What you have in your accusations, SJO, are not mere "factual inaccuracies", they are bald-faced lies that you didn't even take 10 seconds to corroborate. Not only that, you retreated from your bald-faced lies with more ("The mainstream media won't touch this stuff." - "But there are 123 articles on the BBC about it." - "STOP BEING MEAN! LOOK AT THE BABIES!").
I'm sorry, SJO, but you forfeited your right to be treated in a civil manner by being an outright liar and as close-mindedly stubborn as Rush Limbaugh.
Bunge:
A leftist using Rush Limbaugh's debate tactics.
"YOU SAID DU WAS SAFE!"
"No, I called it 'bad shit', but not that bad."
"YOU SAID DU WAS SAFE!"
March ploddingly forward, you two, facts be damned, we have emotions to express!
The claim that DU is safe (beyond its normal usage of course) didn't originate in this thread. It originates with the U.S. Military.
So when I say the original claim that DU is safe (beyond its normal usage of course), I'm talking about the fact that it is used by the Military. I don't care what happend in this thread because this thread was started in response to the fact that DU is considered safe.
So to make this clear:
Before this thread ever existed, a claim has been made that DU is safe (beyond its normal usage of course.)
So, to make this extra clear:
Before AppleInsider ever existed, a claim was made that DU is safe (beyond its normal usage of course.)
So, after that claim was made, this thread was born. Some evidence has been produced to prove/hypothesize that DU isn't not 100% safe (beyond its normal usage of course.) I have seen absolutely ZERO evidence to convince anyone that DU is 100% safe (beyond its normal usage of course.)
The numbers scott show are fine. Maybe it wouldn't cause cancer if you washed your hair with it because it's not a super-dooper-ultra-mega-powerful X-ray lazerific brand of radiation. But there are plenty of substances in the universe that will kill you with less radiation than this not so super-dooper-ultra-mega-powerful X-ray lazerific brand of radiation.
So maybe it's something else in the DU that does it.
Maybe it's only when it reacts with the lungs.
Maybe it's only when a woman is exactly 47.2 days pregnant.
Maybe it reacts poorly with sand and oil.
Maybe it's just not 100% safe (beyond its normal usage of course.)
You can post 1000 links to sites talking about half-lives and whatnot. It has nothing to do with this thread. For every 1000 links you produce, I've seen exactly ZERO posts claiming that the radiation in DU causes harm.
Why? Because it's irrelevant.
The governments that use the stuff say it's safe. Wow. Iraq says it has no WOMD too. I don't see too many people willing to buy that argument. Why? Because Iraq has everything to lose.
Oh, and what a coincidence, so do the countries that use DU.
So, what third party evidence is there showing that DU is 100% safe (beyond its normal usage of course)? None so far.
To alcimedes: any misunderstanding at this point is an accident. Either my post about will start to clear up my position or it'll dig my grave even deeper. Either way, I'm really bummed about the shuttle.
The claim that DU is safe (beyond its normal usage of course) didn't originate in this thread. It originates with the U.S. Military.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I linked to an EPA page that had info on du. They say the greatest risk is from du being a "toxic metal".
<strong>This is just pure bullshit propaganda on the part of the anti-American left. It?s very disappointing that so many people in this thread fell for it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
edit: excellent find. not even a U.S. site, wonder how the Govt./Military bought them off. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
just for the hell of it i actually read what that original site had to say (SJO's link). funny part is, on page 2 of that link they talk about the dangers of DU rounds. what you are claiming SJO, doesn't even jibe with your own link.
so is it still bleating when it's your link from your site? just wondering.
also, that site is full of logical flaws, and problems.
the one freshest in my mind is where they show inspectors in full haxmat suits going over a destroyed Iraqi tank.
