Doesn't furthering the conversation include debate? Or must all conversation coincide with your views or risk being discarded?

Ah, I see, this must be some new form of debate that I am not familiar with.

Using DU puts our soldiers in danger, not using DU puts our soldiers in danger.
Where is the plus side to that?
DU isn't the problem. The problem is humans inability to live with each other peacefully.

While maybe it could have been phrased nicer, I think the point is, that if you have nothing serious to add to a debate that is going reasonably well, and you are there to just make light of it and trivialize the debate then you shouldn't be participating.

People jumping off track and trivializing debates are trying to offend someone so that person may be come upset and then the debate turns into the horror threads that this little side of TFP has become famous for.

So I see nothing wrong in asking those who care to post on here to stick strictly to the subject, which is one that is of significance.

Perhaps, Stevo truly wanted info, or by his hot dog statement he was just trying to create problems.

The difference is war (while not the the greatest of actions.... not even in the top 1000 of smart moves) is an issue that man may face forever as agression is in our nature, the USE of something that will kill long after a war is not natural, but in fact malicious and as evil as man can possibly be.

There is a HUGE difference between being shot at and bombed by weapons that destroy now but leave the area liveable and that of using weapons that destroy everything now and leave everything healthily uninhabitable for years to come.

I'm sorry to me it is a crime to use weapons that can harm future generations when those weapons DO NOT NEED TO BE USED.

We are already on a very, very bad course with this war anyway. Before every war was aggressor against an agressee, and that was it. This time, supposing we are the good guys, the reasoning is "we are preventing agression". To others who do not buy into the lies of the gov't, it is still a war of agressor and aggressee only we are the aggressor.

Why add to it by using chemical and WMD's, especially when we used the excuse that we were going over there to prevent their use.

How is it that makeing war a nicer thing to do going to help?
It shouldn't be nice. The pain of war should last for years and years. And then maybe we will get the idea.
"the only winning move is not to play."

You say it yourself: "Chemical weapons use the toxic properties of chemical substances in order to hurt or kill".

DU does not use the toxic properties ("causes cancer") to kill. It uses brute force to kill, just like any normal round does. Your logic simply doesn't add up; "DU is a toxic substance that is being used in war"... what kind of reason is that??? Gasoline is toxic, and also used in war; is it a chemical weapon? The explosives used in bombs are toxic, and definately used in war; are they chemical weapons? Pretty much everything used in a war is toxic in some form, but they're not all chemical weapons because of that.

The dictionary says:
"Chemical weapon: chemical substances that can be delivered using munitions and dispersal devices to cause death or severe harm to people and animals and plants"

The point isn't that it's toxic, nor that it's used in war. The one thing that makes a chemical weapon is that it's *main effect* is that the chemicals themselves kill, not that there is some sort of nasty unwanted side-effect from those chemicals. Note the "unwanted" here, because I don't think the designers of DU rounds made them specifically to turn into dust and cause cancer when inhaled.

Hence, DU munitions are NOT illegal because they're NOT chemical weapons.

As for the Napalm someone mentioned: it isn't a chemical weapon either. It's an incendiary device; it's goal is to burn things using a mixture of chemicals, not poison/kill them with those chemicals. You may think it's pretty much the same, but there's a HUGE difference. If you disagree, I suggest you take a look at how *real* chemical weapons (such as VX nerve gas) kill their target.

Negative health effects of Depleted Uranium was #8 on the 2004 (covering stories from 2003) Project Censored list of neglected stories that were kept out of the news
http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2004/8.html


The issue made the #4 spot on this year's list



Look at the statements where I added emphasis. Almost 10,000 deaths among soldiers since the first Gulf War, a US Military report admitting that DU is harmful, and just for laughs, a war crimes indictment. I think that at least the US military report should be considered. If tungsten is a viable but more costly alternative, I think we should pay a little more for it.

wrong, the density of tungsten is higher.

certain tungsten alloys have similar penetration abilities as DU. Like I said the new german ammunition has performed similar in mumerous tests.

and for the health problems, the biggest problem AFAIK is the ground water pollution:

"The most important concern is the potential for future groundwater contamination by corroding penetrators (ammunition tips made out of DU). The penetrators recovered by the UNEP team had decreased in mass by 10-15% due to corrosion. This rapid corrosion speed underlines the importance of monitoring the water quality at the DU sites on an annual basis."
http://www.unep.org/pdf/iraq_ds_lowres.pdf

not correct, as far as i know it is illegal to contamine enemy terretory and resources (water). So if the US knowsthat those are the effects of DU it would be illegal for them to use them.
That is perhaps one of the main reasons for the US to simply ignore multiple studies.

So future generations should pay for our transgressions? The sins of the father should be taken out on the son?

How is that more civil than not having war? Because the above keeps the hatred that starts wars alive.

There are only 2 ways mankind will ever stop warring IMO:

1) an external force that brings us together to fight it or keeps us from warring (IE aliens, which if there are any probably refuse to contact us because they know that someone on Earth would use them to further their cause.... either to use their tech against others here or rally people to attack them (the aliens).... I don't see this as a possibility.

2) Mankind finds a miracle cure and alleviates greed, power lust and envy. Again I don't see it happening.

So we are again at "it's ok to make areas highly toxic to live, for the good of OUR nation"?

It's ok to use weapons that kill our own men, because that is part of war.

Dumping stuff that leaves the ground irradiated and causes cancer when we do not in any way shape or form need to is ok?

So it was ok for us to use use Agent Orange, just the trappings of war? So it's ok to keep using weapons that not only kill now but kill for future generations?

I'll remember that when the US is attacked and you are crying about how "unfair" these people we abuse now abuse us in the future.

You might want to look at my location. I am not an American, so it's got nothing to do with the good of "our nation". Furthermore, you present possibilities (toxic, causes cancer) as fact, which is simply bad logic. And finally, you put up a number of so-called "straw man" arguments, which does not improve upon this discussion.

Now, having said that... there are some valid arguments against DU, but there are also a lot of valid arguments *for* the use of DU. As long as there isn't any conclusive *independent* evidence showing that DU does indeed cause cancer, and that it does indeed do what some people claim, I don't see why the US should stop using it. As I see it, we only have evidence that there are health problems in some previously polluted areas; we have no evidence that proofs that DU is the only, or even main, cause of those problems.

Personally, with all the potential problems, I'd prefer countries using alternative materials for their AP rounds. But I also know that we would be seeing reports about bad effects from those materials too.

And how does that make my statement incorrect? I said that DU wasn't a chemical weapon, but now you say it's illegal to contaminate territory and resources. That hardly proves me wrong, now does it?

I love this quote. I have posted it here several times already.
It is a very wise law, and would benefit any society to abide by it.

There are plenty of arguments against DU, Proven arguments. Arguments that state that DU kills through poisoning, it has a halflife of 4.5 million years. It is wrong to use. We don't need it because there are substituties. Despite they being more expensive, they should be used.

The arguments FOR DU is, we want to use it.
Arguments for cost are heartless
Arguments that there ARE no suitable replacements are wrong. Go ask the f-ing Germans how to produce a replacement.

You want proof that DU is dangerous? Submit to a forced inhalation of a miligram of DU dust. If in your heart, you can't bring yourself to say you would do that, then goddamn it why continue to use/support the use of something that you can't bring yourself to put upon yourself. What we are doing is subjecting nations for the future of civilization unknown lifelong suffering.
*You* don't know what this stuff does. When it is sufficiently proven to you and the unbelieving world, what will your reaction be? Ooh, our bad, we didn't know. Sorry you have to live with that suffering now.
By then it's too late and your past damns you.

We are too shortsighted of a people. Bullshit like this shows that as a society we are unworthy stewards of our childrens inheritance.

I was refering to your "DU is not illegal" statement. Your statement sounded like you think that only chemical weapons could be "illegal". Sorry for the confusion.

Ah, I see the problem. :)

OTOH, I doubt that your argument about contamination would cut it though. I assume there has to be an intent to do that, not just a possible side-effect. And naturally, DU's intent isn't to contaminate, it's to penetrate enemy armor. In fact, contamination of territory and resources isn't even part of the equation; nobody shoots DU rounds for that reason.

