this is what i don't get. who gives a crap what his title is. didn't he basically support the theory that this stuff isn't that bad for you?
if you read what he wrote, he said that du rounds aren't that dangerous, and that there are other, more radioactive elements around on a battlefield like radium dials.
basically he said don't eat them, and don't wear them. makes sense to me, and matches up nicely with the SCIENCE that you were talking about Scott. if asbestos is more of a danger than du rounds, i would say they can't be that bad.
man, i wish everyone would stop being so damn anal and defensive. relax. think before you post. stop trying to read evil into other people's posts.
If we could keep the discussion away from the personal and on the topic of half-life and gamma rays and alpha particles and sad baby pictures and whatever that would be grand.
actually, to get us back on track....the quote before was from running with scissors link, not from this guy...running's post (for what it's worth, here is what the US military has to say about it's use of depleted uranium. carry on.
here's the<a href="http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/faq_17apr.htm"; target="_blank">link</a> ) links to a government study i think...it says DU is dangerous enough for our soldiers to keep away from...so i hope we are also helping to educate the people who live there 24/7 to also keep away for it...i also hope we are cleaning it up...that would be the best situation for something we know is dangerous enough to keep our boys away from....
the guy i met is much more against DU...i found some older press releases which i will link to here....
to clarify and not hide anything...i am sure it is a liberal group of people running this group...i would consider them pro-american, but i am sure "some" here will consider and maybe even call them anti-american....peace....g
Well since I am now working in New Jersey, my PCB levels are probably elevated. I am on my way to work near a MegaWatt Radar ( One of those lead underwear days ) so I will be getting a good healthy dose of EMF. A place that has taught me that with enough energy concrete can be made flammable.
I am so glad I don't have to worry about radiation. :cool:
Science, as in studies done by our government that have them training our own soldiers to keep away from the stuff?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Science as in half lives , decay products and estimated retention in the body. Estimated dose, which is then compared to natural sources of radiation. It's basic health physics.
It's funny that when confronted with real numbers some of the people go running for non scientific source to "prove" what they want. Pseudoscience "experts" whose qualifications come from being tacked onto the their bio rather than from real academic work.
Science as in half lives , decay products and estimated retention in the body. Estimated dose, which is then compared to natural sources of radiation. It's basic health physics. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Well I for one don't think any of those numbers matter when you do a 10 year study that shows your own troops are adversely affected by the stuff and need better protections. The numbers could all be 10 times better than you say/guess, but if something in the DU is causing the government to equip its own soldiers with better protections then it's not safe.
they say the health risks are low, but educate people and clean it up...i would agree with that...if we clean up the DU rounds after a war i think that is a good start....g
<strong>If it's not safe, why are we using it?</strong><hr></blockquote>
because for what they use it for ( in this case, amunition and armour) there is no better substance. we didn't lose any tank crew personel during the gulf war from enemy fire due in large part the properties of depleted uranium. we could kill them but the were unable to do any serious damage to us. i was always under the impression that that was a good thing in war.
We have to pay attention to the facts here. Scot is actually right about a lot when it comes to uranium. In lab experiments it take very high doses to cause birth defects. We are also talking about an Iraqi PR campaign that can't be taken at face value.
But...
There is no question that something the US military is doing is causing health problems. It has been widely reported in kosovo and in the gulf war. In one study, 67% of the babies born to gulf war veterans in Mississippi had defects. There are more than enough reports of illness, notably lukemia among peacekeepers, throughout kosovo.
The simple fact remains that not enough is known about DU or the illness to link them. But DU is recognized as a health risk and no serious scientist can rule it out at this point. A lot more research needs to be done before any conclusions are drawn, and not just a comparison of radiation levels of common items.
But, as I said, there really is no question that something the US military is doing is causing health problems (and I don't mean the obvious 'health risks' the enemy faces) even in US soldiers, and the cause is unknown.
The US military recognizes the potential health risks of DU and damaged Bradleys and Abrams tanks are treated with care. Repair workers wear masks and gloves and there is a set of safty procedures. This is not done because it is a proven problem, but because it is a question hanging in the air.
Scott, if you want to do a real study on this, I'm sure it would be welcomed and it would certainly be beneficial to many people, whatever the findings were. But as it stands, something is causing these health problems, and as far as anyone knows, DU is the prime suspect. Maybe it has been fingered for a crime it didn't commit, but the crime remains.
BTW some of the health problems in US soldiers in the gulf war could very well have been a result of the anthrax vaccine or the anti-VX nerve pill. But no one knows.
As a result, if I was a lawmaker I would suggest limited use of DU shells until their health effects have been determined.
giant, well said....and not attacking in style....dang, i have to learn to post like that... <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> maybe when i grow up....g
[quote]Originally posted by running with scissors:
<strong>
we could kill them but the were unable to do any serious damage to us. i was always under the impression that that was a good thing in war.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's a popular misconception. Civilians need to be protected first, troops second. If the war lasts longer because we can't attack as fast but we loose more troops and significantly less civilians, then that's a good thing.