the quote below says
[quote] These US soldiers are investigating radioactive contamination and potential protective measures after firing DU shells at this Iraqi tank brought to the US as a "spoil of war." They are wearing protective clothing and masks to prevent contamination.<hr></blockquote>
then they have a photo of U.S. soldiers standing outside a destroyed U.S. tank w/o protective gear. the quote below this photo reads
[quote]No Protective Equipment: These US soldiers are preparing to ship home US tanks destroyed by friendly
DU fire. Here they are taking no measures whatsoever to protect themselves from radioactive contamination. All undoubtedly inhaled or ingested DU particles.<hr></blockquote>
problem with this? first, the team would be wearing hazmat outfits on the first tank because (as linked earlier) older Iraqi tanks contained materials that are much more radioactive/dangerous than DU rounds.
second, there's no way they're shipping that tank back with live rounds in it. so how in the world are these soldiers supposed to be getting exposed to DU? even if they were, link after link has shown that these miniscule amounts of DU would be harmless.
man, when your own site doesn't support your statements, you've got problems.
What question existed before AO is not important because (1) AO didn't exist and (2) the U.S. military has not been addressed.
SJO addressed a grouping of people (AO) to make a case. That is the origin of the complaint. In law, we do not put the burden of proof on the founding fathers, who are the builders of American law.
SJO made the case to us. She brought the issue to this forum, she has the burden of proof.
Perhaps if a representative of the U.S. military had come here to start a thread called "DU is safe" you would be right.
Hell, even if there were a representative of the U.S. military here you may be able to twist it that way, but it's simply not possible.
I linked to an EPA page that had info on du. They say the greatest risk is from du being a "toxic metal".</strong><hr></blockquote>
Like any people here, i have no extensive knowledge of depleted uranium, but if there is toxicity it cann'ot come from radiation.
Concerning toxic metal like lead, i think we are just in the beginning of learning info in this aera. The problem is that this info are Secret Defense labelled, and thus we will not see them before long years.
Many years ago, i heard that people finded odd that the Israelian army did not use depleted uranium for their tanks, perhaps the israelians experts had some info on this (?).
<strong>See how easy that was? Now if I just had time to read the charts you keep putting up....
</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, it wasn't easy. Every SJO post has continued to imply that radiation effects were the cause of DU biological damage.
As early as page 1, it was suggested that the toxic effects were more significant, and that the discussion would be better steered toward the toxic effects.
First some basic scientific facts on radiation were presented, but people continued to question their validity or application. It wasn't until the last post (converting the mass ingested to Seiverts) that perhaps all the objections or questions about radiation effects were answered.
If you want to read about toxic effects, go to the Military Toxics Project website (the link is in the reply to SJO's post) and read the article I cited. It is a study on the effects on living cells (in rats) and is about 7 pages.
[quote]If you want to read about toxic effects, go to the Military Toxics Project website (the link is in the reply to SJO's post) and read the article I cited. It is a study on the effects on living cells (in rats) and is about 7 pages.
<hr></blockquote>
dude, if there aren't pictures with little captions, it ain't doing any good in this thread.
"It also concluded that uranium did not appear to be any more toxic than lead or other heavy metals."
Now for those who haven't been under a rock for the last 20 years, the US has been removing Lead for practically everything because of the health problems linked to it.
You all can draw(or drawl) your own conclusions... I know you will.
[quote]OK, so the heavy metal is dangerous post war. Does everyone agree with that? If it's considered as dangerous as lead, then it's dangerous post war.
If so, the U.S. shouldn't use it.<hr></blockquote>
uh, dude, we're talking about bullets.
for centuries they've been made out of lead. what do you want us to do, throw rocks at them? if DU=Lead then i don't see any problem with using them as projectile weapons. people are just as likely to have problems with inhaled/ingested lead as they are DU rounds. (maybe more so)
the fact is, you're talking about a war. in a war you use the tools available to destroy your enemy, while trying to keep innocent people from dying.
would you be this upset about the U.S. shooting bullets at the enemy? because at this point, that's the statement you just made above.
Comments
What you have in your accusations, SJO, are not mere "factual inaccuracies", they are bald-faced lies that you didn't even take 10 seconds to corroborate. Not only that, you retreated from your bald-faced lies with more ("The mainstream media won't touch this stuff." - "But there are 123 articles on the BBC about it." - "STOP BEING MEAN! LOOK AT THE BABIES!").
