The overlooked "nuclear" weapon Depleted Uranium
theother
know about the effects of DU kinetic energy weapons beyond the vehicle they
hit. If you would like to know go here:
http://www.miltoxproj.org/DU/DU_Titlepage/DU_Titlepage.htmd
George William Herbert
The topic keeps coming up, though it is theoretically off topic here.
The more extreme allegations included in that site are
scientifically demonstrably false. DU presents a health
hazard on the battlefield; so does burnt rubber, lead from
bullets, burnt gunpowder, unexploded shells, etc.
DU is a chemical hazard roughly comparable to lead,
though it is roughly three times more toxic per unit
mass of uranium in the body compared to lead.
It is easily manageable as a health hazard
(don't breathe the dust) compared to many of the
other battlefield health hazards. DU in quantities
which aren't going to pickle the subject is not
a radioactivity hazard.
-george william herbert
gher...@retro.com
theother
George William Herbert <gher...@gw.retro.com> wrote in message
news:apv2pd$oh6$1...@gw.retro.com...
> theother <theo...@erols.com> wrote:
> >I don't know if this topic has come up lately (I'm a newbie) but what do
you
> >know about the effects of DU kinetic energy weapons beyond the vehicle
they
> >hit. If you would like to know go here:
> >http://www.miltoxproj.org/DU/DU_Titlepage/DU_Titlepage.htmd
>
> The topic keeps coming up, though it is theoretically off topic here.
Oh, I didn't know that shooting RADIOACTIVE WASTE by-product from our
uranium enrichment program at our enemies was off topic (it is considered
depleted because the U 235 has been removed for bomb\fuel production). It
may be low intensity nuclear warfare but these are radiological materials
that we are talking about that require NRC license to handle or test fire.
The Army holds 14 separate NRC licenses related to DU.
> The more extreme allegations included in that site are scientifically
demonstrably false.
What extreme allegations are you referring to and what is your scientific
evidence to support this?
> DU presents a health hazard on the battlefield; so does burnt rubber,
lead from
> bullets, burnt gunpowder, unexploded shells, etc.
The hazards you mention do not last for 4.5 Billion years! The legacy we
leave the future will be compounded by the fact that 17 countries now have
DU in their inventories and the Russians sell DU ammunition on the open
market, soon the world will be awash DU weapons. Then we won't be the only
ones slicing tanks like butter. ALL of the Abrams M-1 tanks (22) that were
knocked out in Desert Storm fell to DU Friendly fire. The proliferation of
DU ammo throughout the world will only increase the chance that U.S.
soldiers will be on the receiving end in the future. By the way some of the
contaminated M-1's could not be decontaminated so they were buried in the
Nevada desert.
`
> DU is a chemical hazard roughly comparable to lead,
> though it is roughly three times more toxic per unit
> mass of uranium in the body compared to lead.
WHAT?!?!? If my car got three times the mileage of yours I would not call
that comparable
> It is easily manageable as a health hazard
> (don't breathe the dust)
Well I guess all the soldiers have to do is hold their breath. Didn't you
see any film of the environment Desert Storm was fought in? None of the
soldiers wore their gas masks unless a Bio alert was issued because it was
too damn HOT! We destroyed 1000's of vehicles with DU rounds and then
marched through them dust and all. Sometimes units camped in close proximity
to knocked out vehicles eating food and BREATHING both of these activities
are big no no's in the presence of DU contamination. Desert dust storms
which are frequent during certain seasons will be sure to spread the LOVE
for billions of years to come. Soldiers were not warned of the dangers of
climbing on the contaminated vehicles or of collecting the fragments of the
spent DU rounds. In January 1993 the General Accounting Office released a
report titled ARMY NOT ADEQUATELY PREPARED TO DEAL WITH DEPLETED URANIUM
CONTAMINATION what a interesting title.
>compared to many of the other battlefield health hazards.
This is the only thing I can agree with you on, yes getting shot or blown
up will kill you here and now. whereas isotope ingestion generally takes
years to manifest problems, just enough time to be discharged from the
service where your health problems will become you own as many Gulf vets are
finding out.
> DU in quantities which aren't going to pickle the subject is not a
radioactivity hazard.
WRONG! in 1994 Siegwart Gunther of the Albert Schweitzer Institute reported
that spent DU projectiles were gathered by Iraqi children and used as toys.
The study noted that one little girl who had a collection 12 of the DU
rounds died of leukemia. I don't find this story to be conclusive evidence
of danger (what was the girls health before exposure?) But, I do find the
German governments reaction to the sample of DU Mr. Gunther brought back for
analysis quite revealing. The radioactivity of the cigar sized projectile
he found in an Iraqi combat area in 1991 measured 11 microSv per hour.
Acceptable exposure is 300 microSv per year. Just over one day near this
projectile is equivalent to the annual acceptable dose in Germany. In July
of 1992, the projectile was seized by a large command of German police in
protective clothing and transported to an isolated area for disposal. Some
weeks later, Mr. Gunther was arrested and charged with causing the release
of ionizing radiation. DU rounds have a protective shell around the DU
penetrator core this makes the unfired rounds safe to handle and store. This
protection is vaporized on impact along with 40-70% of the DU core.
Interesting side note: Dr. Gunther happens to be dying of cancer now, not
proof but it makes me think.
You can read his story here:
http://www.orientmagazine.com/mariamappeal/actual_02.htm
and buy his report here: http://www.ahriman.com/en/guenther.htm
If Depleted Uranium poses such an insignificant radiological threat then
why would the DOE go to such great expense to store it safely? Not just that
why would the NRC pose any cumbersome licensing requirements? It's a huge
waste problem why not just burn it, it is pryophoric after all and like you
said " It is easily manageable as a health hazard just don't breath the
dust". I think we both know the answer to that question give it 50 to 100
years of indiscriminate DU usage and the whole world will know the answer
too.
bob
>Oh, I didn't know that shooting RADIOACTIVE WASTE by-product from our
>uranium enrichment program at our enemies was off topic (it is considered
>depleted because the U 235 has been removed for bomb\fuel production). It
>may be low intensity nuclear warfare but these are radiological materials
>that we are talking about that require NRC license to handle or test fire.
>The Army holds 14 separate NRC licenses related to DU.
carbon 14 is a naturally occuring isopse of carbon that is present anywhere
carbon is. the human body contains carbon 14... amusingly enough, by current
NRC regulations, the amount of C14 in a human body is considered to be
liscence exempt, HOWEVER if a company wanted to be in the buisness of
selling such liscence exempt sources of C14 they would be required to have a
licesnce for the sale of nuclear materials from the NRC, just beacuse they
are selling something that has some level of radioactivity (be it a totaly
minescule level, or a high one) the use of weather or not a NRC liscence is
required to handle materials is a very poor guide to use if one is going to
ocnsider material 'nuclear' or not... by your logic I could define a corp of
para troopers landing over enemy lines to be 'low intensity nuclear warfare'
because of the naturally occuring radioactivity in a human body!!!!
>The hazards you mention do not last for 4.5 Billion years! The legacy we
>leave the future will be compounded by the fact that 17 countries now have
>DU in their inventories and the Russians sell DU ammunition on the open
>market, soon the world will be awash DU weapons. Then we won't be the only
>ones slicing tanks like butter. ALL of the Abrams M-1 tanks (22) that were
>knocked out in Desert Storm fell to DU Friendly fire. The proliferation of
>DU ammo throughout the world will only increase the chance that U.S.
