Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [All-E] Re:Depleated Uranium

Expand Messages
  • Rick H Parker
    Back in the 1980s we were discussing tactical nuclear weapons, which was a new thing back then. One guy made the comment they want to get them down small
    Message 1 of 26 , Jul 1, 2007
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Back in the 1980s we were discussing tactical nuclear weapons, which was
      a new thing back then. One guy made the comment "they want to get them
      down small enough to fire out of rifle, just blow up a small area" We
      all thought he was silly and we had a good laugh, after reading the
      piece on DU weapons, I have come to realize .. He was way ahead of the
      rest of us.


      spriggsbororon wrote:
      > Or, maybe send an infantryman up to the tank, fire an M16 rifle at
      > it with a tiny 5.56mm bullet, resulting in some paint nicking? No, I
      > don't think so.
    • Michael Redler
      Ron wrote: What method would the author choose...drop leaflets to surrender? Or, maybe send an infantryman up to the tank, fire an M16 rifle at it with a tiny
      Message 2 of 26 , Jul 1, 2007
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment

        Ron wrote: "What method would the author choose...drop leaflets to surrender?
        Or, maybe send an infantryman up to the tank, fire an M16 rifle at
        it with a tiny 5.56mm bullet, resulting in some paint nicking? No, I
        don't think so."

        How about all the events leading up to that particular confrontation and how it could have been avoided?

        Justification for a horribly destructive weapon with lasting effects is small minded and makes for a ridiculous argument, since the destruction from such weapons prompt others to to create similar weapons and perpetuate a seemingly endless cycle of violence. The US has a long history of not only using such weapons but to provoking others to do the same and become entangled in new and more horrible arms races.

        http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2000.htm

        There are other, more intelligent ways to subjugate an enemy's army without triggering perpetual war. Such a philosophy has been known for thousands of years.

        “Subjugating the enemy’s army without fighting is the true pinnacle of excellence.”

        - Sun Tzu

        That said, one can conclude that those who use such weapons are not excellent.

        Mike

        spriggsbororon wrote:

        Below is getting off-topic and I am abstaining from opinion (beleave
        it or not), but buried in this research paper by an engineering
        college student on the ethics of using DU for military purposes...I
        found this comment:
        "However, one should note that even before the Gulf War, much of
        Iraqi soil was already highly contaminated from previous conflicts
        (e.g. chemical and biological warfare against Iran, Iraqi Kurds)."

        The fact I bring this up may be considered pointing towards an
        opinion, but it is just an addition of information, heh, heh.

        Whatever...here is the research paper in html format (lots of
        pictures too):
        http://cseserv. engr.scu. edu/StudentWebPa ges/IPesic/ ResearchPaper. htm

        The student seemed to be wow'd by the capabilities of DU ammo, but
        in the end, left a somber message by bringing up the question of
        ethics and choices to take.

        Ooops, I lied...here' s an opinionated comment-
        In one photo, the author did question the result of a tank taken out
        by firepower from another tank and asked if it was 'overkill'. The
        tank was a hidden military target AND weapon (bermed and can fire
        back).

        What method would the author choose...drop leaflets to surrender?
        Or, maybe send an infantryman up to the tank, fire an M16 rifle at
        it with a tiny 5.56mm bullet, resulting in some paint nicking? No, I
        don't think so.

        This will be my only reply on this matter...I hope. I can get baited
        easily.

        Ron B.


      • Michael Redler
        Ron wrote: What method would the author choose...drop leaflets to surrender? Or, maybe send an infantryman up to the tank, fire an M16 rifle at it with a tiny
        Message 3 of 26 , Jul 1, 2007
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Ron wrote: "What method would the author choose...drop leaflets to surrender?
          Or, maybe send an infantryman up to the tank, fire an M16 rifle at
          it with a tiny 5.56mm bullet, resulting in some paint nicking? No, I
          don't think so."

          How about all the events leading up to that particular confrontation and how it could have been avoided?

          Justification for a horribly destructive weapon with lasting effects is small minded and makes for a ridiculous argument, since the destruction from such weapons prompt others to create similar weapons and perpetuate a seemingly endless cycle of violence. The US has a long history of not only using such weapons but to provoking others to do the same and become entangled in new and more horrible arms races.

          http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2000.htm

          There are other, more intelligent ways to subjugate an enemy's army without triggering perpetual war. Such a philosophy has been known for thousands of years.

          “Subjugating the enemy’s army without fighting is the true pinnacle of excellence.”

          - Sun Tzu

          That said, one can conclude that those who use such weapons are not excellent.

          Mike

          spriggsbororon wrote:

          Below is getting off-topic and I am abstaining from opinion (beleave
          it or not), but buried in this research paper by an engineering
          college student on the ethics of using DU for military purposes...I
          found this comment:
          "However, one should note that even before the Gulf War, much of
          Iraqi soil was already highly contaminated from previous conflicts
          (e.g. chemical and biological warfare against Iran, Iraqi Kurds)."

          The fact I bring this up may be considered pointing towards an
          opinion, but it is just an addition of information, heh, heh.

          Whatever...here is the research paper in html format (lots of
          pictures too):
          http://cseserv. engr.scu. edu/StudentWebPa ges/IPesic/ ResearchPaper. htm

          The student seemed to be wow'd by the capabilities of DU ammo, but
          in the end, left a somber message by bringing up the question of
          ethics and choices to take.

          Ooops, I lied...here' s an opinionated comment-
          In one photo, the author did question the result of a tank taken out
          by firepower from another tank and asked if it was 'overkill'. The
          tank was a hidden military target AND weapon (bermed and can fire
          back).

          What method would the author choose...drop leaflets to surrender?
          Or, maybe send an infantryman up to the tank, fire an M16 rifle at
          it with a tiny 5.56mm bullet, resulting in some paint nicking? No, I
          don't think so.

          This will be my only reply on this matter...I hope. I can get baited
          easily.

          Ron B.



        • Tom
          I believe I started this when you said: THIRTEEN THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-NINE MALFORMED CHILDREN have been born in Iraq in the last five years. Their
          Message 4 of 26 , Jul 1, 2007
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            I believe I started this when you said:

            "THIRTEEN THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-NINE MALFORMED CHILDREN have
            been born in Iraq in the last five years. Their deformities have been
            caused by American Depleted Uranium munitions used in the American led
            1991 "Desert Storm" war with Iraq launched after Saddam Hussein
            invaded
            Kuwait. The war saw heavy use of depleted uranium rounds by American
            and
            British forces and was followed by a punitive sanctions regime
            enforced
            by the United Nations primarily at America's behest. The sanctions
            included preventing Iraq from importing drugs for the treatment of
            cancers and birth defects. The current war on Iraq was launched on the
            pretext that Iraq was failing to comply with sanctions and had weapons
            of mass destruction."

            I would challenge you to find the proof that all of those children
            were malformed by DU munitions.

            --- In All-Energy@yahoogroups.com, Michael Redler <redlerm@...> wrote:
            >
            > Wow Tom. You have a lot to say:
            >
            > I started with a post on the use of depleted uranium in the
            military and
            > you responded with two paragraphs of conjecture and ended with a
            > justification for the war in Iraq along with an arrogant and
            ignorant
            > rant about how I should fight for my rights.
            >
            > Then, you accuse me of having an "ax to grind". ROFLOL! Who's
            grinding what?
            >
            > So Tom, let's change the subject since you're so interested in
            talking
            > about patriotism and war.
            >
            > I fought for my rights when I rode the peace train to New York
            City,
            > where me and 80,000 other like minded, intelligent and concerned
            > citizens realized that an illegal war was being fought, where the
            > justification for that war was based a pack of lies, and that
            future
            > generations will be paying for it while war profiteers are setting
            up
            > trust funds for their grandchildren.
            >
            > I defended my rights when white supremacists marched in Danbury
            > Connecticut and I helped with a counter demonstration.
            >
            > I fought for my rights when I helped leaflet at the green in New
            Haven
            > to inform people that the constitution was disappearing a piece at
            a
            > time; Once when the USA Patriot Act was passed, threatening
            numerous
            > amendments to the constitution and again when the Military
            Commissions
            > Act was passed, eliminating the posse comitatus and granting the
            > president the power to declare martial law when he sees fit. I
            openly
            > expressed dissent when prisoners at Guantanamo Bay (many of whom
            were
            > captured and accused by rival Iraqi tribes with no questions asked)
            were
            > not permitted their day in court or to even be visited by an
            attorney -
            > effectively killing the writ of habeas corpus.
            >
            > A soldier sacrifices much as they defend their country; most of
            whom do
            > so honorably and with the understanding that they've given up many
            of
            > their rights in order to serve and obey their commander in-chief.
            Our
            > men and women in uniform do much for our country but, it is the
            average
            > citizen who fights for our rights. So, please Tom, save your
            speeches
            > for those at the VFW who don't know any better - but make sure the
            other
            > vets have left the room first.
            >
            > About your claim that "War is not nice, neat and pretty. It is as
            it
            > should be. Horrible. That way you're not supposed to want to do
            it again."
            >
            > Well Tom, That's an interesting observation since the US has been
            > dishing out this "horror" without end since WWII. When you can
            produce
            > evidence that the Bay of Tonkin was just a misunderstanding or that
            > Nicaragua was purely an act of self defense or that the School of
            the
            > Americas is where the US teaches foreign soldiers about the virtues
            of
            > the Geneva convention, I'll be your biggest fan. Until then, here
            is a
            > list of military confrontations the US has started - and it had
            little
            > to do with national defense:
            >
            > http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/corp-focus/2006/000237.html
            >
            > http://members.aol.com/essays6/othrow.htm
            >
            > Now, about your flippant comment about war and civilian casualties:
            >
            > Tom wrote: "Now, as to the problem with the malformed children, I
            don't
            > see it as a problem."
            >
            > This sums it up Tom. The effect of DU or anything else on children
            > doesn't matter to you, because it's a war. Death, and maiming and
            > malformed children occur on all sides of a military conflict. So,
            > keeping that in mind, I think you should take that little pearl of
            > wisdom you sent me, and tattoo it to your forehead, along with
            other
            > profoundly ignorant and arrogant statements you've made about war.
            Then
            > march around at the next memorial day parade. I'm sure you will
            agree
            > that there should be plenty of people there to cheer you on. In
            fact,
            > what you might experience is a Mother (or perhaps, a group of
            mothers),
            > so fed up with this kind of swill, that she/they pummel you to the
            > ground and kick you until you wake up in a pool of your own piss
            and vomit.
            >
            > At that moment, you should find yourself in your element.
            >
            > Mike
            >
            > Tom Kaighin wrote:
            > >
            > > I do believe that Iraq INVADED Kuwait to start the 1991 Gulf
            War. I
            > > saw no where in your post or in your cited Wikipedia source that
            > > indicates any study that would bear out you hypothesis. I do
            know
            > > that the uncontrolled burning of millions of barrels of unrefined
            > > petroleum an natural gas, which Saddam's army initiated in the
            burning
            > > of the Kuwaiti oil fields does produce a plethora of chemical
            > > compounds into the atmosphere. If I am not mistaken, some of
            these
            > > fires burned for years and the clouds of toxic smoke covered the
            area
            > > before being scattered all over the region and brought back to
            the
            > > earth to cover and contaminate everything. Hmmm, could anything
            but
            > > depleted uranium rounds be responsible for that? I wonder. I
            think
            > > you just have an axe to grind. Besides, due to the inability of
            > > Saddam's army to actually engage and mount any type of serious
            > > defense, I doubt many DU rounds were used (relatively speaking).
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > DU rounds are very particular in their use, and not part of
            standard
            > > infantry issue. They are used primarily in the interception of
            > > missiles and enemy aircraft, and armor-piercing rounds. Saddam
            had no
            > > air force at the time (having determined that what little he did
            have
            > > would have better uses in Iran for a later and unknown mission).
            His
            > > vaunted Armored divisions and million man army were a non-
            entity.
            > > While some rounds may have been spent destroying his armor, most
            of
            > > that was not in populated areas of Iraq , it was mostly destroyed
            in
            > > Kuwait and in the desolate areas on the run back to Bagdad . We
            > > didn't even damage most of his armor in combat, but destroyed
            them
            > > with conventional explosives as we found them abandoned by their
            > > operators for fear of being destroyed (the drivers and operators
            > > showed great common sense as any moving were indeed annihilated) .
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > Now, as to the problem with the malformed children, I don't see
            it as
            > > a problem. They backed the wrong leader and are paying the
            > > consequences. War is not nice, neat and pretty. It is as it
            should
            > > be. Horrible. That way you're not supposed to want to do it
            again.
            > > One day I hope you too will actually have to fight for your
            rights to
            > > gain an understanding of how precious they really are. I did my
            > > part. I am proud of why, maybe not how, but I see it as the
            lesser of
            > > two evils and I have done so, so that you may be free to shout
            your
            > > ignorance from the highest tower. That doesn't mean I have to
            agree
            > > with it. But freedom of speech has limits and responsibilities.
            You
            > > can just say anything you want, you have to back it up with
            facts. In
            > > other words, don't lie or make shit up. Dig for the truth, don't
            > > believe the first thing someone says. People lie, governments
            lie,
            > > reporters lie, scientists lie, but facts don't lie. Analyze your
            > > agenda and make sure it happens to have facts to support it.
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > That is all...
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > ** Charles "Tom" Kaighin **
            > >
            > > **/ Onsite Computer Services /**
            > >
            > > **/ Tel: 801-915-1730 /**
            > >
            > > /*/ Fax: 801-606-2836 /*/
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            >
          • mapsrg
            ... and ... perpetuate ... Since the object of war is to economically destroy an enemy , ...we all are in a civil war with our governments when we have high
            Message 5 of 26 , Jul 1, 2007
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In All-Energy@yahoogroups.com, Michael Redler <redlerm@...> wrote:
              >
              > Ron wrote: "What method would the author choose...drop leaflets to
              > surrender?
              > Or, maybe send an infantryman up to the tank, fire an M16 rifle at
              > it with a tiny 5.56mm bullet, resulting in some paint nicking? No, I
              > don't think so."
              >
              > How about all the events leading up to that particular confrontation
              and
              > how it could have been avoided?
              >
              > Justification for a horribly destructive weapon with lasting effects is
              > small minded and makes for a ridiculous argument, since the destruction
              > from such weapons prompt others to create similar weapons and
              perpetuate
              > a seemingly endless cycle of violence. The US has a long history of not
              > only using such weapons but to provoking others to do the same and
              > become entangled in new and more horrible arms races.
              >
              > http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2000.htm
              >
              > There are other, more intelligent ways to subjugate an enemy's army
              > without triggering perpetual war. Such a philosophy has been known for
              > thousands of years.
              >
              > "Subjugating the enemy's army without fighting is the true pinnacle of
              > excellence."
              >
              > - Sun Tzu
              >
              > That said, one can conclude that those who use such weapons are not
              > excellent.
              >
              > Mike
              >
              > spriggsbororon wrote:
              > >
              > > Below is getting off-topic and I am abstaining from opinion (beleave
              > > it or not), but buried in this research paper by an engineering
              > > college student on the ethics of using DU for military purposes...I
              > > found this comment:
              > > "However, one should note that even before the Gulf War, much of
              > > Iraqi soil was already highly contaminated from previous conflicts
              > > (e.g. chemical and biological warfare against Iran, Iraqi Kurds)."
              > >
              > > The fact I bring this up may be considered pointing towards an
              > > opinion, but it is just an addition of information, heh, heh.
              > >
              > > Whatever...here is the research paper in html format (lots of
              > > pictures too):
              > > http://cseserv.engr.scu.edu/StudentWebPages/IPesic/ResearchPaper.htm
              > > <http://cseserv.engr.scu.edu/StudentWebPages/IPesic/ResearchPaper.htm>
              > >
              > > The student seemed to be wow'd by the capabilities of DU ammo, but
              > > in the end, left a somber message by bringing up the question of
              > > ethics and choices to take.
              > >
              > > Ooops, I lied...here's an opinionated comment-
              > > In one photo, the author did question the result of a tank taken out
              > > by firepower from another tank and asked if it was 'overkill'. The
              > > tank was a hidden military target AND weapon (bermed and can fire
              > > back).
              > >
              > > What method would the author choose...drop leaflets to surrender?
              > > Or, maybe send an infantryman up to the tank, fire an M16 rifle at
              > > it with a tiny 5.56mm bullet, resulting in some paint nicking? No, I
              > > don't think so.
              > >
              > > This will be my only reply on this matter...I hope. I can get baited
              > > easily.
              > >
              > > Ron B.
              > >
              >
              Since the object of war is to economically destroy an enemy , ...we
              all are in a civil war with our governments when we have high
              taxation,export jobs and import everything....what is the outcome of
              this when home prices are so high..slavery?An overseas war is a nice
              distraction
            • spriggsbororon
              Mike did a good job baiting me. I will respond later. I have LANDSCAPING to do before it gets dark. Two months of landscaping and there are still a few things
              Message 6 of 26 , Jul 1, 2007
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                Mike did a good job baiting me. I will respond later. I have
                LANDSCAPING to do before it gets dark. Two months of landscaping and
                there are still a few things to tidy up.

                At least it gets me outside and away from this $%&(^$@# compooper.
                Ron B.
              • spriggsbororon
                ... confrontation and ... effects is ... destruction ... do the ... for ... of ... ======================================================= The Sun Tzu method
                Message 7 of 26 , Jul 2, 2007
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In All-Energy@yahoogroups.com, Michael Redler <redlerm@...> wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  > Ron wrote: "What method would the author choose...drop leaflets to
                  > surrender?
                  > Or, maybe send an infantryman up to the tank, fire an M16 rifle at
                  > it with a tiny 5.56mm bullet, resulting in some paint nicking? No, I
                  > don't think so."
                  >
                  > How about all the events leading up to that particular
                  confrontation and
                  > how it could have been avoided?
                  >
                  > Justification for a horribly destructive weapon with lasting
                  effects is
                  > small minded and makes for a ridiculous argument, since the
                  destruction
                  > from such weapons prompt others to to create similar weapons and
                  > perpetuate a seemingly endless cycle of violence. The US has a long
                  > history of not only using such weapons but to provoking others to
                  do the
                  > same and become entangled in new and more horrible arms races.
                  >
                  > http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2000.htm
                  >
                  > There are other, more intelligent ways to subjugate an enemy's army
                  > without triggering perpetual war. Such a philosophy has been known
                  for
                  > thousands of years.
                  >
                  > "Subjugating the enemy's army without fighting is the true pinnacle
                  of
                  > excellence."
                  >
                  > - Sun Tzu
                  >
                  > That said, one can conclude that those who use such weapons are not
                  > excellent.
                  >
                  > Mike
                  =======================================================
                  The Sun Tzu method was implemented to avoid the 1991 war:
                  After the Kuwait invasion, Iraq was politely asked to get out by a
                  large contingent of countries. They didn't leave Kuwait. Leaflets
                  were dropped to tell the ground troops to leave their weapons. Ask a
                  Kuwaiti how they would feel if the Sun Tzu philosophy was extended
                  another couple of years to avoid war.

                  Regardless, the author was NOT referring to the entire scope of the
                  conflict. He was referring to a single incident when one weapon
                  encountered another weapon. He questioned the use of firepower to
                  neutralize its opponent.

                  For the ground troops that didn't take advantage of the Sun Tzu style
                  request of getting out of Kuwait or at least drop their weapons
                  later, the photo shows the outcome. Like I have said before, the tank
                  could have been deserted anyway and we do not know if DU ammo was
                  used in the first place.

                  With that said, this particular instance is a non-issue, due to the
                  fact that there is not enough information available.

                  Ron B.
                • Michael Redler
                  Ron, Sun Tzu s strategy was certainly NOT followed as you say. Read Sun Tzu s nine types of terrain . Think about the toll on lives and property in Iraq after
                  Message 8 of 26 , Jul 2, 2007
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Ron,

                    Sun Tzu's strategy was certainly NOT followed as you say. Read Sun Tzu's "nine types of terrain". Think about the toll on lives and property in Iraq after the invasion or how it relates to Jihadists training and fighting in Iraq - something that was nearly non-existent before the war. One other aspect of the first gulf war was that Saddam Hussein, put in power by the US and provided weapons by the US, did not believe that the government which invested much to have a puppet regime, would go to war and have him removed over a few indiscretions (his apparent point of view).

                    It's convenient to employ a little shortsightedness to the issue by only examining that particular confrontation (weapon vs. weapon) and not all the events leading up to it, which, by the way, are inseparable.

