<strong>...The radar absorbing material used for the skin of that plane is carcenogenic, enough so that contact with bare skin can potentially cause a cancer in that person. I guess we should stop using stealth technology in wars too.</strong><hr></blockquote>
One of my lawn mower stickers says to not lift to trim hedges.
Maybe we should have warning stickers all over munitions and vehicles like every other misusable product.
[quote]( here's thelink ) links to a government study i think...it says DU is dangerous enough for our soldiers to keep away from...<hr></blockquote>
Did anyone actually read that article? It says that DU poses a health risk similar to any other heavy metal if ingested/inhaled in sufficient quantities, but specifically regarding exposure of US troops in the Gulf War:
[quote]It is important to note that over 60 friendly-fire victims have been evaluated by the voluntary VA DU Medical Follow-up Program. Aside from the problems associated with their traumatic injuries, to date, this follow-up program has attributed no illness or other harmful effects in the evaluated veterans to DU. <hr></blockquote>
[quote]Those DU-exposed friendly fire individuals with elevated levels of urinary uranium nine years after the Gulf War have not developed kidney abnormalities, leukemia, bone or lung cancer, or any classical uranium-related adverse outcome.<hr></blockquote>
Regarding cilvilian exposure in the Balkans et al.:
[quote]The threat of chemical toxicity would also be minimal because there is little likelihood that sufficient quantities of DU could be inhaled or ingested to cause a heavy metal concern.<hr></blockquote>
And as far as field-tests to figure out the radiation exposure if your DU-armored tank is hit with DU-tipped anti-tank rounds:
[quote]The U.S. Army's Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine preliminary estimate of the highest exposure level were based on test data that assumed two depleted uranium rounds impacted and penetrated the depleted uranium armor of an Abram's heavy armor model tank. The estimated radiation dose was less than the 5 rem per year limit for workers. The theoretical kidney concentration could have exceeded the maximum permissible concentration guideline of 3 µg of uranium per gram of kidney. However, it is unlikely.<hr></blockquote>
It should be noted that the potential health risk of having your tank explode with you inside would seem to greatly outweight the potential risk of exposure to such low levels of radiation.
That's a fantastic article. They also note that "there are no peer-reviewed published reports of detectable increases of cancer or other negative health effects from radiation exposure to inhaled or ingested natural uranium at levels far exceeding those likely in the Gulf". People get leukemia, even peacekeepers (it is the most common cancer of young people, after all), but there's no evidence linking it to DU.
FInally, why not ditch DU, aside from the fact it's the most effective alloy for the task? "While some candidate replacement alloys may not be radioactive, they are not necessarily less toxic to humans." Duh. Inhaling an exotic tungsten-lead alloy lined with asbestos isn't going to be good for your health either.
In sum, the US military has actual evidence, both epidemiological and experimental, that the health risk posed by DU is minimal. So what are we arguing about here?
<strong>...In sum, the US military has actual evidence, both epidemiological and experimental, that the health risk posed by DU is minimal. So what are we arguing about here?</strong><hr></blockquote>
How many DECADES did it take before the US Military accepted the fact that Agent Orange caused health problems. Not one, not two.
towel...did you read my post...i also thought the pdf was good (and yes i read it)... [quote] un study here
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
<hr></blockquote>
health risks are low, but educate and clean it up...i agree...it is also noted that soldiers are warned about DU and told to limit contact...we should warn and educate the people who live there also, not just our people...and if it is a possible contaminate, we should help clean it up after we win...simple...g
what would we do as a nation if DU shells littered Austin or Dallas or Seattle?? if DU is harmless perhaps we should all place bits of in under our pillows and make underwear of it...
There are different types of ammunition fired from the nose cannon of the A-10. The DU stuff is used to pierce armor and 30mm rounds for anti-personnel activity, per my Air Force brother. (Of course, the A-10 is a Marine plane generally)
If you were to actually hold down the trigger and fire for a full minute with that you would probably melt the barrels.
bunge:
[quote]If they can't be used responsibly, they shouldn't be used. If they can't be used responsibly and they're still used, those using them should be sanctioned or punished.<hr></blockquote>
Responsibly? What the hell does that mean? Who sets the standard: you?
It seems as if most nations consider the after-effects to be negligible.
[quote]You claim the premise of the thread is incorrect and that the evidence is support of the thread is false. The burden of proof is on you to show that what has been represent is in fact untrue.<hr></blockquote>
The person who brings the complaint (SJO/propaganda website in this case) has the burden of proof. Basic logic.
giant:
[quote]Whe we don't have to, then it is. That was the point of that part of my post. If Iraq uses chemical weapons that contaminate civilians, should we also use them? Absolutely not! We don't have to in order to win the war.<hr></blockquote>
There's a hell of a lot of a difference between DU rounds from an A-10 and "chemical weapons". It's silly that you would attempt to draw a parallel there.
Also, apparently we do "have to". They are the best tank-killing weapon we have.
[quote]I'm not sure who you are referring to. If you mean the military, their aim is to use effective weapons. It is for outsiders to limit that use.<hr></blockquote>
The military does plenty of self-policing. If you choose to believe otherwise then you're just ignoring basic fact. The U.S. military spends lots and lots of money to produce technology that reduces civilian impact. <- Plain, undeniable fact.
Right now, it seems, the effectiveness outweighs the civilian impact.
On my own personal view I don't give a shit. As heartless as that is I haven't seen anything compelling to get pissed off about it, and lies and deceit from the "other side" will only make their task more difficult. Why the "other side" must lead with lies is beyond me, it only reduces the debate to personal attacks and emotions.
I have said multiple times that it's bad shit, but apparently it's the best weapon we've got for the task it is charged with.
[quote]Why do you have to spoil your one legit thread with such an ass-backward statement?<hr></blockquote>
Legit thread? Did you even follow SJO's link and have you read the multiple ways it has been exposed as false propaganda?
Scott:
It's a UseNet "rule."
The first to mention Hitler or Naziism loses the argument.
thegelding:
[quote]asking questions is good<hr></blockquote>
You're right; questions are great.
However, in this instance, this thread was not instigated on a question, but on a bullshit accusation. This wasn't "Hey, is DU bad?" but "DU IS BAD! LOOK AT THE BABIES! DAMN YOU, U.S. MILITARY! EVIL BASTARDS! LOOK AT THE BABIES!"
Don't try to portray the instigator as a naive and innocent person merely asking a question.
I have said multiple times that it's bad shit, but apparently it's the best weapon we've got for the task it is charged with.<hr></blockquote>
Aboslutely true, and I don't disagree with that. I'm actually inclined to believe that it doesn't harm civilians.
but the military in general is not known for being safe with toxic materials. If you read more through the fas links, you will see that they only started using precaustions under pressure. You do know about the whole 'area 51' fiasco. Burning toxic chemicals (to this day!) which cause serious health problems in the workers. The worker have filed a massive lawsuit but have had a hell of a time getting compensation. Those toxic chemicals are still burned there and it is apparently immune to all US laws.
It is highly, highly documented that allied soldiers have had severe health problems following conflicts throughout the 90s, so obviously the US military is doing something that is not safe. Be it vaccinations, pills, DU or chemical coatings, the US military is getting away with poisoning even Americans. To say that the military can internally police these actions requires ignoring blatant facts thrown in your face. To say that everything used has been deemed safe and that we should trust that assesment also requires turning your back on the facts.
And this is not anti-us sentiment. The people most affected by this are OUR SOLDIERS! The people that are so commited to their country they are willing to give their lives.
<strong>One of my lawn mower stickers says to not lift to trim hedges.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And don't even get me started on fluoride in our water supply!
I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion, and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids!
You know, I heard the military has these things, and they like, drop from planes and stuff, and they kill people when they hit the ground! Those bastards! <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
There are different types of ammunition fired from the nose cannon of the A-10. The DU stuff is used to pierce armor and 30mm rounds for anti-personnel activity, per my Air Force brother. (Of course, the A-10 is a Marine plane generally)
If you were to actually hold down the trigger and fire for a full minute with that you would probably melt the barrels.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thanks groverat. But all those A 10's...all the sortes (sp)...all them bullets...
