1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

DU (again)

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by Treefrog, 2 May 2006.

  1. Treefrog

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 7 Nov 2004

    Posts: 2,828

    Location: Up a tree - where else?

    I just came across this article about Depleted Uranium. It's a bit long, but please read it all before commenting.

    So, knowing this, why does the military now say that DU is harmless?

    Is it because it's a convenient way to dispose of nuclear waste, a cheap way to destroy tanks, an effective way to dispose of large numbers of those "sand-*******" and "ragheads" who happen to live there (with soldiers considered as collateral damage) or what?
     
  2. @if ®afiq

    Soldato

    Joined: 3 May 2003

    Posts: 6,080

    Because it's the US military.......They aren't exactly going to say this is extremely dangerous and will leave 10's of thousands of US troops with disabilities after GW1 (not to mention the "ragheads" being born with disabilities that were non-existent in Iraq).

    DU should be classed as a Chemical Weapon and use of such material should be banned....but it's our boys that are using it so it's all good.
     
  3. peter_hutson

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 30 Oct 2003

    Posts: 1,387

    Location: Aberdeen

    DU is only dangerous when inhaled, hence DU rounds are completely safe, PRIOR to being fired. The problems arise when they strike their target. Some of the DU tipped round vapourises and settles as dust on or around the target. This can then cause health problems when it is disturbed and mixed with the air, as the DU residue can then easily enter the lungs.

    In the unlikely event that you ever visit kuwait on holiday, I would not advise climbing over any burned out armoured vechiles you find in the desert!

    War is a nasty business, both the innocent and the guily get killed or maimed. I suspect the impact of DU fallout is rather small when compared to civilian casualties caused by convention armaments. Though I'll have to have a google to see what I can find.
     
  4. robmiller

    Capodecina

    Joined: 26 Dec 2003

    Posts: 16,522

    Location: London

    I think the danger posed by the aftermath of DU rounds - whilst very apparent - pales in comparison to things like un-exploded anti-personnel/anti-vehicle mines and other unexploded ordnance. Both are a concern, but it's sad to see that the fact that DU is radioactive getting in the way of the level of concern required.
     
  5. Ugley_Matt

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 8 Jul 2005

    Posts: 1,530

    I like the irony of calling amunition harmless, rather defeats the point of it.
     
  6. Treefrog

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 7 Nov 2004

    Posts: 2,828

    Location: Up a tree - where else?

    The difference in effects between micro- and nano-particles is also considerable. The effects on mice of breathing Teflon particles is pointed out in that article. No apparent effect after inhaling micro-particles, dead within 4 hours after inhaling the nano-particles.

    The main cause seems to be inhalation of the dust and oxides caused by the impact which are small and light enough to be carried quite far on the wind and easily stirred up by wind, passing vehicles, etc.
    Unlike conventional munitions which kill fairly instantly, the full effects of DU won't be known for a decade or so. I expect to see that far more have been killed by conventional ammo at the present, but for that figure to reverse as time goes on. It's also going to affect future generations.

    I disagree - the dust spreads, the explosives stay in one place.
     
    Last edited: 2 May 2006
  7. @if ®afiq

    Soldato

    Joined: 3 May 2003

    Posts: 6,080

    From what I remember, most of Kuwait was cleaned up quite well after GW1, but sadly, waste swathes of Iraq are still contaminated from GW1.
     
  8. Stolly

    Mobster

    Joined: 11 Mar 2004

    Posts: 4,988

    Nice accusation of racism there, obviously you've personally interviewed many people from the president down and know for sure that most people in the American military feel this way.

    Right ?
     
  9. Stolly

    Mobster

    Joined: 11 Mar 2004

    Posts: 4,988

    You don't think stepping on a anti-personel mine is more immediatley dangerous than breathing dust ?

    Wow, in addition to basless accusations of racism you seem to not have a total grasp on reality.
     
  10. robmiller

    Capodecina

    Joined: 26 Dec 2003

    Posts: 16,522

    Location: London

    Both are hidden, but the explosives are much more likely to kill.
     
