Chemical Weapons In Iraq!

flenser

New Member
AnabolicLab.com Supporter
I couldn't resist the thread title..

U.S. Nerve Gas Hit Our Own Troops in Iraq
By http://www.newsweek.com/user/17218. 3/27/15 at 11:52 AM

During and immediately after the first Gulf War, more than 200,000 of 700,000 U.S. troops sent to Iraq and Kuwait in January 1991 were exposed to nerve gas and other chemical agents. Though aware of this, the Department of Defense and CIA launched a campaign of lies and concocted a cover-up that continues today.

A quarter of a century later, the troops nearest the explosions are dying of brain cancer at two to three times the rate of those who were farther away. Others have lung cancer or debilitating chronic diseases, and pain.

More complications lie ahead.

According to Dr. Linda Chao, a neurologist at the University of California Medical School in San Francisco, “Because part of their brains, the hippocampus, has shrunk, they’re at greater risk for Alzheimer’s and other degenerative diseases.”

At first, the DOD was adamant: No troops were exposed.

“No information…indicates that chemical or biological weapons were used in the Persian Gulf,” wrote Secretary of Defense William Perry and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs John Shalikashvili in a 1994 memo to 20,000 Desert Storm veterans. Strictly speaking, they were right: No weapons were used. The nerve agent sarin was in the fallout from the U.S. bombing or detonating of Iraq’s weapons sites.

Perry and Shalikashvili knew.

As Alan Friedman wrote in The Spider Web: The Secret History of How the White House Illegally Armed Iraq, the Reagan and Bush administrations, which backed Iraq in its 1980-1988 war with Iran, approved of U.S. companies selling chemical agents and equipment to Iraq, including “a huge petrochemicals complex called PC2. Western intelligence also knew that PC2 was capable of generating chemical compounds to make mustard and nerve gas.”

Donald Riegle, a Democratic U.S. Senator from Michigan, held hearings about the veterans illnesses in 1993 and 1994. He told me the decision by Reagan and Bush “to secretly help Saddam Hussein build his biological and chemical weapons was a monstrous strategic error that eventually led to the tragedy of Gulf War Syndrome, which killed and disabled so many unprotected American troops.”

Breathing Poison

During January and February 1991, when the U.S. bombed Iraq’s weapons plants and storage sites, poisonous plumes floated across the desert to thousands of U.S. troops based on the Saudi border. Sirens wailed daily, but officers in charge announced that the chemical-detection alarms were faulty.

They were not.

A Czech chemical-weapons detection unit found “trace concentrations of sarin, a nerve-paralyzing substance” drifting into Saudi Arabia. French, British and U.S. intelligence units found similar evidence.

Tracy Elledge, a former combat engineer and one of the veterans I interviewed, said, “Alarms went off all the time.… Our officers told us they were false and to disconnect them.”

However, Elledge and others were breathing poison.

In a 2012 Neuroepidemiology article, Jim Tuite, a Gulf War illness expert, and Dr. Robert Haley, an internist/epidemiologist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, wrote that “large numbers of U.S. and Coalition military personnel were exposed to levels of sarin … high enough to cause irreversible or other serious, long-lasting adverse health effects.”

Elledge was on a team setting C-4 plastic explosives at Khamisiyah, one of Iraq’s largest weapons sites. “We used timed fuses, which gave us 10 minutes to get a half mile away,” he said. “But even at that distance, the smoke was terrible. And we were sent back in to make sure we got everything. The officers never told us the old rockets were filled with sarin, so we didn’t wear any protective gear.”

Jim Bunker was a lieutenant with the First Infantry Division who had trained as a demolition expert. He told me that “before the DOD blew up the ammunition, it sent papers to the battalion officers and intelligence people with clear markings to help them identify chemical weapons. Then on March 2 or 3, the DOD sent the ordnance disposal team to verify which chemicals were there. We don’t know what they found, because once the troops started demolishing them and getting sick, the reports disappeared.”

Bunker said that when troops first became ill, his battalion commander, Col. John Gingrich, radioed headquarters to find out what was happening. He was told: “It’s the heat.”

