From Janes: Iraq - the DU dust settles

[HELEX]

Iraq: the DU dust settles

Following the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, the incidence of radioactive contamination on Iraqi territory is being linked to the use of depleted uranium (DU) in munitions used by Coalition forces. JID's weapons specialist reviews the continuing political fall-out for Washington and its allies.
DU has created controversy since it was used in the 1991 Gulf War. Activists and veterans' groups blame US weapons containing DU as the prime cause of 'Gulf War syndrome', an elusive combination of maladies that has affected more than 50,000 US veterans. Iraqi medical authorities also claim that increases in child cancers and birth defects were caused by DU contamination from tank battles on farmland west of Basra.

The Uranium Medical Research Center (UMRC) estimates the amount of DU used in the 2003 war at 1,700 tonnes, deployed in fighting vehicles, tanks, and aircraft. According to a UMRC research team, DU rounds used by US and British forces may have subjected parts of the country to high levels of radioactive contamination. The team's preliminary tests showed that air, soil and water samples contained 'hundreds to thousands of times' the normal levels of radiation. Tanks used in the battle for Nasiriyah examined by the UMRC team were found to be emitting several hundred times the background level of radiation.

Depleted uranium - U-238 - is a waste by-product of uranium enrichment and is 40 per cent less radioactive than natural uranium, but remains radioactive for 4.5 billion years. DU is used in munitions because its density is 1.7 times that of lead; ignites and burns on hitting a hard target, acting as a self-sharpening penetrator; and has exceptional performance against armoured targets. Its hardness also makes it ideal for use in armour plating.

www.janes.com

[TriggerPuller]

What a load of BS!!

TP

[HELEX]

Yea, everything comes from Janes is BS rofl

[George W. Bush]

DU is second to none so why use something else?

[HELEX]

A tripled rate of cancer and heavily abnormal Babys are sure a good way to win the hearts and minds of the common Iraqi people. :cantbeli:

[Early Chow Recruit]

The following are Bull**** indicators:
Blame
Primary
elusive combination of maladies
more than 50,000 US veterans
Iraqi medical authorities
may have subjected
preliminary tests showed
high levels of radioactive contamination (compared to what ?)
hundreds to thousands of times' the normal levels of radiation (exact numbers please)
several hundred times the background level of radiation (exact numbers and threshholds please)
remains radioactive for 4.5 billion years (at what level...exact numbers and thresholds please)

Why does this **** crop up in the worlds premier equipment ID catalog ? Perhaps the ****head writing the article was on furlough from a freakin' tabloid.

Man Up
Clint

[ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð]

Dont they use DU shells for training crews in the US? If so how come they have never tested for radiation in the US but have done so in Iraq?

[HELEX]

@Early Chow Recruit

You get more details when you are a Subscriber there.


hundreds to thousands of times' the normal levels of radiation(exact numbers please)

Take a Book, find the normal radiation level and do the math. Nothing secret about that.... :cantbeli:


remains radioactive for 4.5 billion years (at what level...exact numbers and thresholds please)

Take a physics Book and look under "Uranium 238", that is no classified Info :roll:

A Bull**** Indicator will go beyond its scale while scanning your Post.

@ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð


Dont they use DU shells for training crews in the US? If so how come they have never tested for radiation in the US but have done so in Iraq?

That is no problem, because it is either massive hard Material and you dont get Parts of it in your body or it is even coated to prevent that. When it burns a large amount of Uraniumoxide dust is spread and if you get that inside your Body.... RIP

Working with radioactive Material is not that dangerous, but breathing it will kill you sooner or later.

[George W. Bush]

If those a-hole Iraqis didn't have so many tanks we wouldn't have to use so much DU :lol:

But seriously we'll see in the next couple of years. If a bunch of kids die from cancer we can just say, "oops" and an Iraqi version of Erin Brocovich can become a national hero and win a huge settlement from our government which by that time will be a drop in the bucket.

[HELEX]

If those a-hole Iraqis didn't have so many tanks we wouldn't have to use so much DU But seriously we'll see in the next couple of years. If a bunch of kids die from cancer we can just say, "oops" and an Iraqi version of Erin Brocovich can become a national hero and win be a settlement from our government which by that time will be a drop in the bucket.

I will not comment that :cantbeli:

[George W. Bush]

Too late! rofl

[Mr. Nielsen]

That is no problem, because it is either massive hard Material and you dont get Parts of it in your body or it is even coated to prevent that.

I think the coating is just to prevent it from oxidizing.

[Early Chow Recruit]

helex,
Why cant you give me these numbers and why are you so sensetive about my post ? Perhaps you are a troll who's arguments don't pass the logic test. I will expect you to respond in a shrill fashion and even lie to prove your pathetic point (the US is evil). Your post would be positively received at DU where small minds think alike. Your time would be better spent painting "No more Bush" or "Down with America" signs and comiserating with your pothead friends. In case I didn't make it clear..Go pound sand.


Fondly yours
Clint
P.S. Go defeat some more Roman Legions.

[KalleBalleSvartSk@lle]

That is no problem, because it is either massive hard Material and you dont get Parts of it in your body or it is even coated to prevent that.

I think the coating is just to prevent it from oxidizing.

May be true, as long as it's in a solid chunk it don't really hurt anyone, but blown into a fine powder carried by the wind is something different.

[HELEX]

@Early Chow Recruit

-Athmosheric radiation(in Germany) ca: 71 nSv/h(71*10^-9Sv/h)

That means if you multiply it with 1000 = 71µSv/h(71*10^-6Sv/h)

Uranium 238 has a half-life Time of 4,5 Billion Years, I wouldnt like to wait so long....

The effects of U 238 to the Body is here:


Ein Kilogramm reines U 238 besitzt eine Aktivität von 12 Mega Becquerel (MBq), ein Kilogramm an reinem U 235 dagegen eine Aktivität von 80 MBq.

Somit würde die Aktivität eines Kilogramms auf 0,2 % abgereicherten Natururans auf Grund der Gammastrahlung aller in den Zerfallsreihen vorkommenden Nuklide eine Aktivität besitzen, die nur unwesentlich höher ist als die des reinen U 238. Diese Aktivität hätte in 1 m Abstand eine Äquivalentdosis von rund 2 mSv pro Jahr zur Folge. Diese Strahlenbelastung entspricht in etwa der durch die natürliche Strahlung entstandenen. Dazu müsste eine Person aber ein ganzes Jahr in einem Abstand von 1 m neben diesem Geschoss verbringen. Insofern ist die Gefährdung durch eine Bestrahlung von außen als unbedenklich anzusehen, es gibt daher für diesen Fall auch nicht den geringsten Anlass zu irgendeiner Sorge. In direkter Nähe des Einschussloches an einem abgeschossenen Panzer wurden im Irak Dosisleistungen von rund 40 µSv pro Stunde gemessen. Das wären im Jahr rund 365 mSv. Dieser Messwert stimmt recht gut mit dem in 1 m, also rund 20 mal weiter entfernt bestimmten Wert überein.