That's contrary to, say, real chemical and/or biological weapons, where the intent is to kill the enemy (in a very nasty way), and at times, to make areas of the battlefield no-go areas (contamination).

Superbelt, that's hardly proof, now is it? My reluctance to inhale DU dust doesn't prove it's dangerous, it only proves that I *think* it's dangerous. (Or, it proves that people told me it's dangerous.)

A counter-example: in them olden days, people were very reluctant to sail too far from land, because they "knew" the earth was flat, and they'd fall off. It proves nothing.

Perhaps we should all follow your logic, and not do anything new, nor investigate new scientific breakthroughs - after all, you don't know what could happen. If something bad happens, you'd have to live with that suffering, and it's too late, and the past damns you, etc. Possible danger is hardly a reason not to do things. (Yes, I know this is about war, and war is supposedly different and nasty, and DU is different and nasty, etc. Well, fundamentally, there isn't a difference at all.)

So, You aren't willing to expose yourself to it, but are willing to expose other innocent people to it because you don't think it is sufficiently proven that it is not safe?
Clap-clap.

This is not a scientific breakthrough. This is a choice (as there are alternatives). This is a harmful choice as everyone knows. This stuff has been shown to burn up into ash and pollute groundwater and become airborn to be taken into the food chain and human lungs. As was posted earlier, DU is still being pissed out by Gulf War 1 veterans. These guys effectively ingested the miligram of DU that YOU would refuse because you are afraid of what it will do to you.

btw "You want proof that DU is dangerous?" was a rhetorical question, followed by a challenge to you that was meant to clear your head to the common sense you know of this stuff being a killer.

Sort of, if the "possible" side effect would become a "sure" side effect, if the contamination of ground water would be poven the use of DU would become illegal.

it is illegal to contaminate the enemy terretory, if this is the weapons main function or not is not importand.
that is why the US ignores all reports, if they would say "ok, there might be a danger" they would face the question "then why do you willingly poison the people you want to free?"

Any military guys here who do or have worked with DU before?
If there are, please provide us with the safety protocol you were issued in how you are to conduct yourself around DU or DU exposed grounds.

I'm not willing to go on rollercoaster rides because I don't like them. I'm perfectly willing to let others do that. Does this prove anything at all, other than that I'm "afraid" (uncomfortable) of rollercoasters? It doesn't prove that rollercoasters are dangerous at all. The same argument can be made about airplanes, cars, or any other thing some people are unwilling to expose themselves to.

In fact, there are a lot of people who are unwilling to shake hands with AIDS victims, because they think they'll get infected; even though there is tons of evidence that it's perfectly safe. Does this unwillingness to exposure, and the "common sense" notion that it is dangerous, prove anything?

Stop it right there. Not everyone knows that DU is harmful. In fact, there are many people who claim they know it's not harmful. And besides, nobody knows for a fact whether it is harmful or not, we just think we know.

If you cannot see the difference between knowing something because of *proof*, and knowing something because of *anecdotes*, I doubt I could convince you of my position. But I also know that you cannot convince me of your position with such a fundamental lack of logic.

Now, to make it clear what I mean: what I'd need as evidence is statistics showing a huge increase of cancer (or other diseases) in a given population (Iraqi's), and conclusive evidence that DU is directly responsible for that increase. Given the many other possible causes for that increase, it'd need to be some pretty good evidence. A few anacdotes about GIs pissing DU isn't good enough - we'd need substantial amounts of GIs pissing DU, and a large portion of those developing cancer, *and* we'd need to show that only DU is responsible for those cases of cancer.

Once Hustler is used as source material against my arguement I'm done with a thread.

Perhaps it could be a variant of Goodwin’s Law, Flints Corollary.

The scientific evidence is that DU is harmless, mind you scientific, controlled studies, not wild speculation thats so popular amoung the uniformed, I am not even sure why this would be an issue amoung thinking people. Scientificly its at the same level as people who are afraid of floride in the water supply.