Well. Seems there's speculation and rumor going around right now that if Iraq uses any bio-weapons in this coming war the administration may resort to use nuclear weapons...
But Bush wouldn't allow that to happen...the children Dubya...the children... <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" /> <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" />
<strong>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.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Conservative (rounded up) energy released in U-238 decay to the next long half life (greater than 200,000 years): 7 MeV
7 Mev is approximately 2 X 10^-19 ergs
Conservatively guess that all the energy is deposited in a cubic centimeter.
This energy is equivalent to 1 X 10^-18 roentgen.
Over 4 MeV is from alpha, so assuming 5 MeV alpha, 2 Mev beta, and no gamma, this is about 2 X 10-17 Rem.
The legal limit for ionizing, whole body radiation (the most limiting) is 0.5 Rem/year.
Assumptions for these calculations: Based on decay of U-238 only. Includes the decay of U-238 to Th-234 and Pa-234. Does not include decay past U-234 which has a half life of 245,000 years. Assumes a quality factor for alpha of 10 and for beta of 5. Assumes that all energy is deposited within one cubic centimeter. This is probably conservative since the range of a beta is over 10 feet in air and alpha is considerably less.
The way I interpret these rough calculations, which are for magnitude only and are not meant to be exact, is that it would take 2.5 X 10^17 decays to reach the legal limit, at which there are no observable effects. For most occupational workers, the limit is up to 5 Rem/year, at which there are no observable effects. Since the half life is about 4.5 billion years, one would have to have much, much more than 2.5 X 10^17 atoms accumulated in an organ to even reach the legal limit for exposure.
Personally, I have over 2.5 Rem of occupational exposure in a period of 7 to 8 years, which is much more than the average nuclear plant worker, due to the nature of my job.
Edit: Note that in order to even approach a limit, the energy would have to be concentrated in the same cubic centimeter, and so all those decaying atoms would have to be localized. Also, to be more correct, I forgot to include the assumption that there is at least one gram of tissue in that cubic centimeter.
This thread has evidence showing that it might not be safe.
Someone now needs to refute that evidence.
No one has.
Simple.
Really.</strong><hr></blockquote>
uh, screw listening, apparently folks need to learn to read.
no one has said DU rounds are perfectly harmless. they're tank killing projectile weapons, you bet your ass they aren't harmless.
however, it is extremely unlikely that they're causing the birth defects shown on SJO's link there. (in case you missed it, that's the refuting part) did you read those links? any of them? they all say the same thing.
don't eat them. don't wear them. otherwise they aren't that bad. good lord, you have physicists doing the fricking math FOR YOU.
you know, i thought, for a blind moment, that proof could actually carry some weight in threads around here. glad to see that moment of naivete has passed, and we're back to the same old, same old.
talk about simple. here's the idea.
READ -> COMPREHEND -> REEVALUATE
instead we have
READ -> IGNORE -> RESTATE
(and quite frankly i'm still not sure that second formula even deserves a READ listed in there anywhere)
Comments
<strong>...The radar absorbing material used for the skin of that plane is carcenogenic, enough so that contact with bare skin can potentially cause a cancer in that person. I guess we should stop using stealth technology in wars too.</strong><hr></blockquote>
One of my lawn mower stickers says to not lift to trim hedges.
Maybe we should have warning stickers all over munitions and vehicles like every other misusable product.
