The Horrors Of DU

shatteredparadigm.blogspot.com...

*warning, graphic content in link*




www.envirosagainstwar.org...



mod edit: added external quote tags and added link warning.



[edit on 20-5-2008 by UK Wizard]

I take it you did not use the search function here before posting? It is in the top right of your screen.

Otherwise you would have seen that there are tons of articles (some still in progress) on DU. Some of them were able to post their evidence without involving a biased website.

It was obvious to me that whoever wrote that article is not aware of how DU works and also not aware of how it gets in your system.

I heard a story from a friend of the family that a scientist had a brick sized block of mined uranium (not purified at all) sitting in his lab for several years, and one day while doing an experiment with a geiger counter, he accidentally realized that the brick was actually uranium. I don't know what kind of stupid scientist that was, but I'm guessing even depleted uranium is more pure than freshly mined uranium.

Either way, look at some of the Indian Reservations where they mine uranium. Mine workers (often native americans themselves) getting terribly sick and dying, drinking water being contaminated, deformed babies, sick and dying livestock and crops.

Uranium and people just don't mix... and it is sick and twisted that we use depleted uranium on the tips of bombs and warheads when bombing innocent people's homes and apartments and such.

Make all the excuses you want. I'm biased towards the war AND the use of depleted uranium on innocent towns and villiages, not to mention it's just not necessary AT ALL, and I am rightfully biased. If you aren't biased towards this, you're completely blind to the suffering of others, and the fact that the US govt/army can and will do some really horrible stuff.



[edit on 19-5-2008 by dunwichwitch]

Alot of information but no proof.
Is there proof presented that troops are somehow "transmitting" radiation to their wives during sex? NO
Is there proof presented that this has resulted in countless deformities in childre? NO
Is there proof presented that these people in Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. are no longer asking whether their children are boy or girl but whether or not they are normal? NO

Birth defects happen. Sometimes in families without some kind of genetic predisposition for such a thing. They are not all caused by DU nor are they all caused by radiation.
This article doesn't even describe how DU contamination actually occurs nor do I know if he/she even knows that.

I worked in munitions in the U.S. Air Force for 6 years and have worked with ammunition containing DU as a penetrator.

We all know that radiation = bad if you are exposed. DUH! But the DU slug isn't going to harm anyone. In instances where the DU becomes inhaled is where the contamination occurs. This can be either on the battlefield after the DU slug has been destroyed or if the round somehow becomes damaged due to faulty equipment or whatever which makes small particles of the DU airborne.

Depleted Uranium is supposedly treated as low-grade nuclear waste. But the military isn't going to set down DU and compromise for something less effective as a penetrator. DU is one of the most dense substances on the planet. It also has pyrophoric properties which enhance the penetrating effect on the target.

Due to international moratoriums and public outcry, almost all countries have stopped using DU as a penetrator. The U.S. is only one of three or four countries that still use it. Should the U.S. be looking for a safer alternative? YES. Should the government have admitted from the very beginning that there was the potential for health hazards? YES. Is DU somehow some kind of genocidal weapon for indiscriminate killing and death? NO.

We talked about this to great length in other threads and there are MANY MANY cited sources of information about this. This is one thread that I participated in which had alot of good information sources and discussion.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


-ChriS

So no mention that radioactively speaking, DU is about as dangerous as a house full of granite counter tops?

That's not to say that DU isn't dangerous, but lets be honest about why it's dangerous. It's a heavy metal, and causes heavy metal poisoning. Just like lead, just like mercury, and so forth.

Here at Wikipedia:
en.wikipedia.org...

It states:


As well as this:


You can't trust everything you are being told especially if the report is coming from the department of defense itself which would obviously defend the use of DU. DU is 65% more dense than lead and has all kinds of additional properties that make it perfect for a penetrator. Imagine how much money it would cost to:

A-Conduct R&D to find a viable and safe alternative (Given the properties of DU it would be difficult beyond anything I can imagine).

B-Create an entire new stockpile of this ammunition for the entire military.

