The best in arts & entertainment, news, pop culture, and your mom since 2002.

[Total: 14    Average: 3.1/5]
88 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 5783
Rating: 3.1
Category:
Date: 03/21/13 05:34 PM

88 Responses to Birth Defects On The Rise In Iraq

  1. Profile photo of paperduck
    paperduck Male 18-29
    1745 posts
    March 21, 2013 at 5:35 pm
    Link: Birth Defects On The Rise In Iraq - Use of depleted uranium showing effects. Warning: graphic.
  2. Profile photo of YugureKage
    YugureKage Female 18-29
    1205 posts
    March 21, 2013 at 6:01 pm
    wow, that`s all I can really say.
  3. Profile photo of piperfawn
    piperfawn Male 30-39
    4916 posts
    March 21, 2013 at 6:23 pm
    We are here for the freedom! Who is against us is a terrorist...terrorist ...terrorist! Says the worst butcher country in the history of the world. Beasts!( no offense for beasts intended)
  4. Profile photo of Andrew155
    Andrew155 Male 18-29
    2579 posts
    March 21, 2013 at 6:26 pm
    Fun fact, we killed 500,000 Iraqi children in the 90`s with our sanctions. More than even the Iraq war.
  5. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    March 21, 2013 at 6:47 pm
    Well that whole Iraq invasion thing worked swimmingly didn`t it?

    Fu<king neocons.
  6. Profile photo of fancythat
    fancythat Male 30-39
    1950 posts
    March 21, 2013 at 7:22 pm
    Send in Dick Cheney and his family. I`m sure they`re ready to clean up that mess right quick!
  7. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33142 posts
    March 21, 2013 at 7:28 pm
    Blame the "depleted uranium" for this? BULLCRAP!
    #1 It`s depleted! Do you even know what that means?
    #2 It`s a natural element, it`s found all over the Earth, in soil!
    #3 Birth defects have ALWAYS been higher in Arabic countries. They REMAIN high because there`s NO ABORTION ALLOWED there.
    #4 The US States with the highest "background radiation" do NOT have the highest cancer rates, birth defect rates, none of that "scary" stuff.

    To blame this on a MYTH is just reprehensible...

    Not watching it either, I can predict with 90% accuracy all the stupid lies they`ll tell...
  8. Profile photo of piperfawn
    piperfawn Male 30-39
    4916 posts
    March 21, 2013 at 7:34 pm
    5Cats i think you don`t know the matter of this question reading your statements, i suggest nyou to inform you. This problem allready occurred during the Yugoslavia war. At the time (i served there) USA army was using depleted uranium bullets. Results? Many of other UN military got serious ripercussions cause of that, some italian soldier even died for this particulary reasone once they bavck home after few time. I repeat i invite to inform you about this question, is not new and is really serious.
  9. Profile photo of paperduck
    paperduck Male 18-29
    1745 posts
    March 21, 2013 at 7:44 pm
    5cats So you`re the type of person who has all the "rebuttals" without even knowing what was said, because you won`t watch the video.

    #1 Do you know what radioactivity is? Do you know what half-life is?

    #2 It`s found all over the earth in *trace* amounts. A weapon containing it is highly concentrated.

    #3 The rate of defects, and cancer have increased 40X from the prewar era, which shouldn`t happened if they`ve always had that problem.

    #4 Really, US population has the most depleted uranium exposure? Most of the population do not come in contact with uranium radiation. Look up figures from workers around uranium, specifically before any kind of safeguards were put in place. In this video, they say a study found 4 of the 9 servicemen tested positive for uranium exposure.
  10. Profile photo of TheGuySmiley
    TheGuySmiley Male 18-29
    1243 posts
    March 21, 2013 at 8:19 pm
    meanwhile people all around the world are chanting "DEATH TO THE PRESIDENCY!!!!!!!! DEATH TO THE PRESIDENCY!!!!!!!! DEATH TO THE PRESIDENCY!!!!!!!! DEATH TO THE PRESIDENCY!!!!!!!! DEATH TO THE PRESIDENCY!!!!!!!! DEATH TO THE PRESIDENCY!!!!!!!! DEATH TO THE PRESIDENCY!!!!!!!! DEATH TO THE PRESIDENCY!!!!!!!! DEATH TO THE PRESIDENCY!!!!!!!! DEATH TO THE PRESIDENCY!!!!!!!! DEATH TO THE PRESIDENCY!!!!!!!! DEATH TO THE PRESIDENCY!!!!!!!! DEATH TO THE PRESIDENCY!!!!!!!! DEATH TO THE PRESIDENCY!!!!!!!! DEATH TO THE PRESIDENCY!!!!!!!! DEATH TO THE PRESIDENCY!!!!!!!! DEATH TO THE PRESIDENCY!!!!!!!! DEATH TO THE PRESIDENCY!!!!!!!! DEATH TO THE PRESIDENCY!!!!!!!!..."