[quote]( here's thelink ) links to a government study i think...it says DU is dangerous enough for our soldiers to keep away from...<hr></blockquote>
Did anyone actually read that article? It says that DU poses a health risk similar to any other heavy metal if ingested/inhaled in sufficient quantities, but specifically regarding exposure of US troops in the Gulf War:
[quote]It is important to note that over 60 friendly-fire victims have been evaluated by the voluntary VA DU Medical Follow-up Program. Aside from the problems associated with their traumatic injuries, to date, this follow-up program has attributed no illness or other harmful effects in the evaluated veterans to DU. <hr></blockquote>
[quote]Those DU-exposed friendly fire individuals with elevated levels of urinary uranium nine years after the Gulf War have not developed kidney abnormalities, leukemia, bone or lung cancer, or any classical uranium-related adverse outcome.<hr></blockquote>
Regarding cilvilian exposure in the Balkans et al.:
[quote]The threat of chemical toxicity would also be minimal because there is little likelihood that sufficient quantities of DU could be inhaled or ingested to cause a heavy metal concern.<hr></blockquote>
And as far as field-tests to figure out the radiation exposure if your DU-armored tank is hit with DU-tipped anti-tank rounds:
[quote]The U.S. Army's Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine preliminary estimate of the highest exposure level were based on test data that assumed two depleted uranium rounds impacted and penetrated the depleted uranium armor of an Abram's heavy armor model tank. The estimated radiation dose was less than the 5 rem per year limit for workers. The theoretical kidney concentration could have exceeded the maximum permissible concentration guideline of 3 µg of uranium per gram of kidney. However, it is unlikely.<hr></blockquote>
It should be noted that the potential health risk of having your tank explode with you inside would seem to greatly outweight the potential risk of exposure to such low levels of radiation.
That's a fantastic article. They also note that "there are no peer-reviewed published reports of detectable increases of cancer or other negative health effects from radiation exposure to inhaled or ingested natural uranium at levels far exceeding those likely in the Gulf". People get leukemia, even peacekeepers (it is the most common cancer of young people, after all), but there's no evidence linking it to DU.
FInally, why not ditch DU, aside from the fact it's the most effective alloy for the task? "While some candidate replacement alloys may not be radioactive, they are not necessarily less toxic to humans." Duh. Inhaling an exotic tungsten-lead alloy lined with asbestos isn't going to be good for your health either.
In sum, the US military has actual evidence, both epidemiological and experimental, that the health risk posed by DU is minimal. So what are we arguing about here?
<strong>...In sum, the US military has actual evidence, both epidemiological and experimental, that the health risk posed by DU is minimal. So what are we arguing about here?</strong><hr></blockquote>
How many DECADES did it take before the US Military accepted the fact that Agent Orange caused health problems. Not one, not two.
<strong>
Oh so I'm a Nazi now huh? Because I say that those that spread lies about my country are anti-American and post out of hate for the US?
Seems to me the Nazis are the ones that used lies to dupe people to their cause. That aint me.
What was that internet rule about calling someone a Nazi in a thread?</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, you're a Nazist! If you listen to Scott better prepare for nazification....or is that nausefication.
PS. I just said that to bug Germany.
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[ 01-31-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
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
<hr></blockquote>
health risks are low, but educate and clean it up...i agree...it is also noted that soldiers are warned about DU and told to limit contact...we should warn and educate the people who live there also, not just our people...and if it is a possible contaminate, we should help clean it up after we win...simple...g
what would we do as a nation if DU shells littered Austin or Dallas or Seattle?? if DU is harmless perhaps we should all place bits of in under our pillows and make underwear of it...
[ 01-31-2003: Message edited by: thegelding ]</p>
<strong>if DU is harmless perhaps we should all place bits of in under our pillows and make underwear of it...
</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's probably dense and heavy enough it would be great to make small body-building weights.
What other household uses can we find for nuclear waste?
There are different types of ammunition fired from the nose cannon of the A-10. The DU stuff is used to pierce armor and 30mm rounds for anti-personnel activity, per my Air Force brother. (Of course, the A-10 is a Marine plane generally)
If you were to actually hold down the trigger and fire for a full minute with that you would probably melt the barrels.
bunge:
[quote]If they can't be used responsibly, they shouldn't be used. If they can't be used responsibly and they're still used, those using them should be sanctioned or punished.<hr></blockquote>
Responsibly? What the hell does that mean? Who sets the standard: you?
It seems as if most nations consider the after-effects to be negligible.
