Someone Sent this to me...

MadDog -[TO said:
-]Are the facts in here anywhere near true...? Sounds a bit fishy.
*warning* Nasty baby images in that flash.
There has been a lot of debae over the use of DU rounds, with most of the opposition coming from veterans groups (particularly Gulf war (1) vets).
As to the accuracy of the animation, I've no idea. But I'm sure I recognise one of those babies as a Chernobyl Baby.

But, Yeah, seriously fucked up.
 
Environmental groups have raised concerns about the use of this material; arguing that not only is it dangerously radioactive, but it is also as toxic as lead. Such issues are of concern to those fired upon by DU weapons, to those protected by DU armour-plating, and to civilians and troops operating in a theatre where DU is used. The health effects of depleted uranium have been postulated to be one of the possible causes of Gulf war syndrome. This possibility has been widely denied by a number of government officials, most of whom deny that DU is dangerously radioactive.

Studies of scientific bodies have resulted in mixed conclusions. Studies showing detrimental health affects have claimed the following:

* Toxic material from shot DU ammunition does disperse into the air much more easily and widely than expected (since uranium is one of the heaviest metals there are, this came rather unexpectedly). Also DU disperses into the water, as mentioned in the UNEP study [5]:

"The most important concern is the potential for future groundwater contamination by corroding penetrators (ammunition tips made out of DU). The penetrators recovered by the UNEP team had decreased in mass by 10-15% due to corrosion. This rapid corrosion speed underlines the importance of monitoring the water quality at the DU sites on an annual basis."

* While DU studies from the military sector mainly evaluated external exposure to DU materials, newer studies took inhalation of particles from the remains of used ammunition into consideration. These studies indicate that the battlefield use of DU ammunition may have grave consequences, especially if used near population centers.
* Small amounts of radiation may even be more harmful to the body than bigger doses may be [2,3,4]. Damaged cells resulting from lower doses of radiation seem to be less efficiently repaired by the body. This seems to be a possible source of cancer. This may lead to controversy in the future if the facts become more clear (proven by more studies) and more commonly known, since this may be important to people living in the vicinity of nuclear power plants as well.

These facts together may indicate that DU ammunition is actually quite a health problem and endangers the civilian population if left on the battlefield. However, other studies have shown that DU ammunition has no measurable detrimental health effects, either in the short or long term. Critics of these studies point to the fact that they come primarily from the US and UK -- both supporters of DU. However, the Geneva-based International Atomic Energy Agency also reports, "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" [1]. The US military watchdog group Federation of American Scientists has come to similar conclusions.

Further reading:

Depleted Uranium piece
The Independant piece

“Our study also concluded that the soil around the impact sites of depleted uranium penetrators may be heavily contaminated, and could be harmful if swallowed by children for example. In addition, large numbers of corroding depleted uranium penetrators embedded in the ground might pose a long-term threat if the uranium leaches into water supplies.

“Although only a small number of civilians will be at risk, we recommend that fragments of depleted uranium penetrators should be removed, and areas of contamination around depleted uranium penetrator impact sites should be identified and, where necessary, made safe. We also recommend long-term sampling, particularly of water and milk, to detect any increase in uranium levels in areas where depleted uranium has been used. This provides a cost-effective method of monitoring sensitive components in the environment, and of providing information about uranium levels to concerned local populations.

“The question of who is responsible for carrying out this clean-up and monitoring is primarily a political, rather than a scientific, one.”
 
That bushflash site is run by Osama. :)

All kidding aside, that was pretty interesting. I thought depleted uranium, meant just that. DEPLETED, unharmful, intoxic. Being a person who might very well see combat in his future, and be around tanks that fire these shells, I am concerned, not just for my life, but that of my children as well if I pass it on, if I retrieve it.
 
Paladin Solo said:
All kidding aside, that was pretty interesting. I thought depleted uranium, meant just that. DEPLETED, unharmful, intoxic. Being a person who might very well see combat in his future, and be around tanks that fire these shells, I am concerned, not just for my life, but that of my children as well if I pass it on, if I retrieve it.

Depleted Uranium is a serious issue. To use it in a "freeing war" would be like going over to a country and dumping toxic waste there, and then announcing them "free". It needs to be cleaned, this should be high priority, but it isn't, and the American government refuses to admit it's wrong.

However, that film is a bombastic piece of filth and lying. Pure bs. Their numbers are inaccurate, and the statement that the situation will remain as bad for the entire half-life of depleted uranium (which, by the way, doesn't have one half-life, since it's not made up of one substance) is rediculous at best.

Besides which, a lot of it can be helped with a proper investment in cleaning the ground and helping the people medically. But again, that ain't happenin'
 
it is long known that this is filthy shit

@solo: i'm surprised really you didnt know about this

in america s defense i also got to add that saddam did use a lot of nerve gasses and such in his time (against civilian population and against iran), which could also account for SOME of these effects.

most experts however are sure that DU shells are very dangerous to both friend and foe.

@Kharn: the "freeing war" argument is kind of a non-issue for the americans, they've dumped toxic shit over their 'enemies' in the past and i'm afraid they'll do so again...

agent orange is a pretty nice example of this

note: both our armies use DU although belgium and the dutchies much less than the US
 
SuAside said:
@Kharn: the "freeing war" argument is kind of a non-issue for the americans, they've dumped toxic shit over their 'enemies' in the past and i'm afraid they'll do so again...

agent orange is a pretty nice example of this

Yes, but understand the difference between a "freedom war" and a simple "war". In one situation, even the civilians are the enemy. In WW II, the American goal was not to "liberate" the Germans from the nazi yoke, their goal was to defeat the nazis. In Gulf War II, however, the goal *was* to liberate the people.

Doesn't it seem a little bit more weird to poison a people you set out to liberate than it is to poison a people you set out to defeat?

SuAside said:
note: both our armies use DU although belgium and the dutchies much less than the US

I know, but I don't support it and am a big supporter of UN-guided cleaning actions.
 
Last I checked, Agent Orange was used in 'nam as a defoliant.

The GI's were supposed to protect the south vietnamese population from the invading commies, so it could be called a "Freedom war", yesno?

Thing is, it turned the whole place into a toxic dump.

IMO it should be banned, as it endangers not only people stupid enough to join the army, but also civilians in combat zones. Heard a lot of fuss about it back in the Kosovo conflict days.
 
IMO it should be banned, as it endangers not only people stupid enough to join the army, but also civilians in combat zones.

I think Solo is talking about joining the army and Wooz69's opinion. I think it depends on the war and why the soldier is fighting. If it's a dirty war like Iraq, I think the guy is really stupid to die for Dick Cheney's Halliburton oil company.

http://www.halliburton.com/

Check the company shares. That humongous profit had a price. Not for Rumsfeld's gang for sure.
 
Paladin Solo said:
What Wooz said about people joining the military.

Oh Christ, that's hardly the topic here is it :roll:

I'm surprised at the meek reaction DU and its effects get everywhere, but that's to be expected, it's covered up pretty well.
 
Paladin Solo said:
It's not stupid in my eyes.
In many ways, it is stupid. You're risking your life, and your health, for the wellbeing of others (in a best-case scenario). That's not to say that it isn't courageous, honourable and good, just that, from a survival point of view, it's stupid.
PS said:
WHOA! Dick just moved!
Whoa! Didn't wanna know that.
 
Back
Top