Abc News Smuggles Uranium Into Us
Burncycle
Join Date: 2002-11-24 Member: 9759Members, NS1 Playtester
Join Date: 2002-11-24 Member: 9759Members, NS1 Playtester
To test our security, ABC news sent a shipment of depleted uranium from overseas to the US. It arrived and passed security undetected. This is the second time they have done this.
gg ABC, gg.
Depleted Uranium is mainly an alpha emitter, and has very low radioactivity (especially compared to uranium or plutonoium, or indeed natural background radiation) and they shielded this little amount of radiation with steel and lead (radiation that human skin or a sheet of paper could block); but still, its a slap in the face of a program that has doubtful effectiveness (homeland security) with lots of hassle.
<a href='http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/Primetime/sept11_uranium030910.html' target='_blank'>http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/Primeti...nium030910.html</a>
gg ABC, gg.
Depleted Uranium is mainly an alpha emitter, and has very low radioactivity (especially compared to uranium or plutonoium, or indeed natural background radiation) and they shielded this little amount of radiation with steel and lead (radiation that human skin or a sheet of paper could block); but still, its a slap in the face of a program that has doubtful effectiveness (homeland security) with lots of hassle.
<a href='http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/Primetime/sept11_uranium030910.html' target='_blank'>http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/Primeti...nium030910.html</a>
Comments
<img src='http://www.army-technology.com/projects/abrams/images/abram110.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image'>
gg.
edit: if you didn't know, abrams armor plating is steel-encased depleted uranium. ^_^
edit2: and the bigger issue:
DU shells and bullets were used during the Gulf War.
-this left around 300 tonnes of uranium scattered around regions of iraq.
-bullets containing DU are still lying around in iraq. the US has not warned Iraqis that handling these bullets means handling radioactive waste, so children play with them.
-US Gulf War veterans have tested positive to the presence of uranium in their bodies
-parts of iraq have seen an inexplicable increase in birth defects: cause unknown.
-US Gulf War veterans have had children with similar birth defects: cause unknown.
-calls for medical investigation into DU are increasing.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"Dr Doug Rokke, former head of the US military's DU clean up project in Iraq, claims US military told him to lie about DU in Iraq. He also claims that even today the US military continue to tell him to "cease and desist" his continuing DU work of seeking medical assistance for veterans and environmental clean up. Dr Rokke also speaks of a shot fired through a bedroom window of his home and the later ransacking of his home. Patricia Axelrod, a military scientist who specializes in weapons systems analysis, took radiation readings in Yugoslavia and alleges that the US used DU, not just in A-10 rounds, but also in missiles.
Listen to an interview: Democracy Radio 30/5/2000"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hence the theory that it responsible for mystery illnesses affecting modern war veterans (gulf war syndrome has been linked to depleted uranium).
No, it won't level whole cities, but it could be employed in a "dirty" bomb - a conventional bomb designed to irradiate an area. Expect cancer, burns, etc - essentially the after effects of exposure to any DU. Those fine DU tank shells are really unexploded dirty bombs.
Now, granted there's some wrangling (obviously.. I mean who wants to be accused of using WMDs eh?) over how bad DU is, but its undisputed that vaporised and inhaled, you run an exceptionally high risk of developing lung cancer - not so much from the radiation but because uranium is toxic. And the UN has found evidence of this stuff making its way into the water table, so you're certainly talking about long term contamination, and a noticeable upsurge in cancers.
EDIT: True you could use depleted uranium for a dirty bomb, but how many of those have we seen employed?
It is a convinent scapegoat for any illness that can't be explained otherwise. Gulf war syndrome? Could it possibly be
a) breathing in fumes from oil fires for months on end
b) the drugs given to soldiers (some not approved by the FDA as of yet)
c) chemical weapons destroyed (or not very well destroyed in this case)
d) all of the above?
yes it could be any one of those. Nevertheless, I submit that yes, DU is a heavy metal and it could damage the environment given sufficient quantity. In general, however, I don't think it's a major long term problem. Why? Because any weapon we use as a penetrator will be a heavy metal, and all heavy metals will damage the environment if sufficient quantities got into the "water table" just like the DU would. Theres no point in saying it's bad and getting rid of it when the replacement would do the same thing, dispite being non-radioactive. People hear radiation and they immediately freak out, but like I said, in some places this stuff is less radioactive than the natural background radiation. 300 tons of this stuff spread across Iraq is not going to damage it's ecosystem to any real degree. However, oil fires filling the sky with black smoke 24/7, 365 for YEARS just might damage the ecosystem a little. Ya think? I just think that any of the 3 selections above are more dangerous and more likely to be causing these problems. But it's easy to blame DU, so we do, especially when the media concentrates on the fact that it is slightly radioactive.
To further illustrate my point, the anthrax shots given by the government are reported to have as high as 30% adverse reaction to US soldiers. This does not take into account cold war era drugs designed to keep soldiers fighting in an NBC environment for as long as possible before they finally succumbed. When designing these drugs, somehow I dont' think long term effects were an issue (especially during the nuclear crisis where the world might "end" any moment).
