Uranium ammo is genocide!

[Haltickling]

A joint BBC/German TV documentary just sent me into a serious fit of rage. It dealt with radioactive ammunition used by US and UK forces in both gulf wars, as well as in the Bosnia/Serbia/Kosovo conflict in 1999. It showed the scientific results of several international scientists and physicians who researched the highly toxic effects of depleted Uranium.

The results in brief: Leukemia and other cancer rates in the affected areas raised to 1000% of the average, the number of genetic deformations went up to 2000%. A huge number of deformations in newly born children consists of: Headless babies, babies without a face, a mouth, or a nose, grotesquely deformed abdomens, even babies with 6 or 8 limbs.

The amount of radiation in areas of tank battles is up to 400 times higher than in any part of the world. Eight districts of Baghdad and much of Basra suffer from very high contamination and should only be visited with appropriate safety gear (similar to that used in nuclear accidents). However, up to 10 million people live there!

What even aggravates the matter is the fact that US and UK soldiers are sent into those areas unprotected and ignorant of the risk. Unprotected British and American soldiers work in this area constantly. Tanks are still removed from the battle sites without appropriate decontamination measures, but as soon as these remnants arrive in Kuwaiti harbors, they suddenly get treated with extreme precautions against radiation.

The numbers of soldiers still suffering from the “Gulf War Syndrome” range between 80,000 and 400,000, covering only the 1991 war. Similar phenomenon have been reported from the soldiers serving in Bosnia and surrounding regions, known as “Balkans Syndrome”. Only very recently, a British court confirmed the disease of a British soldier of the first Gulf War as “caused directly by the use of depleted Uranium in ammunition”.

An educational movie for US troops, produced by the Pentagon and describing the hazards and proper handling of Uranium ammo, has existed since 1989, however the soldiers who were sent to Iraq or the Balkans were never shown this movie.

On the bombing sites of 2003, the scientists even found remnants of Uranium-236 (enriched Uranium) and Plutonium; these elements do not exist in nature, they can only be produced in high-tech labs, and they usually occur only in nuclear weapons.

However, official US and UK sources still deny the health hazards of uranium ammo, and they still refuse to acknowledge the origin of the Gulf War Syndrome, denying health care to their veterans and condemning their current soldiers in Iraq to a slow, painful cancer death, or if they survive, their children to be crippled about 20 times the average rate.

Folks, this is genocide, plain and simple. Nobody who does this should condemn Hitler, Stalin, or even Saddam, because it is them who cripple our future! Depleted Uranium has a half-life of 4.5 billion years!

I found several interesting scientific articles on google, from sources that certainly can’t be called anti-American:

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Depleted%20uranium%20ammunition
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/09/iraq-030904-04092003185213.htm
http://members.tripod.com/~danubedita/library/uranium_impacts.htm

[Sadistictickler]

to the US Army command and Bush (jr/sr) soldiers aren't persons, they're numbers. This once again proves that.

They don't even consider the fact that they're infecting massive areas for a couple of million years (uranium's half-life is about 1 million years I believe)

the only thing they care about is the fact that a uranium shell cuts trough tanks like a knife through butter due to the massive added weight per cm³ uranium has

[HisDivineShadow]

Wouldn't surprise me. Government usually cares less about the consequences than the results, in this case excellent destructive power.

Might want to check this page out, Hal.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/du.htm

[Haltickling]

Thanks HDS! Actually, I was looking for this article referred to in your link. It deals deals with the real danger of WMD in Iraq, which are used by the US and UK:

{b]ANOTHER WAR CRIME? IRAQI CITIES "HOT" WITH DEPLETED URANIUM[/b]
By Sara Flounders

August 18, 2003--Has U.S. use of depleted-uranium weapons turned Iraq into a radioactive danger area for both Iraqis and occupation troops?

This question has already had serious consequences. In hot spots in downtown Baghdad, reporters have measured radiation levels that are 1,000 to 1,900 times higher than normal background radiation levels.

It has also opened a debate in the Netherlands parliament and media as 1,100 Dutch troops in Kuwait prepare to enter Iraq as part of the U.S./British-led occupation forces. The Dutch are concerned about the danger of radioactive poisoning and radiation sickness in Iraq.

Washington has assured the Dutch government that it used no DU weapons near Al-Samawah, the town where Dutch troops will be stationed. But Dutch journalists and anti-war forces have already found holes in the U.S. stories according to an article on the Radio Free Europe website. The original expose came from M.H.J. van den Berg of RISQ "the Review of International Social Questions" and was picked up by the Dutch media.

DU-caused radiation had already raised alarms in Europe after studies showed increased rates of cancers, respiratory ailments and other disabilities of occupation troops from NATO countries stationed in Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan.

In general, the health and environmental dangers of weapons made with DU radioactive waste have received far more attention in Europe than in the U.S.

In this year's war on Iraq, the Pentagon used its radioactive arsenal mainly in the urban centers, rather than in desert battlefields as in 1991. Many hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people and U.S. soldiers, along with British, Polish, Japanese and Dutch soldiers sent to join the occupation, will suffer the consequences. The real extent of injuries, chronic illness, long-term disabilities and genetic birth defects won't be apparent for five to 10 years.

By now, half of all the 697,000 U.S. soldiers involved in the 1991 war have reported serious illnesses. According to the American Gulf War Veterans Association, more than 30 percent of these soldiers are chronically ill and are receiving disability benefits from the Veterans Administration. Such a high occurrence of various symptoms has led to the illnesses being named Gulf War Syndrome.

This number of disabled veterans is shockingly high. Most are in their mid-thirties and should be in the prime of health. Before sending troops to the Gulf region, the military had already sifted out those with disabilities or chronic health problems from asthma, diabetes, heart conditions, cancers and birth defects.

A LONG-TERM PROBLEM

The impact of tons of radioactive waste polluting major urban centers may seem a distant problem to Iraqis now trying to survive in the chaos of military occupation. They must cope with power outages during the intense heat of summer, door-to-door searches, arbitrary arrests, civilians routinely shot at roadblocks, outbreaks of cholera and dysentery from untreated water, untreated sewage and uncollected garbage, more than half the work force unemployed, and a lack of food-- which before the war was distributed by the Baathist regime.

But along with these current threats are long-range problems. Around the world a growing number of scientific organizations and studies have linked Gulf War Syndrome and the high rate of assorted and mysterious sicknesses to radiation poisoning from weapons made with depleted uranium.

Scott Peterson, a staff writer for the Christian Science Moni tor, reported on May 15 about taking Geiger counter readings at several sites in Baghdad. Near the Republican Palace where U.S. troops stood guard and over 1,000 employees walked in and out of the building, his radiation readings were the "hottest" in Iraq, at nearly 1,900 times background radiation levels. Spent shell casings still littered the ground.

At a roadside vegetable stand selling fresh bunches of parsley, mint and onions outside Baghdad, children played on a burnt-out Iraqi tank. The reporter's Geiger counter registered nearly 1,000 times normal background radiation. The U.S. uses armor-piercing shells coated with DU to destroy tanks.

The Aug. 4 Seattle Post Intelligencer reported elevated radiation levels at six sites from Basra to Baghdad. One destroyed tank near Baghdad had 1,500 times the normal background radiation. "The Pentagon and the United Nations estimate that the U.S. and Britain used 1,100 to 2,200 tons of armor-piercing shells made of depleted uranium during attacks on Iraq in March and April--far more than the 375 tons used in the 1991 Gulf War," wrote the Post Intelligencer.

The Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle analyzed swabs from bullet holes in Iraqi tanks and confirmed elevated radiation levels.

RADIOACTIVE AND TOXIC

The extremely dense DU shells easily penetrate steel armor and burn on impact. The fire releases microscopic, radioactive and toxic dust particles of uranium oxide that travel with the wind and can be inhaled or ingested. They also spread contamination by seeping into the land and water.

In the human body, DU may cause harm to the internal organs due both to its chemical toxicity as a heavy metal and its release of radiation.

An otherwise useless by-product of the uranium-enrichment process, DU is attractive to military contractors because it is so cheap, often offered for free by the government.

According to the Uranium Medical Research Center, the toxic and radiological effects of uranium contamination may weaken the immune system. They may cause acute respiratory conditions like pneumonia, flu- like symptoms and severe coughs, renal or gastrointestinal illnesses.

Dr. Asaf Durakovic of UMRC explains that the initial symptoms will be mostly neurological, showing up as headaches, weakness, dizziness and muscle fatigue. The long-term effects are cancers and other radiation- related illnesses, such as chronic fatigue syndrome, joint and muscle pain, rashes, neurological and/or nerve damage, mood disturbances, infections, lung and kidney damage, vision problems, auto-immune deficiencies and severe skin conditions. It also causes increases in miscarriages, maternal mortality and genetic birth defects.

For years the government described Gulf War Syndrome as a post-traumatic stress disorder. It was labeled a psychological problem or simply dismissed as mysterious unrelated ailments. In this same way the Pentagon and the Veterans Administration treated the health problems of Vietnam vets suffering from Agent Orange poisoning.

THE COVERUP

The U.S. government denies that DU weapons can cause sickness. But before the first Gulf War, where DU weapons were used extensively, the Pentagon's own internal reports warned that the radiation and heavy metal of DU weapons could cause kidney, lung and liver damage and increased rates of cancer.

Ignoring these dangers, the Pentagon went on to use these weapons, which gave it a big advantage in tank battles. But it denied publicly that DU use was related to the enormously high rate of sicknesses among GIs following the war.

Today the Pentagon plays an even more duplicitous role. It continues to assert that there are no "known" health problems associated with DU. But Army training manuals require anyone who comes within 75 feet of any DU- contaminated equipment or terrain to wear respiratory and skin protection.

The manuals say that "contamination will make food and water unsafe for consumption." According to the Army Environmental Policy Institute, holding a spent DU round exposes a person to about 200 rems per hour, or twice the annual radiation exposure limit.

This March and April U.S. and British forces fired hundreds of thousands of DU rounds in dense urban areas. Superfine uranium oxide particles were blown about in dust storms. Yet the Pentagon refuses to track, report or mark off where DU was fired. There is no way Iraqis or the occupying soldiers can keep 75 feet away or use respiratory and skin protection in 120-degree heat.

The American Gulf War Veterans Association (AGWVA) reports that suffering veterans are receiving little, if any, medical treatment for their illnesses. "Whenever veterans become ill, the term 'mystery illness' seems to be the first and often the only diagnosis that is ever made. Veterans are then left to fend for themselves, sick and unable to work, with little hope of a normal life again."

Iraq's National Ministry of Health organized two international conferences to present data on the relationship between the high incidence of cancer and the use of DU weapons. It produced detailed epidemiological reports and statistical studies. This data showed a six- fold increase in breast cancer, a five-fold increase in lung cancer and a 16-fold increase in ovarian cancer.

Because of the U.S.-imposed sanctions, Iraqi doctors and scientists were barred from presenting their research papers in most of the world.

Doug Rokke of AGWVA, former head of the U.S. Army DU Project, who is seriously ill with respiratory problems, has been campaigning against the use of DU. Rokke reports that U.S. troops presently in Iraq are already falling sick with a series of Gulf War Syndrome symptoms.

The AGWVA says the Department of Defense has information regarding "mystery" deaths of soldiers in this latest war and the emergence of a mysterious pneumonia that has sickened at least 100 men and women.