And the U.S. has done more than anyone else to protect civilians in war, but until DU is proven to be a real and significant hazard I see no reason to put our troops in further danger; Iraqi propaganda campaign notwithstanding.
We kill them before they kill us, that's the rule of war.
Remember also that it takes two to tango, it's not like Iraq was fighting with biodegradeable weapons, perhaps they are poisoning their own people.
The people who know more about this stuff than any of us have deemed them field-worthy.
I'm not educated enough on this subject to say if it's true or not. However I have no problem with the idea that if the military thinks it's worth it it will put anyone at risk. Just look into some of those early experiments they did in the 50's. Just insane stuff. Boatloads of animals burnt to a crisp when they were testing the hydrogen bomb. What did they expect.?
I always love that picture of those soldiers marching into the mushroom cloud. And then there is all that crap ( and they knew it ) about duck and cover back when I was in grade school. Hell as kids we knew it probably wouldn't do any good.
I suspect we still don't know everything about the effects of different kinds of radiation. After all by Scott's own admission we've only been studying it for 50 years. A long time for a person not exactly a long time for science.
I also think Scott would not accept any evidence no matter how well researched that countered his argument.
Remember also that it takes two to tango, it's not like Iraq was fighting with biodegradeable weapons, perhaps they are poisoning their own people.
<hr></blockquote>
This is never an excuse to regress. We as a nation, as communities and as individuals should always be striving to to the best we can, regardless of what other do. Secondly, it is our level of technology that affords us the luxury of restraint. Condemning countries that do not have this ability is just wrong.
[quote]
The people who know more about this stuff than any of us have deemed them field-worthy.<hr></blockquote>
My mother talks about this attitude and how it seems to dominate the way in which americans (and people everywhere, for that matter) interact with their government. You can also see it in how people deal with anyone considered a specialist, like a computer 'specialist,' for instance.
It's also exactly the attitude that fosters poor decisions to be made by our government. The belief that drives it is simply not the way things work and it is self-degrading. You can easily know as much as anyone about the subject, and the Information Revolution of the past ~15 years has made it dramatically easier. It may take time, but anyone can do it. Giving up your power to 'people who know more about this stuff' (and who really are these people?) is a recipe for disaster.
When you are dealing with issues that are tied into politics, it is REALLY important to find out the truth for yourself before forming an opinion. If that means going out in the field for two years, then so be it. Otherwise, if you form an opinion based entirely on what one group of 'people who know more about this stuff' says, you are being decieved.
As jimmac points out, 'the people who know more about this stuff' have a damn piss-poor track record.
<strong>We kill them before they kill us, that's the rule of war. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Disagree.
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>Remember also that it takes two to tango, it's not like Iraq was fighting with biodegradeable weapons, perhaps they are poisoning their own people. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Agreed.
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>The people who know more about this stuff than any of us have deemed them field-worthy. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Disagree.
If it's unsafe for troops it's unsafe for civilians. I see no need to risk the lives of the civilians any more than necessary. And if your belief that killing them before they could kill us was actually the rule of war, then we would just nuke/neutron bomb the whole place.
It's not the rule of war though, even though a lot of gun happy people tend to believe it is.
[quote]f it's unsafe for troops it's unsafe for civilians. I see no need to risk the lives of the civilians any more than necessary. And if your belief that killing them before they could kill us was actually the rule of war, then we would just nuke/neutron bomb the whole place.<hr></blockquote>
perhaps what he should have said was that we try to kill them before they kill us while minimizing civilian casualties.
to be completely honest, is there anyone here who thinks that a protracted war using less effective rounds would mean less innocent people die?
sorry, but to me the sooner the war ends, the sooner innocent people stop dying. it's the extended wars that kill of civillian populations due to errant munitions, starvation, riots, destruction of habitat.
du rounds kill tanks by vaporizing those inside. one shot, one kill. firing dozens of rounds into a tank hoping to get a kill shot, maiming soldiers, burning them to death etc. seems as bad or worse to me. then there's the issue of the propellents in regular tank rounds. i'm sure those aren't exactly good for you.
you read as well as i did. they were saying the radium dials that light up in the dark are more dangerous than du rounds.
as for picking them up afterwards, sure i suppose. i would guess that's more of a cost issue than anything else. what's the easiest way to pick up du rounds that are buried under a foot of sand where they plowed into the ground? it's possible, but not plausable.
although maybe we could pay local kids to pick them up for us and bring them to base......
