Cancer causing weapons used?
 

I remember back in health class when it was explained that radioactive materials can be toxic to my health. I also remember that uranium can be radioactive. In order to get suitable material for bombs and nuclear reactors for electricity generation, it is necessary to enrich uranium in U-235. Each ton of nuclear fuel obtained in the enrichment process generates at least 7 tons of uranium that is depleted in U-235. This is known as depleted uranium, or DU. The depleted uranium is a waste product because uranium metal doesn't have desirable properties for commercial use. The military developed DU as a high density projectile in munitions (uranium is 1.7 times denser than lead and 19 times denser than water). Once this high density projectile is fired at high velocity, is itn's easily stopped. Not only is DU heavier than lead, but it is much harder, giving it the ability to pierce armor that would splatter lead (it burns upon impact, instead of splattering). The Persian Gulf Was was the first confirmed use of DU munitions by the U.S. military. It was estimated that 320 to 350 tons of DU were used in the 1991 conflict. It was later acknoweledged that DU munitions were also used in Kosovo and Bosina.

That being said, we do everything we can to remove toxic materials like lead, mercury, and chromium from food, water, and building materials. As each of these, like DU, is relativly harmles in very small amounts, they become more dangerous as the body is exposed to them (for their carcinogenic nature). Just as lead or mercury poisoning can kill with enough exposure, radiation can also kill. Why would we use dangerously radioactive materials in an area that can (and sometimes does) contain civilians homes?

As mentioned above, when DU penetrators pierce through metal or other hard objects, they burn. A typical 30 mm round fired by aircraft contains more than a half pound of uranium, which goes up in smoke when it burns. The smoke is a very fine aerosol of uranium oxides that are easily inhaled. If an aircraft strafes a target with hundreds of rounds (which only takes a few seconds of holding the trigger), there could be hundreds of pounds of DU going up in smoke, The particles are so small that they would not be noticed. They may remain suspended in the air for a long time and may travel on the wind for many miles. The levels of DU dust in destroyed vehicles could be quite high and easily resuspended in the air by unknowing individuals looking for souvenirs. Vehicles passing DU destroyed targets would also kick up the dust as they pass. This seems to be the scenario that prevailed in southern Iraq in 1991. There is no way of knowing just how much DU aerosol our soldiers were exposed to in that conflict.

Biochemists have known since the early 1960s that uranium binds very well to DNA. They used it often to prepare DNA for viewing in an electron microscope, because DNA by itself doesn't show up well. Only recently have scientists discovered that uranium will cause mutations and breakage in the DNA. Mutations and breakage of DNA can lead to cancer. Mutations and breakage of DNA in a developing fetus can lead to birth defects. Mutations and breakage of DNA in sperm and egg cells can lead to an unviable fetus that will spontaneously abort, or may survive to be born with severe deformities. Studies with lab animals have shown that this will happen to animals. Scientists study such toxicity effects in animals to better understand what might happen in humans.


So here we have a geneotoxic substance in munitions that becomes dust upon impact in a battle zone. This dust can easily be inhaled. This dust is not only inhaled by 'the enemy', but also by the lungs of the U.S. soldiers that fired it. Why are DU munitions not classified as chemical weapons of mass destruction? The toxic properties and use easily fit the description. AND NOW DU ammunition is avaliable on the public market.

Am I crazy, or is this comething that needs to be addressed? I'm going to ask my friends and family that came back from service in Iraq to get tested for exposure, just in case.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/...ufactsheet.htm

Uranium is a scary word, but DU is pretty harmless. I say this as a biologist who used to work with radioactive materials back in my genetics lab days.

Still though, Gulf War Syndrome has yet to find a definite cause, and I would still not rule out depleted uranium as a possible source, especially with the uranium oxide aerosol vapor, which I had not previously known. That would allow a quantity of uranium to actually enter the body and bind to the DNA and screw up the DNA replication.

The radiation isn't the problem perhaps, but the actual absorbtion of uranium could be.

You interested, Ustwo, in testing that and spreading some DU shells around your back yard for your newborn to play in as he grows up? In Iraq in 1989 there were 11 birth defects per 100,000 births; in 2001 there were 116 per 100,000 births. Would you like to take that chance?

Just do the google search for DU + birth defects google search done for you
DU shell holes now show 1000 times the normal background radiation. Recomended levels of radiation in a basement are 0.4 pCi/L. Homeowners are supposed to take action and mitigate these levels at 5 to 10 times this base. You wouldn't let your kid play in a radon basement with even 2.0 pCi/L. Why be so callous to those who play in an environment at 1000 times that level?

The DU does seem to easily get into the water supply. How do you avoid that? The fact that the DU burns up on impact, turning it into a ceramic dust is what makes this happen so easily. It can also get blown in the wind and just generally taken up in humans and lower order animals who make up the diet of humans. Good old food chain.

Depleted Uranium birth defects. How would you like to see your next child come out like this Ustwo?

