Very Computer

by **d2003x** » Fri, 25 Apr 2003 02:22:03

**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

http://www.uksociety.org/us_crimes_against-humanity_1.htm

Now we all see weapons used by US is far more terrible than Iraq's
chem&bio ones... And what's worse is that UN DOES NOTHING ABOUT THIS!!

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

by **cybea** » Fri, 25 Apr 2003 03:39:15

> **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

> http://www.uksociety.org/us_crimes_against-humanity_1.htm

> Now we all see weapons used by US is far more terrible than Iraq's
> chem&bio ones... And what's worse is that UN DOES NOTHING ABOUT THIS!!

> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> *** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
> http://www.usenet.com
> Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Hell, next you'll be quoting the National Enquirer to prove that Elvis is
still alive!

by **ray** » Fri, 25 Apr 2003 04:45:56

> **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

> http://www.uksociety.org/us_crimes_against-humanity_1.htm

> Now we all see weapons used by US is far more terrible than Iraq's
> chem&bio ones... And what's worse is that UN DOES NOTHING ABOUT THIS!!

> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> *** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
> http://www.usenet.com
> Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Do you even know what depleted uranium is??

by **Bone** » Fri, 25 Apr 2003 06:47:32

> **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
> http://www.uksociety.org/us_crimes_against-humanity_1.htm
> Now we all see weapons used by US is far more terrible than Iraq's
> chem&bio ones... And what's worse is that UN DOES NOTHING ABOUT THIS!!

We aren't the only country on the planet that uses depleted Uranium ammo.
Probably some of the NATO nations with heavy machine guns and armored
divisions. Italy was apparently testing ammunition with heavy metals.

DU makes a great projectile component because it is so dense, and carries
more energy downrange. There was a big hubbub over getting rid of DU and
Lead-core ammunition a number of years ago. Like all military ammo, I'm sure
it's been stockpiled. They are probably going to consider something like
Steel, or Tungsten as a replacement, (for Lead anyway.) The lighter
projectiles will have different ballistics, so the ammunition cannot be
mixed. The cost of re-calibrating existing equipment will be tremendous.
It's an all or nothing proposition.

Unfortunately, even if everyone made the decision today to ban it, it would
be ten years *at least* before it was no longer being used. It's a lose-lose
situation. Either they use it all up, thereby depositing DU all over the
place, or they dispose of it. There also exists the possibility that it
remains in service after being mil-surped to some third-world country that
cannot afford to manufacture ammunition.

Kinda makes me wish the Environmentalists would stuff the whales and spotted
owl shtick for a while and concentrate on a real, imminent danger like this.

--

522452

by **Jim Richardso** » Fri, 25 Apr 2003 07:42:10

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 04:47:32 GMT,

>> **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

>> http://www.uksociety.org/us_crimes_against-humanity_1.htm
>> Now we all see weapons used by US is far more terrible than Iraq's
>> chem&bio ones... And what's worse is that UN DOES NOTHING ABOUT THIS!!

> We aren't the only country on the planet that uses depleted Uranium ammo.
> Probably some of the NATO nations with heavy machine guns and armored
> divisions. Italy was apparently testing ammunition with heavy metals.

> DU makes a great projectile component because it is so dense, and carries
> more energy downrange. There was a big hubbub over getting rid of DU and
> Lead-core ammunition a number of years ago. Like all military ammo, I'm sure
> it's been stockpiled. They are probably going to consider something like
> Steel, or Tungsten as a replacement, (for Lead anyway.) The lighter
> projectiles will have different ballistics, so the ammunition cannot be
> mixed. The cost of re-calibrating existing equipment will be tremendous.
> It's an all or nothing proposition.

> Unfortunately, even if everyone made the decision today to ban it, it would
> be ten years *at least* before it was no longer being used. It's a lose-lose
> situation. Either they use it all up, thereby depositing DU all over the
> place, or they dispose of it. There also exists the possibility that it
> remains in service after being mil-surped to some third-world country that
> cannot afford to manufacture ammunition.

> Kinda makes me wish the Environmentalists would stuff the whales and spotted
> owl shtick for a while and concentrate on a real, imminent danger like this.