U.S. POSITION: NO CLEAN-UP

While the U.K. has admitted that British Challenger tanks expended some 1.9 tons of DU ammunition during major combat operations in Iraq this year, the U.S. has refused to disclose specific information about whether and where it used DU during this yearcampaign. It also is refusing to let a team from the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) study the environmental impact of DU contamination in Iraq.

Despite this refusal, it is public knowledge that the U.S. made extensive use of weapons that can fire DU shells. These include the A-10 Warthog tank-buster aircraft with 30-mm cannons that can fire up to 4,200 DU rounds per minute; the AC-130 gunship; the "Apache" helicopter, and Bradley fighting vehicles that fire anti-armor 105-mm to 120-mm tank rounds containing DU.

The U.S. followed the same tactics in the wars in the Balkans. While claiming full cooperation with UNEP's Balkans studies, the Pentagon delayed releasing target locations for 16 months. It gave misleading map information. Then bomb, missile and cluster-bomb targets were excluded. NATO allowed 10 other teams to visit or clean up sites before UNEP inspections started.

Washington refuses to acknowledge DU use anywhere or that it poses any danger. To acknowledge radiation poisoning would immediately raise demands for a cleanup.

According to Alex Kirby, BBC News Online environment correspondent: "The U.S. says it has no plans to remove the debris left over from depleted uranium weapons it is using in Iraq. It says no cleanup is needed, because research shows DU has no long-term effects."

EVIDENCE OF DU USE

But in the information age, the Pentagon can't suppress all the evidence. The Dutch example shows this. Though the U.S. government specifically denied any firing of DU weapons near the city of Al- Samawah, where Dutch troops were to be stationed, a simple Internet search by journalists undid this lie.

The Dutch government, to get a resolution through the parliament to authorize sending troops to Iraq, depicted the Al-Samawah region as a remote, barely inhabited desert where no noteworthy events had occurred.

In actual fact, Al-Samawah is strategically located on the road from Basra to Baghdad, providing access to a bridge over the Euphrates River. On its march to Baghdad, the U.S. Army encountered fierce resistance from Iraqi forces there, according to American officers. This was well covered by their embedded media.

It was more than a week before the town and the road were cleared of all pockets of resistance. Some 112 civilians, most of them inhabitants of Al-Samawah, were killed in battle.

DU ammunition was widely used during this operation. In a widely distributed field message, Sergeant First Class Cooper reported that the weapons systems used by the 3rd Infantry, 7th Cavalry, en route to Al- Samawah and on to Najaf, were performing well, especially the 25-mm DU and 7.62.

Of greater interest to Internet researchers was a letter a young soldier sent home to his parents, which they posted in their church bulletin on the Internet. In the letter E. Pennell, a crew member on a Bradley Fighting Vehicle of the 1st Infantry Battalion, 41st Infantry Regiment, described how his crew fired a 25-mm DU round as they encountered seven Iraqi troops in the town of Al-Samawah.

Pennell's letter has raised concern among groups like the United Federation of Military Personnel, a kind of labor union for Dutch troops. It fears that its members might be at risk of contracting cancer or other diseases because of exposure to DU ammunition.

RESISTENCE: THE ONLY SOLUTION

Officers and politicians in imperialist countries have always treated rank-and-file soldiers as cannon fodder. These young lives are totally expendable. The occupied or colonized people are not counted at all.

As a global movement against imperialist wars grew over the past century, military planners made great efforts to hide the true costs of war, especially the human cost. The nearly 60,000 U.S. casualties in the Vietnam War provoked a mighty mass anti-war movement. This time, long before U.S. casualties reached 100 soldiers, the movement to "Bring the Troops Home" had gained momentum.

This new movement must demand a true accounting of the enormous human costs of the war. The impact on the health and future of not only U.S. troops but the millions of people in Iraq must be part of the demand.

A growing international movement must demand full reparations for the Iraqi people. A cleanup of the toxic, radioactive waste is in the interests of all the people of the region. The cost of the war must be calculated in terms of bankrupt social programs here in the U.S. and the health of all the people who were in the region during the war and will be in the years to come.

Sara Flounders is co-director of the International Action Center and coordinator of the DU Education Project. She is an editor and a contributing author of the book "Metal of Dishonor: Depleted Uranium," and helped produce a video by the same name. The IAC helped organize an international effort to bring the issue of DU to the UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva and helped measure radiation levels in Iraq before the 2003 war.

(End of article)

Any more comments on that?

[BOFH666]

Originally posted by Haltickling
However, official US and UK sources still deny the health hazards of uranium ammo, and they still refuse to acknowledge the origin of the Gulf War Syndrome, denying health care to their veterans and condemning their current soldiers in Iraq to a slow, painful cancer death, or if they survive, their children to be crippled about 20 times the average rate.

Folks, this is genocide, plain and simple. Nobody who does this should condemn Hitler, Stalin, or even Saddam, because it is them who cripple our future! Depleted Uranium has a half-life of 4.5 billion years!


You know I was just about to post a reply saying that may be a wee bit over the top but.... after thinking about it I'll go with that. What I could never understand was WHY DU weapons were used in Iraq anyway, it's not as if ANYTHING the Iraq army had on the books and in working condition needed that sort of firepower to take it out (as far as I know anyway).

Of course there's a flip side to this, as more and more evidence starts to come out, even the dimmest of potential recruits might be moved to pause and reflect before signing on. If that happens, and with the falling number of experienced troops signing on for another tour, the US and UK might find themselves in real trouble when it comes to meeting their basic military obligations.

[Neutron]

DU cannot raise radiation levels!!! It's a damn alpha emitter!!!!

Also, the source is a friggin idiot!! U236 DOES exist in Nature!! And it's NOT considered Enriched Uranium. Enriching Uranium involves taking U235 found in nature and increasing it's concentration via either Centrifuge or gaseous diffusion. It does NOT involve making one type of Uranium out of another.

U236 is essentially inert. (I SUGGEST you get a chart of the nuclides and look it up)

Also, PU 239 DOES exist in Nature. Basically it's formed by U238 absorbing a neutron which beta decays to Np238 then to Pu 239. It's more commonly made in a lab, however it exists in significant quanties anywhere there's deposits of Natural Uranium. It CANNOT exist in the presence of Depleted Uranium. The driving force to make it simply doesn't exist.
You can almost eat the stuff.

Additionally if you raised the background levels 400 to 800 times it's be instantly lethal. The Gulf War Syndrome symptoms do not resemble those of radiation poisoning in the very least!

Genocide by definition (and the Germans should know this) is when one society or race sets out AS A POLICY to erase another race. It does not exist when people are victims of byproducts of war.

That article is so inaccurate it's almost hilarious. You're better than that Haltickling. I might not agree with you a lot, but at least usually you're somewhat rational in your facts.

Tron

[BOFH666]

Neutron, any chance of a little help on this one? Got a couple of questions that I think are right up your alley:


A common misconception is that radiation is depleted uranium's primary hazard. This is not the case under most battlefield exposure scenarios. Depleted uranium is approximately 40 percent less radioactive than natural uranium. Depleted uranium emits alpha and beta particles, and gamma rays. Alpha particles, the primary radiation type produced by depleted uranium, are blocked by skin, while beta particles are blocked by the boots and battle dress utility uniform (BDUs) typically worn by service members. While gamma rays are a form of highly-penetrating energy , the amount of gamma radiation emitted by depleted uranium is very low. Thus, depleted uranium does not significantly add to the background radiation that we encounter every day.


Now I read that as while it is an alpha emitter it does emit beta and gamma as well?

I can find plenty of articles about PU 239 being a man-made element but can't find anything to the contrary. Taken from http://www.psigate.ac.uk/ (Physical Sciences Information Gateway):


Nuclear reactors are capable of operation on isotopes other than 235U, such as 239Pu and 233U, but these isotopes do not exist in nature. They can, however, be produced in nuclear reactors from the naturally occurring 238U and 232Th respectively. Nuclear reactors carrying out this process can actually produce more nuclear fuel than they consume, and so they are called breeder reactors. In breeder reactors, some of the neutrons produced are absorbed by 238U which then undergoes the following chain of reactions:


and from http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/natural.htm


Human Produced

239PU - Produced by neutron bombardment of 238U
( 238U + n--> 239U--> 239Np +ß--> 239Pu+ß)


I haven't got a great deal of time this morning, so I can't go searching as far as I'd like. Any chance you could point me in the right direction for the contradictory evidence?


The environmental effects of depleted uranium have been studied comprehensively by a wide range of governmental and non-governmental bodies both before and after the Gulf War. Burn tests and other evaluations performed under simulated battlefield conditions indicated that the health risks associated with the battlefield use of depleted uranium were minimal and even those could be reduced even more by simple, field-expedient measures, especially, avoidance of depleted uranium-contaminated vehicles and sites


The above is taken from http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/faq_17apr.htm

Now I'm probably wrong here but reading through that piece "the health risks... were minimal" does suggest to me that there are SOME risks, especially considering the avoidance of DU-contaminated vehicles. Or am I missing something?

I'll have a proper look around for info on this tonight, but in the meantime any help you could provide would be appreciated.

Steve.

[Sadistictickler]

Originally posted by Neutron
Also, PU 239 DOES exist in Nature.

Oh, please, stop, you're killing me

*almost died of laughing*

Tron, no offence dude but the thing with Plutinium is that it's 100% man-made, as are most of the heavy-radioactive elements

[Sadistictickler]

Originally posted by BOFH666
Now I read that as while it is an alpha emitter it does emit beta and gamma as well?

Yeah, Uranium does emit those types of radiation. For Beta and Alpha radiation it's no big deal, those types are stopped by the clothing the soldiers wear. But Gamma-rays have the power to penetrate 4m's (13.3 foot) of solid concrete. That's the deadliest form of radiation.

Eventhough depleted Uranium emits 40% less than natural Uranium, natural Uranium doesn't come in concentrated amounts like the stuff on the bullets, it's spread through shitloads of rock...

[Haltickling]

Thanks a lot for your research, BOFH.

The term "genocide" is a matter of definition. While the term "holocaust" is restricted to Nazi Germany killing Jewish people, the term "genocide" also includes large-scale killing of civilians of certain parts of a country's population. As the radiotoxic effects of Uranium ammo also afflicts yet-unborn generations, I consider genocide the appropriate term.

The Bush administration knew all too well why they didn't acknowledge the UN War Crime Tribunal.

[Neutron]

So let's pretend a minute that I know a bit about this.

Yes All Heavy Elements have the potential to emit gammas, however they only decay in one mode at a time. In other words their primary mode is via alpha decay which is stopped by skin or paper. Betas are stopped by paper. Gammas can penetrate into the body. Gammas are predomonantly what we refer to as the worst types of radioactivity simply because they penetrate the most. That however depends on the energy emitted by the gamma. IF and I say IF a Heavy Element emits a gamma it's of very very low enegy. Gamma penetration depends on the energy emitted by the gamma. The Heavy Element gammas are low penetrators, in other words they're stopped by skin or clothing. (note I'm not talking spnt nuclear fuel here).
DU by definition has been depleted, it's normally U238 which is predominantly an alpha emitter. In fact less than 1% of 1% of 1% of 1% is capable of emitting a gamma and that's a very low energy one at that. Coincidentally u238 has a long half life. Tke a long half life (in other words takes a long time to decay) and combine it with a low energy and you have a substance with a low radiation potential. Hell you can WALK over a mine of NON DEPLETED Uranium and live on it, and not get sick. American Indians did it for years, as have African Tribes.