They seemed to do a good job of exposing Rep. Bob Livingston for the hypocritical sack of shit he is.
I suppose you would rather we use Townhall, Newsmax or worldnetdaily sources?

Scientific evidence that DU is harmless. Maybe I missed it. Please provide links to the studies that conclusively have said that DU is harmless inside the human body.

willravel - If you're going to come to the politics forum and spit alramist conspiracies you should head back to the paranoia section, where I've decided to let you guys talk amongst yourselves. hotdogs.

Who's spouting conspiracies?

All I see are us arguing that there are some who are content to spread dangerous materials around the world. Reasoning not being to poison the world deliberately.
More of a: lazy, negligence and callousness.

Consipracy, in this context, evokes us arguing deliberate harm for harms sake. Noone is doing that. Please learn the definition of conspiracy.

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.

Somehow I think that if someone offered you a new toothpaste with depleted uranium dust in it that you would refuse it.

Like it or not, Larry Flynt is a champion of our civil liberties and Hustler magazine has been a more responsible news source than most U.S. papers over the past ten years.

I'm perfectly comfortable with the scientific evidence that the radiation from solid contained pieces of depleted uranium is not a danger. It's useful and not dangerous as ballast in a 747 in the same way that the mercury in a thermometer is. There is substancial and credible scientific evidence and a mountain of qualitative and anecdotal evidence that when powderized and aerated, as in wartime use, depleted uranium is highly toxic and dangerous.

We also know that it's incredibly effective against armored targets, it cuts through any metal and will explode a tank from the inside. It's yet another weapon that is very powerful and useful in a large-scale conventional war, but not particularly useful in the type of combat we face in Iraq.

My take is that we should keep the DU weapons as a deterrant, but use them only if necessary, much like our chemical, biological, and nuclear weapon stockpiles.

When we have a battalion of Chinese or Russian tanks rolling through Oregon, then it's time to break out the DU rounds. Using DU to destroy the few tanks S. Hussein was able to keep running is unecessary and creates more problems than it avoids.

KMA-628- Hot dogs aren't going to further this very serious conversation.

iamnormal- DU isn't just about some random danger. It is about poisoning people. The fact that this is so dangerous is that it's not recognized. We all know how bullets work to puncture things. We all know how bombs explode. We know the risks we take in situations where these are being used. In the case of DU, however, there is not general knowledge. Soldiers don't know that they are being poisoned. There is a difference.

Dragonlich- DU is a poison used in war. That is illegal. It is very simple.

MrSelfDestruct- Excelent articles. That does help to put legal evidence on the side against DU in this conversation.

Dragonlich #2- This is not bad logic. This is not bad science. The side you oppose has cited numerous credible sources. You can't just ignore them. Well, I suppose you can, but it really hurts your argument. BTW, your country refuses to use DU munitions.

Dragonlich #3- I have to aree with superbeltr on this one.

Dragonlich #4- There are a substantial amount of GIs pissing DU. Many of the GIs from the Gulf War are becoming or have become very sick. Inexplicabally, of course.

Ustwo- The bottom line about this is that DU is harmful. I guess I'm going to have to explain this completly. I fugured this was common knowledge, but it seems it's better to be safe than sorry about information. The following is written by Dr. Glen Lawrence (Phd) from the Deparntment of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Long Island University, Brooklyn, NY. What he writes in his paper is general scientific fact.

WHAT ARE URANIUM OXIDES AND ARE THEY DANGEROUS?
There are three major uranium oxides produced by burning, these are U03, U3O8, and UO2, known as uranium trioxide, triuranium octoxide and uranium dioxide, with the latter two predominating. Although uranium is one of the densist metals known, the oxides in the smoke and dust are not so dense and remain suspended in the air for a long time. In fact, particles of DU oxides were detected more than ten miles from a National Lead DU munitions plant in Colonie, NY years ago, causing the State of New York to shut down the plant for excessive release of radioactive materials into the environment. Uranium, in any form, is considered to be a chemical poison as well as a radiation hazard ir taken internally, although moderate in comparison to other chemial poisons and radiation hazards.