*what* danger? that Uranium, less radioactive than the ore it was
processed from, is scattered over hundreds of square kilometers?

Worry about coal fired power plants, they release a lot more radioactive
material than DU does.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE+p3kyd90bcYOAWPYRApHeAKDYNzCmA4bxNEhTos5zqpP0EDtk3QCeLhwx
XESYJK8plMzSpmDgGQ8RU9s=
=/iOo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock

Linux, because eventually, you grow up enough to be trusted with a fork()

by **Grieg Pedersen, Information Systems Enginee** » Fri, 25 Apr 2003 10:23:22

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 04:47:32 GMT,

>

>>>**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
>>
>>
>>
>>>http://www.uksociety.org/us_crimes_against-humanity_1.htm
>>>Now we all see weapons used by US is far more terrible than Iraq's
>>>chem&bio ones... And what's worse is that UN DOES NOTHING ABOUT THIS!!
>>
>>We aren't the only country on the planet that uses depleted Uranium ammo.
>>Probably some of the NATO nations with heavy machine guns and armored
>>divisions. Italy was apparently testing ammunition with heavy metals.
>>
>>DU makes a great projectile component because it is so dense, and carries
>>more energy downrange. There was a big hubbub over getting rid of DU and
>>Lead-core ammunition a number of years ago. Like all military ammo,
I'm sure
>>it's been stockpiled. They are probably going to consider something like
>>Steel, or Tungsten as a replacement, (for Lead anyway.) The lighter
>>projectiles will have different ballistics, so the ammunition cannot be
>>mixed. The cost of re-calibrating existing equipment will be tremendous.
>>It's an all or nothing proposition.
>>
>>Unfortunately, even if everyone made the decision today to ban it, it
would
>>be ten years *at least* before it was no longer being used. It's a
lose-lose
>>situation. Either they use it all up, thereby depositing DU all over the
>>place, or they dispose of it. There also exists the possibility that it
>>remains in service after being mil-surped to some third-world country
that
>>cannot afford to manufacture ammunition.
>>
>>Kinda makes me wish the Environmentalists would stuff the whales and
spotted
>>owl shtick for a while and concentrate on a real, imminent danger
like this.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> *what* danger? that Uranium, less radioactive than the ore it was
> processed from, is scattered over hundreds of square kilometers?
>
> Worry about coal fired power plants, they release a lot more radioactive
> material than DU does.
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQE+p3kyd90bcYOAWPYRApHeAKDYNzCmA4bxNEhTos5zqpP0EDtk3QCeLhwx
> XESYJK8plMzSpmDgGQ8RU9s=
> =/iOo
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>

I agree completely.

For that matter, did you know that the US CAPITOL is so radioactive due
to the uranium inherently present in the marble that it couldn't be
licensed in the US to operate as a nuclear reactor? Does that give you
some sense of how hypersensitive some ppl are about radiation? I wonder
how many people understand what Rutherford's alpha particle actually is
or that it can be stopped with an ordinary sheet of paper, or how much
damage a gamma ray doesn't do when it passes through your insignificant
(to it) body.

Come on, folks - it's HARD to be hurt by low-level radiation because we
evolved in an environment rife with it. Keep your clothes on, stay out
of radioactive rain, and take a few other ordinary precautions. If DU
were that dangerous to be around no one would be willing to load it into
A-10s.

I've studied nuclear physics, and trained for NBC (Nuclear, Bio, Chem)
warfare with the US Marines. I know what real WMD can do, and just ONE
such shell is a bigger threat than tons of DU scattered across a
country.

Grieg

by **Peter Jense** » Fri, 25 Apr 2003 10:55:27

>> Kinda makes me wish the Environmentalists would stuff the whales and
>> spotted owl shtick for a while and concentrate on a real, imminent
>> danger like this.

> *what* danger? that Uranium, less radioactive than the ore it was
> processed from, is scattered over hundreds of square kilometers?

> Worry about coal fired power plants, they release a lot more
> radioactive material than DU does.