Seattle pi
The U.S. Army acknowledges the hazards in their training manual, in which it requires that anyone who comes within 25 meters of any DU-contaminated equipment or terrain wear respiratory and skin protection, and states that "contamination will make food and water unsafe for consumption."
....

Rokke and his primary team of about 100 performed their cleanup task without any specialized training or protective gear. Today, Rokke said, at least 30 members of the team are dead, and most of the others -- including Rokke -- have serious health problems.

[img]sorry, no pics of kids[ /img]
Infants born without brains, with their internal organs outside their bodies, without sexual organs, without spines.

Cancer has increased dramatically in southern Iraq. In 1988, 34 people died of cancer; in 1998, 450 died of cancer; in 2001 there were 603 cancer deaths.

Of course I wouldn't let my newborn play with DU there superbelt, I wouldn't let him play with lead either.

You see, I rely on facts, science, and logic. The radioactivity of DU is VERY VERY VERY low, so all it is a heavy metal. You don't want to ingest a lot of heavy metals, and if someone decided to make DU paint, or pipes out of DU there may well be problems with kids eating paint chips, and DU poisoning of the water supply, but currently the only health hazard DU poses is when its traveling at you at a high velocity.

You can cite all the unreliable anecdotal evidence you want, or put a picture of a deformed child, but that doesn’t make it DU’s fault, because quite frankly the properties are not there to do such damage. Now I of course an google every whine about DU by the left as another reason to hate the US, but this isn't politics here but pure science.

Let's say for the sake of argument Ustwo is right. Admittedly the picture of the deformed baby did not add to the discussion at all. We all know what birth defects are. As soon as we read the word, we get plenty unpleasent pictures in our minds. It is possible that DU is not responsible for the deaths and cancer in Iraq.

Let's say for the sake of argument that Superbelt is right. Ustwo quoted a "fact sheet" from the state department. The studies mentioned are ALL done by the government and military. NOT ONE was done by an independant organization (I took the liberty of calling the state department, and after 4 hours of waiting, I finally got a answer to one question). This is the same state department that told us about the dramatic events surrounding Jessica Lynch. I'm sorry, but I have a lot of trouble simply trusting them to this extent over something this serious. I would much rather see an indepentdant medical group do a study and come to the same conclusions as the state department/military.

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/sto...p-156685c.html
Staff Sgt. Ray Ramos

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/loca...p-156686c.html
Staff Sgt. Ray Ramos

http://www.sundayherald.com/40306
The MoD (the UK's Ministry of Defence) passed on a card to troops on active service in Iraq: “You have been deployed to a theatre where depleted uranium (DU) munitions have been used. DU is a weakly radioactive heavy metal which has the potential to cause ill-health. You may have been exposed to dust containing DU during your deployment.

“You are eligible for a urine test to measure uranium. If you wish to know more about having this test, you should consult your unit medical officer on return to your home base. Your medical officer can provide information about the health effects of DU.”

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2002training/wakayama2.pdf
Among its warnings, the report recognizes that it is not safe to leave shell fragments in the body as per US military policy; warns that uranium would be solubilized and redistribute to various tissues as early as one day after implantation; highlights the special risks faced by children in the battle area, with risks to water and food supplies; recognizes risks of cancer, lung fibrosis, and DNA damage from DU deposited in bones.


The report recommends health monitoring of children, soldiers and civilians; epidemiological monitoring of cancer incidents of soldiers (what about civilians and soldiers' children?), including urine uranium testing, kidney function tests and neurological evaluations; removal of heavily contaminated soil in areas populated with civilians; and long term water and milk sampling in imact site.

http://currents.ucsc.edu/03-04/01-19/uranium.html
"U.S. veterans who were exposed to depleted uranium during the 1991 Gulf War have continued to excrete the potentially harmful chemical in their urine for years after their exposure, according to a new study published in the journal Health Physics."

http://traprockpeace.org/schott_12feb04.html
First War Pension Tribunal is won by British veteran Kenny Duncan over DU poisoning.

Just a thought: what are the odds of an Iraqi dying from the effects of supposed DU exposure? Suppose for a moment that it does indeed lead to a higher chance of developing cancer. What is the net effect (in number of lives) of that higher cancer rate? And how does that compare with the number of deaths from, say, car crashes, home accidents, etc.

Note that I didn't include murders/terrorism, because that will end one day, and the supposed effects of DU will end much much later.

Another thought: is there no higher chance of cancer from the massive amounts of nasty chemicals that were already present in the Iraqi soil, thanks to the WMDs developed and used by Saddam? What about the reports that the "gulf war syndrome" was actually caused by clouds of nerve gas from blown up stockpiles? What about the toxic effects from the various oil wells? And what about the oil spills during the '91 war?

Could the health problems not be a result of those things? And if they're all to blame, which of these things cause more cancer?

If DU is essentially equivalent to naturally occuring uranium in regards to health concerns, and that is to say essentially equivalent to the health concerns of lead (this all a large assumption based primarily on U.S. military reports and the studies they approve) - it seems to me that a war zone would have comparable doses of "naturally" occuring DU as say, a lead paint factory has doses of "naturally" occuring lead. It's one thing to state that DU is harmless when you view certain quantities on a global scale. It's quite another to state it is harmless when you view those same quantities on a localized scale like a war zone.

So maybe the people that suggest DU is harmless to civilians in a war zone need to move their families to the nearest lead paint factory to demonstrate their belief.

So if DU is so bad, as well as lead, what do you want us to make our armor and ammo out of? hot dogs, or is that cancerous as well?

Lead does not become particulate dust upon impact as readily as DU. And again, that is only the primary concern if we make the assumption that the U.S. Military is providing accurate information. I see no reason to make that assumption.

Tungsten might work. It's supposedly just as tough as DU, but more expensive. It probably will have side-effects too, though.

AFAIK tugsten is not toxic and does not contamine the ground water which is the biggest problem with DU

And tungsten works, the german army uses tungsten rounds, they are as effective as DU ammunition. But they are more expensive.

Dragonlich- I honestly don't know what the odds are, but this can kill people. Just because many thing kill people is not a reason to keep from trying to prevent this particular cause. The problems is that, just as the chemical weapons used by Saddam, DU's effects are long alsting to say the least. They can also cause severe birth defects, just as chemical weapons can. Now we went into Iraq to prevent the use of such inhumane chemical weapons, and to stop that use we use DU.

Max- I couldn't agree more. Well said.

Stevo- good to hear from you again. Yet again we run into a situation where you aren't looking at all of the possibilities (see the thread located at http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...t=67396&page=5). Hot dogs. Yes, we can used processed beef to protect our soldiers from enemy fire. Seriously, there are alternatives, such as tungsten, that are being currently researched. Would you be willing to take a great big breath of DU dust?

Pacifier- I didn't know that about german troops (honestly, no sarcasm). Thank you for giving tungsten (http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pu...dity/tungsten/) a good foothold in this conversation as a viable alternative.

If it were a hot sunny day and I was walking on a field that had been used for DU ammo testing, I'd be a hell of a lot more worried about getting sun cancer than getting anything bad from the DU.

This is a non-issue that has been made an issue because of the buggaboo word 'uranium'. Most peoples knowledge of biology and radiation is such that just saying the word makes them think of mutations and nuclear fall out. There is no property of DU that is hazardous beyond being a projectile, unless you plan on eating on on purpose for a long time. Even natural uranium which has a HIGHER radioactivity then DU has been found to be non-carcinogenic. Don't confuse U238 (harmless) with U235 (Dangerous).

The problem, as I understand it, occurs when DU dust gets inhaled. It adheres to the interior surface of the lungs and sinuses, and directly irradiates sensitive tissue. DU itself is not terribly radioactive, but when it gets stuck in there, it STAYs there, because it's so fine-grained. This is where the problems come in.

As for Tungsten-Carbide; it's good stuff, but not as good as DU for punching holes in things. DU is heavier, and unlike TC, it self-sharpens when it passes through an object: this is part of where the super-fine dust comes from. TC flattens out against a hard object, DU literally gets sharper as it punches through.

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.

That hits it right on the nose. When inhaled, there is a chance that the DU can irradiate the lungs, with alpha radiation, which has a chance of causing a gene defect.

But the idea that people could be getting irradiated from shell holes is ridiculous. Regular uranium can't even do that, and depleted uranium has almost half as much radiation as uranium, all of which is blocked by the skin. Also, DU as a cause of birth defects? Heh. Edit: You know, since I'm coming back from a discussion with a guy who entertained the notion that the CIA gassed the people in the planes and remote controlled them into the World Trade Center, I have to raise the following hypothetical: what if Saddam noticed all the attention DU was getting and decided to manufacture some evidence?

Just kidding.

Look, I spent many weekends for 4 years straight camping on a bombing range that guess what, used DU ammo. I'm fully healthy. And the whole Gulf War Syndrome isnt caused by DU, otherwise almost the entire military would have problems associated with it. We shoot bullets and drop bombs in the same areas we have our military practice patrols and maneuvers.

The problem with tungsten is it's known to shatter when striking a tough object, instead of "slugging" itself through like lead or DU. Yeah it's great for anti-personel, but the only two things we use DU in are large caliber gatling guns (20mm+), and anti-tank kinetic rounds... and it's not like we use them for anti-personel so it doesnt help us.

Did you drink the water eat food from the ground and live there every day? How long has it been? Is everyone that camped with you healthy?

Cigarettes only give at most 1/3 cancer but there are other health defects that affect almost all smokers that take years to develop.

From what I gathered DU dust doesn't make you instantly sick, it takes time and is based on how long and how much you were exposed to. Also as with anything out there, some people are affected faster some affected in years later and some never affected.

So you are stating everyone in Gulf War I was exposed to DU? And if DU is not the cause of Gulf War Syndrome, what is? (Remember agent Orange, and all it's deviatiationsm were all deemed "safe" by our government and the UN when used in Vietnam). It wasn't until soldiers cam back and all had similar illnesses and went untreated by the military "because they were not proven to be caused from the military" that a group got lawyers and independant doctors to reseqarch and find that indeed Agent Orange were in fact causing illness that the government backed down.

Agent Orange did not affect everyone noticeably or instantly, some people took years to be affected, some gradually had their health deteriorate, it all depended on exposure.

Sounds to me like DU is following the exact footsteps of it's predecessor. You have to ask yourself, if this war is so one sided why take the risk of using something that can cause serious side effects? What makes us better than this supposed "dictator" who killed thousands of his own with chemicals when we have done the same and may quite possibly be doing it again, and the sad fact is we don't need to use DU.

Are you truly willing and supporting the slippery slope of "if the government says it's ok and it's not in my backyard, then we should use whatever it takes to win a war?" Because what happens when the enemy decides to use a more radioactive isotope bullet and weapon? Do we cry foul then or do we need to develop a weapon stronger then? Then they'll develop one stronger then we will have to and so on and so on until we're back to nuke bombs being the end result.

LINKS that verify what I have stated (top 3 more upon request):

http://www.aofiles.net/main/aohistory.html
http://www.tpromo.com/usvi/ag_org.htm
http://whyfiles.org/025chem_weap/5.html


There are far too many questions regarding DU dust and the implications on health, and those questions IMO need to be answered before we use them any further. Personally, it's a question of ethics, morals and belief systems and mine is such that just because we are at war we needn't risk the health of our men and the innocent natives and future generations of that land (there are innocents there right? Otherwise who's freedoms are we fighting for in Iraq?)

Just remember dear dear people sitting comfortably in your chairs, that we are very much an aging, greedy, sloven society while the Mid East and Africa are youthful and very much in a starving situation in every way. Very very soon these people who we are showing hatred, anger and teaching destruction to will be the revolutionaries, visionaries and thriving countries that we were until we got greedy. And by the very nature of man they will treat us as we taught them to treat countries that were weaker, bully, demand, and serve as cheap slave labor or be destroyed.

Depleted uranium may be a health risk, but so is everything in war. It would be great if no one needed bullets, but that's not going to happen anytime soon. The danger of DU radiation is miniscule compared to the danger of getting hit by a bullet, so I don't see why there should be an furor about the radiation.

actually my biggest concern is now uranium breaks up compared combined with the small health risk..It's one thing if it's just some solidified splatter on the ground which lead tends to do.

Instead we have DU dust suspended in air. this stuff getting into people's lungs, radioactive or not is probably not a good idea. (mercury anyone?) If 1991 was the first time it was used in a large scale...then I would give it about another 10 to 15 years before we could really see the affects (large cancer spike compared to other areas, or other odd health problem that is higher among veterans of gulf and Iraqis)

From an epidemiological standpoint, even if you had such a spike it would only be a spike, you would have a very hard time finding the cause due to the multiple variables involved. We had Saddams oil fires in the area for one, the use of biological weapons in the area for another, the destruction of bio-weapons just after the war, and the soldiers were exposed to other elements which could also be to blame.

It would not be the first time alarmists have blamed one thing and found out another was the cause. Recall the deformed frogs a couple of years back and how it was due to chemical pollution or even global warming? Turns out it was due to a parasite.

I agree war is war and you're right there is no safety net for anything NOW in war. However, we should never punish those of the future for the transgressions of today. IE: what Agent Orange has done in Vietnam, what the A-Bombs did not only in Nagasaki and Hiroshima but in the lands where they and all nukes were tested that humans inhabited (IE the Nevada desert where it's rumored that at least one film crew that filmed a movie there had high cases of cancer and health problems as well as American Indians who had reservations nearby.)

IF we choose to defend these practices of using materials that destroy the land and cause future problems to the innocent who reside there after the war, then we can NEVER claim as we do now that we fight this war against "injustice and in the name of freedom". Especially when the need does not warrant the use for such materials.

For we are not giving freedom to those who inhabit contaminated land, but sentences of severe health problems, birth defects and a plethora of problems.

How we fight today determines how we live tomorrow. Do we fight with weapons that not just kill people today but continues to kill a region for lifetimes or do we fight as our forefathers did and work to rebuild what was destroyed but the land remains ok?

We, I thought, here in the US were supposed to set the standards and show humanity and instead what we are demonstrating is that we will not just kill those we want but we will destroy your lands, leave you with severe health issues and subject our own men to unnecessary health risks. The only example to the world we are showing right now is that of greed, destruction and uncaring of anyone. It will come back to us, all things do. Agent Orange, that harmless little defoliant that was just used to take out forests in 'Nam came back to haunt us, as will DU.

BIg question for those who support the use of DU: IF in 10 years and studies that show irrefutable evidence that DU causes health problems, what will you say then?

That you approved of it's use because the gov't said it was ok and that we needed to use it?

That you approved because you knew there maybe something to the health issues but you didn't care?

