Forums > Social Discussion > Shock and Awe.
Login/Join to ParticipateSILVER Member
veteran
1,228 posts
Location: on the wrong planet, United Kingdom
veteran
1,228 posts
Location: on the wrong planet, United Kingdom
Posted:
"All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing."
Edmund Burke, the man who famously said this, was a member of the British parliament, who at the opening stages of the American war for Independance was in favour of that independance, seeing the wrongness of his country's continued exploitation of the American colonies.
I am certain that almost everyone reading this post will quickly hit their back button and try very hard to put it out of their mind, and quite possibly avoid any future posts I may make.
However I feel compelled to do this, in the spirit of the opening quote.
Right now I'm suffering from very real shock. I have all the telltale symptoms; shivering to warm up my muscles, feeling very jumpy and alert, paleness due to blood being diverted to my major organs, stomach cramps, feeling sick, and a need to go to the toilet to loose any weight I can, all to make running away from something as effective as possible.
All of this is because about an hour ago I sleepily opened an email from a list I'm on, posted by someone who takes the words of that quote very seriously, and followed a link.
I won't post the link to what I saw. I'm hoping people are willing to take an interest and not resort to 'Ostrich Syndrome', without having to be made physically sick.
I'll just ask you to consider a few simple facts.
In the past there have been people with complete disregard for the rights of their fellow men. Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Pohl Pot, Idi Amin, Mao Tze Dong, and more recently Saddam Hussein and Robert Mugabe. There are also the many people who will knowingly and willingly follow their lead.
We know about all these peoples crimes, because they are the other side, and our view is not clouded by patriotism or any propaganda induced delusions.
However a great many people were induced to agree with, and follow their regiemes, many unaware of what was really happening, and believing their leaders to be fine upstanding persons of good moral character.
Now I'd like you to give me one good reason why the same may not be true of your own leaders, and go and google 'depleted uranium'
"All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing."
Edmund Burke, the man who famously said this, was a member of the British parliament, who at the opening stages of the American war for Independance was in favour of that independance, seeing the wrongness of his country's continued exploitation of the American colonies.
I am certain that almost everyone reading this post will quickly hit their back button and try very hard to put it out of their mind, and quite possibly avoid any future posts I may make.
However I feel compelled to do this, in the spirit of the opening quote.
Right now I'm suffering from very real shock. I have all the telltale symptoms; shivering to warm up my muscles, feeling very jumpy and alert, paleness due to blood being diverted to my major organs, stomach cramps, feeling sick, and a need to go to the toilet to loose any weight I can, all to make running away from something as effective as possible.
All of this is because about an hour ago I sleepily opened an email from a list I'm on, posted by someone who takes the words of that quote very seriously, and followed a link.
I won't post the link to what I saw. I'm hoping people are willing to take an interest and not resort to 'Ostrich Syndrome', without having to be made physically sick.
I'll just ask you to consider a few simple facts.
In the past there have been people with complete disregard for the rights of their fellow men. Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Pohl Pot, Idi Amin, Mao Tze Dong, and more recently Saddam Hussein and Robert Mugabe. There are also the many people who will knowingly and willingly follow their lead.
We know about all these peoples crimes, because they are the other side, and our view is not clouded by patriotism or any propaganda induced delusions.
However a great many people were induced to agree with, and follow their regiemes, many unaware of what was really happening, and believing their leaders to be fine upstanding persons of good moral character.
Now I'd like you to give me one good reason why the same may not be true of your own leaders, and go and google 'depleted uranium'
You aren't thinking or really existing unless you're willing to risk even your own sanity in the judgment of your existence.
Green peppers, lime pickle and whole-grain mustard = best sandwich filling.
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
6,942 posts
Location: London, UK
Carpal \'Tunnel
6,942 posts
Location: London, UK
Posted:
fun
- i just signed the international petition against uranium weapons
look for cadu (campaign against depleted uranium)
and [url=https://www.bandepleteduranium.org/modules.php?name=ePetitions&op=more_info&ePetitionId=3]here [/url for the petition
fun
- i just signed the international petition against uranium weaponslook for cadu (campaign against depleted uranium)
and [url=https://www.bandepleteduranium.org/modules.php?name=ePetitions&op=more_info&ePetitionId=3]here [/url for the petition
back
enthusiast
242 posts
Location: L.O.N.D.O.N.
242 posts
Location: L.O.N.D.O.N.
Posted:
It use to be that history was written by the winners.
Now in the age of the democratisation of publishing on the internet (well for those who can afford the equipment and have the skills) we need to make sure that there is not a monopoly of history by the 'winners'. It is only this way that we can ensure the mistakes of the past are not repeated.
Having said that, how can it be that after the prevalence of Gulf war syndrome from the first Iraqi adventure the military continues to make the same mistakes again? Does it not value the lives of those who risk all for their country?
It use to be that history was written by the winners.
Now in the age of the democratisation of publishing on the internet (well for those who can afford the equipment and have the skills) we need to make sure that there is not a monopoly of history by the 'winners'. It is only this way that we can ensure the mistakes of the past are not repeated.
