|
|  |
Amerikanen schieten met Uraniu
ArtsTheBeatDoctor - 18.11.2004 19:35
Iemand gisteren de metro gelezen? Echt een schokkend stuk stond erin, over Irak.
Eerst zat ik erg met dubbele gevoelens, ik ben tegen de drang van de Amerikanen om overal op de wereld alles te regelen zoals zei denken dat het goed is, maar van de andere kant dacht ik dat de mensen misschien wel beter af zijn zonder Saddam (voorzover ik dat van hier in kan schatten). Nou, van dat laatste beeld ben ik ondertussen wel teruggekomen.
Amerikanen blijken veel van hun kogels te maken van het radioactieve (gratis!) DU (verarmd Uranium). Om het even samen te vatten... Als de oorlog daar een keer over is, en het zelfdzame geval doet zich daar voor dat er een stabiele regering is...heeft niemand er wat aan. Er kan geen voedsel worden ge-exporteerd en de kinderen die worden geboren zullen vaak een bizarre afwijking hebben.
lees het hier na, pagina 12 en 13:
 http://www.metropoint.com/ftp/20041117_1000001.pdf
Zieke zooi
|
| Lees meer over: militarisme vrijheid, repressie & mensenrechten wereldcrisis | | aanvullingen | | | Ban Uranium Weapons Campaign | Henk van der Keur - 18.11.2004 21:32
Sinds oktober 2003 bestaat er een internationaal netwerk van grassroots organisaties en NGOs die ijveren voor een verbod op de productie en het militair (en civiel) gebruik van "verarmd" uranium. Meer info op:
www.bandepleteduranium.org
Op deze site kun je ook een online petitie tekenen.
Binnenkort is op deze site ook een kort verslag te vinden van een bijeenkomst - onder het motto van "Zolang de risico's van uraniumwapens worden betwist, moet het gebruik ervan worden verboden" - die 6 november is gehouden in het T.M.C. Asser Instituut in Den Haag. Hoofdgast was dr. Keith Baverstock die van 1991 tot 2003 Hoofd was van de Stralingsbeschermingsdienst van de WHO. Zijn kritiek op het huidige onderzoek naar uraniumbesmetting was, zacht uitgedrukt, niet mals. De risicomodellen die gehanteerd worden zijn nooit getest en vertonen veel gebreken. Hij pleit dan ook voor het voorzorgsbeginsel: deze wapens niet gebruiken totdat vaststaat wat de gezondheidsrisico's zijn. Er is veel meer onderzoek nodig. Tot nu toe zijn sinds 1991 slechts een paar dozijn Golfoorlogveteranen onderzocht. Wie het uitgebreide rapport toegestuurd wil krijgen kan een mailtje sturen naar:
 laka@antenna.nl
Henk van der Keur
 E-Mail: henk.vdkeur@antenna.nl
 Website: http://www.bandepleteduranium.org
| | Slechts 500 ton | socio - 18.11.2004 21:59
DU is tegenwoordig de normaalste zaak van de wereld. Vanuit militair oogpunt is het heel practisch ivm de dichtheid van het materiaal.
Bij de collega's uit engeland is hier heel veel over te vinden:
Dit is een interview met een generaal... Nu is het artiekel niet heel informatief, maar op zich wel grappig. Het enige opmerkelijke is dat hij het heeft over 500 ton, niet niks..
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2003/05/67805.html
Maar veel informatiever is deze site, zeker een aanrader:
http://www.wandsworth-stopwar.org.uk/du/
| | edit | socio - 18.11.2004 22:02
"grappig" is niet zo'n handige woordkeus.
Niet zo bedoeld voordat mensen er over gaan vallen...
| | Beste schattingen: 200 ton | Henk van der Keur - 18.11.2004 23:00
Het was geen generaal, maar een kolonel.
Hij beweert ook dat er "bunker busters" zijn gebruikt met een lading van verarmd uranium. Maar daarvor is geen enkel bewijs geleverd.
Naast de stelselmatige bagatellisering door het Pentagon van de risico's van uraniumstof kunnen veel anti-DU activisten er ook wat van, nl: stelselmatige overdrijving van de schadelijkheid.
Jack Cohen van de Nuke Resisters uit Arizona (VS) schreef daar onlangs een goed stuk over:
DU Disinfo Dupes Project Censored.
by Jack Cohen-Joppa
The Nuke Resister
=-=-=-=-=-=-
It's like confusing a dime for a dollar. That's the difference
between the amount of depleted uranium in weapons the U.S. is known
to have used in Iraq since the invasion of March, 2003 - bad enough
at almost 200 tons - and 2,000 tons, a grossly exaggerated estimate
accepted as fact by some writers, and now also by Project Censored,
the Sonoma State University project that each year highlights under-
reported news.
