Spent Nuclear Weapons In Iraq

[des]

I did a websearch and only found a couple of links on this, saying that they were used. But last night, oh nerd that I am, I watched Helen Caldicott on CSPAN2. She was on for something like 3 hours.

 

She spoke briefly about these. And that they are used in Iraq. Basically it is a shell that uses spent uranium (I think that's uranium 238 vs the highly fisionable 235). Spent uranium is not fissionable, so these are not considered true nuclear weapons. But they are both carcinogenic and radioactive. She described increased cases of cancer (though in such a short term in it really hard to predict) and radiation burns. She did not describe exactly how these are used, ie some type of mortar or bombs. Exactly the purpose would be unclear as well, except to inflict LOTS of damage.

 

Dr. Caldicott is interesting, rather hyper, and exceedingly passionate. So it was hard for me to tell truth from non-truth or hyperbolie in some of her statements. Anybody know anything about this? She does not even have anything on her website unless there is another term.

(www.nuclearpolicy.com) With no clear idea of why it is used, it seems extremely immoral, as if war itself is not bad enough. If it is true, it is not written about, talked about, etc. (I think though the question itself came from a listener.)

 

--des

[ArmadilloUCC]

I don't know much. But I have read that cases of Gulf War Syndrome may have been caused by this. I tihnk if you were to read about Gulf War Syndrome you might know more.

Dillo

[BrotherRog]

I understand that the former U.S. navy base outside of Puerto Rico called Viequess (sp?) is rife with uranium residues and that it has led to marked increases in Cancers rates among those islanders.

[des]

You're right Armadillo, I did look up the Gulf war syndrome and got lots of hits. They call it "depleted" vs spent uranium. I also got hits for depleted uranium and Iraq. The whole thing appears unconscionable, but I don't feel well enough today to read any more.

 

Though I didn't feel like reading more this appears to be a pretty good article:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/951...5178_du12.shtml

This appears to, in no way be a strategic weapon, if there even is such a thing.

 

--des

[TheMeekShall]

The problem with DU, is it burns on impact, realeasing particles that easily get in the lungs. These are chemically toxic as heavy metals, as well as radioactive. The old standards of toxicity were based on much larger particles that didn't get in the bloodsteam as easily.