[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by paigetheoracle

I wasn't thinking of the DU tank shells as being used deliberately to kill civilians but there was a bomb dropped by plane that was displayed prominently on TV when it hit a building at night, completely demolishing it.

)

As far as I know, and I know pretty far since these things are a passion of mine, there is/was no bombs dropped or even made that are encased in depleted uranium. there is no reason to encase a bomb in depleted uranium, it would in no way enhance the effects of the bomb and just make the bomb more difficult to manufacture. They have made special bombs that are very powerful called fuel air devices but they do not use depleted uranium in any way. Depleted uranium is used in armor piercing munitions, it is wasted on any other type of munitions. One of the reason depleted uranium is used on armor piercing munitions is that modern tanks are partially composed of depleted uranium and it takes a very hard dense round to penetrate it. so even if the US hadn't used depleted uranium the standard tungsten tipped shells would have still released uranium vapor and dust when they hit the tanks targets. Depleted uranium tipped shells are effective at a much greater range than tungsten tipped shells. The US has denied that depleted uranium has ever been used in "bunker busting bombs" Lots of people have claimed this to be false but so far no evidence of radioactivity connected with the use of a bunker busting bomb has been shown. In some cases there have even been claims of highly radioactive enriched uranium being used in bombs and even reactor waster but all of these claims have either been proved false or were unable to be verified due to lack of any radioactivity being found. there is a lot of intense emotions and claims being made in this mostly due to unreliable groups using the possibility to radiation to drum up support and to scare people into believing the worst about who ever is being charged. So far no substantiated deliberate use of depleted uranium against civilian targets has ever been shown. Use of these weapons designed to be used in nuclear confrontation should be stopped. But to say they are being used deliberately to increase collateral damage when so many billions of dollars have been spent to curtail such damage is not credible.

[CraigD]

We discussed DU munitions at some length in the thread Depleted Uranium Munitions.

In summary, depleted uranium is used for projectiles primarily because it’s dense and cheap, not for its radioactivity. It’s not very radioactive, having by definition a U-235 concentration of less than 0.2%. By comparison, the minimum U-235 concentration of fuel-grade enriched uranium is around 5%, while the highest grade enriched uranium is as high as 90%. An argument can be made that, uranium being less bioavailable than lead, DU projectiles are actually a less dangerous pollutant than lead ones. Neither pose much risk due to direct human contact, but can be dangerous if allowed to leach into drinking water.

Even assuming a worst case situation of DU and lead projectiles contaminating water supplies, every analysis of which I’m aware shows that the risk of non-exploding projectiles and mines (AFAIK, DU has since the mid 1990s been used only in non-exploding projectiles) is a much greater threat, and that weapon use and cleanup reform efforts would be much better focused on these than on DU.

That said, I’m at a loss to understand what DU munitions have to do with Schauberger or WWII German aircraft. Because large-scale uranium enrichment didn’t begin until after WWII, DU was not common or cheap, so DU munitions didn’t exist in substantial quantities until the 1970s. Given that he died in 1958, it’s unlikely that Schauberger ever heard of it, or that any WWII weapon every used it.

[Moontanman]

I guess you needed to read teh post where depleted uranium first came up

[paigetheoracle]

Originally Posted by CraigD

We discussed DU munitions at some length in the thread Depleted Uranium Munitions.

In summary, depleted uranium is used for projectiles primarily because it’s dense and cheap, not for its radioactivity. It’s not very radioactive, having by definition a U-235 concentration of less than 0.2%. By comparison, the minimum U-235 concentration of fuel-grade enriched uranium is around 5%, while the highest grade enriched uranium is as high as 90%. An argument can be made that, uranium being less bioavailable than lead, DU projectiles are actually a less dangerous pollutant than lead ones. Neither pose much risk due to direct human contact, but can be dangerous if allowed to leach into drinking water.

Even assuming a worst case situation of DU and lead projectiles contaminating water supplies, every analysis of which I’m aware shows that the risk of non-exploding projectiles and mines (AFAIK, DU has since the mid 1990s been used only in non-exploding projectiles) is a much greater threat, and that weapon use and cleanup reform efforts would be much better focused on these than on DU.

That said, I’m at a loss to understand what DU munitions have to do with Schauberger or WWII German aircraft. Because large-scale uranium enrichment didn’t begin until after WWII, DU was not common or cheap, so DU munitions didn’t exist in substantial quantities until the 1970s. Given that he died in 1958, it’s unlikely that Schauberger ever heard of it, or that any WWII weapon every used it.

Don't be confused - totally separate point, not directly related to Schauberger and I'm sorry you didn't get it.

As for DU - are you saying that the cases of deformed babies reported after the actual attack stage of the war, were not to do with the shells but some other cause? I've seen photos that reminded me of the after affects of the Japanese bombs but are you saying it's more likely to be something like inbreeding, rather than the uranium and if so is there any evidence of this?
(And yes we are getting away from the main subject, so lets get a quick answer to this and a return to Schauberger).

[paigetheoracle]

[quote=CraigD;227283]The great difficulty in looking for a means of negating the force of gravity – to be precise, a way to change the attractive force experienced by two bodies due to gravity , without changing the mass , or the distance between them - is that there is no experimentally validated scientific theory suggesting it is possible, no empirical observation that it occurs. There is also no theory or evidence suggesting that the mass of a body can be decreased other than by the usual means of removing some of its matter.

There is no theory or experimental evidence that this change in force or mass, commonly termed antigravity, more precisely described as a difference between inertial and gravitational mass, ever occurs, or can occur.

Although differences between inertial and gravitational mass is not known to be consistent with any physical theory, physicists, engineers, and futurists have speculated at length about the consequences of a body with negative gravitational and inertial mass, which is not inconsistent with theory. However, to the best of my knowledge, no theory suggest the existence of such matter, even though some quantum mechanical effects suggest that a more general form of “exotic matter” may be possible, put could not be used to lift objects (see: Exotic matter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

In short, Paige is proposing that people look for an effect that all scientific theory and evidence indicates does not and cannot exist. Such a search would surely be difficult, almost surely unsuccessful, and worse, likely to result in the searcher, our of frustration with the difficulty of finding such an effect using legitimate scientific methods, accepting ideas unsupported by experimental evidence, or worse, ideas promoted by intentional deception and unintentionally individual and group self-deception. Although such a pursuit can lead to enjoyable social interaction with fellow searchers, I don’t think its ultimately psychologically healthy, nor useful to science of humankind.

I think you are not looking at the problem using lateral thinking (Edward De Bono). In other words again, you are attacking the problem i.e. thinking of how to negate the effects of gravity, rather than work round them. As they say in Britain there's more than one way to skin a cat. Nothing negates gravity? What about Balloons (gas filled or hot aired)? What about gyroscopic motion? I remember a Royal Institute Christmas Lecture with Professor Eric Laithwaite, that had one suspended on a string at right angles (spin again) and what about linear motors, created by him that used pole reversal technology to lift and suspend a tray in space and also propel it across the ground at speed? The problem is not gravity but the limited way we look at it.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by paigetheoracle

Don't be confused - totally separate point, not directly related to Schauberger and I'm sorry you didn't get it.

I’m just thinking the subject has swerved far from Schauberger and his possibly a flying saucer, possibly a prophylactic air conditioner, but I do follow the theme of ying vs. yang/dominance vs. cooperation/war/rockets/weapons etc. It’s all good, as this is after all the strange claims forum.

Originally Posted by paigetheoracle

As for DU - are you saying that the cases of deformed babies reported after the actual attack stage of the war, were not to do with the shells but some other cause?

Yes, that is what I’m saying.

The health risks associated with depleted uranium are well studied and understood. There is, to the best of my knowledge and that of a number of specialists in military and environmental medicine with whom I’ve talked, no evidence whatever of them causing birth defects. In the most severe cases of contamination, involving the occupants of vehicles stuck by DU munitions, the major risks are kidney damage, and about a 1% increase in lifetime risk of fatal cancer.

Even in areas heavily contaminated with DU, such as sites where DU-armored vehicles have been repeatedly holed by DU projectiles, or crash sites where large aircraft have burned at high temperatures (many commercial aircraft, such as Boeing 747s, use DU as a counterweight material for their hinged control surfaces), tests of human urine and feces show only short-lasting increases in uranium over usual background levels. Uranium is a fairly common element which we all ingest in small amounts throughout our lifetimes, with little risk to our health. Because it does not compound readily with other molecules in our body, but passes unaltered through our gut, or, if taken into the blood stream, is quickly removed and excreted in urine, short-term exposure to DU in the concentrations associated with warfare and accidents is not a serious health risk.

As with many other materials found in weapons and vehicles, it’s important that wreckage and spent munitions be cleaned up, to assure that exposure to DU and the many other dangerous substances in them is short-term. Fortunately, DU when reduced to a power is readily washed away, and when intact in metal, is not, so even if inadequately cleaned up, is eventually removed from the environment by natural processes.

This WHO factsheet is a good source of information from a trustworthy organization. This news article has a good description of and a link to a Sandia National Lab study of US Gulf War veterans exposed to DU.