The solution to our nuke waste problem

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Guide community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Sidebar Sidebar
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Roger W. Norman" <rnorman@starpower.net> wrote in message
news:7PKdncFsaqk9PBLcRVn-jA@rcn.net...

> Did you know that Gulf War Syndrome has now been attributed to the small
> possibility of exposure to Sarin gas (a 100 thousand strong), whilst there
> are TONS of DU spread all over the countryside?

Do you have a cite on the tonnage of DU?

Glenn D.
 
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Didn't you read George's original post relating to a reported tonnage of 630
thousand tons? Even if it were somewhere on the order of 1% of that, we're
still talking about a lot of tons of material.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Glenn Dowdy" <glenn.no.dowdy@hpspam.com> wrote in message
news:apOjd.2518$Q%6.2224@news.cpqcorp.net...
>
> "Roger W. Norman" <rnorman@starpower.net> wrote in message
> news:7PKdncFsaqk9PBLcRVn-jA@rcn.net...
>
> > Did you know that Gulf War Syndrome has now been attributed to the small
> > possibility of exposure to Sarin gas (a 100 thousand strong), whilst
there
> > are TONS of DU spread all over the countryside?
>
> Do you have a cite on the tonnage of DU?
>
> Glenn D.
>
>
 
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

It was just a joke, but obviously it's a joke on me because it backfired.

I remember reading an article by Isaac Asimov about what the next elements
on the periodic table would be and what the characteristics of their
properties would be. Interesting article, but alas, since we were created
by the refuse of a second order sun, those elements weren't created.
Unfortunately it will take hundreds of millions of years more before we'd
have even the possibility of actually running into naturally occurring
elements that hadn't been created by whatever supernova that spread our
elements out over the cosmos to be incorporated into our existence.


--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Glenn Dowdy" <glenn.no.dowdy@hpspam.com> wrote in message
news:1COjd.2520$M07.1479@news.cpqcorp.net...
>
> "Roger W. Norman" <rnorman@starpower.net> wrote in message
> news:YIydnSTXDahAMxLcRVn-ow@rcn.net...
> > And how did they measure the half-life? Wait around 4.5 billion years
> > before coming up with the result?
> >
> Um, no.
>
> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/halfli2.html
>
> Glenn D.
>
>
 
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Glenn Dowdy wrote:
> "Roger W. Norman" <rnorman@starpower.net> wrote in message
> news:7PKdncFsaqk9PBLcRVn-jA@rcn.net...
>
>
>>Did you know that Gulf War Syndrome has now been attributed to the small
>>possibility of exposure to Sarin gas (a 100 thousand strong), whilst there
>>are TONS of DU spread all over the countryside?
>
>
> Do you have a cite on the tonnage of DU?
>
> Glenn D.
>

History channel on "sworn to secrecy" stated 630 thousand tons so far
George
 
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

George Gleason <g.p.gleason@att.net> wrote:
>Glenn Dowdy wrote:
>> "Roger W. Norman" <rnorman@starpower.net> wrote in message
>> news:7PKdncFsaqk9PBLcRVn-jA@rcn.net...
>>
>>>Did you know that Gulf War Syndrome has now been attributed to the small
>>>possibility of exposure to Sarin gas (a 100 thousand strong), whilst there
>>>are TONS of DU spread all over the countryside?
>>
>> Do you have a cite on the tonnage of DU?
>
> History channel on "sworn to secrecy" stated 630 thousand tons so far

That's a lot, but what sort of tonnage of lead?

I'm not saying uranium isn't bad for you, I'm just saying that lead is also
bad for you. And leftover land mines are really, really bad for you.
And I would worry much more about unexploded ordinance than any of these
things... how many dud bombs and shells are lying around there now? I bet
an awful lot.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
 
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Where does stupidity begin on any of these questions, Scott? How about NOT
doing what's bad for you? Isn't that the real idea?