What will you tell those innocents that live there when they come, and rightfully so, demanding justice and retribution, What will you say then?

What are you going to tell our soldiers who unselfishly fought for what they were told were the right reasons and face lifelong severe medical problems from weapons our government DID NOT NEED TO USE?

Will you say that you felt you had no voice to go against the government and that the issue didn't affect you anyway so you didn't care?

What will you say.........

Is it truly worth the risk of having to find out what you'll have to say?

Ustwo- Yep. Radiation from the sun can be dangerous in large amounts. Just like radiation from DU can be dangerous in large amounts. Eating DU can be dangerous, but I'm sure it isn't done on purpous. The same dust I mentioned before CAN get into water and food supplies.

The_Dunedan- I couldn't agree more about the adhering in the lungs.

pan6467- Precisely.

Connolly- Regular uranium CAN do that. It just takes time. We are talking about over a decade from the initial use of DU in Iraq. This is enough time for us to start seeing some of the effects start to come to the surface. Since DU is a geneotoxic substance, it can cause birth defects. What's the deal with your edit? Please elaborate.

Seaver- I'm with pan on this one. 4 weekends at a bombing range that may or may not use DU hardly compares to 10 years in a zone that saw hundreds of tons of DU munitions used.

Joeshoe- The problem is that when it is proven that DU does what we are claiming it does, it will be in clear violation of the Geneva Convention, a treaty we signed in good faith. I know it sounds silly to have rules of war on the surface, but these rules keep innocent people from being injured or killed.

jonjon42- Yes!

Ustwo, again- I don't consider myself an alarmist. Do you know how many soldiers from the Gulf War are STILL TO THIS DAY testing positive for DU in their urine? I'll let you find that one out.

By the way-
I REALLY appreciate everyone's adding to this discussion. Things can become very serious and heated in TFP Politics at times, and I appreciate the civility.

:hmm:

Why don't we use this kind of logic in everything we do? In ten years time, when it turns out that laser eye surgery causes my eyeballs to pop out, what should I say? In ten years time, when it's revealed that the Internet causes major psychological harm due to message board trolls, what will I say then? In ten years time, when we discover that wearing yellow acts as a homing beacon for invading aliens, what words will soothe our concious?

Making decisions based on the possibility of risk in the future is a silly idea. You base your decisions on what you know at the time, and in this case our research shows that depleted uranium has a minimal impact on health. If we were to follow your logic, every decision would be paralyzed by the fear of future harm.

So by your logic, it was ok to dump 1000's upon 1000's of gallons of Agent Orange onto our soldiers in 'Nam. There were reports that ther may be some damage but minimal health risks, yet look what we have from Agent Orange. (I'm sure someone will discount AO's effects, which sadly will be demeaning to those Vets, who were exposed and suffer from its effects.)

By your logic, it doesn't matter that we don't need those weapons, we will use them anyway, who cares what the future risks are.

By your logic, we should fucking do whatever we want to today because the future doesn't matter.

My logic is very simply put like this...... WHY ARE WE USING WEAPONS THAT ARE POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS WHEN WE DO NOT NEED TO??????

Or is it you position that the war over there dictates use of these weapons? Then why are they necessary if we are so much more superior to the enemy over there?

As for your first paragraph, I'll just simply say it shows nothing about the argument just the mentality of holier than thou attitude, that chooses not to face the issue at hand nor add anything supportive to their side.

What would you say if DU caused over 1 million cases of cancer a year in the US?
Would you ban it?

If so then try getting UV exposure banned because it allready is causing over 1 million cases of cancer a year in the US.
http://www.cdc.gov/chooseyourcover/skin.htm

DelayedReaction- this is serious. We are talking about something where the evidence is already surfacing. This is not just something that may or may not be dangerous at all. We already know it is at the very least a little dangerous. We already know that it's effect classifies it as a chemical weapon of mass destruction, due to it's plausable effect on healthy people over long periods of time. In referring to one of my posts above, there are war pensions being paid due to poisoning from DU. That is official. This is not a maybe, this is a certian.

What pan was saying is that in 10 years, when this is general information, will you finally question your blind faith to the untrustworthy people who lie about this? The evidence is here now, not 10 years from now.

Your entire first paragraph essentially makes fun of pan. Thanks for keeping this civil (oddly enough RIGHT after I commented on how glad I was that people were acting civil).

iamnormal- you serious? Let me ask you this. How many terrorists have killed Americans on our soil vs. how many people have died because of choking on food on American soil? Should we abondon terrorists for the cure to choking? We can play this game all day long, but we'll ultimatally run out of boring and irrelevant statistics. Apples and oranges. We are talking about illegal munitions being used. We are not talking about the lack of spf30. We can't ban the sun, but we CAN ban illegal munitions. I hope that clears it up for you. I would be glad to have a great discussion with you about UV caused cancer over in health, btw.

It's always so heartening when the other side refuses to truly face an issue by trying to divert with minutia and facts that don't substantiate their position but support something totally off issue.

