au1929 wrote:If it can be established that these munitions are the cause of medical problems the govenment should bend every effort to find a suitable replacement.
Not necessarily. As I understand emclean's point, depleted Uranium may well pose a health risk to American soldiers. But enemy tanks shooting at those soldiers also pose a health risk to them. After all, that's the reason those tanks exist. To make a persuasive case against DU ammunition, it isn't enough to point out the health risks associated with Uranium. You also need to need to convince him that the increase in risk from loss of effective anti-tank ammunition is smaller than the decrease in risk from getting rid of DU. Sound reasonable?
Thomas
And my point is that if the government turns it's back on the problem if indeed there is one. They will never attempt to find a suitable replacement. They will take the attitude that if it isn't broken don't fix it.
au1929 wrote:Thomas
And my point is that if the government turns it's back on the problem if indeed there is one. They will never attempt to find a suitable replacement. They will take the attitude that if it isn't broken don't fix it.
I don't see any good evidence that it's broken, even though such evidence would be easy to produce. A good Geiger counter is readily available for less than $100. Every soldier who suspects contamination can buy one, examine a glass of his urine, and check the result against the urine of his non-combatant brother. Given the ease of producing convincing evidence if there is any, the lack of convincing evidence leads me to believe that there isn't much evidence to produce. I don't trust the Pentagon, and I trust Donald Rumsfeld even less. But they're probably getting a bum rap in this particular case.
Thomas said
Quote:
I don't see any good evidence that it's broken, even though such evidence would be easy to produce. A good Geiger counter is readily available for less than $100. Every soldier who suspects contamination can buy one, examine a glass of his urine, and check the result against the urine of his non-combatant brother.
Were it as simple as you seem to think there would be no need for extensive testing. Which apparently there is.
As far as the Use of DU munitions, should they turn out to be a health hazard which has not as yet been proven or discounted. Than as I said every effort should be made to find a substitute. Without a doubt there is danger on the battle field however, there is no reason not to minimize the danger as much as possible. Frankly I do not understand your reluctance to do so.
au1929 wrote:Thomas said
Quote:
I don't see any good evidence that it's broken, even though such evidence would be easy to produce. A good Geiger counter is readily available for less than $100. Every soldier who suspects contamination can buy one, examine a glass of his urine, and check the result against the urine of his non-combatant brother.
Were it as simple as you seem to think there would be no need for extensive testing. Which apparently there is.
The fact that some people may be doing extensive testing does not prove that it is warranted or necessary.
Scrat
Quote: How else would one make that determination? Scrat
The fact that some people may be doing extensive testing does not prove that it is warranted or necessary.
How else would one make that determination?
au1929 wrote:Scrat
Quote: How else would one make that determination? Scrat
The fact that some people may be doing extensive testing does not prove that it is warranted or necessary.
How else would one make that determination?
How else would one determine what? Whether extensive testing is warranted? How would I know? My point was simply that to point to the fact that people are doing something and claim it proves the action is a necessary one warranted by conditions is not a logical, supportable claim. Extensive testing may well be warranted, but you've not supported that notion in any meaningful way by simply telling us some people are doing it. Some people wear tinfoil hats to guard against mind control. Their actions do not prove to us that their actions are warranted or necessary. (They do look cool, though.) :wink:
Scrat
How else would one determine what?
I see you as usual you are looking for an argument. I do not intend to play your game. You can remove your tinfoil hat now.
au1929 wrote:Scrat
How else would one determine what?
I see you as usual you are looking for an argument. I do not intend to play your game. You can remove your tinfoil hat now.
Not at all. Just pointing out what I pointed out. Sorry you feel that somehow means I'm spoiling for a fight, but I can assure you that's not the case. You are of course free to think what you like.
Thomas, you said better than I apparently could.
Au1929, the military is ALWAYS doing extensive testing, and yes if DU is hazardous to the troops there should be a replacement found. Just do not ask them to ban it before a replacement is found.
