It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by BlasteR
We were trained to understand that the depleted uranium within the tips of these 30mm rounds is not dangerous (since it is depleted). The only odd thing that I did notice is that some structures containing this 30mm combat mix still had the radiation sign on the door of the building (as a notice), as well as text at the bottom of the sheet telling you not to eat or drink anything while you are in the building. This may be standard practice as far as I know, but I thought it was odd that this sign was posted on a door where no radiated items were being held. If, indeed, the rounds are depleted and not dangerous, why would this sign be on the door telling you it was. I never was able to figure out why. I asked my supervisor once about it and even he didn't know.
I'm not saying there's a conspiracy going on. But I did find it odd. Although I never worked with anything nuclear, we were trained to understand that the military has strict guidelines and limits as to how much radiation an individual can be exposed to per year. However, this structure with the sign on the door did not house any nuclear components or weapons. I never worked with anything nuclear (as far as I know), nor did I want to.
Originally posted by fritz
1. Once expended [used], DU ammunition emits alpha, beta, and gamma particles.
6. Half Lives. This is in effect a 'trick' explanation, because science cannot guarantee absolutely, the Life of any given nuclear element. They simply do not know.
Some nuclear elements decay in a matter of seconds [Alpha & Beta Particles] whilst Gamma & X-Rays decay over many days or years depending on the isotope used and its Atomic Weight.
Half Lives are, at best, a 'SWAG' - or Stupid Wild Arsed Guess, arrived at via computer programmes fed with what is 'currently' known about a given element.
Originally posted by Bspiracy
reply to post by fritz
you said it was sensational and I still haven't seen a response to the DNA scrambling. They have the genetic markers neatly displayed and explained for you in the clip. It clearly shows a mutation.break or scramble.
Do the chemicals do this like radiation could ?
In 1996 the International Court of Justice (ICJ) gave an advisory opinion on the "legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons". This made it clear, in paragraphs 54, 55 and 56, that international law on poisonous weapons, – the Second Hague Declaration of 29 July 1899, Hague Convention IV of 18 October 1907 and the Geneva Protocol of 17 June 1925 – did not cover nuclear weapons, because their prime or exclusive use was not to poison or asphyxiate. This ICJ opinion was about nuclear weapons, but the sentence "The terms have been understood, in the practice of States, in their ordinary sense as covering weapons whose prime, or even exclusive, effect is to poison or asphyxiate." also removes depleted uranium weaponry from coverage by the same treaties as their primary use is not to poison or asphyxiate, but to destroy materiel and kill soldiers through kinetic energy.
The Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities of the United Nations Human Rights Commission, passed two motions the first in 1996 and the second in 1997. They listed weapons of mass destruction, or weapons with indiscriminate effect, or of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering and urged all states to curb the production and the spread of such weapons. Included in the list was weaponry containing depleted uranium. The committee authorized a working paper, in the context of human rights and humanitarian norms, of the weapons. The requested UN working paper was delivered in 2002 by Y.K.J. Yeung Sik Yuen in accordance with Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights resolution 2001/36. He argues that the use of DU in weapons, along with the other weapons listed by the Sub‑Commission, may breach one or more of the following treaties: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the Charter of the United Nations; the Genocide Convention; the United Nations Convention Against Torture; the Geneva Conventions including Protocol I; the Convention on Conventional Weapons of 1980; and the Chemical Weapons Convention.
Yeung Sik Yuen writes in Paragraph 133 under the title
"Legal compliance of weapons containing DU as a new weapon":
[B]Annex II to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material 1980 (which became operative on 8 February 1997) classifies DU as a category II nuclear material. Storage and transport rules are set down for that category which indicates that DU is considered sufficiently "hot" and dangerous to warrant these protections. But since weapons containing DU are relatively new weapons no treaty exists yet to regulate, limit or prohibit its use. The legality or illegality of DU weapons must therefore be tested by recourse to the general rules governing the use of weapons under humanitarian and human rights law which have already been analysed in Part I of this paper, and more particularly at paragraph 35 which states that parties to Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 have an obligation to ascertain that new weapons do not violate the laws and customs of war or any other international law. As mentioned, the International Court of Justice considers this rule binding customary humanitarian law.[/B]
In 2001, Carla Del Ponte, the chief prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, said that NATO's use of depleted uranium in former Yugoslavia could be investigated as a possible war crime. Louise Arbour, Del Ponte's predecessor as chief prosecutor, had created a small, internal committee, made up of staff lawyers, to assess the allegation. Their findings, that were accepted and endorsed by Del Ponte, concluded that:
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.
Originally posted by mdiinican
reply to post by BlasteR
Loophole? Please. It states that poisonous weapons are weapons made for poisoning people. DU ammunition is made to kill people by being rammed through their vehicles at high speeds. That's be like trying to ban lead bullets, because they're made of lead, which is similarly toxic.
You can't create a new definition of a war crime and retroactively indict people or organizations for it. That's illegal. Be thankful you can't make laws that take retroactive effect. That would effectively allow the people in power to do anything they want to you.
The government IS looking at alternatives, in response to public pressure, NOT scientific consensus. The new Small Diameter Bomb was to use tungsten shrapnel instead of DU, for it's similar properties, and because tungsten isn't radioactive at all. Unfortunately on trials on mice, tungsten shrapnel was found to cause cancer MORE frequently than the depleted uranium did (to my great surprise).
Essentially, the US government would rather make our soldiers more effective, thus saving some of their lives, and is prepared to accept some collateral damage to enemy civilians and US personnel from inhaling vaporized DU from around destroyed enemy materiel. The political impact of some veterans having a shortened lifespan due to exposure is less than the immediate political impact of the death statistics during wartime.
The risks are real, but often overstated, often drastically, like in the OP. And occasionally understated, as from some politicians.
Originally posted by Bspiracy
you said it was sensational and I still haven't seen a response to the DNA scrambling. They have the genetic markers neatly displayed and explained for you in the clip. It clearly shows a mutation.break or scramble. Do the chemicals do this like radiation could ? b