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
news:cmoek2$rrj$1@panix2.panix.com...
> George Gleason <g.p.gleason@att.net> wrote:
> >Glenn Dowdy wrote:
> >> "Roger W. Norman" <rnorman@starpower.net> wrote in message
> >> news:7PKdncFsaqk9PBLcRVn-jA@rcn.net...
> >>
> >>>Did you know that Gulf War Syndrome has now been attributed to the
small
> >>>possibility of exposure to Sarin gas (a 100 thousand strong), whilst
there
> >>>are TONS of DU spread all over the countryside?
> >>
> >> Do you have a cite on the tonnage of DU?
> >
> > History channel on "sworn to secrecy" stated 630 thousand tons so far
>
> That's a lot, but what sort of tonnage of lead?
>
> I'm not saying uranium isn't bad for you, I'm just saying that lead is
also
> bad for you. And leftover land mines are really, really bad for you.
> And I would worry much more about unexploded ordinance than any of these
> things... how many dud bombs and shells are lying around there now? I bet
> an awful lot.
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
 
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Roger W. Norman <rnorman@starpower.net> wrote:
>Where does stupidity begin on any of these questions, Scott? How about NOT
>doing what's bad for you? Isn't that the real idea?

Well, that would probably involve not going to war at all, and it's way, way
too late for that one.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
 
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Roger W. Norman <rnorman@starpower.net> wrote:
> It was just a joke, but obviously it's a joke on me because it backfired.

> I remember reading an article by Isaac Asimov about what the next elements
> on the periodic table would be and what the characteristics of their
> properties would be. Interesting article, but alas, since we were created
> by the refuse of a second order sun, those elements weren't created.
> Unfortunately it will take hundreds of millions of years more before we'd
> have even the possibility of actually running into naturally occurring
> elements that hadn't been created by whatever supernova that spread our
> elements out over the cosmos to be incorporated into our existence.

Shooting stars never stop
even when they reach the top
Here comes a supernova
what a pushova, yeah

(FGTH sometime in the eighties)

Rob R.
 
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Don't recognize the reference, but I didn't pay a lot of attention to music
in the eighties, or at least the music OF the eighties. Did my own, still
sitting on my shelves! <g>

The point was that third order suns that ultimately create heavier atoms
won't be dying for a while. And it's got to be a HUGE sun to start fusing
even heavier atoms for fuel. Perhaps it's just a fuelish thought.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Rob Reedijk" <reedijk@hera.med.utoronto.ca> wrote in message
news:cmoehq$2t0$1@news1.chem.utoronto.ca...
> Roger W. Norman <rnorman@starpower.net> wrote:
> > It was just a joke, but obviously it's a joke on me because it
backfired.
>
> > I remember reading an article by Isaac Asimov about what the next
elements
> > on the periodic table would be and what the characteristics of their
> > properties would be. Interesting article, but alas, since we were
created
> > by the refuse of a second order sun, those elements weren't created.
> > Unfortunately it will take hundreds of millions of years more before
we'd
> > have even the possibility of actually running into naturally occurring
> > elements that hadn't been created by whatever supernova that spread our
> > elements out over the cosmos to be incorporated into our existence.
>
> Shooting stars never stop
> even when they reach the top
> Here comes a supernova
> what a pushova, yeah
>
> (FGTH sometime in the eighties)
>
> Rob R.
 
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Roger W. Norman wrote:

> And how did they measure the half-life? Wait around 4.5 billion years
> before coming up with the result?

Well, no, radioactive elements decay by emitting (surprise) bursts of
radiation. So you use something to measure the decay events, like a
geiger counter or something with phosphorous and an optical detector.
You measure decay events for a period of time, and then you can figure
out the rate at which decay events are happening. Then it's just
some simple math to determine the half-life.

And no, you'll never be sure that you get exactly the right answer.
But then, one of the interesting things about radioactive decay is
that there IS no right answer. As far as science can tell (if I
understand this correctly), any individual atom is just sitting
there and during one second of time, it has some small probability
of "deciding" to decay. If, during that first interval, it doesn't
decay, then during the next one-second interval, it has exactly the
same probability as it did in the previous interval. So you could
in theory have a chunk of something radioactive sitting there, and
you could have no decay occur during the first second, and then
you'd be *exactly* where you started a second ago. This is very
unlike doing math with a car traveling down the road at a constant
70mph. With the car, you can say that one second later, it will
about 103 ft further down the road. Radioactive decay would be
more like a car where you never actually take your foot off the
brake, and the wheels never roll, but about every second or so,
it teleports itself to a position 103 ft further down the road[1].