Having said that, how can it be that after the prevalence of Gulf war syndrome from the first Iraqi adventure the military continues to make the same mistakes again? Does it not value the lives of those who risk all for their country?
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
DU's health impacts are controversial, but devastation caused by war and the subsequent downfall of healthcare, food and sanitation aren't.
The "mundane" effects of war are probably many times greater than headline catchers like DU.
DU's health impacts are controversial, but devastation caused by war and the subsequent downfall of healthcare, food and sanitation aren't.
The "mundane" effects of war are probably many times greater than headline catchers like DU.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
SILVER Member
veteran
1,228 posts
Location: on the wrong planet, United Kingdom
veteran
1,228 posts
Location: on the wrong planet, United Kingdom
Posted:
ickleMatt: You join the military and you've handed the government the right to have you killed. Look at the kinds of places they recruit from, and you'll see how much those lives are valued.
jeff: On a scale of a couple of years yes, but with something as toxic as DU, that has a such a long half life, Afghanistan and Iraq could be nuclear deserts for millions of years, and the only people who need go anywhere near them are the poor unfortunate souls who'd have to maintain the oil pipelines.
In areas of Afghanistan, the level of infant mortality is so high that the country could have next to no population in a century. Great news for the west. No more opium poppies being grown, and no-one to contest oil drilling rights.
And yes, as far as I'm concerned the people in the Whitehouse/#10 are a big enough bunch of religious nuts that they'd visit plagues worse than those in the old testament on the Arabs. They're so crazy they think they're all going to be saved in the rapture.
Terrorists strike. Bush says 'Bring it on!'. Wack job.
ickleMatt: You join the military and you've handed the government the right to have you killed. Look at the kinds of places they recruit from, and you'll see how much those lives are valued.
jeff: On a scale of a couple of years yes, but with something as toxic as DU, that has a such a long half life, Afghanistan and Iraq could be nuclear deserts for millions of years, and the only people who need go anywhere near them are the poor unfortunate souls who'd have to maintain the oil pipelines.
In areas of Afghanistan, the level of infant mortality is so high that the country could have next to no population in a century. Great news for the west. No more opium poppies being grown, and no-one to contest oil drilling rights.
And yes, as far as I'm concerned the people in the Whitehouse/#10 are a big enough bunch of religious nuts that they'd visit plagues worse than those in the old testament on the Arabs. They're so crazy they think they're all going to be saved in the rapture.
Terrorists strike. Bush says 'Bring it on!'. Wack job.
You aren't thinking or really existing unless you're willing to risk even your own sanity in the judgment of your existence.
Green peppers, lime pickle and whole-grain mustard = best sandwich filling.
BRONZE Member
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
Posted:
Making weapons is potentially deadly? I think someone just understood the principle of war and the weapons industry.
Excuse the sarcasm... but I'm sure the guys that make the weapons know what they're doing
Written by: the petition site
Making weapons and other items out of the waste products of the nuclear business is a very 'convenient', very cheap, but potentially deadly way to get rid of the nuclear waste.
Making weapons is potentially deadly? I think someone just understood the principle of war and the weapons industry.
Excuse the sarcasm... but I'm sure the guys that make the weapons know what they're doing
"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)
Owner of Dragosani's left half
addict
663 posts
Location: Glasgow
663 posts
Location: Glasgow
Posted:
Agreed but imagine how the inventors of non-weapons technologies might feel when someone bastardises them so that they can be used as a weapon. I.e. Maglev (railguns), Lasers (scopes and targeting systems) .
Written by: Brigit
but I'm sure the guys that make the weapons know what they're doing
Agreed but imagine how the inventors of non-weapons technologies might feel when someone bastardises them so that they can be used as a weapon. I.e. Maglev (railguns), Lasers (scopes and targeting systems) .
Have faith in what you can do and respect for what you can't
enthusiast
242 posts
Location: L.O.N.D.O.N.
242 posts
Location: L.O.N.D.O.N.
Posted:
Polarity: What I was wanted to high light is the difference of rhetoric between the government and the ground reality. How they try to write history despite the obvious facts.
Do you think the two British Princes will be using DU when they take military service?
Polarity: What I was wanted to high light is the difference of rhetoric between the government and the ground reality. How they try to write history despite the obvious facts.
Do you think the two British Princes will be using DU when they take military service?
BRONZE Member
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
Posted:
Oh please, living next to a DU storage facility is just as safe as living next to a grocery store. It's the dust from fired and burnt rounds that is your health hazard. As for you people using health statistics from Iraq to prove how extremely deadly it is, don't forget about all the biological and chemical attacks that went on there long before we showed up and fired off a few DU rounds.
That said, there are reasons to use DU, it's not just for the hell of it. Considereing it is the best at what they use it for and can consistantly out perform and out penetrate other rounds by +20%. AND it is cheaper, quicker, easier, and longer reaching than the less effective means all goes towards keeping our boys safer. Don't forget they're using the stuff for tank armor as well.
