 |
|
Add to My Group
|
September 3, 2007 at 06:37:44
Why We Must Not Go to War with Iran by Steve Beckow Page 1 of 5 page(s) 
|
|
 
|
Webster Tarpley, Paul Craig Roberts and others have warned that an attack on Iran by the American military is “imminent.” (1) Ray McGovern asks if we have the courage to stop the Bush Administration from making war on Iran. (2) If we don’t stop the Bush administration from going to war with Iran, we as a planet may very well face what radiation experts are calling “omnicide.” (3) What does it mean? Consider these facts. * * * * * 
If we are to prevent a global DU catastrophe, which a war with Iran would bring, we need to consider these facts.
- Depleted-uranium (DU) weapons, when fired, create a DU aerosol of ceramic nanoparticles.
Depleted-uranium (DU) weapons are used because uranium is a very dense metal that can penetrate concrete, steel, sandbag bunkers, or virtually anything. (4) The fragments that break off on impact emit Alpha, Beta, Gamma, and X-ray radiation at a rate of 4.15 million electron volts (the voltage in a normal cell is 10 electron volts). Anyone in the immediate area is usually killed outright. (5)
However, worse than the damage it does immediately, DU turns into an infinitesimally fine dust after it explodes. Its deadly radioactive particles are smaller than a virus or bacteria and can be carried as an aerosol in the wind. (6)
- Ingestion of DU or contact with it debilitates or kills.
Internationally-recognized radiation scientist Dr. Rosalie Bertell warns that DU nanoparticles can be breathed in by anyone: a baby, a pregnant woman, the elderly, the sick. The radioactive ceramic dust can stay deep in the lungs for years, irradiating the tissue with powerful alpha particles within about a 30-micron sphere, causing emphysema and/or fibrosis. The ceramic can also be swallowed and do damage to the gastro-intestinal tract. In time, it penetrates the lung tissue and enters into the blood stream. (7)
According to former Laurence Livermore geoscientist Dr. Leuren Moret, the invisible particles can reach sensitive targets, including the lymph nodes, spleen, heart, and central nervous system. (8) They can be found in the semen, bone marrow, and lungs. (9) DU can give rise to a range of fatal cancers as well as more than 100 serious illnesses from fibromyalgia to Lou Gehrig’s disease. (10) In other words, in her view, “depleted uranium is a death sentence.” (11)
- Protective gear does not protect.
There are several myths about DU. One is that the protective gear issued to soldiers actually protects them from ingestion and contamination. Dr. Moret advises that DU “will permeate a standard gas mask filter in quantities large enough to be extremely damaging." (12)
U.S. Army Health Physicist and Nuclear Medicine Sciences Officer Dr. Doug Rokke goes further. Rokke was the man in charge of the “clean-up” after Gulf War 1. He says the protective gear was ineffective in saving soldiers from DU ingestion. “When I talked to senior Manhattan Project scientists that were expert particle physicists, they said – ‘Hey, we knew when uranium breaks up like this, it was going to be down in the .1-.2 micron range.’ “No doubt about it. The gas masks, the respiratory protection issued to the troops – there’s no way it can protect against inhalation." (13)
- Simple exposure to unfired DU weapons can contaminate.
Another myth is that simple exposure to unfired anti-tank shells and bunker-buster bombs will not result in radioactive contamination.
In the video, Beyond Treason, Lt. Col. John Karl Marks, 303rd Fighter Squadron, offers this view: there is “a very minor amount of radioactivity [in an unfired shell], but it’s not anything. … As long as it’s in its bullet form it can be stored and it’s not any type of hazardous material.” (14)
But in fact, according to Dr. Moret, many veterans have been reporting illnesses through proximity to unfired shells and bombs. For instance, gunners in Bradley vehicles who sat on boxes of DU shells are now reporting rectal cancer. (15)
- There is no safe-exposure limit to DU.
