Depleted Uranium Paranoia returns

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-10-22 09:35pm

http://www.currentconcerns.ch/archive/2 ... 030401.php

And it's worse than ever.

darthdavid · Post by **darthdavid** » 2003-10-22 09:39pm

DU remains ‘hot’ for 4.5 billion years.

Such a high lifespan works against them, If it remains radioactive so long then the radition is of extremely low intensity.

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2003-10-22 10:40pm

Wow, old people have health problems? It must be because of the low amounts of radiation given off by DEPLETED uranium.

Omega-13 · Post by **Omega-13** » 2003-10-23 02:05am

This has been around for over a decade, DU is dangerous and the Americans use it. They won't stop, they break as many international laws as iraq,

can't do anything about it

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2003-10-23 02:13am

Omega-13 wrote:This has been around for over a decade, DU is dangerous and the Americans use it. They won't stop, they break as many international laws as iraq,

can't do anything about it

Yes DU is dangerous....but so is gasoline, and many other materials and resources in use by many countries around the world. Point being DU is no more dangerous than a lot of other materials in use by militarys around the world.

What makes DU such a big deal is because Uranium is used in nuclear weapons, and anything related to that makes a big story.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-10-23 02:51am

Omega-13 wrote:This has been around for over a decade, DU is dangerous and the Americans use it. They won't stop, they break as many international laws as iraq,

can't do anything about it

That's going in my sig.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-10-23 05:35am

What I love is when ignoramuses refer to "depleted uranium bombardment"

Yes- they drop bombs which explode in a SHOWER OF DEPLETED URANIUM! *GASP!*

CJvR · Post by **CJvR** » 2003-10-23 05:37am

It never ceases to amaze me how many idiots that confuse depleted uranium with the spent uranium fuel used in nuklear reactors, informing them of their misstake is often quite pointless since they want to belive the evil US is firing highly radioactive stuff at poor innocent villagers in the third world.

When the "US is evil incarnate", "nature before humans" and "surrender is always preferable" crowds have found some common ground it's to good to allow minor details such as facts interfere with their causes.

Opinions on DU sometimes seem more like religon than reality.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-10-23 09:47am

All people of the earth will become grossliy ill, terribly deformed and short-lived

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-10-23 09:53am

Fucking too right! Those DU tank shells were used on innocent streets where they sucked out the innocent terrorists inside the houses and disembowled them as well as delousing them and then making their eyes pop!

Outrage that we're using nuc-u-lear weapons in this day and age!

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-10-23 10:25am

darthdavid wrote:DU remains ‘hot’ for 4.5 billion years.

Such a high lifespan works against them, If it remains radioactive so long then the radition is of extremely low intensity.

You know that and I know that. But it doesn't matter to those "no nukes" fucktards. For all they want to know, the slightest exposure to radiation instantly causes horrible sickness and/or death.

Falkenhorst · Post by **Falkenhorst** » 2003-10-24 05:40am

Argh, that part in there about the "Naive young soldiers" reminds me of the part in "Pork Chop Hill" where Gregory Peck and K Company are climbing up the hill in the middle of the night and the Communist guy is reading propaganda over the loudspeaker. Just the way they skip on facts and numbers and exagerate shit in that essay pisses me off. They have to be stupid to think that these weapons are specifically used to spread Depleted Uranium to deliberately irradiate the enemy. DU ammo is used in certain weapon systems because it lets the round penetrate armor more easily.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-10-24 10:36am

Dammit, do these people not realize that DU is less radioactive than natural background radiation? Freaking seawater is more readioactive than DU!!!

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-10-24 10:40am

I REALLY like this one:

"Stockpiling...nuclear mines and shells suited to commando warfare in Afghanistan."

Funny, nuclear shells were considered once in the 1950s, were deemed impractical, and never thought about again. Nuclear mines? That's a new one to me...[/quote]

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-10-24 11:39am

Actually, nuclear shells were stockpiled by the US until GHWB's order to destroy the US tactical nuclear arsenal.

Sam Or I · Post by **Sam Or I** » 2003-10-24 12:51pm

I have read some where that a lead posioning from a lead round is more toxic than the radation of a Depeleted Uranium round. I am not sure if it is true though. (BTW Lead rounds are banned by the geneva convention)

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-10-24 01:16pm

DU is actually highly toxic. The fact that it doesn't glow or emit high-level ionizing radiation does not mean it's harmless. The enviro-ignorants are grossly exaggerating the threat and seriously misinterpreting its nature, but you people are going too far the other way by acting as though the stuff is as harmless as wood chips. It's not.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-10-24 01:35pm

Darth Wong wrote:DU is actually highly toxic. The fact that it doesn't glow or emit high-level ionizing radiation does not mean it's harmless. The enviro-ignorants are grossly exaggerating the threat and seriously misinterpreting its nature, but you people are going too far the other way by acting as though the stuff is as harmless as wood chips. It's not.

Well, it certainly isn't harmless, especially when propelled at high velocities towards your person, but it's toxicity seems to be wholly overlooked in favor of the "it's super-radioactive!" spiel. There are also the uranium oxide dangers from blown up vehicles and such, but the stuff seems to remain localized rather than spreading around.

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2003-10-24 02:02pm

Darth Wong wrote:DU is actually highly toxic. The fact that it doesn't glow or emit high-level ionizing radiation does not mean it's harmless. The enviro-ignorants are grossly exaggerating the threat and seriously misinterpreting its nature, but you people are going too far the other way by acting as though the stuff is as harmless as wood chips. It's not.

That wasn't my intention. If that is how it seemed then I apologize. I'm simply pointing out that the military uses chemicals that are just as hazardous if ingested. However, because it is related to nuclear materials people like to make it into something a lot larger than it really is.

The bottom line is you shouldn't go near destroyed military vehicles or structures, you have no idea what was there. Personally DU would be the least of my concerns if I decided I wanted to play around the corpse of a tank.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-10-24 03:56pm

Darth Wong wrote:DU is actually highly toxic.

So is lead, and we've only shot off a trillion or so rifle and machine gun bullets in the past century without having vast areas become uninhabitable as it poisons the water and ground. DU has the added risk that is less then background levels of radioactivity can affect you if you consume it, but it takes a considerable amount for that to have any effect, which will be a slight increase in cancer risk. A long haul high altitude flight or X-rays are greater health threats.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-10-24 04:01pm

phongn wrote:Actually, nuclear shells were stockpiled by the US until GHWB's order to destroy the US tactical nuclear arsenal.

We also did have nuclear land mines, called Atomic Demolition Munitions. Basically they where very small nuclear weapons, that would be hand emplaced at chokepoints, bridges or anywhere else that the enemy was expected to pass though or where there was something that needed demolishing that couldn't easily be done with normal HE. The nuke would then be command detonated at a safe distance and at the time of troops choosing. While they didn't have pressure activated fuses, they where normally buried for concealment and protection. It used the same warhead as the Davy Crocket IIRC and was deployed alongside that weapon, though it lasted longer in service.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-10-24 04:15pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
phongn wrote:Actually, nuclear shells were stockpiled by the US until GHWB's order to destroy the US tactical nuclear arsenal.
We also did have nuclear land mines, called Atomic Demolition Munitions. Basically they where very small nuclear weapons, that would be hand emplaced at chokepoints, bridges or anywhere else that the enemy was expected to pass though or where there was something that needed demolishing that couldn't easily be done with normal HE. The nuke would then be command detonated at a safe distance and at the time of troops choosing. While they didn't have pressure activated fuses, they where normally buried for concealment and protection. It used the same warhead as the Davy Crocket IIRC and was deployed alongside that weapon, though it lasted longer in service.

Reminds me of an MoD plan to put nuke mines on the East German border during the Cold War if the Soviets got up to something.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-10-24 04:20pm

Sam Or I wrote:I have read some where that a lead posioning from a lead round is more toxic than the radation of a Depeleted Uranium round. I am not sure if it is true though. (BTW Lead rounds are banned by the geneva convention)

No they aren't. All military small arms are composed of lead. SOFT POINTED ammunition is banned, I.E., ammunition that doesn't have a copper jacket all the way. The reason for that is that upon impact, it mushrooms out, causing massive internal injuries. Thing is, full metal jacket rounds are illegal to use in most hunting applications because they aren't as lethal and aren't as likely to have a single shot kill on game animals.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-10-24 04:50pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:
Reminds me of an MoD plan to put nuke mines on the East German border during the Cold War if the Soviets got up to something.

The US and British militaries used mostly the same tactical nuclear weapons, in West Germany there where a number of stockpiles of atomic shells held under American control, but with the plan that some would be released directly to British units. Things are very convenient when both armies use the same 8-inch guns.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2003-10-24 05:50pm

What is the probable explanation for the birth deformities in Iraq?