These oxides dissolve in water (and body fluids) at very different rates. UO3 dissolves relatively quickly (hours to days), wheras U3O8 dissolves more slowly (weeks to months) and UO2 dissolved very slowly (months or years). The rate at wich they desolve depends very much on the size of the particles and the properties of the solvent. Very small particles of UO2 (<0.01 micron) seem to dissolve relatively fast and are absorbed from lung as quickly as soluable uranium compounds. Particles of either UO2 or U308 with average diameter of 0.5 microns cause much greater lung damage in animals than particals with average diameter of 2.3 microns or larger. Larger particles tend to get removed from the lungs in phlegm. There was much greater retention of the uranium in the lungs with the smaller particles, as well as greater kidney damage, indicating more absorption of the uranium into the blood. There have been numerous studies of the effects of inhaled uranium oxide particles on lab animals with their toxicity ranging from negligible to severe. The toxisity depends on many factors, including not only size of the particles, but how these particles were prepared, how they were administered (dry or in liquid) and many other factors.

The effect that DU shells have on their targets lures the curious to see what destruction it can do. Just walking or rummaging around a DU destroyed vehicle long after the dust has steeled can resuspend the fine particles of uranium oxide, which may be inhaled or cling to skin and clothing. Inhaling a mixture of the uranium oxides with a wide range of particle sizes in the smoke and dust coming from burning DU penetrators or resuspended dust works like a time release capsule, with the uranium oxides dissolving at different rates and entering the bloodstream over a prolonged time.

HOW TOXIC IS URANIUM?
There is cvontinuing debate about how toxic uranium really is. Uranium is not absorbed from the digestive tract very well. Less than 2 percent of uranium oxides taken in by the mouth get absorbed and enter the blood, with the bulk of it passing through the feces. Uranium also doesn't exert it's toxic effects immediately like cyanide or strychnine, but instead can take several days, so it may not be noticed for more than a day that severe poisioning has occoured. An acute nonlethal dose of uranium causes kidney damage within two weeks, with is somewhat reversable, with restoration of most kidney function after several months.

Several studies have been done to determine whether high levels of uranium in drinking water have any ill health effects. People drinking well water with high levels of uranium generally don't show any chronic illness, but urinalysis indicates that higher levels of uranium in drinking water results in increased indicators for kidney damage. The correlation seems to be linear and indicates that any increase in uranium exposure would result in an increase in the degree of kidney damage, even if it is not sufficient to cause acute toxic efects. It has also been found that exposure to moderate levels of uranium for some time makes the kidney more resistant to a subseuent toxic dose. Perhaps the kidney problems that appear to occur when people are exposed to high levels of uranium for the first time, will gradually return to normal once they are removed from the cource of contamination, although it is not possibble to say whether recovery would be 100 percent.

WHAT IS THE MOST LIKELY WAS TO GET TOXIC EXPOSURE TO URANIUM?
The inhalation of DU dust is the most likely route for uranium to enter the body and do serious damage, with the smallest, invisible DU dust particles doing the greatest damage. Consequently, you may not realize that you are even getting inhalation exposure. As these dust particles slowly dissolve in the lungs and the uranium is absorbed into the blood, it gets distributed to all parts of the body. Most health professionals looking for uranium poisoning will focus on the kidney because that organ is the most vulnerable and kidneyy malfunction can easily be diagnosed by analyzing urine for specific clinical parameters, such as alkaline phosphate or beta-microglobulin. However, when constant low doses of uranium are being absorbed, as tehy would be from DU dust particles in the lungs, it gets distributed to bone, brain, liver, lymph, spleen, testes and other organs. Once deposited in these tissues, there are several things that can happen.

WHAT HEALTH EFFECTS RESULT FROM EXPOSURE TO URANIUM OXIDES?
Uraniuym dust may do permanent damage to the lungs resulting in chronic respiratory problems. Uranium exposure also afffects neurological function. Rats exposed to uranium had impared nereve cell function and 1991 Gulf War veterans who were excreting high levels of uranium in their urine showed some impairment in cognitive function. Uranium exposure can have a wide range of health effects that may also include skin rashes, headaches, blurred vision, sensitivity to light and sound, localized numbness, and urinary symptoms, such as kidney stones, increased urine volume and blood in the urine.

