Here's another good one.

http://202.157.177.234/helencaldicott.wmv

What's good about it? What's your argument? Do you actually have an argument? This is a discussion board, not just a place to post links.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

But Dr Caldicott is a scientist David. Doesn't that mean you believe that she lies?

__________________
Any fool can ask a profound question that takes a wise man decades to answer.

Well, not her. She's obviously one of the few that are telling the truth as David sees it.

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

David C, tell us what your conclusions are, don't just post links.
You've been told about that.
Why can't you just summerize what's in the video, and only use the link as a reference?

You're not practicing good debate tactics.

__________________
I calculated the odds of this succeeding versus the odds I was doing something incredibly stupid...and I went ahead anyway. - Crow T. Robot

Godspeed, John Glenn. - Scott Carpenter

And these atomic bombs that science burst upon the world that night were strange even to the men that used them.
- H.G Wells, The World Set Free

To the conspiracy crowd, radiation is a big Boogey Man that inspires terror and death in all who encounter it. - JayUtah

Frankly I can't be bothered watching a 40 min video when the OP can't even be bothered with making a point about his conclusions around the topic in the video.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

This thread reminds me of a job I had at college. I was charged with retrofitting used computers for students to rent during the year. Parents and their freshman kids would show up and we would customize a computer for their use, and one freshman girl sat down at a computer whose monitor advertised that it was "Low Radiation". Well, her mother was not about to have her little girl sit in front of a monitor that emitted radiation, so she demanded I change her monitor for another that didn't have those words. I offered that all monitors emit radiation, as does the sun, but she was to have none of that and insisted I protect her little girl.

In the end, she got what she wanted - a different monitor that exposed her daughter to even more radiation during the entire year.

U should have said all the others were HIGH radiation! just like the TV thay had at home.

__________________
'The eye can only see what the mind is prepared to accept'

My Grandfather, an otherwise very intelligent man, thought that it was unsafe to use a microwave as it would irradiate the food. My Grandmother is still not entirely happy that it is safe to eat food directly from the microwaves as it "Will keep on cooking inside of you." I guess that often new fangled technology just is a little overwhelming. I hope we won't be the same in our golden years, but I fear that it's quite likely.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

Your Grandfather's Grandfather probably thought it unsafe to use them newfangled 'lectric burners on the stove, and your Grandfather probably hoped he wouldn't be the same in his golden years, but that it was quite likely.

I'm sure the stuff our grandkids use will scare the tar out of us as well.

"Grandpa, do you want to play with my cloned doll with me??"

Some years back in the office, we had a microwave behind the wall but near our office area. A new worker moved in and raised a fuss about the microwave being too close, going on and on about supposed dangers of microwaves (even at distance), so it was moved to a less convenient location. As we soon found out, he was a heavy smoker, and took frequent breaks so he could go outside to smoke.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

I fully intend to be like that in my golden years ... if only to annoy my kids and Grandkids ...

__________________
Dave

Anyone seen my marbles? Anyone ... ?

If I see something that looks important, I don't see any reason not to just post it if the point made is very clear.
She says that the cancer rate in Baghdad has gone up 700 percent. She says it's because of depleted uranium. If it's not because of depleted uranium, it's because of chemical weapons or something else. All we have to do is veryify whether the cancer rate has indeed gone up 700 percent.

She didn't say that people instantly died when they arrived there. She said that people who live there will probably develope cancer within a few years of arriving there and their offspring would have a good chance of being born deformed. If that's true, that makes it uninhabitable.

In view of what's been happening in Baghdad over the last few years, and the fact that various estimates for the number of violent deaths differ by a factor of ten, how reliable are her statistics? Surely it is easier to count corpses than to count cancer cases?

__________________
"The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head" Terry Pratchett

I have a reason for you. It clearly violates rule #9 of the BAUT forum and is considered a seriuos violation. Should it be reported, it can lead to warnings or bannings. Especially since at least half a dozen people, including myself, have repeatedly warned you about this, I suspect the leniency given would be small.

9. "Hit & Run"

The technique of posting a single provocative statement (or, commonly, a URL to a pseudoscience website) and then never posting again in a thread is greatly frowned upon. This is only a step above trolling. Barely.

This is from the Bad Astronomer himself

__________________
"I have this theory that the Apollo missions were faked when NASA found out that general relativity was wrong because the Earth was expanding due to the Sun's iron core being influenced by magnetic waves from the electric universe after being perturbed by Planet X and thereby causing global warming. Where should I start a thread about this?" ~ ToSeek

"Those are the people that wonder how a thermos knows whether to keep something hot or keep something cold." ~ NeoWatcher

There are some more good documentaries at the bottom of this link. They start where it says, "Invisible War: Part I".

http://www.planetquo.com/Gulf-War-Sy...evel-Radiation

I watched the first one. It like the others I've posted made me wonder about what is happening so I decided to post it so others could see it too. The point it makes is pretty clear. DU shouldn't be used in war because it contaminates the area. I'm just a layman so all I can do is try to verify whether the cancer statistics given are true. If they are, DU is probably as dangerous as alleged in the documentaries.
Who has an opinion on this?

If the truncated link above doesn't work, put these two half links together.
http:
//www.planetquo.com/Gulf-War-Syndrome-Depleted-Uranium-And-The-Dangers-Of-Low-Level-Radiation

Well David C, rest easy, because the last I knew, DU is no longer used.
The substance of choice is tungsten. Got this from people I've worked with when I was in the navy.

In addition to verifing startistics, you should also verify the credibility of the person making the claims.
It's been shown by others here that the person making the claims about DU is not really a credible individual.
You also ought to consider that with claims regarding the moon hoax.

Oh yes, did you not read the post earlier in this thread about the person that mentioned he handled DU with his bare hands (Tunga's post, #47)?
What have you to say about that?

__________________
I calculated the odds of this succeeding versus the odds I was doing something incredibly stupid...and I went ahead anyway. - Crow T. Robot

Godspeed, John Glenn. - Scott Carpenter

And these atomic bombs that science burst upon the world that night were strange even to the men that used them.
- H.G Wells, The World Set Free

To the conspiracy crowd, radiation is a big Boogey Man that inspires terror and death in all who encounter it. - JayUtah

In view of what's been happening in Baghdad over the last few years, and the fact that various estimates for the number of violent deaths differ by a factor of ten, how reliable are her statistics?

It's always a good idea to question the validity of any statistics. For example, it's possible that the statistics are wrong. It's also possible they're right but it's due to detection bias. By that, I mean if medical services are open to more people than before, then more people might be diagnosed with cancer than before while the actual rate of occurrence is the same. In that case, it doesn't mean more people are getting sick than before, it just means that more people are getting proper diagnosis. Before, they may have just died on unknown causes.

Depleted uranium is used as an anti-armor munition. It isn't used all that commonly. I don't recall all that many armored actions in Baghdad, so widespread use of DU there seems unlikely.

David, I sympathize with your concern for the people of Baghdad, but let's look at the numbers a bit before we jump to conclusions.

The first Google hit for depleted uranium exposure
is from the World Information Service
on Energy (WISE) Uranium project. I recommend you take a look at the
main Uranium project page.
Keep in mind this is an anti-nuclear organization.

I won't quote all the exposure rates listed on that page, but I've
pulled out what I think are the most relevant numbers for this issue.

I recall from radiation training that the average annual radiation
exposure per person from background radiation and other sources (diet,
etc) is ~ 360 mrem = 3.6 mSv. The US standard exposure beyond
background for non-rad workers is 100 mrem = 1 mSv per year, and for
rad workers it's 1 rem = 10 mSv per year.

The exposure per individual in an area where DU has been used will
vary circumstantially; dust in the air will affect a larger group of
people over a small time, but bullets embedded in a wall will affect a
small group over a longer time (though I don't think much would be
left of the wall after a 30 mm round ). I think it's safe to
say, that a small fraction of people in the war zone would be exposed
directly to more than the allowable amount of radiation in a short
time.

Some helpful numbers would be how much DU (by weight) has been used
in Iraq, how much per km^2 has been used in areas with the greatest DU
use, and what in forms (by percentage) this DU has been deposited (solid,
dust, potential groundwater exposure). Then you could work out a
quantitative estimate of exposure per person in a given area.

All that aside, there's another hole in your argument. Even if the
cancer rate is verified to have increased 700% since the start of the
war, it is fallacious to assume the increase was solely due to DU -
'post hoc ergo propter hoc'. I contend, that as the dominant exposure
is low-level, symptoms such as cancer rate would not appear in the
short term, and birth defects would not be affected at all (by DU, at
least).

I'll weigh in!

From the same source in my previous post:
So, unless you're committed to continuously handling that DU for a while (we're talking a couple days), you're not going to get close to the allowable dose. You might be in trouble if you had a DU bullet embedded in your tissue though.