Emclean
Quote:Au1929, the military is ALWAYS doing extensive testing.
Based upon the articles posted that does not seem to be true.
And yes I would not expect it's use to be discontinued until an adequate substitute was found.
au1929 wrote:Emclean wrote:Au1929, the military is ALWAYS doing extensive testing.
Based upon the articles posted that does not seem to be true.
And yes I would not expect it's use to be discontinued until an adequate substitute was found.
That seems reasonable enough. Out of curiosity (and no interest in startin' sumptin') if the results of testing and consideration of alternatives indicates that DU is the best solution to this particular problem, even taking its risks into account, would you be satisfied with that answer?
au1929 wrote: Were it as simple as you seem to think there would be no need for extensive testing. Which apparently there is.
That's my point. I don't think there is a need for extensive testing. Extensive testing is demanded only because one side of the conflict didn't like the results of the simple, yet adequate tests. People do find it easier to sneer at unwelcome evidence rather than admitting they're wrong.
au1929 wrote: Without a doubt there is danger on the battle field however, there is no reason not to minimize the danger as much as possible. Frankly I do not understand your reluctance to do so.
I'm not reluctant to minimize the danger. I just think it's important to minimize the right danger, and that the right danger to minimize is the sum of battle field danger and chemical/radiological danger. Anti-DU activists tend to miss this distinction, and your earlier posts gave me the impression you missed it too. But your above quote seems to acknowledge that it's the sum that needs to be minimized, in which case we agree in that part of the issue.
Hil takes brass on
and G.I.s win
By RICHARD SISK in Washington
and MAKI BECKER in New York
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS
Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Richard Myers vowed to upgrade uranium tests for Iraq G.I.s.
The U.S. military's top general pledged yesterday to shake up the system to improve the screening and tracking of troops who may have been exposed to uranium dust in the Iraq war.
"We've got to do a first-class job for our troops," said Gen. Richard Myers.
Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made his pledge when pressed on the issue by Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) at a congressional hearing.
"You're certainly right," the general told Clinton, who demanded that the military upgrade its methods of "medical tracking and surveillance" to clear up the backlog in testing returning troops.
"We need to monitor to make sure we don't overlook things," Myers said.
The shortcomings in the system were exposed in a series of exclusive reports in the Daily News after nine soldiers with the 442nd Military Police Company of the New York Army National Guard came forward saying they were suffering from unexplained illnesses since their tour in Iraq last year.
An independent test conducted at The News' request found that four of the men tested positive for depleted uranium, which because of its heaviness is used to make shells and coat armored vehicles.
A study by the Army in 1990 linked depleted uranium to "chemical toxicity causing kidney damage."
The soldiers were heartened to hear that the military's top brass were finally taking their complaints seriously.
"I think it's great," said Sgt. Agustin Matos, who has tested positive for depleted uranium. "It's great she [Clinton] is getting us attention."
But Sgt. Juan Vega said, "I'll believe it when I see it."
Myers seemed taken aback when Clinton told him of the backlog of hundreds of troops on medical hold at Fort Dix, N.J., awaiting testing from possible contamination.
"I don't believe I've seen those reports," said Myers, promising to investigate the backlog.
"Our troops deserve better," Clinton lectured Myers.
At Clinton's urging, Myers said he also would look into methods of testing used in Japan and Germany that might pick up traces of depleted uranium that were being missed in the U.S. military's tests.
Originally published on April 21, 2004
au1929 wrote:A study by the Army in 1990 linked depleted uranium to "chemical toxicity causing kidney damage."
How much DU exposure was necessary for this result, and how often is an American combatant exposed to similar levels? Nutmeg can kill you, but that doesn't mean we need to test all GI's every time they leave the mess hall.
This smacks of the military knuckling under to political pressure more than it does of the military acknowledging and acting on a legitimate need. Perhaps if some of the blanks were filled in it might look differently, but then why weren't those blanks filled in?
