Got depleted uranium?

Galvatron · Post by **Galvatron** » 2004-01-29 05:33am

Flash film...

Warning Film is Graphic
Poisonous Legacy

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2004-01-29 07:14am

Edited thread topic you forgot to leave out "warning extremtly graphic"

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-01-29 07:19am

Ah, Erich Blumich. Good flash animator, extreme propaganda. A flash animation doesn't lend itself well to verification, which is a weak and/or strongpoint, depending on your point of view.

Xenophobe3691 · Post by **Xenophobe3691** » 2004-01-29 09:37am

That's fucking disgusting. But the thing is, I thought depleted Uranium wasn't that radioactive...

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-01-29 09:45am

Xenophobe3691 wrote:That's fucking disgusting. But the thing is, I thought depleted Uranium wasn't that radioactive...

That's why it's called depleted uranium, yes. Of course, referring to Iraq as an example of the evils of depleted uranium is an exercise in false cause fallacy. Malnutrition, shitty drinking water, low medical supplies etc. caused by the 1991 war, sanctions, etc. could ALL contribute to birth defects and lots of other maladies. Common sense.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-01-29 12:35pm

DU is particularly lethal when it enters and exits your body in the form of a shell, but not so much otherwise. Not to say it's benign, because it is indeed toxic, but it has never been shown to cause whatever it is Blumrich has presented for us here.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-01-29 12:37pm

Here's what the WHO thinks of DU:

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2004-01-29 12:49pm

People who call DU radioactive or nuclear weapons are fucking idiots. DU is just as dangerous as ALL other heavy metals. If DU were radioactive as the people claimed then why aren't the US tank crews getting sick? Not only do they have DU rounds, the fucking tank armor is made out of DU? Why are merchant seaman getting sick? DU is used a ballast on tanks no less!

For all intents and purposes DU is not radioactive. The danger behind DU is two fold.

One, it is extremely deadly when you get hit by it.

Two, it is rather nasty to breath DU dust.

What the idiot propogandists don't tell you or don't know is that lead is just as deadly as DU and I don't see them bitching about all the lead the Iraqi's fired.

Dark Hellion · Post by **Dark Hellion** » 2004-01-29 09:39pm

That video is a pile of utter shit. DU is not even made from nuclear waste, it has to be made from unprocessed Uranium. What a fucknut propagandist.
Also, wouldn't the first nuclear war be WW2? I recall the U.S. using multiple nuclear weapons sometime during that war.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-01-29 09:47pm

DU is very toxic, (course so is the lead in everyday small arms bullets) it however puts out less radioactivity then dirt for the mass.

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2004-01-29 10:32pm

Yeah, didn't someone say that having DU sitting on your kitchen counter was less dangerous than having a functioning microwave on your kitchen counter?

And when are they fully-switching to tungsten rounds, anyway?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-01-29 10:36pm

Incidentally, what is presented in this video? Is it those pictures of deformed Iraqi babies that have been floating around for some time?

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-01-29 10:43pm

And when are they fully-switching to tungsten rounds, anyway?

I don't think they are. The Advanced Tungsten Kinetic Energy cartridge is being manufactured and delivered to the Egyptian Army, however (for their M1s)- 10,000 rounds.

The most current indigenous US APFSDS-T round, the M829A3, just entered production in December 02, IIRC.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2004-01-29 11:13pm

Just a tidbit: You get more radiation from seawater or dirt than you do DU.

I don't have the source at hand, but I used it whilst smacking down some Anti-DUites on another board.

The Dude · Post by **The Dude** » 2004-01-30 12:09pm

Joe wrote:Here's what the WHO thinks of DU:

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/

Interesting read, although as a metallurgist I was quite shocked to find that DU is twice the density of lead

As to the flash propaganda piece, you can't have it both ways; either it's highly radioactive or it's not. A 4.5 billion year half-life sounds quite omnous if you utterly lack critical reasoning skills and don't realize that extremely long half-lives correspond to very LOW radioactivity.

Interesting bits from the WHO site:

- Erythema (superficial inflammation of the skin) or other effects on the skin are unlikely to occur even if DU is held against the skin for long periods (weeks).
- No consistent or confirmed adverse chemical effects of uranium have been reported for the skeleton or liver.
- No reproductive or developmental effects have been reported in humans.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-01-30 12:12pm

Nevertheless, it is highly toxic, and one of the problems in Iraq is that children tend to play in and around the wrecked shells of tanks.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2004-01-30 12:13pm

Darth Wong wrote:Nevertheless, it is highly toxic, and one of the problems in Iraq is that children tend to play in and around the wrecked shells of tanks.