Da die Geschosse beim Aufprall auf ein Ziel aber in der Regel verdampfen und in Aerosolform in die nähere und fernere Umgebung gelangen können, kann Uran in den Körper von in der Nähe befindlichen Menschen gelangen. Bei diesem in den Körper, z.B. durch die Atemwege, aufgenommenen Uran spielt dann aber auch die Alphastrahlung eine entscheidende Rolle. Insofern ist die Strahlenbelastung durch eingeatmete Uranaerosole ungleich größer als die auf Grund der Gammastrahlung von außerhalb des Körpers.

Wenn man annimmt, dass eine Person 1 g des verdampften Urans eingeatmet hat, was übrigens als extrem viel anzusehen ist, wird die Lunge mit einer Äquivalentdosis von etwa 260 mSv belastet. Bei der Aufnahme von 1/10 Gramm noch mit 26 mSv. Die Aufnahme von mehr als 10 mg Uran in den Körper würde aber bereits zu einer Schwermetallvergiftung führen. Diese Menge würde aber keine nennenswerte Strahlenbelastung verursachen. Demnach liegt die chemische Toxizität des U 238 erheblich über der Radiotoxizität.

Das Maximum für die Entstehung von Leukämie liegt bei 5 bis 7 Jahren nach einer Strahlenexposition, insofern ist ein Zusammenhang zwischen den zu diesem Zeitpunkt bekannt gewordenen Leukämieerkrankungen und den Urangeschossen dennoch nicht völlig auszuschließen.

Gegen die Vermutung, dass das Uran der Auslöser der bisher vorgekommenen Leukämieerkrankungen der betreffenden Soldaten ist, spricht die Tatsache, dass bei Uranbergarbeitern aufgrund der extrem hohen Radonstrahlenbelastung kaum eine Erhöhung der Leukämieraten beobachtet wurde. In diesen Fällen war allerdings das Lungenkrebsrisiko erheblich erhöht. Diese Lungenkrebserkrankungen sind als Schneeberger-Krankheit bekannt. Schneeberg ist ein Ort im Erzgebirge in Sachsen, in dem Uranbergbau betrieben wurde.

Weiterhin ist zu bedenken, dass die Menschen aufgrund des in der Natur als Teil der Zerfallsreihen vorkommenden Radons einer Strahlenbelastung der Lunge durch Alphateilchen zwischen 5 bis 10 mSv pro Jahr ausgesetzt sind. Dieser natürlichen Strahlenbelastung sind im Prinzip alle Menschen ausgesetzt. Im gesamten Körper führt das Radon aus der natürlichen Strahlenbelastung übrigens im Mittel zu einer Strahlenbelastung von ca. 1,1 mSv pro Jahr.

Es sei erwähnt, dass in den Industriestaaten im Mittel auf 100.000 Menschen im Alter von 20 bis 40 Jahren zwischen 8 bis 11 Leukämieerkrankungen pro Jahr auftreten. Wenn man davon ausgeht, dass 100.000 Soldaten im Einsatz waren, so könnte man, ohne irgendwelche sonstigen Einflüsse, bereits mit bis zu 33 Leukämiefällen innerhalb von 3 Jahren rechnen.

[HELEX]

In English:

More here:

http://www.umrc.net/downloads/medical_effects_cmj.pdf


DU WEAPONS

Modern warfare since the Gulf War in 1991 has employed weapons which make use of DU for its properties:


It is cheap and available to arms manufacturers free of charge.
It has a very high-density which makes it superior armour piercing material.
It burns upon impact producing intense heat and easily cuts through steel.
It acts as a self-sharpening penetrator.
The danger posed by DU in Weapons


When DU weapons hit a target, a fine aerosol of uranium oxides is formed. The majority of particles (46 - 70%) are less than 10 microns.
The aerosol-like particles (dust) are easily inhaled into the lungs.
These fine particles can be spread by the wind and are readily re-suspended by modest breezes or vehicle and personnel movements. There is no existing study measuring the distance traveled by such particles. However, there is a documented instance were particles were physically captured 42 km from a test site. (Dietz 1999).
This only proves migration beyond the specific site but does not preclude the possibility that particles can travel a great many times more kilometers. Fluid dynamic studies report that particles fewer than 5 microns can remain almost permanently suspended in the atmosphere.
While some of the DU is soluble, the majority (in the form of other oxides) is insoluble and remains in the body for years. Once in the body, DU slowly spreads from the lungs, mainly into the lymph nodes and bone. Excretion from the body is very slow.
The uncontrolled use and spread of uranium goes against the scientifically established conventions for handling radioactive substances and contravenes international laws. See the case made by Karen Parker at the UN that DU weaponry is illegal under existing human rights and humanitarian (armed conflict) law
It is estimated that 300 - 800 metric tons of DU were deposited in the battlefield in Iraq and Kuwait in 1991. Dr. Doug Rokke (DU expert and former US army physicist) estimated that 120 to 480 million grams of DU would be aerosolized if 40% of the DU were burnt up.
These airborne and respirable sized particles will be radioactive for billions of years into the future.

Radiation and Its Effects on the Human Body

In terms of pure physics, radiation is the process of transport of energy across space. Radioactivity is the process of decay of a physical element and involves the emitting of "bundles of energy", which may have a mass or not and may have an electric charge or not.

Relatively few natural elements undergo this process and they are called "radioactive" elements. These include uranium, plutonium and a few other less well-known natural and man-made isotopic elements. There are many particles produced in nature either coming from the vastness of outer space (cosmic rays) or produced in the world’s high energy research laboratories. Alpha and beta particles, gamma and X-rays are the particles emitted when radioactive decay takes place.

These were the first particles discovered by scientists as humanity entered its current phase of scientific knowledge. When particles reach the human body they interact with its physical components. This interaction results in the deposit of part or all of the energy carried by the “intruder” particle. The particles are so tiny that their effect is not immediately sensed by the body. It is the consequences of this interaction that is felt inside the body - by disruption of the bonds that keep molecules together, by creating ions that further interact with our system.

Each particle emitted has a certain amount of energy. The energy multiplied by the total number of particles gives the total amount of "uninvited" energy released in the body. To illustrate this point, consider the number of alpha particles emitted by a single spherical pellet of Uranium Oxide (UO2) 0.0001 inch or 2.5 microns in diameter (equivalent to 1/40th the width of a human hair) and the dose rate it produces.

