Weapon of Mass Deception; Depleted Uranium

[Ivan Seeking]

Not a political statement on my part; for the moment, just FYI.
Like always, I will have an opinion soon enough.

http://alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16272

 

[russ_watters]

It should be noted that the primary negative effect of DU is heavy metal poisoning - the same heavy metal poisoning you get from many other heavy metals including lead. DU is worse than most because it oxidizes better than most. However, most of the articles on the subject (this one included) make the misleading statement that DU is radioactive. With a half-life of 4.5 billion years (its called "depleted" because it is minimally radioactive), the radiation hazard is extremely low.

If you get shot, what are you going to be more concerned with, lead poisoning or the gaping hole in your chest?

War is inherrently unhealthy. Get over it.

 

[schwarzchildradius]

How accurately have they measured DU's radioactivity? Of course radioactive atoms decay into lighter atoms as e^-kt, but that is a general trend, and the decay may be differential in unique parts of the material, if the density & composition is not homogeneous.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters

War is inherrently unhealthy. Get over it.

Hmmmm...is this 'compassionate conservatism'?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
How accurately have they measured DU's radioactivity? Of course radioactive atoms decay into lighter atoms as e^-kt, but that is a general trend, and the decay may be differential in unique parts of the material, if the density & composition is not homogeneous.

Since atoms are small, any relatively pure sample of U238 will have a very exact radiation rate.

Hmmmm...is this 'compassionate conservatism'?

No Zero, that's simply called REALITY.

 

[FZ+]

No Zero, that's simply called REALITY.

Great. If the people of Iraq know that, I am sure they would be a lot happier.

Since atoms are small, any relatively pure sample of U238 will have a very exact radiation rate.

Hmm... I would have thought that DU is inherently impure. Being depleted, it would naturally be a mixture of the U238 and it's decay products. And if vaporised/oxidised, the particles of U238 from the mixture would have the safe toxicity as undepeleted uranium, only in dilution of course.

Obviously, more research needs to be carried out, particularly in the field in real situations.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by FZ+
Hmm... I would have thought that DU is inherently impure. Being depleted, it would naturally be a mixture of the U238 and it's decay products. And if vaporised/oxidised, the particles of U238 from the mixture would have the safe toxicity as undepeleted uranium, only in dilution of course.

With a half life of 4.5 billion years, the purity of U238 would be extrordinarily high - ie, a shell that was 99.9% U238 10 years ago would be 99.8999999998% pure today. And no, oxidized U238 is oxidized U238 - not oxidized U235. "Depleted" means almost no U235. And besides, the decay products being that they are decay products are both less radioactive and less toxic.

Great. If the people of Iraq know that, I am sure they would be a lot happier.

C'mon guys, I KNOW you aren't this naive. You only need to go so far as the cabinet under your kitchen sink to find half a dozen highly toxic substances. Amonia, bleach (don't use those two at the same time), paint, paint thinner, glue, Raid, etc. Have you guys even READ the warning label on any of these products? War is unhealthy. Duh. But so is cleaning your kitchen.

People are far too squeamish about the tiniest risks. People latch onto DU for its shock value, not its actual risks and certainly not the compared risks between it and other causes of injury/illness/death. I liken it to airplanes. A great many people are terrified of airplanes and cite plane crashes as evidence of how dangerous they are, not realizing that they are by far the safest way to travel. Nevermind that, a plane crash has shock value so people cling to it. My aunt and uncle used to drive to the airport together then take separate planes on the same trip to reduce the risk of both dying (for the sake of the kids). Idiotic.

SARS is another great example. Its gotten so much press and its killed what, 200 people worldwide? Please. Wake me up when it kills 20,000 in the US alone like the FLU does EVERY YEAR.