Pu is found in nature, as is Neptunium, Californium and other "man" made elements. When they say an element is produced as a man made element they mean just that, the ky term being PRODUCED. Anywhere you have U238 you'll also have trace amounts of Pu. BY traceable I mean not produced in mass quantities. Pu in nature is primarily a gas and not easily captured. Producing a substance simply means you make it in a MEASURABLE quantity for some sort of use. For Pu to be produced a U238 needs to capture a neutron of a certain energy. So to produce it accurately you have to make the neutrons of that energy, usually in sa lab or a reactor. Most reactors are primarily using Plutonium at the end of core life. But it is found in Nature. Primarily at natural reactors, the best example of which is in Africa.

Natural background radiation is around .500 R. Lethal Dose is around 400 R. Raise the level about 800 times and you can see it's a LETHAL dose. So that article is false from that standpoint. Even at the lower rate the article uses the level would be 200 R, a dose where people would get severely ill within minutes. DU does NOT raise radiation levels. Hell I've handled the stuff many many times. In fact it's less radioactive than clean (non used) reactor fuel, and I've handled that quite a few times, sometimes for hours, 5 days a week, with no ill effects. DU is quite a bit less concentrated than reactor fuel, AND more importantly reactor fuel is made of the more active types of radiation. Christ you can eat off the stuff.

DU is almost a necessity in modern warfare because it's almost impossible to penetrate modern tank armor with conventional metals, same with underground bunkers.

Sorry Haltickling, your definition of Genocide is wrong. Genocide. THe key is the use of cide, a CONSCIOUS decision to kill. And Geno, a race. For it to be genocide you'd have to be making a cONCIOUS choice to destroy a race of people. Your use of the Holocaust is the prime example of the 20th century and the world. The Nazis made a concious choice to destroy the Ubermensch (hell they even made a law saying it was ok). After products of war are not considered genocidal. When the Germans burnt fields of food in Russia, AND when they stole food and housing from Russian civilians that was an attempt at genocide. Genocide is never a matter of opinion, it's a matter of policy. If you want to say they were reckless, then so be it, genocidal, nah, if they were genocidal they would have carpet bombed and condoned air strikes on refugees (sounds rather Eastern Frontish eh). Genocide is taking people by the thousands, putting them in camps, and gassing them, hanging them, shooting on sight, conducting medical experiments, simply because they are from a race or creed. It's a matter of policy, BY DEFINITION and not by opinion.

Also, the 4.5 million year half life is laughable. That half life in conjunction with DU not emitting high energy gammas is in fact why DU isn't a very radioactive substance. You have far more radioactivity in a smoke detector, in fact that's how a smoke detector works (Americium).

Tron

[Neutron]

http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/oklo.htm

http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0010.shtml


Note the presence of natural Plutonium.
We had to study these reactors when I was at Idaho State.

Tron

[BOFH666]

Okay, after a bit more research let me have a proper stab at this one. In short, it seems clear that there really isn’t any reason to keep using Depleted Uranium munitions, that there is an ever-growing volume of evidence that they represent a long term health risk not only to soldiers but to civilians and that there are alternatives to their use. Oh, and the small matter of DU munitions being classified as illegal Weapons of Mass Destruction and that therefore their use on the battlefield could be classed as a war crime.

Let’s start with the easiest question to answer, should Depleted Uranium munitions be used on the battlefield from a legal standpoint?

http://www.miltoxproj.org/DU/dupd.htm



UN Vote

The United Nations Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities voted a resolution which included the following:
. . . "Convinced that the production, sale and use of such weapons are incompatible with international human rights and humanitarian law,
. . . "Urged all States to be guided in their national policies by the need to curb the production and the spread of weapons of mass destruction or with indiscriminate effect, in particular nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, fuel-air bombs, napalm, cluster bombs, biological. weaponry and weaponry containing depleted uranium."

29 August 1996 Adopted by 15 votes to 1 (the US)


http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0330-02.htm


According to a August 2002 report by the UN subcommission, laws which are breached by the use of DU shells include: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the Charter of the United Nations; the Genocide Convention; the Convention Against Torture; the four Geneva Conventions of 1949; the Conventional Weapons Convention of 1980; and the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, which expressly forbid employing 'poison or poisoned weapons' and 'arms, projectiles or materials calculated to cause unnecessary suffering'. All of these laws are designed to spare civilians from unwarranted suffering in armed conflicts.


This, as I see it, is simple enough. The use of such weapons is illegal under international law and in fact they are classified as (or at the least in the same bracket as) weapons of mass destruction. Remember that the reason Iraq was invaded was to stop the potential use of WMD yet the US and UK wilfully used DU munitions during this invasion. At the very least this reeks of hypocrisy and double standards, at worst it’s a war crime and those involved should be treated as criminals. So why use them in the first place? Well, the official reason is nothing is as effective as DU munitions, but this isn’t entirely true. There are alternatives, Tungsten for example, but these tend to be more expensive and don’t have the “self-sharpening” properties of DU munitions. Still they are suitable for use in this role so to say there’s nothing to compare is simply inaccurate. Another possible reason may be a nuclear industry that’s more than willing to profit from selling DU instead of having to spend billions disposing of it, a reason that grows more worrying with the relationship between the nuclear industry and the current administration.

Moving on to the issue of whether or not DU weapons are a health threat (other than in the immediate, wrong end of the bullet sense obviously), it is not the munitions themselves that seem to cause the problem:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1101447.stm


Depleted uranium (DU) is what is left over after natural uranium has been enriched, either for weapons-making or for reactor fuel.

It is mildly radioactive in its solid form, and poses little if any cause for concern.

But it is a very heavy substance, 1.7 times denser than lead, and it is highly valued by armies for its ability to punch through armoured vehicles.

When a weapon made with a DU tip or core strikes a solid object, like the side of a tank, it goes straight through it and then erupts in a burning cloud of vapour.

The vapour settles as dust, which is chemically poisonous and also radioactive.

Both the US and the UK acknowledge that the dust can be dangerous if it is inhaled, though they say the danger is short-lived, localised, and much more likely to lead to chemical poisoning than to irradiation.


So we know for a fact that this dust is dangerous, though official statements link it more to chemical poisoning than to irradiation. Notice however that nowhere do either government deny that there is a possibility of it leading to irradiation. So the next logical step is to investigate whether or not there is any scientific evidence that DU is a health risk:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1101447.stm


There is no scientifically proven evidence that it is harmful.

But the veterans point out that absence of evidence is not the same thing as evidence of absence, and they believe their own experience means there is serious cause for concern.

Almost all the published studies suggest there's no link between DU and cancer.

But there are hardly any published studies, none has ever been conducted (in the public domain anyway: Some exist but they're classified) on returning veterans, and none has ever been done on civilians.


As for testing on the ground, up until recently testing in Iraq was impossible owing to import restrictions on the type of equipment required to do this testing. And of course the Department of Defence insists there is no risk from these weapons. So is there any reason to believe otherwise? This article from New Scientist makes an interesting case that there is.

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993627


DU is both radioactive and toxic. Past studies of DU in the environment have concluded that neither of these effects poses a significant risk. But some researchers are beginning to suspect that in combination, the two effects could do significant harm. Nobody has taken a hard look at the combined effect of both, says Alexandra Miller, a radiobiologist with the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute in Bethesda, Maryland. "The bottom line is it might contribute to the risk."

She is not alone. The idea that chemical and radiological damage are reinforcing each other is very plausible and gaining momentum, says Carmel Mothersill, head of the Radiation and Environmental Science Centre at the Dublin Institute of Technology in Ireland. "The regulators don't know how to handle it. So they sweep it under the carpet."

During the Gulf war in 1991, the US and Britain fired an estimated 350 tonnes of DU at Iraqi tanks, a figure likely to be matched in the course of the current conflict. In the years since then, doctors in southern Iraq have reported a marked increase in cancers and birth defects, and suspicion has grown that they were caused by DU contamination from tank battles on farmland west of Basra.

As the Pentagon and the Ministry of Defence point out, this claim has not been substantiated. Iraq did not allow the World Health Organization to carry out an independent assessment. Given its low radioactivity and our current understanding of radiobiology, DU cannot trigger such health effects, the British and American governments maintain.

But what if they are wrong? Though DU is 40 per cent less radioactive than natural uranium, Miller believes that its radiological and toxic effects might combine in subtle, unforeseen ways, making it more carcinogenic than thought. It's a controversial theory, but one for which Miller has increasing evidence.

Uranium is "genotoxic". It chemically alters DNA, switching on genes that would otherwise not be expressed. The fear is that the resulting abnormally high activity in cells could be a precursor to tumour growth.

But while the chemical toxicity of DU is reasonably well established, Mothersill points out that the radiological effects of DU are less clear. To gauge the risk from low-dose radiation, researchers extrapolate from tests using higher doses. But the relationship between dose and effect is not linear: at low doses radiation kills relatively fewer cells. And though that sounds like good news, it could mean that low radiation is having subtle effects that go unnoticed because cells are not dying, says Mothersill.

Miller has found one way this may happen. She has discovered the first direct evidence that radiation from DU damages chromosomes within cultured cells. The chromosomes break, and the fragments reform in a way that results in abnormal joins (Military Medicine, vol 167, p 120). Both the breaks and the joins are commonly found in tumour cells.

More crucially, she has recently found that DU radiation increases gene activity in cultured cells at doses of DU not known to cause chemical toxicity (Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry, in press). The possible consequences are made all the more uncertain because no one knows if genes switched on by DU radiation enhance the damage caused by genes switched on by DU's toxic effects, or vice versa. "I think that we assumed that we knew everything that we needed to know about uranium," says Miller. "This is something we have to consider now when we think about risk estimates."

Britain's Royal Society briefly referred to these synergistic effects in its report last year on the health effects of DU munitions. "There is a possibility of damage to DNA due to the chemical effects being enhanced by the effects of the alpha-particle irradiation." But it makes no recommendations for future research to evaluate the risks.


The bystander effect

Miller points to another reason to be concerned about DU: the so-called "bystander effect". There is a growing consensus among scientists that radiation damages more than just the cells it directly hits. In tests using equipment that allows single cells to be irradiated by individual alpha particles, gene expression increases both in irradiated cells, and in neighbouring cells that have not been exposed. "At high doses, 'bystander' is not an issue because you are killing so many cells. But at low doses that's not really true," says Miller. There is a danger that experiments not specifically looking for this effect could miss an important source of damage.

A body of research has also emerged over the past decade showing that the effects of radiation may not appear immediately. Damage to genes may be amplified as cells divide, so the full consequences may only appear many generations after the event that caused it.

And while the chemical toxicity of DU itself is more clear-cut, the possibility remains that there may still be some unforeseen synergistic effects at a genetic level. Other heavy metals, such as tungsten, nickel and cobalt are similarly genotoxic. When Miller and her team exposed human cells to a mixture of these metals, significantly more genes became activated than when the cells were exposed to the equivalent amount of each metal separately (Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry, in press).

Miller and Mothersill say that recommended safe radiation limits are often based on the idea that only irradiated cells will be affected, and ignore both the bystander effect and the possible amplification over the generations. "Nothing should be written in stone when it comes to risk assessment," agrees Michael Clark at Britain's National Radiological Protection Board. But even if there were a case for re-evaluating the dosimetry for low-dose radiation, he says we should be cautious of the significance of Miller's lab-based research. "An in vitro effect is not a health effect."

