yeah. see the problem around these parts is that most of us know each other in real life. makes it a bit more difficult to differentiate between avatar and the person behind it :)
see the problem around these parts is that most of us know each other in real life. makes it a bit more difficult to differentiate between avatar and the person behind it
I would have thought that would make it a good deal easier to differentiate
she doesn't look like a big piece of candy in real life, does she?
January 19. 2003 6:30AM Women reflect on abortions, evoking range of emotions
By DAVID CRARY AP national writer
"Syverson, a stockbroker from Hampden, Maine, with two sons in their 20s, regrets the two abortions she had as a troubled teenager and has worked with an anti-abortion group called Feminists for Life to dissuade other women from doing what she did."
"I know abortion hurts women, so I'd sure like to make it hardly ever happen," she said.
"Roughly 1.2 million abortions are performed nationwide each year, yet abortion foes say it is still wrong, even if commonplace. Some denounce it as murder and depict abortion clinics as "death camps."
"I was very much in favor of legalized abortion - I felt it was absolutely necessary for women to be able to meet their educational and career goals," she said. "But it turned out to be very traumatic psychologically. . . . I instinctively knew I had ended the life of my child."
"Though she now opposes abortion, Jenkins doesn't believe the time is right for a reversal of Roe v. Wade. She advocates an incremental approach, starting with programs to help young, pregnant women stay on track in their education and careers even if they give birth."
"I don't think we're at a place to close all the doors," Jenkins said. "I want to see options that empower women. Whether women regret or don't regret their abortions, there are very few who feel they had all the options available to them when they were pregnant."
This is a very good article and I hope you all get the chance to read it.
ANSWER: We wanted the American people to have an inside view of what goes on beyond the closed and secretive doors of these abortion clinics. Everybody has this view that it's like any other medical environment in which people act in a certain professional manner and everything is clean. We knew that was not the case with the typical abortion clinic, and we wanted to show people the reality. That's another reason we went overboard on the documentation.
MATTERS OF LIFE AND DEATH Behind the abortion clinic door Unique book documents unseen culture's devastating toll on women and workers
Posted: January 18, 2003 1:00 a.m. Eastern
Editor's note: Mark Crutcher's heavily documented probe into the culture of abortion clinics resulted in a groundbreaking book, "Lime 5: Exploited by Choice." Crutcher, president of the pro-life group Life Dynamics, used public records and first-hand accounts to uncover abortion's devastating and often gruesome toll, not only on unborn children, but on women and abortion providers. Since it was published in 1996, the evidence has only mounted, contends Crutcher, who spoke to WorldNetDaily yesterday.
CNN reported, "In a move praised by conservatives and criticized by abortion-rights activists, President Bush declared Jan. 19 'National Sanctity of Human Life Day.' "
Where does the hypocrisy of our president stop? While declaring a day of National Sanctity of Human Life, he is planning to bomb the people of Iraq.
Maybe in his view the sanctity of human life only applies to American life.
Then he should have made it "Sanctity of Unborn Human Life Day" shouldn't he? Because that was really the point wasn't it? Anyway, back to treasure hunting...
This president's a warrior. He's about engage in a brutal conflict.
Now, that's another subject, but this touchy-feely language about the sanctity of life clouds his message, at a moment when one would think clarity is important.
CNN reported, "In a move praised by conservatives and criticized by abortion-rights activists, President Bush declared Jan. 19 'National Sanctity of Human Life Day.' "
I believe President Bush declared Jan. 19th "National Sanctity of Human Life Day" a while back, not this year, isn't that right?
Our president is about to engage in a move to disarm Sadaam of his weapons of mass destruction which in fact, Sadaam used on the Iranians and killed many with chemical and biological weapons. The children who were born from those left behind suffer severely from illnesses and cancers.
President Bush does not want to see that happen to our children. Do you?
Our president is about to engage in a move to disarm Sadaam of his weapons of mass destruction which in fact, Sadaam used on the Iranians and killed many with chemical and biological weapons. The children who were born from those left behind suffer severely from illnesses and cancers.
no
it was OUR weapons that used depleted uranium that are causing all the cancer and birth defects among both the Iraqi people and our own soldiers who were exposed to OUR weapons that use depleted uranium.
it was OUR weapons that used depleted uranium that are causing all the cancer and birth defects among both the Iraqi people and our own soldiers who were exposed to OUR weapons that use depleted uranium.
Crab, That's a myth. Ask CSC, he knows more about it than I do. But the depleted uranium rounds you are talking about are in such limited numbers and "r" factors that it's a minute amount.
the depleted uranium rounds you are talking about are in such limited numbers and "r" factors that it's a minute amount.
uh...no
Over 940,000 30-millimeter uranium tipped bullets and "more than 14,000 large caliber DU rounds were consumed during Operation Desert Storm/Desert Shield." (U.S. Army Environmental Policy Institute)
Between 300 and 800 tons of DU particles and dust were scattered over the ground and the water in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Iraq.
The UN Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities passed a resolution condemning the use of Depleted Uranium and certain other weapons during its 48th session in August 1996
Several years ago a report by the US Army Environmental Policy Institute said: "If DU enters the body, it has the potential to generate significant medical consequences. The risks associated with DU in the body are both chemical and radiological. Personnel inside or near vehicles struck by DU penetrators could receive significant internal exposures."
One UK Gulf veteran is Ray Bristow, a former marathon runner.
In 1999 he told the BBC: "I gradually noticed that every time I went out for a run my distance got shorter and shorter, my recovery time longer and longer. Now, on my good days, I get around quite adequately with a walking stick, so long as it's short distances. Any further, and I need to be pushed in a wheelchair."