Science as in half lives , decay products and estimated retention in the body. Estimated dose, which is then compared to natural sources of radiation. It's basic health physics.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree. Now let's have a look at your understanding of science. You calculate the amount (weight) of U238 and U235 that decays in your body during 100 years and then compare these numbers to dose equivalents (Rem) per year???
Either come up with the missing numbers and math or don't talk about science.
BTW: I've no idea how dangerous du is. Maybe it's harmless, But I want so see some REAL science first.
I'm convinced that depleted uranium is dangerous because it's used in weapons. Is this an issue about whether it is dangerous, or something more specific?
Comments
if you read what he wrote, he said that du rounds aren't that dangerous, and that there are other, more radioactive elements around on a battlefield like radium dials.
basically he said don't eat them, and don't wear them. makes sense to me, and matches up nicely with the SCIENCE that you were talking about Scott. if asbestos is more of a danger than du rounds, i would say they can't be that bad.
man, i wish everyone would stop being so damn anal and defensive. relax. think before you post. stop trying to read evil into other people's posts.
man. this is a message board, keep that in mind.
Thanks.
here's the<a href="http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/faq_17apr.htm"; target="_blank">link</a> ) links to a government study i think...it says DU is dangerous enough for our soldiers to keep away from...so i hope we are also helping to educate the people who live there 24/7 to also keep away for it...i also hope we are cleaning it up...that would be the best situation for something we know is dangerous enough to keep our boys away from....
the guy i met is much more against DU...i found some older press releases which i will link to here....
<a href="http://www.ratical.org/radiation/IDUST.html"; target="_blank">
iDust</a> from 2000
and <a href="http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2001/msg00083.html"; target="_blank">here from 2001</a>
to clarify and not hide anything...i am sure it is a liberal group of people running this group...i would consider them pro-american, but i am sure "some" here will consider and maybe even call them anti-american....peace....g
[ 01-31-2003: Message edited by: thegelding ]</p>
<strong> Let's stick to science. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Science, as in studies done by our government that have them training our own soldiers to keep away from the stuff?
I am so glad I don't have to worry about radiation. :cool:
<strong>
Science, as in studies done by our government that have them training our own soldiers to keep away from the stuff?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Science as in half lives , decay products and estimated retention in the body. Estimated dose, which is then compared to natural sources of radiation. It's basic health physics.
It's funny that when confronted with real numbers some of the people go running for non scientific source to "prove" what they want. Pseudoscience "experts" whose qualifications come from being tacked onto the their bio rather than from real academic work.
<strong>
Science as in half lives , decay products and estimated retention in the body. Estimated dose, which is then compared to natural sources of radiation. It's basic health physics. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Well I for one don't think any of those numbers matter when you do a 10 year study that shows your own troops are adversely affected by the stuff and need better protections. The numbers could all be 10 times better than you say/guess, but if something in the DU is causing the government to equip its own soldiers with better protections then it's not safe.
If it's not safe, why are we using it?
they say the health risks are low, but educate people and clean it up...i would agree with that...if we clean up the DU rounds after a war i think that is a good start....g
<strong>If it's not safe, why are we using it?</strong><hr></blockquote>
because for what they use it for ( in this case, amunition and armour) there is no better substance. we didn't lose any tank crew personel during the gulf war from enemy fire due in large part the properties of depleted uranium. we could kill them but the were unable to do any serious damage to us. i was always under the impression that that was a good thing in war.
But...
There is no question that something the US military is doing is causing health problems. It has been widely reported in kosovo and in the gulf war. In one study, 67% of the babies born to gulf war veterans in Mississippi had defects. There are more than enough reports of illness, notably lukemia among peacekeepers, throughout kosovo.
The simple fact remains that not enough is known about DU or the illness to link them. But DU is recognized as a health risk and no serious scientist can rule it out at this point. A lot more research needs to be done before any conclusions are drawn, and not just a comparison of radiation levels of common items.
But, as I said, there really is no question that something the US military is doing is causing health problems (and I don't mean the obvious 'health risks' the enemy faces) even in US soldiers, and the cause is unknown.
The US military recognizes the potential health risks of DU and damaged Bradleys and Abrams tanks are treated with care. Repair workers wear masks and gloves and there is a set of safty procedures. This is not done because it is a proven problem, but because it is a question hanging in the air.
Scott, if you want to do a real study on this, I'm sure it would be welcomed and it would certainly be beneficial to many people, whatever the findings were. But as it stands, something is causing these health problems, and as far as anyone knows, DU is the prime suspect. Maybe it has been fingered for a crime it didn't commit, but the crime remains.
BTW some of the health problems in US soldiers in the gulf war could very well have been a result of the anthrax vaccine or the anti-VX nerve pill. But no one knows.
As a result, if I was a lawmaker I would suggest limited use of DU shells until their health effects have been determined.
