US military beats out Disney as happy place to work

[Tez3]

I was stationed in Florida.... and Never Once went to Disney World :uhyeah:

With our troops coming back from Afghan this month and next, Florida and Disneyworld is one of the favourite destinations for them to go on leave to. At Seaworld the audiences are asked to stand in appreciation for the American AND British troops, that bucks our guys up no end! Our service people can also get discounts and government rates in the US at hotels and places like car hire plus when Americans find out that they are British service people who have served in Afghan, Iraq etc they get treated so well and actually thanked for it. Makes a great place for our troops to holiday, so thanks for that guys, much appreciated.

 

[Archangel M]

With our troops coming back from Afghan this month and next, Florida and Disneyworld is one of the favourite destinations for them to go on leave to. At Seaworld the audiences are asked to stand in appreciation for the American AND British troops, that bucks our guys up no end! Our service people can also get discounts and government rates in the US at hotels and places like car hire plus when Americans find out that they are British service people who have served in Afghan, Iraq etc they get treated so well and actually thanked for it. Makes a great place for our troops to holiday, so thanks for that guys, much appreciated.

And well deserved.

 

[d1jinx]

With our troops coming back from Afghan this month and next, Florida and Disneyworld is one of the favourite destinations for them to go on leave to. At Seaworld the audiences are asked to stand in appreciation for the American AND British troops, that bucks our guys up no end! Our service people can also get discounts and government rates in the US at hotels and places like car hire plus when Americans find out that they are British service people who have served in Afghan, Iraq etc they get treated so well and actually thanked for it. Makes a great place for our troops to holiday, so thanks for that guys, much appreciated.

Seaworld use to give free admission with a military ID, along with a few other amusement parks.

AND

I'll drink with a Brit any day.

glad to hear you get the welcome you guys deserve here.

 

[Makalakumu]

It's 'reported', thats not proof of anything. By nature and training I like hard evidence, I want to see that proof and I want colloborating evidence.

Who said it was a blind eye? You are assuming that here at least we didn't know about the bombing and the birth defects, as I said it's been in the media for at least two years, you aren't bringing anything new to the table here. The UK used 1.9 metric tons of depleted uranium bombs in Iraq, that's official btw. We knew that, it was announced in the House of Commons by the Defence Minister. The World health Organisation is one of those which is claiming that it doesn't cause as much damage as you say.

I'm not a scientist so can't argue on the effects of these bombs. I do know however having made a point last night of asking someone who trains with us and is in the Royal artillery what these bombs were. He explained that the depleted uranium is used as ballast in these bombs not as a bomb itself and that the effects weren't known as it was believed that it burned up when the bomb went off. It sounds as if it doesn't but it does seem clear that the using of depleted uranium to poison people wasn't intentional at all but a by product of the bombing. You can argue that the bombing itself was unecessary but that's another argument. The bottom line is that the poisoning is accidental in that it wasn't used as a chemical warfare weapon. I realise that there's still a tragedy out there but it's not the same as you are accusing us of.

1.9 tonnes in 2003, who knows how much more. With the US it's been far more. Also, if major international organizations send groups of doctors to the area to study it and they report what they do, why isn't that good enough for you?

Well, I think you should look into it some more. The health effects were known in the 50s when the idea of using DU in munitions was conceived. Their original purpose was that of last resort if the Soviets sent their armor into Western Europe and they could not be stopped any other way.

When DU is used, it burns and that is what makes it dangerous. The density punches through armor easily and the burning and softness of the metal causes it to spread out as a fireball inside of anything it hits. This burning property is especially useful against structures, which is why it was used so much in Fallujah.

The combining of Uranium and Oxygen creates particles of dust so small that no filter can stop. These particles can be ingested, inhaled, and can contaminate an environment, the food and ground water. The burning begins as soon as the round is fired, so if a soldier happens to be holding or happens to be near the piece of armament, they will breath it in and they do not have adequate safety equipment, no one does.

These particles get inside of a person's body, and the radiation that doesn't penetrate the skin (the alpha particles) easily penetrates cellular tissues. It gets into the blood stream and begins to destroy the body from the inside out. Anywhere this person goes, he brings the contamination with him. Every time he urinates, defecates, leaves his saliva, and ejaculates it is hot. US soldiers from the First Gulf War have reported that their entire families were contaminated by them when they got home.

The use of DU is a crime against humanity. It kills the enemy, the non-combatant, and the soldiers who use it. It repels the mind to think that a government would order the use of this stuff in such a blase way. If they have this little regard for people, what else are they capable of? If they claim to love the troops, how could they do this to them? Check the master you serve and you are going to find that you no longer want to serve that.