A third myth is that there is a threshold, a safe-exposure limit, below which one can contact DU and not suffer. This too is in fact not true.
Take action -- click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people:
Stop the Catastrophic DU War with Iran
Click here to see the most recent messages sent to congressional reps and local newspapers
http://www.freewebs.com/truthseeker22
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
| 7 comments |
|
DO it!
"One more DU war could kill us." What about the people the DU is used against? It kills them too, you know - just for a few of your greedy perverts to acquire more oil. This is being done in your name, so just put a stop to it. Don't just talk or argue or complain. DO it dammit! by Geraldo (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 105 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Sep 3, 2007 at 12:26:22 PM  (0+)
|
|
The debate over DU
DU is a controversial issue among people of power. Most of the "little people" of the world haven't even heard of it yet. The US government claims that concern over DU is the equivalent of a conspiracy theory. Those who hold to this view (I am not one - I think DU is a scourge that needs to be exposed as soon as possible.) like to try and "prove" DU is safe by attacking the messenger. Leuren Moret, who was repeatedly cited in this article is one of the favorite targets of these pro-DU people. Moret is more of an activist than a scientist, it is true, and you may well see future comments added to this page from the ever-busy pro-DU people attacking her on this point. According to a personal email I received from Doug Rokke once, "they go after Leuren because she knows her stuff and has been helping - that all started after she helped me [deal with some attacks from pro-DU military types]." I know of at least one pro-DU busybody who has posted here on OpEdNews before. Anyway, my point in making this comment is that most of the information you can find about DU is very one-sided. If you read a story like this article, you will probably wonder how such an evil weapon can continue to be used with little public awareness. But the claims against DU are so outrageous, most ordinary people are prone to filing DU away on the "conspiracy theory" shelf, right alongside fluoride, aspartame and subliminal messaging (all subjects I think people should actually look into, btw). If you look at some of the information and lines of argument coming from the good ole' MIC, it seems to me like it is designed to push people away from the meat of the issue, that we're pulverizing the nuclear industry's waste from enrichment into radioactive dust on foreign soils when we're not even allowed to bury it on our own land. And, sadly, the tendency to be impressed by the MIC's attitude that it is all just a silly conspiracy and you shouldn't bother your little head about it applies to journalists too. Although there have been more and more DU stories making it into the mainstream media in recent months, for most of the years since 2001-2002 (when DU was actually a rising issue with in-depth coverage on BBC, CBC and CNN) it has been successfully kept out of the press by the people who actually like DU weapons. I don't think this is a full media conspiracy per se, though I expect there is a bit of power-pulling going on behind the editorial desks. But as is the case with most of the MSM journalism void, the problem lies with a vague self-censorship that journalists must practice to keep their careers alive. I recorded a TV clip of Peter Arnett speaking recently in Taipei where I live. He made no mistake about saying he felt Gulf War Illness should be called "Depleted Uranium Disease." But he's on the lecture circuit now. In his talk he said he wrote stories and made "a couple of documentaries" about DU, but I haven't seen these anywhere. (If someone can find them please put them on YouTube and tell me.) When I first became interested in DU, I was stunned by how the arguments could get very technical, and how there really were radiation scientists arguing, sometimes strongly, that is was fine and dandy to incinerate 98% pure uranium by the kilogram in foreign deserts all in the name of killing the enemy who was probably seriously outgunned anyway. I wondered how this debate of great importance could be so unknown and uncovered by the MSM. I also noticed there was no effective online debate trying to get to the bottom of it all. There were some long discussion threads on some bolg posts here and there, but these can be hard to read through for those who come late to the argument. I thought a BBS might be useful, so I set one up here: Depleted Uranium BBS I also added a lot of links and information pulled from many different sites about DU. But my site doesn't get much attention. I keep an eye on the BBS, so if you ever want to converse with someone about DU (and there are not many who seem to want to talk about it - it's scary) feel free to register