Also, says Clark, everyone has traces of natural uranium in their bodies. "If there was some sort of subtle low-dose effect I think we would have seen it," he says. Because none has shown up in epidemiological studies, it seems unlikely there are any health effects associated with DU, which is less radioactive. But Miller is not convinced. While most people have small amounts of uranium in their bodies, she says no studies have been done to see whether this contributes to cases of cancer in society at large.

The military tends to dismiss such hazards as being of only theoretical significance, at least when it comes to civilians. According to the Pentagon, the only risk of exposure is during combat, when DU shells hit hard targets and the metal ignites. This creates clouds of uranium oxide dust that can be breathed in. But heavy oxide particles quickly settle, it says, limiting the risk of exposure. "A small dust particle is still very heavy," says Michael Kilpatrick of the US Deployment Health Support Directorate. "It stays on the ground."

That sounds reassuring until you read UNEP's latest report on DU left over from conflicts in former Yugoslavia in the mid-1990s. Last month, a team of experts collaborating with the International Atomic Energy Agency, WHO and NATO concluded that DU poses little risk in Bosnia although it can still be detected at many sites. Just 11 tonnes was fired in that conflict.

But evidence that DU may be moving through the ground and could contaminate local water supplies should be investigated further, UNEP says. And on rare occasions, wind or human activity may raise DU-laden dust that local people could inhale. The Royal Society admits that localised areas of DU contamination pose a risk, particularly to young children, and should be cleared up as a priority. They also recommend the environmental sampling of affected areas (see Royal Society Reports on DU, 2002", below).

Such evidence is partly why UNEP is keen to study DU fired during the present conflict in Iraq. Assessments in former Yugoslavia were made up to seven years after DU weapons were used, UNEP admits, and a more immediate study in Iraq would give us a much better understanding of how DU behaves in the environment. Any hazards such a study identifies could be dealt with immediately, says UNEP. And even now, an investigation in Iraq could reveal risks remaining from DU fired during the Gulf war in 1991.


So, if there is little hard scientific evidence available to prove, or more importantly disprove, these weapons are dangerous perhaps we should instead turn to other forms of evidence.

http://www.synergynet.co.uk/sheffield-iraq/articles/du.htm


In the areas where depleted uranium was used in Southern Iraq, a number of serious health problems have emerged among both soldiers and civilians. For instance, there has been a 66% increase in leukaemias and cancers in Southern Iraq. There has also been a marked increase in the numbers of children born with birth malformations, with horrific reports of 3 children in one family being born with severe congenital malformations. Maggie O'Kane, Felicity Arbuthnot, and journalists working with Desert Concerns, have all reported on the health crisis in Southern Iraq. The former reported a Dr Zenad Mohammed, from a hospital in Basra, herself pregnant, who was so terrified of giving birth to a severely malformed child, that she was doing her own monitoring of the problem. Her notes begin "In August we had three babies born with no head. Four had abnormally large heads. In September we had six with no heads, none with large heads and two with short limbs. In October, one with no head, four with big heads and four with deformed limbs or other types of deformities."

There are also large numbers of soldiers who served in the Gulf with Allied forces and in the Iraqi army, who are now suffering from mysterious illnesses - often referred to as Gulf War syndrome. Many of these illnesses reflect those seen among Iraqi children and civilians. For example, of the 697,000 US troops who served in the Gulf, over 90,000 have reported medical problems. Symptoms include respiratory, liver, and kidney dysfunction, memory loss, headaches, fever, low blood pressure. There are also defects reported among their new-born children. In a veterans community in Mississippi, 67% of the children were born with malformations. UK and US Gulf War veterans have tested positive for depleted uranium poisoning, although the governments of both countries have at every turn denied proper independent testing for all veterans.


Now this is for me the crux of the matter. A 66% increase in leukaemia and cancer does not happen for no reason. The troop illnesses support this and, in fact, are more worrying in some ways. 13% of all US troops who served in the gulf reporting medical problems should surely be an indication that there is something deeply wrong here. And in both cases the upswing in birth defects is surely a sign that something is very, very wrong and is affecting people who have been in a certain area potentially months or even years apart.. For a first-hand report take this example from the National Gulf War Resource Center:

(Continued Below)

[BOFH666]

http://www.ngwrc.org/NewsArticle.cfm?NewsID=844

Four soldiers from a New York Army National Guard company serving in Iraq are contaminated with radiation likely caused by dust from depleted uranium shells fired by U.S. troops, a Daily News investigation has found.

They are among several members of the same company, the 442nd Military Police, who say they have been battling persistent physical ailments that began last summer in the Iraqi town of Samawah.

"I got sick instantly in June," said Staff Sgt. Ray Ramos, a Brooklyn housing cop. "My health kept going downhill with daily headaches, constant numbness in my hands and rashes on my stomach."

A nuclear medicine expert who examined and tested nine soldiers from the company says that four "almost certainly" inhaled radioactive dust from exploded American shells manufactured with depleted uranium.

Laboratory tests conducted at the request of The News revealed traces of two manmade forms of uranium in urine samples from four of the soldiers.

If so, the men - Sgt. Hector Vega, Sgt. Ray Ramos, Sgt. Agustin Matos and Cpl. Anthony Yonnone - are the first confirmed cases of inhaled depleted uranium exposure from the current Iraq conflict.

The 442nd, made up for the most part of New York cops, firefighters and correction officers, is based in Orangeburg, Rockland County. Dispatched to Iraq last Easter, the unit's members have been providing guard duty for convoys, running jails and training Iraqi police. The entire company is due to return home later this month.

"These are amazing results, especially since these soldiers were military police not exposed to the heat of battle," said Dr. Asaf Duracovic, who examined the G.I.s and performed the testing that was funded by The News.

"Other American soldiers who were in combat must have more depleted uranium exposure," said Duracovic, a colonel in the Army Reserves who served in the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

While working at a military hospital in Delaware, he was one of the first doctors to discover unusual radiation levels in Gulf War veterans. He has since become a leading critic of the use of depleted uranium in warfare.

Depleted uranium, a waste product of the uranium enrichment process, has been used by the U.S. and British military for more than 15 years in some artillery shells and as armor plating for tanks. It is twice as heavy as lead.

Because of its density, "It is the superior heavy metal for armor to protect tanks and to penetrate armor," Pentagon spokesman Michael Kilpatrick said.

The Army and Air Force fired at least 127 tons of depleted uranium shells in Iraq last year, Kilpatrick said. No figures have yet been released for how much the Marines fired.

Kilpatrick said about 1,000 G.I.s back from the war have been tested by the Pentagon for depleted uranium and only three have come up positive - all as a result of shrapnel from DU shells.

But the test results for the New York guardsmen - four of nine positives for DU - suggest the potential for more extensive radiation exposure among coalition troops and Iraqi civilians.

Several Army studies in recent years have concluded that the low-level radiation emitted when shells containing DU explode poses no significant dangers. But some independent scientists and a few of the _Army's own reports indicate otherwise.

As a result, depleted uranium weapons have sparked increasing controversy around the world. In January 2003, the _European Parliament called for a moratorium on their use after reports of an unusual number of leukemia deaths among Italian soldiers who served in Kosovo, where DU weapons were used.

I keep getting weaker. What is happening to me?

The Army says that only soldiers wounded by depleted uranium shrapnel or who are inside tanks during an explosion face measurable radiation exposure.

But as far back as 1979, Leonard Dietz, a physicist at the Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory upstate, discovered that DU-contaminated dust could travel for long distances.

Dietz, who pioneered the technology to isolate uranium isotopes, accidentally discovered that air filters with which he was experimenting had collected radioactive dust from a National Lead Industries Plant that was producing DU 26 miles away. His discovery led to a shutdown of the plant.

"The contamination was so heavy that they had to remove the topsoil from 52 properties around the plant," Dietz said.

All humans have at least tiny amounts of natural uranium in their bodies because it is found in water and in the food supply, Dietz said. But natural uranium is quickly and harmlessly excreted by the body.

Uranium oxide dust, which lodges in the lungs once inhaled and is not very soluble, can emit radiation to the body for years.

"Anybody, civilian or soldier, who breathes these particles has a permanent dose, and it's not going to decrease very much over time," said Dietz, who retired in 1983 after 33 years as nuclear physicist. "In the long run ... veterans exposed to ceramic uranium oxide have a major problem."

Critics of DU have noted that the Army's view of its dangers has changed over time.

Before the 1991 Persian Gulf War, a 1990 Army report noted that depleted uranium is "linked to cancer when exposures are internal, [and] chemical toxicity causing kidney damage."

It was during the Gulf War that U.S. A-10 Warthog "tank buster" planes and Abrams tanks first used DU artillery on a mass scale. The Pentagon says it fired about 320 tons of DU in that war and that smaller amounts were also used in the Serbian province of Kosovo.

In the Gulf War, Army brass did not warn soldiers about any risks from exploding DU shells. An unknown number of G.I.s were exposed by shrapnel, inhalation or handling battlefield debris.

Some veterans groups blame DU contamination as a factor in Gulf War syndrome, the term for a host of ailments that afflicted thousands of vets from that war.

Under pressure from veterans groups, the Pentagon commissioned several new studies. One of those, published in 2000, concluded that DU, as a heavy metal, "could pose a chemical hazard" but that Gulf War veterans "did not experience intakes high enough to affect their health."

Pentagon spokesman Michael Kilpatrick said Army followup studies of 70 DU-contaminated Gulf War veterans have not shown serious health effects.

"For any heavy metal, there is no such thing as safe," Kilpatrick said. "There is an issue of chemical toxicity, and for DU it is raised as radiological toxicity as well."

But he said "the overwhelming conclusion" from studies of those who work with uranium "show it has not produced any increase in cancers."

Several European studies, however, have linked DU to chromosome damage and birth defects in mice. Many scientists say we still don't know enough about the long-range effects of low-level radiation on the body to say any amount is safe.

Britain's national science academy, the Royal Society, has called for identifying where DU was used and is urging a cleanup of all contaminated areas.

"A large number of American soldiers [in Iraq] may have had significant exposure to uranium oxide dust," said Dr. Thomas Fasey, a pathologist at Mount Sinai Medical Center and an expert on depleted uranium. "And the health impact is worrisome for the future."

As for the soldiers of the 442nd, they're sick, frustrated and confused. They say when they arrived in Iraq no one warned them about depleted uranium and no one gave them dust masks.

Experts behind News probe

As part of the investigation by the Daily News, Dr. Asaf Duracovic, a nuclear medicine expert who has conducted extensive research on depleted uranium, examined the nine soldiers from the 442nd Military Police in late December and collected urine specimens from each.

Another member of his team, Prof. Axel Gerdes, a geologist at Goethe University in Frankfurt who specializes in analyzing uranium isotopes, performed repeated tests on the samples over a week-long _period. He used a state-of-the art procedure called multiple collector inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry.

Only about 100 laboratories worldwide have the same capability to identify and measure various uranium isotopes in minute quantities, Gerdes said.

Gerdes concluded that four of the men had depleted uranium in their bodies. Depleted uranium, which does not occur in nature, is created as a waste product of uranium enrichment when some of the highly radioactive isotopes in natural uranium, U-235 and U-234, are extracted.

Several of the men, according to Duracovic, also had minute traces of another uranium isotope, U-236, that is produced only in a nuclear reaction process.

"These men were almost certainly exposed to radioactive weapons on the battlefield," Duracovic said.

He and Gerdes plan to issue a scientific paper on their study of the soldiers at the annual meeting of the European Association of Nuclear Medicine in Finland this year.



