Depleted Uranium Forums (DU-BBS)

I just responded to an email from Susan. In it I sort of outlined my quest for some scientific veracity in the area of models of DU harm (or lack of), so I thought I would post it here. Why waste a good line of inquiry?

Quote:

[Susan to Peter]
This is the May 2006 report from RMC/DND/VAC unable to correctly determine DU in "synthetic" urine - yet VAC pays for DU tests as does DND knowing they can not detect it!!!! Our money used to further decay moral rights - certain you want this stuff?

Attached file

Susan,

Thanks for all the stuff. It will take me a while to file through it.

This study seems to show that all the labs were quite accurate in their tests. Isn't that what they are trying to show? What's the problem? I thought the anti-DU camp argues that DU is dangerous despite not causing particularly high blood levels of uranium.

Do I want this stuff? Well... I'm not really trying to be a clearinghouse for DU data. I'm trying to set up a place where people can argue about these things. I'm not clear on the scientific nitty-gritty of it, and so I figure few people are. There seems to be a lot of disagreement among researchers. It seems to me the argument against DU is that bits of it may get sequestered into sensitive tissues in the body or directly on DNA. While a person's blood levels of uranium may appear low, there might still be bits of uranium embedded in the tissues bombarding DNA and microcellular apparatus with alpha radiation up close.

But I haven't really read a good clear model of why DU dust should be dangerous in the long term. Perhaps it isn't. I certainly still admit this as a possiblity. I am frustrated that no one seems to want to make a clear case one way or the other. Both sides in this argument seem to be trying to win an opinion war without getting into the pure science of it.

So, to answer your question, if you can explain to me a sensible model of how DU dust stays in the body or otherwise causes harm, I am more than interested in hearing it. I am very worried about this possibility. As uranium is a heavy metal, I would expect it to stick to our DNA. Since an exploding DU shell aerolyzes the DU so thoroughly, I expect it creates conditions perfect to facilitiate such bodily sequestering. Basically, my instincts tell me DU shells are an insane choice of ammunition if one wants to avoid contaminating the environment. And if there are any studies to support this model (or other relevant models), I definitely want to include them in the relevant section of the DUBBS.info Web site.

Perhaps you have something to teach me. We should have the conversation online so others can benefit by reading through it later. This is the beauty of a BBS. Well, it's beautiful when people stay on the point and don't use it just to burn the air with words.

I'll post this email on the BBS, and I'd be really happy if you can enlighten me more. I am just a guy looking for the truth.

-Peter Dearman

I am trying to find which trace elements appear through fission decay. Their presence in samples could sustain the hypothesis that spent rods find their way into DU munitions.

Mike

Mike,
Thanks for taking this board seriously. I'm back on the job with it. Just playing with some tech stuff on it now, trying to make recent posts show on the top page of the site.

I just posted tonight in another thread an excerpt of a story by Robert Fisk regarding Israel's possible use of such tainted weapons. This is definitely a serious concern, as these weapons would be unquestionably more dangerous than "conventional" DU weapons.

Gee, maybe it's a psy-op to get DU looked at in a softer light. Future plea: "We stopped using the dangerous kind."

Anyway, I wanted to say thanks. I'm gonna try a bit harder to get people to notice this BBS. I've started posting a bit here, and intend to do more, like tonight.

Debating Depleted Uranium
http://beagle17.gnn.tv/

An outsider's suggestion: someone should write a paper which is a summary of the case against DU, or find an already-written paper and summarize it, or find the best two or three articles against DU which can be linked to, and provide the links.

And then they should do the same for the "pro-DU" case.

There should be a "master article" which introduces both sets, explaining what DU is, where it has been used, the basic arguments for and against. Just a couple of hundred words, to orient anyone who does not know much about DU.

These articles should be prominent on the site, easy to find, the first thing that new visitors look at.

As it stands, someone who knows about the controversy can find their way around the site, but someone who doesn't may be left feeling that this is just a site for specialists.

Very true. The site desperately needs such an intro page.

I'd love to write such a thing, and I probably will attempt it in the very near future. But every time I start reading and clicking links, I just keep going. The subject of remains quite mysterious to me (the more you learn, the more you realize how much...), although I think in some ways the case against DU is plainly obvious too. Why should there be a need to prove that enough alpha-emitting dust actually does get into exposed lungs to raise DNA mutation rates. That may be difficult to technically prove, but the principle of risk (or model for harm) is still sound even without the proof of harm. Alpha-emitters are known to be a significant risk internally. So the burden of proof should be on those who say DU is safe to use in an explosive, dust-producing manner. And they should also explain how their use to win a battle justifies creating low-level radioactive contamination on lands inhabited by innocent people.

How long did it take to prove tobacco kills?

"Why should there be a need to prove that enough alpha-emitting dust actually does get into exposed lungs to raise DNA mutation rates. That may be difficult to technically prove,"

This can be proven by tests. My urine tests showed man-made DU still in my system after 15 years and specialized blood tests showed clear chromosome abnormalities.

Myself and some other DU affected veterans will be on a TV documentary in the near future. I will post more on that when I can.
The truth will soon be known by all and will no longer be deniable, much like Agent Orange in the Vietnam vets, but DU's effects will last much much longer for many and many generations to come.

The truth shall set you free!

Tanya

Tanya,

It would be great if you could gather some information on this approach. I know that in-vivo uranium testing at Memorial University in St. Johns Nfld and also at the UMRC shows retained uranium many years following exposure.

It seems that other labs (the ones the military prefers to use) are willing to use less sensitive test procedures and subsequently use the results to claim that the body handles DU without problem.

So the results of the sensitive testing definitely needs to be widely publicized. If you can post what you have on this, or even email it to me, I will work hard at spreading the information further.

I feel for your personal misfortune and anger at being unwittingly exposed to such a damaging and unnecessary form of radioactive pollution. Good luck with all your efforts to stay healthy from here on. If you have the time, please mae a post in the 'Consequences of DU' section to tell those who have been exposed what they should do to reduce their risk into the future. Are there certain foods or treatments that can help get rid of the remaining DU in ones body?

-Peter

There is nothing they can do to get it out of our systems.
Just eat as healthy as possible, and try to get the truth out there to stop it.

I will do my best to make this more publicized; look for me on talk shows and the like, along with others like me.

I am trying to locate others in my old unit who probably were exposed and are sick as well. No luck finding them yet, tried all the searches things and can't find anyone.

Blessings,
Tanya

Beagle17

Mikecimerian

PeterD

Doug1943

Beagle17

godschild40

Beagle17

godschild40