PDA

View Full Version : More Troops



Leader
21 Apr 04,, 03:58
Too Few Troops
From the April 26, 2004 issue: Resolve alone won't bring success. We need a military and political strategy that maximizes our odds of winning in Iraq.
by Robert Kagan and William Kristol
04/26/2004, Volume 009, Issue 31

AT HIS PRESS CONFERENCE Tuesday night, President Bush eloquently made the case for staying the course in Iraq. The next day, at City College in New York, Senator Kerry agreed: "It would be unwise beyond belief for the United States of America" to cut and run, and to "leave a failed Iraq in its wake." And the American people, despite the recent bad news, show no sign of panic: In a Time/CNN poll, 57 percent of respondents agree that the United States should "intensify" its military effort in Iraq.

Unfortunately, resolve alone won't bring success. Neither will well-delivered statements by the president. The problem in Iraq is not poor public relations, or a lack of will. Rather, it is the failure of policymakers at the highest levels to fashion a military and political strategy that maximizes the odds of success. That is what has been missing ever since Saddam's statue fell a little over a year ago.

The mere fact that violence has increased recently in Iraq is not by itself grounds for criticizing the administration's handling of the war. No sensible person believed that the effort to build a democratic Iraq would be without cost and dangers. No reasonable person expected administration officials and military commanders, either in Washington or in Baghdad, to be able to exercise unerring mastery over an inherently complex and always explosive situation.

Nor is the news from Iraq all bad. Several weeks ago we argued optimistically (perhaps too optimistically) that things were looking better, and we still believe there is much in Iraq to be gratified by: continued peaceful cooperation among Shiite, Sunni, and Kurdish leaders, despite many disagreements; an economy that seems to be improving; the fact that a large majority of Iraqis, as documented in polls, say their future is promising, reject political violence, and support an ongoing American presence. And much of Iraq remains, at the moment, relatively peaceful. All this is important progress.

Yet this progress can be undone. And while we certainly do not hold the administration responsible for everything that has gone wrong in Iraq, it is clear that there have been failures in planning and in execution, failures that have been evident for most of the last year. Serious errors have been made--and made, above all, by Donald Rumsfeld's Pentagon. The recent violence in Iraq has confirmed that the level of American military forces has been too low to accomplish the president's mission ever since the invasion phase of the war ended last April.

On Thursday, the secretary of defense announced a three-month extension in tours of duty for about 20,000 troops in Iraq. This did not increase the number of troops on the ground, but it did undo a planned drawdown in military strength from 135,000 to 115,000, thereby maintaining current combat strength. But leaving 20,000 troops in Iraq for an additional three months will almost certainly not be enough. Close observers of the conflict in Iraq, civilian and military alike (military, of course, speaking off the record), say that at least two additional divisions--at least 30,000 extra troops--are needed in Iraq just to deal with the current crisis. Even more troops may well be needed to fully pacify the country. And it would be useful to have as many of those troops as possible there sooner rather than later.

The shortage of troops in Iraq is the product of a string of bad calculations and a hefty dose of wishful thinking. Above all, it is the product of Rumsfeld's fixation on high-tech military "transformation," his hostility to manpower-intensive nation-building in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, and his refusal to increase the overall size of the military in the first place. The results are plain to see: We are trying to carry out Bush's post-9/11 foreign policy with Clinton's pre-9/11 military. It is a wonderful military, but it is too small for our responsibilities in the post-9/11 world. As a result, it will not be easy to find the additional brigades to send to Iraq. Troubling reductions in our deployments elsewhere will be required, and an already stressed military will be asked to do more still. Unfortunately, there is no choice.

It didn't have to be this way. Back in August 2003, it was already clear that by early spring of 2004 there would be a shortage of forces to maintain stability and security in Iraq. Neither the military commanders in Iraq nor Rumsfeld pretended otherwise. But rather than prepare to increase American forces, Rumsfeld and General John Abizaid, the U.S. commander in the region, searched for stopgaps. One was the John Kerry solution: more foreign troops. Pentagon plans last fall called for the introduction of an additional international division on top of the one currently led by Poland. That second international division never materialized.

The second proposed fix was to build an Iraqi security force capable of filling the gap. Original plans to build a force of 50,000-100,000 within a year were scrapped as too modest. By October, Rumsfeld boasted that up to 200,000 Iraqi forces would be available in a matter of months. In order to accomplish this feat, training schedules were radically shortened, and procedures for vetting Iraqi soldiers and police were loosened. Critics, including this magazine, warned that this hasty assembling of an Iraqi force carried significant risks: Either they would not be capable of fighting in the time allotted, or they would be unreliable. Both unfortunately turned out to be the case. General Abizaid now acknowledges that the Iraqi forces have proved a "big disappointment." Many would not fight during the recent violence. Some even defected to the other side.

So the present shortage of troops in Iraq is not a surprise. It was predictable. Without the hoped-for second international division and without a usable force of Iraqis, security in Iraq has fallen almost entirely to an American force too small to handle the job. The stresses we're under now cannot be chalked up to the "fog of war" or simple bad luck. Last September General Ricardo Sanchez, the top commander in Iraq, was asked if he had enough troops. He responded that he would not have enough to handle a new wave of conflict in Iraq. "If a militia or an internal conflict of some nature were to erupt," he told reporters in Baghdad, " . . . that would be a challenge out there that I do not have sufficient forces for." Eight months later, that conflict erupted, and, sure enough, there weren't enough troops to handle it.

We need to fix the situation. It would of course have been better to have planned for higher force levels from the beginning, rather than to have to scramble now, calling forces back from well-earned leaves and disrupting rotations. Had the proper number of forces been in place in Iraq from the beginning, some of the recent violence might have been deterred, or suppressed more speedily. Had the proper number of forces been in place, the military would have been able to act more aggressively and thoroughly to disarm, pacify, and secure Iraq. Instead, we tried to keep a lid on things, while terrorists became better organized and militias became stronger. Had the proper number of forces been in place early on, the looting that did so much damage to Iraq's infrastructure might have been stopped, munition dumps could have been secured, economic reconstruction would have moved ahead more easily, and more men and resources could have been devoted to the training of Iraqi soldiers. Perhaps we could even have reduced infiltration from Iran, lessening Tehran's ability to stir up trouble in the south.

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld famously talks about preparing for the "unknown unknowns." Yet the present crisis was hardly unforeseeable, and Rumsfeld did not ensure that the military was prepared to deal with it. He failed to put in place in Iraq a force big enough to handle the challenges at hand. That is a significant failure, and we do not yet know the price that will be paid for it.

The question is whether Rumsfeld and his generals have learned from past mistakes. Or rather, perhaps, the question is whether George W. Bush has learned from Rumsfeld's past mistakes. After all, at the end of the day, it is up to the president to ensure that the success he demands in Iraq will in fact be accomplished. If his current secretary of defense cannot make the adjustments that are necessary, the president should find one who will.


--Robert Kagan and William Kristol

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/977ovnnr.asp

tw-acs
22 Apr 04,, 05:42
The war in Iraq, in my opinion, is the United States worst blunder.


President Bush diverted $700million from operations in Afghanistan to prepare plans of war in Iraq before President Bush talked to congress about war in Iraq and before President Bush spoke to the American people about war.

Many military strategist have concluded before the War in Iraq began, that the number of troops sent to Iraq was insufficient.

Hitler made a similiar mistake. Extending military forces too thin and leaving supply lines vulnerable to attack. The war in Iraq has demonstrated that the USA lacks superiority in Administrative capabilities, Intelligence capabilities, military equipment technology (infantry armor and infantry vehicle armor), level of training per the military budget, and in the munitions category.

The administration failed to use the United Nations in beginning the war in Iraq and now seeks shelter and safety from the United Nations after the war in Iraq has begun.

US intelligence says that Saddam was 5-7 years away from having Nuclear Weapons, if that. And the projected timeline for Saddam to have had a missile delivery system capable of reaching the United States was unforeseeable, that is he couldnt make one and probably never would.

http://www.moveon.org/censure/caughtonvideo/

US Armed Forces Gun trucks have plywood for armor. The steel is available sitting at the docks. It could be cut and and US armed forces could have some steel armor on its infantry vehicles by about May or June, if addressed now.

US Armed Forces do not have flak jackets. Basic body armor. That is pathetic.

Depleted Uranium munitions are very deadly. They are in fact so deadly they harm our troops.

Tungsten is a very hard metal. It was used in US munitions. However, China has most of the tungsten on the planet. Knowing that the United States and China have not had the best of relations at times, it would be unwise for China to sell the United States Tungsten.

There was a solution to the problem of the lack of Tungsten. Through the processing of spent fuel rods, used in nuclear power plants, Depleted Uranium munitions can be created.

Depleted Uranium munitions are extremely effective in battle, though not much better than Tungsten. The first time the deployment and use of Depleted Uranium munitions was discussed, it was concluded that the use of Depleted Uranium had too many negative affects to be deployed or used.

Any and all life (humans, other animals and plants) exposed to low level radiation over an extended period of time will become ill, if the radiation is not natural to their environment. It may be possible to find some life that can exist in such conditions on the ocean floor near vents that release toxic gases.

Upon impact Depleted Uranium Munitions pierce whatever armor the target has and so much heat is created and energy that it causes a chain reaction in which the Depleted Uranium begins to rapidly decay. The radioactive material that is introduced to the planet in from this process has a half life of at least 4.5 billion years. That is longer than I can concieve. My life and yours has been less than 100 years. This radioactive material, at least one of its many phases has a half life of 4,500,000,000 years. That is 45,000,000 times as long as a 100 year old man or woman would live. The point is once the radiation is released it is permantly in our environment. With present technology we cannot clean up Depleted Uranium after it has been used.

Any and all life (humans, other animals and plants) exposed to low level radiation over an extended period of time will become ill, if the radiation is not natural to their environment. This radiation will be on this planet for a very long time.

The Depleted Uranium munitions also release low level radiation before being used. So, the persons that create the munitions, the persons that handle and transport the munitions to military locations, persons handling and equiping/arming US military vehicles, the members of US Armed Forces deployed with such munitions, the enemy target attacked, the life in the vicinity of the enemy target, the life downwind of the enemy target will all be exposed to highly dangerous low level radiation.

Wind patterns, over time will transport such radiation to the entirety of the world and it will be there forever in relative terms to human life.

I care for every persons in the US armed forces that is why I have this concern. My best friend is in the National Guard and knowing that some National Guardsmen have been deplayed in Iraq, I am very concerned. The National Guard, weekend warriors, to the best of my understanding do not sign up for overseas action.

The National Guard has changed since George W Bush was a member. At the time he was a member the National Guard was the rich boys way out of going to Vietnam.

I care about all life on this planet. Diversity in Nature is what makes it so strong.

I also know that there are more and more talks of starting a draft.

I want there to be a planet for my kids, when I have kids. I want my children to have a planet for them to have kids. So on, and so forth.

Bill
22 Apr 04,, 05:48
TW-ACs

Whatever you think you know about DU, you're wrong. It is harmless unless ingested, and it needs to be ingested in a very large quantity over an extended period. DU has less background radiation than your computer monitor. We've had extremely indepth conversations on DU238 at www.a-10.org . Search the data base there if you want to learn all the details of Depleted Uranium.
Many of the posters on that board are definitely what can be considered experts, and combined they have probably 300 years of military service. And no, that is not an exaggeration.

I've handled DU extensively(these were experimental 7.62x51rds with a much thinner jacket) in the past, and can report no ill effects from it whatsoever.

You're panicking on Iraq. Get hold of yourself. The situation is nowhere near as desperate as you imagine it to be.

tw-acs
22 Apr 04,, 06:38
Gulf War Sickness

tw-acs
22 Apr 04,, 06:42
If you care to review the Military and Congressional documentation of such matters discussed in my posts, then I believe you shall have an arguement. Along with Scientific data backing up your arguement. ANd you must use COMMON SENSEMy post has that.

Why no comment on the Infantry armor or the rest of my post????

Does that mean you cannot belligerize nonsense to counter the other topics?

That is the actual level of armor for US Infantry trucks.

Bill
22 Apr 04,, 07:31
Gulf war sickness has not been attributed to DU238. Tell me rocket scientist, have you ever handled 238? Ever had a classified briefing on it's full characteristics and capabilities?

Oh...

You're a nitwit, go talk soldier with someone else. This particular ex soldier doesn't feel like baby talking you.

I know christ, dozens of troops on the ground in Iraq, some i email back and forth on a weekly basis. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about, period.

tw-acs
22 Apr 04,, 18:17
Hey,

I am on here trying to discuss politics and military issues that concern me. I have friends in the Armed Services and I do not want them to bt put in unnecessary risk.

I choose not to be in the military because that is my choice. You chose to be in the military that is your choice. These choices should not affect one's ability to have discourse over topics of concern.

Do you have children? If so do you want them to have a planet to live on? What about their kids? and so on? do you care?

I know I care that is why I post on this generally conservative site. Ironman told me about this web forum and I started posting on here because he asked me to. I feel that truth is what people need. To find truth persons should address topics from all perspectives, as to increase one's knowledge of a subject and thus overall understanding of the topic, giving a better base to formulate thought from.

I am just curious but,
Have you ever had an IQ test?
If so what was your score. If not you might care to take one, and see how you compare to the rest of the world. I have done this, as has Ironman, he in fact went to high school with me and showed me a few IQ tests online that were fairly accurate. I do not have the websites URL's. I think it is better this way; that is if you care to find out you must research the sites yourself.

Bill
22 Apr 04,, 18:50
My IQ is 132.

Yours?

tw-acs
22 Apr 04,, 19:22
I will tell you a story.

I was in a very serious automobile accident. I sustained a Traumatic Brain Injury, resulting myself in a coma for 2 days. The doctors did not think I was ever going to talk again, if I did, maybe 6 months. I had a tear in my brain large enough to create a ping pong ball sized (2.5 x 2.5 x 3.5cm) blood clot on my right frontal lobe. Doctors have told me that to have a tear this large means that there are many smaller tears in my brain, also.

I awoke from my coma in 2 days. I then took a limited IQ test, one being much less rigorous than a test given to a person with no head trauma. I scored a 100. That is average.

20 days after that test, now at Gillette Children's Specialty Healthcare 4th floor of Regions Hospital 640 Jackson Street St. Paul, Mn, I was given a much more rigorous and thorough IQ test, that being one for someone without head trauma. I scored a 121. That is high average. A 21 point change in humans IQ is unheard of in a life time, let alone a recovery. More than 1 point of IQ per day. Phenomenal. Miraculous.

I have since then taken a few non offical IQ tests: the first a program my mother bought me, the others were online. I scored a 141. That is near genius.

The Doctors told me that for someone with the head trauma I had sustained and the average score of 100 I got after the coma, that I must have had an IQ of the 160+ range.

Ironman will confirm that I was in this automobile accident on 7/27/98. My best friend was in that automobile accident with me along with the rest of my family. I am very concerned about the risks that my best friend may be put in, because of his choice of profession. He is a weekend warrior, National Guard, I am also aware that some National Guards men and women have been sent to IRAQ.

I would very much like this forum to have much discourse about topics relevant to the war in Iraq and all American Political and Military issues without trying to degrade someone or to attempt to claim superiority over another person.