Something here does not add up and it seems obvious that these weapons do present a health risk in some form. All that needs to be determined now is the severity of that risk and if, as seems increasingly likely with the mounting evidence, that risk turns out to be high then there can surely be no question that these weapons must not be used in any battlefield situation. In the meantime it seems only prudent to suspend the use and testing of such weapons until an answer to all these questions can be found.

[BOFH666]

Oh, almost forgot, on the subject of PU 239,


On the bombing sites of 2003, the scientists even found remnants of Uranium-236 (enriched Uranium) and Plutonium; these elements do not exist in nature, they can only be produced in high-tech labs, and they usually occur only in nuclear weapons


Neutron mate, quick question to see if I understood the info in those links you posted. PU 239 is produced through a process of neutron bombardment of U 238 and this process occurs (mostly) in lab conditions and as a byproduct of most (all?) nuclear reactors? Am I about right on that one (I know I'm off on the exact phrasing, hey I'm going back to stuff I haven't used for fifteen years or more here)? Oh, and this is for a relativley large amount, enough to leave the remnants mentioned in the quote above.

Now asuming that's correct, then yes the natural reactors you referenced can produce PU 239 but it has not yet been discovered to exist in such a 'large' amount outside of those conditions? In which case the original point that Hal raised seems valid. Where did that Plutonium come from on those bomb sites if it cannot be created naturally in the area they were testing?

[venray]

Originally posted by Haltickling
Thanks a lot for your research, BOFH.

The term "genocide" is a matter of definition.

Indeed and here are those definitions.

Definitions of genocide on the Web:

the systematic and planned killing of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group
www.refugeecamp.org/learnmore/glossary.htm


The intentional annihilation of a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group.
august1.com/pubs/dict/g.htm


The systematic killing of people because of their race or ethnicity.
hrusa.org/hrh-and-n/Part-5/6_glossary.htm


the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national or racial group.
www.earlham.edu/~pols/globalprobs/bosnia/glossary.html


the deliberate and systematic extermination of an ethnic, religious, or cultural group.
web.isp.cz/jcrane/Glossary.html


Extermination of an entire people. Gentile A term referring to someone who is not Jewish. Gleichschaltung "coordination" (German) - Reorganizing all social, political, and cultural organizations to be controlled and run according to Nazi ideology and policy. - H -
history1900s.about.com/library/holocaust/aa081997.htm


The deliberate, systematic killing of an entire people or nation. (See page(s) 281)
highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072485078/student_view0/glossary.html


Mass murder of a racial, national, or religious group.
www.banthebomb.org/educ/glossary.html


– the extermination of a cultural or racial group.
www.whitehall.k12.mi.us/curriculum/socialstudies/glossaryofterms.htm


The deliberate, systematic killing of an entire people or nation. (p. 298)
www.mhhe.com/socscience/sociology/schaef/olc/101.htm





To say that the US is systematically or purposefully exterminating a race of people is ludicrous at best.

[Sadistictickler]

Seeing the consequences Venray, using DU weaponry is mass-murder.

[Haltickling]

Debating about semantic definitions seems rather cynical to me, regarding the victims and their endangered offspring. Discussions of finer points of chemistry or physics are also WAY off-topic here.

The facts: US and UK troops used poisonous weapons in Iraq and cared shit about the consequences for the Iraqi population and their own soldiers.

Fact is: At least the Pentagon knew about the hazards of uranium ammunition, or they wouldn't have produced an educational movie on the appropriate decontamination measures, but they never bothered to educate the currently fighting troops with it.

Fact is also that they deliberately endangered the whole population by the usage of DU ammo; this is at least willful negligence leading to the deaths of civilians.

Fact is that by contaminating large areas of Iraq with radiotoxic dust, the US and UK condemned future generations of Iraqis to suffer from cancer and genetic deformations.

This may not look as drastic as shooting or gassing the people directly, but it has the same effect: Long-term, large-scale decimation of the Iraqi population.

To me, this is genocide. If you deem it necessary to participate in lawyer-style hairsplitting about the term, so be it. I consider those who ordered and authorized DU ammunition in densely populated areas war criminals.

[venray]

And you are welcome to your opinion sir. I personally think that it is ignorance on the part of those using the weapons without noting long term effects, not murder, but stupidity. Not to be excused by any means. The use of these particular weapons should cease.

But semantics aside, to brand two nations with the term Genocide and liking them to Hitler is way off base and just as iresponsible in MY opinion. Just as it is to personally blast someone for past posts and not considering the content of current ones....

;)

Ray

[Neutron]

Posted, genocide is not a matter of opinion. It has a legal definition. By Halticklings view, if I was driving a car, and went off the road killing a passenger I'd be considered a murderer in some opinions.

DU is NOT radioactive in the least. It's depleted for a reason. Also, not much has been used in any war. Fact is it's expensive as hell and there are other less expensive ways to get the job done. Hell guys handle the stuff, to tell you the truth you get more radiation exposure eating a banana then walking on a sunny day.

Admit it, the article was highly subjective, and had no basis in facts. A nuclear engineer called you on the facts about DU, and that same person also has a big background in history, including genocide. Then when a respected poster posts an abundance of legal definitions of genocide you say you don't care about the facts. If you want to say the US is wreckless then so be it, but to say a nation engaged in genocide when the facts don't support it is equally wreckless. Shall we start witch trials too? Fact is, in Kosovo the US Rules of engagement were so tight I'm surprised anyone got hurt, that's hardly genocide when compared with say Shooting a group of Russian or Polish civilians because a border guard got attacked...

Stalin by the way did not engage in genocide. GHe could have cared less who he killed.

Tron

[Oddjob0226]

What is it about DU that makes it able to punch through modern armor? I have no idea and it looks like I came to the right place.

[BOFH666]

Originally posted by Neutron
Depleted uranium is approximately 40 percent less radioactive than natural uranium. Depleted uranium emits alpha and beta particles, and gamma rays. Alpha particles, the primary radiation type produced by depleted uranium, are blocked by skin


So a question for you: What happens when DU is inhaled as dust and sits in the body, usually in the lungs, for a number of years as then, obviously, the skin wouldn't be blocking its effects?

[BOFH666]

Originally posted by Neutron
Posted, genocide is not a matter of opinion. It has a legal definition. By Halticklings view, if I was driving a car, and went off the road killing a passenger I'd be considered a murderer in some opinions.


Actually, I believe that's correct. If, for example, you knew there was a major fault with the car (let's say a 50% chance of the brakes not working), drove it anyway and went off the road because of that fault then I believe you could argue in court for manslaughter or similar.

Originally posted by Neutron
DU is NOT radioactive in the least. It's depleted for a reason. Also, not much has been used in any war. Fact is it's expensive as hell and there are other less expensive ways to get the job done. Hell guys handle the stuff, to tell you the truth you get more radiation exposure eating a banana then walking on a sunny day.


It's not DU in its, umm, 'natural' form that's the issue, it's what happens when it's used, becomes a dust and is inhaled . This is in the big long post I put up earlier:


Uranium is "genotoxic". It chemically alters DNA, switching on genes that would otherwise not be expressed. The fear is that the resulting abnormally high activity in cells could be a precursor to tumour growth.

But while the chemical toxicity of DU is reasonably well established, Mothersill points out that the radiological effects of DU are less clear. To gauge the risk from low-dose radiation, researchers extrapolate from tests using higher doses. But the relationship between dose and effect is not linear: at low doses radiation kills relatively fewer cells. And though that sounds like good news, it could mean that low radiation is having subtle effects that go unnoticed because cells are not dying, says Mothersill.

Miller has found one way this may happen. She has discovered the first direct evidence that radiation from DU damages chromosomes within cultured cells. The chromosomes break, and the fragments reform in a way that results in abnormal joins (Military Medicine, vol 167, p 120). Both the breaks and the joins are commonly found in tumour cells.

More crucially, she has recently found that DU radiation increases gene activity in cultured cells at doses of DU not known to cause chemical toxicity (Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry, in press). The possible consequences are made all the more uncertain because no one knows if genes switched on by DU radiation enhance the damage caused by genes switched on by DU's toxic effects, or vice versa. "I think that we assumed that we knew everything that we needed to know about uranium," says Miller. "This is something we have to consider now when we think about risk estimates."

Britain's Royal Society briefly referred to these synergistic effects in its report last year on the health effects of DU munitions. "There is a possibility of damage to DNA due to the chemical effects being enhanced by the effects of the alpha-particle irradiation." But it makes no recommendations for future research to evaluate the risks.



Originally posted by Neutron
Admit it, the article was highly subjective, and had no basis in facts. A nuclear engineer called you on the facts about DU

Which is why I'd like to ask this question: In several separate conflicts we are seeing the same symptoms during and long after DU munitions have been used. If it isn't DU that's causing it, what is? What other common factor is there between these events that would account for these events?

[Haltickling]

Originally posted by Neutron
DU is NOT radioactive in the least. It's depleted for a reason. Also, not much has been used in any war. Fact is it's expensive as hell and there are other less expensive ways to get the job done. Hell guys handle the stuff, to tell you the truth you get more radiation exposure eating a banana then walking on a sunny day.
You're contradicting yourself. If DU is not radioactive in the least, why does it emit alpha/beta/gamma rays? Besides, DU in its solid form before it gets shot of may really be rather harmless. The danger begins with the impact on hard surfaces. Through the immense kinetic energy, it gets ground to a very fine dust. This dust is radiotoxic, gets inhaled by inhabitants, and probably reaches the ground water.

Admit it, the article was highly subjective, and had no basis in facts. A nuclear engineer called you on the facts about DU, and that same person also has a big background in history, including genocide. [/B]
The original article was a short resume of a TV documentary I saw that evening and my personal comment. I backed it up with 3 scientific, objective links which directly contradict your "facts". BOFH found a lot more background material backing my view, and he posted it. If you think that you're more competent than half a dozen university professors who have been researching this very topic for many years, well... :rolleyes:

BTW: You never bothered to reply to BOFH's background material. Why?

[Sadistictickler]

in dutch we have this word for this: uitgeluld :D

It seems to be really hard for some people to produce the sentance: "I stand corrected"... :sowrong:

[Haltickling]

Originally posted by venray1
And you are welcome to your opinion sir. I personally think that it is ignorance on the part of those using the weapons without noting long term effects, not murder, but stupidity. Not to be excused by any means. The use of these particular weapons should cease.
Ignorance on behalf of the fighting troops, of course. But the excuse of ignorance doesn't apply to the Pentagon, they knowingly put up with the hazards for civilians andtheir own troops. Besides, stupidity doesn't count as mitigating circumstance in court...

But semantics aside, to brand two nations with the term Genocide and liking them to Hitler is way off base and just as iresponsible in MY opinion. ;)

Ray
If you read my post, you'll never find that I accused THE Americans or THE British of genocide. That would be just as wrong as blaming THE Germans for the Nazi crimes.

If the long-term, large-scale decimation of civilians by using poisonous weapons in densely populated areas is not included in the curent legal definition of "genocide", it is because there hasn't yet been a legal precedent yet. That may change in the future...

The UN War Crime Tribunal in The Hague haggled about the application of the term genocide for a long time, when they put Milosevic, Mladenovic and other Serbian leaders to trial. In fact, the defence used the same arguments as you, stating that genocide is reserved for Nazi war crimes.

In MY opinion, supporting an administration of probable war criminals is at least as irresponsible as comparing them to other monsters in history.
:devil:

[venray]

Now read my post, I said NOT to be excused.I didnt say that ignorance or stupidity SHOULD be.

