While much buzz, emotion and controversy attend Depleted Uranium, the fear factor is unsupported by science.
The
Federation of American Scientists says:
Quote: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 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. 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 uranium and DU means that the mass of uranium needed for significant internal exposure is virtually impossible to obtain.
External radiation in the form of alpha radiation cannot penetrate cloth or skin and would therefore have no negative health effect. Beta and gamma radiation, which can have negative health effects, have been measured at levels below those expected to be of concern.
No published, peer-reviewed study, academic, medical, or otherwise, corroborative of the hysteria over Depleted Uranium exists.
A battle of wits with an unarmed man.
...of course, that's just MY opinion...
as brought to us by the Rand Corp....let's see what else we can find
It's painful you can't acknowledge the truth.
McG makes a point with his observation that The US pursues the interests of The US. All nations pursue their own interests. What bothers folks most about The US is that it is unique in that it can and does take action to serve and secure its own interests with indomitable vigor, and, more frequently than not, with relative success.
McG
Well, let's just start with the observation that truths tough to acknowledge are the ugly ones...the notion you propose above, that the US is driven in its foreign policy (or it's internal policy) by altruism is derisable. Even you argue otherwise earlier. So stop with the "US as loving world daddie" analogy, it is an embarrassment to even see it stated.
I guess what bothers us most, Timber, is that we don't pursue our interests. It isn't in our interest to be seen as the planet's biggest, dirtiest, greediest bully. In fact, we shouldn't be in the bully business at all. Instead we should be cooperating with other countries to get rid of bullies. So rather than turning our attention to Iraq, we should first get rid of bullies in America. Anything short of that is sheer hypocrisy and cowardice. If you enjoy those two qualities, just try to keep them at home, okay?
blatham, the opinion pieces included aside, every study cited in the BBC article you provide concludes there is no observable radiologic ill effect attributable to DU. There simply is no scientific evidence supporting the hysteria. The German study cited, in fact, noted that the incidence of cancer and luekemia among the German troops studied was actually slightly below that statistically to be expected from among the general population.
Quote:Mohammed is dying of Hodgkin's disease, and Dr. Mohammed Al-Dorky has little doubt about the cause.
"DU," he says.
[beavis] huh,huh, dorki...[/beavis]
Quote:To date, there has been little study of DU's effects on humans, though tests on mice suggest it can cause cancer, reproductive disorders and other problems.
Quote:And Saddam Hussein's government never allowed the World Health Organization to investigate Iraq's sensational claims of DU-related illnesses and birth defects.
Quote:But Fahey argues that the study size is much too small to be conclusive.
Quote:Although the incidence of cancer and birth defects appears high in the Basra area, the link to depleted uranium is far from clear, experts acknowledge. Other factors could include industrial pollution, poor prenatal care and Hussein's use of chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war in the '80s.
Quote:The study also showed that soil where DU landed could be heavily contaminated and harm children if swallowed. Depleted uranium might also pose a long-term threat to civilians if it leached into water supplies.
Quote:Like lead, DU is a chemical toxin. If it gets in the body it can cause damage to the kidneys or lungs.
Nothing in this article refutes what I have said. Nothing in this article can explain the hysterical concerns that was demonstrated in the initial article that started this thread.
Blatham,
I have never said that the US has anything more than it's own concerns at heart when I speak of foriegn policy. This isn't Star Trek, and we are NOT the federation...
Its a matter of perspective, Tart. The way I see it, "the other nations" are disinclined to do much about bullies, state or stateless, beyond bemoaning their existence, if even that. It is they who fail to cooperate in the matter of making the planet a safer place to live for all concerned.
And while I am not so disingenuous as to ascribe a universal altruism to US foreign policy, neither am I sufficiently disingenuous as to infer an overweening venality in US policy. Simple answers may be convenient, but do not stand up well in respect to complicated issues.
MG, Show me something that isn't just your opinion.
Geli, The following is what you have added to the conversation today...
Gelisgesti wrote:Temp, about time you decided to come out against the war. It takes a man to admit a mistake ..... I can forgive the money .... but it will take a while to get over the kids that died , gave their blood for oil.
Quote:Yeah, that's about the ratio ... The Left's worth of polemical screed vs The Right's 230 or so lives and $87 Billion so far.
Gelisgesti wrote:McGentrix wrote:Ya really gotta love when peoples fears are based on half-truths about half-lives.
depleted uranium is no more dangerous than lead .... less radioactive than human flesh (depleted means the radioactives have been taken out ...)
one thing you want to know about half life .. the shorter the half life, the more radioactive the substance so.. with a half life of 4.4 BILLION years means not much radioactivity at all...
I know I know .... you sprinkle it on your breakfast cereal every morning.
How bout you read the article.
Gelisgesti wrote:A battle of wits with an unarmed man.
...of course, that's just MY opinion...
Gelisgesti wrote:MG, Show me something that isn't just your opinion.
Gelisgesti wrote:McGentrix wrote:Gelisgesti wrote:MG, Show me something that isn't just your opinion.
Why? Read my tag line.
That is so freaking lame
When you have something useful for me to respond too, I will.
I just wanna observe that framing US Iraqi aid as a grant instead of a loan, coupled with the facts that wherever feasible Iraqi contractors are being employed and paid for reconstruction work and that the US is lobbying strongly in the matter of broadly forgiving existing Iraqi international debt rather obviate the ridiculous "Its the oil" argument.
No, that does not obviate the argument at all--and it won't be obviated as long as the Veep's former employer is making a mint rebuilding the oil infrastructure--Halliburton got a sweetheart deal, unbid, and that has not changed . . .
um well I was just wondering if Cheney's lips move when Bush talks?
dyslexia wrote:um well I was just wondering if Cheney's lips move when Bush talks?
What I want to know is why Bush shuts up when Cheney takes a drink?