Ray Bristow was tested - in Canada - for DU. He is open-minded about the role of DU in his condition. But he says: "I remained in Saudi Arabia throughout the war. I never once went into Iraq or Kuwait, where these munitions were used. But the tests showed, in layman's terms, that I have been exposed to over 100 times an individual's safe annual exposure to depleted uranium."
Doug Rokke, a former US army colonel who served in Vietnam, was sent to the Gulf in 1991 to advise on cleaning up radioactive debris.
He says almost every member of the team of 30 experts he took with him is now seriously ill, and three have died of lung cancer.
I've seen a ton of pro-con stuff about it. Alot of what I've seen recently seems to be leaning towards other sources. I'll see if I can get some links for you later today as time permits.
It's been less than two years since the Kosovo air campaign. And DU is actually 40 percent less radioactive than uranium found in the natural environment, he said.
Daxon, who holds a doctorate in radiation hygiene from the University of Pittsburgh and a masters degree in nuclear engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is making it his business to dispel myths about the dangers of depleted uranium.
He said the false link between DU and leukemia began with a report issued in Iraq two years ago.
"If you read the (Iraqi) report, it's just not scientifically valid," Daxon said. He pointed to studies by the National Academy of Sciences that show no evidence of an increase in leukemia due to uranium exposure. Other studies show the incidence of leukemia in soldiers deployed to the Gulf is actually the same as those not deployed, he said.
And DU is actually 40 percent less radioactive than uranium found in the natural environment, he said.
of course, exploding it into a vapor isn't exactly a "natural environment". Vaporized DU acts as both a chemical and radioactive substance in your system.
The fact is, no one really knows it's effects on the human body since Gulf Storm is the first it's been used and the government is reluctant to find out something that may cost them a LOT of money to try to fix.
If you lob a conventional shell into the ground it makes it airborne. Its not a vapor either by the way. I'd be happy to talk about it further over in the Iraq thread.
Crabs pretty much summed up why it's used. The range of the average armor piercing round made of tungsten is about 1,800 meters vs. a d.u shell which gives it an effective range of almost double that. In short we could fire and destroy their tanks much sooner than they could ours they had to get alot closer. Think there might be an alterior motive for some to want those tips banned ?
I'm sure you want to tell all those Gulf Storm vets with serious health problems that it's no big deal.
I have many friends that I served with that have Gulf War syndrome almost half my old unit has symptoms. So do pilots and desk jocks in Riyadh that were no where near it. If I thought for one minute that was a cause I'd have a different outlook I'm sure. There's too much contrary evidence and doesn't explain why people no where near it have symptoms. I truly think it was from the varrious innoculations we underwent. If it was from DU then I would probably have it as well I don't have any sympotms fortunately. I am not alone in thinking that it was from other things. DU has been used for a number of years now.
There's too much contrary evidence and doesn't explain why people no where near it have symptoms
when you vaporize something, it goes into the atmosphere and can be carried a great distance. It goes into the water supply. There is NO evidence to the contrary. If your friends are sick from vaccinations, why are the Iraqi people having the same problems?
DU has been used for a number of years now.
could you provide any information that shows it's use prior to Gulf Storm? Because I'm fairly certain that Gulf Storm was the first use.
when you vaporize something, it goes into the atmosphere and can be carried a great distance.
It's not a vapor nor do the target's ie; tanks vaporize. A projectile goes through the armor of an enemy tank, it pierces the armor and the shrapnel is what kills it's occupants. If the shrapnel gets in you then yes you would have an exposed risk but nothing is vaporized as it's not a "hot" round, it has no incindiary qualities to it. In order for it to "vaporize" it would have to be one nasty fire to melt it down or to vaporize it.
If your friends are sick from vaccinations, why are the Iraqi people having the same problems?
They aren't the same problems. They are different symptoms and sickness'.
There is NO evidence to the contrary.
Yes there is.
could you provide any information that shows it's use prior to Gulf Storm? Because I'm fairly certain that Gulf Storm was the first use.
From the article you posted. (I see it was from the same article you posted before.)
Depleted uranium (DU) is what is left over after natural uranium has been enriched, either for weapons-making or for reactor fuel.
It is mildly radioactive in its solid form, and poses little if any cause for concern.
There is no scientifically proven evidence that it is harmful.
So here you go, some more homework for you.
A decision was taken by several countries during the 1970s to use DU rather than WHA in armour piercing rounds for the principal armament of their main battle tanks (MBT): M-1 Abrams in the USA, Leclerc in France, Challenger-2 in Britain and both T-80 and T-90 in Russia (Germany and Sweden have opted not to have DU-based tank ammunition).
Health problems associated with the assembly, storage and handling of DU rounds have also been extensively studied and results published. For those working in armament depots, stores or the supply chain, over 2000 hours of exposure to DU would be required before the current 20 mSv. annual limit for the whole body was reached. When a DU penetrator core is handled it delivers a dose rate of about 2 mSv. an hour. The dose limit for skin is 500 mSv. a year averaged over any square centimeter. This means that 250 hours of contact would be needed before the permissible dose was exceeded. It is not difficult to ensure that workers are exposed for far smaller periods than these.
17. Tanks go into battle with a full complement of main armament rounds pre-loaded in their ammunition bays. Radiation dose-rates from bulk DU decrease very rapidly with increasing distance. American studies have shown that a hypothetical crew-member who stayed inside a tank fully loaded with DU-based ammunition continuously for a year would receive less than 25 per cent of the annual occupational limit. In the event of a fire tests seem to show that DU penetrators would not ignite. The conclusion is, not surprisingly, that providing the necessary safeguards are observed the hazard to civilian or military persons from possessing or preparing to use DU-based rounds up to the point of firing is well within acceptable limits.
