DU, Principi, and Gulf War Syndrome

[url=http://www.sfbayview.com/081804/Depleteduranium081804.shtml]Depleted uranium: Dirty bombs, dirty missiles, dirty bullets
A death sentence here and abroad

“Just 467 U.S. personnel were wounded in the three-week Persian Gulf War in 1990-1991. Out of 580,400 soldiers who served in Gulf War I, 11,000 are dead, and by 2000 there were 325,000 on permanent medical disability. This astounding number of disabled vets means that a decade later, 56 percent of those soldiers who served now have medical problems.”

On Principi’s resignation from the VA.

[url=http://www.sfbayview.com/012605/headsroll012605.shtml]Heads roll at Veterans Administration
Mushrooming depleted uranium (DU) scandal blamed

325,000?

58% of the soldiers who fought in Gulf War I are dead or on permanent disability? What the fuck?

Why isn’t this the giantest media story ever?

[PS, the links aren’t working for me].

Maybe this is why the second article is a Project Censored Award Winner.

[i]A medical doctor in Northern California reported being trained by the Pentagon with other doctors, months before the 2003 war started, to diagnose and treat soldiers returning from the 2003 war for mental problems only.

Medical professionals in hospitals and facilities treating returning soldiers were threatened with $10,000 fines if they talked about the soldiers or their medical problems. They were also threatened with jail.

Reporters have also been prevented access to more than 14,000 medically evacuated soldiers flown nightly since the 2003 war in C-150s from Germany who are brought to Walter Reed Hospital near Washington, D.C.[/i]

It’s a shame you can’t get the links to work, not sure why this would be.

Here’s some more nuggets:

[i]This week the American Free Press dropped a “dirty bomb” on the Pentagon by reporting that eight out of 20 men who served in one unit in the 2003 U.S. military offensive in Iraq now have malignancies. That means that 40 percent of the soldiers in that unit have developed malignancies in just 16 months.

Not only were soldiers exposed to DU on and off the battlefields, but they brought it home. DU in the semen of soldiers internally contaminated their wives, partners and girlfriends. Tragically, some women in their 20s and 30s who were sexual partners of exposed soldiers developed endometriosis and were forced to have hysterectomies because of health problems.

In a group of 251 soldiers from a study group in Mississippi who had all had normal babies before the Gulf War, 67 percent of their post-war babies were born with severe birth defects.

A Japanese professor, Dr. K. Yagasaki, has calculated that 800 tons of DU is the atomicity equivalent of 83,000 Nagasaki bombs. The U.S. has used more DU since 1991 than the atomicity equivalent of 400,000 Nagasaki bombs.[/i]

Why do I get the feeling that the award is a crystal necklace and a worn haki sack(that smells like B.O.?)

The DU fallout just keeps getting worse and worse. So much for the empty “support the troops” rhetoric. I wonder what the true US casualty numbers for this war will be?

This week the American Free Press dropped a “dirty bomb” on the Pentagon by reporting that eight out of 20 men who served in one unit in the 2003 U.S. military offensive in Iraq now have malignancies. That means that 40 percent of the soldiers in that unit have developed malignancies in just 16 months.

Since these soldiers were exposed to vaccines and depleted uranium (DU) only, this is strong evidence for researchers and scientists working on this issue, that DU is the definitive cause of Gulf War Syndrome. Vaccines are not known to cause cancer. One of the first published researchers on Gulf War Syndrome, who also served in 1991 in Iraq, Dr. Andras Korényi-Both, is in agreement with Barbara Goodno from the Department of Defense’s Deployment Health Support Directorate, that in this war soldiers were not exposed to chemicals, pesticides, bioagents or other suspect causes this time to confuse the issue.

Not only were soldiers exposed to DU on and off the battlefields, but they brought it home. DU in the semen of soldiers internally contaminated their wives, partners and girlfriends. Tragically, some women in their 20s and 30s who were sexual partners of exposed soldiers developed endometriosis and were forced to have hysterectomies because of health problems.

In a group of 251 soldiers from a study group in Mississippi who had all had normal babies before the Gulf War, 67 percent of their post-war babies were born with severe birth defects. They were born with missing legs, arms, organs or eyes or had immune system and blood diseases. In some veterans’ families now, the only normal or healthy members of the family are the children born before the war.

Why do I get the feeling that the award is a crystal necklace and a worn haki sack(that smells like B.O.?)[/quote]

Probably because you’re an idiot. Just a guess.

Because people apparently don’t give a shit. The percentages have increased (last I read it was a little over 1/3rd), and the source was less clear, but the basic news has been around for years – since well before the current war IIRC. It’s the primary reason I roll my eyes when ever I see a “support the troops” euphemism come bumper sticker.

What I don’t get, is why the fuck are we still using DU? Is the government/military just so afraid to admit it screwed up? Is some prodigous war profiteering fueling it? Or do we just need the extra penetration it provides in order to deal with the super-thick armor on all the insurgents’ tanks? :|

This isn’t particularily aimed at Bush either, as the issue well predates him.

The links are working for me now. I’ve got to say that the writing in these articles is pretty amateurish and something of a turn-off. But, what matters is whether or not the facts are right. Assuming they are… wow.

They don’t seem to cite a very wide variety of sources at the end of the article, but hey, when not very many people are talking about somthing like this, maybe there just aren’t that many sources.