>soldiers will be on the receiving end in the future. By the way some of the
>contaminated M-1's could not be decontaminated so they were buried in the
>Nevada desert.
uranium is a naturally occuring radioactive material... did you know it is
present in everyday seawater, and is more common of a material than
aluminum? uranium will be on this earth for a very long time, as it has been
on the planet since it's very inception. life has gone on quite normally
with it here.... >> DU is a chemical hazard roughly comparable to lead,
>> though it is roughly three times more toxic per unit
>> mass of uranium in the body compared to lead.
>
>WHAT?!?!? If my car got three times the mileage of yours I would not call
>that comparable
to use your own silly analogy, if you could only drive a car that got 3
times the gas mileage for 1/1000th the distance as your normal car, you
wouldnt think it was that big of a deal after all... consider all the uses
of lead, and the potential for exposure to it in the environment... you dont
hear anyone screaming to ban the use of lead do you? of course not, because
it hasnt been attached to the fearsome trigger word of 'radioactive'
>Well I guess all the soldiers have to do is hold their breath. Didn't you
>see any film of the environment Desert Storm was fought in? None of the
>soldiers wore their gas masks unless a Bio alert was issued because it was
>too damn HOT! We destroyed 1000's of vehicles with DU rounds and then
>marched through them dust and all. Sometimes units camped in close
proximity
>to knocked out vehicles eating food and BREATHING both of these activities
>are big no no's in the presence of DU contamination.
you blame the material for the soldiers inability to properly use it? let me
guess you also think a gun manufacturor is at fault when some nut case
purchases a gun legaly, then goes on a shooting rampage?
>If Depleted Uranium poses such an insignificant radiological threat then
>why would the DOE go to such great expense to store it safely? Not just
that
>why would the NRC pose any cumbersome licensing requirements? It's a huge
>waste problem why not just burn it, it is pryophoric after all and like you
>said " It is easily manageable as a health hazard just don't breath the
>dust". I think we both know the answer to that question give it 50 to 100
>years of indiscriminate DU usage and the whole world will know the answer
>too.
cumbersome liscencing???
dude, you dont know dick about what you are tlaking about...
i, as a private citizen can purchase TODAY under what is called a general
liscence, with no formal radiation saftey training, no other liscencing, no
inspections, ect, a quanity of up to 15 lbs of DU. Furthermore I can accept
up to 10 such shipments without the need for a lisence in a calender year
(even if the order for such is placed ont he same day, however no one
shipping container can hold more than 15 lbs of material). If I call up one
of the vendors for DU in the US and place an order on DEC 28 and again on
Jan 2 (assuming they are closed down between christmas and new years) I can
purchase with no liscence what so ever, up to 300 lbs of DU...
Finally, the reason why it isnt disposed of through incineration is that
such a process would do nothing more than create fine particles of the
material, just because you burn something in a fire doesnt mean it goes
away, or didnt you learn that in chemistry class???
Tra...@attbi.com
wrote:
> > DU presents a health hazard on the battlefield; so does burnt rubber,
>lead from
>> bullets, burnt gunpowder, unexploded shells, etc.
>
>The hazards you mention do not last for 4.5 Billion years!
Speaking of which, any idea on when the new group will go through?
Are there any more hoops we can hurdle or rabbits we can cattle prod?
What little serious discussion there is here now-a-days seems to get
lost or sub-threaded under "loon"-topics. It's become a real effort to
do the grain and chaff thing.
George William Herbert
>George William Herbert <gher...@gw.retro.com> wrote:
>> theother <theo...@erols.com> wrote:
>> >I don't know if this topic has come up lately (I'm a newbie) but what do
>you
>> >know about the effects of DU kinetic energy weapons beyond the vehicle
>they
>> >hit. If you would like to know go here:
>> >http://www.miltoxproj.org/DU/DU_Titlepage/DU_Titlepage.htmd
>>
>> The topic keeps coming up, though it is theoretically off topic here.
>
>Oh, I didn't know that shooting RADIOACTIVE WASTE by-product from our
>uranium enrichment program at our enemies was off topic (it is considered
>depleted because the U 235 has been removed for bomb\fuel production). It
>may be low intensity nuclear warfare but these are radiological materials
>that we are talking about that require NRC license to handle or test fire.
>The Army holds 14 separate NRC licenses related to DU.
Oh-kay.
Lots of things are radioactive. There's less activity
in a tankload of DU shells as there is in a smoke detector,
if I recall correctly. Do you have a smoke detector in your house?
Granite contains non-depleted Uranium in reasonably high concentrations,
as to many other rocks. The topsoil under the typical acre of American
soil contains enough Uranium to produce a nuclear bomb, if it were
all extracted and separated out. Do you have any topsoil under your
house?
Calling DU "RADIOACTIVE WASTE" as you just did is technically
correct, in that it is a non-zero radiation source and is
a waste or byproduct of enrichment activities. It is also
grossly false, in that you are obviously implying that it
is dangerously radioactive. That belief is in general terms
grossly innumerate. It's simply not radioactive enough to
care about, unless you spend your whole life in contact with
large quantities of it. You will get more radiation exposure
living in Denver (high altitude == less protection from cosmic
radiation), living anywhere that has a Radon problem from the
radioactive elements in the soil, getting regular dental X-rays,
etc. The inability to quantify and compare the radioactive
hazards of DU and other sources (natural and manmade) in the
environment indicates you aren't prepared to seriously discuss
the issue.
The NRC has authority over all sorts of even vaguely radioactive
man made products. It also has authority over DU for several
reasons, one of which is that it has military uses.
If you were suffering under some delusion that radiation is
not a natural part of our environment, please take a good
geiger counter out to a nearby granite mountain and come
to grips with the meaning of the term "natural background"
means.
As I said. This has been discussed here before.
If you believe everything that is on that site
is god's given truth about DU, and don't feel like
researching some *real* sources about background
radiation, DU's real health threats, etc.,
then you are welcome to your opinions but please
go away and stop trying to politic at us.
We know better. We know what's wrong with
the extreme DU critics arguments. I am not
some rabid industrialist or militarist who
believes in polluting the earth for Fun.
I live in Oakland, and lived in Berkeley
for years. I have donated significantly
to environmental causes over the years,
and my parents much more than I have.
I am, however, educated and informed about
health risks, radioactivity, and the Depleted
Uranium issue in particular. I am far more
worried about radioactivity associated with
the volcanic / geothermal vents up on the
hill behind and south of my house and
mercury associated with the old mercury mine
and natural mercury ore / pools etc.
up behind the house than I am about the
risk of DU to anyone. I am far more
worried about various toxic releases
from the oil refineries to my north.
I am, to be blunt, more worried about
the toxins in the air from recent
wildfires in my area than I would be
about DU contamination were it to happen
in my area, even in my back yard.
That DU is not the most healthy substance in
the world does not mean it's a significant risk.
It's risks are known, manageable, and really
trivial in comparison with other stuff we throw
around freely in warfare.
If you don't know how to analyze, compare,
and balance risks, then you have nothing
useful to contribute. I do, as do most
of the readers of this group. We know
bullshit when we see it. The DU "controversy"
is bullshit. It's a political ploy to
try and pull together the environmentalist
and anti-war political causes. DU health
issues are real, dealing with battlefield
contamination of dust from target impacts.
