1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Need a conspiracy theory debunked?

Discussion in 'Conspiracy Debates' started by Dave, May 3, 2007.

  1. Dave

    Dave New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2007
    Messages:
    364
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Are you forgetting about the 20 soldiers I told you about earlier? They were the only soldiers from the Gulf War that had any depleted uranium shrapnel actually imbedded in their bodies after the war. They all showed elevated levels of uranium in their urine, yet none of them got sick. If your theories were correct, then these soldiers would have been the first to get sick, and they havent shown the first sign of any adverse health conditions. Even the articles you are posting admit that about 40% of the soldiers that are saying they are sick don't have the slightest trace of radiation in their bodies. The only logical conclussion a sane person can draw from this is that there has to be some other cause for this illness.
     
  2. r0beph

    r0beph New Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2007
    Messages:
    543
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Huntsville, Alabama
    Shrapnel from DU is much different than inhaled Uranium oxide. The radioactivity differs a bit in the oxidized uranium as it decays more readily. Comparing a solid material embedded in tissue versus the oxidized dust collecting in the lungs is like comparing apples to orangutangs, something I don't think is very solute.
     
  3. Dave

    Dave New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2007
    Messages:
    364
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You would still expect to find something wrong with them if it was actually as hazardous as people are claiming.
     
  4. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,502
    Likes Received:
    139
    Trophy Points:
    63
    WIth regard to this, you have to remember that during the time that the looting was going on, a storehouse of processed uranium was broken into and a fairly large amount was stolen by people who may or may not have understood what they were taking. Double cancers are more likely from that sort of contamination than from DU.
     
  5. NOt according to all the medical reports I have been reading.Aersolized or Alpha particles pose the most danger these are by products of D.U.Shells

    Just as listed in Armchairs article the Dust is far more invasive and problematic than handling the Uranium itself ...even with that said based on your theory then actually handling the shells before and during a firefight would be just as harmful, or in your theories case ,MORE harmful as its being handled in its hardened form?


    there are wide reports of soldiers that have gotten ill, gotten rashes etc. from exactly that just handling the hardened shells even here at home
    The dangers of D.U. are well documented..

    Do all people exposed to DU suffer the same illness or consequences? at this time it would be said No because some people have ingested large amounts of the alpha particles and presented Uranium in theyre sytem without complication or illness


    Is this reason enough to dismiss the multitude of OTHER issue being presented.......absolutly NOT
    this is an issue that will haunt the world for years
    many areas have uranuium in the water tables now and many contries Uranium is present in animals



    to use word of yours there is a growing body of evidence that suggests D.U> is causing a worldwide calamity as the federal govt tries to deny its danger

    and to dave yeah you told us of 20 men who didnt get ill i presented you a story of 100 men 30 died and the rest are ill,after DU clean-ups

    As well there are the numbers i reported to you concerning American soldiers deaths and illness from Gulf war 1 who most attribute to the widespread use of TONS of DU weapons


    Just 467 US personnel were wounded in the three-week Persian Gulf War in 1990-1991. Out of 580,400 soldiers who served in Gulf War I, 11,000 are dead, and by 2000 there were 325,000 on permanent medical disability.
     
  6. Dave

    Dave New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2007
    Messages:
    364
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    My point is that the men that I mentioned that had shrapnel from DU all had elevated uranium levels in their urine, yet they showed no signs of illness. In the medical articles you posted, they only claim that about 60% of the people that have been sick have uranium found in their urine. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to use simple logic to determine that DU is not the problem here.
    A) A lot of the people that have uranium in their systems are not sick & B) A signifigant portion of those sick do not have uranium in their urine. Therefore, uranium is not what is causing the illness.
     
  7. Your lumping all sickness together.very covienient Im interested in those who are ill from Uranium Poisioning and present Uranium in theyre systems thats what Im discussing. when people that havent even been to the middle east can present symptoms the same as those who are in country simply by HANDLING shells it dosent take mensa student to see the connection
     
  8. vyo476

    vyo476 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,401
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    You know what's really funny, Roker? Your argument against DU looks almost exactly like mine against marijuana from the other thread. I mean, where's your CONCLUSIVE proof, to use your favorite phrase?
     
  9. I dont have it

    all i have is my opinion

    and some inconclusive scientific evidence
     
  10. Dave

    Dave New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2007
    Messages:
    364
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Exactly. Are you willing to put the lives of our soldiers at risk by sending them out in inferior armor all on your opinions? DU is the best thing out there as far as armoring vehicles and piercing that armor, and until there is something conclusive against it, I can't see any reasoning in going with something else.
     
  11. ArmChair General

    ArmChair General New Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    687
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    www.spamwebsite.com
    No, Tungsten is just as good/dense. Its just more expensive.
     
  12. Dave

    Dave New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2007
    Messages:
    364
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yeah, you can use tungsten, if you want to double the defense budget. Tungsten is extremely expensive to mine and refine. Depleted uranium on the other hand, is dirt cheap. We had about 500 million pounds of the stuff laying around the last time anybody bothered to count. Its so abundant that the Defense Department gives the stuff away to munitions makers at no cost and then buys back the weapons at discount prices. Now that I think of it, doubling the defense budget might be a very conservative estimate.
     
  13. ArmChair General

    ArmChair General New Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    687
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    www.spamwebsite.com
    heh, the Navy's already switched from DU to tungsten. I don't see Uncle Sam going broke.

    When I say expensive, I mean expensive politically. People don't like to live near Uranium stockpiles, so our congress since the 80's have been figuring out ways to get rid of it. See, they dont care about US soldiers, they care about getting re-elected. Its nice to see you sprouting their propaganda though.

    See the thing is, when a navy warship fires depleted uranium projectiles it creates a safety hazard because it leaves radioactive debris in the gun-mount area. Another fun fact, is that the radioactive levels near the ammunition magazines would also regularly exceed Nuclear Regulatory Commision Standards. Which in turn would require costly berthing arrangements and heavy lead shielding.

    If you factor in the cost of cleanup, then its way cheaper to use Tungsten.

    Of course, the Army/Marines don't have to worry about cleanup. Or they would if they would admit how hazardous the **** is.
     
  14. Dave

    Dave New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2007
    Messages:
    364
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This may come as a suprise to you, but there is a difference between battleship mortars and M-16 5.56 rounds.

    I guess you'll be wanting to pick up the bill for switching to tungsten yourself, because I don't want to have that kind of a bill hanging over my head, especially when there isn't any proof that it is needed.
     
  15. ArmChair General

    ArmChair General New Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    687
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    www.spamwebsite.com
    This may come as a surprise to you, but M-16's don't fire DU rounds. Nowadays, the smallest DU round is usually 30MM. Howver, the Navy's Phalanx Weapons system use 20MM, they used to use DU, but switched to tungsten. Hardly a battleship mortar...

    And no , I don't mind footing the bill for tungsten, especially since its less hazardous to American Soldiers.

    But it seems you care more about money than American lives. Thats a shame.
     
Loading...

Share This Page