Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

pan6467 · 12-05-2004, 03:50 PM

Interesting arguments.

I did a search and for every report that says that DU is relatively harmless there is one that says it is very harmful. I tend to believe the very harmful reports because there are way too many times in our past when the government, having much to lose, would lie about the harmful effects of something. And yes, the UN does this also, because in many ways they are still a US and ally controlled organization. Most refuse to mention the dust at all.

There is a serious change in birth defect where DU has been used, there is the fact that we have no idea what is causing Gulf War Syndrome and why the government some dozen years later STILL refuses to admit there is such a thing and the VA refuses to treat it.

There are definitive problems associated with DU and it's dust in particular. While a "stroll" through an area of it may not be harmful, I do believe long term exposure would be. Most of the reports I read that support DU are for short term, while the ones against talked long term. From what I gathered the dust appears to radiate soil affecting the food and water supplies and then ingested. The dust is like that of asbestos where the product itself maybe "safe" but the airborne byproducts cause serious damage.

My search was done via Yahoo under "depleted uranium".

If there is any evidence that there could be health risks our government should not use the material at all. If they choose to use it then they should be responsible for its cleanup, which they refuse citing that there is no correlation between illness and DU. Yet the fact that birth defects and illness skyrocket in exposed areas appear to present facts they ignore.

12-05-2004, 03:50 PM	#16 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Interesting arguments. I did a search and for every report that says that DU is relatively harmless there is one that says it is very harmful. I tend to believe the very harmful reports because there are way too many times in our past when the government, having much to lose, would lie about the harmful effects of something. And yes, the UN does this also, because in many ways they are still a US and ally controlled organization. Most refuse to mention the dust at all. There is a serious change in birth defect where DU has been used, there is the fact that we have no idea what is causing Gulf War Syndrome and why the government some dozen years later STILL refuses to admit there is such a thing and the VA refuses to treat it. There are definitive problems associated with DU and it's dust in particular. While a "stroll" through an area of it may not be harmful, I do believe long term exposure would be. Most of the reports I read that support DU are for short term, while the ones against talked long term. From what I gathered the dust appears to radiate soil affecting the food and water supplies and then ingested. The dust is like that of asbestos where the product itself maybe "safe" but the airborne byproducts cause serious damage. My search was done via Yahoo under "depleted uranium". If there is any evidence that there could be health risks our government should not use the material at all. If they choose to use it then they should be responsible for its cleanup, which they refuse citing that there is no correlation between illness and DU. Yet the fact that birth defects and illness skyrocket in exposed areas appear to present facts they ignore. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?" Last edited by pan6467; 12-05-2004 at 03:55 PM..