Study shows manmade, enriched uranium in Fallujah responsible for post 2004 birth defects

[JohnyCanuck]

Run time: 07:00 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDEDRtVotEQ   Posted on YouTube: October 31, 2011 By YouTube Member: gpduf Views on YouTube: 102   Posted on DU: November 01, 2011 By DU Member: JohnyCanuck Views on DU: 4622

 
The high court in London is to hear a case involving the alleged use of uranium enhanced weapons by US forces in the 2004 attack on Fallujah.

Excerpt from the video

RT: Professor Busby, you have now made two studies of Fallujah. Before we move to the latest one, can you remind us what you found in the first study?

Christopher Busby: A lot of cancer, birth defects, sex ratio change after 2004, showing big genetic damage to the population starting after the battles there. But that was just a health study, we didn’t investigate any cause.

RT: What did you do next?

C.B.: We needed to examine the environment and look inside the people. We obtained 25 parents of children with congenital anomalies and measured the concentration of 52 elements in the hair of the mothers and fathers. We also looked at the surface soil, river water and drinking water. We used a very powerful scientific technique called ICPMS.

RT: What did you find?

C.B.: We found high levels of a number of common elements – calcium, aluminum, strontium, bismuth mercury – but the only substance we found that could explain the high levels of genetic damage was the radioactive element uranium.

RT: So the cause, as everyone thought, was depleted uranium, DU?

C.B.: No. Astonishingly, it was not depleted uranium. It was slightly enriched uranium, the kind that is used in nuclear reactors or atomic bombs. We found it in the hair and also in the soil. We concentrated the soil chemically so there could be no mistake. Results showed slightly enriched uranium – manmade.

[truedelphi]

1. The cause, they say here: Enriched Uranium!

Wow!

Just Wow!

The Powers that be will get us one way or another.

Meanwhile, states side, little babies and young children are increasingly getting rare and deadly cancers, in numbers not seen before... Why? What goes up into the atmosphere must come down.

Although of course it is much worse for those living in Serbia, Iraq and Afghanistan, we in the USA are affected, as we share the same planet's atmosphere.

[Confusious]

5. Uranium isn't lighter then air

It only goes so far.

Might look a little closer to home, like pollution from coal burning and other industrial sources.

[Defectata]

20. when uranium munitions hit metal

they combust, sending micron-sized particulates into the air.

The soldier's were warned to avoid this dust covering hit armored vehicles during both Iraq conflicts.

This is VERY plausible.

[Confusious]

23. What is not plausable is that it would float all the way

to the United states. Or even in an area greater then where it was used.

Mercury is lighter then Uranium, yet the highest densities of pollution are around the areas coal is burned.

[chervilant]

2. Science Fiction?!

Only a few countries possess and use enriched uranium. Can anyone GUESS which country is responsible for using enriched uranium in weapons?!

[Confusious]

4. Probably not any, considering the facts

enriched uranium is expensive and rare.

depleted uranium has the same properties, and is cheap and abundant.

Busby is a crank.

[truedelphi]

6. Sorry but the truth is this:

Plenty of enriched uranium to go around -as it is part and parcel of the fuel rods (from aged nuclear plants) that need to be "retired" after X amount of decades.

on edit: From government source -U.S. civilian power plants typically use 3 to 5 percent of the uranium isotope uranium -235. Weapons use "highly enriched uranium" (HEU) with over 90 percent uranium-235. Some research reactors and all U.S. naval reactors also use HEU.

[Confusious]

7. From what government source?

Be nice to see a link.

No one uses enriched uranium for conventional weapons.

We don't reprocess spent rods in this country, we don't send it to another country to be done, so your statement "plenty of enriched uranium to go around -as it is part and parcel of the fuel rods (from aged nuclear plants) that need to be "retired" after X amount of decades" is false. If it was reprocessed, it would go into a reactor, not into a conventional weapon.

Conventional weapons use depleted uranium. "Weapons use "highly enriched uranium" (HEU) with over 90 percent uranium-235." Only nuclear weapons use that grade of uranium. We didn't set off a nuclear weapon in Iraq. Even power plants only use 5%. We don't use that grade of uranium in conventional weapons. Why? Depleted Uranium has the same elemental characteristics, minus radioactivity, as enriched uranium, and it's not as rare.

