Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Dep. Uranium Measured in British Atmosphere from Battlefields in ME

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
Jcrowley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-26-06 10:00 PM
Original message
Dep. Uranium Measured in British Atmosphere from Battlefields in ME
The Queen's Death Star

Depleted Uranium Measured in British Atmosphere from
Battlefields in the Middle East 

"Did the use of Uranium weapons in Gulf War II result in contamination of Europe? Evidence from the measurements of the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE), Aldermaston, Berkshire, UK," reported the Sunday Times Online (February 19, 2006) in a shocking scientific study authored by British scientists Dr. Chris Busby and Saoirse Morgan.

The highest levels of depleted uranium ever measured in the atmosphere in Britain, were transported on air currents from the Middle East and Central Asia; of special significance were those from the Tora Bora bombing in Afghanistan in 2001, and the "Shock & Awe" bombing during Gulf War II in Iraq in 2003.

Out of concern for the public, the official British government air monitoring facility, known as the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE), at Aldermaston, was established years ago to measure radioactive emissions from British nuclear power plants and atomic weapons facilities. The British government facility (AWE) was taken over 3 years ago by Halliburton, which refused at first to release air monitoring data to Dr. Busby, as required by law.

An international expert on low level radiation, Busby serves as an official advisor on several British government committees, and co-authored an independent report on low level radiation with 45 scientists, the European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR), for the European Parliament. He was able to get Aldermaston air monitoring data from Halliburton /AWE by filing a Freedom of Information request using a new British law which became effective January 1, 2005; but the data for 2003 was missing. He obtained the 2003 data from the Defence Procurement Agency.

http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2006/DU-Europe-Moret26feb06.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
cyberpj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-26-06 10:07 PM
Response to Original message
1. The British government facility (AWE) was taken over by Halliburton
The British government facility (AWE) was taken over 3 years ago by Halliburton, which refused at first to release air monitoring data to Dr. Busby, as required by law.

No surprises there.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sam sarrha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-26-06 10:27 PM
Response to Original message
2. consider Iraq's problems with 2000 tons of DU all over the country, LINK>
http://www.desertconcerns.org/duiraq.html

and google: 'extreme birth defects Iraq' some of the photos are disturbing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sam sarrha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-26-06 10:32 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Depleted Uranium is a cheap way to dump Nuclear waste in 3rd world coun
country, some minor campaign contributions and you can save millions and maybe make billions dumping radio active waste somewhere else..

the real problem with DU is its EXTREME HEAVY METAL TOXICITY.. not so much it radio activity.

the opposition will aways bring up it lack of radioactivity.. it is its toxicity, causing Cancer and birth defects. google, extreme birth defects depleted uranium
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-28-06 09:48 AM
Response to Original message
4. I'd like to see this updated.
In February when it was originally posted, it was pointed out that there were some severe flaws with the study. Severe, to the point of making the conclusions tenable only if you looked at their restricted dataset; if you pondered what must be going on outside the area they studied, you found that there was no information. They didn't make the least effort to falsify their own results or deal with potential objections, or even consider other possibilities. Shoddy research. Or advocacy. The latter usually leads to the former.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 03:43 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC