Depleted Uranium (DU): Modern American Nuclear Warfare

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: snake We have the most highly trained tank gunners in the world with the exception of the Isreali tank forces, and the abrams is the best and one of the most advanced tanks in the world. However, with great regret, I must admit I couldve cared less if it had been used on the enemy but when our own soldiers are bringing home horror stories about their ammo we supply them something must be done. I agree that it is beyond a great weapon system but no weapon system is worth harming your own troops. I say it should be completely recalled until further researched or until it is less harmful.

Our military brass know exactly how harmful this stuff is and they don't care. Soldiers are completely replaceable to them, especially if the harm is going to come in 5-10 years.

And, it doesn't matter about the entire contingent of gunners, I would say it should only be used by the best of the best, not your average tank crew. There are plenty of far less toxic munitions available for use. We should save this stuff for elite crews, ones that virtually never miss their target, in non-urban areas. It is very nasty stuff that is not suitable for use in large quantities.

And as for not caring about the enemy, that might be fine, if you have a clear enemy and only have to worry about legitimate targets. We're supposed to be in Iraq "liberating" an oppressed people. Why would we want to kill more and create more hardship on those people we are supposedly "liberating". Besides, how many tanks have our troops faced in Iraq recently? What good is this stuff against a spread out "insurgency"? These are anti-armor weapons. When they're used for anything else it is a waste of money and a terrible assault on a populace and the environment for virtually no return.

But, it is a good way to dispose of nuclear waste materials. Perhaps that's the whole point, use the stuff over there so we don't have to bury it here.

Keith

[SteveA]

If we were really fighting a war, as in a bunch of guys with tanks, planes and guns going around taking over countries then I'd say we use whatever we need to to stop it.

But if you're the guy with the tanks, planes and guns walking in others backyards, then using DU is literally overkill, unjustified and immoral (this is assuming that it truly is as harmful as claimed).

I picked the "war is hell" option, but that doesn't mean I encourage using DU for anything more than is necessary (especially not if the war is one we started).

[tivodan1116]

Good try DarkShadow, but you should try using facts (i.e. not biased websites or wikipedia) to support your argument.

Here is the World Health Organization's white paper on DU:
Depleted Uranium

As you can see when you read it, the risks from depleted uranium are minimal and probably (from my own reading) similar to lead poisoning if exposed over long periods of time. Somewhat dangerous, sure, but hardly akin to a dirty bomb.

Of particular note is that to observe greater risk for cancer, etc., humans would have to intract "on the order of grams" into their lungs... If you're close enough to a shell explosion to ingest several grams of DU dust, you won't be living long enough to worry about lung cancer.

Like most of the people that think that everything we do/make/use is "toxic" in some way, your argument is long on scare tactics and wild emotion, short on actual facts.

P.S. Probably my #1 pet peeve is people (there are a couple links on this thread) using Wikipedia as a resource. Wikipedia is no more reliable than gossip, given that I could say the moon is made of green cheese and it would be on there.

[SteveA]

Quote by: tivodan1116 ... P.S. Probably my #1 pet peeve is people (there are a couple links on this thread) using Wikipedia as a resource. Wikipedia is no more reliable than gossip, given that I could say the moon is made of green cheese and it would be on there.

Good post, Tivodan, but I disagree with this last part. The Wikipedia is actually rather accurate, at least I rarely see any obvious mistakes in things I've used it for (though I have seen clumsily written areas of it). I don't have the source off hand but remember it supposedly being compared against a major encyclopedia (I don't remember which one) and the Wikipedia only had about 50% more errors in it. I don't remember exactly how this comparison was performed by the claim was that it was done professionally. Anyway, from my personal experiences, it's been very informative and largely neutral in most areas, so I don't doubt that it's close to par with a typical encyclopedia.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: tivodan1116 Good try DarkShadow, but you should try using facts (i.e. not biased websites or wikipedia) to support your argument. Here is the World Health Organization's white paper on DU: Depleted Uranium As you can see when you read it, the risks from depleted uranium are minimal and probably (from my own reading) similar to lead poisoning if exposed over long periods of time. Somewhat dangerous, sure, but hardly akin to a dirty bomb. Of particular note is that to observe greater risk for cancer, etc., humans would have to intract "on the order of grams" into their lungs... If you're close enough to a shell explosion to ingest several grams of DU dust, you won't be living long enough to worry about lung cancer. Like most of the people that think that everything we do/make/use is "toxic" in some way, your argument is long on scare tactics and wild emotion, short on actual facts. P.S. Probably my #1 pet peeve is people (there are a couple links on this thread) using Wikipedia as a resource. Wikipedia is no more reliable than gossip, given that I could say the moon is made of green cheese and it would be on there.

Nice try yourself. Your linked article speaks only to DU itself, in metallic and dust forms. It barely mentions the fact that burning and exploding DU produces uranium oxides in several forms. In case you missed this, I'll repeat it here:

"What has been systematically ignored (and some claim censored) in all of the governmental and industrial information provided in 'official' material concerning the safety of DU material is the fact that DU is still much more radioactive than most industrial materials, but also that when DU burns, it becomes an aerosol powder of depleted uranium, uranium oxide, uranium trioxide, and a mixture of several compounds of various other uranium oxides (also known as yellow cake). The chemistry and toxicity of these compounds varies (uranium oxide is the least toxic, though still not good, and uranium trioxide is the most toxic, very bad in fact). 'Yellow cake' is often cited as a possible ingredient in a RDD (radiological dispersal device, a dirty bomb). In the form of dust or powder, these materials are dangerous and become more dangerous the more a person is exposed to them. The Dutch Laka Foundation, a nuclear weapons watchdog group, estimates that the United States left behind 300-800 tons of aerated DU and uranium oxides in Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait as a result of the first Gulf War. Other sources put that number much higher." http://www.thefanzine.com/sections....id=7&a=articles

While you may not like the source, there are plenty of others that will turn up from Googling DU burning.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: tivodan1116 Here is the World Health Organization's white paper on DU: Depleted Uranium As you can see when you read it, the risks from depleted uranium are minimal

Ha, ha. Good one, tivo. That's not what the article says, but it's clever of you to say so.

Try this revealing article instead: http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?c...articleId=2374

By far the most devastating effect is on unborn children. Nothing can prepare anyone for the sight of hundreds of preserved fetuses " scarcely human in appearance. Iraq is now seeing babies with terribly foreshortened limbs, with their intestines outside their bodies, with huge bulging tumors where their eyes should be, or with a single eye-like Cyclops, or without eyes, or without limbs, and even without heads. Significantly, some of the defects are almost unknown outside textbooks showing the babies born near A-bomb test sites in the Pacific.

[patriotsACT]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Have you considered that there are LOTS of nasty things that get released into the air/ground/water/food during armed conflict? Fertilizer, chemicals, hell tires are NASTY damn things when they burn, and the fumes and waste could cause serious harm to an unborn child. Should we stop using rubbber tires in case a cehicle is destroyed and the tires burn, and the smoke gets into a womans lungs and harms her child?

None of these can really be compared to radioactive waste. It's like comparing Spyder Paintball Guns to Smith and Wesson 45s. And trying to say they would do equal damage to your eyeball if someone shoots you there with either or.

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Seriously people, use your heads, not your hearts. It's easy to pull a heart into a dumb line of thought.

The problem is in using one, or the other. What you really want to do is use both.

[westcoastdog]

If someone dumped a couple of tons of DU on the capital mall he would be arrested and not just for littering. You can't dump DU in a regular waste site because it's considered toxic waste and you can store it only in authorized sites.

Europe is doing long term studies on DU. The jury is still out on its long term exposure effects. Remember there is no save level of radiation exposure.