But they are known and manageable and
tolerable compared to other environmental
impacts of warfare. If those promoting
the DU controversy were actually serious
about preventing environmental damage due
to war, they would be out trying to ban
lead in small arms ammunition, encouraging
the development and use of explosives
which are non-toxic and whose detonation
products are non-toxic. They would be
arguing for better more reliable fuzes
on weapons to prevent unexploded ordnance,
and/or arguing for the development of
time self-defusing ordnance as internationally
required standards to make it go inert
naturally over time if the fuze just
doesn't work. They would be asking for
research and development to remove materials
that burn producing toxic byproducts from
combat vehicles.
None of these things are happening
from that crowd. The people pushing
DU's environmental threat are either
uneducated, unwilling, or unable to
assess and compare real toxic risks,
or have other agendas.
-george william herbert
gher...@retro.com
George William Herbert
>Speaking of which, any idea on when the new group will go through?
>Are there any more hoops we can hurdle or rabbits we can cattle prod?
I've been trying to avoid harrassing the new news.admin.newgroups
managers too much, they have a bunch of stuff they are working on.
That said, I still haven't heard any updated info in a couple
of weeks, so I am going to ping them again.
Straw poll: Pick one of the following as your favorite name.
alt.war.nuclear-bio-chem-mod
alt.war.nuclear.biological-chemical-moderated
alt.war.nuclear.biological-chemical-radiological-moderated
[fill in your own suggestion]
-george william herbert
gher...@retro.com
Tra...@attbi.com
Herbert) wrote:
>Straw poll: Pick one of the following as your favorite name.
>
>alt.war.nuclear-bio-chem-mod
>alt.war.nuclear.biological-chemical-moderated
>alt.war.nuclear.biological-chemical-radiological-moderated
>[fill in your own suggestion]
Provided name length isn't an issue,
I'd choose #2
alt.war.nuclear.biological-chemical-moderated
if we're going to have any problems with the longer name, #1
Derek Lyons
David McNamara
alt.war.nuclear.biological-chemical-radiological-moderated
--
Take care and God Bless.
-- David McNamara
dcm...@bellsouth.net
Mark
>
> alt.war.nuclear-bio-chem-mod
> alt.war.nuclear.biological-chemical-moderated
> alt.war.nuclear.biological-chemical-radiological-moderated
> [fill in your own suggestion]
else alt.war.nuclear-bio-chem-mod.
While seeing radiological in the name certainly isn't going to put me
off if I search for groups, I beleive that it is starting to be a little
too precise in naming.
--
"Never try to outstubborn a cat."
--
Mark
mb...@student.canterbury.ac.nz
bob
George William Herbert wrote in message ...
>Lots of things are radioactive. There's less activity
>in a tankload of DU shells as there is in a smoke detector,
>if I recall correctly.
everything else you said is right ont he money, but for your average smoke
detector in the us your way off... du has an activity of about .4 uC per g,
and most us smoke detectors <1uC of americium, so a few grams of DU would
have a smoke detector beat... if you wanted to compare other common items
however, an emergancy exit sign containing tritium might have tens of curies
of activity... you might have the same amount of activity in al lthe DU
round in a whole damn platoon as you do in the emergancy exit signs of your
local movie theator
bevnsag
has fairly specific medical symptoms for poisoning, and the various
"victims" come from highly contaminated/polluted environments (the
Balkans are a post Soviet industrial toxic hellhole and the
Kiwaiti/Iraqi oil fields were a petrochemical witch's brew even before
the first shot was fired) and don't match the expected DU toxicology.
And any modern battlefield will be full of nasty toxics, from engine
exhaust to burning things (fuels, vehicle contents, like plastics and
insulation, ammo propellants, etc..) even without preexisting
contaminants/pollution.
tnt tnt
>Straw poll: Pick one of the following as
>your favorite name.
>alt.war.nuclear-bio-chem-mod
>alt.war.nuclear.biological-chemical-mode
>ated
>alt.war.nuclear.biological-chemical-radiol
>gical-moderated [fill in your own
>suggestion]
I like the first one, because it's the shortest. The second one,
however, leaves no doubt as to the content. In The third, "Nuclear" and
"Radiological" are mutually redundant. I'd choose the first one.
Pluto
Thomas H. Jackson
Hows about alt.science.censored.
A call for "NO" votes.
In regards to the suggestion of a moderated newsgroup
under the guidelines proposed for censoring all but the "durable" sources and
of course any technical details ("design information") the newsgroup proposal
for secret science is in fact a weapon of mass destruction (WMD) destroying my
children and my children's children future promise of scientific discovery in
atomic energy. Those keeping science secrets from the public in the past have
destroyed much of humanity in what can only reasonably be considered war crimes
of past time. Should I forgive them as they know not what they do or speak out
and vote "NO" to stop future crimes against humanity.
Some examples of criminal propoals (1,2,3) of no no's and an incomplete
list of (ABC) of the crimes against humanity and victums past and future of
those crimes.
1. Proposal "Due to the sensitivity of these topics, certain types of on topic
postings will be rejected should they be submitted, if they are
judged by the moderator to be a violation of applicable laws.
These restricted topics include:
* detailed design information for any WMD
* classified operational details for any WMD system"
A. Crime committed. -secret atomic science dooms mankind to subjucation to
those that posses it and stops science from advancing because scientific
knowledge belongs to all of mankind so that a few talanted individuals may
advance the field as history has shown. Confining science to only a few
"authorized" guarantees no progress in fields such as atomic energy science.
Victums: all those that could have in past or in future benifit from atomic
energy machines beyond the "durable" atomic bombs and dirty reactors" produced
by "authorized" scientists who have failed to show any practical advances since
science became secret for national security reasons in the early 20th century.
2. Appeals of such rejection will only be successful if the poster can
provide references to previous public disclosure, and evidence that the
subject and level of details in the post are not classified or prohibited
under the laws of the posters' or moderators' nations.
Crime: Forbids any new knowledge as what can be discussed is only that which
every body already knows.
Victum: any present and future being suffering from ignorance and lack of
curative new knowledge.
Extended circumstances requires maximum punishment for such a "Heinous" crime.
The proposed moderator has ignored credible references and eye witness reports
Einstein invented the atomic bomb and wrote the book on how it was built with
poo hooing instead of addressing the issues raised and providing credible
source as to the inventor and invention details of the atomic bomb(simple
machine with few parts) claiming it is a "secret" he cannot discuss.
3. " For the initial moderator and posters located in the United States,
this includes "Restricted Data" as defined by the US law 42 USC Sec. 2014.
Evidence of previous public disclosure must be from a 'durable'
source, eg organisation website, book, govt (including non US)
source etc, rather than a transient one eg newsgroup posting,
individuals recent website etc."
C. Crime commited: Ignorance of the Law with no understanding of the difference
between the letter and spirit of the law. That above old law is null and void
and considered moot as later high court rullings have stated the knowledge of
detailed atomic weapon design is in the "public domain". The new law stands
after many appeals so is considered "Law of the Land".
Victums: Many damaged by those ignorant of the law at SMNBC whose proposals of
secret atomic bomb science are wishfull thinking with no basis in reason or
reality.
Proposal: Forgive them as they know not what they do after they are punished
with maximum extent the "Law" allows.
Stop the insanity.