Rounds that hit a soft target or the ground tend to stay intact or break into a few large fragments. In this condition they emit little general radiation of any consequence and are all but harmless. According to two American experts, Steve Fetter and Frank von Hippel (Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, November/December 1999, pp. 42-45) if we assume that 100 tonnes of DU had been distributed in this way uniformly over a one-kilometre-wide strip of land along 100 kilometres of the 'Highway of Death' between Kuwait City and Basra, the average dose of gamma-radiation for someone living in the area would be about ten percent of the dose received from the uranium naturally occurring in the soil. A souvenir hunter who picked up a DU long-rod penetrator and kept it in his pocket for a few days might receive a relatively high dose of beta-radiation to the adjacent skin but not enough to cause a burn, still less a significantly higher risk of skin cancer.
The resulting radiation hazard has been calculated in various ways. Steve Fetter and Frank von Hippel in a very impressive paper (Science and Global Security 8, 1999, pp. 125-161), calculate that the amount of uranium inhaled by a person close to the target vehicle would be of the order of 0.1 mgm. The dose to a person a mile away downwind would be about a tenth as much. If a person unlucky enough to be exposed to several close hits were to inhale as much as 1.0 mgm. of uranium this would be roughly one half the annual dose of background radiation absorbed in an average one-family home in the USA. The statistical added risk of dying from cancer would be one in 20,000. (By way of comparison Americans have a one-in-five risk of dying from cancer anyway). These authors estimate that if ten percent of the 300 tons of DU expended in the Gulf War was converted into aerosols and blown over an area with average population density of 50 people per square kilometre (about right for Iraq) the result might be 10 excess lung cancer deaths in the lifetimes of the exposed population distributed over a population of up to one million. DU dust deposited by the plumes could be kicked up later by wind or human activity. For a resident population this might roughly double the initial inhalation dose.
The resulting radiation hazard has been calculated in various ways. Steve Fetter and Frank von Hippel in a very impressive paper (Science and Global Security 8, 1999, pp. 125-161), calculate that the amount of uranium inhaled by a person close to the target vehicle would be of the order of 0.1 mgm. The dose to a person a mile away downwind would be about a tenth as much. If a person unlucky enough to be exposed to several close hits were to inhale as much as 1.0 mgm. of uranium this would be roughly one half the annual dose of background radiation absorbed in an average one-family home in the USA. The statistical added risk of dying from cancer would be one in 20,000. (By way of comparison Americans have a one-in-five risk of dying from cancer anyway). These authors estimate that if ten percent of the 300 tons of DU expended in the Gulf War was converted into aerosols and blown over an area with average population density of 50 people per square kilometre (about right for Iraq) the result might be 10 excess lung cancer deaths in the lifetimes of the exposed population distributed over a population of up to one million. DU dust deposited by the plumes could be kicked up later by wind or human activity. For a resident population this might roughly double the initial inhalation dose.
The fourth case to be considered is that of individuals who have uranium imbedded in them as a result of shrapnel wounds - that is fragments of solid DU, resulting from the break up of projectiles, significantly larger than those just discussed. Such fragments should be readily detectable by X-rays and it would be normal surgical practice to remove the larger ones as soon as possible. Smaller particles, however, may be so intimately mingled with tissue as to be irremovable by surgical means. No such British casualties of this kind have occurred since the only 'friendly fire' episode in the Gulf War involved Maverick missiles not DU rounds. The Americans, however, had 6 Abrams tanks and 15 Bradley armoured personnel carriers hit by their own 120mm. DU sabot rounds in 'friendly fire' episodes. The US Veterans Administration is watching the health of 15 American soldiers with embedded DU fragments and studying the effect of such fragments in rats. Ten years later evidence of radiation damage has still not emerged in any of these cases. The number of Iraqi soldiers wounded in this way could, of course, run into thousands but no information on their clinical condition has been made available.
25. Taking all these factors into consideration the Defence Radiological Protection Service (DRPS) has concluded, so far as the British military are concerned, that even in the worst possible case during the Gulf War exposure levels 'would have been far below the very high exposure levels known to cause acute radiation health effects in humans'. That the same may be true of longer-term effects is suggested by the results of a significant study recently reported by the MoD (UK Gulf Veterans' Mortality, 20 July 2000). The research, carried out in Manchester University and reported in The Lancet on 1 July 2000, compared the mortality and causes of death of Gulf Veterans over the period April 1991 to June 2000 with a Control Group of service personnel, randomly selected to match by age, sex, service, Regular/Reservist and officer/rank, who did not serve in the Gulf. This has since been updated to 31 December 2000 (Mr. Spellar, 'Written Answer', 22 January 2001, Hansard, column 416W). The mortality of the Gulf cohort was greater than that of the Control group by 3% - not statistically significant. But disease-related deaths in the Gulf cohort were 18% lower than for the Controls. In particular deaths from cancer were 9% lower, from circulatory diseases 23% lower and from mental disorders 26% lower (on very small numbers). Only in the case of nervous and respiratory systems were the Gulf figures worse, by 7 to 4 and 9 to 5 respectively, out of total cohorts of 477 and 466
Depleted uranium (DU) is what is left over after natural uranium has been enriched, either for weapons-making or for reactor fuel. It is mildly radioactive in its solid form, and poses little if any cause for concern. Â Â
There is no scientifically proven evidence that it is harmful
Oh you're right, there's no evidence to the contrary. And Afghanistan was because the pipeline talks failed with the Taliban.
which has nothing to do with the vaporizing of the substance itself.
sure, you show that it's relatively harmless in solid form.
this ignores that it vaporizes when used as a weapon.
go ahead and fragent it into airborne particles and take a big whiff and then show me how safe that is.
there has been no conclusive research on it since it's only first been used during Gulf Storm...or are you still looking for evidence that it's been used for a long time now?
