Depleted Uranium

[quote]Patrick Williams wrote:
I was a medical officer in a US Army Armor battalion during OIF1 specially trained in screening for and medically managing cases of suspected DU exposure. You have better credentials? Back them up.[/quote]

Well, looks like someone figured DU exposure was a problem, if you were specifically trained to screen for and manage cases of suspected DU exposure.

LOL. Now that is stinking crock of shit. Look, people learn how to accurately use or control their weapons, how to care for them, they don’t generally learn esoteric chemical or physical issues surrounding them. I am sure some specialists may learn a lot more than the average man on the field, but don’t suggest all soldiers are physicists or chemists.

I’ve spent a little time on a military base myself and I didn’t see anybody carrying around a science textbook. Again, this doesn’t mean there aren’t smart cookies in the military, but the man on the field firing a weaspon is not that trained.

Oh, look, exposure risks again. Are you saying there are exposure risks?

Nobody, or at least not me, meant to imply that Hedo was an idiot. However, there are limits to the understanding of technology required to perform maintenance. I’m sure you realize that the military does it’s utmost to simplify and standardize maintenance just as it does everything else.

You miss the point completely, which isn’t a very big surprise.

Hey, I haven’t even been arguing that, have you been paying attention at all or are you just getting your panties in a wad because you mistakenly feel insulted?

[quote]vroom wrote:
a lot of strawman BS[/quote]

LOL, that was a bunch of really funny shit. Thanks for the laugh. You’re right, we all agree there is NO HAZARD ASSOCIATED WITH DU and you’re opinion is so important to me I am deeply offended and aghast at your antipathy towards the American military.

I made my point. Anybody open minded on the issue can see I have made clear points that cast much doubt on the original post.

You two from “the South” (my Alaskan residency allows me to say that about Canadians) should get up, go to the fridge, get another Moosehead, light up another fatty, and move on.

Thanks again for the laugh. That really was funny.

Later

[quote]hedo wrote:
The risks of DU are nearly close to zero. [/quote]

The question remains: wouldn’t it be much smarter not to take a risk at all and use something like, say, tungsten, which has a risk that IS zero (rather than “nearly close to zero” – whatever that means)?

Seriously.

It’s not like the DoD is struggling to stay within a very strict budget, now is it? How much would using tungsten would cost extra? 0.001% of the budget? Isn’t the reduced risk – however small – worth it?

[quote]hspder wrote:
hedo wrote:
The risks of DU are nearly close to zero.

The question remains: wouldn’t it be much smarter not to take a risk at all and use something like, say, tungsten, which has a risk that IS zero (rather than “nearly close to zero” – whatever that means)?

Seriously.

It’s not like the DoD is struggling to stay within a very strict budget, now is it? How much would using tungsten would cost extra? 0.001% of the budget? Isn’t the reduced risk – however small – worth it?
[/quote]

Finally, a worthwhile point against DU use.

This is something to seriously consider. There are some armor threats out there we need to keep DU sabots around for, but until we go to war with the Chinese or Russians (or nations they supply with T80 or better tanks, especially the T95 Black Eagle) fielding of tungsten sabots instead of DU would make some sense. I will admit I do not know exactly how much less a tungsten penetrator works compared to a DU.

Still, the dots have not been connected with either the alleged cancer cluster in Basra or the alleged spike in environmental uranium with DU use in Iraq.

[quote]Patrick Williams wrote:
LOL, that was a bunch of really funny shit. Thanks for the laugh. You’re right, we all agree there is NO HAZARD ASSOCIATED WITH DU and you’re opinion is so important to me I am deeply offended and aghast at your antipathy towards the American military.

I made my point. Anybody open minded on the issue can see I have made clear points that cast much doubt on the original post.

You two from “the South” (my Alaskan residency allows me to say that about Canadians) should get up, go to the fridge, get another Moosehead, light up another fatty, and move on.

Thanks again for the laugh. That really was funny.

Later[/quote]

Yeah, come back when you actually figure out what people are talking about around here.

You should get together with Jerffy, he doesn’t really know what’s going on most of the time either, but that doesn’t stop him from declaring victory on an arbitrary basis either.

[quote]hspder wrote:
hedo wrote:
The risks of DU are nearly close to zero.

The question remains: wouldn’t it be much smarter not to take a risk at all and use something like, say, tungsten, which has a risk that IS zero (rather than “nearly close to zero” – whatever that means)?

Seriously.

It’s not like the DoD is struggling to stay within a very strict budget, now is it? How much would using tungsten would cost extra? 0.001% of the budget? Isn’t the reduced risk – however small – worth it?
[/quote]

I don’t know what the ballistic differences would be. DU works very well. A one shot kill is assured if the round is on target. I doubt if the Army is as concerned with effects upon the opposition as they are with the safety of the troops.