Tiny as it is, the 2.5 micron Depleted Uranium Oxide pellet contains 210 billion atoms (2.1 x 10 to the power of 11) of U238. Each year, the pellet will emit an average 32.3 alpha particles. It also contains U234, 235, 236 which together yield an additional 5.3 alpha particles per year. Thus a single pellet of Depleted UO2 will produce a total of 37.6 alpha particles per year.

The 37.6 alpha particles will deliver a radiation dose of 17 rads/year. With an RBE (Relative Biological Effectiveness) factor of 10, the dose rate is 170 rem/year for the surrounding body tissue. In the US, the Code of Federal Regulations regarding energy specifies an annual limit of 0.17 rem/year and a specific limit of 0.5 rem/year for an individual in the general population.

A quick calculation shows one single pellet delivers 1,000 times the annual limit. This number is multiplied by the total number of pellets present in the body. For example, if a single or series of exposures resulted in the presence of 10 pellets then the annual limit is exceeded by 10,000.

Another factor to consider is "permanence". Objects or particles less than 5 micron in diameter are considered respirable, meaning that it is small enough to enter into the lungs and become permanently trapped. If the body does not manage to somehow release it then the radiation is internalized and the dosage is permanent during the individual's lifetime and even remains in their physical remains after death.

[Seoulstriker]

Although there is an obvious health risk from uranium and deplete uranium (as stated in the above article), there is no obvious linkage to increased health problems (especially cancer) by DU usage. In fact, the only people that Saddam Hussein and 'peace groups' could scrounge up after the Gulf War were children who were affected with such things as Hydrocephalus and Harlequin Ichthyosis. Those horrendous-looking children were paraded around and epitomized as the 'link to DU usage'.

Besides that, I recall that there are no statistically-significant increases in the incidence of cancers usually associated with high DU exposure. You might hear anecdotal evidence that "during this year many more people in this town have gotten leukemia than in previous years", but that's all it is: anecdotal evidence. It does not take into account several things such as relatedness, randomness, and other environmental factors.

[KalleBalleSvartSk@lle]

Although there is an obvious health risk from uranium and deplete uranium (as stated in the above article), there is no obvious linkage to increased health problems (especially cancer) by DU usage. In fact, the only people that Saddam Hussein and 'peace groups' could scrounge up after the Gulf War were children who were affected with such things as Hydrocephalus and Harlequin Ichthyosis. Those horrendous-looking children were paraded around and epitomized as the 'link to DU usage'.

Besides that, I recall that there are no statistically-significant increases in the incidence of cancers usually associated with high DU exposure. You might hear anecdotal evidence that "during this year many more people in this town have gotten leukemia than in previous years", but that's all it is: anecdotal evidence. It does not take into account several things such as relatedness, randomness, and other environmental factors.

So we have a known cancer causing agent spread over Iraq, there is a significant increase in leukemia and other types of cancers compared to 1991. Coincidence?

http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/020218/2002021812.html
http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/du_iraq.htm
http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/sep1999/gulf-s08.shtml

[Seoulstriker]

"World Socialist Website"

hmmmmmm...


how about the IAcenter?


Information, Activism, and Resistance to U.S.
Militarism, War, and Corporate Greed,
Linking with Struggles Against Racism and Oppression
within the United States

hmmmmmm...

"Arabicnews.com"

hmmmmmm...

;)

[HELEX]

@Seoulstriker

So can name any sources for your claims that DU is no bad thing?

[Seoulstriker]

@Seoulstriker

So can name any sources for your claims that DU is no bad thing?

did I ever say that DU is not bad?

[Trigger]

@Seoulstriker

So can name any sources for your claims that DU is no bad thing?
Hundreds of destroyed Iraqi tanks and AFVs support the claim that DU is fantastic! p-)

[chauncy republicans]

helex,
Why cant you give me these numbers and why are you so sensetive about my post ? Perhaps you are a troll who's arguments don't pass the logic test. I will expect you to respond in a shrill fashion and even lie to prove your pathetic point (the US is evil). Your post would be positively received at DU where small minds think alike. Your time would be better spent painting "No more Bush" or "Down with America" signs and comiserating with your pothead friends. In case I didn't make it clear..Go pound sand.


Fondly yours
Clint
P.S. Go defeat some more Roman Legions.
Why dont you go out and find the information yourself? That is if you are able to. From your posts, I get the impression that you dont know how to go out and find factual information. Whenever some one has a so-called anti-American( :roll: ) post they are flamed and told to prove it. So far us, "Anti-Americans" :roll: have been the only ones proving our points with actual information. So I would like to see the "proud patriots" (Yeah, sure you are :roll: ) use fact to back their views up. Dont think it will ever happen though...unless you think Fox news counts as a credible source. :cantbeli:

[KalleBalleSvartSk@lle]

"World Socialist Website"

hmmmmmm...


how about the IAcenter?


Information, Activism, and Resistance to U.S.
Militarism, War, and Corporate Greed,
Linking with Struggles Against Racism and Oppression
within the United States

hmmmmmm...

"Arabicnews.com"

hmmmmmm...

;)

I just used the first hits I git on altavista, there were a couple more to chose from if you question the reliability of the sources.

And for trigger, it doesn't just affect the iraqi population, it affects coallition soldiers aswell, even if their time of exposure is much shorter.

Why care so much about "dirty bombs" if DU isn't dangerous?

[chauncy republicans]

"World Socialist Website"

hmmmmmm...


how about the IAcenter?


Information, Activism, and Resistance to U.S.
Militarism, War, and Corporate Greed,
Linking with Struggles Against Racism and Oppression
within the United States

hmmmmmm...

"Arabicnews.com"

hmmmmmm...

;)

I just used the first hits I git on altavista, there were a couple more to chose from if you question the reliability of the sources.

And for trigger, it doesn't just affect the iraqi population, it affects coallition soldiers aswell, even if their time of exposure is much shorter.

Why care so much about "dirty bombs" if DU isn't dangerous?
Oh every body knows "Gulf War Syndrome" is just some kind of joke.(Being sarcastic, very, very, sarcastic...)

[Seoulstriker]

"Gulf War Syndrome", last I checked, is more related to the exposure to chemical and biological weapons traces. That's why only people from the Gulf War got it and that's why people who are around DU frequently don't got it.

[Trigger]

Why dont you go out and find the information yourself? That is if you are able to. From your posts, I get the impression that you dont know how to go out and find factual information. Whenever some one has a so-called anti-American( :roll: ) post they are flamed and told to prove it. So far us, "Anti-Americans" :roll: have been the only ones proving our points with actual information. So I would like to see the "proud patriots" (Yeah, sure you are :roll: ) use fact to back their views up. Dont think it will ever happen though...unless you think Fox news counts as a credible source. :cantbeli:

The burden of proof is on the author of this thread (HELEX) since he's the one making the accusations.
'You get the impression...'? What are you? Telepathic? Are you so pompous as to imply that you can tell all about people by a few lines of type? Miss Cleo is out of a job soon if that's the case.
Is 'Fox News isn't credible' the only thing that comes out of your cockholster when you're pissed?

[HELEX]

Is 'Fox News isn't credible' the only thing that comes out of your cockholster when you're pissed?


The burden of proof is on the author

So now you have to proof Foxnews is a credible source? rofl

[Trigger]

That wasn't even a good attempt at avoiding your duty to provide some hard evidence.
Next. :roll:

[ibstolidude]

Having certainly been "exposed" to depleted uranium I have been very curious to its effects.

A common misconception is that radiation is depleted uranium's primary hazard. This is not the case under most battlefield exposure scenarios. Depleted uranium is approximately 40 percent less radioactive than natural uranium. Depleted uranium emits alpha and beta particles, and gamma rays. Alpha particles, the primary radiation type produced by depleted uranium, are blocked by skin, while beta particles are blocked by the boots and battle dress utility uniform (BDUs) typically worn by service members - most clothing will affect the same result. While gamma rays are a form of highly-penetrating energy , the amount of gamma radiation emitted by depleted uranium is very low. Thus, depleted uranium does not significantly add to the background radiation that we encounter every day.
The Toxicology of delpeted uranium is much greater a threat. Depleted uranium is a heavy metal that is also slightly radioactive. Heavy metals (uranium, lead, tungsten, etc.) have chemical toxicity properties that, in high doses, can cause adverse health effects. Depleted uranium that remains outside the body can not harm you.

I suggest you look here
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp150.html

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du_ii/


http://www.janes.com/regional_news/europe/news/jdw/jdw010108_1_n.shtml

http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jdw/dutoxic010112_1_n.shtml

[HELEX]

That wasn't even a good attempt at avoiding your duty to provide some hard evidence.
Next.

So go to Page 1 of this thread and read my Postings :cantbeli:

If that is not enough for you, type "U 238" into google... ;)

[Early Chow Recruit]

DU is the end of the earth
Global warming is Americas fault
The ice age is comming
America is evil blah blah ****ing blah

By the way helex just because you suffer from german guilt (remember the 1940's ? I'll bet you do) you are a troll, you always will be a troll and you will die a bitter little man still living with your parents. I realize that after losing two world wars that your relatives started you must resort to a pasive agressive stance. Oh well pal just remember that if this dosn't work out you could always blame the Jews, wait a minute that didn't work either. Get out more and stop doing what you're doing it will make you go blind and will grow hair on your palms.

Oh and by the way I'm really sure that a lying sack of **** regime like sadams would lose alot of sleep over children getting cancer.

ta ta for now and stay away from the goats

Chauncy turd burgular lay off the gay ****ing smiley things

love Cint

[Trigger]

That wasn't even a good attempt at avoiding your duty to provide some hard evidence.
Next.

So go to Page 1 of this thread and read my Postings :cantbeli:

If that is not enough for you, type "U 238" into google... ;)
:cantbeli: < Yeah that's my reaction every time you post.

[HELEX]

@Early Chow Recruit


DU is the end of the earth
Global warming is Americas fault
The ice age is comming
America is evil blah blah f*** blah

So the United States is not responsible for global warming because it produces the largest amount of CO2?

[Trigger]

Moderators, please lock this thread. HELEX forgot his meds again!

[TALOS]

Is 'Fox News isn't credible' the only thing that comes out of your cockholster when you're pissed?


The burden of proof is on the author

So now you have to proof Foxnews is a credible source? rofl
Read it Helex, he never said it was or wasnt, he asked if your comment was the only thing that you could come up with. Big difference.

[Seoulstriker]

So the United States is not responsible for global warming because it produces the largest amount of CO2?


hey! wait a minute, CO2 causes global warming?? :cantbeli: boy, do you have a lot to learn. :cantbeli:

[HELEX]

@Seoulstriker

So can you tell me what else is to blame?

http://www.gfdl.gov/~tk/climate_dynamics/climate_impact_webpage.html

http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=65

Now Im really curios what you are trying to tell me...

[chauncy republicans]

DU is the end of the earth
Global warming is Americas fault
The ice age is comming
America is evil blah blah f*** blah

By the way helex just because you suffer from german guilt (remember the 1940's ? I'll bet you do) you are a troll, you always will be a troll and you will die a bitter little man still living with your parents. I realize that after losing two world wars that your relatives started you must resort to a pasive agressive stance. Oh well pal just remember that if this dosn't work out you could always blame the Jews, wait a minute that didn't work either. Get out more and stop doing what you're doing it will make you go blind and will grow hair on your palms.

Oh and by the way I'm really sure that a lying sack of **** regime like sadams would lose alot of sleep over children getting cancer.

ta ta for now and stay away from the goats

Chauncy turd burgular lay off the gay f*** smiley things

love Cint
I'm glad there are other Americans on this forum that post very credible and thought provoking information ( :P even the right wingers too :P ) so that people like you dont taint the representation of this country.

[Early Chow Recruit]

Chumpy,
I too am glad that you are here to prove that the gay population exists in the US. Don't you have a rally to attend or maby some fury little animal needs a crusader. I hope that one day we can have this discusion face to face and I can provide you with some wall to wall counseling. By the way how are things going at the kerry headquarters ? You might want to give jane fonda a call.

[Seoulstriker]

http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=65

Now Im really curios what you are trying to tell me...



hahahahahah! i'm really surprised you linked to that globalwarming.org page, as it tells an interesting story. :D




Is global warming occurring?





According to Accu-Weather, the world’s leading commercial forecaster, "Global air temperatures as measured by land-based weather stations show an increase of about 0.45 degrees Celsius over the past century. This may be no more than normal climatic variation...[and] several biases in the data may be responsible for some of this increase."



Satellite data indicate a slight cooling in the climate in the last 18 years. These satellites use advanced technology and are not subject to the "heat island" effect around major cities that alters ground-based thermometers.



Projections of future climate changes are uncertain. Although some computer models predict warming in the next century, these models are very limited. The effects of cloud formations, precipitation, the role of the oceans, or the sun, are still not well known and often inadequately represented in the climate models --- although all play a major role in determining our climate. Scientists who work on these models are quick to point out that they are far from perfect representations of reality, and are probably not advanced enough for direct use in policy implementation. Interestingly, as the computer climate models have become more sophisticated in recent years, the predicted increase in temperature has been lowered.


Are humans causing the climate to change?





98% of total global greenhouse gas emissions are natural (mostly water vapor); only 2% are from man-made sources.



By most accounts, man-made emissions have had no more than a minuscule impact on the climate. Although the climate has warmed slightly in the last 100 years, 70% percent of that warming occurred prior to 1940, before the upsurge in greenhouse gas emissions from industrial processes. (Dr. Robert C. Balling, Arizona State University)



A Gallup survey indicated that only 17% of the members of the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Society thought the warming of the 20th century was the result of an increase in greenhouse gas emissions.


If global warming occurs, will it be harmful?





The idea that global warming would melt the ice caps and flood coastal cities seems to be mere science fiction. A slight increase in temperature -- whether natural or mankind induced -- is not likely to lead to a massive melting of the earth ice caps, as sometimes claimed in the media. Also, sea-level rises over the centuries relate more to warmer and thus expanding oceans, not to melting ice caps.



Contrary to some groups' fear mongering about the threat of diseases, temperature changes are likely to have little effect on the spread of diseases. Experts say that deterioration in public health practices such as rapid urbanization without adequate infrastructure, forced large scale resettlement of people, increased drug resistance, higher mobility through air travel, and lack of insect-control programs have the greatest impact on the spread of vector-borne diseases.



Larger quantities of CO2 in the atmosphere and warmer climates would likely lead to an increase in vegetation. During warm periods in history vegetation flourished, at one point allowing the Vikings to farm in now frozen Greenland.


What are the policy proposals?





The U.S. agreed to a 7% reduction of CO2 emissions from what they were in 1990 -- a target to be met by 2008-2012. This agreement would result in massive restrictions on energy use and large taxpayer-funded subsidies for new technologies.



The Clinton Administration has supported a system of tradable permits to be used by companies that emit CO2. These permits could be bought and sold inter-nationally, giving companies an incentive to lower emissions and thus sell their permits. But this system would require massive international oversight on the order of a worldwide EPA to track CO2 emissions, and the costs to consumers would still be high.



Because of the devastating effects that global warming policies will have on economic growth, the treaty that was discussed in Kyoto in December 1997 currently excludes developing nations. However, the US Senate has voted 95-0 against supporting a treaty that doesn’t include developing nations.


What economic impact will the proposals have?





According to a report by the Department of Energy, stringent targets to reduce fossil-fuel emissions in the US will cause energy-intensive industries, including steel, iron, chemical, rubber and plastic, to flee from the developed countries to undeveloped countries, taking with them hundreds of thousands of jobs.



Carbon taxes will cause relatively large income losses in the poorest one-fifth of the population. The poor, because they spend a greater proportion of their income on necessities, would have few ways to cut back to compensate for higher living costs.



Stabilizing emissions at 1990 levels by 2010 would reduce the growth of US per capita income by 5% per year.(Gary W. Yohe, Wesleyan University)



The burden would fall on many individuals and families and would be unfair in that it would be quite unrelated to income, wealth or ability to pay. Instead, the burden would be determined by energy use patterns and circumstances, such as distance from work, condition and energy efficiency of homes, automobiles, and appliances.



Senior citizens on fixed incomes would find their energy costs escalating and their income dwindling.


Will the policies actually stop global warming?





By all estimates, only severe reductions in global CO2 emissions -- on the order of 60 percent or more -- will alter the computer forecasts. The resulting economic dislocations would be tremendous, potentially outweighing the negative impacts of even the most apocalyptic warming scenario.



If the policies do not include developing nations the result will likely be a reallocation of emissions to developing nations, not a reduction of emissions.



If the entire world is included and CO2 emissions are severely restricted, the science is not clear what impact, if any, it would have on the world’s climate.



way to go, man. :D woot woot woot woot woot

[ibstolidude]

According to former Greenpeace Director Patrick Moore, the environmental movement has been hijacked by political activists. "They're using environmental rhetoric to cloak agendas like class warfare and anti-corporatism that, in fact, have almost nothing to do with ecology," Moore says.

Moore says scientists have an incentive to scare people, because they need to keep their fund-raising machinery going. So, they exaggerate problems to persuade keep the money coming in.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations' environmental study group, and its former Chairman Robert Watson, say global warming could be devastating. "It will threaten agriculture, especially in developing countries, water resources. … It will increase sea level and displace tens of millions of people in coastal regions."

The media imply that scientists agree with all the dire predictions, but do they?

A group of 1,600 scientists signed a letter warning of "devastating consequences" if we don't quit our lowdown, polluting ways and curb global warming.

But I bet you hadn't heard that a group of 17,000 scientists signed a petition saying there's "no convincing evidence" that greenhouse gases will disrupt the Earth's climate.

Despite what we hear from the media, there is no consensus that global warming is harming the planet. Some climatologists point to the often-overlooked fact that huge piles of funding are at stake.

"Let's imagine there's a Senate hearing, and the senator who disburses the funds goes to the administrator of NASA and says, 'I've heard global warming is the most serious problem confronting mankind. Can your agency use another $2 billion a year to study this thing?' What's he gonna say? No?" asks Pat Michaels, a research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia.

Even if greenhouse gases were restricted, at a potential cost of trillions of dollars to U.S. taxpayers, it is estimated that this would prevent a rise in temperature of only a fraction of a degree.
John Stossel

http://www.ncpa.org/~ncpa/ba/gif/ba230a.gif
I beleive the verdict is still out.
http://www.ncpa.org/~ncpa/ba/ba230.html
http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=68
http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=215

[HELEX]

"Global warming will be the greatest environmental challenge in the 21st century." - Vice President, Albert Gore.

[Fox2]

"Global warming will be the greatest environmental challenge in the 21st century." - Vice President, Albert Gore.

Didn't he say that in New York, on the coldest day in 10 years? :lol:

[Ratamacue]

"Global warming will be the greatest environmental challenge in the 21st century." - Vice President, Albert Gore.

And the fact that he said that proves what?

[ibstolidude]

"Global warming will be the greatest environmental challenge in the 21st century." - Vice President, Albert Gore.
Well allow me to be the first to admit that US politicians are just as likey to be ill informed as their foreign and other national counterparts...
Or even more likely that they (any / all politicians) will play to their audiences.

Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg, once a member of Greenpeace, argued that predictions of the world heading for ruin are wrong. In 1997 he set out to challenge acclaimed economist Julian Simon who refuted environmentalist claims that the world was running out of resources. Lomborg discovered that the data on a whole supported Simon. "The Skeptical Environmentalist," Lomborg's new book is a composite of graphs, charts and statistics that factually show the earth's environment is steadily improving.

His book asserts among other things that the global warming issue is overblown. In short he attests, "Things are getting better." In his presentation, Lomborg said that global warming is a real issue, but suggested that the prime danger is the Kyoto Treaty, which he cites as a grand waste of money. He said, "Essentially Kyoto will do very little to change global warming. On the other hand Kyoto will be very expensive. It will cost anywhere from $150-350 billion a year, and that's a lot of money when compared to the total global aid of $50 billion a year. Basically, just for one year of Kyoto, we could give clean drinking water and sanitation to every person on earth. This would avoid 2 million deaths a year, and assist half a billion people from not getting seriously ill each year."

Now THAT would have my vote! Any politician that I think would do THAT, would most likely guarantee my vote.

[Beowulf]

"Global warming will be the greatest environmental challenge in the 21st century." - Vice President, Albert Gore.

And the fact that he said that proves what?

It proves that he's scraping the bottom of the quote barrel. As well as completely ignoring both of Stoli's posts. The first thoroughly addressing DU. The second providing interesting links and info concerning global warning.

The jane's article was interesting, and could have made for a good discussion, but instead was turned into more flame bait; as well as Helex's typical one liners criticising everything "US"

[Seoulstriker]

Helex just got owned.

[KalleBalleSvartSk@lle]

this thread has turned out the way i expected it to with "let's insult each other with non-topic thing".
Inhaling DU isn't good for you.
The difference between Iraq and fx Bosnia and Kosovo is the climate, in Iraq the wind blows around dust sand and other small particles like DU.
Bosnia and Kosovo has a more humid climate with trees, rain etc that shortens the distance particles can fly through the air.
Agent orange was also conscidered safe, it still is when it comes the US goverments reparation payments to Vietnam.
For the global warming, I wouldn't just blame the US even though they've refused to sign a load of protocols, and is a major contributor to all sorts of pollution.
Wether the greenhouse effect exists or not is something I can't tell, there are indications it does. I don't think it's a good idea to release unnaturaly large amounts of CO2 (or other polutants) into the atmosphere anyway.
To use old cliches like "duh you lost two wars blahbalblah..." is a cheap way out, comparable with "duh you killed the indians" and "duh you couldn't defeat a poorly armed guerilla of peasants in Vietnam".
Note that I use citations, so don't say I mean those things (even if it may be so p-) ) they're just illustrations of the maturity level.

[ibstolidude]

The difference between Iraq and fx Bosnia and Kosovo is the climate, in Iraq the wind blows around dust sand and other small particles like DU. Bosnia and Kosovo has a more humid climate with trees, rain etc that shortens the distance particles can fly through the air.
Based upon your arguement the effects would be less profound by all scientific study.
"Exposure to depleted uranium occurs primarily through inhalation, ingestion, and to a lesser degree, external irradiation.[3] When depleted uranium rounds strike a hard surface, small pieces can fracture off and ignite, producing depleted uranium oxides in the form of a very fine dust. Most of this material settles close to the impact site and the remainder is rapidly diluted and dispersed by the effects of wind and weather. The very fine DU oxide dust can be inhaled by anyone nearby at the time of impact or resuspended and inhaled later. We all breathe in and consume in food and water small quantities of more radioactive natural uranium every day. While breathing or ingesting very large doses of natural or depleted uranium could cause kidney problems or damage lung tissue,"
http://www.deploymentlink.osd.mil/du_library/du_balkans/du_balkans_s02.htm - dispersal would dillute the amount ingested and lower the risk of harm.



Agent orange was also conscidered safe, it still is when it comes the US goverments reparation payments to Vietnam.
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/phs104.html - The US government does infact recognize it as unsafe, however:
Title 38 of the United States Code prohibits veterans from suing the government for injuries suffered while in the military. A class action suit was filed in behalf of veterans in 1979 against the chemical companies and settled out of court. The final funds in this legal action were distributed by 1992. (settled out of court in 1987 for $180 million.) Additional attempts to sue the manufacturers have been attempted, and have been prohibited by the courts. The most strongly fought of these legal battles, Ivy vs. Diamond Shamrock was supported in behalf of the plaintiff by attorney generals in all fifty states, the Supreme Court, however, refused to hear the arguments and that case ended in 1992. In the parlance of the court, the issue is "res judicata" or "the matter is settled".

In addition:
http://www.lewispublishing.com/vacomp.htm
http://www.vba.va.gov/bln/21/benefits/herbicide/ - while I certainly do not believe this exonerates the US government, nor do I feel enough has been done, your claim is not quite accurate.

[KalleBalleSvartSk@lle]

I understand you point ibstolidude, just trying to explain why there isn't an great increase in cases of cancer in the former Youguslavian countries where DU-ammunition also have been used.
Sure dispersion lowers the concentration of DU but it also spreads it, how high amount someone must inhale/ eat/ drink to get sick, or how long the particle has to stay in the body to cause cancer or other illnesses is hard to say.
About agent orange, my point was mostly to say that it was seen as safe, about the reparations to Vietnam was based on a documentary I saw on Tv (don't remember it's name so I can't use it as hard facts), where it was said that the US goverment denies that agent orange had caused birth defects etc in Vietnam.

[ibstolidude]

I understand you point ibstolidude, just trying to explain why there isn't an great increase in cases of cancer in the former Youguslavian countries where DU-ammunition also have been used.
Sure dispersion lowers the concentration of DU but it also spreads it, how high amount someone must inhale/ eat/ drink to get sick, or how long the particle has to stay in the body to cause cancer or other illnesses is hard to say. - the links I posted do discuss the amounts that have been proven to produce the ill effects - The dangerousness is w/out a doubt, however the "facts" are often mis-represented in attempts to further agendas. (A common tactic by most ANY political organization)


About agent orange, my point was mostly to say that it was seen as safe, about the reparations to Vietnam was based on a documentary I saw on Tv (don't remember it's name so I can't use it as hard facts), where it was said that the US goverment denies that agent orange had caused birth defects etc in Vietnam.
I do not doubt what you saw is as you remember or as you shared it, however it was liklely dated - this is from the Veterans affairs office of the US DOD.

In addition, monetary benefits, health care and vocational rehabilitation services are provided to Vietnam veterans' offspring with spina bifida, a congenital birth defect of the spine. A new law authorizes health care and monetary benefits to children of female veterans who served in Vietnam for certain additional birth defects (2001)
It is from the link I posted earlier.

KalleBalleSvartSk@lle - thanks for sharing that which you had seen/read.

[HELEX]

Ok, Im now totally convinced.

DU is healthy and global warming is a good thing. :cantbeli:

[Ratamacue]

Ok, Im now totally convinced.

DU is healthy and global warming is a good thing. :cantbeli:

Do you have any reading comprehension skills at all?

[EvanL]

Helex.
ABout turn and depart.
I think your argument is lost.

[Metak]

Depleted uranium in Kosovo:
http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/du-watch/us_gov_about_du.htm

[ibstolidude]

Depleted uranium in Kosovo:
http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/du-watch/us_gov_about_du.htm
Several of those quotes are taken directly form their original works out of context. Those original works are posted in the links I provided. Other than the actual investigative works cited (which I too cited and Ru took out of context) the rest of the words are fluff and opinion.

the work uses no facts, only opinion and fluff to marginalize such excerpts such as

The UNEP team concluded that "with the Beta and Gamma radiation measurements, the Team was unable to detect any wider area of contamination. The contamination was limited to the specific DU impact holes and to the actual sabots and penetrators found at the sites."

taking convenient excerpts from one work to discredit and strategically removing excerpt form another. It is obvious the purpose of the work isn't to investigate but rather to make a point.