"sure, you show that it's relatively harmless in solid form."
"this ignores that it vaporizes when used as a weapon."
Really ? It ignores it ? Hmmmm
The resulting radiation hazard has been calculated in various ways. Steve Fetter and Frank von Hippel in a very impressive paper (Science and Global Security 8, 1999, pp. 125-161), calculate that the amount of uranium inhaled by a person close to the target vehicle would be of the order of 0.1 mgm. The dose to a person a mile away downwind would be about a tenth as much. If a person unlucky enough to be exposed to several close hits were to inhale as much as 1.0 mgm. of uranium this would be roughly one half the annual dose of background radiation absorbed in an average one-family home in the USA.
That's the exact reason I didn't want to post any of the info on it in the first place, because apparently you can't or didn't read it in the first place. You're right crabs apparently there's no contradictory evidence, well none you'll ever read other than a selected and hyped propoganda website. And 9-11 was about those foiled Taliban Bush pipline talks ;)
Not all of it is vaporized, it doesn't all hit the target either. and it's not all used in the same area or on the same target. "These authors estimate that if ten percent of the 300 tons of DU expended in the Gulf War was converted into aerosols and blown over an area with average population density of 50 people per square kilometre (about right for Iraq) the result might be 10 excess lung cancer deaths in the lifetimes of the exposed population distributed over a population of up to one million. DU dust deposited by the plumes could be kicked up later by wind or human activity. For a resident population this might roughly double the initial inhalation dose."
here's the DOD's Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute's briefing on DU
it concludes...
DU transforms cells to a tumorigenic phenotype
DU is mutagenic
DU exposure induces genetic instability
Strong evidence exists to support detailed study of DU carcinogenicity
The math has been done.
I don't think so...if you say that only 1/100th of it got into the air or water (a ridiculously conservative estimate), you still have a few million grams floating around.
now sure, you aren't there now...but you know, there are people who live there....here's some info on those who do...
By SUSAN TAYLOR MARTIN
Copyright St. Petersburg Times, published June 5, 2000
BASRA, Iraq -- It is a heart-breaking catalog of horrors.
Babies with grotesquely big heads. Or a single Cyclopean eye. Or no face at all, just a gaping hole where the nose should be.
"This family near Kuwait had three children -- all the same, no genitalia," says Dr. Janan Hassan, flipping over page after page of stomach-turning photos. "You could not even tell the sex."
In the past nine years, Hassan and other doctors in this southern Iraqi city have seen what they say is an ever-growing number of babies with hideous birth defects. Last year alone, at least 137 were born with congenital malformities, five times as many as reported in 1991.
And that is not the only frightening trend. Iraqi authorities say the number of children and adults stricken with leukemia, lymphoma and other types of cancer has also soared since the 1991 Persian Gulf War.
To the Iraqis, there is a simple explanation. They blame the increases on exposure to depleted uranium, a radioactive substance used in weapons fired during the war by U.S.-led forces.
But many outside experts say the claim is premature. There have been no scientific studies in Iraq itself. The few conducted elsewhere have found that depleted uranium causes little risk of cancer and none at all of birth defects. Other hazards could be at fault, the experts say.
Thus continues a major medical mystery -- one of concern not only to Iraq but also the thousands of Gulf War veterans from the United States, Canada and other nations who have long complained of apparent war-related health problems.
There is worry, too, in Kosovo, where NATO forces used munitions containing depleted uranium to attack Serbian troops last year.
"The issue has become polarized," says Dan Fahey, a U.S. Navy veteran who has spent years trying to prod the Pentagon into acknowledging the potential risks from depleted uranium.
"The danger with DU is mainly localized contamination in the immediate area, say within 150 feet of a tank that's hit. Some people make it sound like if you're 100 miles away you're breathing in the dust. In my opinion they are inflating the hazards, but it is a serious hazard and in terms of how this has impacted the health of vets and civilians it definitely needs more study."
Of the three types of uranium, two are fissionable and thus key in the making of nuclear bombs. The leftover material, called depleted uranium, is valuable in other types of weapons because it is so dense and heavy.
At high speed, a shell containing 10 pounds of solid DU can slice through tanks like "a hot knife through butter," in one apt description. It burns on impact, releasing particles that are toxic and remain radioactive for billions of years.
During the Gulf War, allied troops fired almost 1-million rounds containing an estimated 300 tons of depleted uranium. Most of those hit Iraqi tanks or fell on Iraqi soil. However, U.S. soldiers were also exposed, either wounded by "friendly fire" or from inhaling contaminated dust as they clambered over Iraqi tanks at war's end.
At the time no one -- neither Iraqis nor Americans -- knew much about the health risks from depleted uranium. But within a year, Iraqi doctors realized that something strange seemed to be happening.
Women who lived near the battlefields or whose husbands had fought in the war began having more and more babies with birth defects. Some survived, usually those with cleft palates or missing limbs. Others were stillborn, including some with tails, two heads, no brains or such terrible malformities they barely appeared human.
"I am a pediatrician but there is nothing even in the books about these kinds of things," says Dr. Hassan, a professor in the medical college of Basra University.