I’ve been out of the field for some time but I would guess some sort of kinetic energy weapon is in the future. Solid core launched at 8-10K fps. That type of round would use the targets own armor to destroy the enemy via spalling and shrapnel hitting the occupants and bouncing around the interior.

Going to have to go with Hedo and Patrick Williams on this one. I think direct experience, knowledge, reason, and science are going to have to trump the smug canadian peanut gallery. This thread has been absolute domination. Dry hump your leg to show dominance kind of ownage.

[quote]ChuckyT wrote:
Going to have to go with Hedo and Patrick Williams on this one. I think direct experience, knowledge, reason, and science are going to have to trump the smug canadian peanut gallery. This thread has been absolute domination. Dry hump your leg to show dominance kind of ownage. [/quote]

Quite the bunch of morons around here. For myself, I’ve really only been arguing that vapors and fine particulate can travel a very long distance based on weather patterns.

How much there is and whether it happened is beyond my purvey. As for local risks, nobody really seems to be worrying about it.

Let’s get some more people to declare victory around here, it really adds a lot to the credibility of the argument when that happens.

[quote]ChuckyT wrote:
Going to have to go with Hedo and Patrick Williams on this one. I think direct experience, knowledge, reason, and science are going to have to trump the smug canadian peanut gallery. This thread has been absolute domination. Dry hump your leg to show dominance kind of ownage. [/quote]

Yeah, right.

It’s a good thing hedo was able to keep making his points in a serious, reasonable manner; it wouldn’t look good for him to acknowledge all the ass-kissing chickenhawks clowns coming out of the woodwork in this thread.

Unfortunately for the fantasyland back benchers; all the " knowledge, reason, and science" presented on the thread have established that DU rounds do produce dust, not only chunks; and that the dust is hazardous to some degree, depending on the level of exposure.

Although it appears that any science argument is wasted on you brain-dead sycophants; I’m sure you’ll just go on waving those pompoms like some kind of spastic Richard Simmons.

By the way, where is the “knowledge and science” from you and JeffR? Oh, right, there isn’t any. First hand experience? Again, none. Reason? Ha, ha! That’s a funny one. Three strikes, loser. Thanks for playing.

Poor SuckyT, only able to contribute to a thread as comic relief; too bad you’re not funny either.

Patrick and Hedo:

I appreciate your first hand knowlege in these cases.

I wonder what you thought about this new investigation:

"House Passes McDermott Depleted Uranium Study Amendment
Possible DU Health Effects on Soldiers Will Be Studied
May 11, 2006

After years of relentless and unwavering efforts, including speeches, interviews, news conferences, working with groups like Physicians for Social Responsibility, and even appearing on a song in a newly released Punk Rock album, in order to raise public awareness, the House of Representatives today passed legislation that includes an amendment by Rep. Jim McDermott (WA-D) ordering a comprehensive study on possible health effects from exposure to depleted uranium on U.S. soldiers and their children.

See McDermott’s introduction of his amendment
calling for a comprehensive study of the effects
of depleted uranium

“As long and winding as the road has been to get where we are today, this is only the beginning- but this is a great day because we have taken the first step to defend the U.S. soldiers who protect and defend us,” McDermott said.

Shortly after passage, Rep. McDermott received a letter from James King, the national executive director of AMVETS, the American Veterans organization:

"This is a very important issue for AMVETS and its membership. Our ultimate goal is to provide atomic veterans with the tools necessary to file a claim and be considered for due compensation. Your amendment will help begin this process.

Again, thank you for your amendment and your support of veterans and their families."

Rep. McDermott has spent several years working to get the House to study DU. He explained the reason behind his passionate advocacy for the issue in this way:

"For me, this is a personal, not political, quest. My professional life turned from medicine to politics after my service in the U.S. Navy during the 1960s, when I treated combat soldiers returning from Vietnam.

"Back then, the Pentagon denied that Agent Orange posed any danger to U.S. soldiers who were exposed. Decades later, the truth finally emerged. Agent Orange harmed our soldiers. It made thousands sick and some died. During all those years of denial, we stood by and did nothing while soldiers suffered. No more Agent Orange!

“If DU poses no danger, we need to prove it with statistically valid, and independent scientific studies. If DU harms our soldiers, we all need to know it, and act quickly as any doctor would, to use all of our power to heal the sick. We owe our soldiers a full measure of the truth, wherever that leads us.”

The amendment to undertake a comprehensive study of possible health effects to soldiers from exposure to depleted uranium was contained in the Department of Defense Authorization Bill, which passed the House on Thursday evening.

Depleted uranium is a by-product of the uranium enrichment process. Because it is very dense, the U.S. military uses DU for munitions like armor-piercing bullets and tank shells, and as a protective shield around tanks. When used in munitions, DU pulverizes into a fine dust upon impact; it can hang in the air, be inhaled or seep into the soil.