UV is natural and from the sun. There are ways to prevent death from it.

Smoking kills also, but I and millions of others CHOOSE to smoke, knowing the health risks. Just as those who worship tans and sit for hours under the sun or in tanning booths CHOOSE to ignore health warnings against the UV rays.

Big difference with DU.....

These people HAVE NO CHOICE when we dump tons upon tons of it upon them and leave it there.

Wow. Now the DU munitions the US military uses are illegal. didn't know that. We certainly shouldn't be using illegal weapons or even weapons that kill. I think we should ban all weapons that kill people. we should just drop bombs that change peoples beliefs. That would work much better. Like hotdogs.

edit-Seroiusly, I'm confused. Is the concern over DU the harm it will cause the future generations or is it from inhaling the dust now? If its the former then sorry, I disagree with you. If its the latter then sorry, its a war.

There are two main concerns. One, that the depleted uranium is causing adverse effects upon the Iraqi civilian population, and two, that the depleted uranium is causing adverse effects among our own troops.

The argument seems to be that if weapons of nearly equivalent utility (non-DU rounds) would prevent this, they should be used instead to spare our own troops and the Iraqi civilians the negative consequences.

thanks for clearing this thread up, mo.

Stevo22- if you aren't here to further the conversation, you are free to roam elsewhere. No one is forcing you to read this. The Geneva Protocol of 1925 (ratified by the U.S. in 1975) bans the production and use of chemical weapons. Chemical weapons use the toxic properties of chemical substances in order to hurt or kill. DU is a toxic substance that is being used in war. So, yes, DU munitions are illegal. I realize that to a lot of people war seems to be a single minded situation in which winning is the only thought, but there have to be rules to try and safeguard people. While it is debatable whether war is necessary, it is NOT debatable that it is wrong to target, attack or harm innocent civilians. War, while uncivilized on the surface, has rules to follow. When these rules are broken, there are consequences.

DU is just one turd on a big pile of shit. So why bother with that one turd when you live with the pile of shit?

iamnormal- answer: because you can't deal with the whole pile at once. You start with the worst turns, and work your way back to the tolerable turds. The problem with this particular turd is that it is putting our soldiers in danger and it is illegal. You can't take a lethargic stance on things like this unless you want them to continue. I know that my friends who are loyally serving their country do not deserve exposure to dangerous DU. They deserve respect and loyalty from us civilans, those who don't/can't serve in the military. If it wasn't for a heart condition, I would be over there right now. It is wrong for us to sit back, turn on CSI, and just put injustice out of our minds.

Your analogies are significantly flawed. DU is known to be a toxic substance. The question is not whether it is harmful, the question is whether the quantities being used in a localized area are harmful to that area. Laser surgery is not known to cause eyeballs to pop out. Message board trolls are not known to cause psychological harm. Aliens are not known to exist.

Huh? We base all decisions on the possibility of risk in the future. Every single one of them. If we didn't, we'd be dying off like flies in the winter. Should I cross the street? Let's see if it appears that it will be safe while I am crossing the street. Should I buy a new car? Let me see how much money I have vs. need in order to eat. Should I take this new job? Let me analyze the job/market/prospects to see what the long term results will be.

You're attempting to portray DU as a completely innocuous substance for which there is presently zero potential for detrimental repercussion. That is simply not the case.

well put. DU is barely scratching the surface. There are piles of reports concerning the use of experimental chemical and biological weapons by US forces in Iraq. The same ones that Saddam didn´t have. Shit, the pentagon has admitted using Napalm in air strikes over Bagdhad.. But only after being caught. They´re only WMDs when someone else uses them. When the US air force drops illegal and sickeningly inhumane bombs on civilian populations its justified because Iraq was an imminent threat. Meaning they were mere hours away from doing it to Americans in their own backyards. Yeah. Right. And how about them cute little cluster bomblets?

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

Lebell- Thank you very much for bringing organization and sources to the side in support of DU. I was beginning to think no one was going to take a strong counterpoint.

That being said, I know that it seems the official stand of the military is that DU munitions are harmless. From your first link (www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/du.htm), and I quote:

"Like naturally occurring uranium, DU has toxicological and radiological health risks. Toxicologically, DU poses a health risk when internalized. Radiologically, the radiation emitted by DU results in health risks from both external and internal exposures; however, the external exposure risk is very low. The magnitude of the toxicological and radiological health risks of internalized DU is dependent on the amount internalized, the chemical form and the route of entry into the body. DU can be internalized through inhalation, ingestion, wound contamination and, as in the case of DU fragments, injection. Both non-combat and combat scenarios can lead to DU health risks." (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/l...html#principal , Health and Environmental Attributes, DU Toxicological and Radiological Health Effects.)

That quote elegantly restates what the anti-DU side has been saying; while seemingly harmless because of it's lack of effect externally, DU can become a health risk upon internalization.