I don't see how Depleted Uranium is any sort of issue towards the credibility of any administration. It is a useful and effective tool as long as it is used in moderation. The difference between this, and the 'evil evil' people you listed is that *our* leaders aren't exactly going to the extreme to hide or censoring the information about it. If they were do you really think you could just google it and find all the goodies?
Oh please, living next to a DU storage facility is just as safe as living next to a grocery store. It's the dust from fired and burnt rounds that is your health hazard. As for you people using health statistics from Iraq to prove how extremely deadly it is, don't forget about all the biological and chemical attacks that went on there long before we showed up and fired off a few DU rounds.
That said, there are reasons to use DU, it's not just for the hell of it. Considereing it is the best at what they use it for and can consistantly out perform and out penetrate other rounds by +20%. AND it is cheaper, quicker, easier, and longer reaching than the less effective means all goes towards keeping our boys safer. Don't forget they're using the stuff for tank armor as well.
I don't see how Depleted Uranium is any sort of issue towards the credibility of any administration. It is a useful and effective tool as long as it is used in moderation. The difference between this, and the 'evil evil' people you listed is that *our* leaders aren't exactly going to the extreme to hide or censoring the information about it. If they were do you really think you could just google it and find all the goodies?
#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored
Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals
BRONZE Member
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
Posted:
Everyone working in science, at the very least since Otto Hahn and some nice people using some of his work in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, knows that their discoveries will potentially be abused. Geneticists know that everything they discover to heal sickness can potentially be abused to create more "perfect" athletic smart babies.
It's not a good thing, but it happens, and in 95% of cases scientists will not be taken by surprise when it happens (granting someone being quite smart and thinking of non-trivial applications for the other 5%).
I just thought it was a bit of an anticlimatic way of finishing the article by repeating what had already been said, but as if it was completely unexpected
Everyone working in science, at the very least since Otto Hahn and some nice people using some of his work in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, knows that their discoveries will potentially be abused. Geneticists know that everything they discover to heal sickness can potentially be abused to create more "perfect" athletic smart babies.
It's not a good thing, but it happens, and in 95% of cases scientists will not be taken by surprise when it happens (granting someone being quite smart and thinking of non-trivial applications for the other 5%).
I just thought it was a bit of an anticlimatic way of finishing the article by repeating what had already been said, but as if it was completely unexpected
"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)
Owner of Dragosani's left half
SILVER Member
veteran
1,228 posts
Location: on the wrong planet, United Kingdom
veteran
1,228 posts
Location: on the wrong planet, United Kingdom
Posted:
Petition to the US congress, to Campaign against a law affecting internet freedom of seech.
In addition the link I originally opened is blocked by both Yahoo and AOL.
DU is a weapon of mass destruction/weapon of indiscriminate effect, as specified by the U.N. in 1996.
This is taken directly from the U.N. website
Given that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, one of the main reasons for going to war, and that our leaders then proceeded to use weapons of mass destruction themselves, makes them not only hypocrites, but puts them in a league much worse than Saddam Hussein, who as pointed out did not have weapons of mass destruction, and had not used them for some time (and whose leadership of Iraq was not a problem until he became an economic threat to the west).
In Nazi Germany / Stalinist Russia access to information expressing certain views was actively restricted by government employed agencies.
At the present time media corporations are in control of the vast majority of peoples daily access to information (these corporations in turn are controlled by a very small group of people, with sometimes very close links to the government). By expressing the view in mainstream media that any alternative source is unreliable, whether it is or not, will change public opinion much more than these alternative sources doing similar.
The only differences I can see between the regimes of the past and our current leaders, is that our current leaders got to see the mistakes of the past, and improve upon them so that the public would be more accepting of their methods.
Petition to the US congress, to Campaign against a law affecting internet freedom of seech.
In addition the link I originally opened is blocked by both Yahoo and AOL.
DU is a weapon of mass destruction/weapon of indiscriminate effect, as specified by the U.N. in 1996.
Written by: U.N.
International Peace and Security
On matters concerning international peace and security, the Subcommission:
- 9 - Press Release HR/CN/755 4 September 1996
-- Affirmed that weapons of mass destruction and, in particular, nuclear weapons should have no role to play in international relations and thus should be eliminated;
-- Further reaffirmed its support for a total ban on the production, marketing and use of such weapons; urged States that had not yet done so to sign and ratify the Convention on Conventional Weapons and Protocols thereto;
-- Urged all States to be guided in their national policies by the need to curb production and spread of weapons of mass destruction or with indiscriminate effect, in particular nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, fuel-air bombs, napalm, cluster bombs, biological weaponry and weaponry containing depleted uranium;
This is taken directly from the U.N. website
Given that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, one of the main reasons for going to war, and that our leaders then proceeded to use weapons of mass destruction themselves, makes them not only hypocrites, but puts them in a league much worse than Saddam Hussein, who as pointed out did not have weapons of mass destruction, and had not used them for some time (and whose leadership of Iraq was not a problem until he became an economic threat to the west).
In Nazi Germany / Stalinist Russia access to information expressing certain views was actively restricted by government employed agencies.