To call people, an administration, or a country "war criminals" IS comparing them to the Nazi regime and liking them to Hitler. Can't have it both ways by saying these things on the one hand and saying you DONT accuse on the other.

Sorry old friend, but this doesnt wash with me. If we have been using these weapons for years, then it is not just one administration that you call war criminals.

Remember that I and MOST will agree that these weapons should no longer be used unless PROVEN safe.(If there is such a thing as a safe weapon) I do not argue with what should be done, only with your choice of blaming one administration for the problem. This to me is wrong since it is pointed out that the problem is not merely a recent one.

You might also want to brand another US administration as "war criminals" for the use of the atomic bomb on Japan. Seems to fit your definition and many would agree with you.

Let's not argue over words. It is time to bring this to the general public. Many a weapon has been used over the years in different wars that have had long term harmful effects. They are continuously used until it is shown what harm they do. Agent Orange comes to mind. There is one that was used until public outcry made them stop.




Ray

[Sadistictickler]

the A-bombs on Japan was mass-murder, yes, but it served a greater purpose: to prevent the deaths of millions in a long war. In Irak it did not serve any special purpose. Even without DU the Iraqi tanks would've been sitting ducks.

Venray, the fact that Hitler & co were war-criminals doesn't mean that any modern war-criminal is the same as Hitler. If a cow is black and white, it does not mean all black and white coloured things are cows. Milosevic, Karadic and Mladic are all accused of warcrimes in Bosnia, but that doesn't link them to Hitler.

[Haltickling]

1991: US and UK troops fired about 375 tons of DU ammo during Gulf War I, almost exclusively in desert areas which are mostly uninhabited. President: George Bush sen.

Mid-90s: US and UK troops fired about 9 tons of DU ammo, mostly in mountain surroundings which are also sparsely inhabited. President: Bill Clinton

2003: US and UK troops fired between 1100 and 2200 tons of DU ammo in Gulf War II, mostly in densely populated areas like Baghdad and Basra. President George Bush jun.

See the pattern?

However, I agree that the respective presidents/administrations are not the only people to blame for this. The real responsibilities lie with the Pentagon and its British counterpart. With the chiefs of staff. They are the ones who knew about the hazards, and who chose to ignore them.

Knowing such political issues, a future congressional investigation of this matter (if it should ever come to that) will question some of them, then decide on a medium rank scapegoat, while the big fish will plead temporary amnesia and get off unpunished. :mad:

[venray]

Originally posted by Sadistictickler
the A-bombs on Japan was mass-murder, yes, but it served a greater purpose:

So as long as we say it "serves a greater purpose", it is ok and not a crime against humanity.

Thanks for clearing that up.

:D

[Marauder]

Originally posted by Oddjob0226
What is it about DU that makes it able to punch through modern armor? I have no idea and it looks like I came to the right place.
DU is a highly dense material. AP munitions need to be. Non-AP ammo deforms on impact, AP retains its shape and concentrates its energy on a small area. DU also sheds ultra-fine radiotoxic dust when it impacts. This dust serves to first "grease" the way of the penetrator while it passes through the armor and, once the penetrator has passed through, is superheated and under high pressure from the tunnelling process. it expands and transfers its energy into the air inside the tank, superheating the interior and effectively boiling the crew. It also, lamentably, stays behind to pose a long-term risk, as was already discussed. All in all, it's a modern miracle of warfare and about as humane a weapon as cluster munitions and gasoline bombs.

[Sadistictickler]

Originally posted by venray1
So as long as we say it "serves a greater purpose", it is ok and not a crime against humanity.

Thanks for clearing that up.

:D

in Japan it was simple, flatten 2 cities killing 300k of ppl, or flatten alot more cities such as tokio killing a couple of million people. So yes, that served a greater purpose.

But you can't tell me that DU munition was absolutely necessary seeing the dismal state of Iraqi armor...

[venray]

Never said DU was necessary. If fact ALL of my posts are to the contrary. I agree that the use of these weapons should cease as there are others we can use.

Keep in mind however, that where war is concerned the "greater good" is in the eye of the beholder and not always the right thing to do. Most wars are fought with the greater good in mind. At least from the perspective of those involved.

To say that the situation in Japan was simple and to kill over 300,000 people including women and children in one fell swoop was for the greater good...? I believe we could have found an alternate solution to that as well.

;)

Ray

[Neutron]

They didn't use all that much in Iraq. As i said there are less expensive ways to penetrate armor on tanks and the US prefers to use those ways. Shaped charges are a much better way to go. Also dense shells tend to cause more wear to the weapons that fired them. They were used against command bunkers, which were armored quite a bit better than the tanks. Marauder is quite incorrect at the material ""greasing" anything. DU Shells are dense and simply allow penetration with a smaller shell. Also when heated they are no more toxic than any other heavy metal such as lead. Heating something doesn't cause it to be any more radioactive.

Sadistictickler has his history wrong. Tokyo wasn't spared because of any human considerations. Tokyo had already been flattened by a bombing raid. The US Chose targets of military significance for the bombs, ie Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Even had they hit larger cities the bombs would not have killed anymore people. There is no magic about nuclear weapons, they merely create a bigger boom, and like any boom there;s a quantifiable limit to as the extent to which it can destroy. The US expected around 80K casualties in each case, and got around 80K. It saved about 2 million US lives and maybe up to 15 million Japanese lives by using the nuclear bombs.

Tron

You guys SERIOUSLY need to read about and understand these sorts of weapons prior to commenting on them.

[Neutron]

DU is not a proven health hazard, You might as well label those who make smoke detectors as criminals too. Or microwaves, Both emit more radiation than DU.

AS for equivocating the Germans with the Nazis. I certainly hold the German people responsible... They could and morally should have rose against that which they knew was wrong. By not doing so they became criminals themselves. Given many Germans were turning in Jews for economical gain they were equally guilty. Given they knew what was going on with the mass murders they were equally guilty. I do not however believe the current generation of Germans should be held accountable for the sins of their ancestors.

By the way, your info was wrong. We didn't use DU in Baghdad. There was no need. You have a bad habit in believing false information.

Tron

[Marauder]

Originally posted by Neutron
Marauder is quite incorrect at the material ""greasing" anything. DU Shells are dense and simply allow penetration with a smaller shell.

I beg to differ. <a href="http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Depleted%20uranium%20ammunition">So do these guys, the best source I could come up with spontanously.</a> From article:
"A DU projectile burns and melts as it penetrates steel, becoming 'sharper' rather than blunting. As the projectile passes through armor, the heat build-up causes it to catch fire and disintegrate into fine particles on re-encountering air."

[BOFH666]

Neutron, for an intelligent, well read guy, you sure do rely on a lot of arm waving and grandstanding to try and convince others of factual matters. After all I could post that, oh, Nuclear Reactors are in fact a huge con and that we can generate all the energy we need to run the planet from a simple chunk of fairy cake and an infinite improbability drive which we captured from the Martians. And I could go on... and on.... and on about this but until I actually provide some proof I'd be treated like a loony toon and rightly so. Let's see what we've got here:

On the issue of DU simply being denser... well I don't normally do this but I'll let the US Department Of Defense handle this one (everyone DUCK! :D )

http://www.dod.gov/news/Mar2003/t03142003_t314depu.html


We have two military uses for depleted uranium. The first one is to make
penetrators. Penetrators are what we use to penetrate armored vehicles, kinetic
energy weapons like the MA-29 series, ammunition for the Abrams tank, use the
energy that's created when the bullet is launched from the bore of the canon to
breach the armor on the other end. So you want something that's very dense and
very hard, so that when it reaches the other end, instead of splattering like
you would expect a lead bullet to do, it actually retains its shape and drives
through the target.

Next chart. This is why the U.S. Army prefers to use depleted uranium over
tungsten ammunition. If you look on the chart you can see that the depleted
uranium is a material that has a characteristic that allows it to sharpen itself
as it penetrates the target. The uranium shreds off the sides of the penetrator
instead of squashing or mushrooming. If you look at the lower picture, which is
what happens with tungsten, the tungsten mushrooms. The result is the depleted
uranium will penetrate more armor of a given character and type at a given range
than tungsten will, no matter how we design the penetrators.

Next chart. Proof is of course in the pudding. These are two high-speed X-ray
pictures taken of penetrations actually going on, and you can see the tungsten
penetrator deforming in the bottom picture, and you can see the DU penetrator
maintaining its shape in the top picture.



So either you're right and the US DOD is wrong or.... But on the off chance that you don't believe the DOD, let's present the BBC editorial on the subject:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1108058.stm

The main military use of DU is in penetrating armour.

It is a very heavy substance, 1.7 times denser than lead, and has substantial performance advantages over other materials used for the same purposes.

When munitions made with DU strike a solid object, like the side of a tank, the round penetrates the armour and metal fragments from it scatter inside the vehicle causing injury, damage and secondary fires.

On impact up to 70% of the round can be aerosolised (turned into a vapour), and particles containing DU oxides are likely to contaminate the surrounding area.

The high temperature fragments created as DU passes through armour can spread to strike everything inside a tank and set fire to its fuel and ammunition.

(snip)

The great majority of armies use tungsten alloys for the same purpose.

The US Department of Defence has argued that DU is the most effective material for piercing armour, because of its high density and the metallic properties that allow it to "self-sharpen" as it penetrates armour.

In contrast, US military officials say, anti-tank munitions made from other materials tend to mushroom and become blunt as they penetrate.

The alternatives to DU do have a 20% lower penetrative performance, and are more expensive.

Tungsten emits no radiation, but, its particles are poisonous.


And on that front, Tungsten is named in that press release as an alternative (Density 19250/kg m-3) which compares to Uranium (Density 19050/kg m-3). Now I've said before I'm going back fifteen years here, but that to me suggests that if it was purely a matter of density you'd use Tungsten. The fact is DU is CHEAPER than Tungsten (and so it should be considering it's a handy way for the nuke industry to profit of something they would otherwise be forced to clean up) and is available locally where, I believe, something like half of the world's Tungsten supplies come from China. Not possibly the BEST source to be getting your weapons components from Plus of course Tungsten too has issues with chemical effects, though the lack of 'self-sharpening' should reduce the odds of this causing the same issues as DU.

Something I AM going to point out here is that press release is obviously biased towards continued use of these weapons, but there's still some very interesting titbits scattered throughout, for example:


Our major concern, as I said, is the chemical nature, because uranium, depleted
uranium are both heavy metals -- like lead and tungsten and nickel. The kidney,
when the depleted uranium is internalized, becomes a target organ

Depleted uranium is 40 percent less radioactive than natural uranium around us.
And so when it's outside the body it's just not an issue. It's only when it's
internalized -- either by inhaling the dust, the oxide, as Colonel Naughton said
when there is penetration of armor, it does self-sharpen and it does create an
oxide dust


So let me get this straight, you fire off DU rounds, the dust they generate is acknowledged as a health problem (albeit in the limited cases referred to in this press release they haven't found anything out of the ordinary), this dust is 'heavy' and settles to the ground quickly and has a pretty hefty lifespan. And there's NO possibility that this is causing a health problem to those living in the country either directly (through breathing it in) or indirectly (with the dust entering the food chain).

Originally posted by Neutron
They didn't use all that much in Iraq.


Oh no? From the same article:


I am going to stop here and see if you have questions. Colonel Naughton, would
you join me here for questions?