( one other point, we haven't built a bomb with uranium 235 since the early 50's. They all use plutonium and a 238 tamper )

Using enriched uranium would be stupid.

Sorry, but you're full of it.

[Marazinia]

8. That's one reason DU is much more dangerous than they'd like us to believe

DU is contaminated.

[Marazinia]

9. As another poster already pointed out

This is incorrect.

But if you have any other evidence that Busby is a crank, I'd like to see it.

[Confusious]

12. It really wasn't much of a 'refutation'

I pointed out how wrong he/she was. You missed that. Selective blindness? Or just believing what you want to believe sans facts?

If you really need to know, read the Wikipedia page on Busby. He can't get his papers published in a respectable, legitimate scientific journal, so he started his own.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Busby

Highlights:

'Busby initially proposed the Second Event Theory (SET) in 1995, in his self-published book 'Wings of Death: Nuclear Pollution and Human Health',<15> in which isotopes that decay sequentially i.e. emit two or more particles in a short decay chain, have far greater genotoxic effects than predicted by the LNT model. In particular, Busby's SET predicts that the 90Sr-90Y decay chain might be some ~30 times more carcinogenic than predicted by LNT; because according to Busby primary exposure to a beta particle alters a cells to the G2 Phase, which he claims are highly radio-sensitive, and a second particle "hit" within a few hours then causes carcinogenesis.

SET was criticized by Cox & Edwards (2000)<16> who pointed out that if Busby's "biologically implausible" theory was correct and all irradiated cells undergo transformation to the G2 Phase, it would cause an increased risk factor of just 1.3 times and predict, on the contrary, substantial risk reduction at low doses for single emitting radioisotopes. Furthermore, it was established in 1906 (The Law of Bergonié and Tribondeau) that cells in the G2 Phase are more resistant to radiation than cells in the M Phase (Radiosensitivity and Cell cycle).<17> The Committee Examining Radiation Risks of Internal Emitters (CERRIE) report, on which Busby was one of twelve members, exhaustively examined the biological plausibility of SET and commissioned an independent consultant to conduct a literature review. In 2004 CERRIE rejected the SET by a 10 to 2 majority consensus (Bramhall and Busby dissented). The rejection was made for following reasons:<18>

The lack of biological plausibility for the basic preconditions of the SET
The paucity of supporting evidence in the proponents’ reviews of the SET
The weakness of studies cited in support of the SET
The absence of supporting evidence found by the independent review commissioned by the Committee
'

[SkyDaddy7]

17. I agree. It does not make any sense to use...

Enriched Uranium in weapons.

[Confusious]

3. Busby is a crank

Lets see, why would anyone use EXPENSIVE RARE enriched uranium in a shell, when CHEAP ABUNDANT depleted uranium has the same properties?

Busby is a crank.

[Marazinia]

10. Again, another poster already refuted this

Stop with the 'Busby is a crank' nonsense until and unless you have evidence of your own to back it up.

[Confusious]

13. It really wasn't much of a 'refutation'

I pointed out how wrong he/she was. You missed that. Selective blindness? Or just believing what you want to believe sans facts?

If you really need to know, read the Wikipedia page on Busby. He can't get his papers published in a respectable, legitimate scientific journal, so he started his own.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Busby

Highlights:

'Busby initially proposed the Second Event Theory (SET) in 1995, in his self-published book 'Wings of Death: Nuclear Pollution and Human Health',<15> in which isotopes that decay sequentially i.e. emit two or more particles in a short decay chain, have far greater genotoxic effects than predicted by the LNT model. In particular, Busby's SET predicts that the 90Sr-90Y decay chain might be some ~30 times more carcinogenic than predicted by LNT; because according to Busby primary exposure to a beta particle alters a cells to the G2 Phase, which he claims are highly radio-sensitive, and a second particle "hit" within a few hours then causes carcinogenesis.