If you choose not to look into this or not to even believe what I'm saying, that's your choice. You're health may be on the line and you are hoping that I'm wrong and you can **** in one hand and wish in another. I know which one you'll definitely get.

This goes out to anyone who is active right now. Don't read this and ignore it.

 

[Makalakumu]

"It's reported" means "I get my material from conspiracy web sites".

Imagine going to one of the many DU testing sites that the public can access.

Lay down a blanket and have a picnic with your family there. Do it regularly.

If you think that I'm wrong, would you do that?

Bon Appatit!

 

[Makalakumu]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium

Studies in 2005 and earlier have concluded that DU ammunition has no measurable detrimental health effects.


A 1999 literature review conducted by the Rand Corporation stated: "No evidence is documented in the literature of cancer or any other negative health effect related to the radiation received from exposure to depleted or natural uranium, whether inhaled or ingested, even at very high doses,"[106] and a RAND report authored by the U.S. Defense department undersecretary charged with evaluating DU hazards considered the debate to be more political than scientific.[107]


A 2001 oncology study concluded that "the present scientific consensus is that DU exposure to humans, in locations where DU ammunition was deployed, is very unlikely to give rise to cancer induction".[108] Former NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson stated in 2001 that "the existing medical consensus is clear. The hazard from depleted uranium is both very limited, and limited to very specific circumstances".[109]


A 2002 study from the Australian defense ministry concluded that “there has been no established increase in mortality or morbidity in workers exposed to uranium in uranium processing industries... studies of Gulf War veterans show that, in those who have retained fragments of depleted uranium following combat related injury, it has been possible to detect elevated urinary uranium levels, but no kidney toxicity or other adverse health effects related to depleted uranium after a decade of follow-up.”[110] Pier Roberto Danesi, then-director of the IAEA Seibersdorf +Laboratory, stated in 2002 that "There is a consensus now that DU does not represent a health threat".[111]


The International Atomic Energy Agency reported in 2003 that, "based on credible scientific evidence, there is no proven link between DU exposure and increases in human cancers or other significant health or environmental impacts," although "Like other heavy metals, DU is potentially poisonous. In sufficient amounts, if DU is ingested or inhaled it can be harmful because of its chemical toxicity. High concentration could cause kidney damage." The IAEA concluded that while depleted uranium is a potential carcinogen, there is no evidence that it has been carcinogenic in humans.[112]


A 2005 study by Sandia National Laboratories’ Al Marshall used mathematical models to analyze potential health effects associated with accidental exposure to depleted uranium during the 1991 Gulf War. Marshall’s study concluded that the reports of cancer risks from DU exposure are not supported by veteran medical statistics, but Marshall did not consider reproductive health effects.[113]

Here are some studies used to justify the use of DU. If you believe them, go and join ArchangelM on his picnic. How confident are you that the governments in question are telling the truth on the matter?

 

[Tez3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium



Here are some studies used to justify the use of DU. If you believe them, go and join ArchangelM on his picnic. How confident are you that the governments in question are telling the truth on the matter?

Wow we've certainly gone a long way from the OP here.

You are treating us as if we were children in need of teaching something only you can.

To save having a long, long argument here I think we'd better return to the original subject. I'm not dodging this question, if you want a further discussion and are prepared for scepticism, sarcasm, irony, derision and the possibility of being shot down as you surely will be please make another, new thread.

 

[Makalakumu]

Wow we've certainly gone a long way from the OP here.

You are treating us as if we were children in need of teaching something only you can.

To save having a long, long argument here I think we'd better return to the original subject. I'm not dodging this question, if you want a further discussion and are prepared for scepticism, sarcasm, irony, derision and the possibility of being shot down as you surely will be please make another, new thread.

My original point in response to this article was to make fun of it because all of these things that I've been talking about would indicate that working for the military was NOT a very happy job. I suspected that the article was propaganda and I acknowledged that their might be a kernel of truth to it...and that was the most disturbing thing of all.

I've started DU threads before, Tez3. I've been researching this stuff since I first heard about it in 1995. Those threads always end the same way. People choose to believe what they want to believe not based off of the evidence, but off of some other set of criteria that they cannot or refuse to explain. In another thread, I pressed some members about their hidden criteria in response to global warming and this same pattern was present there as well, but we did get farther to what I always suspected it was then we ever did before.

People believe what they want to believe because it gives them some kind of benefit, the "truth" is irrelevant. The convenience of the moment and the primacy of emotion are more important then reality.

In the end, this leads to people deciding to be satisfied with jobs that cause them to commit crimes against humanity. Again, I submit this thread as an example of how things like the Holocaust can happen...and can happen again.

This thesis strikes to the very heart of this article and is frightfully on topic.

 

[Tez3]

Sigh. You don't know what I believe however nor can you know how far my knowledge of this goes or doesn't. I'm not expanding on it because thats not what this thread is about.

One man's propaganda is another man's recruiting campaign, in fact your posts can also been seen as both depending on what the reader believes.

My accounts of what I know and see every day of service life isn't propaganda. Join up or don't, up to you.

 

[Archangel M]

On yet another tangent. I find that quite a few anti-military types have, let me say adequacy and self-esteem issues. Not all, and not saying anybody on this thread does, but there are quite a few "I could have been but...." types out there. Quite a few try to make up for it through martial arts, paintball, gun nuttery..etc.

 

[Empty Hands]

Here are some studies used to justify the use of DU.

Only studying cancer effects tips the scales a bit. Uranium 238 is not a particularly strong radionuclide. We can use the stuff for microscopy applications without shielding, which we wouldn't do for other isotopes like even the very weak 3H (tritium). Part of that is the extremely long half-life, although that doesn't matter if you get a lot of it together in one place. What I would be more worried about than the radioactivity effects would be the potential for heavy metal toxicity. At the concentrations indicated, you probably couldn't even detect the radioactivity over background - but heavy metal poisoning is far more potent at those concentrations.

 

[Tez3]

On yet another tangent. I find that quite a few anti-military types have, let me say adequacy and self-esteem issues. Not all, and not saying anybody on this thread does, but there are quite a few "I could have been but...." types out there. Quite a few try to make up for it through martial arts, paintball, gun nuttery..etc.

Ah the Walts again :lol:

 

[Archangel M]

If I remember correctly, my in-service DU training stated it was more of an inhalation hazard vs a radiological one. That was a while ago though.

 

[CoryKS]

Only studying cancer effects tips the scales a bit. Uranium 238 is not a particularly strong radionuclide. We can use the stuff for microscopy applications without shielding, which we wouldn't do for other isotopes like even the very weak 3H (tritium). Part of that is the extremely long half-life, although that doesn't matter if you get a lot of it together in one place. What I would be more worried about than the radioactivity effects would be the potential for heavy metal toxicity. At the concentrations indicated, you probably couldn't even detect the radioactivity over background - but heavy metal poisoning is far more potent at those concentrations.

That's just what They want you to believe!!1!

 

[d1jinx]

And I still have never been to Disney World...... hmmmmm....

 

[Tez3]

I fancied going to Disney Paris but have no kids to take and would feel daft going without at least one ankle biter.

 

[Makalakumu]

Only studying cancer effects tips the scales a bit. Uranium 238 is not a particularly strong radionuclide. We can use the stuff for microscopy applications without shielding, which we wouldn't do for other isotopes like even the very weak 3H (tritium). Part of that is the extremely long half-life, although that doesn't matter if you get a lot of it together in one place. What I would be more worried about than the radioactivity effects would be the potential for heavy metal toxicity. At the concentrations indicated, you probably couldn't even detect the radioactivity over background - but heavy metal poisoning is far more potent at those concentrations.

From what I've read, the heavy metal toxicity is part of the symptoms that people are experiencing. The other part is the alpha emissions occurring from inhaled or ingested uranium oxide. Alpha particles aren't not typically harmful, a sheet of paper can block them. Inside the body, in close proximity to cells, these particles are a bigger issue. The body is okay at removing them, but like many other heavy metals, some will always remain and slowly emit radiation inside the body.

 

[Makalakumu]

That's just what They want you to believe!!1!

The Antidote to They

Starts with "I don't know."
Proceeds with understanding bias.
Finishes with acceptance and willingness to change.

Some people can be enlightened with a candle. Others need a flamethrower.

 

[Makalakumu]

I'm not expanding on it because thats not what this thread is about.

This thread is about what I'm talking about. Not everyone or everything falls under that broad brush, but very few have the courage to attempt to differentiate. We're taught to go along with it and heap praise even if it's unearned. My message in response to this article, is think for yourself, judge a person by action and not some pre-existing expectation or stereotype. Judge a job by the actions performed.

Who am I to judge an organization that kills, burns, rapes, and poisons the innocent? Who am I to say that this shouldn't make a person happy?

Who am I if I don't say it?

 

[elder999]

I fancied going to Disney Paris but have no kids to take and would feel daft going without at least one ankle biter.

Oh, go ahead and go. I'm gonna take Rita(that's the wife) and both of our inner ankle biters.