome to enjoy it, but I'm afraid you'll have to do so all by yourself. Most people simply don't have that kind of time on their hands, and that includes me. You STILL didn't check the list archives, did you? Best Keith ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Depleted Uranium Shells Used by U.S. Military Worse Than Nuclear Weapons
If you say so... I'll stick with the precautionary principle, you ride off into the sunset in your Ford Pinto. I've never had a Ford of any sort. :-) You demonstrate your ignorance. From the useless list archives: http://www.motherjones.com/mother_jones/SO77/dowie.html Pinto Madness It is not acceptable here nor anywhere else on our ailing planet to know nothing about the precautionary principle and why it matters. Please see: http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=sustainablelorgbiofuel%40sustainablelists.orgq=%22precautionary+principle%22 precautionary principle - 289 matches Your argument about ExxonMobil and climate change denial is spurious. Check out what James Hanson told the US Senate in 1987, for instance. In 1992 I attended the final UN climate change conference prior to the Rio Earth Summit. This was the ministerial-level conference, held over two weeks in Nairobi. I produced a daily newspaper there for a world coalition of NGOs with observer status, the paper was distributed worldwide every day. The conference was supposed to produce a binding worldwide agreement on reducing CO2 emissions, which was to be the centrepoint of the Rio conference. That didn't happen, no binding agreement, just lots of fine words following behind-the-scenes cavilling by OECD countries (especially the US). But the issue itself, that global warming was happening and that it was due to human-cased CO2 emissions, was accepted. Big Oil and the corporate sector in general were quiet about it at the time, all the corporate blather and denial and obfuscation and paid-for science and greenwashing started a bit later. There was no huge debate about whether there really was sufficient evidence, just spin, bought and paid-for, and it helped to delay effective action by 20 years. And how does one know which is which? you ask. Certainly not by resisting any information that doesn't agree with your preconceptions, which is what you've been doing here. All your arguments are spurious. Also, as you were told when you joined, it's a requirement for list members to use the list resources, especially the list archives. You refuse to do so, in your determination to not find references. Please let me know offlist whether you intend to abide by the list rules or would rather leave the list. Keith Addison Journey to Forever KYOTO Pref., Japan http://journeytoforever.org/ Biofuel list owner If you say so. :-) ROFL :-) I don't think there's any need for me to spell out the difference between a genuine request for evidence and mere deliberate and cynical (criminal?) delaying tactics. And how does one know which is which? There are occasions when it's more justifiable to jump to the conclusion without any actual proof, but it's certainly not always appropriate. A company that has a history of going out and destroying with no regard for anything but profit, sure, but ExxonMobil is hardly the only company that asked for proof and for a long time there was huge debate about whether there really was sufficient evidence. Besides which, one example is hardly justification for throwing out the notion of wanting proof. I'll stick with the precautionary principle, you ride off into the sunset in your Ford Pinto. I've never had a Ford of any sort. You STILL didn't check the list archives, did you? If the other links you've considered to be good are anything to go by, why should I expect to find anything useful there? Besides which, that's merely continuing to avoid answering what I actually originally wrote. The original article made sweeping accusations without providing any arguments to support its conclusions. It had only one reference that was in any way linked to the headline and that contained info that not only was just as vague and of seemingly questionable origin, but didn't match up with the article's own statements. I've already said why I don't consider anything in the article to be an argument, so I won't bother to go into it. There may be evidence out there, but the article itself made no reference to any, it merely presented a lot of sleight of hand, which was my original complaint about it (though that's a different way of expressing it). And before you try to bring this up, no, I don't expect an article like that to have every possible link to every possible piece of information that is pertinent to the content of the article. But, as I said before, I do expect it to make an argument and support it. Cheers Craig -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Keith Addison Sent: 22 May 2008 08:10 PM To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Depleted Uranium Shells Used by U.S. Military Worse Than Nuclear Weapons Hello Craig If you say so. :-) snip ExxonMobil has every right to ask for the proof. If not, where does one draw the line? If you were running a business and I told you you had to spend a whole lot
Re: [Biofuel] Depleted Uranium Shells Used by U.S. Military Worse Than Nuclear Weapons
Just check the ingredients (if you can) used to manufacture charcoal briquettes. Really? Damn. Hm. I see brown coal and paraffin, nothing more sinister though. Best Keith -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Keith Addison Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 2:10 PM To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Depleted Uranium Shells Used by U.S. Military Worse Than Nuclear Weapons Hi Andy I wonder what happened to the US plans to recycle radioactive nuclear wastes into common household appliances like kitchen cutlery and babies' prams and so on? The proposals came up a couple of times. Did they just drop it or are they going ahead without telling anybody? Similar sort of insanity to industry's reycling thousands of tons of hazwastes - lead, arsenic, cadmium, mercury and so on - as fill for fertiliser, which US farmers happily spread on their fields to grow their food crops. All perfectly legal too. The fact that it pollutes the immediate area, its users as well as anyone in the area of its firing is not important to the US Government, nor will it ever be. I'm sure you're right about that. :-( Best Keith Here in Florida we have 'gypsum stacks' which are huge piles of ... Gypsum a by-product from the processing of phosphate to fertilizer. It is somewhat (very low level) radio-active, and as such cannot be used for road beds, construction etc. I'll bet that DU is stronger, and worse for the imbibers. And excreted or not, we are seeing high rates of deformities in babies in Afghanistan, Iraq, (where the DU is used) and among returning soldiers' families as well. DU is a great way to dispose of waste products that normally would not be allowed to be disposed of most places in the US. Why not make it into munitions (yes, its high density makes it a perfect armor piercing weapon). The fact that it pollutes the immediate area, its users as well as anyone in the area of its firing is not important to the US Government, nor will it ever be. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chip Mefford Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 1:32 PM To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Depleted Uranium Shells Used by U.S. Military Worse Than Nuclear Weapons Chip Mefford wrote: Craig Barrett wrote: H... while DU may be dangerous, this article doesn't help much with the way it's written - poor use of statistics, no references to support its claims. It's exactly this kind of shoddy work that causes the raising of the skeptical eyebrow at those who're fighting against things like DU. This is a real pity because I think it hampers what might otherwise be a really good cause. Wholly agreed. SNIP I kinda want to change my language, but it's already posted, so I'll just add my after-thoughts. Point, my use of 'non-issue' just doesn't feel right. But it really does seem that the who has really played this down. Point. I agree with the basic premise of the original article. However, this statement The genetic future of the Iraqi people, for the most part, is destroyed. The environment now is completely radioactive. I've read before, elsewhere, I can't substantiate it. Against the background radiation of other areas in the region, yeah, it's up a bit. And it's my feeling/opinion, that a 'bit' is a huge amount, but with what passes for 'expertise' in these areas, folks seem to think that's okay, when going for health expert citations. See the who report I linked earlier. yes, I think that service folks are paying a terrible price, and the people of the area we all call Irag are paying a staggeringly price orders of magnitude above. This is all happening whether there is 'consensus' by us or not. Uranium is just fine, left in the ground, in it's natural state, unrefined, and not touched, the way it should be. Doing anything else with it, is just insane. That's my take. Proving that, otoh, has proven to be pretty difficult. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Depleted Uranium Shells Used by U.S. Military Worse Than Nuclear Weapons
Apparently my mail server stumbled... I've never had a Ford of any sort. :-) You demonstrate your ignorance. From the useless list archives: No, I think I'd know if I'd ever owned a Ford, so no ignorance there. What I did was ignore your argumentum ad hominem (gotta love that latin) much as you chose to ignore my original complaint about the article, which had nothing to do with whether or not evidence exists, but with the poor writing of the article. Your argument about ExxonMobil and climate change denial is spurious My argument about ExxonMobil was a) about the right to demand evidence and b) about the pointlessness of a single example, not about whether ExxonMobil in particular was trying to delay anything. A single example is only valid as a counter example, such as in all All x's demonstrate behavior y and then someone discovers an x that does not demonstrate