The website goes on to say: "In non-combat scenarios, inhalation can occur during DU munitions testing, during accidental fires at facilities storing munitions or fires in vehicles loaded with munitions, and during operations that can resuspend DU particulates. Ingestion can occur from hand-to-mouth transfer of contamination or as the result of DU-contaminated food or water. Army safety and health programs are in place to minimize such exposures."

So, to summerize the findings presented to congress, DU munitions are not harmful externally, but they pose a health risk high enough to set up safty and health programs to help protect our soldiers.

From your second website, and I again quote:

"The behaviour of DU in the body is identical to that of natural uranium."
"Intake from wound contamination or embedded fragments in skin tissues may allow DU to enter the systemic circulation."

As a matter of fact, there is an entire section of the second link that is called "Potential health effects of exposure to depleted uranium". It reads similar to several posts already here.

You see the problem is that upon inhalation, the DU can be deposited via blood in a person's bones, brain, liver, lymph system, spleen, testes and other organs. It is in these locatiuons where the damage is done. The skin, amazingly, is able to block almost all toxic effects of DU. The problem is that if the DU bypasses the skin, through a wound or brake in the skin, ingestion, or inhalation, we are no longer protected from it's effects. The efffects, though not immediatally dangerous, compound over however many years that the DU is in the system. This constant, small amount of exposure in these vulnerable areas eventually becomes harmful.

As any industrial hygenist can tell you, it is the amount of exposure to a given substance that ultimately determines toxicity, and that is what is in question here.

My main point is that as of right now, there is no overwhelming evidence to support banning such weapons.

There does appear to be reason to monitor the situation and possibly to clean up areas with a high percentage of DU in the same way that we would any other heavy metal contaminated site.

Personally I'm baffled by this. You see the need for future clean up of heavy metal contamination but you don't see a need to prevent that contamination by not using DU? Do you really believe that once something like this is introduced to an ecosystem that complete clean up is possible? I'm only asking because gosh, 4.5 million years seems like an awfully long time.

I agree. The logic that says 'we think there's nothing wrong with it' while acknowledging the fact that cleanup would be necessary escapes me. If we don't use them in the first place there is no need to cleanup.

All the fuss is over DU's properties as a heavy metal. By your standards we should ban all heavy metal use in war. come on.

No, stevo22. I suggest reading the posts in a given thread before posting yourself. It might help you to avoid confusion in the future. I admit to being frustrated at your post above.

"All the fuss" is about a toxic substance being deposited in your bones, brain, liver, lymph system, spleen, testes and other organs. Just like uranium, DU poses toxicological and radiological health risks. It pulverizes upon impact and becomes airborn. People inhale it from the air, or eat foods that the DU landed on. From there it gets deposited throughout your body. So, 1 (DU has toxicological and radiological health risks) + 1 (DU inside your unprotected body for years) = 2 (very dangerous).

Edit:No...no....I'm done with this thread....must....stop...posting..

Just for the record.. there is no such thing as a toxic substance. At all. Certain amounts of ANY substance can be toxic. Its an important distinction to keep in mind. After reading the articles it appears there isnt much concensus as to whether there are toxic AMOUNTS of DU in use. But, I'm always for erring on the side of caution when it is compelling reason to do so.

I'm sorry. I should have been more specific about what I meant by "toxic". Actually Uranium causes mutations in and damages DNA, and uranium exposure can result in increased chromosomal aberrations. It can cause cancer. DNA mutation cannot be caused by any substance.

The total amount of DU munitions used in the Gulf War was outlined in the opening post. Around 350 tons of DU officially were used.

Lebell,

I respect your post and the way you focussed on the issue and gave your links as foundations for your belief.

I just have a few questions: is it not better to use something that isn't surrounded by controversy, such as a Tungsten? OR to at least have details clean up the DU in the areas after we have secured them? And again I have to ask, if we are facing such an inferior army over there what is the need to use these weapons anyway?

Can we afford to wait and see if there is any truth to the DU contamination, and how long do we continue to use it before we decide there are serious problems?

I'm sorry but our troops deserve to not be guinea pigs, and DU right now sounds exactly like the historical readings of Agent Orange. I'm not willing to take those chances, and in all honesty our government shouldn't either. To me the fact that there are so many questions and possibilities of harmful after affects to our troops and civilians, that I would cease all use or I would make sure we had in place a way to clean the DU up.

I thought I was being clear enough, but I will restate it.

I DO NOT necessarily see the need for future cleanup. What I said, was that it is a possibility. What is in doubt is how probable it is.

That is why I also said that further monitoring is advisable, so as to determine said probability.

As to the half life of U235, the number in and of itself is meaningless without knowing what the type of decay is and the daughter products. Indeed, in some cases, a longer half life is preferable as it means the substance is decaying slower and giving off less radiation.

Also, as I've stated, it is the heavy metal aspect that is of more concern with U235.

I also find it interesting that several people have said things akin to "introduced into the eco-system" as if U235 came from outerspace or was made in a laboratory somewhere. It came from the eco-system albiet one deep underground and before refining. Still, the point is important.