                    In short, a good strategy effects one's choice of tactics. Sun Tzu believed that "subjugating the enemy's army without fighting is the true pinnacle of excellence" and you've interpreted that mean negotiations and leafleting. There's more. An example of subjugating an enemy's army in the Holy Roman Empire meant marrying them - and they were good at it. The ways to subjugate an enemy's army without fighting is only limited to ones imagination. A destructive war is certainly not the most imaginative policy; neither is leafleting and asking your enemy to get out [of Kuwait].  That is not the "pinnacle of excellence".

                    An important side note is the fact that 2500 years ago, Sun Tzu commanded millions of soldiers. A single battle may consist of half a million troops. He had superior military technology, controlling divisions of chariots and archers armed with the latest crossbow designs and still, his strategy was to not use them unless other tactics and strategies failed.

                    A broader example: von Clausewitz is quoted as saying that  "War is merely a continuation of politics". During my research, he never mentioned that it is also one of the costliest political policies conceivable. In a message I posted two years ago, I pointed out the uselessness of war as a foreign policy and quoted John Keegan, a Yale history professor.

                    "Keegan's response was that war has lost its usefulness. 'He argues that as an instrument of policy, it suffers from 'chronic indecisiveness'; wars do not resolve policy dilemmas. For him, war today cannot be a continuation of policy, it is the 'bankruptcy' of policy'".

                    http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@.../msg52828.html

                    If history's lessons are not good enough, let's look at a "mine is bigger than yours" strategy and examine future implications. Those who lose battles to superior weapons, may be stupid enough to acquire the same weapons or those of superior destructive power, effectively reversing the roll of those asking the questions in this thread. Those who are too nearsighted to see the pattern, cheer the pointless escalation at the cost of thousands, conceivably millions of lives.

                    Mike

                    spriggsbororon wrote:

                    --- In All-Energy@yahoogro ups.com, Michael Redler <redlerm@... > wrote:
                    >
                    >
                    > Ron wrote: "What method would the author choose...drop leaflets to
                    > surrender?
                    > Or, maybe send an infantryman up to the tank, fire an M16 rifle at
                    > it with a tiny 5.56mm bullet, resulting in some paint nicking? No, I
                    > don't think so."
                    >
                    > How about all the events leading up to that particular
                    confrontation and
                    > how it could have been avoided?
                    >
                    > Justification for a horribly destructive weapon with lasting
                    effects is
                    > small minded and makes for a ridiculous argument, since the
                    destruction
                    > from such weapons prompt others to to create similar weapons and
                    > perpetuate a seemingly endless cycle of violence. The US has a long
                    > history of not only using such weapons but to provoking others to
                    do the
                    > same and become entangled in new and more horrible arms races.
                    >
                    > http://www.informat ionclearinghouse .info/article200 0.htm
                    >
                    > There are other, more intelligent ways to subjugate an enemy's army
                    > without triggering perpetual war. Such a philosophy has been known
                    for
                    > thousands of years.
                    >
                    > "Subjugating the enemy's army without fighting is the true pinnacle
                    of
                    > excellence."
                    >
                    > - Sun Tzu
                    >
                    > That said, one can conclude that those who use such weapons are not
                    > excellent.
                    >
                    > Mike
                    ============ ========= ========= ========= ========= =======
                    The Sun Tzu method was implemented to avoid the 1991 war:
                    After the Kuwait invasion, Iraq was politely asked to get out by a
                    large contingent of countries. They didn't leave Kuwait. Leaflets
                    were dropped to tell the ground troops to leave their weapons. Ask a
                    Kuwaiti how they would feel if the Sun Tzu philosophy was extended
                    another couple of years to avoid war.

                    Regardless, the author was NOT referring to the entire scope of the
                    conflict. He was referring to a single incident when one weapon
                    encountered another weapon. He questioned the use of firepower to
                    neutralize its opponent.

                    For the ground troops that didn't take advantage of the Sun Tzu style
                    request of getting out of Kuwait or at least drop their weapons
                    later, the photo shows the outcome. Like I have said before, the tank
                    could have been deserted anyway and we do not know if DU ammo was
                    used in the first place.

                    With that said, this particular instance is a non-issue, due to the
                    fact that there is not enough information available.

                    Ron B.


                  • Tommey Reed
                    Hi all, One thing to say is this Government has been involve in many secrets that if the people only knew would turn this in to a civil war. Energy is going
                    Message 9 of 26 , Jul 2, 2007
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hi all,
                       
                       One thing to say is this Government has been involve in many secrets that if the people only knew would turn this in to a civil war.
                       
                      Energy is going sky high and all we hear that we need to build more nuclear power station.
                      Not alternative energy like solar, wind and more.
                      This Government don't want free energy for the people but more taxes for the energy we use.
                      Every new car has a set MPG for the governments not the people.
                      Like the carburator was remove because of better efficiency then today's fuel injected systems.
                      Most car and trucks get less miles to the gallon then ever before.
                      Simple math: if a 6500lb v8 get 20 mpg why not a 4 cyclinder get 50+ mpg that is only 3000lb.
                      Because this Government don't want you to get that much miles to the gallon, the more miles to the gallon the less tax money for the Governments.
                       
                      AdvanceEnergysystems (dot) com
                      mapsrg <FRG@...> wrote:
                      --- In All-Energy@yahoogro ups.com, Michael Redler <redlerm@... > wrote:
                      >
                      > Ron wrote: "What method would the author choose...drop leaflets to
                      > surrender?
                      > Or, maybe send an infantryman up to the tank, fire an M16 rifle at
                      > it with a tiny 5.56mm bullet, resulting in some paint nicking? No, I
                      > don't think so."
                      >
                      > How about all the events leading up to that particular confrontation
                      and
                      > how it could have been avoided?
                      >
                      > Justification for a horribly destructive weapon with lasting effects is
                      > small minded and makes for a ridiculous argument, since the destruction
                      > from such weapons prompt others to create similar weapons and
                      perpetuate
                      > a seemingly endless cycle of violence. The US has a long history of not
                      > only using such weapons but to provoking others to do the same and
                      > become entangled in new and more horrible arms races.
                      >
                      > http://www.informat ionclearinghouse .info/article200 0.htm
                      >
                      > There are other, more intelligent ways to subjugate an enemy's army
                      > without triggering perpetual war. Such a philosophy has been known for
                      > thousands of years.
                      >
                      > "Subjugating the enemy's army without fighting is the true pinnacle of
                      > excellence."
                      >
                      > - Sun Tzu
                      >
                      > That said, one can conclude that those who use such weapons are not
                      > excellent.
                      >
                      > Mike
                      >
                      > spriggsbororon wrote:
                      > >
                      > > Below is getting off-topic and I am abstaining from opinion (beleave
                      > > it or not), but buried in this research paper by an engineering
                      > > college student on the ethics of using DU for military purposes...I
                      > > found this comment:
                      > > "However, one should note that even before the Gulf War, much of
                      > > Iraqi soil was already highly contaminated from previous conflicts
                      > > (e.g. chemical and biological warfare against Iran, Iraqi Kurds)."
                      > >
                      > > The fact I bring this up may be considered pointing towards an
                      > > opinion, but it is just an addition of information, heh, heh.
                      > >
                      > > Whatever...here is the research paper in html format (lots of
                      > > pictures too):
                      > > http://cseserv. engr.scu. edu/StudentWebPa ges/IPesic/ ResearchPaper. htm
                      > > <http://cseserv. engr.scu. edu/StudentWebPa ges/IPesic/ ResearchPaper. htm>
                      > >
                      > > The student seemed to be wow'd by the capabilities of DU ammo, but
                      > > in the end, left a somber message by bringing up the question of
                      > > ethics and choices to take.
                      > >
                      > > Ooops, I lied...here' s an opinionated comment-
                      > > In one photo, the author did question the result of a tank taken out
                      > > by firepower from another tank and asked if it was 'overkill'. The
                      > > tank was a hidden military target AND weapon (bermed and can fire
                      > > back).
                      > >
                      > > What method would the author choose...drop leaflets to surrender?
                      > > Or, maybe send an infantryman up to the tank, fire an M16 rifle at
                      > > it with a tiny 5.56mm bullet, resulting in some paint nicking? No, I
                      > > don't think so.
                      > >
                      > > This will be my only reply on this matter...I hope. I can get baited
                      > > easily.
                      > >
                      > > Ron B.
                      > >
                      >
                      Since the object of war is to economically destroy an enemy , ...we
                      all are in a civil war with our governments when we have high
                      taxation,export jobs and import everything.. ..what is the outcome of
                      this when home prices are so high..slavery? An overseas war is a nice
                      distraction



                      Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web links.

                    • spriggsbororon
                      Mike, So, asking Saddam to leave and later dropping leaflets is not Sun Tzu? Should we have asked the Kuwaits to prove they were not drilling horizontally?
                      Message 10 of 26 , Jul 2, 2007
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Mike,

                        So, asking Saddam to leave and later dropping leaflets is not Sun
                        Tzu?
                        Should we have asked the Kuwaits to prove they were not drilling
                        horizontally? That's a good question.

                        What about the 1960 (or 1959) creation of Kuwait? Your impeccable UN
                        recognizes it. I could understand Saddam for questioning that, but
                        he went about in the wrong manner.

                        Blame it on the Brits.

                        Secondly, I'm well aware of the B.S. when Saddam asked a peon US
                        State Dept. employee that if he invaded Kuwait, would the US do
                        anything. The peoon State Dept. employee said, "No." He was baited.

                        Like I am now. 8~)

                        So, I have to stop now. This could go on forever, until I croak.

                        I'd rather talk about landscaping. I just dropped a pile of money
                        (but 33.3% off!) for six 3 gallon containers of "Cloud Nine" panicum
                        virgatum SWITCH GRASS pots (already 4 feet tall) as a border against
                        a six foot privacy fence!

                        When the cellulose ethanol producers come knocking on my door, I can
                        sell the the cuttings in late winter!