I care about the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

We live in a democratic republic or whichever variation of the concept you wish to claim we live under.

Knowledge is the Cornerstone of Democracy - Tracy Morgan SNL

As a citizen of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, I feel I have a duty to my country to seek truth and to vote for the candidates that I feel will best lead our country.


You may discredit the statements after this sentence on whatever grounds you like:

In the coma I saw many things, dreams I suppose. One of them particularly I remember:

I was walking in a big city. Except it was not right. Everything was covered in dust. It looked like a war zone. I was carrying a bucket, of what looked to be rubble. I was following a man carrying 2 buckets, as we came to a T in the path there was a man standing there. The man I was following asked "which way should we go?" That man continued walking. I asked the man at the T in the path "Why are we doing this?" His answer struck me odd. I looked around. As I said before it looked like what I thought was a war zone. When I turned to my right I saw something that did not make sense. One of the business signs was legible. It was not covered with dust. It was green with white writing reading "Mr. Fong's Oriental Restaurant".

I wake from the coma, and recovered.

3 years after this car accident, I was up late one night and had a profound thought come over me. The world was going to be different when I woke up. I hoped it would be good, but I knew it would be bad.

My mother woke me up the next morning and told me "Someone flew a plane into the World Trade Center"

I tried to wake up and think.... the world is definitly different...ahh.. its a coincidence. So I get up and sit in front of the TV. The first thing I saw on the TV when the news showed the WTC scene was a green sign that read "Mr. Fong's Oriental Restaurant" just like I saw 3 years prior.

The city like war zone setting for my dream would make sense related to 9-11, along with the green sign.

The man at the T in the path, when he told me why we were doing what we were doing I was struck odd. Just like I was when I heard NYC FireFighters say it.

As I said you do not have to believe any of this.

I saw a whole lot more in my dreams than what I am telling you. I choose not to discuss some of the other things I saw in good taste, those things I saw are the reason why I seek truth.

Praxus
22 Apr 04,, 21:00
Neurons don't regrow after they die. You can't suddenly get more intelligent.

tw-acs
23 Apr 04,, 01:23
New brain cells are constantly being made in the Hippocampus.

Refer to a study conducted by Salk Institutes located in New York State.

Ask Ironman. We had a bet about this.

New cells are made everyday, in your body, that includes your brain.

Officer of Engineers
23 Apr 04,, 01:26
Claiming high IQ without the smarts to look up the facts.




Français Contact Us Help Search Canada Site

Health Families Pay/Benefits Defence Site

HR Initiatives HR Support Careers/Training HR Site


ABOUT US
CONTACT US
GUIDELINES FOR SUBMISSION
CURRENT ISSUE
BACK ISSUES
Volume 1, 2000
No. 1 Spring 2000
No. 2 Summer 2000
N0. 3 Autumn 2000
No. 4 Winter 2000

Volume 2, 2001
No. 1 Spring 2001
No. 2 Summer 2001
N0. 3 Autumn 2001
No. 4 Winter 2001

Volume 3, 2002
No. 1 Spring 2002
No. 2 Summer 2002
N0. 3 Autumn 2002
No. 4 Winter 2002

Volume 4, 2003
No. 1 Spring 2003
No. 2 Summer 2003
N0. 3 Autumn 2003
N0. 4 Winter 2003




Author ’s collection

A British Mark I tank, one of the first tanks employed in the First World War, crossing a trench on the Somme battlefield, September 1916.
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

DEPLETED URANIUM ON THE BATTLEFIELD
PART 1 – BALLISTIC CONSIDERATIONS
by Dr. William S. Andrews


In an effort to break the stalemate gripping the Western Front during the First World War, work was undertaken to develop vehicles which could traverse the defensive trench works stretching from Switzerland to the North Sea. These trenches, protected by barbed wire and interlocking fire from machine guns, had become virtually unassailable to unprotected men on foot or horseback. The first deployment of such vehicles, using continuous ‘caterpillar-type’ tracks and steel plate for protection, was at the Battle of the Somme in France on 15 September 1916. Here 32 Mark 1 ‘tanks’ took part in an attack and some of these were instrumental in the seizure of the village of Flers.1 This began the inevitable seesaw, which continues to this day, between armour protection and armour-penetrating munitions designed to defeat these vehicles.

This paper will examine the place of depleted uranium (DU), because of its ballistic properties, in the inventories of a number of modern armies. A subsequent paper (Part 2) will discuss the threat that the use of DU may pose to combatants and subsequently to peacekeepers and civilians. It will also report on studies currently being conducted on troops, including Canadians, who may have been exposed to DU.


Figure 1: A representation of the frontal armour of a modern Russian main battle tank.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
The employment of armoured fighting vehicles in armed conflicts has an unbroken history since the First World War, with extensive armoured forces being deployed during and since the Second World War. The political freeze of the Cold War following the truce in 1945 resulted in huge mechanized and armoured forces being deployed in Central Europe by member nations of both the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the Warsaw Pact. The most formidable vehicle fielded by both sides became the main battle tank (MBT), current versions of which now weigh some 60 tonnes.2 Much of this mass can be attributed to the protective armour, which until the late 1970s was usually steel plate, known as rolled homogeneous armour (RHA), or steel castings. With the increasing effectiveness of anti-armour munitions, particularly the molten jets of shaped charge warheads, more exotic materials such as ceramics, glass, composites, and even explosive reactive armour (ERA) have been added to the steel shell. Figure 1 shows an example of the frontal armour of a modern MBT, a Russian T80U.


Figure 2: Examples of full-calibre armour-piercing shot. Left to right: simple steel shot, a round with a cap added to prevent shatter on impact (termed armour piercing capped or APC), and a round with a further ballistic cap to reduce aerodynamic drag during flight (armour piercing capped ballistic capped or APCBC).
Figure 3: An example of an early armourpiercing discarding sabot (APDS) round, with the tungsten core penetrator in the centre.




During the Second World War, the principal material for armour penetrators was also steel, used in full calibre warheads (Figure 2), with the intention that the striking energy of the projectile (some 10 MJ for the 88 mm gun on the German Tiger tanks) would overmatch the target armour. The 88 mm Kw.K.43 (L/71) gun of the Tiger II is quoted as being able to defeat some 234 mm of armour at 100 metres.3, 4 This, however, results in the application of an impulse load of 1,644 MJ/m2 to the target.

As vehicle protective armour increased in thickness, sub-calibre dense cores (initially tungsten carbide and later tungsten alloy) were used as penetrators, with light petals or sabots attached to the penetrators while the round was in the barrel. This allowed a larger surface area at the base of the round to permit the propelling gases to increase the muzzle velocity (and hence the muzzle energy) of the round at launch, while attacking a smaller area at the target.




US Army photo

Figure 4: An armour-piercing fin stabilized discarding sabot round in flight.

The reduced diameter in flight also reduced the aerodynamic drag, thus permitting penetrators to retain a greater proportion of their initial energy at the target. Thus, the 105 mm armour-piercing discarding sabot (APDS) NATO round penetrator, similar to that shown in Figure 3, had a muzzle velocity of 1,475 metres/second, and again a muzzle energy of about 10 MJ. Now, however, the energy applied at the target was of the order of 7,800 MJ/m2. These rounds achieved aerodynamic stability by spinning in flight and so were limited to a length/diameter (L/D) ratio of about 5:1. To increase the penetrator’s terminal ballistics performance, smooth bore barrels replaced the rifled bores required to induce spin in the projectile prior to launch. Projectiles now achieved aerodynamic stability by having tail fins (Figure 4). They are known as armour-piercing fin stabilized discarding sabot (APFSDS) or, more simply, long rod penetrators.




Figure 5: The ballistic ‘S’ curve, showing the increase in penetration with increasing velocity in the ordnance range, and the independence of penetration from velocity in the hypervelocity range.

The major consequence of the design change, however, has been a dramatic increase in the L/D ratio. Initially, the L/D ratio for APFSDS was about 13:1 for the Russian/Soviet 3BM3 and 3BM6 projectiles fired from the 2A20 115 mm smooth bore gun on the T62, but has grown to 40:1 for experimental rounds.5 The resulting energy applied to the target is 35,800 MJ/m2 for the current US 120 mm DU penetrator in the M829A2 round.

BALLISTIC PROPERTIES
To understand the use of DU as a penetrator material, a brief look at penetration mechanics is warranted. In the hyper velocity regime, for penetrator/target impacts in excess of 3 km/s, penetration is achieved by the mutual erosion of both the target and penetrator. Assuming that both the penetrator and target behave as incompressible fluids and that penetration occurs at constant velocity, and invoking conservation of momentum, it can be shown that:



where
P is depth of penetration in target


L is penetrator length


rt is target density


rp is penetrator density.


It can be seen that the amount of penetration is dependent only on the length of the penetrator and on the target and penetrator densities, and is independent of striking velocity. As pressures at the penetrator/target interface are well in excess of the yield strengths of either material, material characteristics (other than densities) are not significant. This type of analysis is valid for shaped charge jets and explosively formed penetrators,6 as can be seen in Figure 5, but not for the long rod penetrators discussed above. These latter, striking in the ordnance velocity range of 1,500 to 1,800 m/s, are better described by the semi-empirical Lanz-Odermatt equation:7



where
a is a function of the penetrator length/diameter (L/D) ratio,


S is a measure of target resistance, and


v is the impact velocity.




Both of the fitting parameters a and S are related to the mechanical properties of both the penetrator and target. It can be seen that as the impact velocity, v, increases penetration becomes independent of velocity, as described in Equation 1.

For long rod penetrators, then, penetration can be increased by increasing the length, the density, and the velocity. While current guns and propellants appear to be at the design limit for muzzle velocities, enhancements continue to the L/D ratio. As for density, the move from steel to tungsten penetrators increased the density from about 7,800 kg/m3 to 17,500 kg/m3. Depleted uranium provides a further, albeit marginal, increase to 18,500 kg/m3, considering that penetration varies with the square root of the density.

While armour-piercing rounds fired from 105 mm, 120 mm, and 125 mm MBT guns are fin-stabilized long rod penetrators, not all the guns firing these rounds are smooth bore. The British L7 (US M68) and French CN105F 105 mm guns and the British L30 120 mm gun are rifled, but use slipping driving bands to limit spin from being imparted to the round by the rifling. What is lost in complexity of APFSDS ammunition is felt to be gained somewhat for longer range spin stabilized high explosive rounds. For automatic cannon where there is a variety of projectiles, barrels are also rifled. The 25 mm M242 Bushmaster cannon is used primarily on light armoured vehicles, and as such the anti-armour round would engage the sloped and heavier armoured turret and hull fronts on target vehicles. Consequently, the US uses the APFSDS M919 with a DU penetrator. The 25 mm and 30 mm aircraft cannon would be expected to be used to attack the thinner top armour at angles closer to normal, so the anti-armour munitions are spin stabilized armour piercing incendiary (API), albeit with DU penetrators.


US Army

Figure 6: Sketch of an American M1A2HA Abrams tank showing the location of DU protective armour.

As an aside, from the perspective of providing armour protection, it can be seen that increasing the target density, rt, will diminish penetration. Consequently, on the ‘heavy armour’ (HA) version of the American Abrams M1A1 and M1A2 tanks, DU panels have been added to the turret frontal armour, as shown in Figure 6.


US Army

Figure 7: Diagram depicting two different penetration mechanisms– left: adiabatic shear failure in DU resulting in ‘self-sharpening’, and right: work hardening causing mushrooming in tungsten heavy alloy armour (WHA).

Returning to the penetrators, the initial post-war tungsten cores were tungsten carbide, but these were eventually replaced by tungsten alloyed with nickel, iron, and cobalt, sometimes known as tungsten heavy alloy (WHA). These latter have the hard but brittle tungsten particles embedded in a soft, ductile matrix, which serves to retard cracks and redistribute stresses. WHA penetrators are usually manufactured by sintering, with special attention required to ensure complete densification and preclude porosity resulting from entrapped gases or solidification shrinkage.

On impacting an RHA target, pressures at the penetrator/target interface approach 6 GPa. As seen in Figure 7b, the penetrator mushrooms within the target, with macroscopic plastic deformation followed by erosion. The initial strain is principally localized within the matrix, which rapidly work hardens to form the mushroom shape. A consequence of the mushrooming due to work hardening is that energy is expended radially to expand the penetration cavity.8

By comparison with tungsten, DU also has some processing challenges. It is sensitive to corrosion, trace element impurities, variations caused by heat treatment and hydrogen embrittlement and re-embrittlement. Also, finely divided DU particles are pyrophoric, so powder metallurgy is normally foregone in favour of casting and hot working (although special tooling is required). Also like tungsten, DU is alloyed, usually with 0.75 weight percent titanium.

Like WHA, DU alloy penetrators will mushroom on impact as the molten material is forced radially away from the penetrator. This plastic deformation results in an increase in the flow stress of the material due to work hardening and a competing decrease in flow stress due to thermal softening. Some 90 to 95 percent of the deformation energy appears as heat, with temperatures of about 1,800°C being reached locally. In DU, unlike in WHA, the thermal softening overcomes the increase in flow stress, permitting adiabatic shearing to occur. This results in a ‘self-sharpening’ of the penetrator, as the mushroom head is continually sheared from the penetrator body, as seen in Figure 7a. The net result is less energy expended in expanding the penetration cavity radially, with a concomitant increase in energy available for axial penetration.

In general, then, against semi-infinite targets, DU penetrators can achieve penetrations of 10 to 15 percent in excess of comparable WHA penetrators. Of even more significance, however, is the fact that DU rounds can achieve the same penetration as WHA rounds at significantly lower velocities, meaning that the DU round remains effective against any given target to significantly greater ranges (up to about 50 to 70 percent greater).

Another particular advantage of DU over WHA is in its performance against oblique and/or spaced-plate targets, as well as ERA. The greater ductility and toughness of DU penetrators seems to permit them to bend without fracturing, as opposed to the harder but more brittle WHA penetrators, which often shear after impact.



Impacts against hard targets result in local temperatures as high as 1,800°C, which results in a phase change in uranium from solid to liquid. At these elevated temperatures, the uranium reacts readily with atmospheric oxygen. The oxides formed subsequently condense to solid aerosol particles. Oxidation is the source of the pyrophoric nature of DU impacts and is not present with WHA impacts. This burning effect enhances the effectiveness of DU penetrators, particularly inside the target.

Much work has been conducted in the US on determining the extent to which penetrators are converted to aerosols and on characterizing the aerosol particle size distributions. Against thick, hard targets, it is estimated that some 18 percent of the DU penetrator of 120 mm tank munitions is aerosolized, with virtually all these aerosols (91 to 96 percent) having sizes < 10 um.

MILITARY USE OF DU
Depleted uranium has been used by a number of countries in rounds designed to attack armoured targets. For example, the US inventory includes for the US Army, the following DU rounds: the M833 and M900 series 105 mm tank rounds for the M68 gun, the M829 series 120 mm rounds for the M256 gun, and the M919 series 25 x 137 mm for the M242 Bushmaster cannon. All the above are APFSDS rounds. The US Air Force uses DU in the 30 x 173 mm PGU-14 API round for the GAU 8/A cannon in the A-10 aircraft, while the US Marines use the 25 mm API PGU-20/U round for the GAU-12/U cannon for the AV-8B Harrier aircraft.