[quote]You claim the premise of the thread is incorrect and that the evidence is support of the thread is false. The burden of proof is on you to show that what has been represent is in fact untrue.<hr></blockquote>
The person who brings the complaint (SJO/propaganda website in this case) has the burden of proof. Basic logic.
giant:
[quote]Whe we don't have to, then it is. That was the point of that part of my post. If Iraq uses chemical weapons that contaminate civilians, should we also use them? Absolutely not! We don't have to in order to win the war.<hr></blockquote>
There's a hell of a lot of a difference between DU rounds from an A-10 and "chemical weapons". It's silly that you would attempt to draw a parallel there.
Also, apparently we do "have to". They are the best tank-killing weapon we have.
[quote]I'm not sure who you are referring to. If you mean the military, their aim is to use effective weapons. It is for outsiders to limit that use.<hr></blockquote>
The military does plenty of self-policing. If you choose to believe otherwise then you're just ignoring basic fact. The U.S. military spends lots and lots of money to produce technology that reduces civilian impact. <- Plain, undeniable fact.
Right now, it seems, the effectiveness outweighs the civilian impact.
On my own personal view I don't give a shit. As heartless as that is I haven't seen anything compelling to get pissed off about it, and lies and deceit from the "other side" will only make their task more difficult. Why the "other side" must lead with lies is beyond me, it only reduces the debate to personal attacks and emotions.
I have said multiple times that it's bad shit, but apparently it's the best weapon we've got for the task it is charged with.
<a href="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/b04151999_bt170-99.htm"; target="_blank">RAND says it ain't so bad.</a> (<- Thanks FAS) (<a href="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/du/index.html"; target="_blank">More thorough study</a>)
[quote]Why do you have to spoil your one legit thread with such an ass-backward statement?<hr></blockquote>
Legit thread? Did you even follow SJO's link and have you read the multiple ways it has been exposed as false propaganda?
Scott:
It's a UseNet "rule."
The first to mention Hitler or Naziism loses the argument.
thegelding:
[quote]asking questions is good<hr></blockquote>
You're right; questions are great.
However, in this instance, this thread was not instigated on a question, but on a bullshit accusation. This wasn't "Hey, is DU bad?" but "DU IS BAD! LOOK AT THE BABIES! DAMN YOU, U.S. MILITARY! EVIL BASTARDS! LOOK AT THE BABIES!"
Don't try to portray the instigator as a naive and innocent person merely asking a question.
--
This is all much-ado about very little.
<hr></blockquote>
then carry around some DU in your briefs for a week or two...
Bring Hanes up before the UN!
I have said multiple times that it's bad shit, but apparently it's the best weapon we've got for the task it is charged with.<hr></blockquote>
Aboslutely true, and I don't disagree with that. I'm actually inclined to believe that it doesn't harm civilians.
but the military in general is not known for being safe with toxic materials. If you read more through the fas links, you will see that they only started using precaustions under pressure. You do know about the whole 'area 51' fiasco. Burning toxic chemicals (to this day!) which cause serious health problems in the workers. The worker have filed a massive lawsuit but have had a hell of a time getting compensation. Those toxic chemicals are still burned there and it is apparently immune to all US laws.
It is highly, highly documented that allied soldiers have had severe health problems following conflicts throughout the 90s, so obviously the US military is doing something that is not safe. Be it vaccinations, pills, DU or chemical coatings, the US military is getting away with poisoning even Americans. To say that the military can internally police these actions requires ignoring blatant facts thrown in your face. To say that everything used has been deemed safe and that we should trust that assesment also requires turning your back on the facts.
And this is not anti-us sentiment. The people most affected by this are OUR SOLDIERS! The people that are so commited to their country they are willing to give their lives.
[ 01-31-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
<strong>One of my lawn mower stickers says to not lift to trim hedges.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And don't even get me started on fluoride in our water supply!
I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion, and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids!
<strong>
It's probably dense and heavy enough it would be great to make small body-building weights.
What other household uses can we find for nuclear waste?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Gopher traps!
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<strong>
No it isn't.
Oxygen makes up almost 50%, followed by silicon, aluminium, iron, calcium....
In fact, it's not even in the top half!
