 |
|
CerberusIV
|
|
There are a lot of carcinogens around, not just DU. Burning crude oil produces quite a few nasty chemicals for a start.
Until someone produces more compelling evidence of direct links to DU then it is hard to be sure where to point the finger of blame.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
connorkimbro
|
 |
Seoul Korea
Jan 1970 time: 23:29
|
|
you also can't say whether or not that whatever the iraqis used might have been the cause of it.
from what i remember of my training, DU doesn't hurt people under normal conditions. we ride around in tanks with DU armor, and our guys aren't affected. I think if the tank were attacked, and it was blown up and on fire, then the DU might become dangerous at that point, but HOW many tanks would have had to be blown up to affect the entire iraqi population and cause a 50% increase in cancer rates? not NEARLY as many as were blown up. (were any blown up at all? i can't remember)
again, i may be remembering a bit incorrectly, but i do know that normally, DU is not dangerous.
edit, i misquoted the statistics you stated, but can't be bothered to correct them. anyway, my point still stands i think. . .
|
|
|  |
 |
|
problem_child
|
 |
State of the Animal
Mar 2000 time: 05:29
|
|
But like cluster-bombs, effects of such armaments can persist long after the exciting and dramatic duel between warriors is over. What happens when the war is past and people return to the fields and cities where such altercations took place? They're breathing and eating the stuff... thus my question. I understand that militaries will always want more powerful and effective weapons, but where is the line drawn? Perhaps it's a matter of who uses what, rather then what is used by whoever.
Last edited by problem_child on 14-07-2003 at 19:24
|
|
|  |
 |
|
VJ
|
 |
Helsinki
Dec 2001 time: 07:29
|
|
quote: 'the ground in here', the ground in where? |
Here, as in about 60 degrees northern, almost exactly 25 degrees eastern.
quote: Do you mean granite? |
When I say 'ground', I mean 'ground'. Including the granite in it, yes.
EDIT: "Soil" would be another good word for this instance, English is not my native language so some of my sentences may sound quite confusing, sorry about that.
Last edited by VJ on 14-07-2003 at 19:53
|
|
|  |
 |
|
KrazyHorse
|
 |
Macedonia
May 2001 time: 00:29
|
|
quote: Originally posted by connorkimbro
i don't believe the ammunition that we use has any DU in it. . . i may be wrong, but i don't think so |
Tank shells do for sure. Arty shells too, probably.
It has a very high specific gravity, and is better than lead for some other reasons.
DU is uranium from which almost all the U235 originally present in uranium ore has been removed. This lowers its radioactivity to something considered acceptable. However, I'm pretty sure this calculation only includes dose from being around some DU, not ingestion of DU into a person's body (i.e. through the water supply). Given that heavy metals have been found to remain in people's bodies for ages, that it is still a low-level source of some pretty nasty forms of radiation and the fact that depleted or not it remains a chemical toxin, and you get the idea. There's no direct, firm link yet established between high levels of DU in a person's bloodstream (which was definitely present in some of the civilian population of Iraq after GW1, as well as in US military personnel involved in the war) and leukemia rates (or anything else), but I wouldn't drink the water or eat the food taken from ground in which DU shells have been used. Some people don't get that choice, unfortunately.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29. Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|