Researchers at the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute (AFRRI) in Bathesda, MD and others have found that uranium causes mutations in DNA and uranium exposure can result in increased chromosomal aberrations. It is a widely accepted principle in molecular biology that agents that cause mutations or damage DNA can cause cancer. Mutations in the DNA of germ cells (in the testes and ovaries) may lead to birth defects or miscarrige. It is plausable that uranium exposure in a man could lead to increased risk of birth defects in his children concieved after his exposure.

DOES EXPOSURE TO URANIUM CAUSE PEOPLE TO GET CANER?
Studies at the AFRRI showed that human cells grown in culture diches could be transformed into cancerous cells when exposed to uranium. Researchers in Albuquerque, NM implanted DU metal into the muscle of rats (a model for shrapnel wounds), causing 18% to develope sarcomas (cancerous tumors around the implant site). Epidemiologic studies found modest increases in certian types of cancers in uranium workers, including cancers of the lungs, lymph nodes, kidney, and brain.

The uranium procession and milling industries had stringent safeguards built in when they were developing because uranium was known to be toxic. Wrokers were closely monitored with radiation badges and frequent urin tests, and if exposed to too much radiation, were removed from the high exposure risk areasuntil their exposure level dropped below the acceptable limits for a given time period. Consequently, the increased risk of cancers in this indursty is not large, but is significant. The latency period, or time bewteen exposure to a carcinogen and development of cancer can be many years (often 5 to 20 or more years for heavy metal carcinogens).

CONCLUSIONS
It is best to avoid exposure to DU dust by staying away from vehicles or buildings destroyed by DU. If you are in ana area where there may be DU dust, avoid breathing the dust. Breathing through several layers of clean (uncontaminated) cotton cloth may help, if a protective mask is not available. Clean any clothing that may have been contaminated by washing with baking soda.

End report.

That is the general concensus of scientists. That is scientific reality.

http://www.azcentral.com/ent/gifs3/0219chappelle.jpg
It's digital.

But.
Prosecutor: Would you let your son sleep over at Michael Jackson's house?
Chappelle: Fuck no!

__________________________
Us alarmists: But, would you let me put some DU in your tooth paste?
Tilted Right: Fuck no!

stevo- please read carefully the post I just wrote. Then you can decide whether I am an 'alarmist' or not. Another reminder: the medical report above is from a respected scientist, and it reflects the general stand on uranium and DU in the scientific community.

Superbelt- I honestly appreciate the help.

Locobot- I totally agree that DU should be at the same level as nuclear weapons. A last resort, if that.

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.

Sigh, two things.

First consensus has nothing to do with scientific reality. Its not a democracy.

Second, its not a consensus of scientists by any stretch of the imagination. Its a report, a report that does not show levels of exposure, time of exposure or any other details to make it relevant. Expose rats to enough of something and they will show negative effects. Breath in enough dust of ANYTHING and it will cause lung damage, its called silicosis. I would like to see the source of the report if you don't mind as well.

Sorry but this does belong in paranoia.

Please respond Ustwo.

There seems to be the idea that there are two equal sides to this. I have shown my side pretty well. My side clearly says that DU is not harmless. In fact, the information I've put forward actually shows that DU is quite dangerous. Where is the evidence that it is harmless? Who is saying it is harmless? I'm confused.

It appears to me that there are really just two sides to debates like this. (Including things like Global Warming)

One side feels that we should be able to do what we please as long as the short term benefits are there and tangible. If some time down the road we come up to incontrovertible proof that this action is having severe effects on the earth or people, only then should we take steps to correct/reverse it.

The other side wants us to take action right away to head off any and all adverse effects that are likely or even probable to occur. The feeling being, if we CAN move immediately towards mitigation now, we should. Because the risks can be too great if we are wrong and the costs at the end too great.

