[ RadSafe ] Re: [ RadSafe] What Became of this 2001WHOInvestigation?
james at bovik.org
Mon Jul 25 16:41:48 CDT 2005
Dimiter Popoff asks:
>> What do you think the total mass of the uranium involved is?
> what do _you_ think it is?
"DU munitions were first used in the Gulf War of 1991. A total of
320 tons (290,300 kilograms) of DU projectiles were fired by the
US during the Gulf War...." resulting in about 115 "friendly fire"
deaths after one month of exposure. Almost all of the
contamination occurred in a fairly small region, and a couple of
narrow corridors near very high water tables.
"... US Air Force A-10 Thunderbolt II aircraft fired approximately
10,000 30mm DU rounds (3.3 tons of DU) at 12 sites in Bosnia-
Herzegovina in 1994-1995. In 1999, they fired nearly 31,000 DU
rounds (10.2 tons of DU) at 85 sites in Kosovo."
Those 12 sites were scattered and disjoint, and not near high water
tables. So it is obvious that even if water table depth and
rainfall were identical, Iraq got more than 20 times the contamination.
In 2003, it was estimated that an additional 75 tons was used in
Iraq, and 34 tons in Afghanistan, e.g.:
>... Of all known and unknown (kept secret) agents the soldiers are
> exposed to you chose depleted uranium, probably the most harmless
> (just think of all those vaccines, anti-chemical warfare treatments....
None of those other than uranium are reproductive toxicants, as
far as I have been able to tell, and I have been asking and filing
multiple Freedom of Information Act requests asking. The closest
is the anthrax vaccine, which is a developmental toxicant in
pregnant women, but not a reproductive toxicant.
> Could it be you are doing this because you are a part of campaign
> to deflect attention from some real - well known to insiders - cause?
No. My primary motivation is reducing the incidence rate of
congenital malformations. I am also interested in the
renumeration provisions of the Equal Access to Justice Act.
Also, after some cover-ups ripen, exposing them is like
shooting fish in a barrel.
> if you have an explanation how come you chose uranium of all
> things I'd be curious to know that.
I'm actually pretty surprised at the number of people
responsible for controlling, regulating, and/or mitigating
uranium contamination who are unfamiliar with its chemical
teratalogical effects. I can't think of a better venue
for trying to correct that problem.
More information about the RadSafe