And so is lead. But I do have a question, is lead dust any more or less toxic than DU dust?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-01-30 12:32pm

Nathan F wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Nevertheless, it is highly toxic, and one of the problems in Iraq is that children tend to play in and around the wrecked shells of tanks.
And so is lead. But I do have a question, is lead dust any more or less toxic than DU dust?

I have another question: would you happily spread 100 tons of lead dust onto a city, concentrated into little pockets where children tend to play?

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-01-30 12:53pm

I think it's too bad, but I think the parents who let their children play in battlefield wreckage bear a lot more responsiblity for this than the US Army does. Hell, I wonder how many kids get hurt/killed when they do something stupid in what is by nature a very dangerous playground.

The Dude · Post by **The Dude** » 2004-01-30 12:57pm

Darth Wong wrote:I have another question: would you happily spread 100 tons of lead dust onto a city, concentrated into little pockets where children tend to play?

IOW, it doesn't much matter what you kill the tank with (as virtually any metal is toxic when atomized). Hell, dead tanks will be full of dangerous stuff; unburnt fuel, battery acid, mercury, coolants, sidearms, rotting human flesh, etc... Only a fuckwit would let their children play on one.

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2004-01-30 01:04pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Nathan F wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Nevertheless, it is highly toxic, and one of the problems in Iraq is that children tend to play in and around the wrecked shells of tanks.
And so is lead. But I do have a question, is lead dust any more or less toxic than DU dust?
I have another question: would you happily spread 100 tons of lead dust onto a city, concentrated into little pockets where children tend to play?

I would, if it saved the lives of servicemen and if we cleaned it up afterward.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-01-30 01:04pm

The Dude wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:I have another question: would you happily spread 100 tons of lead dust onto a city, concentrated into little pockets where children tend to play?
IOW, it doesn't much matter what you kill the tank with (as virtually any metal is toxic when atomized). Hell, dead tanks will be full of dangerous stuff; unburnt fuel, battery acid, mercury, coolants, sidearms, rotting human flesh, etc... Only a fuckwit would let their children play on one.

According to the WHO, the region of toxicity extends for "tens of metres" away from the dead tank in all directions.

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2004-01-30 01:06pm

Darth Wong wrote:
The Dude wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:I have another question: would you happily spread 100 tons of lead dust onto a city, concentrated into little pockets where children tend to play?
IOW, it doesn't much matter what you kill the tank with (as virtually any metal is toxic when atomized). Hell, dead tanks will be full of dangerous stuff; unburnt fuel, battery acid, mercury, coolants, sidearms, rotting human flesh, etc... Only a fuckwit would let their children play on one.
According to the WHO, the region of toxicity extends for "tens of metres" away from the dead tank in all directions.

Edit on my earlier statement.. How toxic are we talking about? You might get Cancer 30 years down the road toxic or your going to live a horrible painful existence for the rest of your life, from this point forward, toxic?

The Dude · Post by **The Dude** » 2004-01-30 01:16pm

Darth Wong wrote:According to the WHO, the region of toxicity extends for "tens of metres" away from the dead tank in all directions.

Or, more precisely:

A recent United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) report giving field measurements taken around selected impact sites in Kosovo (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) indicates that contamination by DU in the environment was localized to a few tens of metres around impact sites. Contamination by DU dusts of local vegetation and water supplies was found to be extremely low. Thus, the probability of significant exposure to local populations was considered to be very low.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2004-01-30 02:13pm

I found this article to be rather informative.

Briefing on Depleted Uranium

We looked at some 90 Gulf War veterans who were in or on an armored vehicle when it was struck by depleted uranium in friendly fire. And those individuals have been followed on an annual basis now we are talking 12 years post-incident. And we do not see any kidney damage in those individuals -- and this is using very sophisticated medical evaluation of kidneys. They were also followed for other medical problems, and they have had no -- and I'll talk about this a little bit later, but while I'm here, they've had no other medical consequences of that depleted uranium exposure.

We've looked at them for cancers. There has been no cancer of bone or lungs, where you would expect them -- to see that. We have seen no leukemias. As I said, there's been about 90 individuals we've followed up, and about 20 of these individuals still have small fragments of depleted uranium in their body.

I think as far as health effects on children we do know that, as I said before, if the depleted uranium is external to the body there is no health effect. What we worry about like lead in paint in housing areas -- children picking it up and eating it or licking it -- getting it on their hands and ingesting it. And there really is no data on how much it takes to cause an issue or a problem in children. If you are taking it in orally, most of that is going to go right through the gut. I mean, they've done studies of this -- of all heavy metals -- and there's very little absorption of that. And you'd really have to have a very large internalized dose