|
After reading the thread I see too many people that prefer taking retroactive approaches to situations rather than being proactive and avoiding a potential risk altogether. It's really a statement about current viewpoints as a whole.
The first fact is that DU munitions ignite and become airborne. Dispersion modeling shows that dense particulates will settle on the ground and in the water. While they settle, they are in the air and inhalable. This cannot be disputed.
Once the DU particles settle or are inhaled, they don't just 'go away.' They are ingested directly through drinking water and indirectly by people eating or plants that have absorbed DU. People have been tested for DU and they have large amounts of it in their bodies. This cannot be disputed either.
There is a viable alternative available. This cannot be disputed.
The only thing that can be disputed is the actual risk. There is anecdotal evidence of increased cancer in Iraqis. There is evidence of govt. coverups. There is the fact that a person's car was blown up that happened to have materials that show harmful effects of DU.
We KNOW that it is getting into people's bodies. We KNOW that it is being passed on to future generations. We KNOW that high levels of DU are dangerous. We KNOW there are other materials that can be used. Why take a risk if it is not necessary?
The arguements by those in favor of DU remind me of an episode of Chappelle's Show where Dave is on the stand in the R Kelly case. To him, proof beyond a reasonable doubt would include R Kelly being videotaped while the girl holds to forms of govt id to show that they is underage with two cops viewing and his grandmother watching to confirm his identity.
|