So what's the harm if the numbers are off by ten times? Isn't the
message - that troops and civilians are being harmed by this new
generation of radioactive warfare - important enough?
The answer depends upon whether you'd like to see a policy change
that stops the use of depleted uranium weapons. That's what I'd like
to see, because the limited scientific evidence available plus common
sense lead me to conclude that adding more ionizing radiation into the
environment in the the form of highly refined, breathable and ingestible
uranium oxides resulting from combat is a bad idea. I believe DU
contamination is a factor in Gulf War Syndrome and the reported increases
in birth defects, leukemia, and other diseases seen particularly in Iraq
since 1991. But it's a killer sometimes lost in the crowd of many other
toxins produced by modern warfare.
As a long-time anti-nuclear activist, I've learned that outsiders
seeking justice can only hope to change government policy by having
truth on our side. Even then, it's not guaranteed. But we abandon
credibility and will be dismissed in the halls of power when we
present unsupported speculation as scientific fact.
Beyond the issue of credibility, the case for any hazard is better
made by presenting proven numbers, along with evidence of any adverse
effect. If we claim it takes a dollar to do a dime's worth of damage,
we're conceding a big point on dosage.
Project Censored presented their own summary of the articles they
cite. In it, they claim that "Four million pounds of radioactive
uranium were dropped on Iraq in 2003 alone."
The claim in Bob Nichols' article that it "turns out they used about
4,000,000 pounds of the stuff, give or take, according to the
Pentagon and the United Nations" is simply not true. I have
repeatedly asked Nichols and others making this claim, including the
Uranium Medical Research Center (UMRC), to name their Pentagon or UN
sources. None have.
A UMRC report not cited by Project Censored offers a hint at the
source. A November, 2003 UMRC paper, Abu Khasib to Al Ah'qaf: Iraq
Gulf War II Field Investigations Report, notes five "published
estimates of quantities of uranium munitions." The last, and by far
largest estimate, is attributed to "Associated Press article, UNEP
[United Nations Environmental Program] Environmental Press Release
Reports... April 2003." These reports are assembled from UNEP news
releases and articles collected from the world press.
A review of these press release reports from UNEP reveals that a
1,000-2,200 ton estimate is credited to "independent" analysts in
some of the stories, and in others, to "UN and independent" analysts, and
eventually, in Nichols, "to the Pentagon and United Nations." But never is
a UN document or named UN source quoted to give credence to such an
estimate. Follow-up with several of the journalists revealed the
not-uncommon practice of simply citing the work of other journalists
without further fact-checking for themselves.
And of course, no Pentagon source has ever offered such an estimate.
The most comprehensive estimate to date of DU use in Iraq, based on
known DU weapons systems and Pentagon and other government
statements, is less than 200 tons (400,000 lbs.), or 1/10th the
inflated claim endorsed by Project Censored.
WHERE DID THIS INFLATED NUMBER COME FROM?
To understand why this ten-fold greater number is such a popular
misconception, you have to believe, as Project Censored writes, that
"Most American weapons (missiles, smart bombs, bullets, tank shells,
cruise missiles, etc.) contain high amounts of uranium..."
The fact is, there is simply no forensic nor documentary evidence
that DU is used in "high" amounts, or even at all, in "most American
weapon systems." Apart from its less problematic use in armor
plating and as counterweights in some fixed- and rotary-wing
aircraft, the only known uses of uranium in the Iraq and Afghanistan
wars is in various caliber armor-piercing bullets and tank shells.
The amount known to be fired from tanks and aircraft cannon just
can't approach such a quantity. To believe the hyperbole, you have
to believe Bob Nichols, who writes that you'll find, "...In the case
of a cruise missile, as much as 800 pounds of the stuff..."
This belief that cruise missiles have depleted uranium in their
warheads has its genesis in the misunderstanding of a 1984 Navy memo
about Tomahawk Cruise missile test flights.
This misunderstanding was compounded by the work of Dai Williams, a
British industrial psychologist and independent researcher. Among
the stories cited by Project Censored, Stephanie Hiller's article,
UMRC's reports and the Tokyo tribunal all move beyond Williams'
hypothesis that many warheads on bombs and Tomahawk cruise missiles
include a very dense metal penetrator. Williams concludes only that
DU may be what he dubs the "mystery metal", yet these writers and
others have construed his misleading conflation of facts and
speculation [4] as evidence these weapons all contain massive
amounts of DU.
The oft-repeated Tomahawk/DU myth is refuted by several government
documents that specifically deny the use of DU in conventionally-
armed (i.e., non-nuclear) Tomahawk cruise missiles.
To quote just one, G.A. Higgins, U.S. Navy Medical Service Corps
Commander and Executive Secretary, Naval Radiation Safety Committee
responded on March 29, 1999, to an FOIA request made by the Military
Toxics Project (MTP). Higgins' letter reads, in part...
"Responding to your second request for information under the Freedom
of Information Act pertaining to the amount of depleted uranium in
Navy munitions, counterweights, and specifically the Tomahawk cruise
missile, as noted above, the only Navy weapons system using depleted
uranium ammunition is the Phalanx CIWS. [Close-In Weapons System]
Each 20 mm round contains 70 grams of depleted uranium.
"Regarding the Tomahawk missile system, there is no depleted uranium
used in or on the deployed version of this weapons system. An
unspecified quantity of depleted uranium is used as mass for test and
evaluation purposes within the United States and is owned by the
Department of Energy (DOE)...."
That last sentence refers to the same circumstance that is the
subject of the misunderstood 1984 Navy memo: a flight test model of
the nuclear-capable Tomahawk. The DU used in such tests provides a
suitably heavy replacement for the intended nuclear warhead, so as to
produce comparable flight dynamics. Other U.S. military documents also
confirm that DU is not used in operational Tomahawk cruise missiles, Air
Launched Cruise Missiles, Advanced Cruise Missiles, or Conventional Air
Launched Cruise Missiles.
I am not saying, nor do I believe, that one must accept all
government documents as truth. But when establishing facts in
dispute, more compelling evidence must be presented to refute
government claims.
A cornerstone of Williams's hypothesis is a handful of U.S. warhead
patents that mention depleted uranium. This circumstantial piece of
evidence has, for some readers, constituted further proof.
But I have read these patents, and in all the cases Williams cites,
DU is mentioned not as the primary material for the patented warhead
shroud or penetrator, but only as another suitably dense material,
after the mention of tungsten or similarly dense alloys. Following
up on this, I telephoned two of the named patent holders. Both had
no knowledge of any production of such warheads with DU instead of
non-radioactive metals; both expressed doubt that such production
would have proceeded without their knowledge and both agreed with
this writer's assessment of the patent language in question: that DU
is noted as an alternate material simply to protect the innovations
of the patented designs, regardless of which available dense metal is
used.
Even the United Nations Environmental Program, which allegedly
endorsed the 1,100-2,200 ton estimate, directly rebutted one of
Williams' and UMRC's central claims regarding the bombardment of Iraq:
"There is currently no evidence that missiles or bombs used during the war
- particularly the AGM-86D CALCM hard target penetrators (153 were used)
or bunker-busting bombs - contain DU."
Finally, a few days after completing my first draft of this
examination of the evidence, I received an unequivocal letter from
the Pentagon. More than a year earlier, I had written at length to
Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona (where I live), and posed a very specific
question: "Have any of the laser or satellite-guided bombs, guided
missiles, or Tomahawk or air-launched cruise missiles, used in Iraq
since March 19, 2003, incorporated any components manufactured from
depleted uranium or an alloy of any type of uranium?"
The reply, addressed to Kyl, was direct to the point: "Our review of
the constituent's specific question regarding the use of certain
munitions in recent operations confirms that none of the guided bombs or
cruise missiles that the U.S. used in Iraq and Afghanistan contained
uranium of any type."
There are other outrageous and unsubstantiated claims made by the
authors of Project Censored's selections, too many to debunk as
thoroughly as the claim of DU in cruise missiles. So here are just a
few more.
• The New York Daily News article reports that data collected by
the
UMRC shows "high" levels of uranium contamination in U.S. soldiers'
urine. But the respected uranium information site maintained by the
international anti-nuclear watchdog World Information Service on
Energy (WISE) has reviewed the data, and concluded that where DU is
present, the relative levels found are anything but "high" compared
to the range of levels normally found in humans.
• From the very title of Bob Nichols' article, the hyperbole
endorsed
by Project Censored is apparent to thoughtful students of things
nuclear:
"...Radiation in Iraq equals 250,000 Nagasaki Bombs." Further study
about the source of this extreme comparison reveals that the unit
measured is "atomicity", an intellectual construct coined by a
Japanese scientist. "Atomicity" is simply the calculated number of
radioactive atoms involved, with no regard for the type of radiation
present, its relative biological impact, method of dispersal, etc.
Such comparison is meaningless at least, misleading at worst.
•The "International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan At Tokyo,
The People Vs. George Bush" lays its foundation by accepting Dai
Williams' hypothesis as a conclusion, and on the testimony of Leuren
Moret. Moret's testimony incorporated many of the factual
inaccuracies and poorly supported conclusions already discussed here.
• In interviews and press releases, including an update on Project
Censored's web site, UMRC's Dr. Durakovic and Tedd Weyman have
declared that thousands of tons of uranium warhead bunker busters
were dropped and depleted uranium missiles fired in Afghanistan and
Iraq. But in a curious contrast, their published work cited by
Project Censored is far from concluding that any uranium at all is
used in these weapons!
Weyman reveals in Afghan Field Trip #2 Report: Precision Destruction -
Indiscriminate Effects the tentative nature of their public conclusions:
"These results are also indicative that, if uranium is in use, the new
generation of OEF [Operation Enduring Freedom] weapons produce
significantly higher levels of contaminant than DU penetrators." (emphasis
added). In UMRC's Preliminary Findings from Afghanistan and Operation
Enduring Freedom, Weyman states "the possibility of Natural Uranium [as
the source of the uranium in the samples] remains under investigation."
This significant hedge remains in the more recent May, 2004 UMRC
poster summary of data titled The Urinary Concentration of Uranium
Isotopes in Civilians of the Bibi Mahro Region after Recent Military
Operations in Eastern Afghanistan
[ http://www.umrc.net/downloads/mp4.pdf]. This document concludes in
part that "the explanation of our findings [of elevated uranium
levels in urine samples] could be either of two possible mechanisms.
1) exposure to contaminated dust in the areas of the bombing raids by
natural uranium containing weapons or 2) unusual geological and
environmental excessively high uranium levels contained in the soil or
drinking water." (emphasis added) This poster and the poster-reproduction
of their Iraq research
[ http://www.umrc.net/downloads/UMRC_HPS_2004_Poster2.pdf] also fail to
demonstrate that the bomb craters contain the "significantly higher levels
of [uranium] contaminant", as predicted. In Iraq, the most radioactive
battle sites reported by UMRC were targets of A-10 and tank rounds made of
DU, not cruise missile strikes or aerial bombing as their other claims
would suggest. Furthermore, two of the scientists cited on the posters as
responsible for the work - Gerdes and Parrish - have since distanced
themselves from the conclusions UMRC's attributed to them without their
consent.
I conclude with a few questions of my own.
If it were true, as UMRC claims in Afghan Field Trip #2 Report
(absent any reference), that "the United States and its weapons'
contractors acknowledge the development, expansion and deployment of
weapons and delivery systems that use low, medium and high altitude,
air-to-surface and ship-launched uranium alloyed munitions", what
other evidence should exist?
I can think of:
* Handling protocol for ordnance specialists (such protocol exists
for the A-10's DU ammo and the tank rounds);
* DU licenses for production, and production records from the
factories making the warheads;
But significantly, no documents other than the patents already
discussed have been put forward as evidence that uranium of any sort
is used in such a wide spectrum of missiles and bombs.
Background:
In September, Project Censored picked "High Uranium Levels Found in
Troops and Civilians" as the #4 most-censored story this year, citing the
following articles: • URANIUM MEDICAL RESEARCH CENTER, January 2003 Title:
"UMRC's Preliminary Findings from Afghanistan & Operation Enduring
Freedom" and "Afghan Field Trip #2 Report: Precision Destruction-
Indiscriminate Effects" Author: Tedd Weyman, UMRC Research Team • AWAKENED
WOMAN, January 2004 Title: "Scientists Uncover Radioactive Trail in
Afghanistan" Author: Stephanie Hiller • DISSIDENT VOICE, March 2004 Title:
"There Are No Words…Radiation in Iraq Equals 250,000 Nagasaki Bombs"
Author: Bob Nichols • NEW YORK DAILY NEWS, April 5,2004 Title: "Poisoned?"
Author: Juan Gonzalez • INFORMATION CLEARING HOUSE, March 2004 Title:
"International Criminal Tribune For Afghanistan At Tokyo, The People vs.
George Bush" Author: Professor Ms Niloufer Bhagwat J.
E-Mail: henk.vdkeur@antenna.nl
Website: http://www.laka.org
| |
| aanvullingen | |