                        Yee Haww!
                        Ron B.
                        ===============================================
                        --- In All-Energy@yahoogroups.com, Michael Redler <redlerm@...>
                        wrote:
                        >
                        > Ron,
                        >
                        > Sun Tzu's strategy was certainly NOT followed as you say. Read Sun
                        Tzu's
                        > "nine types of terrain". Think about the toll on lives and
                        property in
                        > Iraq after the invasion or how it relates to Jihadists training
                        and
                        > fighting in Iraq - something that was nearly non-existent before
                        the
                        > war. One other aspect of the first gulf war was that Saddam
                        Hussein, put
                        > in power by the US and provided weapons by the US, did not believe
                        that
                        > the government which invested much to have a puppet regime, would
                        go to
                        > war and have him removed over a few indiscretions (his apparent
                        point of
                        > view).
                        >
                        > It's convenient to employ a little shortsightedness to the issue
                        by only
                        > examining that particular confrontation (weapon vs. weapon) and
                        not all
                        > the events leading up to it, which, by the way, are inseparable.
                        >
                        > In short, a good strategy effects one's choice of tactics. Sun Tzu
                        > believed that "subjugating the enemy's army without fighting is
                        the true
                        > pinnacle of excellence" and you've interpreted that mean
                        negotiations
                        > and leafleting. There's more. An example of subjugating an enemy's
                        army
                        > in the Holy Roman Empire meant marrying them - and they were good
                        at it.
                        > The ways to subjugate an enemy's army without fighting is only
                        limited
                        > to ones imagination. A destructive war is certainly not the most
                        > imaginative policy; neither is leafleting and asking your enemy to
                        get
                        > out [of Kuwait]. That is not the "pinnacle of excellence".
                        >
                        > An important side note is the fact that 2500 years ago, Sun Tzu
                        > commanded millions of soldiers. A single battle may consist of
                        half a
                        > million troops. He had superior military technology, controlling
                        > divisions of chariots and archers armed with the latest crossbow
                        designs
                        > and still, his strategy was to not use them unless other tactics
                        and
                        > strategies failed.
                        >
                        > A broader example: von Clausewitz is quoted as saying that "War
                        is
                        > merely a continuation of politics". During my research, he never
                        > mentioned that it is also one of the costliest political policies
                        > conceivable. In a message I posted two years ago, I pointed out
                        the
                        > uselessness of war as a foreign policy and quoted John Keegan, a
                        Yale
                        > history professor.
                        >
                        > "Keegan's response was that war has lost its usefulness. 'He
                        argues that
                        > as an instrument of policy, it suffers from 'chronic
                        indecisiveness';
                        > wars do not resolve policy dilemmas. For him, war today cannot be
                        a
                        > continuation of policy, it is the 'bankruptcy' of policy'".
                        >
                        > http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@.../msg52828.html
                        >
                        > If history's lessons are not good enough, let's look at a "mine is
                        > bigger than yours" strategy and examine future implications. Those
                        who
                        > lose battles to superior weapons, may be stupid enough to acquire
                        the
                        > same weapons or those of superior destructive power, effectively
                        > reversing the roll of those asking the questions in this thread.
                        Those
                        > who are too nearsighted to see the pattern, cheer the pointless
                        > escalation at the cost of thousands, conceivably millions of lives.
                        >
                        > Mike
                        >
                        > spriggsbororon wrote:
                        > >
                        > > --- In All-Energy@yahoogroups.com
                        > > <mailto:All-Energy%40yahoogroups.com>, Michael Redler <redlerm@>
                        wrote:
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > > Ron wrote: "What method would the author choose...drop
                        leaflets to
                        > > > surrender?
                        > > > Or, maybe send an infantryman up to the tank, fire an M16
                        rifle at
                        > > > it with a tiny 5.56mm bullet, resulting in some paint nicking?
                        No, I
                        > > > don't think so."
                        > > >
                        > > > How about all the events leading up to that particular
                        > > confrontation and
                        > > > how it could have been avoided?
                        > > >
                        > > > Justification for a horribly destructive weapon with lasting
                        > > effects is
                        > > > small minded and makes for a ridiculous argument, since the
                        > > destruction
                        > > > from such weapons prompt others to to create similar weapons
                        and
                        > > > perpetuate a seemingly endless cycle of violence. The US has a
                        long
                        > > > history of not only using such weapons but to provoking others
                        to
                        > > do the
                        > > > same and become entangled in new and more horrible arms races.
                        > > >
                        > > > http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2000.htm
                        > > <http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2000.htm>
                        > > >
                        > > > There are other, more intelligent ways to subjugate an enemy's
                        army
                        > > > without triggering perpetual war. Such a philosophy has been
                        known
                        > > for
                        > > > thousands of years.
                        > > >
                        > > > "Subjugating the enemy's army without fighting is the true
                        pinnacle
                        > > of
                        > > > excellence."
                        > > >
                        > > > - Sun Tzu
                        > > >
                        > > > That said, one can conclude that those who use such weapons
                        are not
                        > > > excellent.
                        > > >
                        > > > Mike
                        > > =======================================================
                        > > The Sun Tzu method was implemented to avoid the 1991 war:
                        > > After the Kuwait invasion, Iraq was politely asked to get out by
                        a
                        > > large contingent of countries. They didn't leave Kuwait. Leaflets
                        > > were dropped to tell the ground troops to leave their weapons.
                        Ask a
                        > > Kuwaiti how they would feel if the Sun Tzu philosophy was
                        extended
                        > > another couple of years to avoid war.
                        > >
                        > > Regardless, the author was NOT referring to the entire scope of
                        the
                        > > conflict. He was referring to a single incident when one weapon
                        > > encountered another weapon. He questioned the use of firepower to
                        > > neutralize its opponent.
                        > >
                        > > For the ground troops that didn't take advantage of the Sun Tzu
                        style
                        > > request of getting out of Kuwait or at least drop their weapons
                        > > later, the photo shows the outcome. Like I have said before, the
                        tank
                        > > could have been deserted anyway and we do not know if DU ammo was
                        > > used in the first place.
                        > >
                        > > With that said, this particular instance is a non-issue, due to
                        the
                        > > fact that there is not enough information available.
                        > >
                        > > Ron B.
                        > >
                        > >
                        >
                      • Michael Redler
                        OK enough foreign policy stuff. Tell me abut switch grass. How to you cultivate it? How does one get seeds? I have no idea who/what Cloud Nine is. Mike
                        Message 11 of 26 , Jul 2, 2007
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          OK enough foreign policy stuff.

                          Tell me abut switch grass. How to you cultivate it? How does one get seeds?

                          I have no idea who/what "Cloud Nine" is.

                          Mike

                          spriggsbororon wrote:

                          Mike,

                          So, asking Saddam to leave and later dropping leaflets is not Sun
                          Tzu?
                          Should we have asked the Kuwaits to prove they were not drilling
                          horizontally? That's a good question.

                          What about the 1960 (or 1959) creation of Kuwait? Your impeccable UN
                          recognizes it. I could understand Saddam for questioning that, but
                          he went about in the wrong manner.

                          Blame it on the Brits.

                          Secondly, I'm well aware of the B.S. when Saddam asked a peon US
                          State Dept. employee that if he invaded Kuwait, would the US do
                          anything. The peoon State Dept. employee said, "No." He was baited.

                          Like I am now. 8~)

                          So, I have to stop now. This could go on forever, until I croak.

                          I'd rather talk about landscaping. I just dropped a pile of money
                          (but 33.3% off!) for six 3 gallon containers of "Cloud Nine" panicum
                          virgatum SWITCH GRASS pots (already 4 feet tall) as a border against
                          a six foot privacy fence!

                          When the cellulose ethanol producers come knocking on my door, I can
                          sell the the cuttings in late winter!

                          Yee Haww!
                          Ron B.
                          [snip]
                          >


                        • Jon
                          I think I ve read that if you harvest Switch Grass, and use the cuttings / mulch to ferment, to produce ethanol, you can get hugh amounts from just one acre.
                          Message 12 of 26 , Jul 3, 2007
                          View Source
                          • 0 Attachment
                            I think I've read that if you harvest Switch Grass, and use the
                            cuttings / mulch to ferment, to produce ethanol, you can get hugh
                            amounts from just one acre.
                            Jon.



                            Michael Redler <redlerm@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > OK enough foreign policy stuff.
                            >
                            > Tell me abut switch grass. How to you cultivate it? How does one get
                            seeds?
                            >
                            > I have no idea who/what "Cloud Nine" is.
                            >
                            > Mike
                            >
                          • John A Grant
                            Decorah man promoting merits of nuclear power By Sarah Strandberg News Editor A Luther College professor emeritus is promoting the merits of nuclear power.
                            Message 13 of 26 , Jul 3, 2007
                            View Source
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Decorah man promoting merits of nuclear power

                              By Sarah Strandberg
                              News Editor


                              A Luther College professor emeritus is promoting the
                              merits of nuclear power.

                              John Tjostem spoke to the Decorah City Council last
                              week about the importance of building nuclear power
                              plants instead of coal plants because he said nuclear
                              is the safest form of energy for electricity
                              generation and would eliminate the country's
                              dependence on foreign fuel.

                              Decorah City Council member Steve Matter invited
                              Tjostem to speak. As a city that's adopted the Kyoto
                              Protocol, he said the Council should hear his
                              proposal.

                              With the predictions about global warming, changes
                              need to be implemented in the next 10 to 15 years to
                              avoid a catastrophe, Matter said.

                              "If we don't' do some things soon, we're going to be
                              in big trouble," he said.

                              Stopping the burning of fossil fuel is the most
                              important way to stop global warming, he added.

                              Tjostem said according to the Intergovernmental Panel
                              on Climate Change, changes in climate are now
                              affecting physical and biological systems on every
                              continent.

                              "Their conclusion is that the longer we wait to slow
                              greenhouse gas emissions, the greater the cost will
                              be. The fossil fuel energy path is vulnerable, dirty
                              and expensive. We must prepare an alternative path ...
                              one that is cleaner, safer and less costly," Tjostem
                              said.

                              Even in the absence of global warming, fossil fuel use
                              should be restricted, Tjostem said.

                              "In 2004, a Bush administration commissioned EPA study
                              released a report that states soot from coal power
                              plants kills 24,000 Americans annually, shortening
                              their lives an average of 14 years. According to the
                              EPA report, our annual total health cost associated
                              with soot from coal power plants tops $167 billion."
                              Tjostem told the Council.

                              In two years, the coal-related health costs could pay
                              to build 250 nuclear power plants - enough nuclear
                              energy to replace all the country's coal plants.

                              "It makes good economic sense to replace coal with
                              nuclear. The energy released by fissioning one pound
                              of uranium is equal to the energy released by burning
                              2 million pounds of oil or 3 million pounds of coal.
                              By the way, 3 million pounds of coal produces 9
                              million pounds of carbon dioxide as each pound of coal
                              releases three pounds of carbon dioxide," Tjostem
                              said.