    Join in!
  11. Profile photo of djwajda
    djwajda Male 40-49
    885 posts
    March 21, 2013 at 8:44 pm
    @5Cats

    It`s unfortunately a fact that depleted uranium rounds cause all sorts of medical problems. Even more unfortunate that they can admit it affects other countries but will still deny it affects our own troops. Aside from his anti-american trolling I have to agree with @piperfawn in this case.
  12. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36866 posts
    March 21, 2013 at 8:48 pm

    I can`t believe you`re arguing about this.
    It sounds like a dirty bomb. Dispersed radioactivity.

    Maybe when Saddam knew he was going to lose he set one off for revenge?
  13. Profile photo of djwajda
    djwajda Male 40-49
    885 posts
    March 21, 2013 at 8:53 pm
    @gerry

    I simply argue it for the fact that it is most likely one of many causes of Gulf War Syndrome. You know, that nasty syndrome thousands of veterans have but are told it`s something else?
  14. Profile photo of piperfawn
    piperfawn Male 30-39
    4916 posts
    March 21, 2013 at 9:04 pm
    Gerry1of1 your "suggestive" immagination is fascinating but i invite also you to inform yourself about this problem. Is real and really serious. Is just one of the news that,you know, the government don`t like to spread around.
  15. Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    March 21, 2013 at 9:12 pm
    Uh oh. Al Jazeera?

    Invalid. Move along.
  16. Profile photo of piperfawn
    piperfawn Male 30-39
    4916 posts
    March 21, 2013 at 9:19 pm
    auburnjunky ask some of your military affected by leucaemia after the war if is invalid. You see, the problem here is not only what your army did against foreign "terrorist" countries but also against their own soldiers. If you are the real brave american patriot that sometime you says to be you should care more about this question.
  17. Profile photo of paperduck
    paperduck Male 18-29
    1745 posts
    March 21, 2013 at 9:25 pm
    It`s actually from Democracy Now, you know the American radio show. I like how some folks figuratively put fingers in there ears and go "Lalalalala". That is a sign to know you`re wrong (on any subject).
  18. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    March 21, 2013 at 9:40 pm
    Uh oh. Al Jazeera?

    Invalid. Move along.

    Not a valid argument.
  19. Profile photo of FoolsPrussia
    FoolsPrussia Male 30-39
    3446 posts
    March 21, 2013 at 9:51 pm
    "Uh oh. Al Jazeera?"

    What does this have to do with Al Jazeera? Anyway, Al Jazeera is actually a pretty respectable news network.
  20. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    March 21, 2013 at 11:10 pm
    The birth defects are not likely due to radiation. They are more likely due to cousins marrying one another, the clan mentality and arranged marriages there.
  21. Profile photo of paperduck
    paperduck Male 18-29
    1745 posts
    March 21, 2013 at 11:26 pm
    Crakrjak did the US introduce that practice there? No. why would there be an increase coinciding with the start of the war then? Levels 14x seen following the Hiroshima bombing. Why would cancer levels go from 40 per 100,000 before the wars to 800 per 100,000 in 2012?
  22. Profile photo of charlatan75
    charlatan75 Male 18-29
    44 posts
    March 22, 2013 at 12:12 am
    United States of America. best. nation. ever.
  23. Profile photo of charlatan75
    charlatan75 Male 18-29
    44 posts
    March 22, 2013 at 12:13 am
    @CrakrJak - how`s the irony!! From Mid-west USA!! haha, you made me laugh. Now go bang your sister.
  24. Profile photo of SnoopyBG
    SnoopyBG Male 18-29
    653 posts
    March 22, 2013 at 1:31 am
    At least I bet they are very happy they are free now.
  25. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36866 posts
    March 22, 2013 at 5:58 am

    "Gerry1of1 your "suggestive" immagination is fascinating but i invite also you to inform yourself about this problem"
    Okay, let`s see; There`s a lot of radiation floating around causing illness. And dirty bombs scatter radiation around to cause illness.

    Soooooo ? What am I missing there? Sounds plausible to me. Not saying it`s definite, just a possibility.

  26. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    March 22, 2013 at 5:59 am
    paperduck: Why would the rate increase? Fewer and fewer Iraqi males left alive, that`s one reason. But the rate wasn`t good to begin with.

    charlatan: Go bang your koala, ya wogball playing beet eater.
  27. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14268 posts
    March 22, 2013 at 6:59 am
    We are here for the freedom! Who is against us is a terrorist...terrorist ...terrorist! Says the worst butcher country in the history of the world. Beasts!( no offense for beasts intended)

    Said the greasball from the land that built concentration camps during the worst war ever.
  28. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14268 posts
    March 22, 2013 at 7:03 am
    Didn`t you know guys Europeans only use tank shells loaded with sunshine and happyness!!! That and depleted uranium.....