[ 01-31-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
<strong>
we could kill them but the were unable to do any serious damage to us. i was always under the impression that that was a good thing in war.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's a popular misconception. Civilians need to be protected first, troops second. If the war lasts longer because we can't attack as fast but we loose more troops and significantly less civilians, then that's a good thing.
We kill them before they kill us, that's the rule of war.
Remember also that it takes two to tango, it's not like Iraq was fighting with biodegradeable weapons, perhaps they are poisoning their own people.
The people who know more about this stuff than any of us have deemed them field-worthy.
Whither SJO?
I always love that picture of those soldiers marching into the mushroom cloud. And then there is all that crap ( and they knew it ) about duck and cover back when I was in grade school. Hell as kids we knew it probably wouldn't do any good.
I suspect we still don't know everything about the effects of different kinds of radiation. After all by Scott's own admission we've only been studying it for 50 years. A long time for a person not exactly a long time for science.
I also think Scott would not accept any evidence no matter how well researched that countered his argument.
[ 01-31-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
Remember also that it takes two to tango, it's not like Iraq was fighting with biodegradeable weapons, perhaps they are poisoning their own people.
<hr></blockquote>
This is never an excuse to regress. We as a nation, as communities and as individuals should always be striving to to the best we can, regardless of what other do. Secondly, it is our level of technology that affords us the luxury of restraint. Condemning countries that do not have this ability is just wrong.
[quote]
The people who know more about this stuff than any of us have deemed them field-worthy.<hr></blockquote>
My mother talks about this attitude and how it seems to dominate the way in which americans (and people everywhere, for that matter) interact with their government. You can also see it in how people deal with anyone considered a specialist, like a computer 'specialist,' for instance.
It's also exactly the attitude that fosters poor decisions to be made by our government. The belief that drives it is simply not the way things work and it is self-degrading. You can easily know as much as anyone about the subject, and the Information Revolution of the past ~15 years has made it dramatically easier. It may take time, but anyone can do it. Giving up your power to 'people who know more about this stuff' (and who really are these people?) is a recipe for disaster.
When you are dealing with issues that are tied into politics, it is REALLY important to find out the truth for yourself before forming an opinion. If that means going out in the field for two years, then so be it. Otherwise, if you form an opinion based entirely on what one group of 'people who know more about this stuff' says, you are being decieved.
As jimmac points out, 'the people who know more about this stuff' have a damn piss-poor track record.
[ 01-31-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
<strong>And the U.S. has done more than anyone else to protect civilians in war </strong><hr></blockquote>
Agreed.
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong> but until DU is proven to be a real and significant hazard I see no reason to put our troops in further danger</strong><hr></blockquote>
Agreed.
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>Iraqi propaganda campaign notwithstanding. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Agreed.
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>We kill them before they kill us, that's the rule of war. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Disagree.
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>Remember also that it takes two to tango, it's not like Iraq was fighting with biodegradeable weapons, perhaps they are poisoning their own people. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Agreed.
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>The people who know more about this stuff than any of us have deemed them field-worthy. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Disagree.
If it's unsafe for troops it's unsafe for civilians. I see no need to risk the lives of the civilians any more than necessary. And if your belief that killing them before they could kill us was actually the rule of war, then we would just nuke/neutron bomb the whole place.
It's not the rule of war though, even though a lot of gun happy people tend to believe it is.
perhaps what he should have said was that we try to kill them before they kill us while minimizing civilian casualties.
to be completely honest, is there anyone here who thinks that a protracted war using less effective rounds would mean less innocent people die?
sorry, but to me the sooner the war ends, the sooner innocent people stop dying. it's the extended wars that kill of civillian populations due to errant munitions, starvation, riots, destruction of habitat.
du rounds kill tanks by vaporizing those inside. one shot, one kill. firing dozens of rounds into a tank hoping to get a kill shot, maiming soldiers, burning them to death etc. seems as bad or worse to me. then there's the issue of the propellents in regular tank rounds. i'm sure those aren't exactly good for you.
you read as well as i did. they were saying the radium dials that light up in the dark are more dangerous than du rounds.
as for picking them up afterwards, sure i suppose. i would guess that's more of a cost issue than anything else. what's the easiest way to pick up du rounds that are buried under a foot of sand where they plowed into the ground? it's possible, but not plausable.
although maybe we could pay local kids to pick them up for us and bring them to base......
oh, sorry, nm.
<strong>
Science as in half lives , decay products and estimated retention in the body. Estimated dose, which is then compared to natural sources of radiation. It's basic health physics.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree. Now let's have a look at your understanding of science. You calculate the amount (weight) of U238 and U235 that decays in your body during 100 years and then compare these numbers to dose equivalents (Rem) per year???
Either come up with the missing numbers and math or don't talk about science.
BTW: I've no idea how dangerous du is. Maybe it's harmless, But I want so see some REAL science first.