At the present time media corporations are in control of the vast majority of peoples daily access to information (these corporations in turn are controlled by a very small group of people, with sometimes very close links to the government). By expressing the view in mainstream media that any alternative source is unreliable, whether it is or not, will change public opinion much more than these alternative sources doing similar.
The only differences I can see between the regimes of the past and our current leaders, is that our current leaders got to see the mistakes of the past, and improve upon them so that the public would be more accepting of their methods.
You aren't thinking or really existing unless you're willing to risk even your own sanity in the judgment of your existence.
Green peppers, lime pickle and whole-grain mustard = best sandwich filling.
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
Half life of 700 million year. However radioactive dust gets dispersed and buried, so background activity drops quite quickly.
I'm not saying it isn't dangerous, but mundane effects will kill about ten-thousand times more people.
Written by: polarity
jeff: On a scale of a couple of years yes, but with something as toxic as DU, that has a such a long half life, Afghanistan and Iraq could be nuclear deserts for millions of years, and the only people who need go anywhere near them are the poor unfortunate souls who'd have to maintain the oil pipelines.
Half life of 700 million year. However radioactive dust gets dispersed and buried, so background activity drops quite quickly.
I'm not saying it isn't dangerous, but mundane effects will kill about ten-thousand times more people.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Posted:
Polarity. did you actually write that first post? or is it a cut and paste job from some other website? The bit about being physically sick, is, well, pretty thick. It's a safe guess that nobody hit their back button and buried their head in the sand.
Sheesh.....activists.
More like we can add this to the list of Things That Are Wrong With The Planet.
Why this should be so much more important than say, landmines, eludes me. Post the link, I'm not on AOL or Yahoo.
And what do you suggest we do about it? sign a petition? march in the streets? make t-shirts? write letters? circulate emails? Ostriches need to know
Polarity. did you actually write that first post? or is it a cut and paste job from some other website? The bit about being physically sick, is, well, pretty thick. It's a safe guess that nobody hit their back button and buried their head in the sand.
Sheesh.....activists.
More like we can add this to the list of Things That Are Wrong With The Planet.
Why this should be so much more important than say, landmines, eludes me. Post the link, I'm not on AOL or Yahoo.
And what do you suggest we do about it? sign a petition? march in the streets? make t-shirts? write letters? circulate emails? Ostriches need to know
SILVER Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
2,666 posts
Location: Preston, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
2,666 posts
Location: Preston, United Kingdom
Posted:
Will someone dumb this down for me, why is he feeling so sick? I did a search and looked into 'depleted uranium' found some very very badly written websites with tones of information that can only be read by someone with a wall full of PHD's and Deplomas, not to mention a complete lack of structure to the randomly plced links.
Eee I dont know I do really hate the internet sometimes and the way anyone can nock up a badly laid out webs(h)ite.
Will someone dumb this down for me, why is he feeling so sick? I did a search and looked into 'depleted uranium' found some very very badly written websites with tones of information that can only be read by someone with a wall full of PHD's and Deplomas, not to mention a complete lack of structure to the randomly plced links.
Eee I dont know I do really hate the internet sometimes and the way anyone can nock up a badly laid out webs(h)ite.
Chief adviser to the Pharaoh, in one very snazzy mutli-coloured coat
'Time goes by so slowly for those who wait...' - Whatever Happend To Baby Madonna?
SILVER Member
veteran
1,228 posts
Location: on the wrong planet, United Kingdom
veteran
1,228 posts
Location: on the wrong planet, United Kingdom
Posted:
jeff: 4.5 billion years actually.
Yes it does get dispersed, into ground water and top soil, and into the air as it's also in the form of a fine dust.
The particles in the air are so fine that they don't settle out by gravity, but are spread all around the world. The world Health Organisation is saying that globally, cancer rates will increase by 50% in the next 20 years. Partly due to DU use. Any of this dust that is inhaled stays in the body, as uranium oxides are insoluble in water. They will remain in the lungs and other tissues.
The solid remains of projectiles will corrode and leach soluble uranium salts into the ground water. From there they can be consumed in drinking water. In hot desert countries people need to drink a lot of water.
stout: The only part of my first post that is cut and paste is the quote, and the first paragraph is paraphrased.
I'm not posting the link because this is a PG forum, and would probably take posting links to hardcore porn badly enough, never mind something that's a lot more likely to make people feel physically sick.
My own reaction was as extreme as actual shock as opposed to just nausea, probably because I've studied enough to know a lot of the background information, and can take it a lot more seriously than someone who hasn't had the time.
What's more likely to affect a politician? A stack of paper with several thousand signatures, or parties and free lunches, along with campaign donations?
Brit Joe: Perhaps you can add the term "birth defects" to your search. Reading about them is very different from seeing the pictures. Good luck finding any through google.
There are generally two kinds websites.
Those that communicate well, give you a nicely layed out website with pretty colors and easy to understand text, and which are put together by large groups of people, employed because they communicate well.
Those that are put together by at most 2 or 3 people who are perhaps much better at understanding difficult concepts than communicating them to other's who don't have their level of understanding.
The first are owned by companies who will take lengths to protect their interests, and those of their shareholders, who will probably have other shares in other companies.