    Now show me Kuwaits birth defect levels because if the shells are the case it should show up there or mabey it has more to do with Sadam using chemical weapons on his own people or burning oil wells.
  29. Profile photo of piperfawn
    piperfawn Male 30-39
    4916 posts
    March 22, 2013 at 7:15 am
    Gerry1of1 plausible yes, but the study about depleted uranium bullets used by your army are allready maded not only for this war. We allready have a "real" (not plausible) answer, why thinking that maybe also aliens are involved in that , for example, if we allready have a more real,tested and proven answer.

  30. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33142 posts
    March 22, 2013 at 7:25 am
    @paperduck:
    #1: Half life is the time it takes for radioactive (indeed, all!) elements to break down to half their mass. The longer the half-life? The safer the element.
    The exception is Plutonium: very long half-life BUT it breaks down into NASTY-BAD things which are wickedly radioactive! It is NOT natural.
    Shall I go on?

    #2: Radiation is everywhere, yes. There is no escape.

    #3: Bullshiite. 40X? O`Really? Utter fabrication.

    #4: Radiation = radiation. It doesn`t matter the source! IF it were true that "depleted uranium rounds" were radioactive? The insides of US tanks would glow brighter than the sun!

    Do YOU know what "depleted" means? It means it`s NOT radioactive! ffs... Answers my questions with stupid questions, I expected better than that...



  31. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14268 posts
    March 22, 2013 at 7:31 am
    @piperfawn

    So now when did Italy withdraw from NATO??? Oh they didn`t guess what you country has for tank shells! Is that the big bad USA fault too?
  32. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33142 posts
    March 22, 2013 at 7:33 am
    Why would cancer levels go from 40 per 100,000 before the wars to 800 per 100,000 in 2012?
    Because under Saddam most Iraqis didn`t GET any treatment? Because under Hussain they didn`t keep RECORDS of cancer rates (it would make the Gov`t look bad, can`t have that!).
    >>There`s TWO highly likely answers...
    Then as @MacGovern pointed out, there`s 1,000 BURNING OIL WELLS spewing Allah-knows-what into the air...

    And YES! Birth defects go back 1,000 years in some Persian areas. They have indeed been "inbreeding" a LOT during that time. FAR longer than US "hillbillies" have, fyi...

    The myth is: "Non-Radioactive Uranium Dust Kills Babies" and it`s nonsense...
  33. Profile photo of piperfawn
    piperfawn Male 30-39
    4916 posts
    March 22, 2013 at 9:20 am
    Guys i don`t know what to say more, you want to keep you cheddar slices on your eyes,well keep it. all i know is that many UN soldiers come back from Yugoslavia died for this reason and they are still dieing only in Italy we had 216 death and there are 2500 people sick cause of depleted uranium ammunition used by US army. I bet there are also lot of americans soldiers with the same problem. You are just denyng facts and reality.


  34. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    March 22, 2013 at 9:26 am
    piperfawn: Depleted uranium wasn`t used to cause cancer or radioactive burns. It`s used to penetrate armor in tanks and such. Otherwise HE or heavy explosive rounds are used on non-armored targets.

    Why? because DU rounds are expensive compared to HE rounds and HE has a greater area effect.
  35. Profile photo of piperfawn
    piperfawn Male 30-39
    4916 posts
    March 22, 2013 at 9:32 am
    CrakrJak i don`t know how and why they are used, i just know they are used and the effects are really bad. Also your tank before 1999 had plate reinforcements done with depleted uranium sheets.
  36. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14268 posts
    March 22, 2013 at 9:47 am
    in Italy we had 216 death and there are 2500 people sick cause of depleted uranium ammunition used by US army.

    LOL once again you seem to think it`s just the US using them or is it just how you want to see it?
  37. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36866 posts
    March 22, 2013 at 10:19 am

    "Says the worst butcher country in the history of the world"
    When did the Soviet Union invade Iraq? That is the worst butcher country. They killed the most people. Stalin killed many, many millions.

    Or we`re you just making some ignorant twat remark?

  38. Profile photo of piperfawn
    piperfawn Male 30-39
    4916 posts
    March 22, 2013 at 10:56 am
    Gerry1of1 aha ahaha.Stalin is a novice compared on how much people your country have killed from Nagasaki since today, we are talking about milions and milions of people. Sorry to reveal you this but your country have killed the largest ammount of people in all the history in the last 60 years.
  39. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33142 posts
    March 22, 2013 at 11:10 am
    CrakrJak i don`t know how and why they are used,
    @piperfawn: But I DO KNOW! And I`m telling you:
    #1 they`re no more radioactive than 100 other things
    #2 they`re used to bash holes in heavy tank armour, period!

    If you know nothing about the subject, why are you lecturing others?

    Furthermore: The USA? Oh please! Mao, Stalin, Hitler, The British Empire, Rome? Countless others throughout history.