behavior y. Also, a quick search found this (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html? inline=nyt-classifier): On Feb. 2, 2007, the United Nations scientific panel studying climate change declared that the evidence of a warming trend is unequivocal, and that human activity has very likely been the driving force in that change over the last 50 years. The last report by the group, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in 2001, had found that humanity had likely played a role. So, according to the UN panel, as late as the beginning of this century the cause of global warming was still in question. They could be on the payroll of companies such as ExxonMobil, of course. And how does one know which is which? you ask. Certainly not by resisting any information that doesn't agree with your preconceptions, which is what you've been doing here. Really? Please point out where. For example, I never said ExxonMobil was not trying to delay by demanding evidence, what I said was that demands for evidence cannot simply be ignored out of hand. Also, as I said, you pointed to a lot of references that, thus far, haven't produced any information beyond what I'd already found, so that puts your demand to read the list archives into a less favourable light. Not to mention that that has nothing to do with the original complaint about the article. All your arguments are spurious. That's one way to avoid answering them. Also, as you were told when you joined, it's a requirement for list members to use the list resources, especially the list archives. You refuse to do so, in your determination to not find references. Please let me know offlist whether you intend to abide by the list rules or would rather leave the list. You can attack me rather than my arguments all you want (which is against the list rules, by the way) and make your own spurious claims, it matters not to me. What determination not to find references? I was talking about an article that didn't have references and was poorly written using invalid arguments. I did find some references to DU and you pointed out some more, most of which I followed up, but none of which had anything to do with the complaint about the manner in which the original article and so many like it was written. I was talking about poor arguments and how they do damage to a potentially very good cause and all of a sudden I'm breaking list rules by not using the list archives? By the way, I searched in the list archives for posts about poorly written articles, but I've found none so far. I'll keep looking though. Do I have reading to do if I want to find out the situation with DU. Yes, I do and I have not made any claims to the contrary. I have at no time refused to search for more information, except in my comment about using the list archives, the point of which you clearly missed since it wasn't a refusal to use the list archives or to search for information. Unfortunately, no matter how much reading I may decide to do, it will not change how poor that article is. Nevertheless, should you feel it necessary to have me removed from the list for daring to question an article (a couple of articles, actually) or the validity of jumping to conclusions, please, feel free to do so. Cheers Craig ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Depleted Uranium Shells Used by U.S. Military Worse Than Nuclear Weapons
Sigh... Sad stuff. That's quite some act of snipping though, LOL! And the relevance of the Ford Pinto remains undiscovered, like everything else. Well, nothing else for it... PLONK Keith Addison Journey to Forever KYOTO Pref., Japan http://journeytoforever.org/ Biofuel list owner Apparently my mail server stumbled... I've never had a Ford of any sort. :-) You demonstrate your ignorance. From the useless list archives: No, I think I'd know if I'd ever owned a Ford, so no ignorance there. What I did was ignore your argumentum ad hominem (gotta love that latin) much as you chose to ignore my original complaint about the article, which had nothing to do with whether or not evidence exists, but with the poor writing of the article. Your argument about ExxonMobil and climate change denial is spurious My argument about ExxonMobil was a) about the right to demand evidence and b) about the pointlessness of a single example, not about whether ExxonMobil in particular was trying to delay anything. A single example is only valid as a counter example, such as in all All x's demonstrate behavior y and then someone discovers an x that does not demonstrate behavior y. Also, a quick search found this (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html? inline=nyt-classifier): On Feb. 2, 2007, the United Nations scientific panel studying climate change declared that the evidence of a warming trend is unequivocal, and that human activity has very likely been the driving force in that change over the last 50 years. The last report by the group, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in 2001, had found that humanity had likely played a role. So, according to the UN panel, as late as the beginning of this century the cause of global warming was still in question. They could be on the payroll of companies such as ExxonMobil, of course. And how does one know which is which? you ask. Certainly not by resisting any information that doesn't agree with your preconceptions, which is what you've been doing here. Really? Please point out where. For example, I never said ExxonMobil was not trying to delay by demanding evidence, what I said was that demands for evidence cannot simply be ignored out of hand. Also, as I said, you pointed to a lot of references that, thus far, haven't produced any information beyond what I'd already found, so that puts your demand to read the list archives into a less favourable light. Not to mention that that has nothing to do with the original complaint about the article. All your arguments are spurious. That's one way to avoid answering them. Also, as you were told when you joined, it's a requirement for list members to use the list resources, especially the list archives. You refuse to do so, in your determination to not find references. Please let me know offlist whether you intend to abide by the list rules or would rather leave the list. You can attack me rather than my arguments all you want (which is against the list rules, by the way) and make your own spurious claims, it matters not to me. What determination not to find references? I was talking about an article that didn't have references and was poorly written using invalid arguments. I did find some references to DU and you pointed out some more, most of which I followed up, but none of which had anything to do with the complaint about the manner in which the original article and so many like it was written. I was talking about poor arguments and how they do damage to a potentially very good cause and all of a sudden I'm breaking list rules by not using the list archives? By the way, I searched in the list archives for posts about poorly written articles, but I've found none so far. I'll keep looking though. Do I have reading to do if I want to find out the situation with DU. Yes, I do and I have not made any claims to the contrary. I have at no time refused to search for more information, except in my comment about using the list archives, the point of which you clearly missed since it wasn't a refusal to use the list archives or to search for information. Unfortunately, no matter how much reading I may decide to do, it will not change how poor that article is. Nevertheless, should you feel it necessary to have me removed from the list for daring to question an article (a couple of articles, actually) or the validity of jumping to conclusions, please, feel free to do so. Cheers Craig ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
[Biofuel] Depleted Uranium Shells Used by U.S. Military Worse Than Nuclear Weapons
Society: Depleted Uranium Shells Used by U.S. Military Worse Than Nuclear Weapons http://www.naturalnews.com/023274.html (NaturalNews) The use of depleted uranium (DU) munitions by the U.S. military may lead to a death toll far higher than that from the nuclear bombs dropped at the end of World War II. DU is a waste product of uranium enrichment, containing approximately one-third the radioactive isotopes of naturally occurring uranium. Because of its high density, it is used in armor- or tank-piercing ammunition. It has been fired by the U.S. and British armed forces in the two Iraq wars and in Afghanistan, as well as by NATO forces in Kosovo and the Israeli military in Lebanon and Palestine. [Hmm, looks like population culling to me!] Inhaled or ingested DU particles are highly toxic, and DU has been classified as an illegal weapon of mass destruction by the United Nations. The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority has estimated that 50 tons of DU dust from the first Gulf War could lead to 500,000 cancer deaths by the year 2000. To date, a total of 2,000 tons have been generated in the Middle East. In contrast, approximately 250,000 lives were claimed by the explosions and radiation released by the nuclear weapons dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. More than ten times the amount of radiation released during atmospheric testing [of nuclear bombs] has been released from DU weaponry since 1991, said Leuren Moret, a U.S. nuclear scientist. The genetic future of the Iraqi people, for the most part, is destroyed. The environment now is completely radioactive. Because DU has a half-life of 4.5 billion years, the Middle East will, for all practical purposes, be radioactive forever. The two U.S. wars in Iraq have been nuclear wars because they have scattered nuclear material across the land, and people, particularly children, are condemned to die of malignancy and congenital disease essentially for eternity, said anti-nuclear activist Helen Caldicott. Since the first Gulf War, the rate of birth defects and childhood cancer in Iraq has increased by seven times. More than 35 percent (251,000) of U.S. Gulf War veterans are dead or on permanent medical disability, compared with only 400 who were killed during the conflict. -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/attachments/20080521/0001e677/attachment.html ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Depleted Uranium Shells Used by U.S. Military Worse Than Nuclear Weapons