There is no question that there is toxicity of the ingested/inhaled DU, however it has become glaringly obvious that there are those to choose to marginalize the reality and exaggerate the risks for their own agenda. Efforts should be made to recover and remove the substance when feasable, efforts should be made for EFFECTIVE lower cost alternatives, however lets not pretend that it is the leading cause of "50,000 US Veterans maladies" or that it is this mass cancer causeing agent that some would use to lead us to hysteria.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

There has been development work on new Tungsten alloys that has been sponsored by the US DoD and ongoing work on guns that use higher breach pressure's that can fire Plain Jane Tungsten at higher velocities making it just as effective as DU. The DoD has plans for the newer Tungsten alloys to used as an alternative to DU in peace keeping and close support missions.

[M_S]

Global warming is not a ferry tale, if the sea level rise 1 meter the Ukraine would get under water, not to mention almost all coastal areas!

People not believing in global warming is like people not believing in evolution, just wait and say were is good when **** happens!

[radon]

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-1.htm

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/images/figspm-1.gif

Whats this then? Ibsolitude. Seriously i dont know what to believe about this.

[fred_engles]

As far as DU goes - I strongly suspect that respriatory DU is nasty stuff (especially since these (http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2002/110p51-59hahn/hahn-full.html) three (http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/1998/106p465-471miller/miller-full.html) studies (http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2002/110p337-342kurttio/kurttio-full.html) seem to show some fairly strong links). The IOM (http://books.nap.edu/books/030907178X/html/159.html), on the other hand, says that no link has been firmly established - I would defer to them, but it seems that there has been important research since that study.

On the global warming issue - among serious scientists of the issue, there are many disagreements about how exactly human-caused global warming will play out, or exactly how much a threat it is. However, there seems to be quite broad agreement that it is a real phenomenon. As far as good web links, I'm tempted to link to the Pew Trusts, who fund a fair amount of work in the area, but they'd probably be seen as biased. Instead, I point you gentlemen to "The New Scientist" (http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/climate/), which maintains a pretty good archive of articles on the subject. You may also want to check out this (http://www.besis.uaf.edu/regional-report/regional-report.html) somewhat older and more regional report from the University of Alaska, as well as what is probably the best source of all for this type of information, the Woods Hole (http://www.whoi.edu/) Institute. Finally, the NSF (http://www.nsf.gov/) has some interesting stuff, if you use their search engine.

[ibstolidude]

Whats this then? Ibsolitude. Seriously i dont know what to believe about this.
how about the worlds most accurate readings of temps? i.e. via sat?

http://www.ncpa.org/~ncpa/ba/gif/ba230a.gif

Before you post please take the time to read.

[OldRecon]

The pros and cons and working principles of DU APFSDS rounds are explained in a quite instructive way in:

Clancy, Tom. - Armoured cav : a guided tour of an armoured cavalry regiment. - New York : Berkley books, 1994. - ISBN: 0-425-15836-5. - P. 10 - 11

In source given above, dust from DU designated with the chemical formula UO2 (which perhaps means something like Uranium dioxide?) is flatly stated as being highly toxic, yet the penetrative and pyrotechnic qualities of the material are so good, compared to the alternatives, that the powers that be apparently are willing to put up with the environmental hazards of the material in return for the edge DU rounds give against enemy armour on the battlefield.

As for use of APFSDS rounds I remember there was a lot of writing about a new Israeli APFSDS round for the 105 mm gun (then standard NATO calibre also) on their tanks, when IDF armour repeatedly came out on top in clashes with Syrian T-72s during the Israeli invasion of southern Lebanon in 1982.
Was that APFSDS round DU or tungsten?

[Seoulstriker]

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-1.htm

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/images/figspm-1.gif

Whats this then? Ibsolitude. Seriously i dont know what to believe about this.



ooooooohhhh, tough break, man. you just shot yourself in the forehead:

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/fig7-final.gif
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/fig8colour.gif
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/fig8-bw.gif


Mr. McIntyre obtained the underlying data set from Professor Michael Mann of the University of Virginia. Based on some apparent difficulties experienced by Mann's associates in supplying the data set, he surmised that it was possible that no one had ever previously requested the data set and that it would be a worthwhile endeavour to try to replicate the famous graph.



In the summer of 2003 he contacted Ross McKitrick, an Associate Professor of Economics at the University of Guelph and coauthor of Taken By Storm: the Troubled Science, Policy and Politics of Global Warming, to discuss his findings to that point. They joined forces to write up the results and publish them. Their paper has been published in the British journal Energy and Environment.



Their conclusion, after detailed study of the Mann et. al. data base, is that the “hockey stick” graph is an artefact of poor data handling, selective use of sources, reliance on obsolete versions of source data and erroneous statistical calculations.




check-mate, SEOULSTRIKER!!! woot woot woot

* cracks the whip *



basically, the people who made the 'hockey-stick' graph, which is the foundation of global warming politics today, fudged some of the data. WHOOPS! look above for the corrected graphs.


ouch for you, bro. :D you are MY bitch, now! :lol:




(summary: it was hotter in the 1400s and 1500s than it is today.)

[wholagun]

I though that DU weapons were being replaced with Tungston which has simaulr properties to U but minus the halflife.

I heard that bombs were not longer being coated with DU but Tungston and the same goes for anti tank rounds.

[fred_engles]

Whats this then? Ibsolitude. Seriously i dont know what to believe about this.
how about the worlds most accurate readings of temps? i.e. via sat?

http://www.ncpa.org/~ncpa/ba/gif/ba230a.gif

Before you post please take the time to read.Satellite measurement is nice and all, but, as your graph demonstrates, it hasn't been around very long at all. Specifically, your graphic covers only a single decade. Global warming, if it exists, is a longer-term process. A graph of a single decade means very little in that context. Radon's graphs go quite a bit further back - and are therefore, while slightly less precise for each datapoint, a more meaningful picture overall.

On Edit: Seoul, don't celebrate your 'victory' too soon. McMann, et al responded (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/paleo/EandEPaperProblem.pdf) to the McIntyre/McKitrick claims. McIntryre/McKitrick of course responded to that in return, and the whole matter is still ongoing.

[Seoulstriker]

Global warming is not a ferry tale, if the sea level rise 1 meter the Ukraine would get under water, not to mention almost all coastal areas!

People not believing in global warming is like people not believing in evolution, just wait and say were is good when **** happens!


1) the Greenland Ice Sheet during the 1920s-1930s underwent a very high increase in temperature, yet there were no problems with ice breaking or any change in the structure.