[ 01-31-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I stand corrected. See the following link for details:
<a href="http://www.webelements.com/webelements/properties/text/image-line/abund-crust-l.html"; target="_blank">Graph of weight concentrations of elements in the earth's crust.</a>
<strong>artman:
There are different types of ammunition fired from the nose cannon of the A-10. The DU stuff is used to pierce armor and 30mm rounds for anti-personnel activity, per my Air Force brother. (Of course, the A-10 is a Marine plane generally)
If you were to actually hold down the trigger and fire for a full minute with that you would probably melt the barrels.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thanks groverat. But all those A 10's...all the sortes (sp)...all them bullets...
Well. Seems there's speculation and rumor going around right now that if Iraq uses any bio-weapons in this coming war the administration may resort to use nuclear weapons...
But Bush wouldn't allow that to happen...the children Dubya...the children... <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" /> <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" />
<strong>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.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Conservative (rounded up) energy released in U-238 decay to the next long half life (greater than 200,000 years): 7 MeV
7 Mev is approximately 2 X 10^-19 ergs
Conservatively guess that all the energy is deposited in a cubic centimeter.
This energy is equivalent to 1 X 10^-18 roentgen.
Over 4 MeV is from alpha, so assuming 5 MeV alpha, 2 Mev beta, and no gamma, this is about 2 X 10-17 Rem.
The legal limit for ionizing, whole body radiation (the most limiting) is 0.5 Rem/year.
Assumptions for these calculations: Based on decay of U-238 only. Includes the decay of U-238 to Th-234 and Pa-234. Does not include decay past U-234 which has a half life of 245,000 years. Assumes a quality factor for alpha of 10 and for beta of 5. Assumes that all energy is deposited within one cubic centimeter. This is probably conservative since the range of a beta is over 10 feet in air and alpha is considerably less.
The way I interpret these rough calculations, which are for magnitude only and are not meant to be exact, is that it would take 2.5 X 10^17 decays to reach the legal limit, at which there are no observable effects. For most occupational workers, the limit is up to 5 Rem/year, at which there are no observable effects. Since the half life is about 4.5 billion years, one would have to have much, much more than 2.5 X 10^17 atoms accumulated in an organ to even reach the legal limit for exposure.
Personally, I have over 2.5 Rem of occupational exposure in a period of 7 to 8 years, which is much more than the average nuclear plant worker, due to the nature of my job.
Edit: Note that in order to even approach a limit, the energy would have to be concentrated in the same cubic centimeter, and so all those decaying atoms would have to be localized. Also, to be more correct, I forgot to include the assumption that there is at least one gram of tissue in that cubic centimeter.
[ 02-01-2003: Message edited by: Skipjack ]</p>
<strong>
...
What other household uses can we find for nuclear waste?</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's not nuclear waste.
<strong>The person who brings the complaint (SJO/propaganda website in this case) has the burden of proof. Basic logic.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Damn, people refuse to listen.
The orginal claim was that DU is safe.
There is evidence enough that the stuff is dangerous beyond its expected usage.
This thread has evidence showing that it might not be safe.
Someone now needs to refute that evidence.
No one has.
Simple.
Really.
<strong>
Damn, people refuse to listen.
This thread has evidence showing that it might not be safe.
Someone now needs to refute that evidence.
No one has.
Simple.
Really.</strong><hr></blockquote>
uh, screw listening, apparently folks need to learn to read.
no one has said DU rounds are perfectly harmless. they're tank killing projectile weapons, you bet your ass they aren't harmless.
however, it is extremely unlikely that they're causing the birth defects shown on SJO's link there. (in case you missed it, that's the refuting part) did you read those links? any of them? they all say the same thing.
don't eat them. don't wear them. otherwise they aren't that bad. good lord, you have physicists doing the fricking math FOR YOU.
you know, i thought, for a blind moment, that proof could actually carry some weight in threads around here. glad to see that moment of naivete has passed, and we're back to the same old, same old.
talk about simple. here's the idea.
READ -> COMPREHEND -> REEVALUATE
instead we have
READ -> IGNORE -> RESTATE
(and quite frankly i'm still not sure that second formula even deserves a READ listed in there anywhere)
[ 02-01-2003: Message edited by: alcimedes ]</p>