And one more: I just bought a 300w halogen torcier floor lamp. These things are wonderful. They produce good light and are efficient (despite the erroneous assertions of the hippies). But they are hot so they occasionally start fires when idiots use them to dry their socks (seriously, that's how they typically start fires - in college dorm rooms). As a result they are extrordinarily difficult to buy anymore. And do you know how many deaths are blamed on them in the past 20 years or so? 23. There are 40 million of these things around and they have been all but recalled over 23 deaths. Damn, if only your odds were that GOOD driving to work every day.

Friggin' hippies, mumble, mumble...

 

[Zero]

Hmmmm...DU is bad, and we don't trust the government to tell the truth about it. Saying 'screw the potential civilian casualties, because war is hell' is a dangerous attitude, IMO. I suggest, however, that someone hunt down a medical source showing the dangers before we get too much further(I'm looking too).

 

[Andy]

I sort of agree with Russ, about this if a war is to happen then casualties are always going to happen the only way to avoid casualties is to not go to war, so when russ says war is unhealthy he is rite is harder for some than it is for others.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Andy
I sort of agree with Russ, about this if a war is to happen then casualties are always going to happen the only way to avoid casualties is to not go to war, so when russ says war is unhealthy he is rite is harder for some than it is for others.

Nope, I can't agree with either of you. Not when we are talking about doing environmental damage that lingers after the fighting syops, just to save some cash.

 

[Andy]

Origionally posted by russ_watters
It should be noted that the primary negative effect of DU is heavy metal poisoning - the same heavy metal poisoning you get from many other heavy metals including lead. DU is worse than most because it oxidizes better than most. However, most of the articles on the subject (this one included) make the misleading statement that DU is radioactive. With a half-life of 4.5 billion years (its called "depleted" because it is minimally radioactive), the radiation hazard is extremely low.

If you get shot, what are you going to be more concerned with, lead poisoning or the gaping hole in your chest?

War is inherrently unhealthy. Get over it.

This was the post that i was referring to when i said that i agreed, but i also agree with you zero if you know what i mean, i don't like war and it should be avoided at all costs, but sometimes there is no other option even though in this last war there most probably was another option but once the US and UK governements had decided to go in nobody was ever going to stop them not the french germans or any amount of protesters, and once a war had started casualties had to be expected, war is unhealthy so try to get over it as hard as that is for all of the people that have been affected by the war.

 

[Zero]

There is a difference between saying 'we can't avoid all casualties when dropping bombs', and saying 'we are going to pollute your country, and if you don't like it, then tough'

 

[Andy]

But can u say that the allied forces have polluted the country anymore than what the old regime had done.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Andy
But can u say that the allied forces have polluted the country anymore than what the old regime had done.

That is irrelevant. If someone else stabs you, does it make it ok if I just punch you repeatedly?

 

[Andy]

Good example, but i would rather be punched loadsa times for a relatively short period of time than get stabbed and then slowly have my insides ripped out.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Andy
Good example, but i would rather be punched loadsa times for a relatively short period of time than get stabbed and then slowly have my insides ripped out.

Really? You would prefer your teeth knocked out, internal organs ruptured, and ribs broken? Good for you, but it still doesn't me you would dismiss the beating as no big deal. If you woke up in the hospital, and someone said, "at least you aren't dead, get over it", it would be small consolation, huh?

 

[FZ+]

Originally posted by russ_watters
C'mon guys, I KNOW you aren't this naive.

Hear that whoosh noise as you miss the point by a million miles?
The point is that saying war is inherently unhealthy, while being correct is of scant consolation to those who are attacked without any real choice in the matter, or who will eventually suffer the consequences. Asking the victims of wars to "get over it" is rather insensitive is it not? It is easy for us, here to get over the war - all we need to do is to close our eyes. But consideration and emphasis must be put to those who have been directly affected.
Hence the sarcasm towards "compassionate conservatism".

 

[Andy]

Really? You would prefer your teeth knocked out, internal organs ruptured, and ribs broken? Good for you, but it still doesn't me you would dismiss the beating as no big deal. If you woke up in the hospital, and someone said, "at least you aren't dead, get over it", it would be small consolation, huh?

Umm i can see that we're not going to change each others mind about this but i know I am rite, which is good enough for me.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by FZ+
Hear that whoosh noise as you miss the point by a million miles?
The point is that saying war is inherently unhealthy, while being correct is of scant consolation to those who are attacked without any real choice in the matter, or who will eventually suffer the consequences. Asking the victims of wars to "get over it" is rather insensitive is it not? It is easy for us, here to get over the war - all we need to do is to close our eyes. But consideration and emphasis must be put to those who have been directly affected.
Hence the sarcasm towards "compassionate conservatism".

No, I didn't miss it at all. We're just looking at it from different angles. You're looking at the 2,000 worst case civilian deaths (caused by all sides) and I'm looking at the millions of lives saved by removing Saddam from power. Though its mostly a concept for the military, I would venture to say that the majority of those 2,000 would be honored to say they gave their lives for the freedom of their country.

I'm also looking from a perspective of realism vs idealism. Ideally, war wouldn't be necessary. In reality it sometimes is. Ideally, war would not harm any civilians. In reality it is impossible to completely avoid civilian casualties.

And I must point out again that the US miltiary currently goes far beyond what is required and beyond any other country in the world to avoid civilian casualties. We go so far as to put both the mission and the lives of the soldiers below the lives of the civilians. Many Americans have died because of our protection of the Iraqi people.

Also, as a former member of the military, I am quite in touch with the concept of death on a personal level. I don't mean to sound arrogant, but I think those in the miltiary have a far more realistic view of the personal and general implications of death. To those who haven't been in the military, the idea of sacraficing a single person (such as yourself or the soldier standing next to you) is LESS personal than for those who have been in the military.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
Hmmmm...DU is bad, and we don't trust the government to tell the truth about it. ...I suggest, however, that someone hunt down a medical source showing the dangers before we get too much further(I'm looking too).

I missed this one before. The government will stipulate that DU is toxic and can kill you in several ways including cancer and heavy metal poisoning. What else are you looking to add? Constipation and impotence?

Another thing I forgot from before - people are focusing here on civilian casualties, but most of the people exposed to DU are soldiers. In fact, since DU is a component of anti-tank weapons, only people who are around tanks will be exposed. And that means when Saddam hid tanks in residential neighborhoods, any deaths to civilians as a result of that Geneva Convention violation are Saddam's fault, not ours. The US went to great lenghts to keep the fighting out of civilian areas to reduce civilian casualties - Saddam went to great lengths to take the fighting INTO civilian areas for the purpose of killing as many of his own civilians as possible.

 

[Zero]

Russ, I think I know what you are trying to say...but I still think this is an issue worth further investigation. And, of course, all of Saddam's illegal activity doesn't for a single microsecond absolve America or its troops for any of their possible wrongdoings(if independently confirmed).

 

[schwarzchildradius]

I doubt US troops have done much "wrongdoing," but they've done a lot of "dying," which is for certain the highest tax one can pay to the government of one's country.

The pride of the Clinton administration was an all-volunteer Army, Navy, Air force, and Marine crew of dedicated soldiers. Bush will draft people if he is re-elected - guaranteed.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
The pride of the Clinton administration was an all-volunteer Army, Navy, Air force, and Marine crew of dedicated soldiers.

Sorry to bring this thread back from almost dead, but I just saw this.

How does that differ from what existed before Clinton was president besides being smaller, weaker, and with lower morale?

Bush will draft people if he is re-elected - guaranteed.

Really? Why? Based on what?

It sounds like you think that the fact that the US military is all-volunteer is Clinton's doing. It isn't. Its been all-volunteer since the end of the Vietnam war. Barring a conventional world war, there will be no compelling reason to go back to a draft ever again.

 

[Adam]

From the World Health Organisation:
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/
http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/env/du/en/