So anyway, after all that the point is that the half-life can only
be measured approximately, so they don't know that it's exactly
4.5 billion years, although they can be quite confident that it's
awefully likely to be very close to 4.5 billion years.

But, the half-life isn't all that important. All it tells you
is how quickly something is spitting out radiation. It is
somewhat informative because things with long half-lives are
not going to spit out radiation very fast; otherwise, they'd
spit it all out long before 4.5 billion years' time. The
important thing is really what kind of radiation is coming
out and how much. And *that* can be measured pretty directly.

Well, also, the more important thing is the damaging *chemical*
effects of heavy metals like uranium. Uranium is dangerous
for the same sorts of reasons that you can get lead poisoning.

- Logan

[1] Actually, it would be more like a greyhound bus full of
little ants, and each ant has a little button he can press
that will teleport the bus 103 ft down the road, but each
ant can only press his button one time, and you can't really
predict when he will do it, and the ants don't act in a
coordinated fashion at all.
 
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Actually you're getting into probability, which suggests that one can't
predict WHICH atom will decide to decay. The fact is that at least ONE atom
will decay at a predicted time. In an entirely unstable isotope, the
probability becomes a universe where ALL the atoms can decide to decay at
the exact same time, which means boom.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Logan Shaw" <lshaw-usenet@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:G8Pjd.38766$tL5.17545@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> Roger W. Norman wrote:
>
> > And how did they measure the half-life? Wait around 4.5 billion years
> > before coming up with the result?
>
> Well, no, radioactive elements decay by emitting (surprise) bursts of
> radiation. So you use something to measure the decay events, like a
> geiger counter or something with phosphorous and an optical detector.
> You measure decay events for a period of time, and then you can figure
> out the rate at which decay events are happening. Then it's just
> some simple math to determine the half-life.
>
> And no, you'll never be sure that you get exactly the right answer.
> But then, one of the interesting things about radioactive decay is
> that there IS no right answer. As far as science can tell (if I
> understand this correctly), any individual atom is just sitting
> there and during one second of time, it has some small probability
> of "deciding" to decay. If, during that first interval, it doesn't
> decay, then during the next one-second interval, it has exactly the
> same probability as it did in the previous interval. So you could
> in theory have a chunk of something radioactive sitting there, and
> you could have no decay occur during the first second, and then
> you'd be *exactly* where you started a second ago. This is very
> unlike doing math with a car traveling down the road at a constant
> 70mph. With the car, you can say that one second later, it will
> about 103 ft further down the road. Radioactive decay would be
> more like a car where you never actually take your foot off the
> brake, and the wheels never roll, but about every second or so,
> it teleports itself to a position 103 ft further down the road[1].
>
> So anyway, after all that the point is that the half-life can only
> be measured approximately, so they don't know that it's exactly
> 4.5 billion years, although they can be quite confident that it's
> awefully likely to be very close to 4.5 billion years.
>
> But, the half-life isn't all that important. All it tells you
> is how quickly something is spitting out radiation. It is
> somewhat informative because things with long half-lives are
> not going to spit out radiation very fast; otherwise, they'd
> spit it all out long before 4.5 billion years' time. The
> important thing is really what kind of radiation is coming
> out and how much. And *that* can be measured pretty directly.
>
> Well, also, the more important thing is the damaging *chemical*
> effects of heavy metals like uranium. Uranium is dangerous
> for the same sorts of reasons that you can get lead poisoning.
>
> - Logan
>
> [1] Actually, it would be more like a greyhound bus full of
> little ants, and each ant has a little button he can press
> that will teleport the bus 103 ft down the road, but each
> ant can only press his button one time, and you can't really
> predict when he will do it, and the ants don't act in a
> coordinated fashion at all.
 
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Roger W. Norman" <rnorman@starpower.net> wrote in message
news:Sp-dndisNpZwKhLcRVn-2w@rcn.net...
> Didn't you read George's original post relating to a reported tonnage of
630
> thousand tons? Even if it were somewhere on the order of 1% of that,
we're
> still talking about a lot of tons of material.
>
Nope, missed that. Seems a bit high, since only 320 tons were expended in
the first Gulf War.

http://www.deploymentlink.osd.mil/du_library/gulfwar.shtml

An increase of three orders of magnitude seems a bit high.

Let's look at the numbers. The US fired about 50 tons of DU tank rounds in
the first Gulf War. Assuming a 90% hit rate (the penetrator only forms dust
when it hits a hard target like steel armor), that leaves 45 tons of hits.
With a 99% pyrophoric consumption (estimated; I couldn't find the real
figure online), that leaves less than 1000 lbs of dust. And most of that
should remain inside the destroyed vehicles.

And the radioactive danger from something with a 4.5 billion year half-life
is pretty small compared to everything else in the world that can kill you.

Glenn D.
 
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

And how many 100s of days did the first Gulf war take compared to the 20
months of war we have now?

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Glenn Dowdy" <glenn.no.dowdy@hpspam.com> wrote in message
news:YePjd.2525$yU6.2291@news.cpqcorp.net...
>
> "Roger W. Norman" <rnorman@starpower.net> wrote in message
> news:Sp-dndisNpZwKhLcRVn-2w@rcn.net...
> > Didn't you read George's original post relating to a reported tonnage of
> 630
> > thousand tons? Even if it were somewhere on the order of 1% of that,
> we're
> > still talking about a lot of tons of material.
> >
> Nope, missed that. Seems a bit high, since only 320 tons were expended in
> the first Gulf War.
>
> http://www.deploymentlink.osd.mil/du_library/gulfwar.shtml
>
> An increase of three orders of magnitude seems a bit high.
>
> Let's look at the numbers. The US fired about 50 tons of DU tank rounds in
> the first Gulf War. Assuming a 90% hit rate (the penetrator only forms
dust
> when it hits a hard target like steel armor), that leaves 45 tons of hits.
> With a 99% pyrophoric consumption (estimated; I couldn't find the real
> figure online), that leaves less than 1000 lbs of dust. And most of that
> should remain inside the destroyed vehicles.
>
> And the radioactive danger from something with a 4.5 billion year
half-life
> is pretty small compared to everything else in the world that can kill
you.
>
> Glenn D.
>
>
 
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

It's also NOT the possible radioactive debris that's a problem, it's the
heavy metal component in the soil and the fine dust in the air.

And the question becomes whether it's reasonable to have ANY munitions that
could leave the place you are fighting for as some level of unusable
territory. If it can't be used, then it's a totally different set of
circumstances that prevail. For instance, if Iraq is decimated beyond the
ability to recover from the ecological import, then we have the ability to
enforce our will and maintain our hold on the oil, which is most certainly
becoming a major financial quagmire on it's own. On the other hand, if we
take the people (both our troops and the Iraqi people) into consideration,
then perhaps it's better to find some other method to accomplish the goals.
Yes, the war is on, big time, especially right now, but is it the right
thing at the right time with the right combination of elements that comprise
the war, then I can only say I don't believe so. What I do believe is that
what we've dumped on Iraq is enough that we will be able to follow the
results of it pretty well in the years to come. I'd prefer that when we
have those studies, we (the American people) don't come up the bad guys by
introducing yet another problem on a people that have had 30 years of
nothing but problems.