Interestingly, the US Navy adopted a DU core for its 20 x 102 mm APDS round for the Phalanx close-in weapon system, or CIWS (an adaptation of the US Army anti-air Vulcan system). As there was no significant difference in performance between the tungsten and DU cores against relatively ‘soft’ anti-ship missiles and aircraft targets, the decision was made in 1988 that the DU cores would be replaced by tungsten ones.9 Canadian ships deploying to the Gulf War in 1991 carried DU ammunition for their Phalanx systems.


Sites identified in Kuwait and Iraq where depleted uranium rounds were employed during the Gulf War.10

UNEP

Sites identified in Kosovo where depleted uranium rounds were employed in the 1999 conflict.11

A number of other countries, including Great Britain, France, Russia, Ukraine, Israel and China, still retain DU munitions in their inventories, while other countries such as Germany, Switzerland and Canada do not, as a matter of policy.

Operationally, DU munitions have been used extensively in both the Gulf War (Kuwait and Iraq) and in Kosovo, as can be seen in the maps below. Examples of the amount of expenditures are, for the US Army in the Gulf War: 504 rounds of 105 mm and 9,048 rounds of 120 mm tank ammunition. The British Army fired 88 rounds of 120 mm tank ammunition. US Air Force A-10 aircraft fired 783,514 rounds of 30 mm DU ammunition and US Marine Corps AV-8B aircraft fired 67,436 rounds of 25 mm DU. In Kosovo, the US Air Force A-10s fired over 31,000 rounds of 30 mm DU ammunition. U.S. sniper and special forces teams had 7.62 mm and 12.7 mm (.50 cal) DU ammunition, although expenditures are not readily available. Overall, some 300 tonnes of DU munitions were fired in the Gulf War and in excess of 9 tonnes in Kosovo.12 A further 10,800 DU rounds were fired around Sarajavo during the NATO air campaign in Bosnia in 1994-1995.13

Like all other natures of munitions, DU rounds are not just fired on the battlefield. In fact, many more are expended in testing and training than in battle. One source quotes US Army sources as claiming that of more than 14,000 large calibre DU rounds expended in the Gulf, approximately 4,000 were fired in combat, another 7,000 were fired in practice, and some 3,000 were consumed in the ammunition fire at Doha in Qatar.14 In the United States, defence facilities that handle or test-fire DU munitions require a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The US Air Force and US Navy each has one master license, while the US Army has 14 separate licenses. Facilities such as these are necessary for any type of weapon system. The presence of DU, however, includes the extra dimension of radioactivity and thus regulatory control. This additional burden, and the associated publicity and public concern, are perhaps among the reasons some countries eschew the use of DU munitions. Ironically, facilities for testing and firing conventional munitions are also heavily contaminated. Most small arms rounds (at least until recently) contained lead, a known toxic element. Further, the WHA warheads, as already noted, contain tungsten and cobalt, which are more of a toxicological hazard than uranium (especially DU) is a radiological hazard.



AVAILABILITY OF DU
Natural uranium is composed of three isotopes, 238U, 235U and 234U. When processed for reactor fuel, particularly for light water reactors (PWRs and BWRs), the uranium is enriched in 235U and 234U, with the consequence that the tailings are depleted in these isotopes.

It is interesting to note that DU, although slightly more dense than natural uranium, is about half as radioactive.

Reactor fuel, though, does not come only from the enrichment of natural uranium. It can also be reclaimed from spent fuel. In fact, over 107 000 t of uranium were recycled in the USA from 1952 to 1977. This would result in the probable inclusion of the plutonium, neptunium and uranium isotopes (all radioactive) 239Pu, 237Np, and 236U, respectively, in the enrichment tailings of DU, and thus in any penetrators fabricated from these tailings. This is significant in that it helps provide a means of differentiating between natural uranium and DU, particularly when in trace amounts in bioassays.

Another source of DU is tailings from uranium enriched for nuclear weapons. Current practice in the US is to only use DU from de-militarized or recycled rounds, as opposed to tailings from either reactor or weapons processing plants, although these latter may have originally been sources of DU. Regardless the source, DU is essentially a waste by-product of enrichment processes, and as such is inexpensive, especially compared to WHA. Combined with the fact that DU alloyed with 0.75 percent Ti can be cast and rolled rather than having to be sintered, the fabrication of DU penetrators is about the same cost as comparable WHA penetrators made in the US and less than half the cost of those made in Germany.

CONCLUSION
As noted, DU munitions have a limited increase in depth of penetration of homogeneous RHA compared to tungsten penetrators (about 10 percent). In terms of performance, however, this means that the same penetration can be achieved at significantly greater ranges (due to the limited velocity loss of low drag long rod penetrators). Another significant advantage of DU is felt to be its relative toughness – its ability to resist shear fracture failure on impacting sloped, spaced or even ERA targets. A third asset is its pyrophoricity – its ability to burn in air. Because of all these factors, coupled with the success of DU rounds on the battlefield (particularly when used by coalition forces against Iraqi targets) and given cost considerations, DU rounds are likely to remain in inventories around the world indefinitely.

Public concern about the use of DU munitions, however, seems widespread. DU use has been attributed by some to be the cause of the debilitating symptoms commonly known as ‘Gulf War Syndrome’. For this reason in particular, and environmental concerns in general, alternatives to DU as a penetrator material are being sought.

FUTURE WORK
In the US it is felt that DU penetrator technology is at a mature stage and that there is little room for future exploitation. This, and the general public’s inherent distrust of and environmental concerns about DU, have led the US Army to try developing tungsten alloys using innovative nanocrystals and tungsten ‘filaments’ to mimic the performance of DU. To date, none of these measures has been successful.15

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was supported by the Director General Nuclear Safety (DGNS) and the Director of Medical Policy (D Med Pol) of the Canadian Forces. The author is particularly grateful for the assistance of Dr. E.A. Ough at RMC, Dr. S. Kupca at DGNS, and Dr. K. Scott at D Med Pol.


Dr. William S. Andrews teaches in the Departments of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering and Applied Military Science at the Royal Military College of Canada.



NOTES
1. B.H. Liddell Hart, History of the First World War (London: Pan Books, 1970).

2. C.F. Foss, Jane’s Tank and Combat Vehicle Recognition Guide (New York: Harper Collins, 2000).

3. P. Chamberlain and H. Doyle, Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two (London: Arms and Armour, 1999).

4. L.R. Bird and R.D. Livingston, World War II Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery (Albany, N.Y.: Overmatch Press, 2001).

5. W. Lanz, W. Odermatt, and G. Weihrauch, Kinetic Energy Projectiles: Development History, State of the Art, Trends in Proc. 19th Int. Symp. of Ballistics, Interlaken, Switzerland, 7-11 May 2001.

6. J. Carleone, (Ed.), Tactical Missile Warheads, (Washington: AIAA, 1993).

7. R. Subramanian and S.J. Bless, Reference Correlations for Tungsten Long Rods Striking Semi-Infinite Steel Targets in Proc. 19th Int. Symp. of Ballistics, Interlaken, Switzerland, 7-11 May 2001.

8. S.P. Andrew, R.D.Caligiuri and L.E. Eiselstein, Relationship Between Dynamic Properties and Penetration Mechanisms of Tungsten and Depleted Uranium Penetrators, in Proc. 13th Int. Symp. of Ballistics, Stockholm, Sweden, 1-3 June 1992.

9. A.G. Williams, Rapid Fire, The Development of Automatic Cannon, Heavy Machine Guns and their Ammunition for Armies, Navies and Air Forces, (Shrewsbury, U.K.: Airlife Publishing, 2000).

10. The National Gulf War Resource Center at <http://www.ngwrc.org/Dulink/DU_Map.htm>

11. Depleted Uranium in Kosovo Post-Conflict Environmental Assessment, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Switzerland 2001 at <http://postconflict.unep.ch/index.htm>

12. Vladimir S. Zajic, Review of Radioactivity, Military Use, and Health Effects of Depleted Uranium, at <http://vzajic.tripod.com/6thchapter.html#DU> Ammunition Use in Iraq

13. WISE at <http://www.antenna.nl/wise/uranium/diss.html>

14. Leonard A. Dietz, Contamination of Persian Gulf War Veterans and Others by Depleted Uranium, 1999 at <http://www.antenna.nl/wise/uranium/ dgvd.html#DUTONN>

15. L. Magness, L. Kecskes, M. Chung, D. Kapoor, F. Biancianello and S. Ridder, Behavior and Performance of Amorphous and Nanocrystalline Metals in Ballistic Impacts in Proc. 19th Int. Symp. of Ballistics, Interlaken, Switzerland, 7-11 May 2001.


Last Modified: 2004-03-17 Important Notices

Officer of Engineers
23 Apr 04,, 01:27
Français Contact Us Help Search Canada Site

Health Families Pay/Benefits Defence Site

HR Initiatives HR Support Careers/Training HR Site


ABOUT US
CONTACT US
GUIDELINES FOR SUBMISSION
CURRENT ISSUE
BACK ISSUES
Volume 1, 2000
No. 1 Spring 2000
No. 2 Summer 2000
N0. 3 Autumn 2000
No. 4 Winter 2000

Volume 2, 2001
No. 1 Spring 2001
No. 2 Summer 2001
N0. 3 Autumn 2001
No. 4 Winter 2001

Volume 3, 2002
No. 1 Spring 2002
No. 2 Summer 2002
N0. 3 Autumn 2002
No. 4 Winter 2002

Volume 4, 2003
No. 1 Spring 2003
No. 2 Summer 2003
N0. 3 Autumn 2003
N0. 4 Winter 2003



RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

DEPLETED URANIUM ON THE BATTLEFIELD
PART 2 – BIOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS
by William S. Andrews, Edward A. Ough, Brent J. Lewis, and Leslie G.I. Bennett


As discussed in Part 1 of this article (in Vol. 4, No. 1, Spring 2003), depleted uranium (DU) has a number of ballistic properties that make it an attractive and effective material for anti-armour penetrators. Consequently, DU is likely to be used in operations by the armed forces of a number of countries, including the United States and Russia, for a considerable time. However, one of the significant concerns about the use of DU in armour-piercing rounds is the potential health hazard to combatants and civilians that may result from the oxidization of DU on striking a hard target, and the subsequent precipitation of oxidation products as fine solid particles, which can be inhaled. This paper will examine the potential hazard posed by the use of DU rounds, and will report on studies currently being conducted on troops who may have been exposed to DU.

Temperature (°C) Phase Structure
< 669 solid a – orthorhombic
669 – 776 solid ß – tetragonal
776 – 1132 solid g – body centred cubic
1132 – 4134 liquid
> 4134 vapour

Table 1. Physical phases of uranium.

AEROSOLIZATION
Uranium can exist in three solid forms as well as in liquid and vapour phases. Table 1 below shows the transition points.

As already noted in Part 1, the impact of a depleted uranium penetrator against a hard target generates local temperatures as high as 1800°C, which result in phase changes to liquid. At these elevated temperatures, uranium is readily oxidized, principally to U3O7 (47 percent) U3O8 (44 percent) and UO2 (9 percent). (These proportions are considered to have an uncertainty of 25 percent, and were determined using x-ray diffraction during the analysis of uranium dust generated by DU rounds striking hard targets.1) Oxidation is the source of the pyrophoric nature of DU impacts and is not present with tungsten heavy alloy (WHA) penetrator impacts. This effect enhances the effectiveness of DU penetrators, particularly inside the target. The oxides subsequently condense as solid aerosol particles.

Much work has been conducted in the United States to determine the extent to which DU penetrators are converted to aerosols and on characterizing the aerosol particle-size distribution. Against thick hard targets, it is estimated that some 18 percent of the DU penetrator of a 120-mm tank munition is aerosolized, with virtually all these aerosols (91 to 96 percent) having sizes less than 10 um, i.e., they are readily respirable. These particles can remain suspended in air for a significant period of time (hours to days), most of which will remain inside the target vehicles, but with some likely to escape into the atmosphere through open hatches or remain outside the target. Re-suspension of already settled particles would, of course, constitute a hazard to personnel engaged in entering or inspecting contaminated vehicles. At any distance from contaminated vehicles, it is considered that aerosol concentrations would be diluted to safe levels.

Country Subjects Tested Comments
Belgium 3580 U in normal range, fewer malignancies than expected
Bulgaria 39 No health problems
Estonia 91 No pathologies
Finland 50 U in normal range, no health effects
France 54 No elevated U, malignancies within expected range
Germany 122 No elevated U, no health effects
Greece 1800 Normal findings
Italy 40 No contamination
Lithuania 68 No leukemia detected
Luxembourg 100 Blood samples, no abnormalities
Netherlands 6 No sign of DU exposure
Portugal 341 No abnormally high levels
Slovakia 63 No DU-related diseases
Spain 6000 Normal U levels, no malignancies
Sweden 110 Normal values

Table 2. Personnel testing by NATO and non-NATO troop-contributing nations.6

POTENTIAL HEALTH CONSEQUENCES
The human body’s natural (aqueous) solutions act as solvents for any uranium with which they may come into contact. The principal oxides generated on aerosolization (UO2, U3O7 and U3O8) all dissolve slowly. Once dissolved, however, uranium may react as a uranyl ion with biological molecules to produce cellular necrosis (cell death) and/or atrophy in the tubular walls in the kidneys, resulting in a diminished ability to filter impurities from the blood.

Of the respirable particles resulting from aerosolization, roughly two-thirds have dissolution half-times greater than 100 days, while the other one-third have half-times less than 10 days.2 (Dissolution refers to the rate at which particles are dissolved in body fluids – principally in the lung.) Once dissolved in blood, some 90 per-cent of the uranium will be removed by the kidney and excreted in urine within 24 to 48 hours of entering solution. The 10 percent remaining in the blood can be deposited in bones, lungs, the liver, kidneys, fat and muscles. Inhaled insoluble uranium oxides can remain in the lungs for years, especially if the particles are smaller than 2 um and thus more likely to be deposited in the alveoli. Gradually, however, these particles will also enter the bloodstream and eventually be excreted in urine.

Like other stable heavy metals, the principal biological hazard of uranium is felt to be toxicological, rather than radiological, with the organ at greatest risk being the kidney. The radiological hazard itself, via either external or internal pathways, is felt to be negligible. The worst exposures to US Army troops during the Gulf War were less than 10 mSv, i.e., less than one fifth the formal annual occupational dose limit and well below the level known to cause any health effects.

To date only 25 of 20,000 US Army Gulf War veterans have been diagnosed with types of kidney damage for which DU would be a causative agent. None of these individuals, however, was among the 33 veterans who had the highest exposures to DU and are undergoing medical monitoring, and it should be noted that the diagnosis rates are consistent with rates for similar kidney problems among the general American population.3

Similar studies have been made of other veteran and civilian sub sets, with similar results, i.e., most service-men tested through urinalysis showed no evidence of elevated DU (or natural uranium, for that matter) in their bodies, or elevated levels could not be correlated with any specific illness, including renal. A study of veterans belonging to the Mississippi National Guard found no evidence of a general increase in birth defects or health problems among children born to these veterans, in spite of anecdotal claims to the contrary.4 Urinalysis of 122 German peacekeepers deployed to Kosovo after the air campaign revealed that none had any “incorporated DU”.5 Two cohorts of Swedish soldiers were examined, 200 who had spent six months in Kosovo and another 200 who were yet to deploy. The latter group had four times the average uranium levels in their urine than the returnees from Kosovo had.6 A summary is provided in Table 2. On the civilian side, 31 employees of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent who were present in Kosovo during the air campaign had urine samples analyzed. In these tests uranium concentrations ranged from 3.5 ng/L to 26.9 ng/L, which are consistent with values found among non-exposed individuals.7

All the cases listed above involved transients, that is, the test subjects only spent limited amounts of time in-theatre potentially exposed to DU. For balance, the local populations of Bosnia and Kosovo were sampled by Priest and Thirlwell for BBC Scotland, and in 23 subjects from three different locations they found DU present in all subjects. The measured body burdens, however, were less than the average burden of natural uranium in humans, leading to the conclusion that the radiation dose to the skeleton is likely to be dominated by any natural uranium present, which in turn would be dominated by such alpha-emitters as radon-220 and polonium-210, which are more common in the body than uranium.8


Author's collection

DU penetrator strikes on an Iraqi tank, presumably from the 30 mm GAU 8 mounted on A10 aircraft. Some larger penetrator strikes, possibly tank 120 mm APFSDS DU rounds, are also evident.

MONITORING CANADIAN VETERANS
Canadian Forces (CF) personnel have served in areas where DU munitions have been expended, particularly in the Persian Gulf and Kosovo, where the principal danger from DU would have been in the form of re-suspended aerosols that could have been ingested. Similar to servicemen from a number of countries, some Canadians have developed a variety of debilitating symptoms for which causes have yet to be determined. Some see the significant difference from previous experiences, including other off-shore missions, as being the presence of DU in the environment. To establish or eliminate DU as a causative agent for these symptoms (often termed “Gulf War illness”) the CF, along with the military forces of other nations, have instituted a programme of urinalysis of such veterans. The aim has been to determine the extent of uranium in the urine and, where possible, to identify the isotopic ratios of any uranium isotopes present. This latter determination would indicate whether uranium contamination was due to DU or to natural uranium.

In 2000, 103 active and retired CF personnel participated in a uranium bioassay programme. The total uranium concentration in each urine sample was analyzed by two laboratories, with one laboratory using inductively coupled plasma mass spectroscopy (ICP-MS) and the other using instrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA). The mean concentrations found were 4.5 ng/L and 17 ng/L, respectively.9 These values were consistent with quoted literature values of 1 ng/L to 40 ng/L for non-occupationally exposed individuals.10 The uranium concentration levels in the urine samples were too low to permit direct isotopic ratios to be determined, so hair assays were also conducted, which showed ratios of uranium-238 to uranium-235 ranging from 120 to 145 ± 20, (± 1 σ). By comparison, natural uranium has a ratio of 137.8 versus a ratio of 498.7 for DU. Finally, a single bone sample was analyzed from a deceased veteran, where the isotopic ratio was determined to be 138 ± 4, again consistent with natural uranium.11

It is believed that the ICP-MS results were more accurate than the INAA, considering the lower detection limit of 0.5 ng/L for the former. Further, the ICP-MS results are consistent with published data for non-occupation-ally exposed individuals. However, INAA may well be an appropriate technique for the routine analysis of hair samples.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS
As mentioned above, on hitting hard targets, a significant portion of DU projectiles will aerosolize and oxidize. These projectiles, along with those that hit the ground and fail to fracture, will result in surface, or slightly subsurface contamination. A post-conflict environmental assessment study by the United Nations Environment Programme of eleven sites in Kosovo (including the most heavily attacked) found that there was no detectable widespread contamination of the ground surface by DU. In other words, the contamination resulting from the use of DU is present in such low levels that it cannot be detected or differentiated from natural uranium. Consequently, it was concluded that the radiological and toxicological risks were “insignificant and even non-existent”. Any detectable contamination was localized to within 10 m to 50 m on the surface and 10 cm to 20 cm below the surface of actual munition impact points. Further, the study found no DU contamination in water or milk, nor even any significant increased uptake in plants, with no risk anticipated in the future.12

In Canada, work continues to improve measurement capabilities for bioassay. A round robin comparison has been conducted among a number of university and private laboratories using blind synthetic urine samples (both blank and doped), to be followed by real urine samples. Efforts are also underway to investigate the appropriateness of including high resolution ICP-MS, or HR ICP-MS as a potential measuring instrument.

CONCLUSIONS
Penetrator impact on hard targets generates aerosols, most of which are respirable thereby raising the possibility of human ingestion of DU. To date, no direct linkage has been established between uranium contamination of the body due to DU munitions and “Gulf War illness” symptoms observed among some veterans. In fact, virtually all veterans and comparably-exposed civilians tested for uranium content have been found to have levels consistent with the unexposed general public and were generally symptom-free. Environmental contamination due to the use of DU penetrators is thus considered to be marginal and highly localized, with no long term consequences anticipated.



Drs. Andrews, Lewis and Bennett teach in the Department of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering at the Royal Military College of Canada. Dr. Ough is a research associate in the same department.

NOTES
This work was supported by the Director General Nuclear Safety (DGNS) and the Director of Medical Policy (D Med Pol) of the Canadian Forces. The authors are particularly grateful to the assistance of Dr. R.G.V. Hancock at RMC, Dr. S. Kupca at DGNS and Dr. K. Scott at D Med Pol.

R.Z. Stodilka and R.E.J. Michel, Analysis of Fired Depleted Uranium Dust (Ottawa: Defence Research Establishment, Ottawa Technical Report TR-2001-108, 2001).
United States Government, Office of the Secretary of Defence, Gulf War Illness at <www.gulflink.osd.mil/du/du_tabm.htm>
F.J. Hooper, K.S. Squibb, E.L. Siegel, K. McPhaul, and J.P. Keogh, “Elevated Urine Uranium Excretion by Soldiers with Retained Uranium Shrapnel”, Health Physics 77 (1999), p. 512. See also M.A. McDiarmid et al” Health Effects of Depleted Uranium on Exposed Gulf War Veterans”, Environmental Research 82 (2000), p. 168.
A.D. Penman and R.S. Tarver, “No Evidence of Increase in Birth Defects and Health Problems among Children Born to Persian Gulf War Veterans in Mississippi”, Military Medicine 161 (1996), p. 1.
P. Roth, E. Werner and H.G. Paretzke, A study of uranium excreted in urine, an assessment of protective measures taken by the German Army for KFOR contingent (Nurnberg: GSF – National Research Center for Environment and Health, Institute of Radiation Protection, 2001).
United States Government, Office of the Secretary of Defence web site: <www.deploymentlink.osd.mil/du_balkans/du_balkans_s04.htm>
D.R. Meddings and M. Haldimann, “Depleted Uranium in Kosovo: an Assessment of Potential Exposure for Aid Workers”, Health Physics 82 (2002), p. 467.
N. Priest and M. Thirlwell, “Depleted uranium in Balkan residents (progress report)”, First International Conference on Environmental Recovery of Yugoslavia (ENRY2001), (September 2001), pp. 27-30.
E.A. Ough, B.J. Lewis, W.S. Andrews, L.G.I. Bennett, R.G.V. Hancock, and K. Scott, “An Examination of Uranium Levels in Canadian Forces Personnel Who Served in the Gulf War and Kosovo”, Health Physics 82 (2002), p. 527. See also E. A. Ough, R.Z. Stodilka, B.J. Lewis, W.S. Andrews, L.G.I. Bennett, R.G.V. Hancock, T. Cousins, and D.S.Haslip, “Uranium: Detection of Contamination and Assessment of Biological Hazards – A Literature Survey”, Royal Military College of Canada Report, Kingston, Ontario, 9 January 2002.
A. Lorber, Z Karpas and L. Halicz, “Flow injection method for determination of uranium in urine and serum by inductively coupled plasma mass spectroscopy”, Analytica Chimica Acta 334 (1996), p. 295. See also H.S. Dang, V.R. Pullat and K.C. Pillai, “Determining the normal concentration of uranium in urine and applications of the data to its biokinetics”, Health Physics 62 (1992), p. 562.
Ough et al, “An Examination of Uranium Levels in Canadian Forces Personnel Who Served in the Gulf War and Kosovo”, p. 527.
Depleted Uranium in Kosovo Post-Conflict Environmental Assessment, United Nations Environment Programme, Switzerland, 2001.


Last Modified: 2003-09-24 Important Notices

ChrisF202
23 Apr 04,, 01:37
tw-acs, can you contact my via Instant Messenger, my screen name is The24thFoot. I find your story very interesting.

tw-acs
23 Apr 04,, 23:09
This is an example: I am making the numbers up but the concept holds true.

lets say on a scale of 1 to 10...
1 being low amounts of radiation and 10 high amounts....

The world before man used nuclear power, nuclear weapons (nuclear warheads, and nuclear munitions) had...

a radiation level of 3.00 (naturally occuring radiation, that is radiation that occurs without any changes to nature caused by man)

life on the surface of the planet can exist if the radiation level is below 6.00

after using nuclear warheads the radiation level on the planet went from 3 to 3.75

Life on the surface is still safe.

Nuclear power is used and not regulated at the proper safety levels, thus chernobyl. This increases the level of radiation on the surface of the planet from 3.75 to 5.00.

Life on the surface is still safe.

A war ( well at least military engagements) start up and nuclear munitions are used. The amount of increase of the radiation level depends on the duration of the war. lets say for every month of battle time .1 level of radiation increases.

At that rate if the level of radiation is 5.00 then the radiation level can be increased to 5.99 but no higher. If it were to be increased by .01 level of radiation, life on the surface would cease to exist.

This would mean that such military engagements could last for up to but no more than 9.9 months, before any more increase in radiation level would cause life on the surface to cease to exist.

Radiation is harmful to life, so as the radiation level increases many plants and animals will not be able to exist. Some may last longer than others but none will last on the surface if the level of radiation is 6.00.

It seems to me that if we continue to use nuclear munitions and continue to deplete the ozone layer and/or if nuclear warheads are used and/or a nuclear power plant has an accident we may increase the level of radiation on the planet EARTH beyond levels that life can exist on the surface of EARTH.

In this case life would want to take refuge somewhere else other than the surface. Mars is not habitable now, nor any other planet, but EARTH.

A large body of water might be able to block the radiation. So people on earth would then be forced to live underwater.

If we did live underwater though realize we have killed a lot of marine life, so it might not be all that easy to survive.

ATLANTIS??? just an idea but maybe tahts what atlantis was. People escaping radiation. I dont know its just an idea.

Though the fact remains too much radiation will not allow life to exist.

IF AN ENVIRONMENT IS NOT SUITABLE FOR LIFE, LIFE SHALL CEASE TO EXIST.

I dont know whether the level of radiation that would be unsuitable for life will come in a one or a hundred or a thousand years, but that does not matter because we shouldnt push our luck.

WE DO NOT HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY TO CLEAN UP RADIATION.

Confed999
24 Apr 04,, 00:40
Thanks for the info Officer of Engineers.

Bill
24 Apr 04,, 05:57
That's all well and good Tw, but DU238 doesn't add to the existing radiation level in any appreciable way. It is in fact far less radioactive than naturally occuring U235.

U239, or 'enriched uranium' is another story entirely. If they used that for a penetrator, then you'd have a bigtime legitimate gripe...and so would i.

Praxus
24 Apr 04,, 15:24
Natural Uranium is mostly U238 but has some U235 and a very small ammont of U234. U234 is the most radioactive and has a massively smaller half lifes then the first two mentioned.Over all Natural Uranium is not very radioactive.

Even U235 which is "enriched" Uranium is not very radioactive. U234 is the only dangerously radioactive form of Uranium.

DU is 99.5% U238 and .5% U235. It is harmless unless you swallow it and get heavy metal poisining.

M21 I think that you are thinking about Pu239 (which is plutonium).

U238 Half Life: 4.5 billion years
U235 Half Life: 710 million years
U234 Half Life: 235 thousand years

Pu239 Half Life: 24 thousand years

Trooth
24 Apr 04,, 16:33
More troops, or less engagements, are needed. Currently the Coalition is stretched. It is noticable that North Korea is much less of a threat now than it was a few months ago. The reason being that the stark reality is that nothing can be done about the threat, so it better get downgraded.

Personally i find Rumsfeld to be possibly the most dangerous man involved in the war on terror after Bin Laden, Fundamentalist leaders and Ariel Sharon. I cannot trust Rumsfeld. He talks in double speak, he is not only deliberately vague but demonstrates and arrogance that i find deeply worrying when he is confronted with realities, previous statements - his attitude to contradiction and debate is also disturbing. He actually makes me uncomfortable watching him. When there was a reshuffle a few months back and it appeared Rumsfeld was being moved over in place of Colin Powell / Dr Rice i was frankly relieved, but he is returning to the fore, and this i think is a major problem that the US must deal with. He is a danger to the Coalition more than he is a danger to the enemy. IMHO.

tw-acs
24 Apr 04,, 17:03
That's all well and good Tw, but DU238 doesn't add to the existing radiation level in any appreciable way. It is in fact far less radioactive than naturally occuring U235. - M21SNIPER

define "in any appreciable way"

Is DU238 less radioactive than TUNGSTEN?

Is naturally occuring Uranium naturally found in natural munitions, that naturally begin to decay on impact from excess heat, releasing radioactive material that emits LOW LEVEL RADIATION?

This low level radiation will be around for longer than you can concieve. It may take a long time to accumalate enough of this radioactive material that emits LOW LEVEL RADIATION to see a significant effect on life. HUMAN fishing practices have casued about 90% of all predatory fish to become diminished or extinct, but do you have any concern about such fish?

Probably not, you don't eat the predatory fish, you eat the fish those predatory fish once ate.

The point is we should not wait until to problem grows out of hand. We know the poblem exists and that the way we live has the potential to increase the problem. I think people should be more concious of their surroundings and environment and how humans interact within such and society.

If we can spread radioactive material on the world and not see the detrimental affects from doing so within our lifetimes, is it ok?

Do you have kids?

Do you want there to be a planet for the next generation?

What about the generation after that one so on and so forth?

Praxus
24 Apr 04,, 17:27
Eviromentalism is just another way for liberals to criticize the percieved flaws of Capitalism.

tw-acs
24 Apr 04,, 17:53
PRAXUS

Countries that do not have capitalist economic systems pollute.

You brought up capitalism, I am unaware of anyone mentioning capitalism previously in this thread. I am also unaware of how having environmental concern is showing flaws in capitalism. What are these percieved flaws you speak of?

Who is a liberal?

Are you using liberal in the context of the political spectrum or are you using liberal as a right wing insult.

In the case of the latter please refrain from doing so again in the future. It violates policy on this web forum.

Praxus
24 Apr 04,, 18:02
DU is not harmful beyond the inhailed particles and the effect of that is almost non-exsistent to friendly forces and even civilians. Just read OOE's post.

