["Pride cometh before a fall"]
Reprinted from http://www.stopnato.org.uk/du-watch/bein/alpha.htm
8th February 2001 Depleted Uranium Watch
>From Alpha to Z Net, With BAS In Between Piotr Bein, [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Vancouver, Canada
"A 'sophisticated' smokescreen, a cover-up pretending to sound ever so
militant," commented Rick Rozoff about a January 16th, 2001, article Thinking
About DU by Michael Albert on Z Net. About the author, Rick remarked, "He
really lets NATO off the hook on DU war crimes." I made a diagnostic test of
the last paragraph in the article. It passed the test and definitely did not
sound like anything prepared by NATO or the Pentagon Public Affairs: "What's
wrong with the tools of war [...] as used by the US repeatedly around the
world, of horrifically unjust war, [is the] overall morality and policies of
an unjust and truly rogue state - that is, the US." Yet Rick is no novice, so
I copied the article into my word processor, enlarged the font, and dug into
it. Here is my assessment of what resembles disguised NATO propaganda.
Epidemiologist
Albert identifies DU's chemical toxicity, but unlike NATO spokesmen, he
admits that alpha radiation from ingested tiny DU particles will "assault the
cells more directly and strongly since intensity rises with proximity." But
he obligingly repeats the standard NATO line that alpha particles coming from
outside the body are "stopped even by skin, certainly by boots." He evidently
forgot that people breath. Obviously, he is not aware that DU particles are
so tiny, and therefore persistent in the air under all meteorological
conditions, that even if they did not penetrate the skin's surface, they
would be breathed in for sure, even after rain, causing illness and even
eventual death . This is why cancer rates keep climbing over the years, as
more and more low-level radioactive particles circulate around.
Bring your DU combat boots home, store them under your child's bed as a
souvenir of a victorious martial triumph that made Swiss cheese out of Iraqi
tanks - and watch your child develop Gulf War syndrome or cancer. This
actually happened, as related by a military nurse, Joyce Riley, on an
American Coast to Coast Radio broadcast hosted by Mike Siegel on January
11th, 2001. Other revelations from her about DU can be reviewed there as
well.
Enter Albert-the-epidemiologist. Although armed with "knowledge gleaned only
from examining readily available reports of critics and supporters," he
nevertheless states, "There is no compelling evidence, that is specific to
DU's effects in the field, only intimations about what they might be." In
this instance Albert resembles another amateur "student" of the subject, Ben
Works, the director of the SIRI-US institute who labeled me an "hysteric" and
(yes, you guessed it!) "leftist" when he ran out of "scientific" arguments to
respond to me with. My latest psychiatric check confirmed a severe cognitive
confusion because of the 1999 barbaric NATO attack on Yugoslavia, but my doc
said not a word about hysteria. And my political orientation has as much to
do with "leftism" ("communism" would be the diagnosis between the McCarthy
era and the collapse of the Berlin Wall) as Michael Albert has with his
namesake Einstein.
So pontificates another seeming clone of assorted NATO spokesmen and their
"scientific" mouthpieces: "The fact that people have gotten sick, or gotten
leukemia, in countries that have their infrastructure obliterated, that have
had all manner of chemical plants blown to pieces and scattered to the winds,
and that are shrouded in metals, gasses, and other battlefield waste
including but not even remotely limited to DU, doesn't implicate a specific
cause as against all others." Which harks back to the "other factors" that I
predicted a year and a half ago would be pulled out to cover up NATO's DU
crimes in the Balkans.