Vote "No"
To self proclaimed authorities and
poster children for government propaganda who wish to "censor" free thought and
keep science secret from all mankind, besides it is just plain stupid to even
think you can rebottle a "leaked secret" without eliminating those who "know"
which I am quite sure has been practiced off on on by "govenments" under the
pretense of "saving the world" or in the interest of "national security" as all
security is only an illusion and saving the world "wishfull thinking"
VOTE NO
to censored and secret science
and therefore Advance Science to improve all mankind.
>References?
I have referenced what I say six ways to sun down and then some after dark
I repeat now those previous six references after this seventh reference below.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
My invention is an atomic rocket engine that contains and
harnesses a Plasma in a liquid propellant and casing to directly
effect the rapid expansion of the propellant; thereby, expelling the
propellant out of an exhaust port causing acceleration of the engine
which consists of a means to contain the plasma in three dimensions,
whereby; the energy from the plasma directly causes the liquid
propellant plasma container to rapidly expand from chemical and atomic
change and this changed liquid propellant is contained in the two
dimensions of the casing with the "leak" in the third dimension used
to provide propulsion.
To make my invention fully functional in the environment it is
required to operate, the means are described to obtain the functions
of steering, starting once and multiple times, planned and emergency
stops, regulating propellant flow, tuning and focusing the exhaust,
casing cooling, artificial gravity, auxiliary power, increasing
velocity to permit intra and extra galactic exploration, replenishing
the propellant from deep space, manufacturing the fuel disks and
protecting the engine and pay load from meteorite collisions.
Also described is a means of converting the engine to a electric
generator to power a space and earth habitat as is a means of
modifying my invention to convert earth stored radioactive waste and
toxic chemical waste to harmless atoms and subatomic particles and
deliver the remainder to deep space economically.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENT
FOR ELECTRIC ARMOR
A means to protect the rocket and pay load from projectile
collisions with dust and matter it may encounter may be obtained by
reducing the cross section of the craft, thereby, streamlining it. My
invention may be shaped as a long cylinder to aid in streamlining.
Another means of protection may be found with metals that have a shape
memory effect when heated. By anticipating the collision of solid
matter using conventional technology (such as radar or metal
detectors), a heating electric current may be generated through the
shape memory effect metal to resist the original penetration at the
time of impact by the force of the spring back effect plus the
thickness of the metal, thereby, creating an electric armor of my own
invention.
Claim 6. My invention is an electric armor that is a means of
protecting an object from projectile collision, whereby, a
shape memory metal is heated electrically at the time of
collision to use the metals spring back effect to add to the
effective thickness of the shield, thereby increasing the
resistance to penetration.
.
I repeat now those six references.
Reference One.
Relativity FAQ] - [Copyright]
Updated 14-January-1998 by PEG
Original by Philip Gibbs 14-April-1997
http://www.weburbia.com/physics/FTL.html
(See Anchor Link "The Infinite Energy Argument"-Tom)
"When Einstein wrote down his postulates for special relativity he did not
include the statement that you cannot travel faster than light. There is a
misconception that it is possible to derive it as a consequence of the
postulates he did give. Incidentally, it was Henri Poincare who said "Perhaps
we must construct a new mechanics, ... in which the speed of light would
become an impassable limit." That was in an address to the International
Congress of Arts and Science in 1904 before Einstein announced special
relativity in 1905."
Refernce two.........
Citation www.fas.org.
quote " The idea of "invention" does not usually require the physical
realization of the invented thing. This fact is clearly recognized by patent
law, which does not require a working model in order to award a patent. It is
common for inventions to require additional discoveries and developments before
the actual thing can be made. In these cases, an invention may fairly have more
than one inventor - the originator of the principle idea, and the individual
who actually made the first workable model.
In the case of the atomic bomb there is clearly one man who is the originator
of the idea. He was also the instigator of the project that led ultimately to
the successful construction of the atomic bomb, and was a principal
investigator in the early R&D both before and after the founding of the atomic
bomb project - making a number(all-T.H.J) of the key discoveries himself. By
any normal standard this man is the inventor of the atomic bomb.
end quote...........................................
The atomic Bomb inventor was Albert Einstein and the date of invention was
1913. No others made any significant improvements and modifications not
"anticipated or obvious" to his original invention constructed in 1945 so to
date so the invention credit is solely Einstein's by patent law.
The first public notice of his "Atomic Bomb"
was in 1914 when Einstein described his invention to H. G. Wells who coined
the invention title "Atomic Bomb". Einstein like the name for his invention so
kept it. Einstein did not tell the US government how his invention worked until
he notified U.S. government intelligence agent Enrico Fermi in 1938 "How to
build to the atomic bomb" who then notified Leo Silizard and the later two
drafted a fraudulent letter to the U.S. President forcing Einstein to sign it
or "go directly to jail" to get monies to build it.
Research monies were available while development monies were not. Fermi and
Silizard in the letter wrote pretended the invention had not been invented to
get the available research monies. Einstein to his death in 1955 regretted
signing the letter.
Reference three..............
Citation H. G. Wells, The World Set Free, 1914
quote ...And these atomic bombs which science burst upon the world that night
were strange even to the men who used them.
H. G. Wells, The World Set Free, 1914
end quote ..........
reference four....................
The best "legal" site describing Einstein's invention and design is:
"A Definitive Analysis Of Atomic Power"
http://members.aol.com/tjac780754/indexda.html
The first reference below is not at the Gainsville Sun's website link as it has
been long since moved to the newspapers library archives. I got the permission
of the author to post years ago by email if I made sure I said the name of the
paper.
Here it is to establish beyond all reasonable doubt that Eintsein wrote the
book on "How" they made the Atomic Bomb at the. Manhatten project.
reference five..............
Tuesday, December 28, 1999
Einstein fondly recalled by area woman
By KAREN VOYLES
Sun staff writer
A former military enlistee who once did some typing for Albert Einstein was
thrilled to hear that he had been named "Person of the Century" by Time
magazine. She would like to read the article but the magazine is not sold in
her home county in rural Florida except by subscription.
"I already had him pegged -- to me he was the greatest person on this earth,"
said Jo Garland of rural Gilchrist County. Now 78 and a widow, Garland said her
impression of Einstein when she was a young woman was that, "He was a sweet
man."
This week's Time magazine cover story is about the late scientific genius who
won the Nobel Prize in physics in 1921, developed the theory of relativity and
helped convince President Franklin D. Roosevelt to build the atom bomb.
Garland had joined the WACs -- Women's Army Corps -- shortly after it was
formed in 1943. She got a top secret security clearance and was sent to work
with the Atomic Energy Commission. She had been working on the 59th floor of
the Empire State Building handling various clerical duties when her supervisor
asked for volunteers.
Albert Einstein was named Person of the Century this week
by Time magazine.
Special to the Sun
"They wanted us to do some typing for him (Einstein)," Garland said. "He wanted
to put together what he knew about the atomic bomb in book form so he doled out
what he wanted typed, and there was no way someone could put it all together
after that."
Garland said she and the other volunteer typists did their work for Einstein in
another building a short walk from the Empire State. Security in the mid-1940s
was much more lax than today's world of walk-through metal detectors and
fingerprint recognition programs.
"The security people would be standing outside the door, but they recognized
all of us from the other (Empire State) office and so they would let us in,"
Garland said.
Once at their typewriters, Garland remembered that the WACs got their
instructions from a man in baggy clothing with unruly hair -- Einstein.