                              He noted a new coal power plant is being planned for
                              Iowa.

                              "Any coal plant built in Iowa is a threat to the
                              health of Decorah residents. We in Decorah should
                              oppose the construction of any more coal power plants
                              in our state," he said.

                              "It is safer to live next door to a nuclear plant than
                              it is to breathe the air within a 300-mile radius of a
                              coal plant," he said.

                              Even if the proposed Iowa coal plant puts out 90
                              percent less soot than older plants, Tjostem said the
                              cost is still too high.

                              Iowa has one nuclear power plant that supplies 10
                              percent of the state's electricity.

                              Biofuels

                              Tjostem said the biofuel industry would benefit from
                              nuclear power since most of the energy overhead in
                              alcohol processing is supplied by fossil fuel.

                              "Much of that can be replaced by nuclear-generated
                              electricity, thereby giving biofuels a greater
                              environmental benefit. The only currently available
                              greenhouse gas free energy source with adequate
                              capacity to replace fossil fuels is nuclear power," he
                              said.

                              He said there have been no fatalities associated with
                              domestic nuclear power generation in the U.S. in the
                              past 50 years. Meanwhile, there are 24,000 coal
                              soot-related deaths each year, in addition to "two
                              score" of coal miners killed in mine accidents, he
                              said.

                              Tjostem also said no one has been injured in 50 years
                              from the storage of spent nuclear fuel.

                              Competitive

                              Although the capital cost of building new nuclear
                              power plants is somewhat higher than the cost for coal
                              power plants, Tjostem said the operation and
                              maintenance expenses make nuclear cost competitive
                              with coal. And while oil received 47 percent of the
                              government's energy subsidies, nuclear receives less
                              than 10 percent.

                              "I propose that we again invest 5 percent of our gross
                              domestic product on a new Apollo program to place
                              America in the vanguard of clean and efficient energy
                              technologies," Tjostem said.

                              He also proposed a second "Apollo project" that would
                              "create the technology to replace hydrocarbon with
                              hydrogen, provide portable water for an increasingly
                              thirsty world by bringing about a new generation of
                              nuclear power plants."

                              The Council thanked Tjostem for his presentation and
                              said the issue would likely be studied in the future.
                            • Michael Redler
                              ...nuclear is the safest form of energy for electricity generation... LOL! Maybe we will live in a world with no emergency sirens to warn us of solar farm
                              Message 14 of 26 , Jul 3, 2007
                              View Source
                              • 0 Attachment
                                "...nuclear is the safest form of energy for electricity generation..."

                                LOL! Maybe we will live in a world with no emergency sirens to warn us of solar farm meltdowns!

                                Mike

                                John A Grant wrote:


                                Decorah man promoting merits of nuclear power

                                By Sarah Strandberg
                                News Editor

                                A Luther College professor emeritus is promoting the
                                merits of nuclear power.

                                John Tjostem spoke to the Decorah City Council last
                                week about the importance of building nuclear power
                                plants instead of coal plants because he said nuclear
                                is the safest form of energy for electricity
                                generation and would eliminate the country's
                                dependence on foreign fuel.

                                Decorah City Council member Steve Matter invited
                                Tjostem to speak. As a city that's adopted the Kyoto
                                Protocol, he said the Council should hear his
                                proposal.

                                With the predictions about global warming, changes
                                need to be implemented in the next 10 to 15 years to
                                avoid a catastrophe, Matter said.

                                "If we don't' do some things soon, we're going to be
                                in big trouble," he said.

                                Stopping the burning of fossil fuel is the most
                                important way to stop global warming, he added.

                                Tjostem said according to the Intergovernmental Panel
                                on Climate Change, changes in climate are now
                                affecting physical and biological systems on every
                                continent.

                                "Their conclusion is that the longer we wait to slow
                                greenhouse gas emissions, the greater the cost will
                                be. The fossil fuel energy path is vulnerable, dirty
                                and expensive. We must prepare an alternative path ...
                                one that is cleaner, safer and less costly," Tjostem
                                said.

                                Even in the absence of global warming, fossil fuel use
                                should be restricted, Tjostem said.

                                "In 2004, a Bush administration commissioned EPA study
                                released a report that states soot from coal power
                                plants kills 24,000 Americans annually, shortening
                                their lives an average of 14 years. According to the
                                EPA report, our annual total health cost associated
                                with soot from coal power plants tops $167 billion."
                                Tjostem told the Council.

                                In two years, the coal-related health costs could pay
                                to build 250 nuclear power plants - enough nuclear
                                energy to replace all the country's coal plants.

                                "It makes good economic sense to replace coal with
                                nuclear. The energy released by fissioning one pound
                                of uranium is equal to the energy released by burning
                                2 million pounds of oil or 3 million pounds of coal.
                                By the way, 3 million pounds of coal produces 9
                                million pounds of carbon dioxide as each pound of coal
                                releases three pounds of carbon dioxide," Tjostem
                                said.

                                He noted a new coal power plant is being planned for
                                Iowa.

                                "Any coal plant built in Iowa is a threat to the
                                health of Decorah residents. We in Decorah should
                                oppose the construction of any more coal power plants
                                in our state," he said.

                                "It is safer to live next door to a nuclear plant than
                                it is to breathe the air within a 300-mile radius of a
                                coal plant," he said.

                                Even if the proposed Iowa coal plant puts out 90
                                percent less soot than older plants, Tjostem said the
                                cost is still too high.

                                Iowa has one nuclear power plant that supplies 10
                                percent of the state's electricity.

                                Biofuels

                                Tjostem said the biofuel industry would benefit from
                                nuclear power since most of the energy overhead in
                                alcohol processing is supplied by fossil fuel.

                                "Much of that can be replaced by nuclear-generated
                                electricity, thereby giving biofuels a greater
                                environmental benefit. The only currently available
                                greenhouse gas free energy source with adequate
                                capacity to replace fossil fuels is nuclear power," he
                                said.

                                He said there have been no fatalities associated with
                                domestic nuclear power generation in the U.S. in the
                                past 50 years. Meanwhile, there are 24,000 coal
                                soot-related deaths each year, in addition to "two
                                score" of coal miners killed in mine accidents, he
                                said.

                                Tjostem also said no one has been injured in 50 years
                                from the storage of spent nuclear fuel.

                                Competitive

                                Although the capital cost of building new nuclear
                                power plants is somewhat higher than the cost for coal
                                power plants, Tjostem said the operation and
                                maintenance expenses make nuclear cost competitive
                                with coal. And while oil received 47 percent of the
                                government's energy subsidies, nuclear receives less
                                than 10 percent.

                                "I propose that we again invest 5 percent of our gross
                                domestic product on a new Apollo program to place
                                America in the vanguard of clean and efficient energy
                                technologies, " Tjostem said.

                                He also proposed a second "Apollo project" that would
                                "create the technology to replace hydrocarbon with
                                hydrogen, provide portable water for an increasingly
                                thirsty world by bringing about a new generation of
                                nuclear power plants."

                                The Council thanked Tjostem for his presentation and
                                said the issue would likely be studied in the future.


                              • Michael Redler
                                40+ percent efficient PV, wind turbines for the home, and methods of conservation will leave only one more challenge to overcome - energy storage. When that
                                Message 15 of 26 , Jul 3, 2007
                                View Source
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  40+ percent efficient PV, wind turbines for the home, and methods of conservation will leave only one more challenge to overcome - energy storage. When that happens, it will make nuclear power obsolete and nuclear power executives with no way to control public energy needs.

                                  Mike

                                  New invention to generate household electricity

                                  Posted Wed Jun 27, 2007 3:02pm AEST
                                  http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/06/27/1963676.htm?section=business

                                  WA designed household wind turbine

                                  WA designed household wind turbine (Photo supplied: Graeme Attey.)

                                  A West Australian inventor believes he has developed a way to generate electricity for homes using wind power.

                                  Graeme Attey of Fremantle designed the concept which uses a modular wind turbine that is small enough to sit on a the roof of house.

                                  Mr Attey says his modular wind turbine is about a metre in length and half a metre in height, and creates power using blades which are rotated by the wind.

                                  He says the system can also be used in conjunction with solar panels.

                                  "Between solar and wind it's very easy actually to drive a whole house."

                                  Mr Attey believes a home could generate extra power to then feed back to the electricity grid.

                                  The West Australian Government is helping Mr Attey fund his trials and says it will consider offering householders a rebate to install the system when it's released onto the market some time next year.

                                  Tags: business-economics-and-
                                • Fred
                                  ... To me these figures look like 100% bullshit. $167,000,000,000/24,000=$6,958,333 Having grown up in a town within eyesight of a coal power plant, i think i
                                  Message 16 of 26 , Jul 3, 2007
                                  View Source
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    > "In 2004, a Bush administration commissioned EPA study
                                    > released a report that states soot from coal power
                                    > plants kills 24,000 Americans annually, shortening
                                    > their lives an average of 14 years. According to the
                                    > EPA report, our annual total health cost associated
                                    > with soot from coal power plants tops $167 billion."
                                    > Tjostem told the Council.

                                    To me these figures look like 100% bullshit.

                                    $167,000,000,000/24,000=$6,958,333

                                    Having grown up in a town within eyesight of a coal power plant, i
                                    think i would have heard about people getting $7 million dollar
                                    settlements. Certainly none of my neighbors who dies of respiratory
                                    illness spent anywhere near $7 million dollars on health care.

                                    fred
                                  • Fred
                                    ... Make that 200% bullshit! $167,000,000,000/250=$668,000,000 $668 million for a nuclear power plant??? Where are they shopping, 1967??? John, why do you get
                                    Message 17 of 26 , Jul 3, 2007
                                    View Source
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      > "In 2004, a Bush administration commissioned EPA study
                                      > released a report that states soot from coal power
                                      > plants kills 24,000 Americans annually, shortening
                                      > their lives an average of 14 years. According to the
                                      > EPA report, our annual total health cost associated
                                      > with soot from coal power plants tops $167 billion."
                                      > Tjostem told the Council.
                                      >
                                      > In two years, the coal-related health costs could pay
                                      > to build 250 nuclear power plants - enough nuclear
                                      > energy to replace all the country's coal plants.
                                      >

                                      Make that 200% bullshit!