In 1991, her records show, 28 babies in Basra had birth defects, for a rate of 2.84 abnormalities per 1,000 births.
In 1998, the number of infants born with defects grew to 78 and the rate ballooned to 7.76.
"And the numbers will go up more and more," Hassan predicts. "The trend may continue forever. DU is radioactive and Basra is saturated with DU. This is a crime. What crime have our children done to deserve this?"
Along with the increase in birth defects has been a 262 percent percent jump in leukemia and other cancers nationwide, Iraqi authorities say.
In Basra, the hardest hit area, cancer strikes almost seven times as many people as it did in 1988, according to Dr. Jawa Kadhim Al-Alia, an oncologist at Saddam Teaching Hospital. Three of his best friends, two doctors and a pharmacist, have sons with leukemia.
"Everybody is afraid of getting cancer," Al-Alia says. For the first time in his long career, he is also seeing many "clusters" -- cancer striking several members of the same family.
Doctors at Saddam Central Teaching Hospital in Baghdad, where many young leukemia victims go for treatment, used to get only a few cases a year. Now two or three children are diagnosed every week.
"In Jordan and Egypt there is a very low incidence of leukemia," says Dr. Basim Al Abdili, the chief resident. "The cause of this is very clear, It's depleted uranium used during the war."
you don't have to beg, go right ahead and differ with me
ok. i won't, and i will. :) she ain't an object. not by any meaning of the word.
that is a picture of a sexually objectified piece of candy
ohh. you're talking about the avatar, and not the person behing it. gotcha. :)
you figured that out didja?
yeah. see the problem around these parts is that most of us know each other in real life. makes it a bit more difficult to differentiate between avatar and the person behind it :)
oh shut up you big talking molecular structure you.
I would have thought that would make it a good deal easier to differentiate
she doesn't look like a big piece of candy in real life, does she?
not really.
WoW Jethro. I agree with you! Can't believe I am actually admitting it!
Damn! I slipped up!!!!!
Yup, and I'm not really Wyle E. Coyote, I just look like him in real life.
January 19. 2003 6:30AM
Women reflect on abortions, evoking range of emotions
By DAVID CRARY
AP national writer
"Syverson, a stockbroker from Hampden, Maine, with two sons in their 20s, regrets the two abortions she had as a troubled teenager and has worked with an anti-abortion group called Feminists for Life to dissuade other women from doing what she did."
"I know abortion hurts women, so I'd sure like to make it hardly ever happen," she said.
http://www.gainesvillesun.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Site=GS&Date=20030119&Category=NEWS02&ArtNo=201190331&Ref=AR&Profile=1001
"Roughly 1.2 million abortions are performed nationwide each year, yet abortion foes say it is still wrong, even if commonplace. Some denounce it as murder and depict abortion clinics as "death camps."
"I was very much in favor of legalized abortion - I felt it was absolutely necessary for women to be able to meet their educational and career goals," she said. "But it turned out to be very traumatic psychologically. . . . I instinctively knew I had ended the life of my child."
"Though she now opposes abortion, Jenkins doesn't believe the time is right for a reversal of Roe v. Wade. She advocates an incremental approach, starting with programs to help young, pregnant women stay on track in their education and careers even if they give birth."
"I don't think we're at a place to close all the doors," Jenkins said. "I want to see options that empower women. Whether women regret or don't regret their abortions, there are very few who feel they had all the options available to them when they were pregnant."
This is a very good article and I hope you all get the chance to read it.
QUESTION: Why did you write the book?
ANSWER: We wanted the American people to have an inside view of what goes on beyond the closed and secretive doors of these abortion clinics. Everybody has this view that it's like any other medical environment in which people act in a certain professional manner and everything is clean. We knew that was not the case with the typical abortion clinic, and we wanted to show people the reality. That's another reason we went overboard on the documentation.
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30556
MATTERS OF LIFE AND DEATH
Behind the abortion clinic door
Unique book documents unseen culture's devastating toll on women and workers
Posted: January 18, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern
Editor's note: Mark Crutcher's heavily documented probe into the culture of abortion clinics resulted in a groundbreaking book, "Lime 5: Exploited by Choice." Crutcher, president of the pro-life group Life Dynamics, used public records and first-hand accounts to uncover abortion's devastating and often gruesome toll, not only on unborn children, but on women and abortion providers. Since it was published in 1996, the evidence has only mounted, contends Crutcher, who spoke to WorldNetDaily yesterday.
From today's Strib:
Whose life sacred?
CNN reported, "In a move praised by conservatives and criticized by abortion-rights activists, President Bush declared Jan. 19 'National Sanctity of Human Life Day.' "
Where does the hypocrisy of our president stop? While declaring a day of National Sanctity of Human Life, he is planning to bomb the people of Iraq.
Maybe in his view the sanctity of human life only applies to American life.
ANGELIKA SHAFER
St. Paul
If someone can't see that they are different. forget it.
Then he should have made it "Sanctity of Unborn Human Life Day" shouldn't he? Because that was really the point wasn't it? Anyway, back to treasure hunting...
This president's a warrior. He's about engage in a brutal conflict.
Now, that's another subject, but this touchy-feely language about the sanctity of life clouds his message, at a moment when one would think clarity is important.
Rick 1/20/03 6:22am
I believe President Bush declared Jan. 19th "National Sanctity of Human Life Day" a while back, not this year, isn't that right?
Our president is about to engage in a move to disarm Sadaam of his weapons of mass destruction which in fact, Sadaam used on the Iranians and killed many with chemical and biological weapons. The children who were born from those left behind suffer severely from illnesses and cancers.