The second are put together by people who take the quote at the beginning of this thread seriously, and are willing to lose their reputation and income in order to make their point.
jeff: 4.5 billion years actually.
Yes it does get dispersed, into ground water and top soil, and into the air as it's also in the form of a fine dust.
The particles in the air are so fine that they don't settle out by gravity, but are spread all around the world. The world Health Organisation is saying that globally, cancer rates will increase by 50% in the next 20 years. Partly due to DU use. Any of this dust that is inhaled stays in the body, as uranium oxides are insoluble in water. They will remain in the lungs and other tissues.
The solid remains of projectiles will corrode and leach soluble uranium salts into the ground water. From there they can be consumed in drinking water. In hot desert countries people need to drink a lot of water.
stout: The only part of my first post that is cut and paste is the quote, and the first paragraph is paraphrased.
I'm not posting the link because this is a PG forum, and would probably take posting links to hardcore porn badly enough, never mind something that's a lot more likely to make people feel physically sick.
My own reaction was as extreme as actual shock as opposed to just nausea, probably because I've studied enough to know a lot of the background information, and can take it a lot more seriously than someone who hasn't had the time.
What's more likely to affect a politician? A stack of paper with several thousand signatures, or parties and free lunches, along with campaign donations?
Brit Joe: Perhaps you can add the term "birth defects" to your search. Reading about them is very different from seeing the pictures. Good luck finding any through google.
There are generally two kinds websites.
Those that communicate well, give you a nicely layed out website with pretty colors and easy to understand text, and which are put together by large groups of people, employed because they communicate well.
Those that are put together by at most 2 or 3 people who are perhaps much better at understanding difficult concepts than communicating them to other's who don't have their level of understanding.
The first are owned by companies who will take lengths to protect their interests, and those of their shareholders, who will probably have other shares in other companies.
The second are put together by people who take the quote at the beginning of this thread seriously, and are willing to lose their reputation and income in order to make their point.
You aren't thinking or really existing unless you're willing to risk even your own sanity in the judgment of your existence.
Green peppers, lime pickle and whole-grain mustard = best sandwich filling.
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Posted:
Well then Polarity pm it to me then, I've been to rotten dot com, I can handle it, and I took the time before posting too.
Joe, I don't know how to dumb this down without paraphrasing these two websites.
https://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/
and
https://www.gulflink.osd.mil/faq_17apr.htm
No PhD's needed, just an open mind and a temporary intolerance of rhetoric.
Well then Polarity pm it to me then, I've been to rotten dot com, I can handle it, and I took the time before posting too.
Joe, I don't know how to dumb this down without paraphrasing these two websites.
https://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/
and
https://www.gulflink.osd.mil/faq_17apr.htm
No PhD's needed, just an open mind and a temporary intolerance of rhetoric.
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
Uranium 235 is 700 million, U238 is 4.5 billion.
Radiation is extremely unlikely to cause a significant increase in birth defects. You've been watching too much X-men I think.
Written by: polarity
jeff: 4.5 billion years actually.
Uranium 235 is 700 million, U238 is 4.5 billion.
Written by: polarity
Brit Joe: Perhaps you can add the term "birth defects" to your search. Reading about them is very different from seeing the pictures. Good luck finding any through google.
Radiation is extremely unlikely to cause a significant increase in birth defects. You've been watching too much X-men I think.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
NYC
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
Posted:
Or looking at the medical statistics from Chernobyl.
Written by: jeff(fake)
Radiation is extremely unlikely to cause a significant increase in birth defects. You've been watching too much X-men I think.
Or looking at the medical statistics from Chernobyl.
Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]
SILVER Member
veteran
1,228 posts
Location: on the wrong planet, United Kingdom
veteran
1,228 posts
Location: on the wrong planet, United Kingdom
Posted:
And DU is U238. I got that direct from the International Atomic Energy Agency site IAEA.org
That statement give the impression that you don't have the slightest clue about cellular biology, and ad-hominem attacks against my credibility do you no favors either.
Why do you think expectant mothers are kept away from X-Ray machines and other sources of radiation? In a developing foetus there are a huge number of cell divisions, and a small amount of radiation can influence a chemical reaction that may result in major changes.
Perhaps you should also look up [url=https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&lr=lang_en&num=100&q="Mohammed+Daud+Miraki"&x=0&y=0]"Mohammed Daud Miraki"[/url] seeing as he's actually seen the increase in birth defects since the US/UK used DU in Afghanistan.
I really don't want this to be true, but unfortunately I've been cursed with a high intelligence, overwhelming curiosity, and a lot of time to make use of the two.
And DU is U238. I got that direct from the International Atomic Energy Agency site IAEA.org
Written by: jeff(fake)
Radiation is extremely unlikely to cause a significant increase in birth defects. You've been watching too much X-men I think.
That statement give the impression that you don't have the slightest clue about cellular biology, and ad-hominem attacks against my credibility do you no favors either.
Why do you think expectant mothers are kept away from X-Ray machines and other sources of radiation? In a developing foetus there are a huge number of cell divisions, and a small amount of radiation can influence a chemical reaction that may result in major changes.