  11. semi-pro waster

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 27 Sep 2004

    Posts: 25,829

    Location: Glasgow

    I don't believe that was what was said nor even implied here, Treefrog doesn't mention the immediacy of the effects. It is apparant that a landmine is much more likely to kill or maim you instantly but that doesn't alter the fact that DU dust(if the information contained within the link is correct) is dangerous in both short and long term exposure.

    The possibility of miniscule particles being capable of causing genetic mutations certainly fills me with more horror than landmines which while devastating are in comparison at least easier to defend against, less prone to drifting around and can't cause birth defects(albeit they can take off limbs of those presently alive).

    Heck if it was up to me I'd be banning all landmines, employing teams to clear existing landmines and ensuring that any stocks existing are safely destroyed but it doesn't change DU's potential impact.
     
  12. Treefrog

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 7 Nov 2004

    Posts: 2,828

    Location: Up a tree - where else?

    As you've quoted my post verbatim it should be blindingly obvious to you that I haven't mentioned the US at all.

    Now where did I even imply that that was the case? My point, which you apparently failed to spot, was that an anti-personnel mine will not float around in the wind but relies on a human coming close enough to it to activate it

    Not on your version of it, no. So stop trolling and start reading.
     
  13. Stolly

    Mobster

    Joined: 11 Mar 2004

    Posts: 4,988

    So its UK forces you are accusing of racism as well ? Using well known American racist epithets ? You really have gone off the deep end. "sand-******" ?? "raghead" ?? What on earth does that have to do with DU ? Why even mention those words ? Why are you accusing people you have never met of racism ?
     
  14. Treefrog

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 7 Nov 2004

    Posts: 2,828

    Location: Up a tree - where else?

    I refer you to the last sentence in my previous post.
     
  15. Stolly

    Mobster

    Joined: 11 Mar 2004

    Posts: 4,988

    "an effective way to dispose of large numbers of those "sand-*******" and "ragheads"

    Who said that ? what military ? Who's country ?

    No member of any military has ever said that. Thats a baseless accusation of racism.
     
  16. Stolly

    Mobster

    Joined: 11 Mar 2004

    Posts: 4,988

    I've read that article a couple of times, because i would like to throw you a bone. DU really is nasty stuff, there is no doubt about that.

    You claimed however, that the "military" of some country that you seem to be shy of naming said it was harmless. Unless that's a second baseless accusation, i suppose you do have someone saying that. A link to a second website will do. A member of the "military" speaking on the record in his/her official capacity will do.

    The article is riddled with easy to spot errors. It has this doctor talking of the cancer clusters, of that i have no doubt. He also says that DU is more harmfull to children, also fair enought. Wher is the link though ? Where is the verified link between injestation of dust and their cancers ? He's tested them for traces of DU right ? Did i miss that ? He's proved that the cancers are not as a result of Saddam burning the oilfields releasing tons of cancer causing chemicals into the air ?

    What about Serbia ? DU was used there, where are the cancer clusters ? There must be some right ?

    Also DU is not used in bombs. It wouldn't work. Do you know why DU is used at all ? Its not becuase of radiation, you do know that don't you ?
     
  17. Treefrog

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 7 Nov 2004

    Posts: 2,828

    Location: Up a tree - where else?

    You did. I gave a supposition, you made it a statement.

    If you want to complain about racism then do it in one of the (many) racism threads.
    If you have nothing constructive to add on the subject of DU then stay out of my thread.

    Edit: Just noticed your post ^^ - visitors distracted me mid-type. Must use F5 more.
     
    Last edited: 2 May 2006
  18. Stolly

    Mobster

    Joined: 11 Mar 2004

    Posts: 4,988

    Implied accusation, a baseless one.
     
  19. Stolly

    Mobster

    Joined: 11 Mar 2004

    Posts: 4,988



    http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/index.html

    Its chemicaly toxic, not radiologically and the WHO says that initially the dust is only spread some meters from the impact point. I wouldn't want to inhale lots of it, but i'm only going to do that by clambering around something hit by it. Who would have thought that clambering around abandoned fighting vehicles was dangerous ?
     
    Last edited: 2 May 2006
  20. Scania

    Capodecina

    Joined: 25 Nov 2004

    Posts: 24,563

    Location: On the road....

    Many people who have an idea what such vehicles get exposed too from time to time?