President Bush does not want to see that happen to our children. Do you?
I won't dignify the question with an answer.
no
it was OUR weapons that used depleted uranium that are causing all the cancer and birth defects among both the Iraqi people and our own soldiers who were exposed to OUR weapons that use depleted uranium.
Crabs,
Crab, That's a myth. Ask CSC, he knows more about it than I do. But the depleted uranium rounds you are talking about are in such limited numbers and "r" factors that it's a minute amount.
Luv2Fly 1/20/03 10:19am
Thanks Luv!
uh...no
Over 940,000 30-millimeter uranium tipped bullets and "more than 14,000 large caliber DU rounds were consumed during Operation Desert Storm/Desert Shield." (U.S. Army Environmental Policy Institute)
Between 300 and 800 tons of DU particles and dust were scattered over the ground and the water in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Iraq.
The UN Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities passed a resolution condemning the use of Depleted Uranium and certain other weapons during its 48th session in August 1996
Several years ago a report by the US Army Environmental Policy Institute said: "If DU enters the body, it has the potential to generate significant medical consequences. The risks associated with DU in the body are both chemical and radiological. Personnel inside or near vehicles struck by DU penetrators could receive significant internal exposures."
One UK Gulf veteran is Ray Bristow, a former marathon runner.
In 1999 he told the BBC: "I gradually noticed that every time I went out for a run my distance got shorter and shorter, my recovery time longer and longer. Now, on my good days, I get around quite adequately with a walking stick, so long as it's short distances. Any further, and I need to be pushed in a wheelchair."
Ray Bristow was tested - in Canada - for DU. He is open-minded about the role of DU in his condition. But he says: "I remained in Saudi Arabia throughout the war. I never once went into Iraq or Kuwait, where these munitions were used. But the tests showed, in layman's terms, that I have been exposed to over 100 times an individual's safe annual exposure to depleted uranium."
Doug Rokke, a former US army colonel who served in Vietnam, was sent to the Gulf in 1991 to advise on cleaning up radioactive debris.
He says almost every member of the team of 30 experts he took with him is now seriously ill, and three have died of lung cancer.
Others say they have children born with defects.
Crabgrass,
I've seen a ton of pro-con stuff about it. Alot of what I've seen recently seems to be leaning towards other sources. I'll see if I can get some links for you later today as time permits.
It's been less than two years since the Kosovo air campaign. And DU is actually 40 percent less radioactive than uranium found in the natural environment, he said.
Daxon, who holds a doctorate in radiation hygiene from the University of Pittsburgh and a masters degree in nuclear engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is making it his business to dispel myths about the dangers of depleted uranium.
He said the false link between DU and leukemia began with a report issued in Iraq two years ago.
"If you read the (Iraqi) report, it's just not scientifically valid," Daxon said. He pointed to studies by the National Academy of Sciences that show no evidence of an increase in leukemia due to uranium exposure. Other studies show the incidence of leukemia in soldiers deployed to the Gulf is actually the same as those not deployed, he said.
of course, exploding it into a vapor isn't exactly a "natural environment". Vaporized DU acts as both a chemical and radioactive substance in your system.
The fact is, no one really knows it's effects on the human body since Gulf Storm is the first it's been used and the government is reluctant to find out something that may cost them a LOT of money to try to fix.
It's a criminal weapon.
and if you are wrong, it's too late.
If you lob a conventional shell into the ground it makes it airborne. Its not a vapor either by the way. I'd be happy to talk about it further over in the Iraq thread.
Why would they even use uranium in a bullet unless it had some extra harmful effect?
I don't understand the point of this debate, Crabs.
Saddam is a son of a bitch. But for awhile he might have been OUR son of a bitch.
Now he isn't.
What are you trying to say? You have the hardest time getting to the point of any person on this board.
the heaviness of the metal makes for better armor piercing qualities.
You don't just quit the mafia.
well, we have gone WAY off topic here.
the only thread is that the weapons we are using appear to show little regard for the unborn.
Good idea. Time to move on . I'm close to giving up on you, Crabs.
Allison.
Crabs pretty much summed up why it's used. The range of the average armor piercing round made of tungsten is about 1,800 meters vs. a d.u shell which gives it an effective range of almost double that. In short we could fire and destroy their tanks much sooner than they could ours they had to get alot closer. Think there might be an alterior motive for some to want those tips banned ?
Ah I thought it was one of those wound your enemy instead of kill them so that the casualties use up more resources sort of things.
you mean like our motive for wanting to ban Iraq's weapons?
no.
these weapons are a pandora's box of misery.
I'm sure you want to tell all those Gulf Storm vets with serious health problems that it's no big deal.
I have many friends that I served with that have Gulf War syndrome almost half my old unit has symptoms. So do pilots and desk jocks in Riyadh that were no where near it. If I thought for one minute that was a cause I'd have a different outlook I'm sure. There's too much contrary evidence and doesn't explain why people no where near it have symptoms. I truly think it was from the varrious innoculations we underwent. If it was from DU then I would probably have it as well I don't have any sympotms fortunately. I am not alone in thinking that it was from other things. DU has been used for a number of years now.
when you vaporize something, it goes into the atmosphere and can be carried a great distance. It goes into the water supply. There is NO evidence to the contrary. If your friends are sick from vaccinations, why are the Iraqi people having the same problems?
could you provide any information that shows it's use prior to Gulf Storm? Because I'm fairly certain that Gulf Storm was the first use.
we also used napalm and agent orange in Nam and nuked the Japanese. Talk about a long lasting abortion technique.