Executive order 13139, signed by clinton, states that the us government can use experimental drugs on soldiers without their knowledge or consent. The shots are manditory, and my father has had effects from them. You are not allowed to sue anyone, or say anything if you have adverse reactions to the shots. You will be discharged from the military with nothing but illness. (my father was lucky, he was close to retirement when it happened). The brits made their shots voluntary, and ya know what? On their way to the gulf earlier this year, they found boxes of the anthrax vaccine washed up on british beaches, where the soldiers tossed the crap overboard as soon as they lost sight of land.
There was a soldier (abrams tank driver) who's tank was struck with a 30mm DU round from an A-10 by accident. This round shattered, and since the driver was sticking his head out of his hatch, he got a faceful of DU splinters. As far as I know he's recovered fully.
6 Italian soldiers died from mysterious symptoms a few years back. The knee jerk reaction was to blame depleted uranium because their symptoms were similar to the symptoms that DU was claimed to cause. But DU wasn't used anywhere near them, and it turns out the chemical they were using to store their weapons was toxic (berillium? I can't remember what it was, it was forever since I've read the article)
But I digress, it's getting a little off topic:
Tungsten is the DU alternative. Still being "hard" enough to work well as a penetrator, though with some reduction in performance. Plus, its more expensive. In addition, tungsten itself is also toxic, being a heavy metal. DU is very cheap, plentiful, and effective at what it does. Long term residual side effects are small. If you get 300 tons of DU in someones water supply, its not going to do them any good. On the same note, if you get 300 tons of tungsten in someones water supply, its probably not going to do them a whole lot of good either.
The military is now looking into "liquid metal" composites for their penetrators as it has some unique properties. I hope it works out well.
Speaking of alternative technologies, I hope they learn to manipulate goatsilk, as it could potentially make excellent soft body armor.
Secondly, its not entirely coincidental that the no. of cancer victims (civilian bystanders) increases after a campaign involving DU. Indications of DU in the water table mean toxic poisoning in the water cycle.
Scientists don't like the stuff, and want it cleaned up and removed from former warzones - should be reason enough to be wary of it.
Finally, my initial post was a balanced and concise dissertion on the perceived effects of DU - those perceived by the scientific community. There's no need for this to degenerate into some unrelated gibberish.
<ul>
<li>Radioactive materials are radioactive forever and ever, until they decay into a non-radioactive substance. As they decay, they give off alpha, beta and\or gamma particles (depends on the substance). That's what "radiation" is.
<li>Alpha particles are relatively big and slow particles of radiation, are ionising (meaning they can react with stuff and cause damage), but are not very penetrative. That means they are *very* easy to block (enough air will do the job, actually). It also means that they aren't likely to cause internal mutations and suchlike, since they'd likely react with a person's skin first.
<li>Beta particles are also ionising, but are smaller and more penetrating than alpha particles. Lead lining and suchlike are required to block beta particles, because they're very dense. That means there are more molecules for the beta particles to hit before they hit something important (like people). It also means that, if exposed to beta particle radiation, your internals are more likely to be affected than alpha radiation.
<li>Gamma particles are smallest, are not ionising, and are *extremely* penetrating. You need something like several metres of concrete to shield against gamma radiation, and even then you'd ideally bury it out in the desert of some country like Australia. Gamma particles aren't ionising, but they're very high energy; that means that there's a low chance that they'll hit something important (compared to other radiation), and if a gamma particle does happen to hit somehing it will deliver so much energy that it'll kill it outright. Gamma particles are less likely to cause mutations, but they can still cause injury.
<li>Most mutations are unstable, which means they die immediately. Dead mutant cells can cause no disease. That's not to say that radiation "burns" still aren't potentially damaging.
</ul>
No but heres a fun tidbit. The certain isotope of cobalt used for irrradiating foods to clean out bacteria can be made into a poor mans nuke. Not much blast effect, but cancer and terminal disease for all.
It is a convinent scapegoat for any illness that can't be explained otherwise. Gulf war syndrome? Could it possibly be
a) breathing in fumes from oil fires for months on end
b) the drugs given to soldiers (some not approved by the FDA as of yet)
c) chemical weapons destroyed (or not very well destroyed in this case)
d) all of the above?
yes it could be any one of those. Nevertheless, I submit that yes, DU is a heavy metal and it could damage the environment given sufficient quantity. In general, however, I don't think it's a major long term problem. Why? Because any weapon we use as a penetrator will be a heavy metal, and all heavy metals will damage the environment if sufficient quantities got into the "water table" just like the DU would. Theres no point in saying it's bad and getting rid of it when the replacement would do the same thing, dispite being non-radioactive. People hear radiation and they immediately freak out, but like I said, in some places this stuff is less radioactive than the natural background radiation. 300 tons of this stuff spread across Iraq is not going to damage it's ecosystem to any real degree. However, oil fires filling the sky with black smoke 24/7, 365 for YEARS just might damage the ecosystem a little. Ya think? I just think that any of the 3 selections above are more dangerous and more likely to be causing these problems. But it's easy to blame DU, so we do, especially when the media concentrates on the fact that it is slightly radioactive.