    Ghengis Khan killed a bigger % of the population of the Earth than anybody, if that`s how you`d like to measure it...
    In any case? You`re wrong on both counts. Uranium and worst in history. Both bunkum...
  40. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33142 posts
    March 22, 2013 at 11:15 am
    Landmines, cluster bombs, BOTH those things are far more deadly than even your MADE UP NUMBERS of "uranium deaths". I mean post-war, among civilians, all over the world. Not by use in actual combat. They killed a lot more there too, but that`s what weapons are for! Duh!

    Nagasaki? Again?
    #1 Prevented MILLIONS of deaths by ending the war.
    #2 DOZENS of air raids killed more people throughout the war.

    Please stop beating that dead horse? M-kay?
    >> See: "Appeal to Fear"...
  41. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33142 posts
    March 22, 2013 at 11:19 am
    Tell me true:

    #1 How does a NON-radioactive lump of metal cause cancer? How can you tell which cancer is caused by what?

    #2 How does a slug fired into a tank cause birth defects miles away? Hundreds of miles & years later in some cases...

    I really want to know! I promise to be polite (for those brave enough to attempt an answer...)
  42. Profile photo of chalket
    chalket Male 50-59
    2712 posts
    March 22, 2013 at 11:20 am
    @5Rats: "Do YOU know what "depleted" means? It means it`s NOT radioactive! ffs"

    Why, oh why, do we keep trying to educate such a willfully ignorant child such as yourself?

    "The US Defense Department states DU used in US munitions has 60% the radioactivity of natural uranium"

    How is that, in any way, considered "NOT radioactive!" ffs, how can you be so stupid?

    Also, the radioactivity is just part of the problem with DU munitions. Depleted uranium is a heavy metal, and all heavy metals (like mercury and lead) are quite toxic.
  43. Profile photo of chalket
    chalket Male 50-59
    2712 posts
    March 22, 2013 at 11:57 am
    @5Rats:
    "Tell me true:
    ...I really want to know! I promise to be polite
    (for those brave enough to attempt an answer...)

    Ok.
    #1 First, DU is not "NON-radioactive." Please get this straight. As already posted, DU has roughly 60% the radioactivity of natural uranium. Second, we are not talking about cancer, we are talking about birth defects. There is a proven link between radiation and birth defects, AND between heavy metal poisoning and birth defects. There is no controversy there. As for your question, please go eat a lump of NON-radioactive mercury and tell us how safe heavy metals are.
    (continued)
  44. Profile photo of chalket
    chalket Male 50-59
    2712 posts
    March 22, 2013 at 11:58 am
    (continued)
    #2 When DU explodes, it produces a very fine uranium dust. With Iraq`s frequent sandstorms that dust can stay in the air for quite some time and can travel large distances. And it`s not just "a slug" as you call it: "Between 2002 and 2005, the US armed forces expended more than six billion bullets" (according to the US GAO). That`s a helluva lot of lead dust added to the environment in addition to all the other toxic detritus of war (white phosphorous, mercury, petroleum, rocket fuel, etc).
  45. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    March 22, 2013 at 12:02 pm
    chalket: "..DU used in US munitions has 60% the radioactivity of natural uranium."

    Do you know how low `natural uranium` is radioactively? And DU is even lower than that.
    Even the highest grade uranium deposits in the world in McArthur River, Canada don`t pose a threat to human beings.
  46. Profile photo of piperfawn
    piperfawn Male 30-39
    4916 posts
    March 22, 2013 at 12:04 pm
    5Cats the answer to your perpetual doubt is just few click away from you...you know Wikipedia? well search inside it depleted uranium,you will find all your answers. Maybe is the word depleted that disturb your reasoning, in fact in italian we says "uranio impoverito" where impoverito don`t mean exausted but just less rich. Those bullets are still radioactive and is not me that says that, are the scientist all around the world that says that.
  47. Profile photo of piperfawn
    piperfawn Male 30-39
    4916 posts
    March 22, 2013 at 12:17 pm
    " How does a slug fired into a tank cause birth defects miles away? Hundreds of miles & years later in some cases... "
    you know, when you shot a bullet of DU this bullet impact on someone or something and lot of powder and micro shards come from it. This powder and micro shards start to go all around the air and also in the water. Result, you hit a single target and at the same time you spread radiation and heavy metal all around,air, water, soil...the things we usualy breath drink and that we use to cultivate our vegetables and where our cows go to eat. When you drink water with uranium inside is not like if you drink a red bull. I hope to have clarified to you some aspect of this problem ( i really hope)
  48. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14268 posts
    March 22, 2013 at 12:34 pm
    "Between 2002 and 2005, the US armed forces expended more than six billion bullets" (according to the US GAO). That`s a helluva lot of lead dust added to the environment in addition to all the other toxic detritus of war (white phosphorous, mercury, petroleum, rocket fuel, etc).