"He would hand it (the day's work) to you and tell you what he wanted and he
would tell us not to worry about punctuation or capitalization or anything
right then," Garland said. "He wanted universities to be able to study how they
had made the atom bomb and he said other people would do all that punctuation."
Garland recalled that she was one of about 10 typists who volunteered to work
on Einstein's project, a task that took a couple of weeks.
"He never did learn all of our names, but he was so kind to all of us -- just a
good, kind man," Garland reminisced while on the wooden steps leading to her
mobile home far removed from a typewriter or an atomic bomb this week.
After her tour with the WACs, Garland relinquished her top-secret security
clearance and went on to marry three times, eventually owning and operating
some small businesses with her third husband. His problems handling money and
his protracted battle with cancer left her nearly impoverished after his death
three years ago. An outpouring of community support helped her recover
finanically and emotionally. She is working to restore a used mobile home
donated to her. And she is still interested in the outside world.
"The only people out here that get that Time magazine are the ones that
subscribe, so maybe I'll get someone to drive me into Gainesville so I can see
what they wrote about him," she said. "I hope they said how nice he was."
Karen Voyles can be reached at (352) 486-5058 or voy...@gvillesun.com.
end quote..........................
Supporting the claim implying Einstein actually said he invented the atomic
bomb and other "scientists" belived him and that he taught that light had mass.
reference six
.........................................................
source quote .
Released by the FBI under the Freedom of information Act the following 1950's
article.
end article------reference
http://foia.fbi.gov/famous.htm
http://foia.fbi.gov/einstein.htm
link Einstein, Albert
part 1a gives pdf file go to page 88 in adobe acrobat reader pre loaded for AOL
users to see scanned article.
quote................................
Rankin Denies Einstein A-Role
By United Press
Reb. Rankin (D) of Missisippi said yesterday that professor Albert Einstein
"had nothing to do" with the atomic bomb and "should have been deported for his
Communistic activities years ago"
He denounced as "bunk" Einstein, proposal for a world government to prevent an
atomic wat that might wipe out mankind.
Scientists declared Einstein, A naturalized citizen of German birth, Had "just
about everything to do" with making possible the US development of the atomic
bomb.........
....................Rankin concludes with "Every since he published the book on
relativity, to try to convince the world that light had weight, he has
capitalized upon his alleged reputation as a scientist." Rankin went on. "He
had no more to do with the development of the atom bomb than if their hadn't
been such a thing Rankin. American scientists developed the atomic bomb and old
faker Einstein had nothing to do with it."
end article------
I can also give you reference from the above fbi files to Einstein's extended
relativity theory of 1950's comprised of 15 mimeographed pages of equations he
wrote but as you think it is only my dellusion you would not go get the actual
work, and if you did I would have to explain them to you so I won't :-)
Please use this message thread to list any math or experimental proof you may
have of a universal speed limit for objects of mass.
Hearsay, heard tell, or popular science evidence will not be examined.
I will begin.
Relativity FAQ] - [Copyright]
Updated 14-January-1998 by PEG
Original by Philip Gibbs 14-April-1997
http://www.weburbia.com/physics/FTL.html
(See Anchor Link "The Infinite Energy Argument"-Tom)
"When Einstein wrote down his postulates for special relativity he did not
include the statement that you cannot travel faster than light. There is a
misconception that it is possible to derive it as a consequence of the
postulates he did give. Incidentally, it was Henri Poincare who said "Perhaps
we must construct a new mechanics, ... in which the speed of light would
become an impassable limit." That was in an address to the International
Congress of Arts and Science in 1904 before Einstein announced special
relativity in 1905."
There is zero evidence such a mechanics was ever constructed and Einstein
denied in 1955 that he ever constructed such mechanics as he taught that a
massive object could be accelerated beyond light speed.
He than explained "How" it could be done.
He then explained the wide spread public misconception
tying his relativity theories to a C speed limit to a
"German to English" translator he hired to translate his relativity papers to
English.
The Translator knowing basically as a second language German and some basic
physics and less relativity physics and some of Henry Poincare's work
was looking for a C speed limit mechanics so Jumped to the conclusion he had
found it translating some of the equations adding his own interpretation
comments to appear falsely as from Einstein to say
"It appears we cannot
accelerate an object beyond light speed" in the English translation.
By the time Einstein came to America and had learned enough English to correct
the mistranslations he found the misinformation so widespread that correction
was found impractical so then he confined his teaching of the possibility of
acceleration beyond light speed to his personal students at Princeton and
private students and from that time on authorized only those works signed by
him to be published. The one signed in 1955, I read in 1963.
So my list of math or experimental proofs of any C limit for massive objects
velocity contains no data.
Proof list
.............................................
(Empty-Null Set)
.............................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
George William Herbert
>>[straw poll]
>
>Hows about alt.science.censored.
Oh, Tom... Tom... Tom...
Would you please go talk to your psychiatrist?
Or at least, your family.
You know you need help.
Hiding out here, repeating the same
incoherent posts to Usenet,
is not getting you the help you need.
Is there nobody in your life whom you trust
enough to go to them and ask them if they think
that you need mental health help?
-george william herbert
gher...@retro.com
bob
>3. " For the initial moderator and posters located in the United States,
>this includes "Restricted Data" as defined by the US law 42 USC Sec. 2014.
>Evidence of previous public disclosure must be from a 'durable'
>source, eg organisation website, book, govt (including non US)
>source etc, rather than a transient one eg newsgroup posting,
>individuals recent website etc."
>
>C. Crime commited: Ignorance of the Law with no understanding of the
difference
>between the letter and spirit of the law. That above old law is null and
void
>and considered moot as later high court rullings have stated the knowledge
of
>detailed atomic weapon design is in the "public domain". The new law stands
>after many appeals so is considered "Law of the Land".
you complain of GWH's ignorance of the law? you obviously have no factual
basis from witch to speak about restricted data law. 42 USC Sec. 2014 has
nothing to do with secret information or public domain information. it has
to do with certain data being deemed as potentially benificial to the
nuclear program of another country. all it govorns is the controll of
information in such a way that foreign nationals do not aquire it. export
control laws have been, and still are being followed and enforced to this
very day. obviously if one were to post restricted data to a newsgroup, one
would not be using proper procedure to ensure that the information is not
disseminated to foreign nationals
Jim Elwell
> I've been trying to avoid harrassing the new news.admin.newgroups
> managers too much, they have a bunch of stuff they are working on.
> That said, I still haven't heard any updated info in a couple
> of weeks, so I am going to ping them again.
>
> Straw poll: Pick one of the following as your favorite name.
>
> alt.war.nuclear-bio-chem-mod
> alt.war.nuclear.biological-chemical-moderated
> alt.war.nuclear.biological-chemical-radiological-moderated
> [fill in your own suggestion]
Assuming that name component length is no longer a
limiting factor, I'd vote for #3 first
(a.w.n.b-c-r-m) and #2 second (a.w.n.b-c-m).
-Jim
The CO
"Jim Elwell" <jel...@visi.com> wrote in message
news:3DC7F86A...@visi.com...
Ok, my .02c worth.
How about alt.war.nbc.moderated?
The CO
Tamas Feher
>(don't breathe the dust) compared to many of the
>other battlefield health hazards.
