Richard-Norton Taylor, Guardian, November 1:
"After years of controversy, Gulf war syndrome was officially recognised yesterday as a distinct set of symptoms suffered by British army veterans sent to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait in 1991. In a decision which has widespread implications for the Ministry of Defence, the war pensions appeals tribunal ruled that the syndrome existed as an "umbrella term" covering specific symptoms and conditions attributed to service in the 1991 Gulf war."
Australian troops have long complained of the syndrome but successive governments have refused to recognise its existence. There are even claims that pre-war immunisation causes adverse reactions. A new local film, Blowin' in the Wind, explores these issues and concludes that depleted uranium is a fact of life and will ruin generations to come.
Iraq is now "liberated" and littered with the remnants of American, British and Australian weapons.
Can't imagine why an ever-growing number of home-grown Iraqis are fighting the illegal occupation and its waste.
UPDATE: Imperial arrogance from 2003:
"A United States defence official has said moves to ban depleted uranium ammunition are just an attempt by America's enemies to blunt its military might.
"Colonel James Naughton of US Army Materiel Command said Iraqi complaints about depleted uranium (DU) shells had no medical basis.
'They want it to go away because we kicked the crap out of them,' he told a Pentagon briefing."
"After years of controversy, Gulf war syndrome was officially recognised yesterday as a distinct set of symptoms suffered by British army veterans sent to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait in 1991. In a decision which has widespread implications for the Ministry of Defence, the war pensions appeals tribunal ruled that the syndrome existed as an "umbrella term" covering specific symptoms and conditions attributed to service in the 1991 Gulf war."
Australian troops have long complained of the syndrome but successive governments have refused to recognise its existence. There are even claims that pre-war immunisation causes adverse reactions. A new local film, Blowin' in the Wind, explores these issues and concludes that depleted uranium is a fact of life and will ruin generations to come.
Iraq is now "liberated" and littered with the remnants of American, British and Australian weapons.
Can't imagine why an ever-growing number of home-grown Iraqis are fighting the illegal occupation and its waste.
UPDATE: Imperial arrogance from 2003:
"A United States defence official has said moves to ban depleted uranium ammunition are just an attempt by America's enemies to blunt its military might.
"Colonel James Naughton of US Army Materiel Command said Iraqi complaints about depleted uranium (DU) shells had no medical basis.
'They want it to go away because we kicked the crap out of them,' he told a Pentagon briefing."
11 Comments:
The linked New Matilda article is sensationalist nonsense. Go here and follow the links to learn about the DU "hazard".
This flash puts it like the subject needs it -
http://www.bushflash.com/pl_lo.html
If da link does not work go here -
http://www.bushflash.com/animation.html
Peace.
To quickly shoot down jf's link - The head of the U.S. effort to develop DU has now seen the error of his ways and is working to expose the dangers of DU.
"A NATION'S MILITARY CANNOT WILLFULLY CONTAMINATE ANY OTHER NATION, CAUSE HARM TO PERSONS AND THE ENVIROMENT AND THEN IGNORE THE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR ACTIONS."
Professor Douglas Rokke
da pertinent link - Rokke Addresses issue -
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/DU/DRonDU2000.html
The deformities are a result of Iraqi actions and inactions.
Human, you have shot down nothing. If you take the time to click on the link I provided you will find additional links to a range of reputable sources, including the UN.
JF - I did as a matter of fact click on the link. All the Orgs. that are listed have not done any worthwhile investigation of the effects. As far as the UN being "reputable" that has to be a joke. Is the Professor who headed the efforts to use DU as a weopon reputable? If you think just maybe, click on the link provided, that is if you have not done so. For I unlike some would not assume that you did not.
I also have some things to compile about ISU that I will post later.
Human,
Doug Rokke's work in developing DU weaponry gives him no authority regarding adverse health effects. (Haven't read any of his stuff in a couple of years but suspect he's still basing his claims on anecdotal evidence.)
If you want to do a public service, document the adverse health effects of DU weaponry and then use the evidence to support the nonsense in the linked New Matilda article. Good luck.
jf - "Haven't read any of his stuff in a couple of year"? So, you did not even click on the link provided, and you want me to dig more stuff up to prove something to you? Prof. Rokke was Head(Leader, Captain, Director) of the effort. His experiance is hardly anecdotal. You like others who so far have posted contrary opinions, just do not have an argument to stand on, demand that I post links and then not even click on them. Well since you have not so far become insultive, I'll try 1 more time. The following is a film made by U.S. DU project, which again is not anecdotal - http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3581.htm
Why has this film not been shown to the troops that were/are sent to Iraq?
If ISU's stand is that the radiation is safe why is it the film warns of the danger of radiation? Why doe not ISU speak of the other primary danger of DU weopons?
Peace.
Rokke's supposed DU expertise derives from his experiences in Iraq post the '91 war. Rokke is not an authority on DU's health effects. In any event, I am not aware of any reputable science that supports any claims that DU has had any significant adverse health effects on anyone, including soldiers with permanently embedded DU shrapnel, other than those inside armoured vehicles hit by DU penetrators. But for such persons, the inhalation of DU dust would be the least of their worries.
I have demanded that you do nothing. My suggestion was that you should better educate yourself and then attempt to justify the snesationalist crapola Loewenstein linked. The fact that you attack my link to ISU and UN sources and counter with a link to Information Clearing House confirms that you wouldn't have a clue.
As for radiation, the building products used to construct our homes pose more of a radiation threat to us than the threat posed by DU to anyone, anywhere.
jf- Again you do not click on the link provided. "Better educate myself"? You are a fool who refuses to even question your assumptions. The film btw the way was made by the same people who made the stuff. Why not answer the questions put to you? Enough with you. You are a waste of my time.
Human,
I reiterate:I am not aware of any reputable science that supports any claims that DU has had any significant adverse health effects on anyone, including soldiers with permanently embedded DU shrapnel, other than those inside armoured vehicles hit by DU penetrators. But for such persons, the inhalation of DU dust would be the least of their worries.
Prove me wrong.
Post a Comment
<< Home