Weapons of Mass Destruction?

[CaptnKirk]

Nope - it'll be on the "Food for Oil" programs bill, can you imagine how bad that will taste ?

Just pointing out that we only have a 12 year history on DU effects, and it doesn't look real happy.

On the Times Beach thing - they made giant incineraters and actually had to truck the dirt in
to burn it, and then go bury the ash that was left. Took over 3 years once the burners were ready.

 

[Alistar7]

I will agree with you the particle matter of DU is dangerous, especially the ones not radioactive in the sense they have any real penetrating power, namely, Alpha and Beta patricles, both can be stopped by the skin, they also cannot leave the body once they enter and they have unique and damaging properties to soft tissues and even genetic code. However we don't know the amount of patricle matter disseminated from a shell, or it's fallout area, etc...

I read your article, here is a quote:

"Headlines such as "EPA Spokesman Says Dioxin the Most Toxic Chemical Known to Man" did nothing to alleviate anyone's concern. "

Dioxin also occurs naturally, just like radiation. Does anyone know the level or amount of exposure they were subjected to? What about those in Vietnam? If we cannot quantify their exposure and prove it is far over the safely prescribed limits, we cannot determine it is the cause of any illness, obviously those in that town were subjected to a massive dose.

I am not discounting the possiblity, just pointing out all the required factors are not KNOWN to properly make this assumption and be 100% conclusive or definitive.

 

[apoppin]

60 Minutes (I think; possibly 20/20) had a major story devoted to the effects of Agent Orange in 'Nam. It's effects over the long term on living things are devastating (that word is overused but it applies here) . . . and it looks like we (the US) get to clean it up - eventually.

I am not discounting the possiblity, just pointing out all the required factors are not KNOWN to properly make this assumption and be 100% conclusive or definitive.

If you are goning to "err" - err on the side of caution where human life is involved.

 

[Alistar7]

And every instance of damage that can be conslusively proven to be a direct result of Agent Orange exposure SHOULD be our burden.

 

[NightTrain]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
90% of the Gulf War Syndrome has been associated with the use of DU during Gulf-1, do you think those Vets lie for fun ?

You have a link to this?

 

[CaptnKirk]

I don't think that Dioxin being produced by Chlorinated Bleaches combining with wood pulp in a paper production environment qualifies as Natural Occurance.
But it's definitly second in nasty behind Radioactive Materials

I'll have to go digging for the link to Gulf War Syndrome & DU, but here's a start.

More info on GWS & DU

More Fun with DU

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Educate yourself about DU before you claim it's harmless

Would you like to wash that food down with a cup of Agent Orange ?

from the article:

In October 1998 the WHO undertook a two-year study of the increasing cancer rates, especially leukemia in young children, which have been noted in southern Iraq where most of the war took place. The WHO report is not yet out, but newer data from Iraq tells the story of even more dramatic increases in cancer rates, especially among the Iraqi veterans who participated in the war.

Geee, you mean the same organization that in 2001 concluded that DU's hazard is "likely very small"? link The RAND Corp. concluded the same thing, though many people would call them pretty biased. However, the European Parliment funded a different study, that also had the same conclusions. Personally, I'm willing to stack any of those studies against the one provided to the world by Saddam and to which no peer review has been subjected.

Can you please provide a study done in Iraq that shows that DU caused the upside in infant deformaties, cancer, etc? I mean, besides the one that Saddam put forth and then denied WHO access when they asked to verify the findings. I'm going to go waaaaay out on a limb and guess that study disregarded the effects of burning oil well fires and the constant inhalation of their smoke. In the meantime, here is a link to the conclusions drawn by the US military in regard to peacetime safety limits to DU exposure

link

"DoD conducted over 34 experiments designed to measure the amount of DU that may be inhaled. This includes DU munitions hitting a variety of armored vehicles as well as fires involving depleted uranium munitions. What we have consistently found is that levels may exceed peacetime safety standards only if you are in, on or near - less than 50 meters - a vehicle at the time it is hit by a DU munition.

"Almost as soon as the round hits and the dust has settled, the standards on the outside of the vehicle will rapidly fall to levels that are a lot lower than the safety standards," he said.

oh, one other inaccuracy I found in the article:

Recently it has been substitute for lead in bullets and missiles by the US and UK, and was first used extensively by the West in the Gulf War.

Its been a substitute for tungsten, but not lead. You dont want to use lead for an AP tank killing bullet, it deforms far too easily. People have used lead in bullets for a long time because its both cheap and dense. Also, when hitting flesh, if the round undergoes a little expansion, its usually a good thing. When trying to pierce metal, you want a hard metal, not lead.

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: konichiwa
What makes DU bullets any different from, say, mortar rounds or hand grenades filled with chemical agents?

You seem to think each of these bullets turns into a mini-mushroom cloud on whatever they hit. People hit by DU bullets don't die from radiation poisoning like people around a chembio weapon die from chembio agents. Your fat a$$ has been eradiated more by your 19" monitor than you would be by taking a DU bullet.

Lovely start to your response; I only asked a simple question...mods?

"With respect to reactions with the soil, in time depleted uranium will likely leach into the soil and become mixed with it. It will for all practical purposes be chemically indistinguishable from the natural uranium that is already present in the soil all over the earth. One could create all kinds of scenarios, but probably the best way to think about DU in the soil is to compare it with lead. Because lead and uranium are so similar from a toxicological standpoint, the concerns are about the same."

I'm surprised you tin foil hat wearing freaks even leave your dingy studio apartments for fear of depleted uranium hail. Or is equating DU bullets to chembio weapons more liberal logic?

