Disturbing levels of uranium in Afghan populations

sorabji.com: Are there any news?: Disturbing levels of uranium in Afghan populations
By semillama on Tuesday, May 27, 2003 - 02:21 pm:

By eri on Tuesday, May 27, 2003 - 04:23 pm:

    WTF? I mean, these people have the same symptoms but different test results and all show uranium in them? That's just fucked up. What are we doing to test the people who are potentially harmed by this and make sure those harmed get the proper health care they need? After all, we did this to them, even though most of us didn't know about it, so we do have some obligation to make sure they are allright.

    This is something that can be treated, right? I mean, this isn't something that will cause permanent damage to them or their offspring is it?

By spunky on Tuesday, May 27, 2003 - 04:26 pm:

    "He said they had the same symptoms as some veterans of the 1991 Gulf war.

    But he found no trace of the depleted uranium (DU) some scientists believe is implicated in Gulf War syndrome."

    It's not the DU, it's got to be something else

By semillama on Tuesday, May 27, 2003 - 05:13 pm:

    Yes, that's what's frightening about it.

    So, either there's some new weapon that uses uranium that we are using that we aren't admitting to, or something really weird is going on.

    Perhaps we already have low-yield nukes and used them in Afghanistan? And the whole recent introduction of legislation to allow the development of low-yield nukes is just a cover to get it approved before this comes out?

    Plus, my best friend is stationed over there. What's going to happen to him?

By spunky on Tuesday, May 27, 2003 - 05:18 pm:

    we may have used some low-yield ones in the bunker-busters.
    I know there was a lot of talk about using them, but had not heard about a final decision.
    I have no idea if we did or not.

    I hope to hell not

By eri on Tuesday, May 27, 2003 - 05:38 pm:

    My post dissappeared!!!!!!

    Another thing that bugs me.....if it isn't the DU thing....do these people and our Gulf War vets and all kinds of other people have something we don't know about as a direct result of these weapons?

    Are we taking responsibility for the damage that these things cause, to the people who didn't do anything wrong, the people fighting for what they believe right, etc.?

    Would we even know what we were doing if we did?

    Am I in a total flu inspired brain fuzz?

By spunky on Tuesday, May 27, 2003 - 05:45 pm:

    "Are we taking responsibility for the damage that these things cause, to the people who didn't do anything wrong, the people fighting for what they believe right, etc.?"

    eri,
    that is a sticky subject.
    Morally, we should be.
    Legally? Historically? No.
    Per the Geneva convention, the cost of rebuilding a nation after a war lies on the shoulders of the defeated nation.
    The conquering nation has a responsibility of occupying a conquered nation and facilitating the rebuilding effort at the expense of the conquered.

    IE, US & Britain rebuilding Iraq using Iraqi Oil.
    This is not some high-minded scheme, it is actually international law.
    We also occupied Japan for 7 years and Germany for 5 before the new government was finally stood up and the economy returned to normal.

By eri on Tuesday, May 27, 2003 - 06:33 pm:

    I was talking about the morality side of it, not the legal side. I think that if we are using bombs that are making these people ill, and our own men, then morally it is our responsibility to make sure they get the proper care afterwards. Then again, I don't think it is morally right to use weapons we know will poison the innocent population, either. These weren't exactly that dire of circumstances. Not saying that we shouldn't have been there, just saying it isn't worth hurting the innocents as much as we apparently have.

By wisper on Tuesday, May 27, 2003 - 06:55 pm:

    " A small sample of Afghan civilians have shown "astonishing" levels of uranium in their urine, an independent scientist says. "


    dudes, it's so obvious.
    urine, cheapest uranium source ever.

    WE MUST START MINING THESE PEOPLE FOR URANIUM


By eri on Tuesday, May 27, 2003 - 07:44 pm:

    LOL

By Afghan population on Tuesday, May 27, 2003 - 09:15 pm:

    why do we glow in the dark.

By eri on Tuesday, May 27, 2003 - 09:51 pm:

    Glow in the dark? Damn, I'm jealous. I mean, it would save so much money on nightlights for the kids if we just glowed in the dark. Then again, I don't want to spend my summer vacation at three mile island, so I will just keep buying light bulbs for the scooby doo nightlights!!!