However, US forces just left the iraqi vehicle wreckeges where they were
destroyed or even had them actually blown further apart by engineering troops
and this exposes the untrained civil population to great dangers.
The proof that DU is very dangerous is that US forces are federally prohibited
from firing DU on US soil, even for training. Only latino, caribbian and other
"scum" can get it, see Vieques. This is very characteristic american behavious.
Similarly, bin Laden is evil for killing 2800 people, yet we honest yanks are
essentially good, we just agent oranged 1 million vietnamese to death.
US people, who are supposed to frequent churches regularly should pay attention
to what Jesus said: Don't do it to your fellow humans, if you do not wish it
happen to you!
Sincerely: Tamas Feher.
Carey Sublette
as...@somewhere.in.oz.au says...
Due to the "National Broadcasting Corporation" factor. While someone
already 'in the know' might correctly identify it, someone who is coming
from outside the field would not. In fact even someone who had heard of
the nuclear-bio-chem acronym might wonder if this group was really about
war news coverage.
Acronym "wmd" has less chance for confusion but it just as opaque.
I vote for:
alt.war.nuclear.biological-chemical-radiological-moderated
if length is not a factor, with
alt.war.nuclear.biological-chemical-moderated
as a second choice. I think "radiological" has value.
I don't really want to restart the whole debate, but now that I look at
it:
alt.war.nuclear.mass-destruction-moderated
doesn't seem bad in comparison.
George William Herbert
>>It is easily manageable as a health hazard
>>(don't breathe the dust) compared to many of the
>>other battlefield health hazards.
>
>However, US forces just left the iraqi vehicle wreckeges where they were
>destroyed or even had them actually blown further apart by engineering troops
>and this exposes the untrained civil population to great dangers.
The hazards of DU munitions were not clearly recognized and
countermeasures made clear doctorine at the time to the
field troops.
The maintenance and cleanup crews were generally aware of the problem,
but not infantry or most tank crews. That is no longer true.
There was a large DU contamination health awareness push and
it's now well documented and taught in training.
That the problem was not understood at one time does not mean
that it's not safely manageable.
>The proof that DU is very dangerous is that US forces are federally prohibited
>from firing DU on US soil, even for training.
That is factually incorrect. US forces live fire DU all the
time on approved ranges.
You appear to be reading and believing paranoid anti-US propaganda.
It doesn't lend much credibility to your arguments.
-george william herbert
gher...@retro.com
Tamas Feher
>The hazards of DU munitions were not clearly recognized and
>countermeasures made clear doctorine at the time to the
>field troops.
"While the scientific jury is still out on that issue, the instant bestseller,
"Depleted Uranium: The Invisible War" [Uranium appauvri: la guerre invisible]
released in France on January 23, reveals that, in fact, "safe" depleted uranium
in U.S. bombs had been contaminated at least six years ago by highly radioactive
waste, probably in the munitions plant in Paducah, Kentucky. The U.S. was aware
of the problem, but used them, anyway." See:
http://www.vieques-island.com/board/navy/viequeskosovo.html
>>The proof that DU is very dangerous is that US forces are federally prohibited
>>from firing DU on US soil, even for training.
>
>That is factually incorrect. US forces live fire DU all the
>time on approved ranges.
You are false and I am correct. These pages clearly say that DU is banned on US
soil by the federal regulations of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
http://prop1.org/nucnews/9908nn/990831nn.world2.htm
www.puertorico-herald.org/issues/vol3n51/MHIslandersSue-en.shtml
http://ottawa.indymedia.org/2002/09/1521.shtml
The website for NR commission is www.nrc.gov, you can look up the exact
paragraph if you wish.
All the "approved ranges" you mentioned, are located in colonial or occupied
territories, where ethnics live (as opposed to WASP), you see:
"Doug Rokke, who directed the Pentagon's Depleted Uranium Project and wrote its
Cleanup and Handling Protocol for Depleted Uranium also senses a pattern of
environmental racism in the Pentagon's decision to test DU only in Vieques and
in the Japanese island of Okinawa. ''The US Defence Department's policy is
racist and discriminatory, contrary to the principle of environmental justice.
We have the cases of Vieques and Okinawa, where DU ammunition has been
experimented with. These are not isolated events, or errors or chance.''"
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0130-03.htm
Sincerely: Tamas Feher.
bob
>"While the scientific jury is still out on that issue, the instant
bestseller,
>"Depleted Uranium: The Invisible War" [Uranium appauvri: la guerre
invisible]
>released in France on January 23, reveals that, in fact, "safe" depleted
uranium
>in U.S. bombs had been contaminated at least six years ago by highly
radioactive
>waste, probably in the munitions plant in Paducah, Kentucky. The U.S. was
aware
>of the problem, but used them, anyway." See:
>http://www.vieques-island.com/board/navy/viequeskosovo.html
DU WAS contaminated by highly active material, BUT it was in very low
quantites, effectivly negating any increased risk from the contamination
>You are false and I am correct. These pages clearly say that DU is banned
on US
>soil by the federal regulations of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
>http://prop1.org/nucnews/9908nn/990831nn.world2.htm
contains no text that suggests DU weaponry is banned from use in the us
>www.puertorico-herald.org/issues/vol3n51/MHIslandersSue-en.shtml
doesnt even talk about DU weaponry, but rather concerns over conventional
weapons used on Vieques
>http://ottawa.indymedia.org/2002/09/1521.shtml
broken link
>
>The website for NR commission is www.nrc.gov, you can look up the exact
>paragraph if you wish.
if your trying to prove you are right, why dont YOU look up the exact
paragraph and provide a link.
George William Herbert
>Regards,
>>The hazards of DU munitions were not clearly recognized and
>>countermeasures made clear doctorine at the time to the
>>field troops.
>
>"While the scientific jury is still out on
>that issue, the instant bestseller,
>"Depleted Uranium: The Invisible War"
>[Uranium appauvri: la guerre invisible]
>released in France on January 23, reveals
>that, in fact, "safe" depleted uranium
>in U.S. bombs had been contaminated at
>least six years ago by highly radioactive
>waste, probably in the munitions plant in
>Paducah, Kentucky. The U.S. was aware
>of the problem, but used them, anyway." See:
>http://www.vieques-island.com/board/navy/viequeskosovo.html
There is some factual basis to this claim, but on the whole
it is incorrect.
Yes, some lots of US DU have been identified as having been
contaminated with reactor products. The general radioactivity
level of the resultant DU was still very low, the contamination
was not identified by increased radiation, it was identified
by isotopic analysis.
There is no evidence that the tiny increase in radiation
relative to properly processed DU is any health hazard.
While this was clearly a processing error and needs to
be guarded against, the practical health effects appear
to be zero.
>>>The proof that DU is very dangerous is that
>>>US forces are federally prohibited
>>>>>from firing DU on US soil, even for training.
>>
>>That is factually incorrect. US forces live fire DU all the
>>time on approved ranges.
>
>You are false and I am correct. These pages
>clearly say that DU is banned on US
>soil by the federal regulations of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
>http://prop1.org/nucnews/9908nn/990831nn.world2.htm
>www.puertorico-herald.org/issues/vol3n51/MHIslandersSue-en.shtml
>http://ottawa.indymedia.org/2002/09/1521.shtml
None of these pages contain anything that says that DU
munitions firing is banned on US soil.
One of them, rather idiotically, cites a news report
saying that "plutonium-tipped munitions" were an
environmental hazard. Do you expect us to take sources
like that with any credibility?