Perhaps you should also look up [url=https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&lr=lang_en&num=100&q="Mohammed+Daud+Miraki"&x=0&y=0]"Mohammed Daud Miraki"[/url] seeing as he's actually seen the increase in birth defects since the US/UK used DU in Afghanistan.
I really don't want this to be true, but unfortunately I've been cursed with a high intelligence, overwhelming curiosity, and a lot of time to make use of the two.
You aren't thinking or really existing unless you're willing to risk even your own sanity in the judgment of your existence.
Green peppers, lime pickle and whole-grain mustard = best sandwich filling.
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
Different situation entirely. Substitute "DU radiation" into my post above, cos obviously high levels of radiation will cause birth defects.
Written by: NYCWritten by: jeff(fake)
Radiation is extremely unlikely to cause a significant increase in birth defects. You've been watching too much X-men I think.
Or looking at the medical statistics from Chernobyl.
Different situation entirely. Substitute "DU radiation" into my post above, cos obviously high levels of radiation will cause birth defects.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
BRONZE Member
veteran
1,453 posts
Location: Lancs England
veteran
1,453 posts
Location: Lancs England
Posted:
"our boys safer"
WHAT ABOUT THE F*****G IRAQI PEOPLE
Sorry I'm angry I will go away now.
"our boys safer"
WHAT ABOUT THE F*****G IRAQI PEOPLE
Sorry I'm angry I will go away now.
before i met those lot i thought they'd be a bunch of dreadlocked hippies that smoked, set things on fire ,and drank a lot of tea but then when i met them....oh wait (PyroWill)
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Posted:
Heh. What do you mean, "What about the Iraqi people?" ? They're the ones we're shooting at. Why are we worried about the effects of DU on them?
And landfills are cheaper, quicker, and easier than recycling plants. Does that mean you support them as well? How about disposing of toxic waste into the sea? Some things are worth taking time, effort and expense over.
Heh. What do you mean, "What about the Iraqi people?" ? They're the ones we're shooting at. Why are we worried about the effects of DU on them?
Written by: Lurch
AND it is cheaper, quicker, easier, and longer reaching than the less effective means
And landfills are cheaper, quicker, and easier than recycling plants. Does that mean you support them as well? How about disposing of toxic waste into the sea? Some things are worth taking time, effort and expense over.
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
SILVER Member
veteran
1,228 posts
Location: on the wrong planet, United Kingdom
veteran
1,228 posts
Location: on the wrong planet, United Kingdom
Posted:
DU is still ~30,000 times more radioactive than naturally occuring uranium ore (using numbers from gulflink.osd.mil and bris.ac.uk), and isn't buried deep underground.
llrc.org (Low Level Radiation Campaign) provides a very compelling reports on how the methods and data used by those favouring the use of D.U., and spreading the view that it is relatively safe, are flawed and biased.
Given the kind of payouts the US and UK government would have to make, just to their own troops, if D.U. was to be proven harmful, how can people consider any government agency, or government funded agency, a reliable source of information?
The same goes for any corporation. Corporate policy is decided ultimately by the shareholders, who are likely to make a policy of protecting their investments in other corporations.
Is it in the interest of a corporately employed scientist to provide evidence that the corporations products are harmful?
And who decides on what reports get published? Not the people who gather and compile the evidence for them.
This is a story about someone from the U.S. military who tested D.U. and cleaned it up after the first gulf war.
This article does a good job of explaining what the problem with D.U. is
And this covers how the current view on Chernobyl and the incidence of childhood leukaemia in the area may be biased.
DU is still ~30,000 times more radioactive than naturally occuring uranium ore (using numbers from gulflink.osd.mil and bris.ac.uk), and isn't buried deep underground.
llrc.org (Low Level Radiation Campaign) provides a very compelling reports on how the methods and data used by those favouring the use of D.U., and spreading the view that it is relatively safe, are flawed and biased.
Given the kind of payouts the US and UK government would have to make, just to their own troops, if D.U. was to be proven harmful, how can people consider any government agency, or government funded agency, a reliable source of information?
The same goes for any corporation. Corporate policy is decided ultimately by the shareholders, who are likely to make a policy of protecting their investments in other corporations.
Is it in the interest of a corporately employed scientist to provide evidence that the corporations products are harmful?
And who decides on what reports get published? Not the people who gather and compile the evidence for them.
Written by: llrc.org
ICRP: International Commission on Radiological Protection, a self-appointed, self-perpetuating organisation originally set up in 1928 by the nuclear industry, still funded by it and accountable to no-body else. Their recommendations have the status of "advice" but they are so deeply entrenched in the culture of radiation protection that they inform standards everywhere.
This is a story about someone from the U.S. military who tested D.U. and cleaned it up after the first gulf war.
This article does a good job of explaining what the problem with D.U. is
And this covers how the current view on Chernobyl and the incidence of childhood leukaemia in the area may be biased.
You aren't thinking or really existing unless you're willing to risk even your own sanity in the judgment of your existence.