    So by that logic a large chunk of Europe should be a land of mutants although that could explain pipers thought processes.
  49. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14268 posts
    March 22, 2013 at 12:41 pm
    Is this being seen in Kuwait?
  50. Profile photo of furryblob
    furryblob Male 18-29
    574 posts
    March 22, 2013 at 1:16 pm
    It`s fun to see all of IAB`s rightwing loonies switch into denial mode.
  51. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    March 22, 2013 at 1:23 pm
    #1 Prevented MILLIONS of deaths by ending the war.

    No it didn`t, Japan`s leadership realized their imminent defeat a year earlier and sued for peace repeatedly. Had the US government not insisted on Hirohito`s abdication they more than happily put down their arms.

    Even the highest grade uranium deposits in the world in McArthur River, Canada don`t pose a threat to human beings.

    It`s because those deposits are subterranean; under the floor of the river. The deposit is not exposed to the water
  52. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36866 posts
    March 22, 2013 at 1:48 pm

    @ Piperfawn, I was just counting "murders". Genocided, mass killings, political purges, etc. If you want to count war then yes, Hero & Naga did up the body count, but that`s still only a 100K per city. Stalin killed millions of people in Russia {est. range from 15 - 30 million}. He made Hitler`s body count of jews look small.

    So again, for "worst butcher country" I`d have to go with USSR.
  53. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33142 posts
    March 22, 2013 at 2:45 pm
    @chalket: *sigh* Everything is "radioactive" ok? Some is only a TINY bit, like concrete for example, while other stuff is wickedly so, like Lawrencium 103, for example.
    So by "not radioactive" I mean "not radiologicaly unstable" because "really low" radiation = below "normal background" which is to say, negligible. Ok?

    "Fresh water" has salt in it, but it`s NOT called "salt water" because there`s only a TINY amount! Ok? Get it? Geez, this is basic stuff.

    So why is Uranium radioactive? Answer: It`s not really. BUT some of it`s isotopes are! And THOSE are what`s missing from "depleted" munitions!
    Enriched Uranium: increase the % of unstable isotopes (over natural)
    Depleted: Lower than natural % of isotopes.

    You even said it yourself! Only 60% as active as "natural" and that stuff is everywhere!

  54. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33142 posts
    March 22, 2013 at 2:55 pm
    See? The nice, green colour of Uranium 92? It`s NOT that bad! (But it`s rare isotopes ARE, ok?)

    @piperfawn: So sarcastic? After I promised to be nice?
    Wiki says Delpeted Uranium is used for (amoung other things) "radiation shielding in medical radiation therapy"
    Get that? SHIELDING! Like lead, it ABSORBS radiation (or blocks it due to it`s density) DUH! Did you even bother to look at Wiki before you posted? I think not... shame on you!

    Depleted Uranium is LESS radioactive than "normal" Uranium which is found everywhere. The % of rare isotopes is what makes it more or less "enrichable" into fuel or weapons grade.

    Again, this is BASIC stuff!

  55. Profile photo of paperduck
    paperduck Male 18-29
    1745 posts
    March 22, 2013 at 3:01 pm
    5cats: You are being absurdly deceitful here. Natural uranium consists of three major isotopes: uranium-238 (99.28% natural abundance), uranium-235 (0.71%), and uranium-234 (0.0054%). All three are radioactive, emitting alpha particles.

    Normal functioning of the kidney, brain, liver, heart, and other systems can be affected by uranium exposure, because, besides being weakly radioactive, uranium is a toxic metal.

    Craft, E. S.; Abu-Qare, A. W.; Flaherty, M. M.; Garofolo, M. C.; Rincavage, H. L. and Abou-Donia, M. B. (2004). "Depleted and natural uranium: chemistry and toxicological effects". Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health Part B: Critical Reviews 7 (4): 297–317.

    "Toxicological Profile for Uranium" (PDF). Atlanta, GA: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). September 1999. CAS# 7440-61-1.
  56. Profile photo of paperduck
    paperduck Male 18-29
    1745 posts
    March 22, 2013 at 3:01 pm
    Uranium is also a reproductive toxicant.

    Hindin, Rita; Brugge, D; Panikkar, B (2005). "Teratogenicity of depleted uranium aerosols: A review from an epidemiological perspective". Environ Health 4: 17. doi:10.1186/1476-069X-4-17. PMC 1242351. PMID 16124873.

    Arfsten, D.P.; K.R. Still; G.D. Ritchie (2001). "A review of the effects of uranium and depleted uranium exposure on reproduction and fetal development". Toxicology and Industrial Health 17 (5–10): 180–91.
  57. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33142 posts
    March 22, 2013 at 3:01 pm
    All that being said: BBC World had a show on the cancer rates and birth defects in Iraq. I only caught the last 15 minutes (half) but here`s what I learned:

    They`re talking about lead and mercury contamination!

    Depleted uranium is a heavy metal, and all heavy metals (like mercury and lead) are quite toxic.
    @chalket: TRUE! And IF you ingested quite a lot of Uranium you`d likely get very ill, die even! But Mercury is WAY more toxic and a lot less will kill/poison you.