Q: Well, you just said it but I would like to ask the colonel -- you've implied
it, but you haven't said it. I assume that you fully intend -- if there is a war
in Iraq, you fully intend to use depleted uranium.

COL. NAUGHTON: As a practical matter, if we use Abram tanks, we have no choice.
We do not have an alternative for the Abram tank.

Q: And the A-10.

COL. NAUGHTON: And the A-10. Well, the A-10 -- there is an HE (ph) round for the
A-10.


Hmmm, now I could be wrong but didn't we see a fair few of those big ol' Abram tanks trundling around the desert? And a fair few A10's were in use as well, or am I seeing flying warthogs again...? For that matter didn't a whole load of Abram's just get flown out to Iraq at the request of the ground commanders?

Or how about this jolly fact, DU Munitions are classified as WMD's. In the first Gulf War over 320 tonnes were fired. How many tons of WMD was Saddam meant to have that caused the US to invade?

One last thing, on the subject of DU not being a proven health risk you're once again (deliberately I presume) ignoring the simple fact it isn't DU itself that's being questioned. It's what's left over after it oxidizes when used in munitions applications that's the problem and NOTHING you've provided proof for, or for that matter engaged in soap box theatrics about, has addressed that issue.

Come on 'Tron, you can do better than this. You said yourself you work in the Nuke industry, providing hard evidence to refute at least some of the arguments being made here should be a snap, or at the very LEAST back up your own viewpoints. You're the expert in this area so how about enlightening us with facts not distracting us with a stage show.

[Haltickling]

Originally posted by Neutron
... Also, the source is a friggin idiot!! ...
... That article is so inaccurate it's almost hilarious. ...
... So that article is false from that standpoint. ...
... Sorry Haltickling, your definition of Genocide is wrong. ...
... DU is NOT radioactive in the least. ...
... Stalin by the way did not engage in genocide. ...
... Sadistictickler has his history wrong. ...
... DU is not a proven health hazard,...
... By the way, your info was wrong. We didn't use DU in Baghdad. There was no need. You have a bad habit in believing false information. ...
... Marauder is quite incorrect ...
(all quoted from this thread)

Tron
So it all boils down to the usual: You are always right, and all information contradicting yours are wrong. All the involved scientists are either mistaken or lie on purpose. Or you just choose to ignore contradicting info, like you do with BOFH's.

Oh well, if it makes you happy, go on believing whatever you wish. I won't discuss your self-created monopoly on truth any more, just stay out of my threads, will you do me that favor?

[Marauder]

Originally posted by Haltickling
I won't discuss your self-created monopoly on truth any more, just stay out of my threads, will you do me that favor?

No, no, don't ask him to stop posting in your threads! It lead to this:
Originally posted by Neutron
Marauder is quite incorrect at the material ""greasing" anything. DU Shells are dense and simply allow penetration with a smaller shell. Also when heated they are no more toxic than any other heavy metal such as lead.
being followed by this:
Originally posted by Neutron
You guys SERIOUSLY need to read about and understand these sorts of weapons prior to commenting on them.

That last quote has immense comedic value. I'm still laughing. Also, it lead to BOFH666's post, which was pure brilliance and made me long to carry his lovechild. I WANT YOU BOFH666! TAKE ME!

[BOFH666]

Originally posted by Marauder
Also, it lead to BOFH666's post, which was pure brilliance and made me long to carry his lovechild. I WANT YOU BOFH666! TAKE ME!

Dear Manufacturers of cheap deodorant,

I would like to complain about your product, while it does indeed perform as advertised and increase the attractiveness of the user to others, I feel you should more clearly identify the differences between male and female sprays....

:D

Seriously (well, okay seriously-ish) I'm afraid I must decline your generous offer but would gladly accept Moderator privileges as a substitute.... Hey, put the baseball bat down, 'twas only a suggestion ;)

Oh, and to drag this kinda back on track from the somewhat disturbing place it's ended up in:

1) American Abrams tank fires round into Palestine Hotel to take out sniper position (and kills several journalists in the process)

2) Palestine Hotel located in Baghdad

3) Abrams tank can only fire DU round.

Therefore if statements 1,2 and 3 are true then DU Munitions were fired in Baghdad.

[Marauder]

Originally posted by BOFH666
Dear Manufacturers of cheap deodorant,

I would like to complain about your product, while it does indeed perform as advertised and increase the attractiveness of the user to others, I feel you should more clearly identify the differences between male and female sprays....

Ah, so it was the scent. Good to know. Now replying with noseplugs.

Originally posted by BOFH666
Oh, and to drag this kinda back on track from the somewhat disturbing place it's ended up in:

1) American Abrams tank fires round into Palestine Hotel to take out sniper position (and kills several journalists in the process)

2) Palestine Hotel located in Baghdad

3) Abrams tank can only fire DU round.

Therefore if statements 1,2 and 3 are true then DU Munitions were fired in Baghdad.

Top 3 is untrue. Looky <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams#Main_armament">here</a>: The Abrams is capable of firing HEAT and other munitions beside AP high penetrators, meaning that it's not restricted to firing DU munitions (that would be immensely stupid, too, since firing a DU penetrator at a sniper position would accomplish nothing - the projectile would cut through brick, karoom over the snipers' head and set off into the sunset without doing significant damage). This last train of thought should be abandoned. However, DU was probably fired in or close to Bagdad - there should be other sources to verify this fact, all of which I am too lazy to look up. But there was heavy armor deployed and active around the city, so as long as they fired on enemy tanks, DU was utilized.

[BOFH666]

Hey, I'm just going on what the DOD themselves said:


Q: Well, you just said it but I would like to ask the colonel -- you've implied
it, but you haven't said it. I assume that you fully intend -- if there is a war
in Iraq, you fully intend to use depleted uranium.

COL. NAUGHTON: As a practical matter, if we use Abram tanks, we have no choice.
We do not have an alternative for the Abram tank.

Q: And the A-10.

COL. NAUGHTON: And the A-10. Well, the A-10 -- there is an HE (ph) round for the
A-10.


But yeah, thought at the time that didn't sound quite right. Teach me to trust my instincts and go look it up instead of treating anything as gospel. Lesson for everyone there, never trust a single source. :D I guess they could be referring to the DU armour on the Abram, or more likely they're talking tank to tank combat but it ain't exactly clear. Cheers for that mate, consider that particular thought disproved. Of course then you've got to wonder about the accuracy of some of their OTHER statements in that article.... ;)

And whatever you do, keep them noseplugs in!

[Marauder]

It can be misleading, I grant you that quite gladly. If Abrams are used, they will deploy them with a stockpile of DU ammo. But Abrams = DU present doesn't equal Abrams = DU used in every circumstance... I'm not undermining you here, just preventing the opposition from using your statement to install a strawman argument to hush us up :)

Also, noseplugs will remain in place you sexy devil you oops slipped DROOOOL

[Neutron]

Only DU hats up. When in fact ALL netals heat up. DU is used for it's DENSITY not it's heating up. Again, not one of you is a nuclear engineer and not one of you is even remotely qualified to comment. The bottom line is Haltickling quoted a highly inaccurate article. DU is rarely used, and when it is it's never been proven to be any more harmfiull than any other heavy metal used for the same purpose. I also proved elements like PU are NOT always created in labs. I see no strawman arguments. Haltickling opened with a strawman, that being use of DU is genocide. I simply contradicted that point, also the point the amounts used as being accurate. Quite simply they are not. The crux of his opinion was use of DU was genocide. when a very respected member of this website posted the various definitions of genocide Haltickling claimed it didn't matter, because genocide was a matter of opinion, when in fact it's not. It has legal ramifications under international law.

I'll use a more pertinant example. In both World Wars Germany engaged (and was the ONLY country to engage) in an activity that was illegal under international law as defined in treaties signed by Germany. She laid Minefields in International Waters (illegal) for the purpose of sinking Merchant Ships regardless of origin (also illegal). International law required laying of minefields to be exclusively within National waters of belligerent powers for the express purpose of defense (if laid within your waters)
OR for sinking warships or creating a blockade at a DECLARED port, that being a port the Germans declared as being under blockade. In all cases the fields had to be mapped AND in national waters. They also couldn't be used for the expressed purpose of sinking merchant or passenger shipping.

The German Navy laid minefields throught the North Sea and the North Atlantic, WITHOUT maps or declaration of a blockaded port. They routinely laid these fields in international waters for the express purpose of sinking merchant shipping. This was in fact a war crime, one for which the Germans were only brought to task after WW2. Even then in only certain cases.

Post both World Wars these minefield have sunk around 100 Fishing Trawlers, and at least one passenger vessel. About once every 2 years or so they end up on public beaches.

Last I checked Mines were a proven danger to man (unlike DU) and Unlike DU they've been the cause of death in PEACETIME of hundreds of fishermen. The Germans left then in International waters by the hundreds.

Seems like it falls under the Haltickling opinion of Genocide to me..

Tron

[Oddjob0226]

Everyone in this thread keeps tossing around facts, science, politics and opinions, the end result of which is that the atmosphere here has reached the point that DU shells are likely going to start being fired off right within this website. All the while, I am quite facinated with BOFH's fairy cake and look forward to hearing more about this interesting substance.

[BOFH666]

Originally posted by Neutron
Only DU hats up. When in fact ALL netals heat up. DU is used for it's DENSITY not it's heating up. Again, not one of you is a nuclear engineer and not one of you is even remotely qualified to comment. The bottom line is Haltickling quoted a highly inaccurate article. DU is rarely used, and when it is it's never been proven to be any more harmfiull than any other heavy metal used for the same purpose. I also proved elements like PU are NOT always created in labs. I see no strawman arguments. Haltickling opened with a strawman, that being use of DU is genocide. I simply contradicted that point, also the point the amounts used as being accurate. Quite simply they are not. The crux of his opinion was use of DU was genocide. when a very respected member of this website posted the various definitions of genocide Haltickling claimed it didn't matter, because genocide was a matter of opinion, when in fact it's not. It has legal ramifications under international law.

*Sigh*. Yes, none of us are nuke engineers but as I said above, as you are then PROVING your facts should be a cake walk. One more time, the reason DU is used from the Department of Defense who I'd kinda hope knew what they were talking about...


We have two military uses for depleted uranium. The first one is to make
penetrators. Penetrators are what we use to penetrate armored vehicles, kinetic
energy weapons like the MA-29 series, ammunition for the Abrams tank, use the
energy that's created when the bullet is launched from the bore of the canon to
breach the armor on the other end. So you want something that's very dense and
very hard, so that when it reaches the other end, instead of splattering like
you would expect a lead bullet to do, it actually retains its shape and drives
through the target.

Next chart. This is why the U.S. Army prefers to use depleted uranium over
tungsten ammunition. If you look on the chart you can see that the depleted
uranium is a material that has a characteristic that allows it to sharpen itself
as it penetrates the target. The uranium shreds off the sides of the penetrator
instead of squashing or mushrooming. If you look at the lower picture, which is
what happens with tungsten, the tungsten mushrooms. The result is the depleted
uranium will penetrate more armor of a given character and type at a given range
than tungsten will, no matter how we design the penetrators.


Note DU is used in preference to Tungsten because it 'self-sharpens' as it penetrates the target whereas Tungsten goes *splat*.