It's already too late to assume that the historical records won't suggest
the above alone, much less with the additional problems of the types of
armament.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Glenn Dowdy" <glenn.no.dowdy@hpspam.com> wrote in message
news:YePjd.2525$yU6.2291@news.cpqcorp.net...
>
> "Roger W. Norman" <rnorman@starpower.net> wrote in message
> news:Sp-dndisNpZwKhLcRVn-2w@rcn.net...
> > Didn't you read George's original post relating to a reported tonnage of
> 630
> > thousand tons? Even if it were somewhere on the order of 1% of that,
> we're
> > still talking about a lot of tons of material.
> >
> Nope, missed that. Seems a bit high, since only 320 tons were expended in
> the first Gulf War.
>
> http://www.deploymentlink.osd.mil/du_library/gulfwar.shtml
>
> An increase of three orders of magnitude seems a bit high.
>
> Let's look at the numbers. The US fired about 50 tons of DU tank rounds in
> the first Gulf War. Assuming a 90% hit rate (the penetrator only forms
dust
> when it hits a hard target like steel armor), that leaves 45 tons of hits.
> With a 99% pyrophoric consumption (estimated; I couldn't find the real
> figure online), that leaves less than 1000 lbs of dust. And most of that
> should remain inside the destroyed vehicles.
>
> And the radioactive danger from something with a 4.5 billion year
half-life
> is pretty small compared to everything else in the world that can kill
you.
>
> Glenn D.
>
>
 
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Roger W. Norman" <rnorman@starpower.net> wrote in message
news😀ImdnX1vge7kXhLcRVn-rg@rcn.net...
> I said "get's hit" which precludes missing, my man! <g>
>
> And M16 fires a .223 caliber bullet, but one would be hard put to have any
> weapons person dismiss a .22 as a .223 and sell the wrong ammo!
>
> And of course, there's always the amount of powder that imparts the
initial
> velocity. Lot's of variables, but let's stick to a real .22 caliber (and
> I'll give you a long rifle) bullet compared to a .45 caliber, and if I
> absolutely HAVE to go into the woods where I might run into a bear, then
I'd
> prefer the .45 whether it's a talon or a hollowpoint.
>
I'd go even chances going up against a bear with a loaded .22 or
pistolwhipping with an M1911A1.

Glenn D.
 
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:fcudnRV4xcVoXBLcRVn-oA@comcast.com...

>
> Common US military ammo is 5.56 mm, which is just a scosh over 0.25 -
close
> enough to .22, right?
>
Nit: it's closer to .22 than .25. 5.56mm divided 25.4mm is 0.218898.

Glenn D.
 
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Roger W. Norman" <rnorman@starpower.net> wrote in message
news:jIadnXmy7u--VRLcRVn-iQ@rcn.net...
> And how many 100s of days did the first Gulf war take compared to the 20
> months of war we have now?
>
How many tank battles between the two wars? Infantry fighting in the cities
doesn't expend DU rounds. Compare the number of tank division fighting on
both sides in each conflict to estimate expenditure of DU.

Glenn D.
 
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Roger W. Norman" <rnorman@starpower.net> wrote in message
news:7M6dnRmRkdP-VxLcRVn-qg@rcn.net...
> It's also NOT the possible radioactive debris that's a problem, it's the
> heavy metal component in the soil and the fine dust in the air.
>
I'll agree that I would be more concerned with the dust than with the
radioactivity.

> And the question becomes whether it's reasonable to have ANY munitions
that
> could leave the place you are fighting for as some level of unusable
> territory.

Like dud rounds? I bet they're a greater risk of harm to the populace. Or
the actual fighting, too.

> If it can't be used, then it's a totally different set of
> circumstances that prevail. For instance, if Iraq is decimated beyond the
> ability to recover from the ecological import, then we have the ability to
> enforce our will and maintain our hold on the oil, which is most certainly
> becoming a major financial quagmire on it's own. On the other hand, if we
> take the people (both our troops and the Iraqi people) into consideration,

I'll bet you could poll 1000 tankers, and a vast majority they'd rather take
whatever risk exists of DU poisoning over the risk of not killing the enemy
with a first shot.

> then perhaps it's better to find some other method to accomplish the
goals.

There's tungsten, but it's a lot more expensive and less effective.

> Yes, the war is on, big time, especially right now, but is it the right
> thing at the right time with the right combination of elements that
comprise
> the war, then I can only say I don't believe so. What I do believe is
that
> what we've dumped on Iraq is enough that we will be able to follow the
> results of it pretty well in the years to come. I'd prefer that when we
> have those studies, we (the American people) don't come up the bad guys by
> introducing yet another problem on a people that have had 30 years of
> nothing but problems.
>
I think DU poisoning will be so far down the list of troubles. How many
deaths have been projected for that compared to how many were caused by
sanctions, the current conflict or Saddam's own actions?

