Should Depleted Uranium Be Band?

Should the Use of Depleted Uranium Be Banned?

Depleted Uranium (DU) is commonly used in Armour piercing rounds due to its high density. It is only mildly radioactive in the sense that it only releases Alpha and Beta radiation. However when a shell hits a target the metal vaporises into microscopic particles.
Once inhaled (or consumed as the metal is soluble in fat) these particles do not stop being radioactive. At point blank range DU is more than capable of causing cancer and birth defects.
In the first Gulf war we used 300 tonnes, and according to UN this may have increased Iraq’s cancer rate by around 50% nationally and some areas by over 1000%. Knowing this we used 1500 tonnes this time round and on some occasions in Baghdad itself.
The reason for this may be because the government (but not the arms manufactures) is still in denial about DU's health affects. It has to be because doing otherwise would entail hundreds of millions-billions in compensation to troops and civilians alike. Obviously this attitude will only cost the tax payer more in the future. I guess that most government officials hope they personally will be out of office-retired when it does.
Furthermore DU is considered an essential weapon by the military. If in doubt about anything I have said please use Google and type: "depleted-uranium" "DU" or better still "Depleted-uranium health-effects".
The worst thing about depleted Uranium is that it has a half life of 4.2 billion years. This means half of it will still be radioactive when the solar system collapses. This is a typical problem with things that are only mildly radioactive (they stay so forever).

Furthermore under U.S law troops have no right to claim compensation "for injuries received during combat". The military still provides troops suffering from DU with generous help. However many of the ones who have complained to the media have been less "lucky". And of course legally they have little or no leg to stand on. Like I say check out “Depleted Uranium” on Google (its shocking and very, very real).

It should be banned, being that their are adequate alternatives that can be utilized in place of DU, when these nations, as a collective, agree to do so:

US
Russia
China
UK
Israel
France
Japan
Pakistan
----along with the complete retooling or shutdown of the DU manufacturering plants in 18+ countries.




seekerof

it has been banned by UN since 1996, however US continues to violate that ban now 15yrs since:

UN Condemns Depleted Uranium as Ilegal Weapons of Mass Destruction

The UN Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities passed a resolution condemning the use of Depleted Uranium and certain other weapons during its 48th session in August 1996:


Source:
UN Press Release, 04 Sep 1996, HR/CN/755 : SUBCOMMISSION ON PREVENTION OF DISCRIMINATION AND PROTECTION OF MINORITIES CONCLUDES FORTY-EIGHTH SESSION

prop1.org...

Originally posted by ignant
it has been banned by UN since 1996, however US continues to violate that ban now 15yrs since:

UN Condemns Depleted Uranium as Ilegal Weapons of Mass Destruction

The UN Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities passed a resolution condemning the use of Depleted Uranium and certain other weapons during its 48th session in August 1996:


Source:
UN Press Release, 04 Sep 1996, HR/CN/755 : SUBCOMMISSION ON PREVENTION OF DISCRIMINATION AND PROTECTION OF MINORITIES CONCLUDES FORTY-EIGHTH SESSION

prop1.org...

thats not true. There is no treaty that denies the use of DU. Some countries have banned it, but the WHO, Nato, and the UN have made sure that it isnt made illegal.

Afterall, their member nations ARE the ones who use it...

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

but the WHO, Nato, and the UN have made sure that it isnt made illegal.

Afterall, their member nations ARE the ones who use it...

reference?

Originally posted by ignant

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

but the WHO, Nato, and the UN have made sure that it isnt made illegal.

Afterall, their member nations ARE the ones who use it...

reference?

Reference to what? My opinion?

Or on the fact that DU is not illegal?

On June 21, 2009, Belgium became the first country in the world to ban: "inert ammunition and armour that contains depleted uranium or any other industrially manufactured uranium."[55] The move followed a unanimous parliamentary vote on the issue on 22 March 2007. The text of the 2007 law allowed for two years to pass until it came into force.[56] In April 2009, the Belgian Senate voted unanimously to restrict investments by Belgian banks into the manufacturers of depleted uranium weapons

In September 2009, the Latin American Parliament passed a resolution calling for a regional moratorium on the use, production and procurement of uranium weapons. It also called on the Parlatino's members to work towards an international uranium weapons treaty

In December 2010 the UN General Assembly passed a resolution calling on users of depleted uranium to hand over quantitative and geographical data on their use, to the relevant authorities of affected states when requested to do so. The resolution passed by 148 votes to four, with 30 abstentions. Five states that have abstained on previous resolutions in 2007 and 2008 voted in favour – Belgium, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Greece, Luxembourg and Slovenia, and no former supporters changed position. The UK, US, Israel and France voted against.[59]

In April 2011, the Congress of Costa Rica passed a law prohibiting uranium weapons in its territories, becoming the second country in the world to do so.[60] In November 2010, the Irish Senate also passed a bill seeking to outlaw depleted uranium weapons; it is now expected to be considered by the Dáil before passage into law.[61]

There is no specific treaty ban on the use of DU projectiles. There is a developing scientific debate and concern expressed regarding the impact of the use of such projectiles and it is possible that, in future, there will be a consensus view in international legal circles that use of such projectiles violate general principles of the law applicable to use of weapons in armed conflict. No such consensus exists at present.[45]

en.wikipedia.org...