                                      $167,000,000,000/250=$668,000,000

                                      $668 million for a nuclear power plant??? Where are they shopping,
                                      1967???

                                      John, why do you get this obvious crap?

                                      fred
                                    • Rick H Parker
                                      John Tjostem of Luther collage is a Professor Emeritus of *_Biology. _* *_ _*
                                      Message 18 of 26 , Jul 3, 2007
                                      View Source
                                      • 0 Attachment

                                        John Tjostem of Luther collage is a Professor Emeritus of Biology.



                                        John A Grant wrote:
                                        Decorah man promoting merits of nuclear power 
                                        
                                        By Sarah Strandberg
                                        News Editor
                                        
                                        
                                        A Luther College professor emeritus is promoting the
                                        merits of nuclear power.
                                        
                                        John Tjostem spoke to the Decorah City Council last
                                        week about the importance of building nuclear power
                                        plants instead of coal plants because he said nuclear
                                        is the safest form of energy for electricity
                                        generation and would eliminate the country's
                                        dependence on foreign fuel.
                                          

                                      • PAUL LIMA
                                        DEPLETED URANIUM: USES AND HAZARDS Doug Rokke, Ph.D. (This paper is updated version of the paper presented in the British House of Commons; London, England; on
                                        Message 19 of 26 , Aug 22, 2007
                                        View Source
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          DEPLETED URANIUM: USES AND HAZARDS
                                          Doug Rokke, Ph.D.
                                          (This paper is updated version of the paper presented in the British House of Commons; London, England; on December 16, 1999)
                                          WARNING: This paper contains information that may be disturbing because it reflects the harsh reality of environmental and health consequences of war.

                                          RECENT EVENTS.
                                          The emerging adverse health effects and deaths in NATO- KFOR and residents of the Balkans is an issue of great concern. Depleted uranium (uranium 238) has been implicated. Today, 10 years after warriors were exposed during combat in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait; civilians have been exposed in Vieques, Puerto Rico; Iraq; Okinawa; Oak Ridge, Tennessee; Pudacah, Kentucky; and other sites we are seeing adverse health effects amongst this entire group. We also need to consider that the releases of numerous other hazardous materials occurred during the Gulf War and recent bombing in the Balkans which are probably contributing to the health effects that are being observed. Consequently, a thorough investigation and more important complete medical care which has been denied for so many years must be provided with immediate environmental remediation of all uranium 238 (DU) completed. Dr. Pekka Havisto of the United Nations in a published interview has recommended that all areas and equipment with uranium contamination be isolated and that it be cleaned.

                                          Although, Depleted Uranium training programs were completed; approved by U.S., Germany, Canada, Great Britain, and Australia military officials; and ready for distribution and implementation by January 1996 the commanding General for Italian forces in Kosovo verified on January 12, 2001 that the United States Department of Defense did not give them this training program and that they had not provided Italian soldiers with DU training as required for U.S. military personnel. The commanding General for Italian forces also verified that the U.S. DOD had not provided them with either a copy of the U.S. Army guidelines that specify proper handling and clean up of depleted uranium (uranium 238) contamination.

                                          United States and NATO officials continue to state specifically that there are no known adverse health effects in those of us in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Depleted Uranium Medical project. That is a lie as proven by our own medical records based on diagnosis of medical problems completed by our personal primary care physicians. In response to inquires by German and Swiss officials the United States Department of Defense as admitted during the middle of January 2001 that depleted uranium munitions were contaminated with plutonium, neptunium, and americium during the manufacturing process at Puducah, Kentucky and Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

                                          Neither the DU team members nor anyone else were ever told of this contamination. A press report from January 10, 2001 reported that ‘Defense Secretary William Cohen had said earlier this month that DU was no more dangerous than "leaded paint," and a U.S. Army briefer assured reporters it was safe enough to eat’. I do not know of any scientist or physician that would insinuate that either lead paint or uranium is safe to eat. Although numerous requests from the Iraqi government or their representatives attending medical conferences on Gulf War Illnesses for medical care and environmental clean up have been made united States Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs have rebuffed these requests.

                                          WHAT IS DU?
                                          Depleted uranium is a metal made from uranium hexaflouride which is the byproduct of the uranium enrichment process. Depleted uranium is actually the uranium 238 isotope. Natural uranium contains 99.2% by weight U-238 while DU contains 99.8% by weight U-238. Recent documents released by the U.S. Department of Energy provide evidence to suggest that a small proportion of other toxic heavy metals such as plutonium also may be present. U-238 emits alpha particles at 4.2 Mev and 4.15 Mev that cause significant internal ionization with consequent cellular damage. In addition daughter products emit beta particles and gamma rays that may cause further radiological damage.

                                          While DU may not be an external hazard it is an internal hazard and with consequent inhalation, ingestion, and wound contamination poses significant and unacceptable risks. Although, DU is 60 % less radioactive than natural uranium because U-234 and U-235 which emit gamma rays and beta particles have been removed Depleted uranium or uranium 238 is still very dangerous as an internal hazard because the alpha particle emissions are not reduced but proportionally increased. Also spent penetrators or parts of penetrators emit at 300 mrem/ hour and thus can not be touched or picked up without protection.

                                          WHAT ARE THE PHYSICAL PROPERTIES?
                                          Depleted uranium or U-238 has an atomic mass of 238. Its half-life is 4.468 billion years. It's natural occurrence is 2.1 parts per million. Uranium is silver white, lustrous, malleable, ductile, and pyrophoric. This makes DU an ideal metal for use as kinetic energy penetrators, counterweights, and shielding or armor. High density and pyrophoric (catches fire) nature are the two most significant physical properties that guided its selection for use as a kinetic energy penetrator.

                                          WHERE DOES DU COME FROM?
                                          Uranium hexaflouride is the non-fissionable residue or by-product of the uranium enrichment process during which fissionable Uranium 235 and Uranium 234 are separated from natural uranium. Depleted uranium is refined from Uranium Hexaflouride (UF6). The United States Department of Energy has so much UF6 stored at various sites that any use that increases disposal of this waste product is welcome. Consequently economic recovery may supersede health and environmental concerns.

                                          HOW IS DU USED BY THE MILITARY?
                                          DU is used to manufacture kinetic energy penetrators. Each kinetic penetrator consists of almost entirely uranium 238.
                                          The United States munitions industry produces the following DU munitions with the corresponding mass of uranium 238:
                                          7.62 mm with unspecified mass
                                          50 cal. With unspecified mass
                                          20 mm with a mass of approximately 180 grams.
                                          25 mm with a mass of approximately 200 grams.
                                          30 mm with a mass of approximately 280 grams.
                                          105 mm with a mass of approximately 3500 grams.
                                          120 mm with a mass of approximately 4500 grams.
                                          Submunitions such as the PDM and ADAM whose structural body contain a small proportion of DU.

                                          Many other countries now produce or have acquired DU munitions. DU is also used as armor, ballast or counter weights, radiation shielding, and as proposed by the U.S. Department of Energy as a component of road and structural materials. All of these current or proposed uses are designed to reduce the huge U.S. Department of Energy stockpiles left over from the uranium enrichment process.
                                          It is important to realize that DU penetrators are solid uranium 238. During an impact approximately 40 % of the penetrator forms DU oxides which are left on the terrain, within or on impacted equipment, or within impacted structures. The remainder of the penetrator (60%) retains its initial shape. Thus we are left with a solid piece of uranium lying someplace which can be picked up by children or adults.

                                          DU ignites upon impact. The resulting shower of burning DU causes secondary explosions, fires, injury, and death. DU fragments or oxides in the form of radioactive heavy metal contamination are also present. Simply: Who would want thousands of solid uranium penetrators or pencils of masses between 180 and 4500 grams lying in your backyard? Who would want any uranium contamination of any type lying in your backyard?

                                          HOW IS DU USED BY INDUSTRY AND DOE?
                                          The U.S. Department of Energy possesses about 728,000 metric tonnes of DU. Consequently, DOE has been investigating and advocating additional uses for DU to reduce its stockpiles. DU is stored at Pudacah, Kentucky; Oak Ridge, Tennessee; and Portsmouth, Ohio. DOE has proposed various uses for DU most of which support the nuclear industry. However, DOE has also proposed using DU to reinforce concrete and other building materials. DU is also used as aircraft ballast, as shielding, and in oil well drilling equipment. The potential of recycled DU contaminated metals reaching the consumer market in various products is also a concern.

                                          WHERE AND WHEN AS DU BEEN USED?
                                          Photographic evidence of destroyed equipment suggests that DU was first used during the 1973 Arab- Israeli war. Various written reports cite information that may have been obtained as a consequence of that use. Physicians using medical laboratory tests have verified an internalized exposure to DU in the individual who inspected that destroyed equipment. The Persian Gulf war was the first major use of DU in combat. Pilots flying aircraft fired approximately 850,950 rounds and another 9,640 rounds were fired by gunners in tanks for a total weight of 631,055 pounds or over 315 tons. Recent conversations with the individual who managed all DU rounds suggest that this figure may be to low and that the actual quantity should be 25% greater.

                                          Although warnings were issued to refrain from DU use the U.S. Marines fired DU munitions on three separate occasions during 1995 and 1996 while conducting operations in Okinawa and then did not tell the Japanese Government for some time. During 1995 the U.S. military also fired approximately 10000 rounds of DU munitions during battle in Serbia. Recently U.S. forces fired over 31000 rounds of 30 mm DU munitions during 100 missions into Kosovo or Serbia.

                                          DU munitions have been fired on ranges in Indiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Florida, Maryland, and this past year on Vieques in Puerto Rico. The incident in Puerto Rico involved the deliberate use of DU in preparation for combat in Kosovo. Although DU use is prohibited except during combat, the Navy fired at least 258 rounds in Vieques. Navy personnel have reported that the Navy has been firing DU into Vieques for years but this was the first time they were caught. Vieques is currently a national and international issue with confirmed environmental contamination and documented adverse health effects similar to those already observed.

                                          WHAT DID WE FIND IMMEDIATELY AFTER ODS FRIENDLY FIRE AND COMBAT INCIDENTS?
                                          I was assigned to the DU assessment team as the team health physicist and medic by directive of Headquarters Department of the Army in Washington, D.C. via a message sent to the theater commander during March 1991. What we found can be explained in three words: "OH MY GOD". According to official documents each uranium penetrator could loose up to 70 % of it's mass on impact creating fixed and loose contamination with the remainder passing through the equipment or structure to lie on the terrain.

                                          On-site impact investigations suggest that the mass loss is about 40% which forms fixed and loose contamination leaving about 60% of the initial mass of the penetrator in the solid or pencil form. Equipment contamination included uranium oxides, other hazardous materials, unstable unexploded ordnance, and byproducts of exploded ordnance. U.S. Army Materiel Command documents sent to us during ODS stated the oxide was 57% insoluble and 43 % soluble with at least 50% was respirable.

                                          In addition other radioactive materials were detected that could pose a risk through inhalation, ingestion, or wound contamination. In most cases except for penetrator fragments, contamination was inside destroyed equipment or structures, on the destroyed equipment, or within 25 meters of the equipment. After we returned to the United States myself and two others with assistance wrote the Theater Clean up plan which was reportedly passed up through U.S. Department of Defense officials to the U.S. Department of State and consequently to the Emirate of Kuwaiti.

                                          Today, it is obvious that none of this information regarding clean up of extensive DU contamination ever was given to the Iraqi's. Consequently, although we knew there were and still are substantial hazards existing within Iraq they have been ignored by the United States and Great Britain for political and economic reasons. Iraqi, Kosovar, and Serbian representatives have asked numerous times for DU contamination management and medical care procedures but they have been continuously rebuffed by U.S officials.

                                           Although residents of Vieques, who are U.S. citizens, have also asked for medical care and completion of environmental remediation DOD officials have not responded. Dr. Bernard Rostker, Assistant Secretary of the Army, recently said that he did not see any reason why the United States should tell anyone where DU was used in Kosovo. Consequently military personnel and civilians have been exposed.

                                          HOW DID THE DU PROJECT GET STARTED AND WHAT WERE IT'S OBJECTIVES?
                                          The probable hazards were known before the use of depleted uranium munitions during the Gulf war as official documents substantiate. A United States Defense Nuclear Agency memorandum written by LTC Lyle that was sent to our team in Saudi Arabia stated that quote "As Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD), ground combat units, and civil populations of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iraq come increasingly into contact with DU ordnance, we must prepare to deal with potential problems.

                                          Toxic war souvenirs, political furor, and post conflict clean up (host nation agreement) are only some of the issues that must be addressed. Alpha particles (uranium oxide dust) from expended rounds is a health concern but, Beta particles from fragments and intact rounds is a serious health threat, with possible exposure rates of 200 millirads per hour on contact." end quote.

                                          This memorandum, the reports that we prepared immediately after the Gulf War as a part of the depleted uranium assessment project to recover DU destroyed and contaminated U.S. equipment, the previous research, and other expressed concerns led to the publication of a United States Department of Defense directive signed by General Eric Shinseki to quote:
                                          "1. Provide adequate training for personnel who may come in contact with depleted uranium equipment.
                                          2. Complete medical testing of personnel exposed to DU contamination during the Persian Gulf War.
                                          3. Develop a plan for DU contaminated equipment recovery during future operations."

                                          It is thus indisputable that United States Department of Defense officials were and are still aware of the unique and unacceptable hazards associated with using depleted uranium munitions. Consequently, I was recalled to active duty in the U.S. Army and assigned to the U.S. Army Chemical School located at Fort McClellan, Alabama as the DU Project Director and tasked with developing training and management procedures. The project included a literature review; extensive curriculum development project involving representatives from all branches of the U.S. Department of Defense and representatives from England, Canada, Germany, and Australia; and basic research at the Nevada Test Site located northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada, to validate management procedures.

                                          The products of the DU project included three training curricula:
                                          Tier I: General Audience
                                          Tier II: Battle Damage and Recovery Operations
                                          Tier III: Chemical Officer / NCO
                                          Three video tapes:
                                          1. "Depleted Uranium Hazard Awareness"
                                          2. "Contaminated and Damaged Equipment Management"
                                          "Operation of the AN/PDR 77 Radiac Set" and
                                          The draft DU and LLRM contamination management procedures including a United States Army Regulation: "Management of Equipment Contaminated with Depleted Uranium or Radioactive Commodities" and an United States Army Pamphlet " Handling Procedures for Equipment Contaminated with Depleted Uranium or Radioactive Commodities".

                                          Although, these products with approval of all participants were all completed and ready for distribution by January 1996, U.S. Army, U.S. Department of Defense, British, German, Canadian, and Australian officials disregarded repeated directives and did not implement or only have implemented portions of the training or management procedures. Unfortunately, only a few U.S. personnel have been trained. The training and management plan have not been given to all individuals and representatives of governments whose populations and environment have affected by DU contamination. These failures have been verified by U.S. General Accounting Office investigators and the report was published during March 2000.

                                          BASED ON ALL PREVIOUS RESEARCH AND THE DU PROJECT WHAT WERE THE RECOMMENDATIONS?
                                          The DU project and review of previous research reinforced the original conclusions and recommendations that we developed while still in Saudi Arabia and which are just plain simple common sense. These recommendations were / are:
                                          1. All depleted uranium contamination must be physically removed and properly disposed of to prevent future exposures.
                                          2. Radiation detection devices that detect and measure alpha particles, beta particles, x-rays, and gamma rays emissions at appropriate levels from 20 dpm up to 100,000 dpm and from .1 mrem/ hour to 75 mrem/ hour must be acquired and distributed to all individuals or organizations responsible for medical care and environmental remediation activities involving depleted uranium / uranium 238 and other low level radioactive isotopes that may be present.
                                          3. Medical screening of all individuals who did or may have inhaled, ingested, or had wound contamination to detect mobile and sequestered internalized uranium contamination must be completed.
                                          4. All individuals who enter, climb on, or work within 25 meters of any DU contaminated equipment or terrain must wear respiratory and skin protection.
                                          5. Uranium 238 contaminated and damaged equipment or materials should not be recycled to manufacture new materials or equipment.

                                          WHAT HAS OCCURRED?
                                          Visual evidence, personal experience, and published reports verify that:
                                          1. Medical care has not been provided to all DU casualties.
                                          2. Environmental remediation has not been completed.
                                          3. DU contaminated and damaged equipment and materials have been recycled to manufacture new products.
                                          4. DU training and education has only been partially implemented.
                                          5. DU contamination management procedures have not been distributed.
                                          The United States Army Materiel Command possesses the Nuclear Regulatory Commission license for depleted uranium. A health physicist assigned to the Office of the Surgeon General, U.S. Army Materiel Command told me during a conversation on November 8, 1999 that their office will not release the DU medical treatment protocols nor the DU contamination management and remediation procedures to all those who are affected by depleted uranium contamination. He has restated this decision in writing on behalf of commanding general. This decision ignores United States and international legal requirements.

                                          WHAT ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECTS HAVE BEEN OBSERVED, RECOGNIZED, TREATED, AND DOCUMENTED?
                                          The answer to this question is difficult. Deliberate denial and delay of medical screening and consequent medical care of not only U.S. friendly fire casualties who inhaled, ingested, and had wound contamination but all others with verified or suspected internalized exposure makes actually knowing what has occurred difficult. Although I, physicians, scientists, and other medical personnel recommended immediate medical care during March, April, and May of 1991 and many times since then the United States Department of Defense, the British Ministry of Defense, and consequently the United States Department of Veterans Affairs are still reluctant to provide thorough medical screening and necessary medical care. Dr. Bernard Rostker wrote to me in a letter dated March 1, 1999 that physicians and health physicists at the completion of the ground war decided that medical screening and care for uranium exposures was not required. Actual documents refute this! Today, individuals are sick and others are dead who were denied medical care even though I requested it in a letter dated May 21, 1997 which was sent to the Office of Surgeon U.S. Army Materiel Command and forwarded to Dr. Rostker by Dr. (LTC) Kelsey.

                                          Verified adverse health effects from personal experience, physicians, and from personal reports from individuals with known DU exposures include: (a) Reactive airway disease, (b) neurological abnormalities, (c) kidney stones and chronic kidney pain, (d) rashes, (e) vision degradation and night vision losses, (f) gum tissue problems, (g) lymphoma, (h) various forms of skin and organ cancer, (I) neuro-psychological disorders, (j) uranium in semen, (k) sexual dysfunction, and (l) birth defects in offspring.

                                          Today, serious adverse health effects have been documented in employees of and residents living near Puducah, Kentucky, Portsmouth, Ohio; Los Alamos, New Mexico; Oak Ridge, Tennessee; Hanford, Washington. Additionally employees at uranium manufacturing or processing facilities in New York, Tennessee, and the four corners area of southwest Colorado have repeatedly reported adverse health effects similar to those reported by verified Gulf War DU casualties. Iraqi and other humanitarian agency physicians are reporting serious adverse health effects in exposed populations. Today, verifying correlation between uranium exposures and adverse health effects, except in only in a few cases, may not be possible because of deliberate delays in screening. Health physics guidelines state that testing should be completed within 30 days not 8 years after exposures.

                                          Testing involves the collection of a urine, fecal, and throat samples. Eight years or so after exposures only a small fraction of the sequestered uranium or original dose will be detected. This fraction represents only the mobile or soluble portion that is in the body. Figure 1 shows the relationship between time of sampling and detection of internalized uranium. Two recent autopsys have revealed that sequestering is an observed phenomena and that the mobile fraction may or may not be representative of what is actually present. The current U.S. Army medical department guideline dated April 1999 requires immediate testing as always required by laws and regulations. However, this is still not occurring.

                                          Even when verified medical evidence attributing adverse health effects to DU exposures is available official recognition and documentation has been erratic at best. For example during 1994 and 1995 United States Department of Defense medical personnel at an U.S. Army installation hospital removed, separated, and hid documented diagnoses from affected individuals and other physicians. Some medical records were retrieved, but, probably too late for many individuals.

                                          Today, this practice continues and consequently exposed individuals are not receiving adequate and effective medical care. This includes individuals whose medical care has been requested many times. This will continue as long as the United States, British, Canadian and other governments are permitted to ignore the emerging evidence and deny medical care to all individuals who have been or may have been exposed to depleted uranium (uranium 238), other isotopes, and other contaminants created as result of the use of depleted uranium munitions.

                                          The criteria describing exposures were specified in a message from Headquarters Department of the Army dated October 14, 1993 (enclosure 2) . Exposures requiring medical screening within 24 hours of exposure and consequent care included:
                                          "a. Being in the midst of smoke from DU fires resulting from the burning of vehicles uploaded with DU munitions or depots in which DU munitions are being stored.
                                          b. Working within environments containing DU dust or residues from DU fires.
                                          c. Being within a structure or vehicle while it is struck by DU munitions."

                                          These guidelines should be applicable to all exposed individuals and thus care should be independent of military or civilian status. Today, medical care has not been and is still not being given to all depleted uranium casualties as specified. Although, I am not a physician I have been involved in teaching and providing emergency medicine for over 20 years and thus the following recommendations are based on experience and common sense applications of emergency medicine and simple health physics principles. I also provided emergency medical care for some DU casualties in Iraq and Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War.

                                          Medical care must be planned and completed to identify and then alleviate actual physiological problems rather than placing an emphasis on psychological manifestations and continued testing. Warriors, civilian employees, non-combatants, and enemy personnel are sick and deserve care for the complex exposures that have resulted in observed physiological effects. Medical care for known uranium exposures should emphasize (concern in parentheses):
                                          a. neurology (heavy metal effects)
                                          b. ophthalmology (radiation and heavy metal effects)
                                          c. urology (heavy metal effects and crystal formation)
                                          d. dermatology (heavy metal effects)
                                          e. cardiology (radiation and heavy metal effects)
                                          f. pulmonary (radiation, particulate, and heavy metal effects)
                                          g. immunology (radiation and heavy metal effects)
                                          h. oncology (radiation and heavy metal effects)
                                          i. gynecology (radiation and heavy metal effects)
                                          j. gastro-intestinal (systematic effects)
                                          k. dental (heavy metal effects)
                                          l. psychology (heavy metal effects)
                                          Many individuals with known exposures still had not received requested care as of March 8, 2000 according to the VA DU project patient manager. As of January 3, 2001 only 63 individuals (including myself) are receiving medical care from physicians assigned to the Baltimore Maryland Department of Veterans Affairs Depleted Uranium program. Today casualties with verified DU health related problems live on antibiotics and steroids to quell problems but treatment or cure has not been tried to restore health. It is impossible to get proper care and treatment. IF YOU DO NOT PROVIDE MEDICAL ASSESSMENT FOR THOSE WITH VERIFIED EXPOSURES AND HEALTH PROBLEMS THEN YOU CAN SAY DU DID NOT CAUSE ANY ADVERSE HEALTH PROBLEMS. SO MUCH FOR MEDICAL SCIENCE WHEN A COVER-UP IS DIRECTED BY POLITICIANS TO LIMIT LIABILITY FOR NON-COMBATANTS, WARRIORS, AND OTHERS. The cover-up started with the infamous Los Alamos memorandum sent to our team in Saudi Arabia during March 1991. This memo told us to be sure no matter what we did or reported that we should only report information so DU could always be used. A letter sent to General Leslie Groves during 1943 is even more disturbing. In that memorandum dated October 30, 1943, senior scientists assigned to the Manhattan Project suggested that uranium could be used as an air and terrain contaminant. According to the letter sent by the Subcommittee of the S-1 Executive Committee on the "Use of Radioactive Materials as a Military Weapon" to General Groves (October 30, 1943) inhalation of uranium would result in "bronchial irritation coming on in a few hours to a few days". This is exactly what happened to individuals who inhaled DU dust during Operation Desert Storm.
                                          The subcommittee went on further to state that "Beta emitting products could get into the gastrointestinal tract from polluted water, or food, or air. From the air, they would get on the mucus of the nose, throat, bronchi, etc. and be swallowed. The effects would be local irritation just as in the bronchi and exposures of the same amount would be required. The stomach, caecum and rectum, where contents remain for longer periods than elsewhere would be most likely affected. It is conceivable that ulcers and perforations of the gut followed by death could be produced, even without an general effects from radiation".
                                          The twisted history of medical care of DU casualties took a unique and unprecedented turn on March 14, 2000 when representatives of the Italian government announced that they would begin providing medical care for Iraqis who had been exposed to depleted uranium as a consequence of deliberate actions by the United States and England and the continued refusal by U.S. and British officials to provide medical treatment protocols. In another twist on March 14 a French investigative journalist reported that "There has been lots of new things: - there are Belgium sick people from Kosovo.... same symptoms. - There are Italian sick soldiers from Bosnia - Some French soldiers from the Gulf are sick journalists are working on that." This provides additional evidence of health related problems that must be addressed as previously cited in a U.S. Department of Defense press release dated July 27, 1999 which stated that 'Some soldiers in the Balkans are coming down with the "Bosnian Crud," a type of upper respiratory infection, according to an article in the July 9, 1999 issue of the "Talon," the Operation Joint Forge newspaper for U.S. forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina.' Today, NATO soldiers are reporting medical problems and some have died. Still medical care is denied or delayed for all uranium exposed casualties while United States Department of Defense and British Ministry of Defense officials continue to deny any correlation between uranium exposure and adverse health and environmental effects. They continue to contend that they can spread radioactive waste (depleted uranium) in anyone's backyard without cleaning it up and providing medical care. Their arrogance is astonishing.
                                          WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN NEXT?
                                          The international community and all citizens of the world must raise a unified voice in opposition to future use of depleted uranium munitions and force those nations that have used depleted uranium munitions to recognize the immoral consequences of their actions and assume responsibility for medical care and thorough environmental remediation. Specifically:
                                          1. Depleted uranium munitions and the use of depleted uranium must be banned.
                                          2. All individuals who were exposed or who may have been exposed to any form of depleted uranium and its various integral contaminants or other contaminants created during combat, research, or training activities must receive a through physical examination and medical care to alleviate or cure the physiological consequences caused by inhalation, ingestion, or uranium wound contamination.
                                          3. All depleted uranium penetrator fragments, depleted uranium contaminated equipment, and depleted uranium oxide contamination must be cleaned up and disposed of at secure sites.
                                          Share this page with a friend
                                          International Action Center
                                          39 West 14th Street, Room 206
                                          New York, NY 10011
                                          email: iacenter@...
                                          En Espanol: el_iac@...
                                          web: http://www.iacenter.org
                                          CHECK OUT SITE http://www.mumia2000.org
                                          phone: 212 633-6646
                                          fax: 212 633-2889
                                          To make a tax-deductible donation,
                                          go to http://www.peoplesrightsfund.org




                                          Tom Kaighin <tom@...> wrote:
                                          I do believe that Iraq INVADED Kuwait to start the 1991 Gulf War.  I saw no where in your post or in your cited Wikipedia source that indicates any study that would bear out you hypothesis.  I do know that the uncontrolled burning of millions of barrels of unrefined petroleum an natural gas, which Saddam’s army initiated in the burning of the Kuwaiti oil fields does produce a plethora of chemical compounds into the atmosphere.  If I am not mistaken, some of these fires burned for years and the clouds of toxic smoke covered the area before being scattered all over the region and brought back to the earth to cover and contaminate everything.  Hmmm, could anything but depleted uranium rounds be responsible for that?  I wonder.  I think you just have an axe to grind.  Besides, due to the inability of Saddam’s army to actually engage and mount any type of serious defense, I doubt many DU rounds were used (relatively speaking). 
                                           
                                          DU rounds are very particular in their use, and not part of standard infantry issue.  They are used primarily in the interception of missiles and enemy aircraft, and armor-piercing rounds.  Saddam had no air force at the time (having determined that what little he did have would have better uses in Iran for a later and unknown mission).  His vaunted Armored divisions and million man army were a non-entity.  While some rounds may have been spent destroying his armor, most of that was not in populated areas of Iraq , it was mostly destroyed in Kuwait and in the desolate areas on the run back to Bagdad .  We didn’t even damage most of his armor in combat, but destroyed them with conventional explosives as we found them abandoned by their operators for fear of being destroyed (the drivers and operators showed great common sense as any moving were indeed annihilated) .
                                           
                                          Now, as to the problem with the malformed children, I don’t see it as a problem.  They backed the wrong leader and are paying the consequences. War is not nice, neat and pretty.  It is as it should be.  Horrible.  That way you’re not supposed to want to do it again.  One day I hope you too will actually have to fight for your rights to gain an understanding of how precious they really are.  I did my part.  I am proud of why, maybe not how, but I see it as the lesser of two evils and I have done so, so that you may be free to shout your ignorance from the highest tower.  That doesn’t mean I have to agree with it.  But freedom of speech has limits and responsibilities.  You can just say anything you want, you have to back it up with facts.  In other words, don’t lie or make shit up.  Dig for the truth, don’t believe the first thing someone says.  People lie, governments lie, reporters lie, scientists lie, but facts don’t lie.  Analyze your agenda and make sure it happens to have facts to support it.
                                           
                                          That is all…
                                           
                                          Charles "Tom" Kaighin
                                          Onsite Computer Services
                                          Tel:  801-915-1730
                                          Fax: 801-606-2836
                                           


                                          Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha!
                                          Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.

                                        • bj_yakman
                                          We have all had difficulties with word problems in math. I think the appropriate calc if you look at TWO years effects woulld be: 2 x
                                          Message 20 of 26 , Aug 26, 2007
                                          View Source
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            We have all had difficulties with word problems in math. I think the appropriate calc if you
                                            look at TWO years effects woulld be:

                                            2 x 167,000,000,000/250=$1,336,000,000

                                            which for high volume national construction might be acheivable but somewhat, not
                                            obsurdly, optimistic.....not obvious crap


                                            --- In All-Energy@yahoogroups.com, "Fred" <imageiteverywhere@...> wrote:
                                            >
                                            > > "In 2004, a Bush administration commissioned EPA study
                                            > > released a report that states soot from coal power
                                            > > plants kills 24,000 Americans annually, shortening
                                            > > their lives an average of 14 years. According to the
                                            > > EPA report, our annual total health cost associated
                                            > > with soot from coal power plants tops $167 billion."
                                            > > Tjostem told the Council.
                                            > >
                                            > > In two years, the coal-related health costs could pay
                                            > > to build 250 nuclear power plants - enough nuclear
                                            > > energy to replace all the country's coal plants.
                                            > >
                                            >
                                            > Make that 200% bullshit!
                                            >
                                            > $167,000,000,000/250=$668,000,000
                                            >
                                            > $668 million for a nuclear power plant??? Where are they shopping,
                                            > 1967???
                                            >
                                            > John, why do you get this obvious crap?
                                            >
                                            > fred
                                            >
                                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.