Glenn D.
 
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I can't dispute anything happening on the ground because I've beat feet on
the ground in war. What I'm disputing is military and US policy that places
US military in harms way, dispenses questionably toxic material in it's
wake, and has minimal concern for the people it professes to want to
liberate, not to mention the possible toll it takes on our own military and
their families. Apparently policy doesn't care if there are less people to
liberate, as long as someone gets liberated. The assumption, however, is
that one person left standing because of our "help" is perfectly acceptable.

My preference would be that MOST of the people we profess to try to liberate
get liberated, and hence I wouldn't want to leave their homeland scattered
with munitions of any sort or toxic materials that will effect their lives
for decades to come.

And I damned sure don't want my brothers in arms coming home to find another
14 years before any recognition of any "syndrome" that may occur for
whatever reason it occurrs, and I don't want them to be screwed out of
proper facilities to have their wounds and syndromes treated somewhere close
to the family support that helps speed recovery and acceptance of such
tragedies as losing arms and legs and having to have an unprepared family
suddenly take up the burden. Nor do I want them to return home with such
disabilities and then run into the problem of finding that their jobs are no
longer available due to their long forced stint in the service or because
they can no longer perform the duties they had prior to their taking up arms
for the protection of American citizens.

You suggest that any additional deaths based on some of these speculations
is far less than the deaths already tabulated, but what you're not
considering is that, in truth, we'd be talking about ADDING these deaths to
those that have already come.

Time to stop suggesting that more death is for the good of the people. It's
not. It's only good for the policies.



--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Glenn Dowdy" <glenn.no.dowdy@hpspam.com> wrote in message
news:b%Pjd.2538$R%6.467@news.cpqcorp.net...
>
> "Roger W. Norman" <rnorman@starpower.net> wrote in message
> news:7M6dnRmRkdP-VxLcRVn-qg@rcn.net...
> > It's also NOT the possible radioactive debris that's a problem, it's the
> > heavy metal component in the soil and the fine dust in the air.
> >
> I'll agree that I would be more concerned with the dust than with the
> radioactivity.
>
> > And the question becomes whether it's reasonable to have ANY munitions
> that
> > could leave the place you are fighting for as some level of unusable
> > territory.
>
> Like dud rounds? I bet they're a greater risk of harm to the populace. Or
> the actual fighting, too.
>
> > If it can't be used, then it's a totally different set of
> > circumstances that prevail. For instance, if Iraq is decimated beyond
the
> > ability to recover from the ecological import, then we have the ability
to
> > enforce our will and maintain our hold on the oil, which is most
certainly
> > becoming a major financial quagmire on it's own. On the other hand, if
we
> > take the people (both our troops and the Iraqi people) into
consideration,
>
> I'll bet you could poll 1000 tankers, and a vast majority they'd rather
take
> whatever risk exists of DU poisoning over the risk of not killing the
enemy
> with a first shot.
>
> > then perhaps it's better to find some other method to accomplish the
> goals.
>
> There's tungsten, but it's a lot more expensive and less effective.
>
> > Yes, the war is on, big time, especially right now, but is it the right
> > thing at the right time with the right combination of elements that
> comprise
> > the war, then I can only say I don't believe so. What I do believe is
> that
> > what we've dumped on Iraq is enough that we will be able to follow the
> > results of it pretty well in the years to come. I'd prefer that when we
> > have those studies, we (the American people) don't come up the bad guys
by
> > introducing yet another problem on a people that have had 30 years of
> > nothing but problems.
> >
> I think DU poisoning will be so far down the list of troubles. How many
> deaths have been projected for that compared to how many were caused by
> sanctions, the current conflict or Saddam's own actions?
>
> Glenn D.
>
>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

blackhawk1928
  • Locked
  • Sticky
Guide to Audio Basics
Replies
42
Views
87K
Audio
buby05
B

TRENDING THREADS

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom