Israel and Whiskey Pete

maybe so close to the border is just a little too close to home to start spreading radioactive dust everywhere. Plus not too much armour in Hezbollah's armoury, err, so to speak. Wonder that stands with the many armed forces' denials that DU poses any health threat at all.

quarsan and DU.

There are repors that the 2nd army of Zion (the first being having the label "US army") used DU.

TITLE: Bunker buster bombs containing depleted uranium warheads used by Israel against civilian targets in Lebanon
By: Dr. Doug Rokke
www: (http://www.uruknet.de/?p=m28056&hd=0&size=1&l=e)
Dr. Doug Rokke is former Director, U.S. Army Depleted Uranium project

See Fisk:
Mystery of Israel's secret uranium bomb
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article1935945.ece

=~=~=~=~=~=
Really, we shouldn't have expected anything less from these butchers.

Out of curiousity, what made you say they didn't use DU?

And the use of cluster bombs with 10-30% failure rate in the last, unnecessary days of the war seems to be a method of deploying landmines for people who don't want to be seen to be deploying landmines.

Israel admitted last week she did use white phosphorous on insurgents in Lebanon.
Depleted uranium is frequently used by IDF, but the real shocker remains the use of ENRICHED uranium munitions in Lebanon.

The Fisk article Tonys Akiller mentions (also here) says:

Both (bomb site samples) have been forwarded for further examination to the Harwell laboratory in Oxfordshire for mass spectrometry - used by the Ministry of Defense - which has confirmed the concentration of uranium isotopes in the samples.

Dr Busby's initial report states that there are two possible reasons for the contamination. "The first is that the weapon was some novel small experimental nuclear fission device or other experimental weapon (eg, a thermobaric weapon) based on the high temperature of a uranium oxidation flash ... The second is that the weapon was a bunker-busting conventional uranium penetrator weapon employing enriched uranium rather than depleted uranium." A photograph of the explosion of the first bomb shows large clouds of black smoke that might result from burning uranium.

Not only does Israel have (secret, unregulated) nukes, she is now being allowed to sodding use them by the world community/UN/IAEA!

700 nanosieverts per hour

More supporting articles that Israel did use DU in Lebanon.

quarsan: Where is your acceptance that your headline post is inaccurate???

The site below also has a link to a video about the issues.
http://www.rainews24.rai.it/ran24/inchieste/09112006_bomba_ing.asp

I phrased the post that way as a comment on the main thrust of the article linked to. It's a rewrite of what the article said.

Israel probably has used depleted uranium weapons in Lebanon. Chris Busby is a bit of a wack though. I'd like to see the M.S. results themselves rather than relying on hearsay as to the presence of enriched uranium. Fisk has absolutely no appreciation of physics if he believes that Israel is testing mini-nukes in Lebabon.

***********
"God, man, horse, dog, woman, rat, then Anonymous".

BUT ITS GROSSLY MISLEADING!

So you know that the reports sayng it didn't use DU are wrong. Yes?

The term min-nukes means one of two things:
1) The nuclear explosion / mushroom cloud type nuke
2) A warhead such as DU shell containing nuclear material.

It is meaning two which people kike Fisk are refering to. Nafeez Ahmed reported recently that Israel had taken posession of bunker busing nukes. He too was refering to the second 'definition'

Whether Dick Cheney decides to call someone a bit of a wack (quite rich that actually!) is irrelevant to the information he is delivering, as is Robert Fisks knowledge of physics. Ad hominem distractions as usual I see.

No, 'nuke' is a colloquialism for nuclear weapon - a weapon that releases energy by virtue of a nuclear reaction. A DU weapon is not a nuke - it is a combination of a kinetic energy weapon and a pyrophoric one - there is no nuclear reaction. It seems quite bizarre that Israel would use enriched uranium in a non-nuclear device - so bizarre in fact that it is far more likely that Busby has got his information wrong. That is why I'd like to see his hard data.

Fisk is drawing on Busby as an authority, when he is not credible as one. The part of Robert Fisk's article pertaining to nuclear devices is nonsense - his knowledge of this area is important if he is writing about it.

***********
"God, man, horse, dog, woman, rat, then Anonymous".

DC. Lay off the plonk.
Who is talking about enriched urianium. LOL. Try reading the posts. It may help. Shiztrael has DU primed munitions. It uses them. The irrepressibly ad hominem shines through yet again. Just like your Dr.Kelly avoidance you avoid mention of the Harwell laboratory. So do you deny that Shitzrael used radioactive munitions? Or like quarsan are you going to keep stum about it?

If your going to be an apologist, at least try and be a good one.

P.S. I was really impressed with the slightly sore thumbish "kinetic energy weapon" and "pyrophoric" words.

Re:enriched uranium. i was refering to reading of the posts towit refered to the DU case, and not the extra issue of enriched uranium. I am sorry that I criticise you for mentioning the very real and obvious reference to enriched uranium mentioned on the forumm. The fault lies entirely with me. Apologies to DC.

Du or enriched uranium, merits some discussion but I want to know by what authority does Dick Cheney say that Chris Busby is a "bit of a wack?" In what capacity do you know him?

"Wack" Busby, as Dick would have us believe (without evidence - naturally enough) says one cannot discount the possibility that the enriched uranium is a 'plant' to discredit the Israeli’s. And yes that possibility is there. But he also says that the stuff is only the product of a nuclear reactor (its also the product of an enrichment facility) so that the possibility of it being planted is virtually zero. One cannot simply stroll into a 7/11 to get ones hands on it.

Israel on the other hand, has that dinosaur - the Dimona nuclear plant and a weapons program, given HUGE assistance by the British.

Title: UK 'cover-up' on Israel's nukes
www: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4515586.stm
Date: 12-Dec-06

Given the fact that the craters formed by Israeli bombardment were HUGE (note: as was the crater left after the Harari bomb!!!! - hummm) and that the US supplied Israel with bunker busters, one can speculate with a reasonable degree of probability that the US or Israel itself is modifying its weaponry. Why? Well it is said that the half-life of enriched uranium (greater content of U235) has a shorter half life and so is more dangerous.
(source: http://web.ead.anl.gov/uranium/guide/ucompound/rad/index.cfm)

Hardly surprising that the Zionist scum would design such a weapon.

It's imperative that these craters are excavated and independently sampled to amass evidence of yet more Zionist atrocities and crimes against humanity.

My opinion that Chris Busby is a wack is based on having read his scientific papers related to low-level radiation, particularly his 'second-event theory', and also his membership of several bodies having important, official sounding names that are none of the kind.

I am aware of the Israeli nuclear weapons, the nuclear weapons plant, and Britain's complicity in its development. However, I'd like to see some evidence that enriched uranium (or indeed any uranium) was used in the case of these craters.

***********
"God, man, horse, dog, woman, rat, then Anonymous".

The data are up on the website of the Low Level Radiation Campaign. The measurements were made at Harwell. Isotope ratio in the soil sample was 108. Toatal U was 13mg/kg. LOD was 0.0002mg/kgU238 and 0.0001mg/kgU235. Instrument was Agilent ICPMS. Diffetnt method alpha spectrometry gave same result in different lab. We have now found EU in a car filter. Check out llrc.org. Thank you. Chris

Dear Dick.

Thanks for the reply, but your still haven’t addressed the ad hominem.

If one is regarded as a wack (by that I’m presuming you mean wacky/bonkers etc) then OK, such characterization often provides a rough(!) guideline as to whether what is being said may(!) or may not have merit. This is the underlying reason why character assassination is effective, but even if he is a wack (which I do not currently agree with), then it is irrelevant in this case because he isn't simply putting forward his personal opinion. He is stating scientific fact. Given that he also mentions, what he describes as a possible ‘attempt to discredit Israel’, it shows very reasonable levels of objectivity.

You dismiss what he writes in his papers, which you say you have read. How you came across them, in what capacity or why you read them isn’t relevant but the fact that you dismiss them means that you hold that your place your nuclear expertise above that of Busby. For us to feel confidence in your dismissal, it would be interesting to know how this expertise compares with that of Busby, and also a comparison of formal qualifications and so forth.

You also mention that Busby is a member of groups which have “important, official sounding names that are none of the kind.” but you don’t give any indication as to why these bodies or organisations hold no importance, nor your authority to confidently assert that claim.
A good comparison might be Nafeez Ahmed, who is the Director of the Institute for Policy Research & Development. Do you also classify that as an organisation with “important, official sounding names that are none of the kind.”? And by the consequence of your argument, can dismiss the work of Nafeez Ahmed??

Getting back to Busby, a critical analysis of what he says leaves no space for dismissal of his words based on your opinion of his wackiness. What he says is perfectly correct and logical. If you could address the substance of his words, and that is regarding the enriched uranium found in craters formed by Israel bombing of Lebanon; Whose uranium is it? Where did it come from? What are the legal and moral aspects of its use? It would be more worthy.

Only then would your perception of Busby’s wackiness have any relevance.