“We knew this wasn’t true,” Bunker said. “It was only 85 degrees, and we’d trained in over 100 degrees—without people getting sick like this.” The next day, division commander Maj. General Thomas Rhame and Col. Michael Dodson came to their base. “They told Gingrich to be quiet about the men’s symptoms,” Bunker said.

Dodson, now head of the Armed Services YMCA, did not respond to calls. Rhame, retired and until recently, vice president of the Association of the U.S. Army, told me, “I don’t deny the troops were ill. But I don’t remember that incident and it’s not in my nature to tell a subordinate not to admit something, because it might embarrass us.” Gingrich told me he remembers the issue about the heat, but not that Rhame and Dodson visited the next day. What does Bunker think? “There’s no way for people to admit to what really happened to us.”

Ron Brown, a soldier with the 82nd Division, watched the demolitions from a mile away. “Within 15 minutes, I couldn’t breathe and my head was about to split open,” Brown said. “Soldiers were nauseous, dizzy and had diarrhea and muscle spasms. About 30 of us went to the medic, who gave us Motrin and told us to drink water.”

Later that month, Bunker almost died. As the demolitions continued, his symptoms became more severe. “First, I couldn’t control my muscles,” he said. “But in a couple days, I had convulsions and collapsed. After this, they medevacked me to hospitals in Saudi Arabia and Germany, and then to the U.S.”

Don’t Tell the Press

Bunker is now designated 100-percent disabled. He explains that this means that “your disability prevents you from your full capable earning power for your educational level.”

Brown and Bunker, who run the National Gulf War Resource Center, say none of the soldiers knew what was happening. And the DOD, CIA and VA hid the truth.

For example, on March 23, 1991, the ARCENT NBC (Army Central Command Nuclear, Biological and Chemical) staff sent a secret, now declassified, memo to the XVIII Airborne Corps: “ARCENT has positive confirmation (by urinalysis) of cml (chemical) agent blister casualty in VII corps. We are not to bring this up to the press. If press asks, XVIII abn (airborne) Corps has had no cml (chemical) casualties.”

Later in 1991, UNSCOM (the United Nations Special Commission) found nerve gas in the remains of rockets the U.S. blew up in Khamisiyah and told the Pentagon. In November, although the Joint Chiefs briefed the CIA, other intelligence agencies and the White House, no action was taken. (Six years later, the DOD declassified the UNSCOM memo, posting it on its Gulflink website. Seven months after that, the CIA had it removed—claiming it revealed too much about methods it used to gather intelligence.)

At Riegle’s hearings, when DOD and CIA witnesses admitted that UNSCOM inspectors had found traces of nerve gas at Khamisiyah, they still insisted they “could not confirm that any U.S. troops were at the site.” Also, they claimed they had no reports of “any soldier or civilian experiencing symptoms consistent with chemical warfare agent exposure.” Moreover, they argued that the plumes were too small to pose a great risk.

When UNSCOM went public about the nerve gas, DOD and CIA credibility was becoming compromised. And the Riegle hearings, along with those held by then-Rep. Chris Shays, criticized the VA for its failure to properly care for the veterans.

Thus, in 1997, the DOD wrote to the veterans, admitting that U.S. troops did destroy chemical weapons, that nerve gas was released, and that troops “may have been exposed.” But it also claimed “exposure levels were too low to activate chemical alarms or cause any symptoms.” If they had questions, veterans were told to “call a hotline.”

The CIA insisted it didn’t know about the “possible chemical weapons storage at Khamisiyah … until early 1996.” Moreover, it stated that “no military units were located under the first-effects portion of the plume” during demolitions on March 10 and 11. Also, that “the troops that performed the demolitions had evacuated the area. We know of one that drove briefly through the smoke from the explosion. He had no ill health effects” [italics added].

Because the DOD and CIA still claim troops weren’t exposed to high-enough doses of sarin to hurt them, the VA has denied full disability status to 80 percent of veterans seeking help.

Why must the DOD, CIA and VA lie?

Patrick Eddington, a CIA analyst from 1994 to 1995 who wrote Gassed in the Gulf, resigned when superiors aborted his attempts to reveal the facts. He explained that, “If you’re DOD, you’re admitting your policies contributed to the veterans’ illnesses. If you’re the VA, you’re admitting you don’t know how to treat the vets. If you’re the CIA, you blew another estimate and that’s not something you want on your resume.”

Further, the U.S. would have to admit it sold Iraq chemicals in the 1980s during its war with Iran. The same chemicals that sickened U.S. troops.

From the time the DOD initially admitted that troops may have been exposed, it constantly retallied the toll: In 1996, there were from 300 to 400; from 1997 to 2002, there were 5,000, 20,000, 99,000 and finally 101,752—but still, exposure to “very low levels of nerve gas agents.”

Where Are the Medical Records?

When Brown and others tried to obtain their medical records to prove their illnesses were service-related, they learned that the records had disappeared. In a 2007 letter, Dr. Gary Trogdon, chief of the Public Inquiries Section at the Army’s Historical Resources Branch, informed Brown that Army units were told to destroy the “after action” reports, since “there was no space to ship the paper back to the States.” But, Trogdon said, records were kept at the brigade level. When Brown asked Senator Mark Warner to help, he, too, came up empty-handed.

Bunker insists veterans don’t need their records. “If they’re diagnosed with fibromyalgia or had chronic diarrhea for the past four or five years, it’s considered service-connected. It’s presumptive under the law for Gulf War veterans—even if they can’t diagnose the cause. But the VA still denies veterans claims, because they don’t have their medical records.”

However, Bunker and Brown are hopeful. Bunker says President Obama’s new VA Secretary Robert McDonald recently ordered that studies be conducted to determine if certain illnesses should be reclassified as presumptive.

Brown was able to speak with McDonald—after trying unsuccessfully to reach the previous secretary. Brown noted that “just last month, McDonald wrote me [that] he was extending the date for veterans to file presumptive service-connected disability claims.”

Still, when Brown read a 2014 New York Times article about 600 troops exposed to chemical weapons in Iraq from 2003 to 2011, he called the hotline and was told it was only for newly exposed veterans. When he asked about help for the very sick 200,000 Desert Storm veterans, he was directed to Coleen Baird at Aberdeen Proving Ground, who is studying recent veterans illnesses.

He asked what she could do for them.

Baird said she would refer his request to another office.
 
This is how poorly veterans are being treated. The VA is denying disability claims due to health issues as a result of depleted uranium exposure. They were never warned or instructed how to handle depleted uranium to limit exposure and prevent potential adverse health problems. Documentation, records, and appeals just end up "missing", that support any correlation between exposure to depleted uranium and developing cancer. The DoD still maintains that there is no connection between cancer or any other severe health problems as a result of exposure to depleted uranium. Despite the number of Iraqi vets developing cancer and dying after serving in Iraq, and despite the increase in adverse health problems among Iraqi citizens (including birth defects of children), there is still no connection between uranium and adverse health problems. So they are just calling these people liars or that it is just a strange coincidence I suppose.

And don't forget the whole "stop loss" policy and the VA's neglect of vets suffering from PTSD. They were encouraged to refrain from diagnosing veterans with PTSD and apparently expressed that they did not have the "time to do the extensive testing that should be done to determine PTSD." It is sickening how veterans are being treated. The military industrial complex and warmongers are flourishing off of the Iraqi war but soldiers aren't getting paid nearly enough money to fight in this war. A war that was enacted under false pretenses and now vets can't even receive proper treatment for damages inflicted as a result of the war.

Young people need to be informed about some of the stuff that has happened before making any decision to join the U.S. military. I spoke to a 20 year old college student the other day and he told me we should have just "dropped a huge bomb, and blew up all of Iraq". I asked him if he thought it was alright killing innocent people as well. He replied, "yes, I believe in all out warfare, kill every one of them." I asked him why should we have done that. He replied,"for what they did to us on 9/11 and because they were terrorists following that one guy." I asked which guy. He replied, "the guy who was the leader of Al Qaeda." I asked if he meant Osama bin Laden. He replied, "yeah him." I won't go on about how I corrected him on the events and what response he gave but that goes to show you how ignorant our youth is, and this was a person who was in college and is supposed to be educated. And it isn't just young people, you have whacko school teachers that believe Obama is a sinister Muslim dictator, who was born in a foreign country, and attempted to nuke Charleston.
 
Last edited:
The DoD still maintains that there is no connection between cancer or any other severe health problems as a result of exposure to depleted uranium. Despite the number of Iraqi vets developing cancer and dying after serving in Iraq, and despite the increase in adverse health problems among Iraqi citizens (including birth defects of children), there is still no connection between uranium and adverse health problems. So they are just calling these people liars or that it is just a strange coincidence I suppose.


Int J Epidemiol.
2005 Dec;34(6):1403-8. Epub 2005 Oct 26.
Long-term mortality amongst Gulf War Veterans: is there a relationship with experiences during deployment and subsequent morbidity?
Macfarlane GJ1, Hotopf M, Maconochie N, Blatchley N, Richards A, Lunt M.

Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Gulf War Veterans have previously been shown to have, in the short-term, an excess risk of death from 'external' (i.e. non-disease) causes of death. This study aims to determine whether there remains an excess of non-disease-related deaths in Gulf Veterans, 13 years after deployment, and, for the first time, to determine whether there is a relationship between experiences reported in the Gulf, post-war symptoms, and subsequent mortality experience.

METHODS:
We conducted a cohort study with follow-up from April 1, 1991 (the end of the Gulf War) to June 30, 2004. Participants were 53 462 Gulf War Veterans and a cohort of military personnel, matched for age-group, sex, rank, service and level of fitness, who were not deployed to the Gulf. The outcome measure used was mortality as recorded on the NHS central register.

RESULTS:
There is no difference, 13 years after the end of the Gulf War, in the overall mortality experience of Gulf War Veterans. The excess in non-disease-related deaths previously reported is confined to the initial 7 years of follow-up [mortality rate ratio (MRR) 1.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.06-1.63] rather than the more recent period (MRR 1.05, 95% CI 0.83-1.33). Overall experiences reported during Gulf deployment did not influence subsequent risk of dying, but there was non-significant increased risk of dying from a disease-related death (MRR 1.99, 95% CI 0.98-4.04) associated with reported exposure to depleted uranium and of a non-disease-related death associated with reporting handling of pesticides (MRR 2.05, 95% CI 0.91-4.61). Reporting of morbidity in the health surveys conducted was not related to future risk of death.

CONCLUSION:
The higher rates of non-disease-related deaths in Gulf War Veterans is not evident in the period of follow-up since 1997. Neither the excess morbidity reported in health surveys nor the experiences during deployment significantly influenced future mortality. The two non-significant associations found (reported depleted uranium exposure and disease death, reporting handling pesticides and non-disease deaths) need to be considered in the context of the number of possible associations examined and potential biases-although they are biologically plausible.


Occup Environ Med. 2002 Dec;59(12):794-9.
Mortality among US and UK veterans of the Persian Gulf War: a review.
Kang HK1, Bullman TA, Macfarlane GJ, Gray GC.
Author information
Abstract

Mortality data on Gulf War veterans was reviewed as a means of evaluating the long term consequences of the war. Studies were located from searches of Medline, Proceedings of the Conference on Federally Sponsored Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses Research, Proceedings of the American Public Health Association Annual Meetings, Annual Reports to Congress, and personal contacts with knowledgeable investigators. Data on study design, methods, and results were obtained from published studies of both US and UK veterans who served in the Persian Gulf. The methodology and results of studies are summarised and evaluated. Additional research recommendations based on reviewed studies are presented. It is concluded that in both US and UK studies, mortality from external causes was higher, while mortality from all illnesses was lower among Gulf War veterans in comparison to those of non-Gulf War veterans. Increased mortality from external causes is consistent with patterns of postwar mortality observed in veterans of previous wars. Further follow up of Gulf War veterans and their controls is warranted for evaluating the mortality risk from diseases with longer latency periods.



Am J Epidemiol. 2001 Sep 1;154(5):399-405.
Mortality among US veterans of the Persian Gulf War: 7-year follow-up.
Kang HK1, Bullman TA.
Author information
Abstract

To assess the long-term health consequences of the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the authors compared cause-specific mortality rates of 621,902 Gulf War veterans with those of 746,248 non-Gulf veterans, by gender, with adjustment for age, race, marital status, branch of service, and type of unit. Vital status follow-up began with the date of exit from the Persian Gulf theater (Gulf veterans) or May 1, 1991 (control veterans). Follow-up for both groups ended on the date of death or December 31, 1997, whichever came first. Cox proportional hazards models were used for the multivariate analysis. For Gulf veterans, mortality risk was also assessed relative to the likelihood of exposure to nerve gas at Khamisiyah, Iraq. Among Gulf veterans, the significant excess of deaths due to motor vehicle accidents that was observed during the earlier postwar years had decreased steadily to levels found in non-Gulf veterans. The risk of death from natural causes remained lower among Gulf veterans compared with non-Gulf veterans. This was mainly accounted for by the relatively higher number of deaths related to human immunodeficiency virus infection among non-Gulf veterans. There was no statistically significant difference in cause-specific mortality among Gulf veterans relative to potential nerve gas exposure. The risk of death for both Gulf veterans and non-Gulf veterans stayed less than half of that expected in their civilian counterparts. The authors conclude that the excess risk of mortality from motor vehicle accidents that was associated with Gulf War service has dissipated after 7 years of follow-up.


N Engl J Med. 1996 Nov 14;335(20):1498-504.
Mortality among U.S. veterans of the Persian Gulf War.
Kang HK1, Bullman TA.
Author information
Abstract

BACKGROUND:
Since the 1990-1991 Persian Gulf War, there has been persistent concern that U.S. war veterans may have had adverse health consequences, including higher-than-normal mortality.

METHODS:
We conducted a retrospective cohort study of postwar mortality according to cause among 695,516 Gulf War veterans and 746,291 other veterans. The follow-up continued through September 1993. A stratified, multivariate analysis (with Cox proportional-hazards models) controlled for branch of service, type of unit, age, sex, and race in comparing the two groups. We used standardized mortality ratios to compare the groups of veterans with the general population of the United States.

RESULTS:
Among the Gulf War veterans, there was a small but significant excess of deaths as compared with the veterans who did not serve in the Persian Gulf (adjusted rate ratio, 1.09; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.01 to 1.16). The excess deaths were mainly caused by accidents (1.25; 1.13 to 1.39) rather than disease (0.88; 0.77 to 1.02). The corresponding rate ratios among 49,919 female veterans of the Gulf War were 1.32 (0.95 to 1.83) for death from all causes, 1.83 (1.02 to 3.28) for accidental death, and 0.89 (0.45 to 1.78) for death from disease. In both groups of veterans the mortality rates were significantly lower overall than those in the general population. The adjusted standardized mortality ratios were 0.44 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.42 to 0.47) for Gulf War veterans and 0.38 (0.36 to 0.40) for other veterans.

CONCLUSIONS:
Among veterans of the Persian Gulf War, there was a significantly higher mortality rate than among veterans deployed elsewhere, but most of the increase was due to accidents rather than disease, a finding consistent with patterns of postwar mortality among veterans of previous wars.


Confl Health. 2012; 6: 3.

Birth defects in Iraq and the plausibility of environmental exposure: A review
Tariq S Al-Hadithi,1 Jawad K Al-Diwan,2 Abubakir M Saleh,1 and Nazar P

Abstract

An increased prevalence of birth defects was allegedly reported in Iraq in the post 1991 Gulf War period, which was largely attributed to exposure to depleted uranium used in the war. This has encouraged further research on this particular topic. This paper reviews the published literature and provided evidence concerning birth defects in Iraq to elucidate possible environmental exposure. In addition to published research, this review used some direct observation of birth defects data from Al-Ramadi Maternity and Paediatric Hospital in Al-Anbar Governorate in Iraq from1st July 2000 through 30th June 2002. In addition to depleted uranium other war-related environmental factors have been studied and linked directly or indirectly with the increasing prevalence of birth defects. However, the reviewed studies and the available research evidence do not provide a clear increase in birth defects and a clear indication of a possible environmental exposure including depleted uranium although the country has been facing several environmental challenges since 1980.


Bull Environ Contam Toxicol. 2012 Nov;89(5):937-44.
Metal contamination and the epidemic of congenital birth defects in Iraqi cities.
Al-Sabbak M, Sadik Ali S, Savabi O, Savabi G, Dastgiri S, Savabieasfahani M.

Abstract

Between October 1994 and October 1995, the number of birth defects per 1,000 live births in Al Basrah Maternity Hospital was 1.37. In 2003, the number of birth defects in Al Basrah Maternity Hospital was 23 per 1,000 live births. Within less than a decade, the occurrence of congenital birth defects increased by an astonishing 17-fold in the same hospital. A yearly account of the occurrence and types of birth defects, between 2003 and 2011, in Al Basrah Maternity Hospital, was reported. Metal levels in hair, toenail, and tooth samples of residents of Al Basrah were also provided. The enamel portion of the deciduous tooth from a child with birth defects from Al Basrah (4.19 ?g/g) had nearly three times higher lead than the whole teeth of children living in unimpacted areas. Lead was 1.4 times higher in the tooth enamel of parents of children with birth defects (2,497 ± 1,400 ?g/g, mean ± SD) compared to parents of normal children (1,826 ± 1,819 ?g/g). Our data suggested that birth defects in the Iraqi cities of Al Basrah (in the south of Iraq) and Fallujah (in central Iraq) are mainly folate-dependent. This knowledge offers possible treatment options and remediation plans for at-risk Iraqi populations.


Saudi Med J. 2010 Feb;31(2):163-9.
Neural tube defects among neonates delivered in Al-Ramadi Maternity and Children's Hospital, western Iraq.
Al-Ani ZR, Al-Hiali SJ, Al-Mehimdi SM.


Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

To study the incidence, types, and sites of neural tube defects (NTDs) and its associated maternal and environmental variables.
METHODS:

All preterm and full term live and stillborn babies delivered at Al-Ramadi Maternity and Children's Hospital, Al-Anbar Governorate, Iraq, from the 1st of November 2007 to the 1st of November 2008 were examined for gender, gestational age, NTDs, and associated congenital malformations. Mother's data included age, parity, consanguinity, education, antenatal care, previous medical illnesses, other NTDs history, folic acid supplementation, and diagnostic ultrasound. Incidence was calculated per 1000 births.
RESULTS:

During the study, 33 infants were delivered with NTDs, giving an incidence of 3.3/1000 births. Most were of myelomeningocele and anencephaly types, and thoracolumbar and lumbosacral sites. Two-thirds of the cases found were from consanguineous marriage, 12 NTD's mothers took folic acid during their pregnancy, while none of them received the drug during the periconceptional period. Three mothers had another NTD affected babies before, and mothers 25-34 years old produced most of the NTD deliveries than any other age groups.
CONCLUSION:

The NTDs incidence is still high compared with developed, and some developing countries. High consanguinity marriage and 100% lack of periconceptional folic acid intake needs further study considerations to reduce such morbid and mortal anomalies.
 
I think you mean debunked. You can't argue with the science, son. It is what it is.
Well no, not science. Most of what you posted is statistics. The kind of studies with findings that are, ahem, statistically far more likely to match the preferred result of the funding party.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Benjamin Disraeli (probably).
 
Well no, not science. Most of what you posted is statistics. The kind of studies with findings that are, ahem, statistically far more likely to match the preferred result of the funding party.


If that's the case, you'll have no problem finding studies that refute mine. I'll be eagerly waiting. :rolleyes:
 
Is there some discussion here as to whether the government lies a little bit, some times? This also reminds me of that relative harmless weed killer "Agent orange". Anybody remember all the "science" and statistics about agent orange being safe?
 
If that's the case, you'll have no problem finding studies that refute mine. I'll be eagerly waiting. :rolleyes:
Well, you know as well as I that it MAY be a slight problem in finding some studies in refutation of these. As you know...somebody has to fund studies, it's expensive, it may take a while.
 
Is there some discussion here as to whether the government lies a little bit, some times? This also reminds me of that relative harmless weed killer "Agent orange". Anybody remember all the "science" and statistics about agent orange being safe?
There's a ton of "science" showing how dangerous DDT is, too. Of course, it's not more dangerous than malaria, or even the (patented) insecticides that replaced it. But then, patents, I mean bird eggs, are more important than third world children dieing of preventable disease.
 
Mansato also developed DDT.

Agent Orange was manufactured for the U.S. Department of Defense primarily by Monsanto Corporation and Dow Chemical. It was given its name from the color of the orange-striped barrels in which it was shipped, and was by far the most widely used of the so-called "Rainbow Herbicides".[4] The 2,4,5-T used to produce Agent Orange was contaminated with 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (TCDD), an extremely toxic dioxin compound.
"Better living through chemistry"
(Dupont)
 
I believe there was an issue with the VA not sharing data on cancers with the Cancer Association. Also the VA has a habit of covering up any possible correlation between depleted uranium and cancer. Vets have made disability claims that were of course denied because they state there is no connection between cancer and their exposure to depleted uranium. Then they go so far as to claim that these vets were never stationed in the places (when they were) where exposure to depleted uranium took place. When vets try to provide evidence that they were in fact stationed in these places and that they were in fact exposed to depleted uranium, the VA will go as far as stating that they lost any paperwork that would support the claim (like conveniently losing documentation of hospital stays in the region that they were stationed in). Then when vets make a rebuttal to the VA's decision, the appeals somehow manage to get "misplaced" as well.

https://www.princeton.edu/sgs/publications/sgs/pdf/vonhippe.pdf
http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/pub_meet/en/DU_Eng.pdf
 
Last edited:
Just try and find some information on who supplies the depleted uranium to the Department of Defence. A DOD document states that some of the corporations are not listed. ??? We all know that the DOD, or any government agency, does not produce anything. They work with private corporations.
 
bat-moon-al-powell-photography-usa.jpg
 
Potato - Potaato. STill the point would be to prove that US bombs were not just disrupting Iranian stockpiles. The only cover-up I would see would be that any "US brand" nerve agent would be in their possession. Which could have only be negotiated from another country which we had sold it to..! Uranium who knows.

I see the article today on the Iran Nuke deal which Obama is touting. Sadly the real deception is that it is all distraction while Iran obtains what it needs on the market with its real resources... $$$ $$$$ $$$$$ $$$$$ $$$$$$$ Why the fuck bother to make it.

THIS IS THE PROBLEM FOLKS....

And I seem to recall reading there is PLENTY of depleated uranium in "Conventional Weapons" which are considered "Non-Nuclear" as no fission/fusion is occurring... the technical oversight is that they could just as well be classified as "Dirty bombs". I could be wrong on that one. Hot steel baby... Smokin hot... Or is it Twisted Steel Sex appeal... Whooooohhhh...!!!
 
Well you can still get DDT if you prefer actually. We just sold it all to mexico and south when they banned it mid ninties.. Nice oranges keep ya healthy...!! Drink up..

Mansato also developed DDT.

Agent Orange was manufactured for the U.S. Department of Defense primarily by Monsanto Corporation and Dow Chemical. It was given its name from the color of the orange-striped barrels in which it was shipped, and was by far the most widely used of the so-called "Rainbow Herbicides".[4] The 2,4,5-T used to produce Agent Orange was contaminated with 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (TCDD), an extremely toxic dioxin compound.
"Better living through chemistry"
(Dupont)
 
Back
Top