SET was criticized by Cox & Edwards (2000)<16> who pointed out that if Busby's "biologically implausible" theory was correct and all irradiated cells undergo transformation to the G2 Phase, it would cause an increased risk factor of just 1.3 times and predict, on the contrary, substantial risk reduction at low doses for single emitting radioisotopes. Furthermore, it was established in 1906 (The Law of Bergonié and Tribondeau) that cells in the G2 Phase are more resistant to radiation than cells in the M Phase (Radiosensitivity and Cell cycle).<17> The Committee Examining Radiation Risks of Internal Emitters (CERRIE) report, on which Busby was one of twelve members, exhaustively examined the biological plausibility of SET and commissioned an independent consultant to conduct a literature review. In 2004 CERRIE rejected the SET by a 10 to 2 majority consensus (Bramhall and Busby dissented). The rejection was made for following reasons:<18>

The lack of biological plausibility for the basic preconditions of the SET
The paucity of supporting evidence in the proponents’ reviews of the SET
The weakness of studies cited in support of the SET
The absence of supporting evidence found by the independent review commissioned by the Committee
'

[Marazinia]

14. I posted some evidence for it

Sorry, I was a bit cranky earlier and shouldn't have been rude about it. It's simply that I happened to read up on this issue several years ago and assumed it was common knowledge that DU from US sites have been contaminated.

Also, it's not controversial anymore that low levels of radiation are harmful. There were studies done on barn swallows by the University of South Carolina a few years back showing marked changes in the species caused by very low levels of radiation.

http://cricket.biol.sc.edu/chernobyl/papers/moller-et-al-2007-chernobyl-abnormalities.pdf

[Confusious]

15. That it not what this about

DU is a contaminate and dangerous.

Busby is saying, and the other poster stated, that conventional weapons are using ENRICHED URANIUM. That is wrong. There is no reason for them to use ENRICHED URANIUM in conventional weapons.

He also said that they got the ENRICHED URANIUM from nuclear plants. The United States does no reprocessing of used power rods, so there is no way to get the enriched uranium.

Busby has no science behind him, he wants everyone to follow him because he's busby. That's not science.

As for your link, that was around Chernobyl. Not exactly low level radiation there.

[Marazinia]

16. Yes, it was low level radiation

The study was done in areas contaminated with low levels of remaining radiation, it was not a study of high level exposure.

Second, Busby would be an unprecedented genius if none of his theories were ever proven wrong.

Third, US depleted uranium has been contaminated in the past from enriched sources.

Again, from the Washington Post (not exactly a bastion of crazy liberal science):

Unsuspecting workers inhaled plutonium-laced dust brought into the plant for 23 years as part of a flawed government experiment to recycle used nuclear reactor fuel at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, according to a review of court documents, plant records, and interviews with current and former workers. The government and its contractors did not inform workers about the hazards for decades, even as employees in the 1980s began to notice a string of cancers.

...

Today, the Department of Energy contends that worker exposure was minimal and that contamination is being cleaned up. A lawsuit filed under seal in June by three current plant employees alleges that radiation exposure was a problem at Paducah well into the 1990s.




And these are just the things we know about. This is national security territory, not to mention the kinds of areas where coverups to hide wrongdoing are very common. We don't even begin to have the whole story.

[Confusious]

22. The flaw in your interpretation of the study

They caught the birds in areas with low radiation, they have no idea if they came from an area with higher radiation. The only thing they can say with certainty is that the birds in the Chernobyl area have a higher level of deformities then those who do not.

second, "Busby would be an unprecedented genius if none of his theories were ever proven wrong."

A. Unprecedented? More then Einstein, Newton or liebnitz? Don't make me laugh. Point two of A. No objectivity.
B. It is not the up to anyone to prove him wrong. HE HAS TO PROVE HE IS RIGHT. It's called SCIENCE. You PROVE your theory is CORRECT. Which Busby has not done. Which is why Busby is a crank.
C. SCIENCE is not FAITH, or WOO. As much as some around here would like to tear SCIENCE down so their favorite WOO theory doesn't get challenged. Which is what is happening here.

third, the article you cited has nothing to do with DU weapons. DU is the leftover after extracting the .74% of U-235 in uranium ore. Nuclear weapons and conventional weapons ARE NOT the same. U-235 undergoes further refinement, so I hardly think you would get enriched uranium in a DU sabot.

Of course, you put it all upon a conspiracy theory, because what else makes sense in something, that if you look at it critically, makes no sense whatsoever.