During the Gulf War, the U.S. military used approximately 300 metric tons of DU as munitions. To date in the Iraq War, approximately 150 metric tons have been used. During conflicts in Bosnia, Kosovo, Serbia, and Montenegro, about 12 metric tons were used. (A metric ton is slightly more than 2,200 pounds.)

In addition to its own use, the United States has provided or sold DU and DU munitions to several other nations."

I’d love to hear your thoughts.

JeffR

Jeff

I think they should investigate it and have no issue with research. From what I know and read I don’t think it’s an issue. I’ve also argued that exposure is minimal unless you are inside the target. My two cents is they have more important issues to deal with. Lot’s of hazardous materials on a battlefield to worry about.

My concern was knocking out what I was shooting at, not the long term health effects to the enemy. In fact my hope was they didn’t have a long-term future. If they did then mine would become considerably shorter. DU did the job.

The Sandia report says the risk is minimal. So far that’s the most compelling research I’ve read. I haven’t looked much further.

Hedo,

Thanks for your response. I don’t have any access to the Pentagon’s procedures relating to Agent Orange. I have no idea whether they had the necessary know how to determine whether Agent Orange had short/long term effects.

The Anti-Americans immediately assume that the Pentagon “was covering something up.”

I have to admit to my bias of believing the military until or unless there is compelling evidence of malfeasance.

Would love to hear your thoughts about DU. Is there any hints that the Pentagon is playing down the issue?

Were you/are you comfortable with your training on these munitions? Has there been anything presented that gives you pause?

I’ve read that the DOD concluded that it wasn’t a true threat.

Sounds like it has to be a pretty heavy ingestion. Sounds like people are extrapolating from animal studies at this point.

JeffR

Damn, jerffy, when you put down the pom-poms and type with both hands you almost sound like a grown up.

[quote]tme wrote:
Damn, jerffy, when you put down the pom-poms and type with both hands you almost sound like a grown up.

[/quote]

Thanks, tme.

I have to admit something: I LOVE you guys calling me “stupid.”

It usually means I’m shooting close to the mark.

It’s usually a defense mechanism that you employ in order to avoid thinking about a contrary argument.

It’s much easier to dismiss me as “stupid” or “troll” than it is to discuss or refute my points.

I say usually, because I admit to beating the grass to see what the snakes do.

JeffR

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Thanks, tme.

I have to admit something: I LOVE you guys calling me “stupid.”

It usually means I’m shooting close to the mark.

It’s usually a defense mechanism that you employ in order to avoid thinking about a contrary argument.

It’s much easier to dismiss me as “stupid” or “troll” than it is to discuss or refute my points.

I say usually, because I admit to beating the grass to see what the snakes do.

JeffR[/quote]

Jerffy, it would be nice if you would make a habit of putting down the pom-pom’s and at least try to think about the issues rationally from time to time.

I would suggest that it is a bit naive not to assume that in all aspects of government, including the military, there are similar elements of politics and potential corruption due to profits or career issues.

Basically, at the risk of getting Patties nickers in a knot, the leaders of the military and the companies that produce military products have a pretty cosy relationship and not everybody is a saint. Think about how much money is spent on various weapons systems.

Look, whether left or right, you need to look long and hard at the motivations, financial or otherwise, that will have people misrepresent something, hide information, or otherwise look after their interests instead of the interests of the people they represent.

I know it is shocking, but it happens. That’s why whatshisface pled guilty in California not to long ago. The lure of money being thrown at decisionmakers is a seductive siren call that is hard to ignore.

Do you even have any clue what I’m talking about?

[quote]JeffR wrote:
I have to admit something: I LOVE you guys calling me “stupid.”

It usually means I’m shooting close to the mark.

It’s usually a defense mechanism that you employ in order to avoid thinking about a contrary argument.[/quote]

But when there’s no argument, as earlier in this thread, “stupid” simply means you’re stupid. Simple, no?

Maybe you should try bringing up your points earlier in the thread?

Your post above to hedo was interesting and on-topic; unfortunately, the thread had pretty much reached it’s conclusion and petered out by the time you posted it.

Try this: relevant posts first, ass-clown comments later.

Convenient cover story. Some people might even buy it.

[quote]hspder wrote:
hedo wrote:
The risks of DU are nearly close to zero.

The question remains: wouldn’t it be much smarter not to take a risk at all and use something like, say, tungsten, which has a risk that IS zero (rather than “nearly close to zero” – whatever that means)?

Seriously.

It’s not like the DoD is struggling to stay within a very strict budget, now is it? How much would using tungsten would cost extra? 0.001% of the budget? Isn’t the reduced risk – however small – worth it?
[/quote]

Guess who produces 75% of the world’s W and who the No. 1 supplier to the US is and I think you’ll find yourself conflicted over the use of W as a weaponizable substrate.