You were bringing up BS about how DU will ruin the enviroment and supposidly harm future life on earth. It is nothing more then Enviromentalist propoganda which is just anti-human/anti-progress/anti-capitalist bull shit.

tw-acs
24 Apr 04,, 18:20
Praxus it is very immature to attempt to put words into someone else mouth.

I am a human. I like life. I am pro human life.

If you understand the fundamental way humans live; that is learning from past generations and new creating innovations. Both things that I agree with.

What is your definition of progress?

I am a capitalist.

Why are you trying to hijack this thread. Your posts are not relevant to the previous posts.

I have read OOE's posts and they say that DU is harmful, just not very harmful. That is what I have said "LOW LEVEL RADIATION." Though as I have explained too much of "LOW LEVEL RADIATION" is bad.

Are you aware of what radiation as defined by the field of physics does to life.

Just a couple of curious questions. (humor me)
Have you ever taked an physics course?
What is the speed of light?
Can it be exceeded?

Trooth
24 Apr 04,, 18:40
Capitalism and environmentalism have nothing to do with each other. They are unrelated. Economic systems can be environmentally friendly, or unfriendly, the system itself couldn't careless, it is down to its practioners views and their accountability to sort out any environmental impact.

Confed999
24 Apr 04,, 18:58
Capitalism and environmentalism have nothing to do with each other.
You should check out the environmentalists here before you say that.

Officer of Engineers
24 Apr 04,, 19:59
I have read OOE's posts and they say that DU is harmful, just not very harmful. That is what I have said "LOW LEVEL RADIATION." Though as I have explained too much of "LOW LEVEL RADIATION" is bad.

Are you aware of what radiation as defined by the field of physics does to life.

Just a couple of curious questions. (humor me)
Have you ever taked an physics course?
What is the speed of light?
Can it be exceeded?

WHAT A LOAD OF CROCK! YOU'RE EXPOSED TO MORE RADIATION BY THE SUN EVERYDAY THAN YOU'VE EVER BEEN BY DU.

186,280 miles per second

And EVERYTHING exceeded the speed of light at the moment of the Big Bang.

Trooth
24 Apr 04,, 22:05
You should check out the environmentalists here before you say that.

In what way?

tw-acs
24 Apr 04,, 22:15
OOE the amount of radiation from a single unit of DU is insignificant.


This is an example: I am making the numbers up but the concept holds true.

lets say on a scale of 1 to 10...
1 being low amounts of radiation and 10 high amounts....

The world before man used nuclear power, nuclear weapons (nuclear warheads, and nuclear munitions) had...

a radiation level of 3.00 (naturally occuring radiation, that is radiation that occurs without any changes to nature caused by man)

life on the surface of the planet can exist if the radiation level is below 6.00

after using nuclear warheads the radiation level on the planet went from 3 to 3.75

Life on the surface is still safe.

Nuclear power is used and not regulated at the proper safety levels, thus chernobyl. This increases the level of radiation on the surface of the planet from 3.75 to 5.00.

Life on the surface is still safe.

A war ( well at least military engagements) start up and nuclear munitions are used. The amount of increase of the radiation level depends on the duration of the war. lets say for every month of battle time .1 level of radiation increases.

At that rate if the level of radiation is 5.00 then the radiation level can be increased to 5.99 but no higher. If it were to be increased by .01 level of radiation, life on the surface would cease to exist.

This would mean that such military engagements could last for up to but no more than 9.9 months, before any more increase in radiation level would cause life on the surface to cease to exist.

Radiation is harmful to life, so as the radiation level increases many plants and animals will not be able to exist. Some may last longer than others but none will last on the surface if the level of radiation is 6.00.

It seems to me that if we continue to use nuclear munitions and continue to deplete the ozone layer and/or if nuclear warheads are used and/or a nuclear power plant has an accident we may increase the level of radiation on the planet EARTH beyond levels that life can exist on the surface of EARTH.

In this case life would want to take refuge somewhere else other than the surface. Mars is not habitable now, nor any other planet, but EARTH.

A large body of water might be able to block the radiation. So people on earth would then be forced to live underwater.

If we did live underwater though realize we have killed a lot of marine life, so it might not be all that easy to survive.

ATLANTIS??? just an idea but maybe tahts what atlantis was. People escaping radiation. I dont know its just an idea.

Though the fact remains too much radiation will not allow life to exist.

IF AN ENVIRONMENT IS NOT SUITABLE FOR LIFE, LIFE SHALL CEASE TO EXIST.

I dont know whether the level of radiation that would be unsuitable for life will come in a one or a hundred or a thousand years, but that does not matter because we shouldnt push our luck.

WE DO NOT HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY TO CLEAN UP RADIATION.
- tw-acs

The point is 1 unit of DU radiation does not matter. That is the basis of your justification of the use of DU munitions.

DU munitions contaminate areas, large ever expanding areas due to wind.

As the fallout from Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Nuclear test sites, and Chernobyl has made a significant impact on life. So has the use of DU munitions. This imact will continue to grow as the use of DU munitions continues to contaminate the EARTH with radioactive material that emits low level radiation, and that radioactive material cannot be cleaned up.

I understand that Uranium in small amounts, that is low level radiation in small quantities like the amount found in smoke detectors is ok.

As the amount of radiation shifts from small quantities of low level radiation to moderate or even high levels, the term low level radiation loses its relevance as does any arguement to say one single unit of DU radiation is insignifcant, because we are not talking about one unit, I am as you should be talking and thinking about an INFINITE number of units of DU, thus an INFINITE amount of RADIATION.

The big bang and all mass exceeding the speed of light. :eek: I have not heard that one before, but physics in this realm is mostly theory.

And that is not answering my question.


Can it be exceeded?
- tw-acs

Do you have proof to back up your claims?


And EVERYTHING exceeded the speed of light at the moment of the Big Bang.
- OOE

See I think that is a bad theory. To the best of my understanding of physics:
As mass approaches "c" (the speed of light) time slows down. This phenomena has been observed by persons in space comparing watches on the ground to those in space. The watches in space are in orbit of the earth and thus traveling faster than the actual orbit and revolutions of the EARTH.

Most of the the physics community would agree that mass becomes infinite at the speed of light. That is what some theorize as the cause of blackholes. The mass becomes infinte and the attraction of mass is thus Infinite, Gravity becomes so strong that the mass collapses on itself; a black hole.

And because I know the answer to the question, I will share my knowledge.

There was an expierement, in which a laser was beamed through a tube of Xenon gas. The interesting thing about this beam of light was that it left the tube before all of it had entered the tube. That is it went faster than "c" , 299 792 458 m / s.

The reason light can go faster than the speed of light and not create a black hole is that light has no mass. If you are a fan of the wave theory then this is concept is no hurdle to accept, though if you are into the particle theory, that is photons then you may have a little more to swallow. See gravity only affects mass, and light does not have mass according to popular physics belief. That popular physics belief does not explain how light can be sucked into a black hole, if photons have no mass and gravity is the attraction of mass to mass. A black hole looks black because of the absence of light.

I know my facts, theories and have my own hypothesis.

Where are yours?

The Aricraft that were used to destroy the World Trade Center, as the rest of the US airliners have uranium components.

That means that New York City has some radioactive properties to it after 9-11.

Maybe that will hit home a little closer than me telling you that IRAQ is being contaminated along with the rest of the World and the USA.

Confed999
25 Apr 04,, 00:05
In what way?
They have formed their own political and economic agendas, and even their own party, and some are willing to use terrorist tactics just to make a point. One of my favorite things the eco-terrorists have done is to fire bomb SUVs. I wonder if they know burning the vehicle creates hundreds of times the pollution that driving it for years creates?

Gio
25 Apr 04,, 01:12
They have formed their own political and economic agendas, and even their own party, and some are willing to use terrorist tactics just to make a point. One of my favorite things the eco-terrorists have done is to fire bomb SUVs. I wonder if they know burning the vehicle creates hundreds of times the pollution that driving it for years creates?
Tell me about it, that happened near me. They're on the loose all over Southern California, setting fire to SUVs, vandalizing them, setting fire to new developments.

The sick assholes even have a website:
http://www.earthliberationfront.com/

A few of their actions:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/West/09/19/construction.fire.ap/
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20030801-0918-utcfire2.html# - This caused $50 million in damage.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,5-715254,00.html

Trooth
25 Apr 04,, 01:39
They have formed their own political and economic agendas, and even their own party, and some are willing to use terrorist tactics just to make a point. One of my favorite things the eco-terrorists have done is to fire bomb SUVs. I wonder if they know burning the vehicle creates hundreds of times the pollution that driving it for years creates?
They are clearly nutters (the fire bombing ones). Forming a political party ain't so bad - in fact it is somewhat the point of a democracy. Environmental issues effect our lives as much as anything else after all.

Confed999
25 Apr 04,, 04:31
They are clearly nutters (the fire bombing ones). Forming a political party ain't so bad - in fact it is somewhat the point of a democracy. Environmental issues effect our lives as much as anything else after all.
Clearly nutters, but a political party makes capitalism and environmentalism have something to do with each other. ;)

Confed999
25 Apr 04,, 04:53
The sick assholes even have a website:
http://www.earthliberationfront.com/

Can't they watch the site and pop these jack asses? Claiming to do these things seems like probable cause to me.

tw-acs
25 Apr 04,, 08:16
Through my reading of the Constitution of the United States of America; I understand that citizens have the right to own private property, that is free from other persons damaging it too.

It also says that a persons have have "pursuit of happiness." Current and past society has clearly showed the enjoyment of recreational drug use. Alcohol prohibition did not work to stop drinking. Marijuana prohibition is not working to stop the toking among US citizens.

It also clearly states that NO US CITIZEN SHALL HAVE TO PAY FOR DUE PROCESS OF LAW. Why do we have to pay court fees? I know that because of changes in the tax code the cost of many court fees have increased. For someone that does not make a lot of money $245 to file a court case, the amount money to hire a lawyer or the value of the time it takes to research how the US court system works is not econmically feasible. So, in effect persons that do not make enough money are taxed to such an extent the legal system is unusable to them.

I have also read the Bill of Rights.

The Patriot Act clearly violates the Bill of Rights.

I think President Bush should address the ever growing energy problem. The United States is dependent on foriegn energy, that is what President Bush said on CSpan. I am one of those persons taht works out, smokes pot and stays up late watchin cspan. President Bush made joke about growing corn to solve the United States energy problem. I believe he was making of the fact taht most people are unaware of the method of extracting hydrogen from ethanol made from corn that was discovered at the University of Minnesota. This may allow the USA to grow hydrogen as a potention fuel. As well the USA should adopt a Pro Hemp stance as it has taken in War times when in need of resources.

Did you know...
1. 1 acre of hemp equals 4 acres of trees.
2. Hemp will make every grade of paper better at 1/4 the cost of wood pulp paper and 1/5 the pollution.
3. Hemp and waste paper can generate all fuel for autos and industry.
4. Hemp fuel can replace all nuclear power at a fraction of the cost of fossil fuels with no pollution or Chernobyl.
5. Hemp seeds are the world's best and cheapest source of protein and could feed the world's hungry.
6. The budget deficit could be cut by over $20 billion through legalization.
7. The list of facts goes on and on.

Sources: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture; U.S. Dept. of Energy; U.S. Congressional Records; Jamaican, Costa Rican and UCLA studies; Solar Gas, 1980, Science Digest 1983-84.

Trooth
25 Apr 04,, 18:36
Hey dude, you have gone on about hemp quite a bit in another thread. But then, it can effect your memory.

Trooth
25 Apr 04,, 18:39
Clearly nutters, but a political party makes capitalism and environmentalism have something to do with each other. ;)

Yup, you need to have a good business sense to fund raise :)

tw-acs
25 Apr 04,, 19:24
Hemp does not possess the psychoactive properties that marijuana has, which get a person "high."

affect not effect


Claiming high IQ without the smarts to look up the facts.
OOE

The fact is the US gov't has published information that says what I have been saying. I looked up my facts. And as a citizen aware of the energy crisis, just like President George W Bush I am putting my 2 cents in. If you choose to ignore the facts or discredit them on any basis, you realize the statements about hemp came directly from government sources. You would be discrediting your own government, that would be strange to see from such a conservative base of persons.

Also, be aware the the government had made a very clear distinction that Marijuana and Hemp are not the same. It is the DEA that groups the two together even thought you cannot get high from hemp.

A bushel of marijuana sells for about $70,000, so we wouldnt want to regulate its sale, then we might take that profit away from those drug dealing capitalists. Those same drug dealing capitalists that have been associated with funding terrorism.

My IQ places me in the top 2% of the world. If you value the intelligent quotient tests then you may care to listen, instead of ignoring problems and leaving them for our children.

Trooth
25 Apr 04,, 20:44
Right, so you are suggesting that changes to troop allocation, or their rules of engagement in Iraq, vis-a-vis a liberation policy and the strategic objective of locating the former regime's WMD can be facilitated using hemp? Note i am not referring to a weed of mass dillusion even though there appears to have been a lot of it involved at various levels.

Even if you are trying to move the conversation round to "this was a war for oil" it really doesn't matter what it was for, it is there, real, we caused the current situation (we changed the regime), we gotta solve it. Unless we cut and run, which no-one is advocating. Or are you proposing that to maintain the strategic objectives (perhaps oil) the US/UK should secure the oil and let the country descend into anarchy?

And please, lets not go on about intelligence, we know that we are in Iraq because of an absence of it.

I would usggest starting a thread entitled. Hemp should be legalised or some such.

Confed999
26 Apr 04,, 00:26
Hey dude, you have gone on about hemp quite a bit in another thread. But then, it can effect your memory.
LOL :)

ChrisF202
26 Apr 04,, 00:43
Tell me about it, that happened near me. They're on the loose all over Southern California, setting fire to SUVs, vandalizing them, setting fire to new developments.

The sick assholes even have a website:
http://www.earthliberationfront.com/

A few of their actions:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/West/09/19/construction.fire.ap/
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20030801-0918-utcfire2.html# - This caused $50 million in damage.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,5-715254,00.html
They came to me before you, a whole bunch of new housing developments in eastern Suffolk County, NY were burnt to the ground by the ELF back in the late 1990's, no suspects, no arrests. They they burned Vail Ski Resort and began torching cars in southern Pennsylvania, and now California.

Praxus
26 Apr 04,, 03:26
Enviromentalism is no worst then the mysticism of dark ages. Reason, science, and progress are rejected and the "Enviroment" is put on a petistal as if it is some God in a primitive religion. They believe that nature has some inherant value beyond it's usefulness for Humans. Essentially they put tree's and snail darters' above the expansion of human life in both wealth and lifespan.

Eviromentalism is nothing but a farce, all the left wingers that hated the Vietnam war (which they viewed was caused by the great satan, Capitalism) all began to hop on the bandwagen in another pathetic effort to attack another percieved problem of Capitalism, which is of course "damaging the enviroment".

Bill
26 Apr 04,, 03:38
"And please, lets not go on about intelligence, we know that we are in Iraq because of an absence of it."

No, we don't know that.

No, we most certainly all do not agree with that.

tw-acs
26 Apr 04,, 03:48
Even if you are trying to move the conversation round to "this was a war for oil" it really doesn't matter what it was for, it is there, real, we caused the current situation (we changed the regime), we gotta solve it. Unless we cut and run, which no-one is advocating. Or are you proposing that to maintain the strategic objectives (perhaps oil) the US/UK should secure the oil and let the country descend into anarchy?

-Trooth

I had no intent of saying this was a war for oil. If I was to say something like that:

American Imperialism, is the current term. Imperialism has been shrouded by the very nature of society. This can be traced back to the Agricultural Revolution that occurred during the time of Christianity's birth, and in the same area. The new Agriculturists, that I will call takers and the peoples that live other ways leavers. (Ishmael- Daniel Quinn The idea of Agriculture was used by other peoples, however these peoples used it by choice; they could go hunt, forage, or plant crops. These people, leavers, never exterminated life that competed with there food supply, there was no need to food was generally plentiful. The takers, they allowed for there population to grow, as the size of their fields grew. Though as expected, as food supply increases population may increase, and indeed it did. The taker's fields got even larger to compensate for the population increase. The taker's value of there crop was so high; the takers would kill anything they did not like. That is like many predatory animals that were once prevelant in the birth place of this agricultural revolution and it spread more than half way around the world, across North America. Though you can notice that these peoples were not limited to just predatory animals. They attempted to exterminate the Bison, Buffalo were hunted and killed in the hundreds if not thousands. The carcasses would rot in the sun leaving the unimaginable stench of death across the once beautiful great plains.

This illustrates how these Taker peoples would grow with no bound. Also having no mercy for other peoples, Leavers. The takers feel that the leavers are inferior in their methods, and thus are less worthy of the land they live on, the air they breathe, and the space they occupy.

Dating Back to colonial times, the extermination of the buffalo, a brilliant strategy to devastate the Native Peoples, though it has also had significant affects on Nature. Limiting the Diversity of life in nature weakens the very core reason life exists: Variety of random chemical reactions, that have created symbiotic relationships, evolving to become a type of creature intelligent enough to write this post.

The taker peoples felt that the resources they wanted to make their inventions, innovations, and social system function were more deserving to be used by them rather than staying in there natural places.

President Bush said that the United States is energy dependent, "We are hooked." It is no doubt that there is petroleum in Iraq.

This is not a war about oil, the proper term would be petroleum. It is a war to continue and allow for the expansion of the US and the industry that started upon a discovery of vast petroleum reserves in Spindletop, just outside of Beaumont, Texas in 1901. It is also necessary to take into consideration all of the industries that were created as a result of the petroleum industry.

This is why hemp is illegal. Ask Ironman, I have said this time and time again. Hemp is not illegal because of Marijuana. It is illegal because the proper industrialization and utilization of the hemp plant, would cut profits and may even put some industries out of business.


"In United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. I, 1936, we (U.S. Supreme Court) held the federal government without power to control farm production..." From U.S. v. Butler: "The act invades the reserved rights of the states. It is a statutory plan to regulate and control agricultural production, a matter beyond the powers delegated to the federal government."

Hemp for Victory - 1942
http://hempmuseum.org/SUBROOMS/HEMP%20FOR%20VICTORY.htm

The jobs that many Americans are in jeopardy if the petroleum tap goes dry. The Executive Officers of many Corporations would have to cut there over inflated bonuses, redirecting such funds to R & D for the switch from HydroCarbon processing to CarboHydrate processing. Though this may not be necessary knowing the similiarties of HydroCarbons and Carbohydrates.


"Anything that can be made from hydrocarbons (oil, coal, natural gas), can be made from carbohydrates (plant material)." - William Hayle, 1930

I foresee that the change I talk about: Shifting the USA and in turn the Worlds source of energy inevitable.

It is a fact that the rate at which humans use fossil fuels increases with everyday. Since we already know that humans use Fossil Fuels faster than they are produced naturally, Humans will run out of Fossil Fuel energy. That day races toward my generation faster with each day.

I am concerned about this, and I really care about the USA. In order to maintain economic superiority in the world, I believe it would be a wise choice to shift the USA energy consumption from Fossil Fuels to Plant Derived Energy, havest the sun.

I think that an pro alternative energy stance, now would be best, the sooner the better. This would allow American industry to shift to carbohydrate processing methods and lessen the price effects on consumers. So quite simple the products wont cost as much so people will buy more. There would also be a significant number of jobs created Thats the capitalist in me.

With a pro energy stance the USA would rely less and less on foriegn energy. It would create energy independence. Also the emissions would be reduced a lot. In fact, the cycle that is broken when using fossil fuels is re connected with the use of plant based energy.

When a fuel is burned it release carbon into the atmosphere. Plants that could be used as fuel sources, such as hemp, take in carbon dioxide to create food. The amount of biomass created per acre and growing season (about 4 months) is about 10 tons. Not all of the 10 tons of biomass is vegetable oil; the part of the plant used to create fuels. The stalks of the plant that are used for textile production. As other remaining parts can be composted to increase soil fertility for the next growing season. The fact is more carbon that is un natural to our environment would be taken out of the atmosphere, than the amount released from the burning of bio fuels.


And please, lets not go on about intelligence, we know that we are in Iraq because of an absence of it.
-Trooth

The absence of intelligence that I have seen since the wee age of 5 ( maybe younger but this is when i recall distinctly telling myself to remember i had thought about certain things), should not be taken as if it were directed at one or a single group of people, rather our society as a whole. The basis of the society that stemmed from this agricultural revolution was that the first generation would do its best to survive and record what works and what does not work. The records allow for the teaching of the next generation which adds its bit of knowledge and may leave out some past knowledge if they feel the relevance of such knowledge is gone.
If we are in Iraq, because of a lack of intelligence; then it is time to implement the trickle up theory.

That is educate the lower class to educate the middle class to educate the upper class to educate the elite class how the world really works.


I would usggest starting a thread entitled. Hemp should be legalised or some such.
-Trooth

I think you meant to suggest to me to start a thread entitled. US Government Documents Hemp and its evils .

That would be great if I was talking with persons that agreed with my views. People tend to interact with media that is of the bias that they hold most closely to their beliefs. I am an exception to that. I am here to get educated on why conservatives and republicans think what they think to broaden my the horizon of my political knowledge to allow for better formulation of political philosphy on my part; that should in theory create more people intersted in politics and those that are interested in politics now would have a larger knowledge base as a result.

If you are conservative and/or Rupublican and you dont agree with my views, I request that you explain why and show me the faults in my arguement to save the world, US industry, US econonomy, and the planet we live on, this little rock we call Earth.

We only get one world. ONE WORLD!! - Black Eyed Peas


SERIOUS QUESTION

It does not bother me if we have different views of how to make the world the best we can make it.

So I ask not how to live life that one right way, but how to get people to see the right way?

Praxus
26 Apr 04,, 04:13
I think that an pro alternative energy stance, now would be best, the sooner the better. This would allow American industry to shift to carbohydrate processing methods and lessen the price effects on consumers. So quite simple the products wont cost as much so people will buy more. Thats the capitalist in me.



Oh so holding a view that involves direct Government intervention into the economy is the "capitalist" in you.

LOL


I think that an pro alternative energy stance, now would be best, the sooner the better. This would allow American industry to shift to carbohydrate processing methods and lessen the price effects on consumers. So quite simple the products wont cost as much so people will buy more. Thats the capitalist in me.



Then companies start selling Hydrogen based cars, etc. If they can no longer make money from cars with gas engines then they will be forced by natural market influences to switch to an alternitive.

No need for the Government to force anyone to do anything.

tw-acs
26 Apr 04,, 06:23
PRAXUS


Oh so holding a view that involves direct Government intervention into the economy is the "capitalist" in you.
- Praxus

The DEA classifies marijuana and hemp as illegal. That is direct government intervention, this intervention that we have currently does not allow famers to choose the crop they grow.


"In United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. I, 1936, we (U.S. Supreme Court) held the federal government without power to control farm production..." From U.S. v. Butler: "The act invades the reserved rights of the states. It is a statutory plan to regulate and control agricultural production, a matter beyond the powers delegated to the federal government."
- tw-acs

This is a violation of the seperation of powers that is illustrated in the United States Constitution and taught to every peron in the United States education system Public and Private.

The Executive Branch - As the name implies execute the laws
The Legislative Branch - As the name implies they legislate the laws
The Judicial Branch - To determine if legislated laws are in accordance with justice, and to determine if the actions of the Executive Branch are in accordance with justice.

I have quoted United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. I, 1936 , it clearly says that the citizen ( said farmer Butler ) has the right to determine said crop to be grown.

The reason I say

Thats the capitalist in me
- tw-acs
is that I only know the type of social order I have lived in, that being ( I will will try to be as accurate as possible) a Representative Democractic Republic with a Capitalist economy, having limted control of commerce on part of the state.

That means I am going to try to promote it the best way I know how. I think reducing the energy price burdened on the lower class at a higher proportion per income of the rest of society would increase consumer spending in other areas of the economy, creating an increase in economic growth from the ground up ( ha just like hemp). And increase in economic growth stemmed from the base of the economic structure will be much more beneficial to all sectors of the economy, except greedy executives might lose a little bit of their bonus. The Elite class has the least burden proportionally to there Net Wealth.

Centralization of wealth is the death of capitalism.

Lets decentralize wealth, re distribute power to the people, like you.


Then companies start selling Hydrogen based cars, etc. If they can no longer make money from cars with gas engines then they will be forced by natural market influences to switch to an alternitive.
-Praxus

I could make money killing people but would you recomend that?
But you would say its ok to kill plants and animals?
I would come back and say you are an Animal and you would be dead?
Your response.................
You didnt have one you are dead you stupid animal.

IF AN ENVIRONMENT IS NOT SUITABLE FOR LIFE, LIFE SHALL CEASE TO EXIST.
- tw-acs

I believe the government should not intervene allowing for alternative fuels to be used and they just happen to be more environmental. And more lucrative for a business man. But first get rich off the fossil fuels. As you get rich should buy farms. (Corporate Farms) When Fossil Fuels are gone, you can sell vegetable oil fuels that you grow at the farm. Remeber Corporate Farm not American Family Farm like the dream many immigrants from Europe had. Thinking with this logic it is easy to see why hemp was taxed out of the United States of America. The rich businessman wanted more money.

This is before public education so most farmers are illiterate.

William Randolph Hearst - known for Hearst Castle In California.
He owned a paper making company that had just developed a process in which wood cellulose is broken down with sulphuric acid to make wood pulp paper, like we use today.
He also owned a Newspaper Company. In his Newspaper he printed Articles about Marijuana ( the spanish term for Cannabis/ Hemp) connecting Marijauna use with black and mexican racism; saying that blacks and mexicans were raping white women when high on the Marijuana. In reality, White Men were raping black women and maybe even Mexican women. The farmers if illiterate would know about the evil's of the Marijuana through heresay. They could not read it for themselves and were tricked into allowing Hemp to become illegal, not knowing Marijuana also meant hemp according to government legislative definitions.


No need for the Government to force anyone to do anything.
-Praxus

The government, does not allow for hemp to be cultivated. That is the U.S. Government forcing U.S. citizens to not grow hemp.

I know that I have mentioned this a number of times, as do the Senators that have listened to this idea. In a time of desperation, when the USA needs to have troops fill its Military Ranks, to defend the United States, a draft may be activated.

The war in Iraq was a pre-emptive war, offensive.

The United States, once had the Department of War. Currently, it is the Department of Defense. The reason the name was changed is; People believed that "Department of War" might imply to some people, that the United States of America was pro war country, that the USA liked war. It was changed to "Department of Defense" to imply that the USA acts in defense.

Where is the Department of Offense?


Oh for those that are curious.

I went to court one day. On that day I shook hands with a man that had a stature much higher than my own. At the end of the day, that man orated to the court what he thought should be done in regard to myself and my situtaion. He told the court that I was more prepared and organized than most Lawyers, that he thought taht all legal fees to come in the future of this case should be waived, and that my case be transferred to the proper forum.

Have you ever been commended by Kobe Hudson Assistant Attorney General of the State of Minnesota?

Praxus
26 Apr 04,, 23:51
The government, does not allow for hemp to be cultivated. That is the U.S. Government forcing U.S. citizens to not grow hemp.


When did I ever say the Hemp plant should be banned?


-Praxus

I could make money killing people but would you recomend that?
But you would say its ok to kill plants and animals?
I would come back and say you are an Animal and you would be dead?
Your response.................
You didnt have one you are dead you stupid animal.

Quote:

Intrinsicism is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard of and you obviously subscribe to it.

Your essentially saying something can be good or bad (In youre case you view killing plants an animals as bad) without reference to who it will be good or bad for.

For example killing Adolf Hitler is good for the US but bad for Nazism. It is Objectivly good because it good for the moral country and bad for the immoral country.


Centralization of wealth is the death of capitalism.

Lets decentralize wealth, re distribute power to the people, like you.


Capitalism has done the opposite of what you are suggesting. In the past ten thousand years prior to the birth of Capitalism in the 19th Century almost all of the wealth was concentrated in the very rich few and the rest were either slaves or peasants mostly having next to no wealth. Capitalism has created an enourmous middle class. It is mostly this middle class and the upper class that creates buisnesses and produce wealth.

Capitalism in it's most purist sense is the only economic system to ban force and fraud from all associations. Therefor it is the only civilized system.

The so called poverty created by Capitalism is complete BS. It pulls people and nations out of the dark ages.


know that I have mentioned this a number of times, as do the Senators that have listened to this idea. In a time of desperation, when the USA needs to have troops fill its Military Ranks, to defend the United States, a draft may be activated.

The Draft is slavery, plain and simple fact.

Confed999
27 Apr 04,, 00:33
The Draft is slavery, plain and simple fact.
Agreed. If it comes to conscripts, I'll support the "kill 'em all" solution instead. :(

tw-acs
27 Apr 04,, 02:28
When did I ever say the Hemp plant should be banned?
- Praxus


No need for the Government to force anyone to do anything.
- Praxus

It is illegal to cultivate currently. So maybe I misunderstood before; you meant that the government should have hemp illegal?


No need for the Government to force anyone to do anything.
- Praxus

In the realm of political philosophy, you must be an Anarchist. If the government has no need to force a person to do something, then why have a government.


Intrinsicism is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard of and you obviously subscribe to it.
-Praxus

If I am correct this quote of yours has an implied statement in it. That implied statement is against the policy of the Word Affairs Board; Please refrain from doing this again.

Praxus I think you have misunderstood the reason I post on this forum.


Your essentially saying something can be good or bad (In youre case you view killing plants an animals as bad) without reference to who it will be good or bad for.
- Praxus

I did not essentially say anything, I typed and meant what I typed. Please do not attempt to put words in someone else's mouth.


I could make money killing people but would you recomend that?
But you would say its ok to kill plants and animals?
I would come back and say you are an Animal and you would be dead?
Your response.................
You didnt have one you are dead you stupid animal.


I believe you missed the ironic point in this brief story. The fact is homo sapiens are animals. You, along with many others may fail to realize that you are an animal. You will die, eventually. And I do not see you arguing killing animals or plants is bad, so would it be ok if someone killed you?