[Marazinia]

24. He doesn't have to prove anything actually

Shouldn't several peer reviewed studies in the area by independent sources prove it one way or the other?

As for the low level radiation study, again, that was a study, not of high levels of radiation, but of low levels. You may read the study if you would like to. I do believe it's available for free. I'm certain several abstracts are. If you have a problem with the methodology that allows them to categorize it as a study of the effects of low levels of radiation, you may take it up with them.

[Confusious]

25. No, it does not

He has to PROVE his THEORY. Then peer review tries to recreate his results. He has not published his data, nor submitted it to peer review.

Obviously, you have no idea how science or the scientific method works.

Like I said, the captured birds from an area of low radiation, they have no idea where they came from before that. Birds don't magically pop out of thin air.

[Marazinia]

26. But the only way to turn one study into a solid theory is repetition, isn't it?

And if you don't trust this guy, why would you want him to do the repeating again? I'm perfectly fine with the idea of independent sources gathering more data and crawling all over his, that is the right way to do science. Are you saying they shouldn't?

As for the low level studies, once again, take it up with them. They have their methodology, you are free to research it or simply dismiss it, I suppose. Up to you.

[Confusious]

27. No, if he submitted his data for review

It should be reviewed. And if it is valid, then it should be accepted as such.

The problem is, Busby has done none of that. He even went so far as to found his own journal so he could publish his papers there, so he would not have them subjected to peer review. ( actually, I believe his papers were rejected for sloppy work)


That is why Busby is a crank.

[Marazinia]

28. Oh really?

He has submitted the report cited in the first post for review and been rejected? Link please.

And if that's true, but if there's any chance that despite 'sloppy work' his conclusions have some validity, then it would still be a good idea for 'more meticulous' scientists to collect and analyze their own data, wouldn't it?

[Confusious]

29. Yes, Really

If you had read the cite from wikipedia, you would have known this.

From 1987 onwards Busby has worked in particular on the health effects of ionizing radiation, developing the 'Second Event Theory'

Rejected for sloppy work ( which in science means ):

The lack of biological plausibility for the basic preconditions of the SET
( Plausibility:
1. Seemingly or apparently valid, likely, or acceptable; credible: a plausible excuse.
2. Giving a deceptive impression of truth or reliability.
3. Disingenuously smooth; fast-talking)

The paucity of supporting evidence in the proponents’ reviews of the SET
( paucity: The presence of something only in small or insufficient quantities or amounts; scarcity)

The weakness of studies cited in support of the SET
The absence of supporting evidence found by the independent review commissioned by the Committee

Not worth the time of a real scientist, might as well ask him to prove unicorns exist.

Busby is a crank.

[chervilant]

30. Gosh...

I wish I could see the posts from the person with whom you had this lively discussion. S/he is on my ignore list.

(I only use my ignore option when someone is verbally abusive, demeaning, or prone to misogyny.)

That being said, I find it disheartening that so many people work so hard to diminish the dangers of low-level radioactivity.

[Marazinia]

11. Depleted Uranium Contamination

This is an older document on the contamination of DU with Plutonium.

1DEPARTMENT OF EXPERIMENTAL PHYSICS, UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE DUBLIN, IRELAND
2INSTITUTE OF NUCLEAR SCIENCES "VINÈA", BELGRADE,
YUGOSLAVIA

http://www.onk.ns.ac.rs/archive/Vol9/PDFVol9/V9n4p225.pdf

Depleted Uranium (DU) penetrators used in the recent Balkan conflicts have been
found to be contaminated with trace amounts of transuranic materials such as plutonium.
This contamination is usually a consequence of DU fabrication being carried out in
facilities also using uranium recycled from spent military and civilian nuclear reactor
fuel.



Closer to home:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/aug99/paducah08.htm

Thousands of uranium workers were unwittingly exposed to plutonium and other highly radioactive metals here at a federally owned plant where contamination spread through work areas, locker rooms and even cafeterias, a Washington Post investigation has found.

[Blue Owl]

18. It's called Freedom Dust

according to GWB.

[Marazinia]

19. Well maybe he could do us all a favor

And snort some

[DeSwiss]

21. K&R n/t