When done in the cause of the greater good it can always be justified.
It's not a vapor nor do the target's ie; tanks vaporize. A projectile goes through the armor of an enemy tank, it pierces the armor and the shrapnel is what kills it's occupants. If the shrapnel gets in you then yes you would have an exposed risk but nothing is vaporized as it's not a "hot" round, it has no incindiary qualities to it. In order for it to "vaporize" it would have to be one nasty fire to melt it down or to vaporize it.
They aren't the same problems. They are different symptoms and sickness'.
Yes there is.
It wasn't and no I won't, not today.
"When done in the cause of the greater good it can always be justified. "
Or the lesser evil. I don't think war is ever moral. But avoiding war can be a greater immorality.
you should really do a little research...
it goes straight through it and then erupts in a burning cloud of vapour
feel free to provide it
one has to wonder if it's "won't" or "can't"
again, a little research would do wonders...
Depleted uranium was first used on a large scale in military combat during the 1991 Gulf War, and has since been used in Bosnia in 1995, and again in the Balkans war of 1999.
You're right, God you're easy :) So here you go.
BTW I was talking about the target vaporizing.
From the article you posted. (I see it was from the same article you posted before.)
So here you go, some more homework for you.
The resulting radiation hazard has been calculated in various ways. Steve Fetter and Frank von Hippel in a very impressive paper (Science and Global Security 8, 1999, pp. 125-161), calculate that the amount of uranium inhaled by a person close to the target vehicle would be of the order of 0.1 mgm. The dose to a person a mile away downwind would be about a tenth as much. If a person unlucky enough to be exposed to several close hits were to inhale as much as 1.0 mgm. of uranium this would be roughly one half the annual dose of background radiation absorbed in an average one-family home in the USA. The statistical added risk of dying from cancer would be one in 20,000. (By way of comparison Americans have a one-in-five risk of dying from cancer anyway). These authors estimate that if ten percent of the 300 tons of DU expended in the Gulf War was converted into aerosols and blown over an area with average population density of 50 people per square kilometre (about right for Iraq) the result might be 10 excess lung cancer deaths in the lifetimes of the exposed population distributed over a population of up to one million. DU dust deposited by the plumes could be kicked up later by wind or human activity. For a resident population this might roughly double the initial inhalation dose.
The fourth case to be considered is that of individuals who have uranium imbedded in them as a result of shrapnel wounds - that is fragments of solid DU, resulting from the break up of projectiles, significantly larger than those just discussed. Such fragments should be readily detectable by X-rays and it would be normal surgical practice to remove the larger ones as soon as possible. Smaller particles, however, may be so intimately mingled with tissue as to be irremovable by surgical means. No such British casualties of this kind have occurred since the only 'friendly fire' episode in the Gulf War involved Maverick missiles not DU rounds. The Americans, however, had 6 Abrams tanks and 15 Bradley armoured personnel carriers hit by their own 120mm. DU sabot rounds in 'friendly fire' episodes. The US Veterans Administration is watching the health of 15 American soldiers with embedded DU fragments and studying the effect of such fragments in rats. Ten years later evidence of radiation damage has still not emerged in any of these cases. The number of Iraqi soldiers wounded in this way could, of course, run into thousands but no information on their clinical condition has been made available.
25. Taking all these factors into consideration the Defence Radiological Protection Service (DRPS) has concluded, so far as the British military are concerned, that even in the worst possible case during the Gulf War exposure levels 'would have been far below the very high exposure levels known to cause acute radiation health effects in humans'. That the same may be true of longer-term effects is suggested by the results of a significant study recently reported by the MoD (UK Gulf Veterans' Mortality, 20 July 2000). The research, carried out in Manchester University and reported in The Lancet on 1 July 2000, compared the mortality and causes of death of Gulf Veterans over the period April 1991 to June 2000 with a Control Group of service personnel, randomly selected to match by age, sex, service, Regular/Reservist and officer/rank, who did not serve in the Gulf. This has since been updated to 31 December 2000 (Mr. Spellar, 'Written Answer', 22 January 2001, Hansard, column 416W). The mortality of the Gulf cohort was greater than that of the Control group by 3% - not statistically significant. But disease-related deaths in the Gulf cohort were 18% lower than for the Controls. In particular deaths from cancer were 9% lower, from circulatory diseases 23% lower and from mental disorders 26% lower (on very small numbers). Only in the case of nervous and respiratory systems were the Gulf figures worse, by 7 to 4 and 9 to 5 respectively, out of total cohorts of 477 and 466
http://www.isisuk.demon.co.uk/0811/isis/uk/regpapers/no78long_paper.html#1
And then back to your article.
Oh you're right, there's no evidence to the contrary. And Afghanistan was because the pipeline talks failed with the Taliban.
Train's a' comin'.
which has nothing to do with the vaporizing of the substance itself.
sure, you show that it's relatively harmless in solid form.
this ignores that it vaporizes when used as a weapon.
go ahead and fragent it into airborne particles and take a big whiff and then show me how safe that is.
there has been no conclusive research on it since it's only first been used during Gulf Storm...or are you still looking for evidence that it's been used for a long time now?
"sure, you show that it's relatively harmless in solid form."
"this ignores that it vaporizes when used as a weapon."