I'm sorry, SJO, but you forfeited your right to be treated in a civil manner by being an outright liar and as close-mindedly stubborn as Rush Limbaugh.
Bunge:
A leftist using Rush Limbaugh's debate tactics.
"YOU SAID DU WAS SAFE!"
"No, I called it 'bad shit', but not that bad."
"YOU SAID DU WAS SAFE!"
March ploddingly forward, you two, facts be damned, we have emotions to express!
The claim that DU is safe (beyond its normal usage of course) didn't originate in this thread. It originates with the U.S. Military.
So when I say the original claim that DU is safe (beyond its normal usage of course), I'm talking about the fact that it is used by the Military. I don't care what happend in this thread because this thread was started in response to the fact that DU is considered safe.
So to make this clear:
Before this thread ever existed, a claim has been made that DU is safe (beyond its normal usage of course.)
So, to make this extra clear:
Before AppleInsider ever existed, a claim was made that DU is safe (beyond its normal usage of course.)
So, after that claim was made, this thread was born. Some evidence has been produced to prove/hypothesize that DU isn't not 100% safe (beyond its normal usage of course.) I have seen absolutely ZERO evidence to convince anyone that DU is 100% safe (beyond its normal usage of course.)
The numbers scott show are fine. Maybe it wouldn't cause cancer if you washed your hair with it because it's not a super-dooper-ultra-mega-powerful X-ray lazerific brand of radiation. But there are plenty of substances in the universe that will kill you with less radiation than this not so super-dooper-ultra-mega-powerful X-ray lazerific brand of radiation.
So maybe it's something else in the DU that does it.
Maybe it's only when it reacts with the lungs.
Maybe it's only when a woman is exactly 47.2 days pregnant.
Maybe it reacts poorly with sand and oil.
Maybe it's just not 100% safe (beyond its normal usage of course.)
You can post 1000 links to sites talking about half-lives and whatnot. It has nothing to do with this thread. For every 1000 links you produce, I've seen exactly ZERO posts claiming that the radiation in DU causes harm.
Why? Because it's irrelevant.
The governments that use the stuff say it's safe. Wow. Iraq says it has no WOMD too. I don't see too many people willing to buy that argument. Why? Because Iraq has everything to lose.
Oh, and what a coincidence, so do the countries that use DU.
So, what third party evidence is there showing that DU is 100% safe (beyond its normal usage of course)? None so far.
To alcimedes: any misunderstanding at this point is an accident. Either my post about will start to clear up my position or it'll dig my grave even deeper. Either way, I'm really bummed about the shuttle.
<strong>OK to all the blind people around here.
The claim that DU is safe (beyond its normal usage of course) didn't originate in this thread. It originates with the U.S. Military.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I linked to an EPA page that had info on du. They say the greatest risk is from du being a "toxic metal".
<a href="http://www.antenna.nl/wise/uranium/rdcuo.html"; target="_blank">Uranium Radiation Organ Dose Calculator</a>
1 gram of du ingested =
[quote]Ingestion Dose ICRP 72, Public, Adults
Effective dose: 710.4 µSv
Risk: 0.004% (1 : 28152)
Organ Contribution Major contributor
dose to CED/risk to organ dose
----------------------------------------------------------
Bladder Wall: 372.9 µSv 2.625% U-238 (83.26%)
Bone Surface: 10.55 mSv 14.86% U-238 (83.53%)
Breast: 358.3 µSv 2.522% U-238 (83.19%)
Oesophagus: 358.3 µSv 2.522% U-238 (83.19%)
St Wall: 387.4 µSv 6.545% U-238 (80.13%)
Colon: 1.111 mSv 18.77% U-238 (58.12%)
Liver: 1.436 mSv 10.11% U-238 (82.99%)
Ovaries: 373.2 µSv 10.51% U-238 (83.20%)
Red Marrow: 1.112 mSv 18.79% U-238 (83.75%)
Lungs: 372.8 µSv 6.297% U-238 (83.29%)
Skin: 358.3 µSv 0.504% U-238 (83.19%)
Testes: 370.7 µSv 10.44% U-238 (83.74%)
Thyroid: 358.3 µSv 2.522% U-238 (83.19%)
Remainder: 402.8 µSv 2.835% U-238 (83.25%)
<hr></blockquote>
Try it out it's fun!