Green peppers, lime pickle and whole-grain mustard = best sandwich filling.
BRONZE Member
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
Posted:
Yes, keeping 'our boys safer' is a priority. Maybe I'm just dillusional.. It's how it works with just about everything, be it military, law enforcement, fire, EMS, safety of the "rescuer" is always put above the safety of the "victim."
I'm not condoning the widespread blatent use of DU, if you notice I did say in _moderation_ It *does* have health problems, I'm not denying that. I'm merely saying that there are pro's to it's use right along with the cons. If there was an effective, cheaper, faster, and 'safer' alternative don't you think we'de be using it? DU is a specific tool, for a specific target, and it is extremely effective at its job. If we didn't care about the Iraqi people A: we probably wouldn't still be there, and B: there are a lot of other weapons we could be using that are a whole lot worse. We could easily make the entire middle east a nuclear wasteland if we wanted to.
Yes, keeping 'our boys safer' is a priority. Maybe I'm just dillusional.. It's how it works with just about everything, be it military, law enforcement, fire, EMS, safety of the "rescuer" is always put above the safety of the "victim."
I'm not condoning the widespread blatent use of DU, if you notice I did say in _moderation_ It *does* have health problems, I'm not denying that. I'm merely saying that there are pro's to it's use right along with the cons. If there was an effective, cheaper, faster, and 'safer' alternative don't you think we'de be using it? DU is a specific tool, for a specific target, and it is extremely effective at its job. If we didn't care about the Iraqi people A: we probably wouldn't still be there, and B: there are a lot of other weapons we could be using that are a whole lot worse. We could easily make the entire middle east a nuclear wasteland if we wanted to.
#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored
Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals
BRONZE Member
veteran
1,453 posts
Location: Lancs England
veteran
1,453 posts
Location: Lancs England
Posted:
Gurrr don’t get me started on this
No war is justified!!!!
Wars kill!!!
Wars kill innocent people!!!
“Our boys” Our F*****G boys since when did one human life become more important than another human life.
Because that is what we all are human beings
The rescuers life is no more important than the recipient.
No human being has the right to take away the life of another human being.
Rant over I don’t want to take over this thread sorry peeps
Just this kind of attitude just gets me angry
Gurrr don’t get me started on this
No war is justified!!!!
Wars kill!!!
Wars kill innocent people!!!
“Our boys” Our F*****G boys since when did one human life become more important than another human life.
Because that is what we all are human beings
The rescuers life is no more important than the recipient.
No human being has the right to take away the life of another human being.
Rant over I don’t want to take over this thread sorry peeps
Just this kind of attitude just gets me angry
before i met those lot i thought they'd be a bunch of dreadlocked hippies that smoked, set things on fire ,and drank a lot of tea but then when i met them....oh wait (PyroWill)
SILVER Member
your new best enemy
246 posts
Location: over the river, through the woods, USA
your new best enemy
246 posts
Location: over the river, through the woods, USA
Posted:
without wars, we'd be as good off as without disease. sounds great heh? bien, homostasis is important. granted, wars kill. but humans overproduce themselves on a grandiose scale. without wars, there would be billions of billions more people, no space, and you'd be living in one of your cabinets. sorry to change the subject.
without wars, we'd be as good off as without disease. sounds great heh? bien, homostasis is important. granted, wars kill. but humans overproduce themselves on a grandiose scale. without wars, there would be billions of billions more people, no space, and you'd be living in one of your cabinets. sorry to change the subject.
I'll get there too late if I shorten my stride, I'll get there too soon if I find me a ride, I'll never move forward if I try to hide this path that I've troden one step at a time.
BRONZE Member
member
43 posts
Location: Madison, Wisconsin, USA
member
43 posts
Location: Madison, Wisconsin, USA
Posted:
I'm with Minty on this one. One human life is never more important than another. In order to have war, you have to change to an 'us/them' mindset; you have to place higher value on one group of people than another, higher value on one life than another, and in doing so, are inherently making a flawed decision. 'War gains' only exist when you look at one side. All together, you have a large portion of people in their prime who could be doing their normal jobs who are instead killing one another. You have people who could be working on cures for diseases working instead on creating diseases to use on the other side. Immense losses in terms of productivity. And then, you have the physical damage of the war to infrastructure in both countries (granted, in this arena the US has lived in a little pocket of security and was mostly spared for the majority of the wars it participated in) as well as the damage to fields and crops. You're set back even further when you consider the amount of time needed to repair all the damage.
But that's just the economic side of things.
As for the need to cull the human population? I'm not too worried about that. We've got an impressive plethora of diseases and viruses that spread magnificently well in dense city environments. If we got too crowded, there would be an automatic culling.
Also, war doesn't only kill people, but it destroys the environments used for battlefields, and results in depletion of natural resources that happen to be useful for bullets, bombs, and other war paraphanalia. And then there are nuclear weapons.