H... while DU may be dangerous, this article doesn't help much with the way it's written - poor use of statistics, no references to support its claims. It's exactly this kind of shoddy work that causes the raising of the skeptical eyebrow at those who're fighting against things like DU. This is a real pity because I think it hampers what might otherwise be a really good cause. DU contains approximately 1/3 the amount of U235, one isotope, not of all the isotopes. If it were 1/3 of the isotopes what would the other 2/3 be? From what I've read, inhaled or ingested DU particles are not known to be particularly dangerous and the radioactive material is relatively quickly excreted, though inhalation is worse than ingestion. Naturally, greater quantities pose a greater threat, but what quantities? One mitigating factor is that the long half life means relatively low radioactivity, but more research is clearly necessary. I couldn't find anything about the UN declaring DU a weapon of mass destruction, but perhaps further searching will reveal the resolution. The UK AEA estimated 500k deaths by 2000... did the deaths occur? Without providing the information as to how many deaths have actually been linked to the DU used in the area the comparison to Hiroshima and Nagasaki is meaningless. I'm not even sure what the quote from the nuclear scientist means. What does it mean to say the radiation has been released? Was that actual radiation released when the ammunition impacted with a target? Is it total available radiation in the DU used to date? The comment about Iraq being radioactive forever is a bit disingenuous since pretty much everywhere is radioactive all the time, it's a question of degree. How much residual radioactivity from the material left behind is there above the normal background? How widespread is it, actually? How much of the radioactive material can get into the water and food? 35% of the veterans from the Gulf War may be dead or on permanent medical disability, but how many of those are due to DU? Has it been confirmed that the rise in birth defects has no other cause? Again, I'm not saying that none of these things are true and I'm certainly not saying that DU is not dangerous. I did a little work with radioactive materials at university and I have a fair idea of how dangerous they can be and no radioactive material is to be taken lightly, regardless of the ubiquity. I'm certainly no fan of DU being used in weapons. However, when I read an article that is written with this sort of quality I find it encouraging me to ignore it because the author has made a number of allegations and has written in such a way as to make it appear as if an argument is being made where, upon inspection, it turns out that no actual supporting evidence is supplied to justify the conclusion. Cheers Craig -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kirk McLoren Sent: 21 May 2008 03:49 PM To: biofuel Subject: [Biofuel] Depleted Uranium Shells Used by U.S. Military Worse Than Nuclear Weapons Society: Depleted Uranium Shells Used by U.S. Military Worse Than Nuclear Weapons http://www.naturalnews.com/023274.html (NaturalNews) The use of depleted uranium (DU) munitions by the U.S. military may lead to a death toll far higher than that from the nuclear bombs dropped at the end of World War II. DU is a waste product of uranium enrichment, containing approximately one-third the radioactive isotopes of naturally occurring uranium. Because of its high density, it is used in armor- or tank-piercing ammunition. It has been fired by the U.S. and British armed forces in the two Iraq wars and in Afghanistan, as well as by NATO forces in Kosovo and the Israeli military in Lebanon and Palestine. [Hmm, looks like population culling to me!] Inhaled or ingested DU particles are highly toxic, and DU has been classified as an illegal weapon of mass destruction by the United Nations. The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority has estimated that 50 tons of DU dust from the first Gulf War could lead to 500,000 cancer deaths by the year 2000. To date, a total of 2,000 tons have been generated in the Middle East. In contrast, approximately 250,000 lives were claimed by the explosions and radiation released by the nuclear weapons dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. More than ten times the amount of radiation released during atmospheric testing [of nuclear bombs] has been released from DU weaponry since 1991, said Leuren Moret, a U.S. nuclear scientist. The genetic future of the Iraqi people, for the most part, is destroyed. The environment now is completely radioactive. Because DU has a half-life of 4.5 billion years, the Middle East will, for all practical purposes, be radioactive forever. The two U.S. wars in Iraq have been nuclear wars because they have scattered nuclear material across the land, and people, particularly children, are condemned to die