<strong>OMFG who knew a page like this existed?
<a href="http://www.antenna.nl/wise/uranium/rdcuo.html"; target="_blank">Uranium Radiation Organ Dose Calculator</a>
1 gram of du ingested =
Try it out it's fun!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Right...it says there is 0% risk after ingesting 8000 grams of it.
<strong>
Right...it says there is 0% risk after ingesting 8000 grams of it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
User error.
8000g of du ingested
[quote]Ingestion Dose ICRP 72, Public, Adults
Effective dose: 5.683 Sv
Risk: 28.42% (1 : 3.519)
Organ Contribution Major contributor
dose to CED/risk to organ dose
----------------------------------------------------------
Bladder Wall: 2.983 Sv 2.625% U-238 (83.26%)
Bone Surface: 84.45 Sv 14.86% U-238 (83.53%)
Breast: 2.866 Sv 2.522% U-238 (83.19%)
Oesophagus: 2.866 Sv 2.522% U-238 (83.19%)
St Wall: 3.099 Sv 6.545% U-238 (80.13%)
Colon: 8.890 Sv 18.77% U-238 (58.12%)
Liver: 11.49 Sv 10.11% U-238 (82.99%)
Ovaries: 2.985 Sv 10.51% U-238 (83.20%)
Red Marrow: 8.897 Sv 18.79% U-238 (83.75%)
Lungs: 2.982 Sv 6.297% U-238 (83.29%)
Skin: 2.866 Sv 0.504% U-238 (83.19%)
Testes: 2.966 Sv 10.44% U-238 (83.74%)
Thyroid: 2.866 Sv 2.522% U-238 (83.19%)
Remainder: 3.222 Sv 2.835% U-238 (83.25%)
<hr></blockquote>
<strong>This is just pure bullshit propaganda on the part of the anti-American left. It?s very disappointing that so many people in this thread fell for it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
God damn it, I hate it when we agree.
<strong>User error.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What value for risk factor are you using?
words=hard
pictures=truth
we need photos, not science!
edit: excellent find. not even a U.S. site, wonder how the Govt./Military bought them off. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
just for the hell of it i actually read what that original site had to say (SJO's link). funny part is, on page 2 of that link they talk about the dangers of DU rounds. what you are claiming SJO, doesn't even jibe with your own link.
so is it still bleating when it's your link from your site? just wondering.
also, that site is full of logical flaws, and problems.
the one freshest in my mind is where they show inspectors in full haxmat suits going over a destroyed Iraqi tank.
the quote below says
[quote] These US soldiers are investigating radioactive contamination and potential protective measures after firing DU shells at this Iraqi tank brought to the US as a "spoil of war." They are wearing protective clothing and masks to prevent contamination.<hr></blockquote>
then they have a photo of U.S. soldiers standing outside a destroyed U.S. tank w/o protective gear. the quote below this photo reads
[quote]No Protective Equipment: These US soldiers are preparing to ship home US tanks destroyed by friendly
DU fire. Here they are taking no measures whatsoever to protect themselves from radioactive contamination. All undoubtedly inhaled or ingested DU particles.<hr></blockquote>
problem with this? first, the team would be wearing hazmat outfits on the first tank because (as linked earlier) older Iraqi tanks contained materials that are much more radioactive/dangerous than DU rounds.
second, there's no way they're shipping that tank back with live rounds in it. so how in the world are these soldiers supposed to be getting exposed to DU? even if they were, link after link has shown that these miniscule amounts of DU would be harmless.
man, when your own site doesn't support your statements, you've got problems.