C-Somehow safely destroy or dispose of every single round of DU in the military inventory (not to mentin the transportation and labor costs of getting it off of all the military bases currently holding it and shipping it back to the U.S. if needed from overseas bases. especially consdiering DU is treated as low-grade nuclear waste).

You can imagine it would be Remarkably expensive to say the least. Of coarse they wouldn't want to do that.

The military isn't going to make a compromise for something half as good but non-radioactive. The entire point of technological innovation is to find alternatives that are more advanced and better than what is currently in place. They will not willingly take a step down the technological ladder.

I agree there is a problem. The health risks are obvious. DU emits gamma rays and is not exactly completely safe. The shame is the government's position on DU. The politicians will, for the most part, not even admit that it is unsafe and potentially hazardous. Meanwhile, most of the rest of the world has stopped using DU for obvious reasons.

But I also see this entire fiasco as means for some people to make fantastic claims of genocidal warfare, death, and suffering on a mass scale (Because they can). Some studies have shown it is unsafe. Some studies have shown it is. But you have to consider where the information is coming from also. It is obviously not the safest thing we could use and because of this some people see it as some kind of massive genocidal conspiracy when it is anything but. We still use DU because our government doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks regardless of the truth about DU. Then you have the money scenario i talked about earlier on top of this.

-ChriS

[edit on 20-5-2008 by BlasteR]

Well, here's another article that appears in the American Free Press about DU weapons...Including some studies by the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry at Long Island University in New York.

Even though DU weapons violate all four of the criteria, they're still being used & further studies are being blocked.


Maybe not, but the article linked in this post does (bold emphasis is mine)...

Isn't this a variation on the "A friend of my father's co-worker's uncle's wife's hairdresser told her that..." sort of story? It certainly sounds like it to me. I don't suppose this scientist has a name, or even a position? I'm asking because it's relevant to your comment. Let me paraphrase it into a question, if I might. "What kind of stupid scientist was that?" Answer: Perhaps some kind other than a geologist? It's not as though 'freshly mined uranium ore' comes out of the ground with a greenish glow around it, and warning signs already hanging from it.

As for depleted uranium being more pure than freshly mined uranium, it is. As to whether it's more dangerous, different story. The uranium ore is probably going to be more radioactive, but the depleted uranium *is* a heavy metal, and has all of the health risks associated with same.




I can't look at the reservations or the workers, since you haven't cited any sources for these Biblical-scale catastrophes. If you'd be kind enough to do so, it would be appreciated.




You might look into how and where depleted uranium is used. It's not used on every type of weapon in a theater. It's used in applications where high armor penetration is mission-critical...things like discarding-sabot AP rounds for a tank's main gun (not very effective against apartment buildings, by the way), or rounds for the A-10's GAU-8 cannon. It's not used in bomb casings or in run-of-the-mill missile warheads because it's not effective in low-velocity impacts.

You might also look at some objective figures for collateral damage. Any is too much, but in a real world, it happens. That said, there's a reason the U.S. military is using more and more guided weapons.

Here's a simple question: If we're trying to kill civilians in some sort of genocidal campaign, why are we using something so inefficient and slow-acting as depleted uranium? Why aren't we simply carpeting places like Fallujah and Sadr City with cluster munitions and napalm, and getting the killing done?



Ahh yes...the righteous (or self-righteous) indignation phase. "IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH ME, YOU ARE A HEARTLESS B***ARD!". I'll point out once more (without resorting to the ad hominem) that depleted uranium isn't used against towns or villages...it's used against armored vehicles and, rarely, against heavily fortified positions.

You have the right to any opinion you wish regarding the war in Iraq, or on the use of depleted uranium by the U.S. military. You do *not* have the right to assume that any and all who disagree with your opinion are your moral inferiors. Alongside the right to have an opinion, you have the corollary responsibility to make certain that your opinion is based on the best possible information. Given your repeated (and mistaken) assertions regarding the use of depleted uranium, I can't help but question your information on the subject.