and post. It's instant registration. Even the spambots leave my site alone. If you are just newly interested in the question of DU, there is a lot to learn. DU is very, very real. It is a form of nuclear waste. It is pure uranium metal, depleted of just 2/3 of its original content of U-235, the really dangerous part. What's left is still pure uranium metal containing at least 0.2% U-235. It does burn into very small particles because of the extremely high combustion temperature. Most of dust would be U-238, which emits a very high energy alpha particle, potentially deadly, but it emits them very slowly, the half-life being in the billions of years. Uranium has been shown to bind to DNA. There is debate over exactly how much uranium would become sequestered in body tissues as a result of inhaling the dust. There is debate over the concept of dose in thinking about low-level radiation. Many scientists feel the is no safe dose for internal alpha radiation -- that is, even a small amount of the source will cause a statistical increase in relevant cancer and developmental mutation rates. The biological reason behind this may be the fact that an alpha particle is to a gamma particle what a leopard tank is to a dinky toy. You don't want those things smashing into your DNA. Many of the supporters of DU completely fail to distinguish between internal alpha radiation and external gamma/beta radiation when discussing dose. All of this is real. DU is a real story. We are really dumping nuclear waste on Iraq in the form of dirty bombs. Lots of scientists are concerned. Some, but certainly not all, journalists are "brave enough" to cover it. (I'm not so brave, and I cover it it my spare time. No death threats so far.) What's wrong with the picture? The rabbit hole awaits. -Peter PS- I also keep a blog about depleted uranium here: http://beagle17.gnn.tv/ It only contains a few rants like this one. by Peter Dearman (10 articles, 32 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 144 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Sep 3, 2007 at 1:09:42 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Thanks for the Background
Thanks for the informed commentary and background, Beagle, which I have learned from. Yes, the matter is indeed scary - so scary for me that it completely erased from my mind all other issues I was looking at. It is like considering whether to take sides at a fight, when suddenly the fight breaks out and the only consideration is to stop it. With the DU loads we are considering when we think of a war with Iran, all that comes to my mind is not whether one side is right and the other wrong, but that a DU war must be headed off at all costs. Thanks for your work in this area. If Drs. Moret and Bertell are correct, stopping the train here may be the last chance before disaster. Steve Beckow by Steve Beckow (21 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 46 comments) on Monday, Sep 3, 2007 at 1:25:54 PM (0+)
|
|
Regarding dust and dose
I also recently wrote a blog entry in which I use simple math to show that a single 1kg DU shell certainly has the potential to increase radiation levels in the immediate area by a factor of 10X to 100X -- far from the "intangible effect" that the pro-DU people repeatedly claim. Read my reasoning here: by Peter Dearman (10 articles, 32 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 144 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 4, 2007 at 6:16:24 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Oops. Here is link:
Not sure what happened. It got cut off somehow. by Peter Dearman (10 articles, 32 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 144 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 4, 2007 at 12:54:12 PM (0+)
|
|
Dr. Bertell explains all very well
There is a video on YouTube of Dr. Bertell explaining the gamut of resons why DU is an insidious weapon. DEPLETED URANIUM IN THE HUMAN BODY There are a lot of DU videos on YouTube. You might want to check out the YouTube group for Depleted Uranium to get quick access to some of the best ones: Depleted Uranium Group on YouTube My favorite is this one: by Peter Dearman (10 articles, 32 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 144 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 4, 2007 at 6:25:55 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Good Leads
Those are great leads and much appreciated, Peter. I was introduced to the subject by the Power Hour's Beyond Treason. It took me three days to recover from what I saw and, when I did, I knew that all other issues were minor compared to the danger of DU radiation throughout the world. Any other leads and comments are welcome. Please keep 'em coming or send them to me at unity22@telus.net. Steve Beckow by Steve Beckow (21 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 46 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 4, 2007 at 11:45:22 AM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