To further illustrate my point, the anthrax shots given by the government are reported to have as high as 30% adverse reaction to US soldiers. This does not take into account cold war era drugs designed to keep soldiers fighting in an NBC environment for as long as possible before they finally succumbed. When designing these drugs, somehow I dont' think long term effects were an issue (especially during the nuclear crisis where the world might "end" any moment).
Executive order 13139, signed by clinton, states that the us government can use experimental drugs on soldiers without their knowledge or consent. The shots are manditory, and my father has had effects from them. You are not allowed to sue anyone, or say anything if you have adverse reactions to the shots. You will be discharged from the military with nothing but illness. (my father was lucky, he was close to retirement when it happened). The brits made their shots voluntary, and ya know what? On their way to the gulf earlier this year, they found boxes of the anthrax vaccine washed up on british beaches, where the soldiers tossed the crap overboard as soon as they lost sight of land.
There was a soldier (abrams tank driver) who's tank was struck with a 30mm DU round from an A-10 by accident. This round shattered, and since the driver was sticking his head out of his hatch, he got a faceful of DU splinters. As far as I know he's recovered fully.
6 Italian soldiers died from mysterious symptoms a few years back. The knee jerk reaction was to blame depleted uranium because their symptoms were similar to the symptoms that DU was claimed to cause. But DU wasn't used anywhere near them, and it turns out the chemical they were using to store their weapons was toxic (berillium? I can't remember what it was, it was forever since I've read the article)
But I digress, it's getting a little off topic:
Tungsten is the DU alternative. Still being "hard" enough to work well as a penetrator, though with some reduction in performance. Plus, its more expensive. In addition, tungsten itself is also toxic, being a heavy metal. DU is very cheap, plentiful, and effective at what it does. Long term residual side effects are small. If you get 300 tons of DU in someones water supply, its not going to do them any good. On the same note, if you get 300 tons of tungsten in someones water supply, its probably not going to do them a whole lot of good either.
The military is now looking into "liquid metal" composites for their penetrators as it has some unique properties. I hope it works out well.
Speaking of alternative technologies, I hope they learn to manipulate goatsilk, as it could potentially make excellent soft body armor. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I hate you a lot now for saying Goatsilk is a good idea. Do you have any idea how evil DARPA is? THEY CREATED THE INTERNET FFS ITS EVIL!!! <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo-->
Detonating a nuclear device on american soil is very much do-able. It's just about who is willing to do it.
Who, me? Why? I don't have anything to do with those pink elephants rampaging in Washington. I swear!
Detonating a nuclear device on american soil is very much do-able. It's just about who is willing to do it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Somebody has wathced the Sum of All Fears one too many times.
I have seen the movie once and it has nothing to do with the real life facts. Security in the US isn't as tight as people think it is. Osama or Saddam or anyone with proper connections and resources could have caused an nuclear explosion in the US but I guess they didn't want to wage an open war on US and/or kill that much innocent people.
Edit: The numbers are from couple of books, newssites and documents and they are pretty accurate.
I have seen the movie once and it has nothing to do with the real life facts. Security in the US isn't as tight as people think it is. Osama or Saddam or anyone with proper connections and resources could have caused an nuclear explosion in the US but I guess they didn't want to wage an open war on US and/or kill that much innocent people.
Edit: The numbers are from couple of books, newssites and documents and they are pretty accurate. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Suuuure, let's just call you Jack Ryan and get it over with.
Are you trying to insult or make me angry with your petty remarks?
I guess you don't like me for stating few facts that are accessible for anyone. Go ahead, don't trust me but find out yourself. Shouldn't be too difficult if you are not living in self denial that your country isn't actually the safest one in the world.
And one other thing: How can you say our security is bad? Compared to what? As far as I am aware, nothing is 100% secure, short of limiting what nationalities are allowed into the US (and we know how well <i>that</i> would go over).
I have seen the movie once and it has nothing to do with the real life facts. Security in the US isn't as tight as people think it is. Osama or Saddam or anyone with proper connections and resources could have caused an nuclear explosion in the US but I guess they didn't want to wage an open war on US and/or kill that much innocent people.
Edit: The numbers are from couple of books, newssites and documents and they are pretty accurate. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Suuuure, let's just call you Jack Ryan and get it over with. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
lol
the book is better than the movie ... more realistic
look at us.
we're f***ing <i>america</i>.
nobody can deny that.
that's all it is.
we're f***ing <i>america</i>.
nobody can deny that. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Can't argue with that...
And one other thing: How can you say our security is bad? Compared to what? As far as I am aware, nothing is 100% secure, short of limiting what nationalities are allowed into the US (and we know how well <i>that</i> would go over). <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Whoa, I never said US has especially bad security. I was just pointing out that it has been the same for years so there's nothing particularly shocking in the depleted uranium smuggling. People just get carried away and start twisting my words <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Zig: Dunno what you are trying to say but I guess you are the f**king USA. America is much bigger than USA <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->