Blaming the "other factors" is easy to do when contending with leukemia,
which can have a half a dozen or more causes besides radiation. Perhaps
Albert would volunteer to assist the cause of science at this point and sniff
a hefty dose of DU dust at his next party? This would be a controlled
experiment, no "other factors" involved, except perhaps for some booze and
other inebriants and stimulants of choice. "It's a technical and not a
political determination," declares Albert (not Einstein) and proceeds to
political arguments, perhaps a habit acquired from composing polemical tracts
on Z Net. What is the scale of damage due to DU? Albert has a non-political
answer. To impress the reader with the depth and range of his scientific
approach, he insists that, "as far as fact is concerned, we don't know out of
the tens of reported deaths and the hundreds of reported illnesses how many
are due to DU radiation or to the chemical toxicity of DU, or due to other
heavy metals or pollutants, or due to innumerable other likely causes
including the destruction of civilian infrastructure, which has extraordinary
health consequences (quite apart from the sanctions in Iraq, which have
exacerbated all these problems enormously)." Neat. Just what NATO needed.
Never mind the over 33 thousand deaths among almost 700 thousand Gulf War
veterans from combined causes, including DU. Well over 100 thousand of the
same group are in line for premature death or suffering for the rest of their
lives. Even if DU was the aetiology for only 10 percent of the cases, that
would mean a whopping umpteen thousand military casualties, from a war that
supposedly was "septic"' and virtually did not cost one American life. Who
cares anymore about the far larger damage sustained by Iraqi civilians and
combatants? The Balkans might bring a toll of hundreds of thousands in the
long-term, based on increased population density and, hence, greater exposure
rates. No wonder NATO hyped up their naive Western public with grotesquely
inflated accounts of hundreds of thousands of Kosovo Albanians allegedly
perishing from "Serb genocide". Having achieved this propaganda gambit, in a
bean-counter's wrap-up of their "humanitarian intervention" they would trade
off DU casualties against the atrocities of "Milosevic" and show that it was
"still worth it."
Bunch of Leftists
But I am no epidemiologist, oncologist or molecular biochemist. Let's see
what the scientists say from a January 26th, 2001 conference in Athens on the
DU health risk subject. (Don't rush to the NATO website, you will not find it
there.)
Mr. E. Sideris, a radiobiologist at the Democritus Institute, said that the
action of internal alpha particles could lead to "extensive degeneration in
the DNA." He ended his talk with the admonition, "only a sick mind could
design a weapon of this sort." Sick minds at Z Net? No way!
Dr Maria Sotiropoulou-Arvaniti, president of the Greek section of Physicians
Against Nuclear War, said the radioactivity from the explosion of DU shells
was very different from that at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, there still
was an increase in leukaemia in southern Iraq, and a significant increase in
other diseases. She also said the uranium missiles used in Bosnia in
1994-1995 had not yet wreaked their full effect, and that banning radioactive
weapons, as well as nuclear weapons, was the only way we were to survive as a
species. Are you there, Mr. Albert? Do you get it now why the "leftists"
latched on to this "uranium" issue?
Dr. Catherine Euler (another "leftist", although from good old democratic
England) pointed out the fraudulent use of science in cover-ups of illnesses
from low-level radiation persisting all over the globe after 1950s and 1960s
nuclear tests, reactor accidents, and uranium mining and processing. A
mathematical model extrapolating from the external acute exposures of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors is the favourite among "scientists" on
nuclear industry paycheques and grants. However, several studies have shown
empirical support for what Dr. Chris Busby's cellular response model; very
low doses actually cause more harm than a higher dose, up to a certain point.
The only way to contribute towards a settling of the dispute is to carry out
an independent epidemiological survey, not another desk study. Dr. Euler
outlined the study suggested by Dr. Rosalie Bertell, a veteran in the battle
against the low-level radiation nightmare. So, Mr. Albert, how is that? The
facts have been known for decades. Dr. Bertell is already grown grey in
service to the truth, yet the nuclear mafia has been effectively preventing
empirical studies that would only prove - something they already know darn
well - their crimes.
Dr. Theophilou, a nuclear physicist who had worked for twelve years in a
European Union atomic fission lab, said we know enough about them to condemn
DU munitions, and that epidemiology was not required, but that more molecular
biology was. With the addition of only one alpha particle, the health of the
individual was at risk. Theophilou emphasised how energetic alpha particles
were, and that they could therefore damage cells. Erroneous copies of cells
would be produced, causing cancers and leukaemia. If the alpha particle
damaged the DNA, then erroneous copies would be produced forever afterwards.
He was extremely concerned when he heard there were particles of Pu (not poo,
Mr. Albert, but plutonium) mixed with the DU.
Referring to dust particles 1-10 microns in size, Theophilou said they can
reach "all the different areas of our body, and most are insoluble." Harmful
reactions could result from the entry of uranium to the stomach. He said the
dust could be transferred up into the atmosphere and travel very far, in the
same way that dust from the Sahara has been found in Greece. Gee, what a
"leftist hysteric" this Dr. Theophilou!
A professor of nuclear physics at Athens University, Dr. A.K. Geranios, said
several labs performed tests on alpha exposure effects on cells, and that the
alpha energy seemed to travel only as far as one or two cells, and therefore
caused limited damage. However, the current model used to estimate the risks
from radiation may not be correct, he said. He spoke about how some radiation
limits were set not according to their biological effects, but by economic or
financial considerations. Radiation standards had continuously dropped since
the 1930s: "We have tended to underestimate risks." Radiation risks were not
one-off events, but continued as long as the decay continued. To wait until
we have further proof of the harm of DU was "utterly fallacious," he said,
"and until then we must make sure the weapon is abolished."
According to the oncologist Rigatos, "No matter what the quantity, we know
uranium may be carcinogenic." There have been studies dating back to 1902
showing the relationship between radiation and cancer, and Ukraine's health
minister had reported an increase in leukaemia after Chernobyl. We are now
seeing "localised nuclear war," Rigatos said, referring to the DU employed in
wars since 1991.
Professor K. Pangalos listed several genetic abnormalities attributable to
DU. They would become apparent in the third or fourth generation. He
suggested that those countries using DU must ban these weapons if "they don't
wish to mourn the consequences in their populations." Dr. Dimistris Moghnie,
who had spent ten years working as a doctor in Iraq after the Gulf War,
completed the grim picture with cancer statistics. He said cancer cases in Al
Basarah (Basra, in southern Iraq) had increased from 1,713 in 1991 to 22,000
in the year 2000. In some districts, they had increased even more
dramatically during the same period.
Own Soldiers
So much for civilians. Back on the Z Net website, Albert-the-moralist
returns, asking, "What about the US military's attitude toward its own
soldiers?" and answers with the obvious, "Soldiers are fodder. Generals don't
take up residence on the field of combat, it's too dangerous." But a few
sentences on, Albert seems to lose his common sense and says, "The aim of US
war is to destroy without US casualties - and they actually do a rather good
job both of destroying and of minimizing US casualties." I read the sentence
again; no, it did not say "good job of destroying its own troops." I would
recommend a phone call from Z Net to the US Gulf War veterans association to
help get down to earth from the Z clouds. Albert wonders, "Is the US military
stupid or blind enough to use DU, not to the moral consequences that they
don't care about, but to the political consequences of using DU, if it is as
portrayed by its detractors? Maybe. [...] But I haven't seen enough to make
me believe it." He has not seen enough. Obviously. If you don't look, you
don't find. The US military is neither stupid nor blind. That 's why they are
trying to cover up so hard: Because the political consequences are creeping
out from every crack. And the surfacing of political consequences spells
"liability" and "genocide".
The Z Net editor shows his true colours when he expresses the doubt, "Why
should the case of DU wherein the impact is seemingly relatively low
alongside one of the most barbaric instances of chemical and biological
warfare in history [...] rise to such prominence in the media, and even on
the left?" This must be the prime question PsyOp professionals are currently
wrestling with in designing their propaganda.
Albert strains his rightiZt brain further, "Moderately affecting our troops
or civilians and not only those of 'enemies' is not justification for hugely
enhanced leftist focus." If instead of delving into the difference between
their right and left brain lobes, Z Net scribes followed the events, they
would have noticed that "leftists" and non-affiliated people like myself
"focused" on NATO in Iraq and Balkans ever since the above's four-corner star
showed up in the regions in question to correct ostensibly misguided and
intractable "humanity". During the time of Khrushchov, we would be called
"Soviet agents". Albert's focus on the dividing line between hiZ right and
all others left, fogs up his search for "the cause of the left's heightened
interest" in DU. He rejects the obvious contention that "the grotesque
immorality of the use of toxic materials" could be the reason for "heightened
attention from seasoned leftists" because such use is supposedly no surprise
to them. Having so put a question mark over the rationality of "leftists,"
Albert proceeds to convince his reader that "the relative impact of DU,
however great, is modest to minuscule compared to the impact of the bombing
per se, or the sanctions per se." I gather Albert-the-researcher concluded
this after examining the "evidence" from the NATO DU website.
StrategiZing
Albert's conclusion: Leftists must believe that focusing on DU is a "good way
to build generalized opposition," or else abandon the quixotic crusade to ban
uranium weapons. He then embarks on showing how futile such a "leftist"
campaigning would be. What follows might as well come from the PsyOp analysis
of a project titled "DU harmless even if Lord Robertson died of it."
He notes that for a campaign to be strategically valuable it has to be
embraced by "some sectors of the public." Presumably that sector Albert and Z
Net belong to?
Activism must also contribute to moral permanence and social values. "Does DU
dissent do that?" Albert-the-rhetorician queries. He believes that maybe if
the anti-DU campaigners spoke more about the generalised motives of war, then
they would have a better chance of success combating DU. If, in addition, the
information presented continually improved one's understanding of the much
greater violence perpetrated during the Gulf War, the Iraq sanctions and the
NATO bombings, and of US foreign policy in general, the chance would be
greater still.
One could think that Albert wishes anti-DU campaigners well. Do not be
fooled. Just follow the ruses that, again, plant doubts in the reader's mind
about the rationality and objectivity of the anti-DU activists, who may be
making "wrong claims". Or DU dissent might "degenerate into irrational
anti-science prejudices." Whatever putative science it is Albert claims to
uphold, it is based on a fairly glaring ignorance of several decades of
scientific research, and is based on an irrational and counterintuitive
understanding of the human survival instinct. His positions being what they
are, he might as well be the master-mind behind the NATO "information"
website about DU.
And finally comes the punch: Albert contrasts the "leftist" anti-DU
transgressions with "rightful skepticism of establishment 'expert'
testimony." Since he is not leftist (surely in this sense) and does not
accept the scientist evidence that the establishment covers up, he must be a
self-proclaimed "Know It All About DU Health Risks," particularly in
contradistinction to the 'other' factors.
I can't help remarking that Albert's seemingly anti-war article contains
puzzling statements, not unlike his mentor Chomsky's writings against NATO
"humanitarian interventions" which persistently refer to "Serb atrocities,"
for which proofs are not forthcoming despite the NATO countries' heroic
forensic efforts to prove the unprovable. However hard the authors at Z Net
may be trying to pose as intellectuals and thinkers, their arguments just do
not stand up to the most elementary tests of common sense and scientific
fact.
Lightbulb
After writing this brief reflection I noticed right above Albert's own
article on Z Net main page a link to a 1999 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
disinformation piece on DU by two professors of (what did you expect?) public
affairs, Steve Fetter and Frank von Hippel. The authors proudly announced in
that pseudo-scientific article that "detailed calculations whose results are
discussed here are to be published in Science & Global Security." The
calculations must have been "right," if the essay was posted on NATO DU site.
It looks like the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists must be another
contractor of NATO PsyOp, since they published William Arkin's accolades
about NATO "smart" bombs against "dumb" Serb targets, to which I had the
pleasure of replying. [See http://emperors-clothes.com/news/arkin.htm ]
A lightbulb lit up in the left half of my leftist brain: Albert must have
drawn inspiration for his revelatory intellectual opus on DU from Fetter and
von Hippel!
(copyleft: reproduce and acknowledge the source)
This page: http://www.stopnato.org.uk/du-watch/bein/alpha.htm
_______________________________________________
CrashList website: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