So once again, the key here is not just one or two numbers, but the actual effects it has given the amount, weighed against the cost of not using it and the cost of cleaning it up.

And THAT is what I am advocating; a reasoned approach based on what we currently know.

pan,

I addressed a few of your points, but I think you deserve a more personalized response.

I do think that sometimes the DOD reporting on itself is like the Fox reporting on the Chicken count, but that is supposedly why we also have congressional oversite, imperfect as it can be. I am also aware of the Agent Orange debacle, as well as the atomic medicine tests, syphilis tests, etc. and frankly, I think a few Army folks should have been sent to prison for a long time.

But in this case, there are other reports out there that conflict, some dramatically. As to actual numbers, ie, when do we stop using them, what proof is enough, etc., I really don't have an answer to that. I suppose if I did, I would be in another line of work.

The point is not important. You could just as easily say nothing is artificial and therefore there can be no artificially ccreated consequences.

The eco-system is not simply everything that exists. There is an eco-system in my living room. Put 100lbs of DU in my living room and you will destroy the eco-system. Whether DU is naturally occuring, manufactured in a lab or delivered to us from another dimension is irrelevant to the question of whether it has negative properties. DU is not natural to any eco-system other than one which already includes DU particles of similar quantity - and even then, to double the quantity is to alter the eco-system. DU did not come from the eco-system of Iraq, circa 2004 - it was introduced.

Not true.

Polychlorinated byphenols, or PCBs are not a naturally occuring substance that has been introduced into the ecosystem and had devestating effects.

Still, refining a substance, such as mercury, can change the way in which we must deal with it's disposal.

My point however, is that the 'ecosystem' can usually deal with a certain amount of a naturally occuring substance, such as U235, mercury, asbestos, etc, whereas it might not be able to deal with another substance, such as PCB.

But once again, substance, form and quantity must be addressed for the specific situation.

You missed my point. There are essentially no artificial substances. If a substance doesn't exist and it is created in a lab, it is still a natural product. So to claim that because DU exists somewhere, under some conditions (deep underground, on Mars, wherever) it is not an artificial danger to the ecosystem is true. But nothing at all, man-made or not, is an artificial danger to the ecosystem. But anything (even water) can be an danger to a specific ecosystem when it is artifically added.

So essentially, your original point, the distinction of the "naturalness" of DU is not important.

Um no, Depleted Uranium is not naturally present in any ecosystem.

What about Doug Rokke in the article posted above? He only came into contact with DU in a clean-up capacity and now "suffers from cataracts, kidney damage, and a disease called RADS -- a lung-destroying malady caused by inhaling hazardous substances over short periods." He was told by his superiors that they needed him to help mitigate an "agent orange for the 90s."

If you can't deal with even-handed journalism, like the article I posted, which shows that yes, DU poses a significant health threat then you may as well stick your head back in the sand like Dragonlich and Ustwo. Ignoring it will not make this problem go away.

BTW Lebell or other mods - you censored the wrong picture! There is still a photo of a child while you deleted a photo of an adult examining a destroyed tank! I'll edit it though--

Sigh.

Manx, Locobot,

If DU doesn't come from an ecosystem, where does it come from? (and I guess that chunk of carnotite I have out in the garage must mean that the southwestern Colorado doesn't have an ecosystem).

But I've stated my position of continued use with further study and clean up if necessary. If that's "sticking my head in the sand", I can live with it.

Just to clarify something that seems to be bothering people, very small amounts of uranium are found almost everywhere in soil, rock, and water. HOWEVER, concentrated deposits of uranium ores are found in just a few places, almost always in hard rock or sandstone. These deposits are normally covered over with earth and vegetation (in other words, the naturally occouring uranium does exist in an ecosystem, but that ecosystem is deep underground and is not exposed to land animals or plants).

The DU deposited in Iraq back in 1992 was at least 350 tons. That's a lot more uranium than is regularly deposited in ANY surface environment. Normally, uranium deposits larger than 500 grams per square mile can start to effect the natural environment in any given area. The only deposits more than that are found deep under ground. So, to clarify for super awesome moderator Lebell (heh, call me a brown noser), the amount of DU now in the areas where DU was used is exponenially larger than the natural amount that would have been. This can create an imbalance in said environment. Uranium not onl y effects humans at a genetic level, but all organisms. Imagine all animal and plant life developing cancerous growths and many of the organisms not being able to procreate.

Please ask if you need clarification on any of this.

It's fascinating to me that you're able to equate a rock you found in the mountains with a byproduct of refined nuclear fuel particulated, aerated, and disseminated in to the environment through weapons systems. How is it possible that you're able to take this blind leap with logic? Does depleted uranium truely fit your definition of a naturally occuring substance? Or are you making a disingenous claim to support an ideology-based belief?

Thanks for your post, Willravel, and I agree with pretty much everything you've said.

As I've stated above, the only question now is what the amounts and effects of such 'deposits' are, and if the cost of using the weapons outweighs the cost of not using the weapons which has not yet been adequately answered, as far as I'm concerned.