Well... it was nice chatting here, but this thread is going nowhere.
All we have is one side saying DU is dangerous, and another saying it's not. Both sides provide what they see as evidence, but in the end we just won't know, because every bit of evidence is dismissed by the other side. Then there's the obvious problem that there simply isn't a comprehensive, definitive study to prove it either way. An omission some people claim is proof that something is wrong; it's a cover-up, just like every "evil" thing the government does.
Then there's a deeper question here: is it morally just to use weapons that are potentially dangerous to the environment? One side says no, another says sometimes, and another says yes. This is not a scientific issue, and cannot be "proven", not even with a quote from the Geneva convention. The problem with that last option is that it's international *law*, and everyone knows how vague laws are - they're open to interpretation, and everyone can be proven right.
What I have seen here is a lot of people using false logic. Anecdotal evidence is NOT evidence. "Everybody knows" doesn't prove a thing. "Would you eat DU" isn't an argument, it's an attempt to discredit the opposition. One fact (DU use) that appears to cause another (cancer) because they happen to the same people, doesn't automatically do so; there may be other causes (nerve gas).
Ultimately, this discussion won't end, not until DU is banned worldwide, or until it is proven safe. That will take years or even decades, and I won't be discussing it for that long.
Anyway, go on if you want to, but I'm out - I don't want to keep repeating myself.