Troops poisoned by our own munitions

Fair enough. I'm not sure what my argument was, exactly, so I'm fairly certain I didn't make a strong case for it. :wink: I think my intention was to sidestep the question of whether dust from DU rounds is or is not dangerous and to address the realities of the dangers of war and express my hope that we always care for our troops, however they may have become sick or injured.

This is true. Lead bullets bouncing off armor plating vaporize and contaminate the air and ground. People breathing in the dust or drinking contaminated water will ingest this material and suffer the consequences.

So why does DU generate so much hysteria, when people don't seem to be worried about lead at all? It's because DU is very very slightly radioactive, and people fear radioactivity. That's why, even with so many scientific studies indicating that DU is not dangerous, there are still people making noise about it.

One of the most profound statements about nuclear power I ever heard was said by a Filipino cook on board my submarine. He said "If Thomas Edison's initial experiments with electricity had killed thousands of people, everyone would be as scared of electricity as they are of radiation."

Tarantulas - Nice to see a voice of reason on the topic. Yes, people get scared of the nasty "r" word. Most of those people don't realize that the pavement of their driveway is radioactive, as are the roads, buildings around us... the entire landscape is constantly soaking up radiation from that killer of all killers THE SUN! Arggghhhh!!!!

That the men in the article had measurable radiation in their urine does not mean that the radiation was making them sick. But regardless of how they got sick, their government should take care of them.

Uranium is harder than lead, but also less elastic. Because of this, lead ammunition tends to stay in one piece, while Uranium ammunition turns into dust, which makes it easier to inhale. Moreover, Uranium tends to inflame when it hits hard targets, which lead doesn't. So Uranium ammunition does cause somewhat more side effects than lead ammunition, and this is the true core of this particular hysteria.

What bemuses me about this discussion is that it implicitly treats ammunition as if it was a consumer product, so ought to be held to similar standards of product safety. It isn't, and it oughtn't. The very purpuse of any ammunition is to help kill people. Products don't get any less safe than this. There is a good case for reducing the amount of killing in a war. But precautions against friendly fire serve the purpose much better than abolishing DU ammunition.

Which was part of my initial comments in this discussion.

You're right, Scrat. I ought to have read the rest of the thread first.

On the contrary, I'm happy to have had you come in and agree, with or without noticing first!

all right boys and girls, DU may be bad, but ask any ground pounder which is better.
1.) a DU penetrator, that will cut through armor
2.) a steel penetrator, that might cut through armor, as long as it is not thick.

i am sure it would be very unhealthy to inhale a lot of DU dust, same for lead, and a lot of other things the Army plays with.

to think of getting rid of DU you need to find a replacement first.

From: [email protected]
Date: 22 Nov 1997 15:38:26
Reply: cpeo-military
Subject: Dangers of DU Weaponry

PRESS RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: November 17, 1997
FOR INFORMATION CONTACT:
Military Toxics Project, (207)783-5091
Dan Fahey, Swords to Plowshares, (415)247-8777
Chris Kornkven, National Gulf War Resource Center, (404)373-5507
Henk Van Der Keur, LAKA, Netherlands 011-31-20-616-8294
Dennis Flaherty, Veterans for Peace, UK 011-44-144-320-4522
Cassandra Garner, Gulf War Veteran
Dr. Asaf Durakovic, Washington D.C.
Dr. Seigwart Horst Gunther, International Yellow Cross, Austria
John Paul Hasko, Former worker Tennessee Nuclear Specialties (TNS)
Vina Colley, Worker Portsmouth Enrichment Plant, Ohio

International Forum Calls Attention to the Use and Dangers of Depleted
Uranium Weaponry

Washington, DC--Today, at a press conference at the National Press Club,
the Military Toxics Project (MTP), a national grassroots organization
working on Department of Defense environmental issues, in partnership with
other local, national, and international organizations, released Army
training videos which have been withheld from military personnel regarding
the health and environmental dangers associated with depleted uranium (DU)
weaponry.

The training videos, completed in 1995 by the Army's Depleted Uranium
Project, were obtained from an Army officer who is concerned that active
duty soldiers are still not receiving proper training about the use and
dangers of depleted uranium munitions. The training videos highlight the
dangers of depleted uranium and the need for strict safety measures when
coming into contact with contaminated vehicles and personnel injured by
uranium fragments. Armor-piercing rounds and tank armor made of depleted
uranium were used for the for the first time in warfare in Operation Desert
Storm.

"MTP has maintained that the radioactive and toxicological affects of DU
are worse than the Pentagon has ever admitted, and may be linked, in part,
to health problems that are affecting Persian Gulf veterans, their spouses
and offspring," stated Dolores Lymburner, organizer for MTP's DU work.

During the Gulf War, military commanders withheld basic warnings about the
use of depleted uranium munitions and ways to avoid exposure. When a DU
round impacts a target, it burns up causing radioactive and toxic dust
which can be transported by wind and water, entering the body via
inhalation, ingestion, or wound contamination.

MTP held the press conference as the culmination to a three day
international forum on DU, bringing together citizens, Indigenous Peoples,
scientists, doctors, workers and veterans from several different countries
who have been affected in some way by mining, manufacture, testing, or use
of DU weaponry.

