Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Iraq Depleted Uranium

  1. Sep 26, 2004 #1
    The more I learn about this stuff the worse it seems can it really be called a weapon of mass destruction should the 'coalition' in iraq be prosecuted for war crimes.

    Biased information but it gets the point across.
    http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/B2E2DF9B-1E0C-43F4-BBF6-074C1367E27C.htm [Broken]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 26, 2004 #2

    graphic7

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    What's new?

    There were never any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and none will ever be found. I wouldn't mind seeing the Bush administration prosecuted for ignorance, but that will never happen. This is the sort of thing that happens when an idiot (take a look at his college transcript) gets in office.

    *Awaits for the "Dubya" to express his garbage*
     
  4. Sep 26, 2004 #3

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Let's be nice. If you take a jab at someone, they will jab back, then it quickly deteriorates from there.
     
  5. Sep 27, 2004 #4
    Actually that is a LIE. he used them against Iran and his own people.

    Perhaps he destroyed the rest in anticipation of a gree light from the UN inspectors.

    But let's be honest here. yes there were WMDs.
     
  6. Sep 27, 2004 #5

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Biased information yes. Point? No. No point, just USA bashing. This is an old and tired subject.

    graphic7 - again, your post has nothing at all to do with the link.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  7. Sep 27, 2004 #6
    I was hoping that somebody with some insight into what the long term biological effects of exposure to this level of radiation might be?

    EDIT: Why is it an old and tired subject the effects (if any) of DU will only just start to become apparent, DU is still being used and could be ruining thousands of peoples lives, as far as I know anyway. btw: its not just the US that uses DU munitions.
     
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2004
  8. Sep 27, 2004 #7
    the level of radiation is miniscule, i believe the adverse effects are mainly due to the chemical toxicity of uranium, much like lead. i think the main problem here is that people see the word "uranium" and think of some green glowing "Captain Planet"-esque radioactive material, which simply isn't true.

    the health effects of depleted uranium have been studied and it is not considered a radioactive hazard. you can read more about DU and uranium in general here if you want http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp150.html.
     
  9. Sep 27, 2004 #8
    Seconded, this is my understanding of it all.
     
  10. Sep 27, 2004 #9
    What I want to know is: What are the other toxic effects? and What happens if it is ingested, wouldnt the radiation be more damaging then?
     
  11. Sep 27, 2004 #10

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    This is a conspiracy theory that has been going around for years. There isn't anything new coming out - DU has been well understood for decades. I've handled the munitions before (the Navy uses it in 20mm anti-air shells) - I wasn't worried then, and I'm not now.

    HazZy is right - with the caveat that what makes it worse than lead is it oxidizes easier (it burns). Then its possible to breathe it.

    We had a pretty long thread on this HERE
     
  12. Sep 27, 2004 #11

    graphic7

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    And you're failing to mention that the United States gave him the materials necessary to make the weapons with full knowledge he was going to do so.

    Again, biased propaganda.
     
  13. Sep 27, 2004 #12
    I'll take the liberty of pointing out that regardless of wether there have been WMDs at one point, there arnt anymore, or weren't when bush invaded, therefor it was a bs reason.
     
  14. Sep 27, 2004 #13

    graphic7

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    But Smurf, let me emphasize again. If there were WMDs, we gave them to him - it's that simple.
     
  15. Sep 27, 2004 #14
    I believe the response to that when I pointed it out was something like:
    We did give him the ingredients but we did not expect him to make Chemical and Biological weapons out of them, proove your assertations - Something along those lines.
     
  16. Sep 27, 2004 #15

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    So you first said there were never any, now you are admitting there were? :uhh: Lets just be clear here...
     
  17. Sep 27, 2004 #16
    Don't try to turn this around russ, he said there are none now, which there arn't, but there were way back when Iran and Iraq were going at it, which there were. And the US did give them to him.
     
  18. Sep 27, 2004 #17

    kat

    User Avatar

    Yes, yes, and surprise surprise ....there is a reason why there is a response that goes something like that...maybe it's time to jump on the logic wagon bucko...

    Of course, this has nothing to do with DU, so again the left wing american bashing tag team takes us off into some tangential universe...

    I believe that DU is found to be less dangerous then that which is found naturally occurring...here and there and everywhere...the person most in danger when dealing with DU is the soldier who is firing the weapon and handling the munition.
     
  19. Sep 27, 2004 #18
    I believe that you are wrong, Kat. When the munition strikes a target, some of it vaporizes, which means that it has opportunity to spread around and be ingested or inhaled.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1506151.stm
     
  20. Sep 27, 2004 #19

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Actually, thats not what s/he said:
    If its an honest mistake, fine - but judging from recent posts, I don't think it was. That's why I pointed it out.
     
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2004
  21. Sep 27, 2004 #20

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Well, if you want to be technical, the people in the most danger is the crew of the tank... :rofl:
     
  22. Sep 27, 2004 #21

    graphic7

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I consider there to be quite a difference in the weapons he formed from the materials the United States gave him and the weapons that he *might've" manufactured on his own without any outside influence, especially the United States.

    I was under the impression we gave Saddam the neccessary materials in order for him to "defend" the Iraqi nation from Iran? This was during the Iraq-Iran war, by the way.

    All I'm trying to point out is the irony - we give him weapons, yet we go looking for weapons after we have given them to him. Now, that's funny, but I can see something like that coming from the Bush administration. They are a bunch of comedians aren't they?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War

    "Starting in 1982 with Iranian success on the battle field, the United States changed its less announced policy of backing Iraq to a clear direct support, supplying it with weapons and economic aid, and normalizing relations with the government (broken during the 1967 Six-Day War)."

    Donald was even nice enough to give add a little photographic sentiment to this discussion:

    http://www.photius.com/rogue_nations/rumsfeld_saddam.gif
     
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2004
  23. Sep 27, 2004 #22
    DU dust is the problem, not DU in block form. You are correct.
     
  24. Sep 27, 2004 #23

    kat

    User Avatar

    2 sides 2 every coin, I'm bettin Heads...that leaves U @ the tail end..

    A very good article with the apropriate links:
    [URL [Broken] Genocide?

    Piercing through the depleted uranium myths

    [/URL]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  25. Sep 27, 2004 #24
    Timeline:
    We give Saddam weapons.
    Saddam invades Kuwait
    UN retaliates
    Armistace signed on the condition of disarming
    UN weapons instpectors destory tons of weapons (long range missiles etc.)
    Saddam's son in law escapes to Jordan, tells on Saddam's secret weapons stash
    Saddam confronted, admits to anthrax, VX, etc. stockpiles (yes, more than we ever gave him, and substances he was not given). Says he will destroy them all.
    Saddam lures son in law back to Iraq, has him executed.

    Time passes, no one does anything.

    Un presses saddam on WMD. Saddam says he destroyed them. Blix says soil samples show that the admitted amounts weren't destroyed at that spot. There are unanswered questions still.

    Saddam hasn't cooperated, we go to war per the armistace, and subsequent resolutions.
     
  26. Sep 27, 2004 #25

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Well, I should hope so: your previous statement (which you still haven't retracted) was quite unequivocal at face value. Perhaps we need to break it down to clarify:
    Perhaps you should clarify what you mean by "weapons of mass destruction" and "never"...

    I guess if by "never" you mean 'last year,' then maybe that makes the statement true (or, at least, not explicitly false). But I have difficulty accepting that definition for that word.
     
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2004
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook