You could use a block of uranium as a paperweight and it wouldn't hurt a thing, however breathing dust from DU that has smashed through armor is another matter entirely. That being said the article is off base in many respects.
Well after the first name which calls us all name I see that you believe that science is wrong. What are you basing your opinion on? Is it sanity to say everyone else is ignorant, and the scientific studies are all wrong, basically because you believe it's wrong, or want to believe it's wrong? How can we have legitimate debate with name calling, and then denying science which is the only basis on which these issues can be studied.
I'm just really fed up with this negative tack many on your side take, especially with military issues. During the 1980's, every new weapon system was pilloried on 60 Minutes as being the greatest dog ever built. This is the same kind of empty-headed thinking. I think the problem lies in the fact that too many people these days (scientists especially) are the business of too quickly making a correlation between two things without establishing a sound connection through evidence. I reject this evidence because A. the sources (the UN and scientific community in general especially) are not friendly to our interests and convincing us to not use DU weapons would be to their advantage B. I've read plenty about the dangers and I think the case is rather flimsy and based on hysteria. Besides, we can't afford not to use DU ammo. For its cost, it is the best armor-piercing weapon on Earth. It is the main reason why our Abrams tanks ripped open Iraqi tanks like sardine cans. Even accepting that it causes some health problems (which any substance can cause in the right amount. Too much of anything is never good), these are WEAPONS designed to kill and maim the enemy and destroy their armored vehicles. Who gives a damn if they cause "environmental harm?" Wars don't have environmental impact statements.
Well, we agree that the UN is not a US puppet I think. The WHO is not a US puppet. The WHO says there is not evidence of any problem. Now we can weigh in environsagainstwar.org vs the WHO and I think this is a nonstarter. It sure as hell is a LONG WAY from a war crime or 'breaking international law.' WHO conclusions: 1. Depleted uranium is only weakly radioactive and emits about 40% less radioactivity than a similar mass of natural uranium. 2. Scientific and medical studies have not established a link between exposure to depleted uranium and the onset of cancers, congenital abnormalities or serious toxic chemical effects on organs. Caution has been expressed by some scientists who would like to see a larger body of independently (i.e. non-military) funded studies to confirm the current viewpoint. 3. Soldiers, particularly those at the site of an attack, are the most likely to have inhaled uranium metal and oxides in dusts and smoke. It is likely that the general population would not have encountered this form of transmission pathway or, at the very worst, only in very isolated instances. 4. The presence of minute quantities of plutonium in the depleted uranium used in Kosovo was reported by UNEP on 16 February 2001 (press release). UNEP has stated that ‘these newest findings on the composition of the depleted uranium only lead to a minor change in the overall radiological situation and therefore should not cause any immediate alarm’. As for peer review data: In an overview of the peer-reviewed medical literature no cases of cancers have been identified as being induced by the presence of depleted uranium in the human body. Possibly the most explicit view has been expressed by Harley et al. (1999) following an extensive scientific literature survey. They state: “Although any increase in radiation to the human body can be calculated to be harmful from extrapolation from higher levels, there are no peer-reviewed published reports of detectable increases in cancer or other negative health effects from radiation exposure to inhaled or ingested natural uranium at levels far exceeding those likely in the Gulf [War]. This is mainly because the body is very effective at eliminating ingested and inhaled natural uranium and because the low radioactivity per unit mass of natural and depleted uranium means that the mass of uranium needed for significant internal exposure is virtually impossible to obtain.” The smoke/fire analogy is just silly. For example, Depleted Uranium shells kill. Yes. They are supposed to! But saying there is science that concludes something is a far cry from saying scientific consensus concludes x. Europe does indeed have more regulations. You assume that is good while the scientific basis for that regulation is lacking many arenas: genetically modified food, for example, or antibotics to treat animals is another. The science is clearly NOT on Europe's side in these instances, but the public's fear factor is. Where there is smoke there is fire maybe. But what's causing the fire is the question. I'm not even saying more study shouldn't be done. I'm saying stop with the crapola rhetoric about war crimes, secret nuclear wars etc. Its just counterproduct for everyone EXCEPT those that are making money on scaring and inciting the public, like environsagainstwar.org.
