One newcomer to the DU issue is Steve Beckow. He recently published an article on OpEdNews based upon the disturbing information he came across in the first few days of his research into DU.

I left a few comments on that article, and he contacted me directly with this frank expression of confusion.

I gave him a short reply (have no copy myself) suggesting that perhaps the environment could actually absorb some amount of DU without the world becoming a "wasteland." I said I would tell him more later when I got home from work.

When I got home, he had left me another message:

I'll post my reply below, and I encouraged him to use this board for any further discussion:

This post was last modified: 09-06-2007 12:17 AM by Beagle17.

Steve,

I sense you felt much as I did and still do really. This whole issue bugs me to no end because there are such extreme claims made about DU. Some say harmless (which is very bloody unlikely) and some say... well, as you mentioned.

Here is the most succinct and eloquent summary explanation of the harmless argument that I know of:
http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/news/na_harley_03jan00.html

And the Rosalie Bertell video gives probably the best succinct version of the great harm argument:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgQ79-oDX2o

The truth must lie in the middle somewhere. While it is true that uranium is quite common in soils as Dr. Hurley stresses in the first source, it is far from true that adding a kilo of dust here and there makes no difference. See my math on my blog entry: http://www.gnn.tv/B24697

It is also not true that DU has no external radioactive danger because it is only composed of U238. In fact, it still contains about 1/3 the proportion" of U235 as does "natural uranium." However, a DU shell is far from natural because it is pure uranium metal - something never found in nature. Consequently, a one-kg shell actually contains more U-235 atoms than almost any one-kg sample from any natural source of uranium. See my other math on an earlier blog entry: http://www.gnn.tv/B24619

Furthermore, reducing the DU shell to dust will "release" the radiation as Dr. Bertell explains nicely. The "self-shielding" effect of a lump sample is reduced when it is pulverized.

So, even considering the external danger of U-235 alone, it is still effectively a "dirty bomb" that presents a radiological danger.

Then there is the U-238 which the pro-DU folks like to insist is harmless because it is such a low-level emitter with such a long half-life. But when it does emit radiation, this is a very high energy alpha particle. The problem with alpha particles is that they are large, each being the equivalent of a helium ion (nucleus; 2N + 2P). Inside the body, even a single collision of such a brute could cause a cancer or developmental defect if it strikes in a bad spot. So really, we don't want ANY U-238 lingering in the body.

The pro-DU folks like to point to healthy people with DU shrapnel in their bodies, but that scenario is not dangerous in fact. First, most of the shrapnel is self-shielded; only a small amount of local tissue around the shrapnel will get irradiated.

The problem would be inhaled dust, and the extent to which it might find its way to vulnerable tissues and become sequestered in the cells or tissues. There hasn't been much research done on this. You can take a look here to see some of the research that has been done: http://www.dubbs.info/academic.htm

The dust question is major. A lot of anti-DU people fear that this dust is travelling around the world making people sick everywhere. They try to blame DU for rising diabetes, lung cancer and other problems. Then there is GWS. Occam's Razor would suggest uranium dust a likely cause here. So does the fact that no other cause has been isolated. I feel the DU dust is surely a major factor in GWS, if not the biggest factor.

This is about all I can tell you with confidence. I would open my mind to the fact that Moret and others are prone to exaggerating the impact of DU, but I understand their motivation for doing so. What I don't understand is why real truth-seekers like myself and yourself are frequently attacked by DU activists on both sides of the argument. Personally, I don't think it does any good to sensationalize the DU problem. Moret has made herself a target, and she thus makes it easier for the defenders of DU to win over people simply by attacking her hyperbole. This is not good. I believe this is one big reason why few journalists will broach the subject. They usually find Moret's stuff first, and then eventually come across a refutation of her  and her stuff. They then happily jump onto the "just another conspiracy" bandwagon.

I personally think the anti-DU movement should be looking harder at campaigning for a limited ban rather than a full ban. This notion enrages Moret and most of her allies. But using a limited ban model worked well in the case of landmines. History shows it is damned hard to take effective weapons away from military forces. I would like to see stringent rules allowing use of DU shells only as a defensive measure of last resort. As I live in Taiwan, I can easily imagine one such scenario where I would actually support using DU shells to repell an invasion from China.

As I built the DU BBS for exactly the purpose of entertaining discussions such as this, I will now go and post this there. If you wish to reply and continue this exploration further, please register for the BBS and reply there. I hate typing so much and knowing that it is for one set of eyes only. I'd rather put it where others may find it later and possibly gain some understanding.

I checked your profile on OpEdNews, and you seem like you might have some personal connections in the Canadian media scene. I hope you will use your own personal influence to encourage journalists, lobbyists and so on to take up their duty to inform the public of this massively important unresolved question.

And good luck on your own quest for understanding and solace. It won't be easy. Just keep reading and thinking about the motivations of the people making claims - on either side.

-Peter

Peter,

It's only been about a month since I first learned about DU from the Power Hour's Beyond Treason.  I spent the first three days in bed so depressed I couldn't get up.

The next week was spent researching and then starting to create a sourcebook on it and finally writing something.

Then when I heard that the Iran war was coming after Labour Day I was seized with dread and began writing left and right, thinking I could somehow impact the situation.

Having now shouted my head off, and seeing that the hardest I did has not really caused much of a ripple, I am feeling resignation creep up.

I am going back to the research now to look at a different aspect of the question - what the DU apologists are saying. I have taken down many of the sources that you linked to and will look at these fresh sources you have given me.

If Moret is prone to exaggerating, what about Rosalie Bertell? She said we were headed for "omnicide." Was that a stretch as well?

What about the work of the International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan? Do you regard that as valid or was it sketchy and ill-informed?

You asked if I had connections with the Canadian media. No, I actually don't.  My first love is spiritual literature. I served as a refugee adjudicator because that looked like what Providence wanted me to do, given the way the application process went (long story).  

However, the "culture" of a refugee adjudicator fit in with my spiritual writing: we were allowed to speak to no one, contact no one, express no opinions, etc.  It was like living in a cloister, which I enjoyed.

But it has left me, as it did the others, with no contacts in the press or any other medium.

I have taken all of my credibility and invested it in letters to all Canadian Members of Parliament (I am aware that you hail from Nova Scotia) on both 9/11 and DU.  That certainly makes me a fringe lunatic in their eyes, I'm sure. I don't regard myself as having any more credibility in the eyes of anyone important in Canada.

Where have you acquired so much knowledge about DU? When did you first start looking into it and why?

It's an ironic thing: you say that the outlook is not as bleak as Moret et al say it is.  Well, that has the impact of putting me back to sleep on the topic. When I think the outlook is bleak, I wake up and get moving.  Yet what I write when I am deeply concerned may be less than useful. But when I am not concerned, I may not write anything at all.

That situation may just reflect where I am now, having newly encountered the subject, but it seems like a strange paradox.

I'll begin to read the materials that you referred me to.

Steve

I do not spend my time investigating the particulars of Moret's claims. I'm saying others do, and she draws the most fire. She is always at the center of the real scrapping.

As for "omnicide" this depends on what one means. That is a word (perhaps) without a clear meaning. Burning coal releases a lot of uranium into the atmosphere. Some say this is the main reason for modern increases in lung cancer and more. Many people also believe the real danger in tobacco smoke is the polonium-210, another alpha emitter.

The is not enough science in this area.

The effects of "global DU dust" would be statistical. It might have a serious effect and nobody bothers to notice. We are wrong to believe that scientists are busy informing us of everything we need to know.

An important avenue for exploration should be the Iraqi population. There are many reports of rising mutation rates there. I've seen activists say 70% of babies born in Iraq now are deformed, but I find that number hard to believe. It is also possible that government agents are seeding the activist community with indefensible claims in order to keep this controvery in the dark - a disinformation technique.

The bottom line is this: the effects of low level radiation are controversial. Internal alpha radiation must be considered differently from external gama and beta. (External alpha is quite harmless, although DU emits more than just alpha.)

You should take a look at LLRC.org to learn more abut this.

I am still learning myself. I am also despondent about this horrible experiment that is being conducted in the name of more efficient killing. I don't see the point of using DU when one doesn't need to anyway. I agree with all analysis that frames DU as a war crime. I think it is just that.

I'm grateful for the perspective, Peter, which is what a new student of the question needs.