Really ? It ignores it ? Hmmmm
That's the exact reason I didn't want to post any of the info on it in the first place, because apparently you can't or didn't read it in the first place. You're right crabs apparently there's no contradictory evidence, well none you'll ever read other than a selected and hyped propoganda website. And 9-11 was about those foiled Taliban Bush pipline talks ;)
315 tons (290,000,000 grams) of DU were spent in Gulf Storm
do the math
Not all of it is vaporized, it doesn't all hit the target either. and it's not all used in the same area or on the same target. "These authors estimate that if ten percent of the 300 tons of DU expended in the Gulf War was converted into aerosols and blown over an area with average population density of 50 people per square kilometre (about right for Iraq) the result might be 10 excess lung cancer deaths in the lifetimes of the exposed population distributed over a population of up to one million. DU dust deposited by the plumes could be kicked up later by wind or human activity. For a resident population this might roughly double the initial inhalation dose."
The math has been done. Nice try though.
here's the DOD's Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute's briefing on DU
it concludes...
DU transforms cells to a tumorigenic phenotype
DU is mutagenic
DU exposure induces genetic instability
Strong evidence exists to support detailed study of DU carcinogenicity
I don't think so...if you say that only 1/100th of it got into the air or water (a ridiculously conservative estimate), you still have a few million grams floating around.
now sure, you aren't there now...but you know, there are people who live there....here's some info on those who do...
By SUSAN TAYLOR MARTIN
Copyright St. Petersburg Times, published June 5, 2000
BASRA, Iraq -- It is a heart-breaking catalog of horrors.
Babies with grotesquely big heads. Or a single Cyclopean eye. Or no face at all, just a gaping hole where the nose should be.
"This family near Kuwait had three children -- all the same, no genitalia," says Dr. Janan Hassan, flipping over page after page of stomach-turning photos. "You could not even tell the sex."
In the past nine years, Hassan and other doctors in this southern Iraqi city have seen what they say is an ever-growing number of babies with hideous birth defects. Last year alone, at least 137 were born with congenital malformities, five times as many as reported in 1991.
And that is not the only frightening trend. Iraqi authorities say the number of children and adults stricken with leukemia, lymphoma and other types of cancer has also soared since the 1991 Persian Gulf War.
To the Iraqis, there is a simple explanation. They blame the increases on exposure to depleted uranium, a radioactive substance used in weapons fired during the war by U.S.-led forces.
But many outside experts say the claim is premature. There have been no scientific studies in Iraq itself. The few conducted elsewhere have found that depleted uranium causes little risk of cancer and none at all of birth defects. Other hazards could be at fault, the experts say.
Thus continues a major medical mystery -- one of concern not only to Iraq but also the thousands of Gulf War veterans from the United States, Canada and other nations who have long complained of apparent war-related health problems.
There is worry, too, in Kosovo, where NATO forces used munitions containing depleted uranium to attack Serbian troops last year.
"The issue has become polarized," says Dan Fahey, a U.S. Navy veteran who has spent years trying to prod the Pentagon into acknowledging the potential risks from depleted uranium.
"The danger with DU is mainly localized contamination in the immediate area, say within 150 feet of a tank that's hit. Some people make it sound like if you're 100 miles away you're breathing in the dust. In my opinion they are inflating the hazards, but it is a serious hazard and in terms of how this has impacted the health of vets and civilians it definitely needs more study."
Of the three types of uranium, two are fissionable and thus key in the making of nuclear bombs. The leftover material, called depleted uranium, is valuable in other types of weapons because it is so dense and heavy.
At high speed, a shell containing 10 pounds of solid DU can slice through tanks like "a hot knife through butter," in one apt description. It burns on impact, releasing particles that are toxic and remain radioactive for billions of years.
During the Gulf War, allied troops fired almost 1-million rounds containing an estimated 300 tons of depleted uranium. Most of those hit Iraqi tanks or fell on Iraqi soil. However, U.S. soldiers were also exposed, either wounded by "friendly fire" or from inhaling contaminated dust as they clambered over Iraqi tanks at war's end.
At the time no one -- neither Iraqis nor Americans -- knew much about the health risks from depleted uranium. But within a year, Iraqi doctors realized that something strange seemed to be happening.
Women who lived near the battlefields or whose husbands had fought in the war began having more and more babies with birth defects. Some survived, usually those with cleft palates or missing limbs. Others were stillborn, including some with tails, two heads, no brains or such terrible malformities they barely appeared human.
"I am a pediatrician but there is nothing even in the books about these kinds of things," says Dr. Hassan, a professor in the medical college of Basra University.
In 1991, her records show, 28 babies in Basra had birth defects, for a rate of 2.84 abnormalities per 1,000 births.
In 1998, the number of infants born with defects grew to 78 and the rate ballooned to 7.76.
"And the numbers will go up more and more," Hassan predicts. "The trend may continue forever. DU is radioactive and Basra is saturated with DU. This is a crime. What crime have our children done to deserve this?"
Along with the increase in birth defects has been a 262 percent percent jump in leukemia and other cancers nationwide, Iraqi authorities say.
In Basra, the hardest hit area, cancer strikes almost seven times as many people as it did in 1988, according to Dr. Jawa Kadhim Al-Alia, an oncologist at Saddam Teaching Hospital. Three of his best friends, two doctors and a pharmacist, have sons with leukemia.
"Everybody is afraid of getting cancer," Al-Alia says. For the first time in his long career, he is also seeing many "clusters" -- cancer striking several members of the same family.
Doctors at Saddam Central Teaching Hospital in Baghdad, where many young leukemia victims go for treatment, used to get only a few cases a year. Now two or three children are diagnosed every week.
"In Jordan and Egypt there is a very low incidence of leukemia," says Dr. Basim Al Abdili, the chief resident. "The cause of this is very clear, It's depleted uranium used during the war."