I'll make this REAL simple, there's a lot of questions here you've ignored but answer me this one: If DU is inhaled and remains inside the body, does this not present a health risk as it's both toxic and radioactive?

http://www.aoya81.dsl.pipex.com/homer.jpg

[BOFH666]

Originally posted by Marauder
It can be misleading, I grant you that quite gladly. If Abrams are used, they will deploy them with a stockpile of DU ammo. But Abrams = DU present doesn't equal Abrams = DU used in every circumstance... I'm not undermining you here, just preventing the opposition from using your statement to install a strawman argument to hush us up :)

Also, noseplugs will remain in place you sexy devil you oops slipped DROOOOL

*Grin* Yeah yeah, I trusted a DOD source to be accurate in the use of munitions and weapon systems, me dumb, got it :D

You think we should frame this set of posts for prosperity to demonstrate an actual, rational, factual debate-type thing? ;) :D

And it's the tentacles isn't it, they're just such a turn on :D

[Ghost2004]

Auuuuughghhhh Soo good for tickling too!!! ...;)

[BOFH666]

What the! Umm, exuse me for a minute folks.

Oy! Come on, get back in there, that's it right the way back....

Uh, Maurader mate, could I leave this key with you, it's getting annoying shoving that one back in her cage, maybe keeping the damn thing on another continent will help...

Sorry about that all, we now return to your regular scheduled rant

[Neutron]

From ingesting a banana and walking out into the sun. DU is not a radioactive ingestion hazard. Again, natives lived on and near the natural reactors for years with no ill effects.

Make Tungsten into a shaped charge and you'll get near the same penetrating ability as DU. Make it into a sabot and it'll be exactly the same, but you get a more complicated shell.

The US did not use DU in the quantities that are in that article. It wasn't, and still isn't the weapon of choice as it's expensive.

DU is a heavy metal, so yes it is a partial hazard as are all heavy metals from a toxicity standpoint. I never said it wasn't and I also stated if you want to call the US wreckless then so be it, I can accept that. Even at that even in 10 times the quantities listed it's no more toxic then a small paper factory. Are we to now assume paper factories are genocide?

Again the root of Halticklings post of a poorly factual article was use of DU was genocide. Given the Germans used mines, a proven danger to man, in a clearly illegal manner, and never mapped where the mines were, AND those mines have subsequently killed and maimed thousands of innocent people and fishermen are we to assume it's genocide?

Tron

[Marauder]

Tron: prove your statements or don't make them. Your talk about DU is only so much hot air without support through source materials. By the way, natural reactors tend to lack a tendency of being fired through solid obstacles, meaning they aren't desintegrated into a fine dust and don't spread particles over harvest and water.

Yes, DU ain't a weapon of genocide. It's still a nasty weapon, and unless you can prove to me against all available evidence that it's harmless you should stop defending it by reiterating ill-researched speechbubbles.

And what the hell is this german mines business supposed to be about? What's your point? My country was the fucking EMBODIMENT of genocide during that time. We shoveled babies into ovens and ripped the skin from living jews to make lampshades. What do mines have to do with it?

[Neutron]

Thank you. You made my point for me far better than I could have done it myself.

Here was my point. The original article Haltickling posted was short on real facts and long on Rhetoric. When I pointed out some facts like

A: DU isn't as radioactive as most substances in your house and far less radioactive than some things you eat.

B: That Plutonium isn't only manufactured in labs, That in fact it's a substance that occurs quite frequently in nature. To refute this to a person with a Masters Degree in Nuclear Engineering is ludicrous, it's also ludicrous to state the radiation hazards of DU then claim I know nothing about it. I've actually handled the stuff. I NEVER disagreed it was toxic, It's a heavy metal which are toxic by definition.

C: That DU wasn't used in anywhere near the quantities that were alledged in the article. It's not even a weapon of choice.

D: Gulf War Syndrome symptoms do not in the least resemble those of radiation sickness.

E: Genocide is not a matter of opinion, it has a legal definition AND application. Simply leaving a substance lying around is not genocide. Wreckless maybe. Genocide no. Genocide is a decision to eliminate a group of people based on some trait, be it mental, physical, a belief et al.

Given all these Haltickling and many others refused to accept use of DU wasn't genocide AND make the substance far more dangerous than it actually is.

The use of the mine analogy has a direct application. German intent was to kill civilians, use of mines in that fashion was illegal, and still is. They made a concious decision to use mines in that fashion, then never bothered to clean them up, or even mark the locations adequately on a map. People have actually died during peacetime from these mines. So why wouldn't that be considered genocide. The example has a direct application to this thread. The root of this thread wasn't just the hazards of DU, the root was the USE OF DU AS A MEANS OF GENOCIDE. Since the legal definition of genocide hasn't been met, AND genocide is not a matter of opinion, AND the substance isn't overtly hazardous , AND the source had no real facts, I stuck to the point of the thread, that being Use of DU cannot in many means be considered genocide.
For me to give any info outside of a public website about DU is illegal. But the info is PUBLIC for a reason, it's meaningless. Haltickling chose to engage in a personal attack based on past disagreements. I stayed well clear of that and even cajoled him on his uncharacteristic use of non factual material and making a general argument based on opinion, and told him he was better than that. He tried to reflect my points (all based on fact) by attacking the messenger and using that attack to deflect from my message.
Nothing about this thread is a matter of opinion, especially when one, whose country has a past history of genocide and is in fact the biggest practicer in the 20th century, accuses another country of the same practice, And puts it's leaders in the same sentence as Hitler, Pol Pot, and Saddam Hussein.

Also, thank you for your honesty on German involvement in Genocide. That sort of honesty is refreshing.

Tron

[Marauder]

If genocide committed in the past by the nation one belongs to disqualifies one from arguing then you can't contribute either, Neutron. You wiped out the aboriginal Americans in your past. That was an act of genocide, too. The history angle is not applicable in this thread, at least not in the way you're using it. You swing the blunt axe of past atrocities to distract from the issue.

I concur that DU can't be considered genocide. I still stand by the fact that it is very bad stuff and should never be used on the battlefield. It's irresponsible.

And what the hell? <i>"For me to give any info outside of a public website about DU is illegal. But the info is PUBLIC for a reason, it's meaningless."</i> Huh? Are you going to claim that you are, aside from being a star quarterback CIA covert ops nuclear engineer with a six figure job, also the key person in producing this stuff? If so, why don't you have the slightest clue as to how it works? To me, it looks like you're backpedalling so frantically that your buttocks is igniting from airfriction.

About the german honesty to past crimes: I'm sure my grampa did some nasty things, as did his comrades in arms. That's why I don't talk to him. My parents were both born in 1945. I can afford to be honest about the past, because to lie about it or ignore it means the danger of repeating it would be present. That doesn't mean that I need to justify myself for stuff that happened before my parents were born. But I'm glad I cheered you up by stating what 60% of germans my age would gladly state, the remaining 40% being indifferent, ignorant or misled.

[BOFH666]

I could crush him like an ant. But it would be too easy. No, revenge is a dish best served cold. I'll bide my time until ... Oh, what the hell. I'll just crush him like an ant.

Neutron spake thus:
For me to give any info outside of a public website about DU is illegal. But the info is PUBLIC for a reason, it's meaningless.


Okay let's look at this logically for just one moment. Why would anyone keep information out of the public domain? Well, the most logical reason would be that it would confirm DU munitions posed a health risk. Or perhaps there's a fundamental flaw in the weapon system that could be exploited by anyone with a couple of sheets of tinfoil? Or how about hiding the fact they're made by Acme?

But no, you seem to be saying that there's some super secret information that disproves all the scientific evidence gathered thus far AND the observed effects that may or may not be related, which for some bizarre reason the DOD or other agency is keeping a national secret? Wow, talk about having balls! They could end all this in one stroke yet decide to not only stay in the kitchen but crank the oven ALL the way up. Colour me impressed. Also amazed at the stupidity of that decision, but hey, to each their own.

Quoth the Neutron
It's not even a weapon of choice.


The DOD doesn't agree with you:


This is why the U.S. Army prefers to use depleted uranium over
tungsten ammunition. If you look on the chart you can see that the depleted
uranium is a material that has a characteristic that allows it to sharpen itself
as it penetrates the target. The uranium shreds off the sides of the penetrator
instead of squashing or mushrooming. If you look at the lower picture, which is
what happens with tungsten, the tungsten mushrooms. The result is the depleted
uranium will penetrate more armor of a given character and type at a given range
than tungsten will, no matter how we design the penetrators.


As a penetrator it is the weapon of choice and in fact it's the only penetrator round available to the Abram tank.

Neutron woz here...
That DU wasn't used in anywhere near the quantities that were alledged in the article.


http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2003/msg02460.html

J.S.: I understand you are a Colonel in the U.S. military, is that right?

U.S.C.: You are correct; I work for the U.S. Special Operations Command
attached to Central Command. My job is to plot coordinates for targets and
decide what is the best way to destroy the target.

I have a large network of analysts at my disposal to analyze each target and
figure out what weapons would best destroy it.

J.S.: Do you know how much D.U. was just used in Iraq, and what types of
munitions were used?

U.S.C.: Yes I am aware of at least 500 tons of D.U. munitions that were used
by combined coalition forces. I also know that many cities were heavily
bombarded with D.U. munitions.

J.S.: 500 tons? Are you absolutely sure?

U.S.C.: Oh, most sure on that matter. I know it was a little over 500 tons,
but you can round off your figures to the nearest hundred tons (chuckles).

(snip)

J.S.: Back to the 500 tons of D.U., did the D.O.D. / Pentagon deliberately
target civilian areas? And if they did, why?

U.S.C.: I answered that already, but I will tell you that there were a lot
of Iraqi armored vehicles in and around most major cities. Our own tanks and
vehicles use D.U. penetrator rounds to destroy those enemy vehicles. We are
aware that over 100 tons of D.U. munitions were used in and around Baghdad,
but a lot more fighting went on around the Northern cities and Basra. We
knocked out over 20,000 different types of vehicles in Iraq, and even
shelled buildings in downtown Baghdad with D.U.

J.S.: The Pentagon knew this was happening? Did they try to stop it? You
know, because of the health risks of D.U. and the fact that we were supposed
to be liberating Iraq?

U.S.C.: They wanted complete destruction of any military vehicle in Iraq.
That was why you saw our vehicles shooting even the disabled and already
shelled vehicles. I have seen pictures of many vehicles with over 20 holes
in them. The objective was to make sure that there is no way that any
fighting force could ever use those vehicles in any way. We wanted to
decimate the Iraqi army and make sure they were never able to fight again. I
think we achieved that objective quite well, more so than we had hoped in
such a short amount of time.

This took an enormous amount of ammunition, mostly D.U. tipped 25mm, 30mm,
and 125mm penetrator rounds.
....and here too
use of non factual material


Aside from the natural reactor info, you've not supplied ANY factual evidence from an independent source to dispute this “non-factual material” so right now it has the greater credibility. Believe it or not if you prove your arguments people will listen, no really they will, try it and see.

[Neutron]

A Star Quarterback anywhere. I defy anyone to show me any post claiming otherwise. I WAS a Strong Safety, and I certainly never claimed to be a star.

I AM a nuclear engineer. And an extremely good one.

I have never claimed to take part in any covert ops for the CIA. Again show me any thread where I claimed that. I have only stated sometimes I disappear and I can't say where I go.

Yes I have handled DU, many times. When the US Military releases info on a weapon while it's still in use you can be damn sure it's not accurate info.

Also, I commended you for admitting Germany did commit genocide. Many Germans won't, what I argued was Haltickling saying the US committed genocide based on his OPINION!.
<