I know what you mean. My father worked on some projects in Kuwait after
the first Gulf war. He brought home some spent ammunition, supposedly
manufactured with DU. They only barely registered as an alpha particle
source (something that is stopped by the first 1/10 mm skin). In fact,
some rock samples from Bulgaria (from the site where we built our summer
residence) emit more radiation. Then again, those mountains are rich in
uranium ore.

The only danger with DU is that it's still a heavy metal, which can be
toxic. Some say that Wolfram (Tungsten) or lead is more dangerous ...

--
PeKaJe

Think big. Pollute the Mississippi.

by **d2003x** » Fri, 25 Apr 2003 14:06:49

**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

> > **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
> > http://www.uksociety.org/us_crimes_against-humanity_1.htm
> > Now we all see weapons used by US is far more terrible than Iraq's
> > chem&bio ones... And what's worse is that UN DOES NOTHING ABOUT THIS!!
> > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> > *** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
> > http://www.usenet.com
> > Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
> > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

> Do you even know what depleted uranium is??

I know what it caused in Iraiq people, and that's all.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

by **d2003x** » Fri, 25 Apr 2003 14:10:28

**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

> > **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

> > http://www.uksociety.org/us_crimes_against-humanity_1.htm
> > Now we all see weapons used by US is far more terrible than Iraq's
> > chem&bio ones... And what's worse is that UN DOES NOTHING ABOUT THIS!!

> We aren't the only country on the planet that uses depleted Uranium
> ammo. Probably some of the NATO nations with heavy machine guns and
> armored divisions. Italy was apparently testing ammunition with
> heavy metals.

> DU makes a great projectile component because it is so dense, and
> carries more energy downrange. There was a big hubbub over getting
> rid of DU and Lead-core ammunition a number of years ago. Like all
> military ammo, I'm sure it's been stockpiled. They are probably
> going to consider something like Steel, or Tungsten as a
> replacement, (for Lead anyway.) The lighter projectiles will have
> different ballistics, so the ammunition cannot be mixed. The cost of
> re-calibrating existing equipment will be tremendous. It's an all
> or nothing proposition.

> Unfortunately, even if everyone made the decision today to ban it,
> it would be ten years *at least* before it was no longer being
> used. It's a lose-lose situation. Either they use it all up, thereby
> depositing DU all over the place, or they dispose of it. There also
> exists the possibility that it remains in service after being
> mil-surped to some third-world country that cannot afford to
> manufacture ammunition.

> Kinda makes me wish the Environmentalists would stuff the whales and
> spotted owl shtick for a while and concentrate on a real, imminent
> danger like this.

Nah, the problem is not the weapon itself, but all about that US
*uses* it on innocent people.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

by **d2003x** » Fri, 25 Apr 2003 14:13:41

**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

> > **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

> > http://www.uksociety.org/us_crimes_against-humanity_1.htm

> > Now we all see weapons used by US is far more terrible than Iraq's
> > chem&bio ones... And what's worse is that UN DOES NOTHING ABOUT THIS!!

> > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> > *** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
> > http://www.usenet.com
> > Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
> > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

> Hell, next you'll be quoting the National Enquirer to prove that
> Elvis is still alive!

This can't change the fact that US makes those iraqi people look like
monsters... I guess the old Bush would even laugh when seeing this...

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

by **d2003x** » Fri, 25 Apr 2003 14:19:31

**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

> On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 04:47:32 GMT,

> >> **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

> >> http://www.uksociety.org/us_crimes_against-humanity_1.htm
> >> Now we all see weapons used by US is far more terrible than Iraq's
> >> chem&bio ones... And what's worse is that UN DOES NOTHING ABOUT THIS!!

> > We aren't the only country on the planet that uses depleted Uranium ammo.
> > Probably some of the NATO nations with heavy machine guns and armored
> > divisions. Italy was apparently testing ammunition with heavy metals.

> > DU makes a great projectile component because it is so dense, and carries
> > more energy downrange. There was a big hubbub over getting rid of DU and
> > Lead-core ammunition a number of years ago. Like all military ammo, I'm sure
> > it's been stockpiled. They are probably going to consider something like
> > Steel, or Tungsten as a replacement, (for Lead anyway.) The lighter
> > projectiles will have different ballistics, so the ammunition cannot be
> > mixed. The cost of re-calibrating existing equipment will be tremendous.
> > It's an all or nothing proposition.