>The website for NR commission is www.nrc.gov, you can look up the exact
>paragraph if you wish.
Please provide a CFR reference to such a federal regulation.
The NRC website didn't have anything on it in searching on
the obvious terms. Nor does the US Army.
>All the "approved ranges" you mentioned, are located in colonial or occupied
>territories, where ethnics live (as opposed to WASP), you see:
>
>"Doug Rokke, who directed the Pentagon's Depleted Uranium Project and wrote its
>Cleanup and Handling Protocol for Depleted Uranium also senses a pattern of
>environmental racism in the Pentagon's decision to test DU only in Vieques and
>in the Japanese island of Okinawa. ''The US Defence Department's policy is
>racist and discriminatory, contrary to the principle of environmental justice.
>We have the cases of Vieques and Okinawa, where DU ammunition has been
>experimented with. These are not isolated events, or errors or chance.''"
>http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0130-03.htm
The DU use at Vieques was inadvertent, it's not an approved range.
The facts of its use improper and the contamination there are not
materially in dispute. To my knowledge no individual on Vieques
has tested positive for potentially toxic levels of DU exposure,
though if you have a source please feel free to post it.
I am going to repeat myself: many if not most US Army tank firing
ranges have been and are still qualified for live firing of
DU munitions. That policy has been in effect continuously
since DU was introduced in the 1970s.
There is no US policy of only using or testing it on opressed
foreign soil. Claims to that effect are paranoid propaganda.
-george william herbert
gher...@retro.com
The CO
"Tamas Feher" <eto...@freemail.hu> wrote in message
news:aqdgb3$tvq$1...@athena.euroweb.hu...
<much nuclear paranoia snipped>
+-----------------------+
| PLEASE DO NOT |
| FEED THE TROLLS |
| |
| Thank you, |
| The Management |
+-----------------------+
| | @@@
| | @@@
| | |/
| | \|
| | |
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Mark
> >That is factually incorrect. US forces live fire DU all the
> >time on approved ranges.
>
> You are false and I am correct. These pages clearly say that DU is banned on US
> soil by the federal regulations of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
> http://prop1.org/nucnews/9908nn/990831nn.world2.htm
> www.puertorico-herald.org/issues/vol3n51/MHIslandersSue-en.shtml
> http://ottawa.indymedia.org/2002/09/1521.shtml
None of these pages says anything about DU ammunition use in the
continental US. They mention the Vieques testing area, but that is all.
No where is there anything that mentions DU being banned by the NRC, in
fact, this is as close as it gets:
-
Among the most shocking evidence in a thick report recently issued by
Puerto Rico's governor is the Navy's systematic destruction of
environmentally-unique marine areas (which are protected by the
Environmental Protection Agency), the use of plutonium-tipped bullets
(which is banned by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission) and the use of
napalm (which is against Navy and EPA rules). The report says that the
9,200 Vieques residents have a 27 percent higher cancer rate than other
Puerto Ricans.
-
Plutonium is not Uranium.
The second link is an opinion article written by a journalist, titled
"Cancer rate is claimed to be military's fault." This says it all.
The third link didn't work.
> The website for NR commission is www.nrc.gov, you can look up the exact
> paragraph if you wish.
I tried, there is no reference on the site with regards to DU being
banned in the US, only references to various legal cases against the
Navy at Vieques, and the various plans to minimise the environmental
impact of DU fire and the disposal of spent targets hit with DU fire.
> All the "approved ranges" you mentioned, are located in colonial or occupied
> territories, where ethnics live (as opposed to WASP), you see:
This link provides positive evidence from the Air Force that they are
testing DU in the US.
http://www.af.mil/news/Apr2002/n20020405_0535.shtml
Provide a detailed link next time you try to back a point, don't point
to a domain as large as nrc.gov and expect it to give you any
credibility whatsoever.
fwellman
Government was behind the 9-11 attacks. Fred
"bob" <nom...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:BOxy9.45447$7W2....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
Tamas Feher
>>www.puertorico-herald.org/issues/vol3n51/MHIslandersSue-en.shtml
>contains no text that suggests DU weaponry is banned from use in the us
It does. See under NAVY CONFIRMATION paragraph
"The Navy only recently confirmed that it had used napalm bombs and accidentally
fired 267 cannon rounds tipped with depleted uranium on the range. The latter is
banned from any use on U.S. soil by federal regulations."
>>http://prop1.org/nucnews/9908nn/990831nn.world2.htm
It does:
http://prop1.org/nucnews/9908nn/990831nn.world2.htm#pr
"... Among the most shocking evidence in a thick report recently issued by
Puerto Rico's governor is the Navy's systematic destruction of
environmentally-unique marine areas (which are protected by the Environmental
Protection Agency), the use of plutonium-tipped bullets (which is banned by the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission) and the use of napalm (which is against Navy
and EPA rules)."
>>http://ottawa.indymedia.org/2002/09/1521.shtml
>broken link
Still available from Google cache:
<http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache:Z94sowrgaRoC:ottawa.indymedia.org/2002/09/
1521.shtml+%2B%22ottawa.indymedia.org%22+%2Bbanned+%2Bvieques&hl=en&ie=UTF-8>
"1999 - On February 19, the US Navy reports that 263 bullets containing depleted
uranium were fired by accident on the eastern part of the island, despite these
being banned on US soil."
It seems the www.nrc.gov website does not contain older documents on-line.
Someone living in the USA could call or fax them for about 0.02$ and just ask
what is the number or paragraph for the regulation, that is mentioned above. It
would cost me a fortune, I live in Central Europe.
Sincerely: Tamas Feher, 2F 2000.
bob
Tamas Feher wrote in message ...
>Regards,
>
>>>www.puertorico-herald.org/issues/vol3n51/MHIslandersSue-en.shtml
>>contains no text that suggests DU weaponry is banned from use in the us
>
>It does. See under NAVY CONFIRMATION paragraph
>"The Navy only recently confirmed that it had used napalm bombs and
accidentally
>fired 267 cannon rounds tipped with depleted uranium on the range. The
latter is
>banned from any use on U.S. soil by federal regulations."
this is a newspaper article. it is the author of this article claiming that
DU is banned from use on us soil. I do not consider newspaper articles to be
a reliable source of information on technical matters... please provide a
link fromt he federal government
>>>http://prop1.org/nucnews/9908nn/990831nn.world2.htm
>It does:
>http://prop1.org/nucnews/9908nn/990831nn.world2.htm#pr
>"... Among the most shocking evidence in a thick report recently issued by
>Puerto Rico's governor is the Navy's systematic destruction of
>environmentally-unique marine areas (which are protected by the
Environmental
>Protection Agency), the use of plutonium-tipped bullets (which is banned by
the
>Nuclear Regulatory Commission) and the use of napalm (which is against Navy
>and EPA rules)."
well I would hope that plutonium tipped amunition is banned by the NRC!!!!
this just goes to show you the level of credability of your refrences...
>>>http://ottawa.indymedia.org/2002/09/1521.shtml
>>broken link
>
>Still available from Google cache:
><http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache:Z94sowrgaRoC:ottawa.indymedia.org/200
2/09/
>1521.shtml+%2B%22ottawa.indymedia.org%22+%2Bbanned+%2Bvieques&hl=en&ie=UTF-
8>
>
>"1999 - On February 19, the US Navy reports that 263 bullets containing
depleted
>uranium were fired by accident on the eastern part of the island, despite
these
>being banned on US soil."
again this is not what i would consider to be a reliable source of
information on either technical matters, or administrative code
>It seems the www.nrc.gov website does not contain older documents on-line.