    "Between 2002 and 2005, the US armed forces expended more than six billion bullets"
    Correct! And how many were DU? 2,000 perhaps? Not many tanks left after the first few days of Gulf War II, eh? Those were mostly destroyed in the open desert, 100s of miles from civilians.
  58. Profile photo of paperduck
    paperduck Male 18-29
    1745 posts
    March 22, 2013 at 3:03 pm
    SHOW ME ONE STUDY FROM A SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL THAT SAYS URANIUM IS SAFE.
  59. Profile photo of piperfawn
    piperfawn Male 30-39
    4916 posts
    March 22, 2013 at 3:03 pm
    Gerry1of1 i said starting fron Hiroshima and Nagasaky till today. Your country have never stop to do war all over the world since the end of the WW2.
  60. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33142 posts
    March 22, 2013 at 3:09 pm
    Result, you hit a single target and at the same time you spread radiation and heavy metal all around: air, water, soil...
    @piperfawn: Correct! Except DU isn`t "spreading radiation" or it would kill the tank crews, ALL of them!
    SO: Du got put into the ecosystem of Iraq. Got it. How much? 10 tons? Probably a lot less. And we`re only counting the TINY % of that which got turned to dust and blew around? Divided by trillions of tons of sand and billions of tons of water?
    Equals: no measurable increase over natural Uranium`s presence in these places.

    NOW: if you were to say lead poisoning caused these defects (and cancer)? Hey! That`s possible!
    It`s also possible that insurgents "spiked" the water with poisons, carcinogens and other toxins too... again: there`s other explanations besides "America Did It".
  61. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33142 posts
    March 22, 2013 at 3:15 pm
    @piperfawn: Post WW2? Then Chairman Mao is the run-away winner!
    Also that`s highly dishonest of you, to claim the USA is the worst in all history then "amend" your remark to say "all history AFTER a certain arbitrary point I didn`t mention before".

    @paperduck: I never said it was safe. What on Earth are you talking about? Mercury isn`t safe either, nor lead. You got a point?

    I`m saying 99.28% of it isn`t THAT radioactive (see the table below) and that "depleted" means it`s even LESS so! it`s "half life" is measured in MILLIONS of years! ffs! (The "mostly" stable type, NOT the isotopes obviously).
  62. Profile photo of paperduck
    paperduck Male 18-29
    1745 posts
    March 22, 2013 at 3:17 pm
    5Cats, I can`t tell if this is armchair entertainment for you or you have own Uranium mine stock OR WHAT. Everyone decides what and who to believe, 5Cats OR almost anyone else who has studied the subject (studies/articles I provided earlier, or these):

    Larry Johnson. "Iraqi cancers, birth defects blamed on U.S. depleted uranium". Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

    Alex Kirby (1999-06-07). "Depleted uranium: the lingering poison". BBC.

    J.J. Richardson (1999-06-23). "Depleted Uranium: The Invisible Threat". Mother Jones.

    John O`Callaghan (1999-07-30). "Panel says depleted uranium shells leave birth defects, death". Reuters News Service.

    Susan Taylor Martin (2003-05-25). "How harmful is depleted uranium?".

    Juan Gonzalez (2004-09-29). "The War`s Littlest Victim". N.Y. Daily News.

    Miller, AC; Stewart, M; Brooks, K; Shi, L; Page, N (July 2002). "Depleted uranium-catalyzed
  63. Profile photo of piperfawn
    piperfawn Male 30-39
    4916 posts
    March 22, 2013 at 3:18 pm
    5Cats i was not sarcastic. Anyway i feel to give you an advice just for the sake of your "reputation". Stop pretending to demonstrate something unreal and unbelivable,really you are kinda covering you in shame. Sayng that uranium is not dangerous and that is everywhere and we don`t die cause of it don`t give a good reputaion for your intelligence. Lot of americans soldiers are affeccted too by this problem, is not a discussion about good vs terrorists in wich you have to allways stay against terroirist. Is a discussion about a well recognized and real problem that affect both the civilians of Iraq and americans soldiers as well. I am sorry to say that but this poo is real and well studied and recognized by scientist all over the world, there are allready been lot of victims cause of DU,all you effort to deny this situation just give a bad impression of you and your intellective faculties. Stop it for your good ;-)
  64. Profile photo of paperduck
    paperduck Male 18-29
    1745 posts
    March 22, 2013 at 3:19 pm
    Miller, AC; Stewart, M; Brooks, K; Shi, L; Page, N (July 2002). "Depleted uranium-catalyzed oxidative DNA damage: absence of significant alpha particle decay.". Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry 91 (1): 246–52.
  65. Profile photo of piperfawn
    piperfawn Male 30-39
    4916 posts
    March 22, 2013 at 3:21 pm
    was not "amend" maybe you misunderstood or i was not able to talk clear.I said that USA from Nagasaki till today have done more death around the world than all the other country in history.
  66. Profile photo of piperfawn
    piperfawn Male 30-39
    4916 posts
    March 22, 2013 at 3:46 pm
    Oh Gerry anyway people are still dieing today cause of the nuclear bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaky victim were 100k per city at the explosion but i stil counting the victim today.
  67. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33142 posts
    March 22, 2013 at 3:49 pm
    Saying that uranium is not dangerous...
    @piperfawn: Once AGAIN I repeat myself: I never said "Uranium isn`t dangerous" period. It`s a heavy metal, it`s toxic. I have said Depleted Uranium isn`t radioactive, which is what Wiki says, which is where YOU said I should check.