The older numbers I saw for Gulf War 1 veterans on permanent disability came from the VA, and I’d hazard a guess that these do to – although I too would like to see their source. If I hadn’t seen this so often before I’d be much more dubious.

Also, if not for this, why did Principi resign?

Why do I get the feeling that the award is a crystal necklace and a worn haki sack(that smells like B.O.?)[/quote]

Probably because you’re an idiot. Just a guess.[/quote]

Rawr!

Seriously, I have questions about the credibility of the source here. Don’t you?

Your snipe was directed at Project Censored, which has been around for many years, and is highly regarded.

There was a stink about the VA spending health care funds on studies to research outsourcing, but this stinks more.

Your snipe was directed at Project Censored, which has been around for many years, and is highly regarded.[/quote]

Yeah, that must be why neocon mouthpieces like Mother Jones have such a high opinion of it. There may well be a story here, but you’re going to need more than their unintentional Onion work to get it out.

<sigh> This isn’t “their work.” You guys are demonstrating a remarkable ability to miss the point entirely.

It’s also founded by a bunch of smelly hippies, so the snipe stands.

Maybe the ad revenue from all the [color=red]W[/color]TF bumper stickers I just bought will help them hire some accuracy experts.

No, they merely liked it so much they gave it an award bearing their name.

Also: Right Wing Media: the new Left Wing Media?

You’re the one calling Larry an idiot for not regarding PC as a de facto standard of excellence. A lot of times it is possible to derive some conclusions about the validity of causes by the qualities of their standard bearers, wouldn’t you agree?

No, he’s calling Larry an idiot because Larry is trying to distract people by complaining about another agency that didn’t write the article instead of presenting evidence that the quoted statistics are wrong.

A lot of times it is possible to derive some conclusions about the validity of causes by the qualities of their standard bearers, wouldn’t you agree?

Well, yes, I do tend to expect right-wing fanatics to employ guilt by association.

You’re the one calling Larry an idiot for not regarding PC as a de facto standard of excellence. A lot of times it is possible to derive some conclusions about the validity of causes by the qualities of their standard bearers, wouldn’t you agree?[/quote]

I called Larry an idiot because he made a stereotyping Jeff Foxworthy-like comment about something that is (OK, fine, was) viewed with high regard, and something he’s probably never even heard of, and something entirely tangential to the real topic on the table. He’s griping about the silverware being spotted when the fucking house is on fire. I’ve been insulted by Larry in the past, so I don’t feel inappropriate going pre-emptive on his ass.

And no, I don’t agree. Unpopular opinion is generally put forward by the underdogs, the marginalized, the disenfranchised, the “kooks,” the “cranks,” the “smelly hippies,” the “disgruntled ex-employees,” and the “disillusioned veterans” who exist outside most people’s comfort zone. Not until it is held to the bosom of the “mainstream” is it palatable to the sheep and the drones and the soldier bees, and only after a generation of figurehead scape goats has passed safely out of “power,” out of immediate relevancy, and down the memory hole. This only of course allows the drones to dismiss unpopular thought without a thought, even as they slurp poisonous pap.

That said, may I feel free to derive some conclusions about the validity of your causes by the qualities of Larry and/or the Command in Chief (as “standard bearers”), and stereotypical views of jarheads and Georgians?

The health effects of DU munitions in Iraq specifically have been “news” for nearly fifteen years now, and some people still have the fear-driven myopic audacity to question the validity of those concerns? And worse, steer the discussion into anal nit-picking of sources? Particularly a source that isn’t even a source?

I’ll give you an example, then. Where are the sources for the statistics in that article? The [url=404 - page not found] the most recent VA reports I could find without using Excel (not on my rig yet) circa 2000 put the numbers like this:

Outside of the new regulation, VA has long based monthly compensation for veterans on finding evidence a condition arose during or was aggravated by service. VA has approved more than 183,037 claims of Gulf veterans for service injuries or illnesses of all kinds, including 3,117 approved under the undiagnosed illnesses regulation

Which either means in the last 5 years the GW vets have been dropping like flies, or there’s something else different about those stats. Also, note the relatively small number under the umbrella that includes Gulf War syndrome. Not unimportant, to be sure, but very different from the article you cited.

Hard to corroborate, isn’t it?

It’s funny though. You go to the Veteran Data & Information site at http://www.va.gov/vetdata/ and follow Health Care, everything is about “Dementia.” Huh.

You see stuff like: “Veteran concerns include exposure to the rubble and dust from exploded shells made from depleted uranium; the possibility of exposure to the nerve agent sarin or some yet-unconfirmed Iraqi chemical-biological agent…” Emphasis mine… “some yet-uncomfired,” that’s slick.

On the 5 year old fact sheet you cited, it says "For the latest statistics, see http://www.va.gov/pubaff/gulfvets.htm." Go to that page, follow VA Research on Gulf Veterans’ Health http://www1.va.gov/pressrel/pgrsch98.htm to another “fact sheet” from 1998 (two years older). Try to look at the Annual Report to Congress: Federally Sponsored Research on Gulf Veterans’ Illnesses which is available conveniently on the Internet at… Whoops! File not found. Nice.

Where the hell are recent numbers?

I’m sure that’s just all typical governmental SNAFU stuff. Yeah. That’s all. <coff! coff!>

Sarcasm aside, I’d be very interested in seeing any info from other sources, particularly the VA. Where are these Excel files you found?