[quote]lucasa wrote:
Yes, it’s scary how absolutely fucking retarded this post is.
UK radiation jump blamed on Iraq shells
The Sunday Times
February 19, 2006
RADIATION detectors in Britain recorded a fourfold increase in uranium levels in the atmosphere after the ?shock and awe? bombing campaign against Iraq, according to a report.
Environmental scientists who uncovered the figures through freedom of information laws say it is evidence that depleted uranium from the shells was carried by wind currents to Britain.
The science from Busby is astonishing;
“These increases were in material from the period from 13th March to the 24th April. This is also roughly the period of Gulf War 2, and since it is now universally conceded that a significant amount of uranium weapons were used in the bombing and anti tank warfare, it seems reasonable to connect the uranium increases in the filters with the production of uranium oxide aerosols in Iraq. The first increase was seen in the filter which was removed and measured on 27th March, 9 days after the initiation of the bombing on 19th March. This would firstly require that there was an airflow from Iraq to England in the period 19th to 27th. In addition to this, we should have to agree that the particles could be carried by this airflow, although in a sense, the evidence from the present analysis is implicit in the results; i.e. the increases found clearly demonstrate that the uranium particles are capable of long distance travel.”
First, “universally” according to whom? Second, nothing beats finding data that “roughly” supports your “reasonable” hypothesis and then using that as proof of all the requisite intermediates your hypothesis requires.
It would almost be funny if he weren’t arguing with the IAEA, UN, WHO, and the UK Royal Society with statements like;
“Thus at minimum, the atmospheric conditions do not oppose the conclusion that the uranium at Aldermaston was from the Iraq bombing.”[/quote]
Look dumbass, why is it when it comes to something like radiation possibly being spread throughout Europe, you would immediately put it in the category of Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny rather than err on the side of caution? THAT is fucking retarded.
We bombed Iraq and the radiation in Britain jumped fourfold – sometimes things are exactly as they appear.
Lung Cancer Hits Young, Non-Smoking Women
Ill Despite Healthy Lifestyle
While no national studies have yet been done, many lung cancer specialists say they’re seeing a disturbing trend of more and more non-smoking women with the disease.
You have an answer for that too? I don’t. Why ARE more and more healthy, non-smoking women developing lung cancer?
Something in the air maybe?
[quote]
Dust Storm in Iraq and Kuwait
On Wednesday morning, March 19, 2003, the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) on the Terra satellite captured this image of an immense dust storm blowing over the Middle East.
http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view_rec.php?id=5106
OMG, a dust storm in the desert! And they took a picture! The day before the bombing started![/quote]
Actually I didn’t even notice the date – I mostly linked to that to show that the dust indeed carries far and wide…
“In the bottom part of the image, the wave of dust appears to crash like surf across the bright orange sands of the deserts of Saudi Arabia. All of Iraq is under the cloud, which reaches over the border into Iran (notice the crisply defined terrain to the east of the line of dust), as is Kuwait. The dust stretches out over the blue-green waters of the Persian Gulf”
[quote]
Iraq: the DU dust settles
02 April 2004
The Uranium Medical Research Center (UMRC) estimates the amount of DU used in the 2003 war at 1,700 tonnes, deployed in fighting vehicles, tanks, and aircraft. According to a UMRC research team, DU rounds used by US and British forces may have subjected parts of the country to high levels of radioactive contamination.
The team’s preliminary tests showed that air, soil and water samples contained ‘hundreds to thousands of times’ the normal levels of radiation.
Tanks used in the battle for Nasiriyah examined by the UMRC team were found to be emitting several hundred times the background level of radiation.
http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jid/jid040402_1_n.shtml
So depleted uranium, which is widely regarded as a toxicity hazard rather than a radioactive hazard is leading to higher levels of radioactivity? Huh.[/quote]
DU is largely considered a heavy metal and not a radioactive hazard. Unfortunately when a DU shell hits something it aerosolizes into fine dust, which happens to also be slightly radioactive.
You wouldn’t want to snort powdered aluminum or lead much less DU.