    For the nit-pickers: It`s LESS radioactive than "natural" Uranium, which isn`t all that "hot" to begin with (see table below).

    How much DU was fired? Compared to lead? If you argue that this TINY % of DU causes MORE toxicity than lead (or OTHER possible causes) then DU must be more dangerous than hydrochloric acid! Or Ebola virus! Or anything known to humanity!!!
    Forget Sarin gas or Anthrax or Mustard gas, DU is 1,000X more deadly!!!
  68. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33142 posts
    March 22, 2013 at 3:55 pm
    people are still dieing today cause of the nuclear bombs in Hiroshima
    @piperfawn: This is false. The radiation levels in both cities have dropped to "background" decades ago. They weren`t very big bombs! There`s 100 places in Japan with HIGHER radiation levels (not counting that nuclear plant`s contamination area) so do THOSE places have higher cancer/death rates?
    No!
    In the USA (just for example) the background (ie: natural) radiation of each state has NOTHING to do with it`s cancer rates or other forms of sickness. You need a BIG dose of radiation to get ill.
    Flying on an airplane exposes you to more radiation than fudgeushima did! However, that doesn`t make fudgeushima "safe" ffs. Your extremism is most annoying.
  69. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33142 posts
    March 22, 2013 at 3:56 pm
    F u k u shima, the ractor in Japan? It`s gets IAB censored!!

    Lmao!

    fudgeu!
  70. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33142 posts
    March 22, 2013 at 4:00 pm
    Now: the people who were exposed to that blast of radiation HAVE died at a higher rate than average, it`s a fact!

    But so do people who (during the war) were shot, burned, or otherwise injured.

    The VAST majority of people who died? Did so on that day.

    Why don`t you look for some evidence of your claims? Try Wiki perhaps?

    I`m not saying "people are NOT still dying" but the numbers? 1-2 per year now? And the cause was the INITIAL blast, not the residual radiation (which isn`t significant anymore, compared to other sources).

    Ok then? Good.
  71. Profile photo of piperfawn
    piperfawn Male 30-39
    4916 posts
    March 22, 2013 at 4:01 pm
    5Cats genetic problems and cancer casualties are still hig there. Bomb pass but genes can have ripercussion or present problem even after generations. Sometime a genetic malformation can skip some generation before to develop.
  72. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33142 posts
    March 22, 2013 at 4:08 pm



    @piperfawn: Possibly true, "mutations" are actually quite rare. Although high doses of radiation can cause miscarriage and/or infertility.
    This is why we don`t make "x-rays" of babies anymore...

    But again, it`s the "initial blast" that has the lethal radiation. Not the small increase afterwards (in terms of causing harm or mutations).

    Right? You understand?
  73. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36866 posts
    March 22, 2013 at 4:08 pm

    piperfawn - "i said starting fron Hiroshima and Nagasaky till today."
    Oh, well if you are going to edit out the violent years of other countries, then why not just use last week as an example ? Or next week if things pick up.

    Sorry, If you want to say "the worst" then you have to include all of it, not cherry pick the violence you like and ignore the violence that doesn`t fit your predetermined ideology.
  74. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36866 posts
    March 22, 2013 at 4:09 pm
  75. Profile photo of piperfawn
    piperfawn Male 30-39
    4916 posts
    March 22, 2013 at 4:41 pm
    Gerry1of1 put it as you like ,you are still the country with larger number of death caused in the world in the whole history of countries. Is ok like that? Only in a single war (Korea) your country have done more than 3 milions deats (most civilians). This is just an example,try to think how many wars USA have done only the last 60 years. 5Cats you say Romans....pfff ahahah. Most probably at that period 3 milions or just something more was the total ammount of population of the entire Europe, you are sayng that they have killed more than the entire population of an entire continent including romans too...hahaha.
  76. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36866 posts
    March 22, 2013 at 5:24 pm

    Piperfawn, 1st your numbers are off. Korea was only 1.7 million not 3 million dead. Andhow can you say "in the history of countries" and still ignore 30 million dead in USSR? You have bought in to the "Evil USA" theory and are just as brainwashed as any religious zealot. No amount of fact will change what you want to know is true!
  77. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33142 posts
    March 22, 2013 at 5:48 pm
    Only in a single war (Korea) your country have done more than 3 milions deats (most civilians).
    @piperfawn: So ONLY the USA is to blame for this?