Re: [Biofuel] Depleted Uranium Shells Used by U.S. Military Worse Than Nuclear Weapons
Craig Barrett wrote: H... while DU may be dangerous, this article doesn't help much with the way it's written - poor use of statistics, no references to support its claims. It's exactly this kind of shoddy work that causes the raising of the skeptical eyebrow at those who're fighting against things like DU. This is a real pity because I think it hampers what might otherwise be a really good cause. Wholly agreed. I think this DU stuff is a real issue, but blind rhetoric certainly isn't helping anything. DU contains approximately 1/3 the amount of U235, one isotope, not of all the isotopes. If it were 1/3 of the isotopes what would the other 2/3 be? From what I've read, inhaled or ingested DU particles are not known to be particularly dangerous and the radioactive material is relatively quickly excreted, though inhalation is worse than ingestion. Naturally, greater quantities pose a greater threat, but what quantities? One mitigating factor is that the long half life means relatively low radioactivity, but more research is clearly necessary. I couldn't find anything about the UN declaring DU a weapon of mass destruction, but perhaps further searching will reveal the resolution. Nor can I. Otoh, I can find UN backed WHO studies claiming that DU is practically a non-issue. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/ while non-issue is a bit of an overstatement, the who doesn't seem very worked up about it. The UK AEA estimated 500k deaths by 2000... did the deaths occur? Without providing the information as to how many deaths have actually been linked to the DU used in the area the comparison to Hiroshima and Nagasaki is meaningless. I'm not even sure what the quote from the nuclear scientist means. What does it mean to say the radiation has been released? Was that actual radiation released when the ammunition impacted with a target? Is it total available radiation in the DU used to date? The comment about Iraq being radioactive forever is a bit disingenuous since pretty much everywhere is radioactive all the time, it's a question of degree. How much residual radioactivity from the material left behind is there above the normal background? How widespread is it, actually? How much of the radioactive material can get into the water and food? 35% of the veterans from the Gulf War may be dead or on permanent medical disability, but how many of those are due to DU? Has it been confirmed that the rise in birth defects has no other cause? This is all very fuzzy, and one would expect it to be. Historically, when it comes to 'radioactive' stuff, the 'experts' have been notoriously vague, and downright evasive about telling what they know. The 'nuclear industry' has been caught out in so many lies in the past, it's difficult to believe anything that anyone having anything to do with anything surrounding 'atomic energy' has to say. This seems to be true regardless of what side of the discussion one is on. It's a real mess. When folks aren't forthcoming with hard facts, it leaves others up to make up whatever they can to fill in the blanks. I have little doubt that DU is a real issue, needs to go away immediately, is a wholly terrible idea, without even looking at the why in the first place. However, this kinda stuff doesn't help, at all. Again, I'm not saying that none of these things are true and I'm certainly not saying that DU is not dangerous. I did a little work with radioactive materials at university and I have a fair idea of how dangerous they can be and no radioactive material is to be taken lightly, regardless of the ubiquity. I'm certainly no fan of DU being used in weapons. However, when I read an article that is written with this sort of quality I find it encouraging me to ignore it because the author has made a number of allegations and has written in such a way as to make it appear as if an argument is being made where, upon inspection, it turns out that no actual supporting evidence is supplied to justify the conclusion. Cheers Craig -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kirk McLoren Sent: 21 May 2008 03:49 PM To: biofuel Subject: [Biofuel] Depleted Uranium Shells Used by U.S. Military Worse Than Nuclear Weapons Society: Depleted Uranium Shells Used by U.S. Military Worse Than Nuclear Weapons http://www.naturalnews.com/023274.html (NaturalNews) The use of depleted uranium (DU) munitions by the U.S. military may lead to a death toll far higher than that from the nuclear bombs dropped at the end of World War II. DU is a waste product of uranium enrichment, containing approximately one-third the radioactive isotopes of naturally occurring uranium. Because of its high density, it is used in armor- or tank-piercing ammunition. It has been fired by the U.S. and British armed forces in the two Iraq wars and in Afghanistan
Re: [Biofuel] Depleted Uranium Shells Used by U.S. Military Worse Than Nuclear Weapons