2) global warming is HARDLY agreed upon by scientists. in fact, only 15% of meteorologists believe it to be happening.

3) global warming is a POLITICAL issue. some people believe in it because, as others have stated before, they are anti-capitalist, environmentalist, anti-US (kyoto as an example)

[Seoulstriker]

Whats this then? Ibsolitude. Seriously i dont know what to believe about this.
how about the worlds most accurate readings of temps? i.e. via sat?

http://www.ncpa.org/~ncpa/ba/gif/ba230a.gif

Before you post please take the time to read.Satellite measurement is nice and all, but, as your graph demonstrates, it hasn't been around very long at all. Specifically, your graphic covers only a single decade. Global warming, if it exists, is a longer-term process. A graph of a single decade means very little in that context. Radon's graphs go quite a bit further back - and are therefore, while slightly less precise for each datapoint, a more meaningful picture overall.

On Edit: Seoul, don't celebrate your 'victory' too soon. McMann, et al responded (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/paleo/EandEPaperProblem.pdf) to the McIntyre/McKitrick claims. McIntryre/McKitrick of course responded to that in return, and the whole matter is still ongoing.


oh, I'm very familiar with the M&M audit and the work of MBH98. Have you read the actual response of M&M to the Mann response? M&M proved that many of their statements were outright lies and the proof is revealed.

you're right, the debate is still on, but MBH98 is in BIG trouble if there are inconsistencies in the data/analysis.


(and for the others: the M&M audit is HUGE as it will probably prove that the centerpiece of global warming policy (MBH98) is misconstrued.)

[fred_engles]

2) global warming is HARDLY agreed upon by scientists. in fact, only 15% of meteorologists believe it to be happening.

3) global warming is a POLITICAL issue. some people believe in it because, as others have stated before, they are anti-capitalist, environmentalist, anti-US (kyoto as an example)
On #2: I think you are (erroneusly) refering to this (http://archive.greenpeace.org/climate/database/records/zgpz0638.html) GreenPeace study.

On #3: Some people, maybe. If you are saying, however, that all people who believe in global warming do so only for political reasons, then you are an idiot.

On edit: I love the phrase 'M&M audit.'

[ibstolidude]

While ground-level temperature measurements suggest the earth has warmed between 0.3 and 0.6 degrees Celsius since 1850, global satellite data, the most reliable of climate measure-
ments, show no evidence of warming during the past 18 years. Even if the earth's temperature has increased slightly, the increase is well within the natural range of known temperature variation over the last 15,000 years. Indeed, the earth experienced greater warming between the 10th and 15th centuries - a time when vineyards thrived in England and Vikings colonized Greenland and built settlements in Canada.


And the point of the graph is to show that a "snap shot" of data can mean anything - as was posted earlier. The reality of the concern is marginal at best.

I refer you to my earlier posts. I am not going to re-state an arguement already stated.

and as you stated
and the whole matter is still ongoing
which is nothing more that my original statement "I beleive the verdict is still out. " - the reality is the majority of scientists involved in the research have statede that the results are inconclusive to support Human-caused global warming or do not support the idea.

And as I posted earlier when we consider over the past 150 years, human-generated carbon dioxide could have played only a small part in any warming, since most of the modern warming occurred prior to 1940 - before most human-caused carbon dioxide emissions - and compare it to world starvation, disease, cancer, aids/hiv, and other real world killers - it is an insult to spend money and resources of any magnitude on this likley to not exist problem. 0.65C is what the arguement is essentially over - 0.65c.

check the numbers in the world on malaria related deaths.

[Seoulstriker]

2) global warming is HARDLY agreed upon by scientists. in fact, only 15% of meteorologists believe it to be happening.

3) global warming is a POLITICAL issue. some people believe in it because, as others have stated before, they are anti-capitalist, environmentalist, anti-US (kyoto as an example)
On #2: I think you are (erroneusly) refering to this (http://archive.greenpeace.org/climate/database/records/zgpz0638.html) GreenPeace study.

On #3: Some people, maybe. If you are saying, however, that all people who believe in global warming do so only for political reasons, then you are an idiot.

2:
A Greenpeace poll shows that a worryingly high proportion of climate scientists

a greenpeace poll is as reliable as the polling done by Newsweek in the 1970s that the majority of meteorologists believe that we're entering the next ice age.

Newsweek .pdf (https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/pzavisla/hostedmilitaryimages/coolingworld.pdf)


how about a Gallop poll (extremely reliable) that says that ~15% of meteorologists at accuweather believe that global warming is occurring.



3: I'm saying that the policy advocates have their own agendas which are not in line with the science.

[Truthsayer]

A short note:

I don't give a crap if the is any prove of global warming or not. That is completely besides the point.

Any country that doesn't work against putting out toxics and pollution in the air should be 'dragged into the forrest and shot', so to speak.

And please, for the love of God, don't post any links as to how great pollution is.

Any reason any country wouldn't agree with any limits on amount of tons per day (per capita?) they can release would be money. We all know it, even though we might pretend otherwise.

[Seoulstriker]

A short note:

I don't give a crap if the is any prove of global warming or not. That is completely besides the point.

Any country that doesn't work against putting out toxics and pollution in the air should be 'dragged into the forrest and shot', so to speak.

And please, for the love of God, don't post any links as to how great pollution is.

Any reason any country wouldn't agree with any limits on amount of tons per day (per capita?) they can release would be money. We all know it, even though we might pretend otherwise.

see, i think you nailed the political side of the global warming debate really well.

CO2 is hardly a greenhouse gas. Methane is 22 times as strong of a greenhouse gas. and there are MANY more effective greenhouse gases than CO2. why is CO2 being harped upon? it's associated with combustion (power, cars, SUVs, industry, capitalism).

[Truthsayer]

If you mean by political side is "all polititians are only lining up to fill their own pocket", then you are correct.

And since you posted a correction about CO2 in context with my post, let me state: There are far more dangerous pollution going on besides CO2. I have and will never say anything else. I'm talking about the big picture now, not your little squabble over DU, CO2, Koyte or so...

[Seoulstriker]

If you mean by political side is "all polititians are only lining up to fill their own pocket", then you are correct.

And since you posted a correction about CO2 in context with my post, let me state: There are far more dangerous pollution going on besides CO2. I have and will never say anything else. I'm talking about the big picture now, not your little squabble over DU, CO2, Koyte or so...

exactly. but the other sources of pollution are not directly from the 'best' culprit: capitalism. that's why CO2 is being attacked and not the other pollutants. What's ridiculous is that any additional CO2 put out into the atmosphere is absorbed in the bio-sphere anyways. and we're talking a LOT of CO2. and man-made sources of CO2 are like 2% of the total CO2 output of the earth anyways...

You're right, there are definitely different pollutants that we should be worried about.