    NOT North Korea for invading.
    NOT the UN for intervention.
    NOT China for also invading.
    NOT South Korea for refusing to surrender.
    ONLY the USA! Um, no.

    5Cats you say Romans...
    Over their entire history? Based on % of the population of the Earth at the time? They killed a lot of folks over the CENTURIES eh? Pro-rated for modern populations of course...

    How else are you going to compare? Raw numbers still puts Mao way out in front...
  78. Profile photo of piperfawn
    piperfawn Male 30-39
    4916 posts
    March 22, 2013 at 5:57 pm
    Gerry1of1 we seem to don`t understand eachotehers, also admitting that 30 milions by Russia is true(you started with 15/30 milion ,now you talk only about 30 milion,the double of an "estimate number") My example was about just one single war, in how many others war your country is involved in the last 60 years? Mine is not a theory against the "evil" ,is history. How many death in South America, how many in Asia, Africa,Middle east.Stalin was an evil but this don`t make your country an angel.There is not a single part in the world in wich your army have not killed someone, except Australia maybe. Trust me i am sorry on sayng that , and i would like to be able to not say this things, but you can`t escape history.In the last 60 years your country have done wars all over the world, almost every year. Face the reality pls.
  79. Profile photo of piperfawn
    piperfawn Male 30-39
    4916 posts
    March 22, 2013 at 6:10 pm
    Oh and i looked about Korea war, when you say 1,7milions kill you talk only about civilians excluding the soldiers extimated in 400k +250k chineses partisans+ 110k regular chinese soldiers + a lot of people missing,not counted as dead just cause they cant found they bodies after bombardments.You see, was not so far from the 3 milions i said, for sure i was more accurate of you that are discussing a number included between 15 and 30 milions.
  80. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33142 posts
    March 22, 2013 at 6:18 pm
    @piperfawn: Stalin:
    2-3 million: various pogroms in the 20`s and early 30`s
    2-7 million: Holodomor
    14 million: Gulags (1929 - 1953)
    700,000: Purges of 37 and 38
    22 million: WW2
    3-4 million: post WW2 massacres & death camps

    Nevermind his blood wars in other nations, various "police actions" against USSR nations and the wholesale slaughterhouses the KGB (NKVD) ran for decades...
    AND the forced starvation of the various "5 Year Plans" across the USSR...

    This is just off the top of my memory, I`m sure I forgot a few million here or there... like "forced deportations" (ie: Siberia).

    You want to compare all of Russian history to all of America`s history? Good luck with that...
  81. Profile photo of piperfawn
    piperfawn Male 30-39
    4916 posts
    March 22, 2013 at 6:31 pm
    Instances of Use OF United StateS Amy forces Abroad 1798-2012
    This document is not from a "predetermined ideology" or from a "brainwashed as any religious zealot fanatic" is from your Government.
  82. Profile photo of piperfawn
    piperfawn Male 30-39
    4916 posts
    March 22, 2013 at 6:39 pm
    Want to talk also about of other situation not classified as war? Here just an example.There are many others. I think that you must try to see what is your country with the eye of a stranger and maybe you will see that we are not all fanatical zealots with an anti america agenda, we are only witness of what your country do out of his borders.In the home of the others.
  83. Profile photo of piperfawn
    piperfawn Male 30-39
    4916 posts
    March 22, 2013 at 6:44 pm
    Another one? Cavalese cable car disaster (1998). This one in my country, the wikipedia article in english here is veeery soft.
  84. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33142 posts
    March 22, 2013 at 7:04 pm
    @piperfawn: Canada, not USA.

    I`m NOT saying America is "blameless" or even that it`s behaved itself! It hasn`t!

    But to even try to compare the same time period to Russia? It`s just a joke!

    You`re "equating" 290 people on an airplane with the Holodomor? What about KAL 007 which the USSR shot down ON PURPOSE full well knowing it was a civilian jet? 269 people died...

    This sort of "tit for tat" comparison is utterly useless, btw... stopping now.
  85. Profile photo of piperfawn
    piperfawn Male 30-39
    4916 posts
    March 22, 2013 at 7:14 pm
    5Cats you have done the comparison, i didn`t even read your post before to post mine,maybe i was searching and organizing datas.
  86. Profile photo of piperfawn
    piperfawn Male 30-39
    4916 posts
    March 22, 2013 at 7:17 pm
    and lol i was talking to Gerry ,sorry 5Cats.
  87. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36866 posts
    March 23, 2013 at 6:52 am

    @ piperfawn

  88. Profile photo of piperfawn
    piperfawn Male 30-39
    4916 posts
    March 23, 2013 at 7:48 am
    Gerry1of1 XD so fluffy that no one can answer back.


    I`ll stay...for now.

Leave a Reply