I eat food. I am an omnivore, as primates tend to be. I eat vegetables and I like to eat meat, the more blood the better.

I believe it is ok to kill an animal or a plant to eat.
I do not believe it is ok to kill an animal or plant to allow another animal or plant to grow so a homo sapien can eat it. Or to destroy an environment through human manipulation to allow for more of a certain plant or animal to grow more so a homo sapien[/ can eat it.


I care about all life on this planet. Diversity in Nature is what makes it so strong.
- tw-acs

I value the delicate system of nature. If you are familiar with the insecticide DDT, and how it affected a lot more life than just the insects it was intending to kill.

I am trying to preserve your life, my life, and all life on this planet.


IF AN ENVIRONMENT IS NOT SUITABLE FOR LIFE, LIFE SHALL CEASE TO EXIST.

I dont know whether the level of radiation that would be unsuitable for life will come in a one or a hundred or a thousand years, but that does not matter because we shouldnt push our luck.

WE DO NOT HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY TO CLEAN UP RADIATION.
- tw-acs


...LIFE SHALL CEASE TO EXIST.

This means that even homo sapiens would die, including you.


Centralization of wealth is the death of capitalism.

Lets decentralize wealth, re distribute power to the people, like you.



Capitalism has done the opposite of what you are suggesting. In the past ten thousand years prior to the birth of Capitalism in the 19th Century almost all of the wealth was concentrated in the very rich few and the rest were either slaves or peasants mostly having next to no wealth. Capitalism has created an enourmous middle class. It is mostly this middle class and the upper class that creates buisnesses and produce wealth.

Capitalism in it's most purist sense is the only economic system to ban force and fraud from all associations. Therefor it is the only civilized system.

The so called poverty created by Capitalism is complete BS. It pulls people and nations out of the dark ages.

- Praxus

I am not talking in perspective to global wealth. I am talking in perspective to the United States of America.
The middle class, the entrepreneurial force in America creates small businesses. If these businesses survive they may allow their owners to accumulate enough wealth to be considered Upper Class. Persons in the Upper Class and Elite Class inherit their wealth, they do not work for it. Thus, I give them less credit for any business they shall have created.

Capitalism in its purest sense, does that exist in your head or in reality?

The United State's capitalism has plenty of corruption and plenty of fraud.
ENRON

Define civilized
Define civilized system

It is the laborer that labors to create the product. The higher a persons is on the corportate ladder the more compensation per unit of labor awarded. Corporate Executive Officers get salaries much higher than the labor that they perform is worth, while the laborers get salaries that are worth less than the labor performed.

That is the basic premise of capitalism.

I am a capitalist.

Will finish later

Bill
27 Apr 04,, 04:02
DU238 is not going to be the cause of life ending on earth...it's not even a contributer.

tw-acs
27 Apr 04,, 05:17
M21SNIPER

Do you acknowledge that the way most homo sapiens live on earth creates pollution?

What is

...going to be the cause of life ending on earth...???

Praxus
27 Apr 04,, 12:30
Tell me, what seperates man from the rest of the animal kingdom?

That is the reason why we have rights and they don't

Yes you do subscribe to intricism, you are saying animals and plants have intrinsic rights even if thoose "rights" are contrary to man's well being. The individual person is and should be the center of all morality.

As far as legalizing the hemp plant goes, I say go right ahead. Banning any illicite drug is not only stupid but wrong. It may be stupid to do drugs but one has the right to.

As far as Capitalism goes, it has to exsist in my head because it has never been fully implemented. The closest thing to it was late 19th Century America.

Enron commited fraud (which is force), and the people responsible should be held as such.

A great deal of the "upper class" is does not have inherated wealth. Even if they do it is their right.

Also wealth is created by ideas, by man's capacity to reason. Labour is required but it is not the source of all wealth.

What you blame on Capitalism is a failure of Socialism, the fact that is all this polution that you claim could bring the end of life on earth. If all land was privately owned, no one is going to want any sewage on their property, etc. Therefor in a pure Capitalist country you are responsible to the waste because you can't just dump it on "public property".

Yah have also not posted how life on earth will end?

By the way Communist Countries polute far more then Western Capitalist Nations do.

Trooth
27 Apr 04,, 20:56
Enviromentalism is no worst then the mysticism of dark ages. Reason, science, and progress are rejected and the "Enviroment" is put on a petistal as if it is some God in a primitive religion. They believe that nature has some inherant value beyond it's usefulness for Humans. Essentially they put tree's and snail darters' above the expansion of human life in both wealth and lifespan.

Eviromentalism is nothing but a farce, all the left wingers that hated the Vietnam war (which they viewed was caused by the great satan, Capitalism) all began to hop on the bandwagen in another pathetic effort to attack another percieved problem of Capitalism, which is of course "damaging the enviroment".

My view of environmentalism is that we are only the current humans who have dominion over the earth. Future generations might like to play with it too. The earth is here for us to make use of, certainly. But i am not so arrogant as to believe it is only here for my benefit. It is here for us all to share now and it will be here for those that follow us and we have some responsibility to make sure that it is in some sort of state for them to inherit.

People like me have a better quality of life in London than those who lived here 100 years ago. The major reason is the clean air act. That London fog that people always put into Sherlock Holmes movies wasn't water vapour. As Oscar Wilde said - the great thing about london is you can see the air you breathe. The same goes for LA and many other major cities. The comment often made about Mexico City is that living there is equivilant to smoking 20 a day.

As the industrial revolution got going in the 1740s more people got crammed into smaller spaces. The industrial process started to polute the air, rivers etc. Of that there is little doubt (rivers rarely catch on fire without human intervention) However the "capitalists" (in the west) of the time were not accountable by law, and were able to escape to their mansions in the country so they did not have to live with polluted water and air or unsanitary conditions. In an ideal world, those that owned, designed and operated the factories etc, would have to "live above the shop" and would soon be motivated to improve their own conditions. But as we know that doesn't happen, so someone else has to hold some sort of check on those whose position means they don't have to live with the consequence of their actions.

Capitalism does not harm the environment. It is an economic system, it can't harm the environment. What harms the environment is human behaviour from those that are not held accountable for their actions. After all the communists and socailists and anarchists (especially them) are equally adept at draining swamps, lakes, seas, polluting rivers and creating smog.

Environmentalism is about responsible human development, about making sure that a short term need does not create long term problems, or that the actions of a few people does not adversely affect a great many.

It is of course imperfect.

Where envrionmentalism is different to other "isms" is that of course the effects may not be felt for years after the problem has become a way of life that we accept has always been there (as with the london fog) and it then takes a lot of hard work to sort out the bleeding obvious!

Trooth
27 Apr 04,, 21:19
It is the laborer that labors to create the product. The higher a persons is on the corportate ladder the more compensation per unit of labor awarded. Corporate Executive Officers get salaries much higher than the labor that they perform is worth, while the laborers get salaries that are worth less than the labor performed.

That is the basic premise of capitalism.

I am a capitalist.



A capitalist system is closer to a meritocracy than any other. You are remunerated according to the value you add. Capitalism is essentially about adding value. Whilst Marx is certainly correct that you can't add value without labour, the individual's contribution through their labour cannot be judged as simply profit/number of people involved. The designers of the model T added more value to the raw materials than the metal workers did, therefore they should be remunerated more. None of them could be remunerated without Ford's investment so he added the most value.

However, dumping the waste products into a river is a problem only the highly remunerated could drive away from. Which is where environmentalsim comes in.

Value added can also equate to "shit dealt with" or if you prefer, responsibility.

EDIt : missed the close bracket of the quote tag

Praxus
27 Apr 04,, 23:16
It is the laborer that labors to create the product. The higher a persons is on the corportate ladder the more compensation per unit of labor awarded. Corporate Executive Officers get salaries much higher than the labor that they perform is worth, while the laborers get salaries that are worth less than the labor performed.

That is the basic premise of capitalism.

I am a capitalist.



Wrong what you are refering to is the semi-capitalist ideas of Adam Smith and the outright anti-capitalist of Karl Marx.

It is the basic premise of Marxism not Capitalism.

Our capacity to reason and carry out abstract thought is what creates wealth. If no one comes up with an idea for a shirt or a car. The laborers will have nothing to produce!

The Human Mind is the birth place of all wealth.

The best way to stop polution in the rivers is to privtise the rivers and the water supply! Private companies that are giving us water will not allow pollution in the river simply because it will drive up costs for them.

If public property didn't exsist beyond the nessecities of Government (military bases, police stations, congress, courts, etc) Companies would find it a lot harder to polute because after all the person next to him might just nail a lawsuite on him if he pollutes the air, water ,or land on his property.

Nature should be "exploited" for the benefit of man, it should not be protected for the "rights of the trees and animals".

Trooth
27 Apr 04,, 23:48
Wrong what you are refering to is the semi-capitalist ideas of Adam Smith and the outright anti-capitalist of Karl Marx.

It is the basic premise of Marxism not Capitalism.

Our capacity to reason and carry out abstract thought is what creates wealth. If no one comes up with an idea for a shirt or a car. The laborers will have nothing to produce!

Aye, i was quoting Tw-acs and posted the same thing. But i got the quote tag wrong.



The Human Mind is the birth place of all wealth.

The best way to stop polution in the rivers is to privtise the rivers and the water supply! Private companies that are giving us water will not allow pollution in the river simply because it will drive up costs for them.

If public property didn't exsist beyond the nessecities of Government (military bases, police stations, congress, courts, etc) Companies would find it a lot harder to polute because after all the person next to him might just nail a lawsuite on him if he pollutes the air, water ,or land on his property.


I think that is somewhat theoretical. In practice you are always going to get the problem of scale. A legal fight is not a fight amongst equals and leaving it as a purely economic matter as to sorting out ownership of the water raises just a minefield of legal proceedings that are never going to get settled. Without any environmental legislation you are going to end up forcing everyone into either buying bad products or becoming a water quality expert so that they can shop wisely. But even then, if you privatise water, you are only really privatising the service. Unless you are going to change the pipes to your house everytime you swap supplier!

And that would hold people back. You'd have to do so much chemistry research you wouldn't have time for learning other subjects.

Even a minimum drinking standard would be legilsation interfering with the economy so in this model we would have to assume it was legal to sell anything as drinking water and up to you to prove it was not safe to drink.



Nature should be "exploited" for the benefit of man, it should not be protected for the "rights of the trees and animals".

I have always thought of nature as being protected for the rights of the individual. The right not to breathe bad air, drink bad water, die of skin cancer because of too much UV etc. The animals and trees have the same problems but they can't do anything about it. We can do something about these problems and we therefore must do something about it. You wouldn't neglect a house, so why neglect the planet. It is, after all our greatest friend.

I have seen private rivers. Their use often changes. You might find your water supply sold for recreational purposes.

Confed999
28 Apr 04,, 00:49
Hmmmm, so we need more troops in the field to reduce polution? :rolleyes:

Trooth
28 Apr 04,, 00:54
ah yes. Good point.

Bad lane discipline. sorry.

Praxus
28 Apr 04,, 01:30
I don't think you understand.

You want to destroy economies because we might be causing Global Warming. You want to destroy economies and pull millions of people into abject poverty because there might be an actual increase in UV rays.

Trooth
28 Apr 04,, 01:45
You believe economies might be destroyed.
You believe millions of people might be pulled into abject poverty.

Bill
28 Apr 04,, 02:05
"What is...going to be the cause of life ending on earth..."

Big fucking rock falling from the sky.

12,000 years and counting.

Trooth
28 Apr 04,, 20:01
"What is...going to be the cause of life ending on earth..."

Big fucking rock falling from the sky.

12,000 years and counting.

I reckon we'll be ok for another 20 years or so. But once we can't get Bruce Willis into a spaceship, we'll be doomed :).

Confed999
28 Apr 04,, 23:42
I reckon we'll be ok for another 20 years or so. But once we can't get Bruce Willis into a spaceship, we'll be doomed :).
Could just clone him and we would allways be safe.

tw-acs
29 Apr 04,, 01:13
I am talking about my ideas not Marx's or adam smith's.

If hemp, is industrialized:

Thousands of jobs if not more will be created.

We will have cheaper and Cleaner Fuel.

We will have better paper produced with less cost and less pollution. (Lower price to consumer, thus consumers buy more. Creating economic growth.

We will have many other types of products, too. This is good thing it will create competition. Competition is what keeps capitalism strong. As does diversity (competition) keeps nature strong.

The difference between man and animal as you say is:

Man kills what he likes for whatever reason:
If man wants to increase his food supply, he will manipulate the environment around him to suit his needs. This may be in disregard to all other LIFE in said environment. And if a plant or animal jeopardizes man's food supply, man will kill that plant or animal. E.G. ROCKY MOUNTAIN LOCUST

Whereas an animal:
Such as a lion. The lion will kill his prey. The lion will protect his prey, once it has been killed.

The lion will not protect his herd gazelles from hyenas. The lion will not wage war on the hyena to ensure the gazelle food supply does not become diminished.

Man has a concept of WAR. Man does think that the world is in order. So man must make the world in order, in effect man wages war on the world.

That is the difference between man and animal. Though man is an aniamal and I do not understand why you claim man to be superior. Would you claim to be superior when you realize that warm liquid on your head is bear drool. Would you care to jump and explain to the bear that you are better than he?

Superiority is circumstancial.

The African Bush man, he is man or animal?

Illicit drug, means illegal drug. I agree no drug should be illegal and it is the users choice and thus the affects of using are chosen. Though you may get addicted and want help that is why I am pro treatment.

The goal of all my "drug" talk is to raise awareness to create a larger, more solid, more complete base of knowledge to formulate thought from. And with this larger, more solid, complete base of knowledge humans would be more likely to abstain from drugs.

Capitalism is an economic system as others have stated, and thus cannot cause such problems as I complain about. Therefore I do not blame capitalism, though the persons that live in the system have responsibility to ensure that other persons dont do bad.

I never discredited the inventor. In fact, it is the intellectual that I hope to create through such discussion as this. Ideas are necessary as is labor as is management. It is the balance between these things that I am concerned about.

LIFE is what I am concerned about, I have never once said that I dont want the further development of man. That is my very purpose here, to further the development of man.

Exploited: www.dictionary.com

1. To employ to the greatest possible advantage: exploit one's talents.

2. To make use of selfishly or unethically: a country that exploited peasant labor. See Synonyms at manipulate.

3. To advertise; promote.



I want to use better resources to create a better society. The superiority of my said resources is known by and documented by the US Government.
US Dept of Energy, US Dept of Agriculture, and Congressional Records.

I propose exploiting (def #1,3) hemp and all other vegetable oil crops.

Praxus
29 Apr 04,, 01:40
The rest of life is governed by instincts. Man on the otherhand uses reason to solve problems, to better our own lives, etc. Man is supperior. Saying it depends on the situation is like saying the Iraqi Army is supperior because at some minute point in time they killed more Americans then we killed Iraqis.

As far as dumping waste in private water that is being sold. Just because a person is in a company that commits murder doesn't mean that person comes under "economics" and is somehow excluded from prosecution.

Therefor in my opinion Capitalism is the best way to preserve our planet for the benefit of man.