Attendees at the conference signed the International Statement on Depleted
Uranium calling for:
an end to production and use of DU munitions worldwide
health care, cleanup and compensation,
the dissemination of information and training to workers and soldiers
regarding the hazards of depleted uranium exposure
an independent international scientific and medical commission

With the impending possibility that U.S. and allied troops may return to
the Persian Gulf, conference attendees also agreed to a call to President
Clinton asking that "all suspect toxicological and radiological agents,
within allied military control, including depleted uranium ordnance, used
by the military in the war, be immediately prohibited from use and combat
or punitive action." Civilian populations in Kuwait and Iraq are still
being exposed to more than 600,000 pounds of DU dust and fragments which
lie on Gulf War battlefields. Not only is the U.S. using DU weapons in
Bosnia, but at least seventeen countries now have depleted uranium
penetrators in their arsenals.

As groups like MTP and Gulf War veterans organizations increase the
awareness of the dangers of DU weapons, veterans have begun to request, and
have been denied, appropriate testing and treatment of DU-related health
problems.

Since 1991, MTP has facilitated networking and information dissemination
amongst impacted citizens that live near DU production, mining, testing,
and disposal sites, workers from DU manufacturers, Persian Gulf and Atomic
veterans, and communities of color.

MTP is a national network of groups working to clean up military pollution,
safe-guard the transportation of hazardous materials, and advance pollution
prevention and health-related issues at Department of Defense
installations. MTP's national office is located in Maine.

i'll ask again, what should the army use, that works as well?

emclean
There are munitions which will do a sufficiently good job. We do not use WMD's despite the fact that they are more efficient killing instruments. Why should we use DU armament?
Google:" DU munitions" for information on the subject.

The pentagon says it is not dangerous. They also said that Gulf War Syndrome was a figment of imagination

they would say the sky is green chease, if the right names were on the report.


what munitions? i googled "DU munitions" and found a lot of stuff that said what i had already aggred to, it is bad stuff. i did not see the DU replacement, can you direct me to which site it is on? (there were 6,860 results for it)

Do you have evidence to the contrary? From what I've read, most complaints of "Gulf War Syndrome" fall into the same mish-mash of symptoms as have been at various times attributed to Epstein-Barr, Chronic Fatigue, etc.. Giving a name to a bunch of unrelated symptoms doesn't create an actual disease or condition.

So on one side we have all these scientific studies that say it's not dangerous, and on the other side we have some training videos? That sounds pretty weak, doesn't it? How many videos do they have? And what do they say? I suspect it's something like what OSHA required the Sheriff's Office to do at the firing range. They had to put in hand-washing stations, because they make us pick up the brass shell casings and our hands get contaminated with lead particles.

Just because there's a safety training video doesn't mean that DU causes Gulf War Syndrome.

And just because some people use those three words in that order doesn't mean there is actually such a thing as "Gulf War Syndrome".

Scrat

Tell that to all those suffering from it. By the way when did you get your medical degree?

Got a list? If you include all the folks suffering from "chronic fatigue", "epstein barr" and all the other nonsense illnesses similar to GWS, I'll try to call them as well.

Note to the willfully ignorant: I'm not claiming that no one who went to the Gulf is sick today, I'm suggesting that the catch-all term GWS is meaningless and counterproductive in helping those who are sick, because it presupposes that we know something we do not... that we know what's wrong with them. If you cared about reality, you'd take my advice and compare GFW with CF and EB and other nonsense illnesses and come to one of two conclusions:

1) These are all the same illness.

2) None of these are an actual illness, and are being misdiagnosed as one.

And as to my degree... if I'm unqualified to have an opinion on this, so are you. You're here without any qualifications claiming to know this is a disease. What makes your opinion more valid than mine? (Other than the fact that it's yours.)

Scrat
It is not my opinion. There are those who claim it exists while others say it does not.The jury is not yet in. Until the condition and it's causes can be substantiated or disproven. It IMO can not be discounted.
You on the other hand seem to know there is no such thing. Oh! how I wish I was as all knowing as you.

No, I "know" that those who claim that it does exist and to know what it is are making statements that they can't back up. I "know" one of the two options I presented you MUST be true. I also "know" that you belittled me for expressing this opinion, then nonchalantly acknowledge that lots of people share it.

Seems you aren't sure what you mean, you just want to disagree with me. :wink:

There are people all over the US who have some or all of the following symptons: fatigue, headaches, rashes, nausea, aches and pains, weight loss, weight gain, blurred vision, muscle weakness, numbness and tingling, and more. Some of them are convinced that their particular set of symptoms are being caused by mercury fillings in their teeth, despite no scientific evidence to support this notion. Others believe they are infected with epstein barr. Still others will tell you that they have chronic fatigue syndrome. And some of these people--who served in the Gulf War--will tell you that they suffer from Gulf War syndrome.

Think of it this way: if I present to the right (or wrong) doctor with such symptoms and I didn't serve in the Gulf War, he might tell me I suffer from chronic fatigue. He will NOT tell me I have Gulf War Syndrome, will he? conversely, if I go to a doctor with the SAME SYMPTOMS, and I have served in the Gulf War, he may well leap to the conclusion that I suffer from Gulf War Syndrome. Are both doctors right? Or are both wrong?

See my two items above for what two options I think we have as to what conclusion we can draw from this situation.

Scrat


Coming from you that's funny.!