the Gulf War may be dead or on permanent medical disability, but how many of those are due to DU? Has it been confirmed that the rise in birth defects has no other cause? Again, I'm not saying that none of these things are true and I'm certainly not saying that DU is not dangerous. I did a little work with radioactive materials at university and I have a fair idea of how dangerous they can be and no radioactive material is to be taken lightly, regardless of the ubiquity. I'm certainly no fan of DU being used in weapons. However, when I read an article that is written with this sort of quality I find it encouraging me to ignore it because the author has made a number of allegations and has written in such a way as to make it appear as if an argument is being made where, upon inspection, it turns out that no actual supporting evidence is supplied to justify the conclusion. Cheers Craig -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kirk McLoren Sent: 21 May 2008 03:49 PM To: biofuel Subject: [Biofuel] Depleted Uranium Shells Used by U.S. Military Worse Than Nuclear Weapons Society: Depleted Uranium Shells Used by U.S. Military Worse Than Nuclear Weapons http://www.naturalnews.com/023274.html (NaturalNews) The use of depleted uranium (DU) munitions by the U.S. military may lead to a death toll far higher than that from the nuclear bombs dropped at the end of World War II. DU is a waste product of uranium enrichment, containing approximately one-third the radioactive isotopes of naturally occurring uranium. Because of its high density, it is used in armor- or tank-piercing ammunition. It has been fired by the U.S. and British armed forces in the two Iraq wars and in Afghanistan, as well as by NATO forces in Kosovo and the Israeli military in Lebanon and Palestine. [Hmm, looks like population culling to me!] Inhaled or ingested DU particles are highly toxic, and DU has been classified as an illegal weapon of mass destruction by the United Nations. The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority has estimated that 50 tons of DU dust from the first Gulf War could lead to 500,000 cancer deaths by the year 2000. To date, a total of 2,000 tons have been generated in the Middle East. In contrast, approximately 250,000 lives were claimed by the explosions and radiation released by the nuclear weapons dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. More than ten times the amount of radiation released during atmospheric testing [of nuclear bombs] has been released from DU weaponry since 1991, said Leuren Moret, a U.S. nuclear scientist. The genetic future of the Iraqi people, for the most part, is destroyed. The environment now is completely radioactive. Because DU has a half-life of 4.5 billion years, the Middle East will, for all practical purposes, be radioactive forever. The two U.S. wars in Iraq have been nuclear wars because they have scattered nuclear material across the land, and people, particularly children, are condemned to die of malignancy and congenital disease essentially for eternity, said anti-nuclear activist Helen Caldicott. Since the first Gulf War, the rate of birth defects and childhood cancer in Iraq has increased by seven times. More than 35 percent (251,000) of U.S. Gulf War veterans are dead or on permanent medical disability, compared with only 400 who were killed during the conflict. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Depleted Uranium Shells Used by U.S. Military Worse Than Nuclear Weapons
Chip Mefford wrote: Craig Barrett wrote: H... while DU may be dangerous, this article doesn't help much with the way it's written - poor use of statistics, no references to support its claims. It's exactly this kind of shoddy work that causes the raising of the skeptical eyebrow at those who're fighting against things like DU. This is a real pity because I think it hampers what might otherwise be a really good cause. Wholly agreed. SNIP I kinda want to change my language, but it's already posted, so I'll just add my after-thoughts. Point, my use of 'non-issue' just doesn't feel right. But it really does seem that the who has really played this down. Point. I agree with the basic premise of the original article. However, this statement The genetic future of the Iraqi people, for the most part, is destroyed. The environment now is completely radioactive. I've read before, elsewhere, I can't substantiate it. Against the background radiation of other areas in the region, yeah, it's up a bit. And it's my feeling/opinion, that a 'bit' is a huge amount, but with what passes for 'expertise' in these areas, folks seem to think that's okay, when going for health expert citations. See the who report I linked earlier. yes, I think that service folks are paying a terrible price, and the people of the area we all call Irag are paying a staggeringly price orders of magnitude above. This is all happening whether there is 'consensus' by us or not. Uranium is just fine, left in the ground, in it's natural state, unrefined, and not touched, the way it should be. Doing anything else with it, is just insane. That's my take. Proving that, otoh, has proven to be pretty difficult. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