Trooth
29 Apr 04,, 01:49
Praxus, in your example there is no need for water standards because, handily, bad water kills people, so those at the back of the line know not to drink it? What a marvellous system.

Also, how would you guarantee that the legal process always produced the correct result (i.e. that the guilty were punished)? Presumably you would consider a legal precedant as a water quality standard, or would you ban legal precedance and make each case have to revert to first principles? Would this not mean that they were drawn out for years arguing the same points endlessly?

Unfortunately i see your theory as being only that. I don't live in a textbook.

Ironduke
29 Apr 04,, 01:54
The best way to stop polution in the rivers is to privtise the rivers and the water supply! Private companies that are giving us water will not allow pollution in the river simply because it will drive up costs for them.
I'll never pay for water. Or air.

Praxus
29 Apr 04,, 01:58
Sure there are precedents...

Anything they put in the water that harms the consumers(against their knowledge, thus without their permission) should be against the law. But this applies across the spectrum, there is no need to create a "water standered".

Anything that harms you against your will is banned.

I phrased it badly, yes there should be water standereds but not in the sense you are talking about.


I'll never pay for water. Or air.

I suppose you drive out to the mountains and drink the water in the rivers;)

Also why would you ever have to pay for air, there is no way to control it's distrabution:-D

tw-acs
29 Apr 04,, 02:09
Praxus

My example with the bear, I expierenced it. I was backpacking in California. My group was going on Glen's Pass. We started at 500 ft above sea level, the high point of this adventure was 11,500 ft above sea level, traversing forward about 47 miles in 5 days with one day of rest (So all the traversing was done in 4 days) with an 80 pound pack on my back.

If you were sleeping outside in a sleeping bag, would you care to explain your superiority to the bear?

Trooth
29 Apr 04,, 02:16
I phrased it badly, yes there should be water standereds but not in the sense you are talking about.

Can you elaborate how the banning would work without a standard to act as a yardstick?

Praxus
29 Apr 04,, 02:32
The standered is, anything that causes harm without the consumers permision should be banned.

Didn't I just say that?

Tw-acs:
Say you had a bear and a man and they were "hunting" each other. The bear would use his insticts to try and find and kill you. The man would use his mind, create traps, make weapons from sticks for defense and through his mind give him an advantage over the brute force of the bear.

Overall man is supperior to every other form of life.

Ironduke
29 Apr 04,, 02:53
I suppose you drive out to the mountains and drink the water in the rivers
I should be able to drink the water from any lake, river, or stream.

Privatizing the nation's water supply is one of the most absurd notions I've heard of late.

tw-acs
29 Apr 04,, 04:14
Bears do not hunt man.

Bacteria and viruses can kill man.

Viruses use the human body against itself. They get inside the human cells and destroy the body from within. Now that is using tools(humans).

Officer of Engineers
29 Apr 04,, 04:47
Bears do not hunt man.

Really shows how much (in actuallity, how VERY LITTLE) you know.

Officer of Engineers
29 Apr 04,, 05:20
Tw-acs:
Say you had a bear and a man and they were "hunting" each other. The bear would use his insticts to try and find and kill you. The man would use his mind, create traps, make weapons from sticks for defense and through his mind give him an advantage over the brute force of the bear.

In actuallity, you both know very little about wildlife. All predatory animals are known to adapt to new situations and new environments, thus negating the "instinct" vs "learn" theory. They learn and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. There are obviously limits to their limit but they can and do adapt.

Unless the man has survived in the wild for years, I'll bet on the bear vs the man anyday of the week. You have absolutely no idea how much the lack of knowledge gives weight to the bear's advantage.

tw-acs
29 Apr 04,, 05:51
Bears generally avoid man. Reason being is the rifle has more range than the paw. Bears have learned not to go in areas near people, though if a bear is after food it may go into people areas or areas that are dominated by human scent. The bears I encountered on my backpacking trip never attacked me.

If that was not my imagination, and there was really a bear if I had moved it could have thrashed me with one swipe of its paw. Rendering me very hurt. So I avoided that. I was petrified. I believe it smelled the scent of the shampoo residue in my hair.

I believe all animals humans are born with instinct and possess the ability to learn. A new born baby knows how to cry. That is a rather complex process that you never learn how to do, though some people can do it on command, but that does not count.

The newborn baby also knows how to suck. And If a baby will see a nipple for example a fathers nipple and try to suck on it. Then the baby knows what is a nipple is before speach. The baby may learn to not suck on such nipple for it does not produce milk, in most circumstances. Speach being how we formulate most of our thought and it has proved through the ages to be a very helpful form of communication.

Bears have a disadvantage. The bears front legs are shorter than the hind legs, with the center of gravity that a bear has it will prove very difficult to catch a human running down hill.

I know this because I have this book about Bears attacking and what to do and not to do.

I especially like the part when the hunter is gouging the eyes out of the bears head with an arrowhead. It was very riveting.

Life evovles. That is nature learns, life adapts, life continues.

I am attempting to get the human society that I live to adapt to a different energy source, one that may eliminate the need for many existing ways to harness energy. The method I would prefer to harness energy comes mostly from the sun. The sun is the closest object with so much mass and energy in relation to earth; I think we should want to harness some of that energy. Plants do this very efficiently. If you agree and it seems like I have said this before then let someone who has not read it read it, to create a broader base of knoweldge in the overall populous of the world, not just the USA, as to allow for better formulation of thought, simply educate the world with truth.

Ironduke
29 Apr 04,, 05:58
Try to look as big as you can.

Officer of Engineers
29 Apr 04,, 06:03
Bears generally avoid man. Reason being is the rifle has more range than the paw. Bears have learned not to go in areas near people, though if a bear is after food it may go into people areas or areas that are dominated by human scent. The bears I encountered on my backpacking trip never attacked me.

If that was not my imagination, and there was really a bear if I had moved it could have thrashed me with one swipe of its paw. Rendering me very hurt. So I avoided that. I was petrified. I believe it smelled the scent of the shampoo residue in my hair.

I believe all animals humans are born with instinct and possess the ability to learn. A new born baby knows how to cry. That is a rather complex process that you never learn how to do, though some people can do it on command, but that does not count.

The newborn baby also knows how to suck. And If a baby will see a nipple for example a fathers nipple and try to suck on it. Then the baby knows what is a nipple is before speach. The baby may learn to not suck on such nipple for it does not produce milk, in most circumstances. Speach being how we formulate most of our thought and it has proved through the ages to be a very helpful form of communication.

Bears have a disadvantage. The bears front legs are shorter than the hind legs, with the center of gravity that a bear has it will prove very difficult to catch a human running down hill.

I know this because I have this book about Bears attacking and what to do and not to do.

I especially like the part when the hunter is gouging the eyes out of the bears head with an arrowhead. It was very riveting.

Life evovles. That is nature learns, life adapts, life continues.

I am attempting to get the human society that I live to adapt to a different energy source, one that may eliminate the need for many existing ways to harness energy. The method I would prefer to harness energy comes mostly from the sun. The sun is the closest object with so much mass and energy in relation to earth; I think we should want to harness some of that energy. Plants do this very efficiently. If you agree and it seems like I have said this before then let someone who has not read it read it, to create a broader base of knoweldge in the overall populous of the world, not just the USA, as to allow for better formulation of thought, simply educate the world with truth.

WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP!!!!!!

Yeah, you went backpacking in areas where bears have been trained/conditioned not to look at humans as food, not when you've got people like you throwing garbage away everyday, even if it's into trashcans.

The bears adapted. They learn. A garbage can is a hell of lot easier to tackle than a man.

You know crap. I live out in the country with bears and wolves and come calving season, bears are a real nuisance. They won't come near a truck but they'll take on anyone trying to stand between them and a new born calve.

You know crap. I don't know why you even brought on that bullcrap about your near genius IQ. This little post of yours just prove how very little intelligence you've got and how lazy you are to try finding out the answers.

tw-acs
29 Apr 04,, 06:14
They won't come near a truck but they'll take on anyone trying to stand between them and a new born calve.

The calf is food, the man in front of the calf is not a threat, thus the bear will get to the food. The truck is a much larger beast than the bear. Thus the bears learn to not attack the truck cause they lose.



WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP!!!!!!

If I am what I eat, and I am what I think then you may be on to something. Though you eat the same stuff so the same logic would apply to you and your posts.


You know crap. I don't know why you even brought on that bullcrap about your near genius IQ. This little post of yours just prove how very little intelligence you've got and how lazy you are to try finding out the answers.

...I hope I know what crap is, I shit everyday and I hope you do too

Am I sensing some anger?

Try excercising it is a great stress reliever. I will admit I am addicted to endorphins, they just make me happy. Endorphins are my drug of choice. Get hooked its good for you I swear.

Officer of Engineers
29 Apr 04,, 06:20
It really shows you know absolutely nothing.

Bears can't eat trucks and I've seen bears rip an SUV apart trying to get at the things inside. They know it ain't alive and thus no threat.

The only thing that would stop a bear from going through me at that calve is my .30-06 and it ain't fear stopping the bear. It's me putting a round into the damn thing.

I don't have anger issues. I have putting up with stupidity issues. And you qualify in spades. You are what you eat. What a load of crap. I don't see you giving two gallons of milk a day.

tw-acs
29 Apr 04,, 06:30
As many great minds before me have said "The more I know, the more I know I do not know" or I could say as others have "I know nothing."

Bears are pretty inelligent they will get inside an SUV when they smell food in it. They will not get the food from the SUV that is driving down th road or a path. The bear is smart it will get the food from with the SUV when the SUV is sleeping.


Reason being is the rifle has more range than the paw.

The only thing that would stop a bear from going through me at that calve is my .30-06 and it ain't fear stopping the bear

The rifle's projectile has more force in a concentrated area than a swipe of a bear paw. The projectile has a more piercing effect.

How old are you? How much do you weigh and how tall? How fast can you run a mile?

Ray
29 Apr 04,, 07:08
Privatise water? Privatise sun? Great.

Lets privatise man and woman and the open a company called 'Privatised Conception Inc'! There will no problems in the election over abortion and non abortion. And the Pope shall be pleased!

I nominate Praxus for the Nobel Prize for his theories and also the Pulitzer for his eloquent writings!

Trooth
29 Apr 04,, 08:07
The standered is, anything that causes harm without the consumers permision should be banned.

Didn't I just say that?


Yes, but i didn't understand and asked you to elaborate how the ban would work without some sort of purity standard. The only way i can see your idea working is that if i drink water and die within a few minutes clutching my throat and or stomach and am found holding a partially full glass of water.

Otherwise, lets say the water takes a few years to kill me, how will you prove it was the water?

And do we really want a society based on reactionary litigation, where friends and family have to go to court to avenge the deaths of loved ones as the only way of getting clean drinking water?

Ray
29 Apr 04,, 08:44
PRAXUS,

You are a nut. Yet, a very sweet nut. Without you, I would feel life is not complete. Go ahead with your ideas. It atelast allow this and other threads alive.

I like you hell of alot. You make my day :)

You are what we call a little 'tuchku". Loveable and yet a pain in the wrong side of the anatomy

tw-acs
29 Apr 04,, 15:28
If the atmosphere gets polluted enough then it would be possible and probable that air would be privatised in the sense you would have to buy it. Selling clean air, wouldn't that suck to have to buy clean air.

Stop buying dirty fuel.

If the water supply continues to be contaminated the price the consumer pays for water will increase. Persons living in most towns and cities have to buy water nowadays. The exception is people with their own wells, however more and more these wells get polluted.

Though 4 big bottles of Dawn detergent will remove PCB's from a well.
My father, my older brother and I were the first persons to successfully do so in the State of Minnesota. We got the idea from some people in Wisconsin that did something similiar.

Fight the Corporatization of the World, specifically the resources we require to sustain life.

Trooth
29 Apr 04,, 21:34
I ain;t got a problem with corporates being involved in water processing. I don't want a well and all that hassle. I have a whole resevoir on the end of my tap.

However when it comes to things like water, there must be accountability, and the free market is not accountable enough, nor quickly enough in some areas. Therefore you gotta have some other process to ensure this. Hence environmental legislation.

tw-acs
30 Apr 04,, 01:38
I would prefer to have well, though i prefer the rural life. A well if placed at the proper depth will provide better water in my opinion with very little risk of drying up.


I agree with environmental legislation, to ensure quality. In effect such legislation should increase competition and promote capitalism.


If we use vegetable oil seed crops for a energy source we can reduce the level of carbon dioxide in the environment, and it would stop releasing sulphur into the atmosphere because sulphur is not released through the burning of vegetable oil fuels. There is some sulphur that is released into the EARTH's atmosphere naturally, however increase from human's burning of fossil fuels is unhealthy.

Praxus
30 Apr 04,, 01:43
Science shows that there isn't massive global warming. It raised a few fractions of a degree contrary to enviromentalist predictions.

tw-acs
30 Apr 04,, 02:13
Global Warming even at a few fraction of a degrees is very significant to Polar Ice Caps, though I do not know why you are trying to counter a point I have not made yet?

I am strictly speaking that in nth amount of time the air may become too polluted for people to breath, thus forcing people to buy clean air, or air cleaning supplies, such an industry would be bad methinks.

tw-acs
30 Apr 04,, 03:40
OOE


How old are you? How much do you weigh and how tall? How fast can you run a mile?

-tw-acs

Trooth
01 May 04,, 10:43
I agree with environmental legislation, to ensure quality. In effect such legislation should increase competition and promote capitalism.


Absolutely it does, in fact anything that pormotes change does. Most people who argue otherwise don't understand economics. They look at the current economic landscape and decide it must be preserved (which of course is bunk). However as we know with a capitalist economy someone always comes and fills a void. If company A's costs go up becuase of compliance with some legislation, it normally means company B gains market share. A isn't happy, but the only difference is they have some force majeur that they can complain against. The reality is that they couldn't react to the change as well as their competitor. It doesn't matter that the change was legislation inspired.

In fact it actually makes them look worse, because unlike economic trends, or even consumer fads, governments always give a multi-year lead time. consumers don't.

Its easy to blame a legislation change. No one ever goes on TV to campaign about the inefficiency of internal company processes, which is the root cause of the problem.

tw-acs
01 May 04,, 17:01
No one ever goes on TV to campaign about the inefficiency of internal company processes, which is the root cause of the problem.

-trooth

So this would be like mismanagement of funds. And management sweeping problems under the table to get bonuses or to just make it look like their department is doing good.

Trooth
01 May 04,, 18:51
-trooth

So this would be like mismanagement of funds. And management sweeping problems under the table to get bonuses or to just make it look like their department is doing good.

Possibly, although my example can happen with no "incompetence" or intent to mislead etc. It can simply be that a company is not structured well enough to change, or can't raise the necessary funds to invest in new plant. Hard luck the legislation just precipitated the inevitable - the old dinosaur would have been killed by something else at some point anyway.

Your example is a bit more willful for which shareholders should be deposing boards, and if necessary people should be going to prison.

tw-acs
02 May 04,, 03:00
If a system is not structured in a manner that can create the proper amount of resources, then could incompetence be apportioned to any of the individuals that were the creators or that are part of the system?