It is quite close to 9/11 now and I can feel the whole temperature of my Internet community heating up.  This is the time to get our messages across to the administration and the public. I'llbe wrapped up in watching and writing until after everything subsides.

Steve,

I found myself thinking last night and the night before that I am still very much out there on an emotional limb because of my discovery of the DU issue. It continues to astound me that little old insignificant me can so easily become a significant voice (I wish) in the fight against DU. I'm not confessing some megamaniacal tendency, just stating an observation of absurdity in the existentialist sense. How can people bypass DU? At first I expected to soon discover that it was just a silly worry that wasn't real. But the more I looked into it, the more I realized that on a common sense, honest scientific (ie. concern for risk) level, DU was truly a gross stupidity.

I do still hope to be convinced someday that the stuff is not so bad due to environmental dilution, low rate of radioactivity (can't apply to the U-235 still left in the DU) and so on. But I no longer expect this. The transition is was definitely difficult for me, and yes it involves me emotionally and spiritually -- and I'm not even a particularly spirtitual person; I'm pretty much a strong agnostic. And it's still difficult for me, in a "flashback" sort of way. Every now and then the existential edge of the DU question freaks me right out.

It truly has to be an Emperor wears no clothes sort of a thing. I like the words I posted on an Alternet comment two days ago. I'll quote myself: "If a single question of such simplicity that a child could pose it threatens the structure of our consensus reality, that question will be almost unanimously ignored."

This principle applies to many issues and facts these days, especially ones connected to Bush and his designs.

Have you thought about taking your message to other political forums?The ones with large numbers posting and even larger numbers just reading?

I can point you to a few if you desire.

Peter,

Thanks for sharing about the impact of this issue on you.  I value that sharing.  A person can go insane alone, thinking about the implications of a DU war with Iran.

Let me share as well. I'm not a religious person, but I consider myself a "spiritual" person - that is, I practise spiritual disciplines outside a religious denomination.

I have actually lived my life for many years leaving all financial matters to Providence in return for doing what I could make out to be Providence's work.

As a refugee adjudicator, I could see my work as plainly serving Providence. When I tripped upon 9/11: In Plane Site and had my eyes opened on that issue, my research and writing on that was again clearly something I could see as serving Providence.

Then, when BridgeStone Media sent me Beyond Treason and I watched that video, again I could clearly see research and writing on that subject as serving Providence so again I got involved.

But the issue of DU is unlike anything I have ever confronted before. I have sat as an adjudicator and listened to citizens of Rwanda tell me they saw their father and brother's heads on stakes. I have heard a Russian woman describe herself being used as a sexual plaything by the Chechen mafia. Terrible, terrible stuff to have to listen to.

But DU is possibly such a monumental catastrophe that I can only barely get my mind around it.

And the crisis that threatens to dump 3,000 more tons of it into the environment is so very close - a war with Iran.

And my own knowledge of it is so tenuous and yet what can I do?  Not speak out? I feel an urgency to write about it.

It is as if I get electric shocks all day, saying "What have you done today on this issue?"  

I go to other websites and read these placidly-written analyses of Pentagon plans for battle and want to suddenly shout my head off to wake the writer up.

It is hard to stay sane and I'm not sure I should stay sane when there may be only days and weeks to go.

You may be one of the few people on the planet, Peter, who can appreciate another feeling this way.

There are very few people around me who want to hear about the world possibly ending!!!!!

So I desperately hope for a 9/11 on which so many people take to the streets that the war on Iran will not go forward. And I search and search for places to send my articles to (yes, I would like suggestions).  

Life turns into a freakish hall of mirrors and I find myself one of the few people in that hall.  Everyone else is talking on their cellphone and buying houses and investing in the market.  And here am I, one of the few people on Earth who have an "inkling" of what is going on  -- if I am even right in the first place.

That's how it is and has been for me since watching Beyond Treason.

I suppose I'll go on steadily researching day by day, trying to remain sane, trying not to wear out my friends who are busy having babies and planning vacations. A whole sane and normal world that goes on around me while I agonize and wonder what more I can do.

That is how my day-to-day lif eis knowing what I know.

powerful stuff, Steve... you should post it verbatim on any of the number of sites I can direct you to. just PM me... and obtw, you're not alone...

obtw pt deux... one question... define Providence.