I think this accurately sums up both sides.
Only one side follows this
Only one side is a steward of the planet and future generations of humanity.

Ustwo has given studies/reports saying that DU is relatively harmless in posts #2 and #5 of this thread.

No, Ustwo gave us a state department press release and an uncited quote, respectively.
Not a scientific study.

Btw, that first press release has been refuted by battling links throughout this thread. Links that include references by the army for soldiers who work with or tread over grounds that are saturated with DU to wear protection, including respirators.

Actually, Ustwo has done nothing but show us articles he could have typed himself. Most others (including myself) who share facts also share the links we have gotten our facts from. Ustwo as always refuses to, therefore IMO (and just MY OPINION) he provides no facts, because he refuses to follow decorum and put links up, yet he is one of the first to demand others link.

Some say I have strawmen, but I question how as I have shown my sources and they come from many diverse areas not just 1 government approved release.

My stance is this is Agent Orange all over again, only far worse with far more retributions in the future to face. Do we truly 10 years from now want to say "oops, sorry guys, hazards of war and all", not just to the people whose land we contaminated but our own soldiers? Are we so eager to take that risk when there are better safer alternatives out there?

Perhaps, if we were to truly look into who is supplying the DU we may find out why we are paying for that instead of a safer material that will not contaminate.

Again, I ask why, if we are so much more superior and according to Bush and company the people fighting us are a weakly few, do we even need weapons of this caliber used?

Again, I ask and am waiting for an answer, how would any of you supporters feel if someone invaded us, used weapons that contaminated our ground water,our air, our plants and said "there is no evidence saying we did that."?

I think the sad fact is too many of you are so partisan that you won't admit when Bush maybe wrong on a subject that would hurt his credibility. I think so many of you argue just because you feel this DU issue doesn't affect you. Also, you see people on the other side of the spectrum, who are against it, so, you without truly reading the facts provided, decide that you have to disagree with their stance.

This is not a partisan issue, this is not a wait and see issue, this is a why take the chance when there are by far safer alternatives that can be used issue.

It's an issue of we don't need to use DU so why are we, especially when we are being told how ill equipped and under armed and scared the enemy is of us. Why do we not use safer materials just to take away any controversy that may arise? WIll it truly affect the war if we do? Are these Iraqi insurgents going to kick our ass if we stop using DU? According to the White House they shouldn't as it is all just tiny squirmishes over there.

I totally agree with pan. George W. Bush is moot in this subject, as he has never made any comments either way on DU. He's too busy invading Iraq and choking on pretzels anyway. The bottom line, as was well said by pan, is that there is enough of a possible risk here that we should stop using DU munitions for however long it takes to make sure that this is safe for our soldiers and the environment we are invading. It is irresponsible to leave problems this large for our children's children to deal with. Would you want your grandchildren and great grandchildren to resent you for selfishly skirting the responsibility of cleaning up a huge deadly mess like this? If you don't care about your grandchildren, you have some serious thinking to do, IMO.

By this logic, lead core bullets are also illegal, since a toxic quanty of lead is being introduced into the body.

As it is, I see a lot of misinformation on Uranium, heavy metals and radiation.

If memory serves, uranium is primarily an alpha emitter, (that is, a helium nucleus) and therefore isn't primarily a radiation hazard (this type of radiation can be stopped by a sheet of paper and won't even penetrate the skin, unlike beta and gamma radiation). Alpha emitter's become dangerous only when they are absorbed into the body where the radiation can damage tissue and DNA (such as when plutonium displaces calcium in bone). So the charge of high radiation levels in "shell holes" is irrelevant. But most of uranium's toxic effects come from the fact that it is a heavy metal.

There are several studies out regarding the toxic effects of DU, including a notable one from the World Health Organization that concludes DU is not a long term health hazard. Still, there are studies that claim it is.

Given the conflicting claims, we should continue to monitor for long term health effects, but also given the major studies that conclude there are no long-term effects from DU munitions, we should continue to use them when the alternative might mean longer battles and presumably, higher casualities.

Oh, and here are some links.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/du.htm

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/

http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/env/du/en/

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123008974