*shiver*
I'm with Minty on this one. One human life is never more important than another. In order to have war, you have to change to an 'us/them' mindset; you have to place higher value on one group of people than another, higher value on one life than another, and in doing so, are inherently making a flawed decision. 'War gains' only exist when you look at one side. All together, you have a large portion of people in their prime who could be doing their normal jobs who are instead killing one another. You have people who could be working on cures for diseases working instead on creating diseases to use on the other side. Immense losses in terms of productivity. And then, you have the physical damage of the war to infrastructure in both countries (granted, in this arena the US has lived in a little pocket of security and was mostly spared for the majority of the wars it participated in) as well as the damage to fields and crops. You're set back even further when you consider the amount of time needed to repair all the damage.
But that's just the economic side of things.
As for the need to cull the human population? I'm not too worried about that. We've got an impressive plethora of diseases and viruses that spread magnificently well in dense city environments. If we got too crowded, there would be an automatic culling.
Also, war doesn't only kill people, but it destroys the environments used for battlefields, and results in depletion of natural resources that happen to be useful for bullets, bombs, and other war paraphanalia. And then there are nuclear weapons.
*shiver*
BRONZE Member
veteran
1,453 posts
Location: Lancs England
veteran
1,453 posts
Location: Lancs England
Posted:
Therione well said
Therione well said
before i met those lot i thought they'd be a bunch of dreadlocked hippies that smoked, set things on fire ,and drank a lot of tea but then when i met them....oh wait (PyroWill)
BRONZE Member
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
Posted:
Don't get too angry at me now Mint, I just love to play devils advocate and noone else seems to want to argue for the other side.
Now you guys say one life is never more important than another. I would have to disagree. War, and this war in particular, isn't exactly the best basis to make my point on, so we'll ignore that for now. I've never been a huge supporter of the war but I *do* support our troops.
Now I'm going to have to make a couple assumptions here, so pardon me if I'm lumping you guys into groups you don't belong in. Some people say all war is bad. Some say all killing is bad, and that all violence is bad. But the harsh reality of our world is that sometimes violence is needed. Sometimes killing is needed, and sometimes yes, even war, is needed.
Look at the animal kingdom and you will find violence everywhere. The difference between us and them is that same species fights in the animal kingdom rarely result in the direct death of one of the opponents. The fact is, in some cases talking, isn't going to solve anything. Reason isn't always reasonable, and sometimes violence is the only way. Anyone who won't admit to that has their head in the sand, and that is a very dangerous place to be.
Yes wars kill people, and yes wars kill the wrong people at times. OUR side, does as much as we possibly can to make secondary casualties as small as possible even if that means putting ourselves at more risk than needed. The days of carpet bombing entire cities are long since over. THEIR side, counts on civilian casualties and views it as a good thing. Do you see the difference there?
The concept of violence and/or war can be brought all the way down to two people. Would you be willing to fight, or even kill, to defend your own life from someone intent on killing you? Some may say no even to that, so if that is the case, would you be willing to fight, or kill, to protect the life of a child from someone intent on killing them?
Don't get too angry at me now Mint, I just love to play devils advocate and noone else seems to want to argue for the other side.
Now you guys say one life is never more important than another. I would have to disagree. War, and this war in particular, isn't exactly the best basis to make my point on, so we'll ignore that for now. I've never been a huge supporter of the war but I *do* support our troops.
Now I'm going to have to make a couple assumptions here, so pardon me if I'm lumping you guys into groups you don't belong in. Some people say all war is bad. Some say all killing is bad, and that all violence is bad. But the harsh reality of our world is that sometimes violence is needed. Sometimes killing is needed, and sometimes yes, even war, is needed.
Look at the animal kingdom and you will find violence everywhere. The difference between us and them is that same species fights in the animal kingdom rarely result in the direct death of one of the opponents. The fact is, in some cases talking, isn't going to solve anything. Reason isn't always reasonable, and sometimes violence is the only way. Anyone who won't admit to that has their head in the sand, and that is a very dangerous place to be.
Yes wars kill people, and yes wars kill the wrong people at times. OUR side, does as much as we possibly can to make secondary casualties as small as possible even if that means putting ourselves at more risk than needed. The days of carpet bombing entire cities are long since over. THEIR side, counts on civilian casualties and views it as a good thing. Do you see the difference there?
The concept of violence and/or war can be brought all the way down to two people. Would you be willing to fight, or even kill, to defend your own life from someone intent on killing you? Some may say no even to that, so if that is the case, would you be willing to fight, or kill, to protect the life of a child from someone intent on killing them?
#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored
Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Posted:
I've been looking into D.U. for the past couple of days, and I've found a lot more info about the negative aspects of this stuff.
Polarity, my apologies if my first post seemed condescending, the way it was written I had a very strong suspicion that it was based on that Rense dot com article. I wouldn't want to post a link to that site either.
I've been looking into D.U. for the past couple of days, and I've found a lot more info about the negative aspects of this stuff.
Polarity, my apologies if my first post seemed condescending, the way it was written I had a very strong suspicion that it was based on that Rense dot com article. I wouldn't want to post a link to that site either.
BRONZE Member
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posted:
of course you find the negative
good news doesnt sell
of course you find the negative
good news doesnt sell
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
© 1998 - 2024 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com