U.S. nuclear attacks cause cancer epidemic in Iraq

Post Reply New Topic

If people had nuclear waste dumped in their backyard they'd be screaming "Nuclear" this and "Nuclear" that as loud as people can hear it. It's nuclear waste. They attack people with nuclear waste. The media does not call it that but it should because that is what it is. The media uses the words the Pentagon wants them to use and talks about the issue as much as the Pentagon wants them to talk about it - that is as few times as possible! Think about the name "depleted uranium" - it has built-in something for the apologists, the word "depleted" - it's uranium with all the bad stuff removed from it, so it must be all right, and after all our side is using it and we wouldn't use anything we wouldn't want to be littering our own land... sure that's so, sure...

Face it, the Western powers are committing a major crime here and they refuse to report it because it's the silver bullet that helps with a qualitative advantage on the battlefield and the generals and the armed forces don't want to give it up, even if clouds of this dust sweep the earth and kill us all!

The U.S. has not used any nuclear weapons at all in Iraq. The last nuclear weapon used in war by the U.S. was the bomb that leveled Nagasaki in 1945.

The U.S. has used depleted uranium shells, but these are not nuclear weapons. Uranium is a nasty poisonous metal and is very bad for one's health. U238 is pretty stable and gives off very little radioactive emission, but is is poisonous. The half life of U238 is about 4.5 billion years so it decays very slowly. However if it is bombarded by neutrons it will produce plutonium which is very radioactive and poisonous.

Bob Kolker

I suggest using the most alarming language possible because it is justified considering what is going on.

What we have is a very alarming situation in a different way. We have here a "silver bullet" that gives certain Western armies a qualitative advantage on the battlefield. There is no similar substance that will do what this nuclear waste does, much as it's difficult to replicate an atomic explosion using conventional explosives. As such, Western armies MUST use this nuclear waste or else they suffer on the battlefield, and this is a no-no. This situation contrasts to that of Agent Orange, where they poisoned people with dioxin. This defoliant was, firstly, not of primary battlefield importance unlike bullets, missiles and shells, and secondly, they could always try to brew a not so dangerous defoliant. With this nuclear waste there is no alternative. So, governments have decided this and will keep using it despite its incredible danger. How do they justify it? They use weasel words and they refuse to talk about it as much as possible. It's a real black hole when it comes to this story out there. A major crime is being committed and there's so much silence and denial out there about it... because advantages on the battlefield are paramount and Western armies are not going to willingly give up this particular advantage. There is a real blackout over this.

This is one reason I was so much opposed to the attack on Yugoslavia in 1999. Many people who claimed to be liberals and leftists and humanitarians said that this war was justified. I wonder how it benefits anyone in Kosovo or anywhere else to have nuclear waste dumped all over their land. I also was aware of the horrible damage done to life-sustaining infrastructure in Iraq in 1991 and that this was a ghastly thing to do to Yugoslavia, but this is yet another story that was blacked out. Instead, we are told about easy wars with no cost to us and these will deliver "justice" - we are not told that this includes sickness and death caused by nuclear waste.

I did some calculations using the formula Activity per gram (in decays/second) = [6.0221x10^23 / Atomic Mass] x [Natural Log 2 / Half-Life (in seconds)] and referenced to Wikipedia for info on Uranium and Radon (to find something to compare it with.)

Basically, inhaling one milligram of Uranium-238 will approximately double your lung's radiation dose that it gets from the natural Radon gas that is floating around outside in the open air, and is about 1/20th to 1/40th the amount that if it were radon, they'd recommend you install ventilation to remove from your basement. So getting 20-40 mg U-238 trapped into your lungs would be about the same as staying in a stuffy radon-trapping basement for the rest of your life. Not sure what to compare it to for if it's ingested though.

To better visualize this amount, "low dose" aspirin tablets are 75 milligrams, and as its less dense than uranium, the volume would be much smaller.

I can easily see even with its very long half-life, the radioactivity aspect of it could cause some health problems, especially to those on the battlefields or in the immediate aftermath, but anywhere the dust ends up where it can be inhaled or ingested is pretty bad. Still, I think its chemical toxicity is probably the worst of it and will have the most immediate effects.

If nuclear waste was dumped on a major city, right, there would not be nuclear fission either. But they'd still use the word "nuclear". This serves in part to dissuade people from doing such things, this would become a scandal, this would be considered to be a crime. So, when the militaires decide that they have no choice but to use nuclear waste in the "great wars for civilisation", and these wars, we are told, are of course essential to everything, they refuse to call it what it is and try to cover it up as much as possible so that they can keep committing these crimes.

By the way, according to our rulers, anthrax is a "weapon of mass destruction". This of course is a lie, except perhaps for powdered anthrax that Iraq never had. This powdered anthrax was used by the 2001 anthrax killer. Yesterday, the Americans said that the investigation into these "weapons of mass destruction" attacks would be stopped. If they described it as such then there'd be an outcry but since then they've stopped talking about it and it has been long-forgotten - it was just part of the post-911 hysteria.

This suggests that the people behind the anthrax attacks were protected by the government. Philip Zack, most likely suspect, was never, ever put under any scrutiny officially or by media. That he was a pro-Israeli zealot may have something to do with it. It doesn't fit in with the conventional narrative to say "WMD attack was for Israel".