[ 02-02-2003: Message edited by: alcimedes ]</p>
<strong>They say the greatest risk is from du being a "toxic metal".</strong><hr></blockquote>
See how easy that was? Now if I just had time to read the charts you keep putting up....
If it's only dangerous as a toxic metal, then as I suggested we can stop putting up links about how it's not as radioactive as table salt.
What question existed before AO is not important because (1) AO didn't exist and (2) the U.S. military has not been addressed.
SJO addressed a grouping of people (AO) to make a case. That is the origin of the complaint. In law, we do not put the burden of proof on the founding fathers, who are the builders of American law.
SJO made the case to us. She brought the issue to this forum, she has the burden of proof.
Perhaps if a representative of the U.S. military had come here to start a thread called "DU is safe" you would be right.
Hell, even if there were a representative of the U.S. military here you may be able to twist it that way, but it's simply not possible.
Much love for you, but you're completely wrong.
<strong>
I linked to an EPA page that had info on du. They say the greatest risk is from du being a "toxic metal".</strong><hr></blockquote>
Like any people here, i have no extensive knowledge of depleted uranium, but if there is toxicity it cann'ot come from radiation.
Concerning toxic metal like lead, i think we are just in the beginning of learning info in this aera. The problem is that this info are Secret Defense labelled, and thus we will not see them before long years.
Many years ago, i heard that people finded odd that the Israelian army did not use depleted uranium for their tanks, perhaps the israelians experts had some info on this (?).
<strong>See how easy that was? Now if I just had time to read the charts you keep putting up....
</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, it wasn't easy. Every SJO post has continued to imply that radiation effects were the cause of DU biological damage.
As early as page 1, it was suggested that the toxic effects were more significant, and that the discussion would be better steered toward the toxic effects.
First some basic scientific facts on radiation were presented, but people continued to question their validity or application. It wasn't until the last post (converting the mass ingested to Seiverts) that perhaps all the objections or questions about radiation effects were answered.
If you want to read about toxic effects, go to the Military Toxics Project website (the link is in the reply to SJO's post) and read the article I cited. It is a study on the effects on living cells (in rats) and is about 7 pages.
<hr></blockquote>
dude, if there aren't pictures with little captions, it ain't doing any good in this thread.
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
First a military reference:
<a href="http://www.deploymentlink.osd.mil/du_library/du_ii/du_ii_tabe.htm"; target="_blank">Development of DU Munitions</a>
** With a few pictures for those who need them.
A quote from the above link:
"It also concluded that uranium did not appear to be any more toxic than lead or other heavy metals."
Now for those who haven't been under a rock for the last 20 years, the US has been removing Lead for practically everything because of the health problems linked to it.
You all can draw(or drawl) your own conclusions... I know you will.
<strong>\\You all can draw(or drawl) your own conclusions... </strong><hr></blockquote>
Drawings aren't good enough...I want pictures!
OK, so the heavy metal is dangerous post war. Does everyone agree with that? If it's considered as dangerous as lead, then it's dangerous post war.
If so, the U.S. shouldn't use it.
That's simple. Make as much fun of pictures as you want, but I think that just means you're ignoring my point.
As per the burden of proof, "dangerous as lead" has been good enough for me.
And why the hell to people keep talking about pictures? To side-step the issue?
Let's put this in context, after all...
Repeat: **DU rounds have approximately the same toxicity as standard lead infantry rounds**
Okay, next topic?
If so, the U.S. shouldn't use it.<hr></blockquote>
uh, dude, we're talking about bullets.
for centuries they've been made out of lead. what do you want us to do, throw rocks at them? if DU=Lead then i don't see any problem with using them as projectile weapons. people are just as likely to have problems with inhaled/ingested lead as they are DU rounds. (maybe more so)
the fact is, you're talking about a war. in a war you use the tools available to destroy your enemy, while trying to keep innocent people from dying.
would you be this upset about the U.S. shooting bullets at the enemy? because at this point, that's the statement you just made above.