Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by BFG 9000, Jun 23, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  2. Because they knew it was a load of crap and if they jumped up and down about it they would look silly.

    That is the point.

    There are places in the UK where you cannot dig because of the threat from chemical agents left over from WW1 and 2.

    No significant WMD.

    Nice headlines for Fox but when you read it all you see that is sh1t and the US knows it, that is why they have kept it low key. Sen. Rick Santorum is grand standing and should fall flat on his face.
  3. A feeble attempt from the administration to whip up morale and support from the population in these times of 'War Apathy'?
  4. Were they found or were they planted?
  5. I know of only one IED that alledgedly used a Sarin filled shell, even that is iffy at best(Sigact, but no follow up). I have been present when a WP IED was triggered, luckily it hadnt been stored in an upright position & had degraded considerably. Santorum's a schmuck in jeopardy of losing his re-elction bid, possibly a desperation measure on his part.
  6. You're right on the money. Santorum's trying a Hail Mary with this one.
  7. The coalition of the willing's intensive use of depleted uranium (half-life 4.5 billion years) sort of puts this WMD 'threat' into perspective. In fact 'friendly forces' are doing their bit to contaminate far flung environments with multiple lethal agents.

    Here's a quote from this site:

    Depleted uranium is chemically toxic. It is an extremely dense, hard metal, and can cause chemical poisoning to the body in the same way as can lead or any other heavy metal. However, depleted uranium is also radiologically hazardous, as it spontaneously burns on impact, creating tiny aerosolised glass particles which are small enough to be inhaled. These uranium oxide particles emit all types of radiation, alpha, beta and gamma, and can be carried in the air over long distances. Depleted uranium has a half life of 4.5 billion years, and the presence of depleted uranium ceramic aerosols can pose a long term threat to human health and the environment
  8. Some how I think some one with greater knowledge on the subject will shoot this down in flames. 4.5 billion years half life?

    You should have mentioned all the batteries we drop, plastic water bottles and general crap dumped in the desert.

    edited to add, your talking crap again.
  9. 1) U-235 has a half life of 704 billion years (
    2) DU, by definition has <0.2% U-235.
    3) Because of the long half-life it hardly actually emits anything, therefore radiologically the effects are negligable.

    Admittedly there are toxilogical problems with it in the same way that there is with lead containing aerosols (the old leaded petrol).
  10. Oh come on Frenchperson - this isn't even slightly true - not up to your usual thought provoking standards I'm afraid. Have you ever seen a DU strike? Have you ever seen the results - and I don't mean on TV? Ceramic aerosols? If that's all your worried about, I suggest you may not care enough about Mother Earth and globalisation, for starters!
  11. Another board i persue instead of having a life, claim the wmds are all in syria and are being used in sudan :?
  12. A half life of 4.5 billion years is exactly why depleted uranium is not radiologically hazardous. It's perfectly safe to handle. You wouldn't want to breathe it in, but you wouldn't want to breathe in lead dust either, or asbestos. You will also find the depleted uranium is used as ballast in ships, and very occasionally in dentistry.

    Radon is radiologically hazardous, because it has a half life of 3.8 days.

    An awful lot of guff is emitted about DU, usually by people who don't even have an A-level physics level of understanding of radioactivity.
  13. Was half expecting to open this page to discover

    "Just kidding..."

    Anyway yep a uranium fuel rod can be held in ones hands with little effect (wether you'd want to lick it or not is the true question) and rubbish about 100% increases in cancer from iraq mostly coming from "" and other such crap are just irritating drivel
  14. Er, a Royal Society independent study begs to differ:

    "A further important potential hazard arises on the battlefield when fragments of a DU penetrator that has impacted or pierced a tank cause shrapnel wounds. Small pieces of shrapnel embedded deep within tissues can be difficult or hazardous to remove and a cohort of US soldiers are being studied who have embedded DU fragments resulting from 'friendly fire' incidents in the Gulf War. The radiation (my italics) from these embedded fragments and the uranium released by their slow dissolution, results in potential radiological and chemical hazards. Finally, there can be direct irradiation from DU penetrators, either to soldiers who handle them, or the crews of tanks loaded with DU munitions, but also to civilians who return to the area and come into contact with intact penetrators, or fragments of penetrators, left on the battlefield."

    Who is emitting 'guff'? The independent experts appointed by the Royal Society, whose collective qualifications probably amount to more than A-level physics....or your good self?

    Over to you...
  15. Note my bold. So everything is a "potential" hazard, which is a term used to mean "we have not measured any effect but we think there should be one because we don't like nasty soldiers firing DU around the place"
    . There is an "potential" radiological hazard going on a holiday to Cornwall, flying transatlantic, or wearing an old-fashioned glow in the dark watch with paint containing radium (1,620 yr half-life, almost 3 million times as radioactive as DU), and many other activities.

    Oh, and here is the decay chain for U238:


    I see no gamma. Kind of stuffs your source that says it's gamma active, doesn't it?