> > Unfortunately, even if everyone made the decision today to ban it, it would
> > be ten years *at least* before it was no longer being used. It's a lose-lose
> > situation. Either they use it all up, thereby depositing DU all over the
> > place, or they dispose of it. There also exists the possibility that it
> > remains in service after being mil-surped to some third-world country that
> > cannot afford to manufacture ammunition.

> > Kinda makes me wish the Environmentalists would stuff the whales and spotted
> > owl shtick for a while and concentrate on a real, imminent danger like this.

> *what* danger?

People who use it on innocent people.

BTW, I was not saying that UN should ban US from having such
weapon.. but just tell you that America's action in Iraq is not better
than Saddam's action of gasing his people... And UN doesn't (or can't)
do anything about this.

<snip>

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

by **chris** » Fri, 25 Apr 2003 15:21:19

Quote:>> Do you even know what depleted uranium is??

>I know what it caused in Iraiq people, and that's all.

No you don't, you clueless idiot.

by **Bone** » Fri, 25 Apr 2003 19:21:56

> *what* danger? that Uranium, less radioactive than the ore it was
> processed from, is scattered over hundreds of square kilometers?

The danger is to the people on the battlefield while it is being used. The
* part about DU ammo is that a portion of the uranium rod is rendered as
host dust when it strikes its target. Soldiers breathe in the dust. It's not
a simple medical procedure to remove heavy metals from the body. Use enough
of the DU ammo, and people in and around the area are developing higher
rates of cancer. Also, what happens when someone is wounded by fragments of
DU? A doctor cannot remove every single fragment, and it is much more
dangerous than, say, an embedded copper fragment.

Then there is the issue of soil contamination. What happens when tens of
thousands of tons of DU dust settles on the surrounding soil? It is blown
around, or moved by water. "Depleted" is a nice way of saying that it's not
fit for utility use. But it is still dangerously radioactive, and will
remain so for a long time. People may end up farming the land, and ingesting
lethal doses of the radioactive metal.

Quote:> Worry about coal fired power plants, they release a lot more radioactive
> material than DU does.

Or other poisonous metals such as mercury.

--

522452

by **Bone** » Fri, 25 Apr 2003 19:21:56

> I know what you mean. My father worked on some projects in Kuwait after
> the first Gulf war. He brought home some spent ammunition, supposedly
> manufactured with DU. They only barely registered as an alpha particle
> source...

[snip]

Makes sense. The radioactive material was in the portion of the shell that
was launched. The spent case isn't the part that everyone is worried about.

--

522452

by **mlw** » Fri, 25 Apr 2003 20:17:17

> **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

>>>**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
>>>http://www.uksociety.org/us_crimes_against-humanity_1.htm
>>>Now we all see weapons used by US is far more terrible than Iraq's
>>>chem&bio ones... And what's worse is that UN DOES NOTHING ABOUT THIS!!
>>>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>>> *** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
>>> http://www.usenet.com
>>>Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
>>>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

>>Do you even know what depleted uranium is??

> I know what it caused in Iraiq people, and that's all.

If you don't know what it is, then you don't really "know" anything. You
merely "believe" an "opinion."

When you understand what it is, understand its properties, and then if
you can logically conclude that there is a reasonable possibility for it
to be capable for what you think you see, then you should talk. Until
that point you are chicken little screaming about the sky falling.

Birth defects are horrible, and horrible birth defects happen all the
time all around the world. There are many causes. Saddam's oil fires
poured enough polution in the air to cause a major spike in birth
defects. There are probably lots of causes.

Are there "more" birth defects in Iraq, on avarage, than anywhere else?
If so, where is the proof? Also if there is a statistically significant
increase in birth defects, is there any sort of geographical locality,
or just Iraq in general? What is the common thread that links the defects?

See, "knowing" something requires work, any fool can "believe" something.

Very Computer

terrible....

terrible....

terrible....

terrible....

terrible....

terrible....

terrible....

terrible....

terrible....

terrible....

terrible....

terrible....

terrible....

terrible....

terrible....

terrible....