>Someone living in the USA could call or fax them for about 0.02$ and just
ask
>what is the number or paragraph for the regulation, that is mentioned
above. It
>would cost me a fortune, I live in Central Europe.
thats funny, last time i looked the NRC has a complete archive of all the
apropriate statutes.. perhapse you couldnt find anything there because there
is no ban against DU on us soil?
George William Herbert
>>>www.puertorico-herald.org/issues/vol3n51/MHIslandersSue-en.shtml
>>contains no text that suggests DU weaponry is banned from use in the us
>
>It does. See under NAVY CONFIRMATION paragraph
>"The Navy only recently confirmed that it had used napalm bombs and accidentally
>fired 267 cannon rounds tipped with depleted uranium on the range. The latter is
>banned from any use on U.S. soil by federal regulations."
The author was incorrect.
Vieques was not an approved DU firing range.
The 200-odd 20mm DU cannon rounds fired on that range
were a breach of the regulations regarding only
firing DU on approved ranges.
That's all.
The reason that you cannot reference or find the
regulations you allege ban US use of DU ammo on
US firing ranges is that it does not exist, Tamas.
Again: it is routinely fired on ammunition test and
research ranges, tank firing ranges, a number of US
Air Force air-to-ground gunnery practice ranges, etc.
We do not believe it to be an environmental problem
of the magnitude to require a ban on its use.
That may, in the end, be shown to be a mistaken
policy. But there is no good scientific argument
before us that it's mistaken. There is also no
US hypocracy of firing it on foreign test ranges
but not domestic ones.
Again: you are reading paranoid, and often incoherent
ranting anti-US propaganda sites. The information they
publish is in large degree simply factually wrong.
If you want to discuss the health dangers of DU,
that's fine, but do so based on real evidence,
not psychoenvironmental leftist rants.
-george william herbert
gher...@retro.com
Mark
A number of incorrect things, amongst others were:
> >>www.puertorico-herald.org/issues/vol3n51/MHIslandersSue-en.shtml
> >contains no text that suggests DU weaponry is banned from use in the us
>
> It does. See under NAVY CONFIRMATION paragraph
> "The Navy only recently confirmed that it had used napalm bombs and accidentally
> fired 267 cannon rounds tipped with depleted uranium on the range. The latter is
> banned from any use on U.S. soil by federal regulations."
Wrong, the former is, the author of this article got his facts wrong.
Napalm is banned, not DU. Go here and read the second to last paragraph.
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napalm
>
> >>http://prop1.org/nucnews/9908nn/990831nn.world2.htm
> It does:
> http://prop1.org/nucnews/9908nn/990831nn.world2.htm#pr
> "... Among the most shocking evidence in a thick report recently issued by
> Puerto Rico's governor is the Navy's systematic destruction of
> environmentally-unique marine areas (which are protected by the Environmental
> Protection Agency), the use of plutonium-tipped bullets (which is banned by the
> Nuclear Regulatory Commission) and the use of napalm (which is against Navy
> and EPA rules)."
As I said last time fool; plutonium is not uranium, stop trying to cloud
the issue by bringing in other metals. We are not arguing the pros and
cons of plutonium tipped bullets. DU is the issue.
> >>http://ottawa.indymedia.org/2002/09/1521.shtml
> >broken link
>
> Still available from Google cache:
> <http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache:Z94sowrgaRoC:ottawa.indymedia.org/2002/09/
> 1521.shtml+%2B%22ottawa.indymedia.org%22+%2Bbanned+%2Bvieques&hl=en&ie=UTF-8>
>
> "1999 - On February 19, the US Navy reports that 263 bullets containing depleted
> uranium were fired by accident on the eastern part of the island, despite these
> being banned on US soil."
The fact that this site isn't even running now, kind of shows what a
reliable source of information it is, although it is interesting to note
that the other links on this page, if followed, don't include the bit
about DU being banned on US soil, they just mention that shots were
accidentally fired, on the eastern part of the island. A better name
than indymedia, would be extremistmedia.
Of course that article then went on to say this:
-
Nine (9) unemployees of each 100 of the 10,000 people on Vieques is NOT
LOWER compare with ten (10) unemployees of each 100 of 1.5 MILLION
people on Puerto Rico main island. THE FACT!
-
This was to supposedly refute the fact that Vieques has a lower
unemployment rate than the PR mainland.
Here the author fails to grasp the concept of statistics.
I am really starting to enjoy your "sources".
Even the site that is fighting to get the military out of Vieques
doesn't mention anything about DU being banned on US soil. This would be
blatant racism if it were true but even the ferociously vocal people on
http://www.viequeslibre.org/ don't mention it. Probably because they
know that a lie as obvious as this would be disproven in a moment.
> It seems the www.nrc.gov website does not contain older documents on-line.
No but it does have some really interesting material really, like this,
look at the last paragraph and bear in mind that DU is a byproduct.
http://www.nrc.gov/materials/byproduct-mat.html
This is proof that DU is not subject to unilateral federal control.
> Someone living in the USA could call or fax them for about 0.02$ and just ask
> what is the number or paragraph for the regulation, that is mentioned above. It
> would cost me a fortune, I live in Central Europe.
So what, I live in New Zealand, and I have managed to find enough
material on the net to satisfy me that you are wrong, and that George is
right.
Tra...@attbi.com
wrote:
>Still available from Google cache:
><http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache:Z94sowrgaRoC:ottawa.indymedia.org/2002/09/
>1521.shtml+%2B%22ottawa.indymedia.org%22+%2Bbanned+%2Bvieques&hl=en&ie=UTF-8>
Despite your repeated claims I can find no reference in NRC guidelines
that prohibit the US military from firing DU rounds on approved US
ranges. The following link from the NRC basically restates what your
"colored" reference does minus the "banned on US soil" statement.
In fact it seems to indicate that the only reason they are
investigating at all is due to some rather sensationalist local press
coverage, not because of any serious Navy error.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2000/00-029ii.html
rather than relying on second-hand, obviously slanted articles for
references, perhaps you could provide some official US
government/military sources for your claims? how about official UN WHO
reports? anything from a reliable, relatively unbiased source?
Derek Lyons
>I don't really want to restart the whole debate,
When is the new group forming up George?
D.
George William Herbert
>When is the new group forming up George?
Everything is ready and all the requests are in... including my vote,
the poll result was 4:3:1 with the narrow winner being the longest and
most descriptive group name:
alt.war.nuclear.biological-chemical-radiological-moderated
...so that's what has been submitted.
The moderation alias request has gone in. Unfortunately, in the
confusion, it appears that in fact the old moderation alias team
is still handling that part of the process, not the new group
moderating news.announce.newgroups, so I'm not sure where that
request stands right now.
The newgroup message is waiting, fueled and armed and sitting on the
pad at T-5 minutes.
The moderation software is live.
The website is live:
http://www.retro.com/WMD
...though still under construction in most areas.
Suggestions and content for website and FAQ contents gladly accepted.
Including spelling corrections... I haven't had the guts to spellcheck
it all yet.
-george william herbert
gher...@retro.com