And again, more personal attacks ... way to go! You never fail to show your true colors.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: SpotDancer
Since our whole premise of going to war with Iraq was to overthrow Saddam Hussein before he could either give his WMD away to other terrorists or use them himself - I have one simple question:

Since the US has dropped nearly every weapon in its arsenal on Iraq (except an atom bomb!) what do they call these weapons? Confetti?

Weapons of Mass Distraction. (from the economy)

 

[MonkeyK]

So if DU is so safe, why are we making projectiles out of the stuff?

 

[NightTrain]

Because it penetrates armor...not because it makes the armor get sick or have malformed offspring.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK
So if DU is so safe, why are we making projectiles out of the stuff?

I pray that was either sarcasm or that you screwed up your sentence structure.

 

[MonkeyK]

Neither, although I like to ask questions in as ridiculous terms as possible, I just didn't understand what DU was all about. Now I get it, the reason we use DU projectiles is that they are very heavy, not because they will irradiate.
Because of the weight they are effective at piercing dense materials, unfortunately, they also "dustify", so that the problem is not so much what the projectile has pierced as what the possible harmful effects of breathing, drinking, and eating the stuff is (particularly to the civilians who were not being targeted). No doubt absorbing/ingesting the stuff can't be good, the only question is how not good can it be?

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK
the only question is how 'not good' can it be?

Not good. if we had the problem here, the contaminated area would have to go through a very expensive decontamination process or the land declared unfit for humans . . . in Iraq it's not a problem since it's over there.

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: konichiwa
What makes DU bullets any different from, say, mortar rounds or hand grenades filled with chemical agents?

You seem to think each of these bullets turns into a mini-mushroom cloud on whatever they hit. People hit by DU bullets don't die from radiation poisoning like people around a chembio weapon die from chembio agents. Your fat a$$ has been eradiated more by your 19" monitor than you would be by taking a DU bullet.

Lovely start to your response; I only asked a simple question...mods?

"With respect to reactions with the soil, in time depleted uranium will likely leach into the soil and become mixed with it. It will for all practical purposes be chemically indistinguishable from the natural uranium that is already present in the soil all over the earth. One could create all kinds of scenarios, but probably the best way to think about DU in the soil is to compare it with lead. Because lead and uranium are so similar from a toxicological standpoint, the concerns are about the same."

I'm surprised you tin foil hat wearing freaks even leave your dingy studio apartments for fear of depleted uranium hail. Or is equating DU bullets to chembio weapons more liberal logic?

And again, more personal attacks ... way to go! You never fail to show your true colors.

I'm not sure why, but the no personal attacks rule seems to have gone out the window lately. I have pointed out that very thing in several threads in this forum, and it seems to be getting overlooked for some reason.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: konichiwa
What makes DU bullets any different from, say, mortar rounds or hand grenades filled with chemical agents?

You seem to think each of these bullets turns into a mini-mushroom cloud on whatever they hit. People hit by DU bullets don't die from radiation poisoning like people around a chembio weapon die from chembio agents. Your fat a$$ has been eradiated more by your 19" monitor than you would be by taking a DU bullet.

Lovely start to your response; I only asked a simple question...mods?

"With respect to reactions with the soil, in time depleted uranium will likely leach into the soil and become mixed with it. It will for all practical purposes be chemically indistinguishable from the natural uranium that is already present in the soil all over the earth. One could create all kinds of scenarios, but probably the best way to think about DU in the soil is to compare it with lead. Because lead and uranium are so similar from a toxicological standpoint, the concerns are about the same."

I'm surprised you tin foil hat wearing freaks even leave your dingy studio apartments for fear of depleted uranium hail. Or is equating DU bullets to chembio weapons more liberal logic?

And again, more personal attacks ... way to go! You never fail to show your true colors.

I'm not sure why, but the no personal attacks rule seems to have gone out the window lately. I have pointed out that very thing in several threads in this forum, and it seems to be getting overlooked for some reason.

Maybe the mods agree that some people are just a tad overly sensitive about light cajoling. Seriously, if we're gonna prohibit good-natured banter then let's also prohibit fallacies of argument and speculation and...uh...sarcasm and anything else not condusive to the distribution of ONE HUNDRED PERCENT facts. I think it would be great...AT forums turn into encyclopedias.

Do you go through life taking everything so seriously and personally? Where I come from, if you ask a stupid or facetious question you can rest assured somebody's gonna call you on it and crying to mommy isn't considered a proper response.

 

[Insane3D]

If you can't discuss an issue without a personal attack, regardless of what you think of someone's post, you are the one who likely has a weak argument. Discussing issues between people who have different opinions without any personal attacks is much more positive. Also, if you look back at the original post you decided to respond with a personal attack, it was a simple question. Rather than use your brain to explain your feeling on the matter, you simply took the easy way out.

I don't take anything personally on these forums...after all..it's just a internet forum...not real life. Please explain how making a comment about someone having a "fat a$$" furthers your argument.

 

[konichiwa]

Fat ass? Tin foil hat wearing freak...personally I couldn't care less about someone on an internet BBS calling me names, but the rules say what they say...

 

[Zebo]

I think RD is the presidence for allowable personel attacks. Inmates running the asylum? you be the judge.

 

[Bleep]

Well it is rather pointless to argue about what is and what is not a WMD, the goverment has its definition and that is what they have to stand by. I understood the question to ask who is going to have to bite the bullet so to speak if we dont find any. Well it will be the intellegence community, heads will roll and there will be hell to pay for giving the President and his inner circle bad info.

Bleep