Guess what kids, there's a war on! Depleted Uranium anyone?

[cantdog]

Interesting point. Anyone know what the chemical properties of uranium are (aside from radioactivity). I'm presuming it's toxic.

I think radiation owuld still be your first worry in that situation, but I'd be curious to see if there are chemical effects.

The Earl

It's toxic chemical properties are like lead only a bit more so, with regard to dosage per effect.

 

[cantdog]

I suppose I just have stupid tatooed on my head. I should just quit questioning things and take it as fact because there are articles on the matter. No one ever cooked the facts to it their preconcieved notions.

I really get tired of being crucified here because I ask questions and don't follow the prevailing winds like a sheep. I sometimes wonder why I even bother to say anything.

Here is where I missed the thread while I was compiling lists. I read the report of the bivouacking fellows in the Guardian. The Guardian is a biased source, so I let it be and moved out into google-land. Supper came and went. A man came and bought my woodstove, then came back to move it from the house. I have found the Guardian to contain real information, but i know that you don't trust it. Haley and Rokke are riding this horse because they are concerned. They are scientists, but that means little if they turn out to be the only fellows who say so.

What this seems to have meant to you is, I left you hanging here to defend all alone an unpopular position from people who simply shot at you. I am sorry this happened. If I'd seen it, I'd have quit building lists.

On the other hand, the Vanity Fair article is pretty circumstantial, and bullet quoted it in full. He, at least, brought his facts to the table, even if sun_lover did not. That article contains the Haley and Rokke arguments. They were in the Kucinich campaign literature, too, and Haley spoke with Kucinich at several places. But the story of the man in the Vanity Fair article is still an anecdote, and the reports from Kosovo, while enough to cause testing and investigation to be initiated, have produced no organized results yet. The reports from Iraq you do not accept.

 

[neonlyte]

Here are three links: read them, I'm making no judgement call.
World Health Organisation - Depleted Uranium
NATO - Depleted Uranium
Royal Society (UK's premier scientific research body - my note)

The latter deals with Earl's question about chemical toxicity

As far as I can tell each relates to research circa 2001/02 - each also carries an update 03/2005 reporting 'nothing new to report'.

 

[TheEarl]

The main conclusions of the Part II report are:

• The risks to the kidney and other organs and tissues from the use of DU in munitions are very low for most soldiers on the battlefield and for those living in the conflict area.
• In extreme conditions and under worst-case assumptions, soldiers who receive large intakes of DU could suffer adverse effects on the kidney and lung.
• Environmental contamination will be very variable but in most cases the associated health risks due to DU will be very low. In some worst-case scenarios high local levels of uranium could occur in food or water that could have adverse effects on the kidney.

• A recent United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) report giving field measurements taken around selected impact sites in Kosovo (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) indicates that contamination by DU in the environment was localized to a few tens of metres around impact sites. Contamination by DU dusts of local vegetation and water supplies was found to be extremely low. Thus, the probability of significant exposure to local populations was considered to be very low.
• Levels of DU may exceed background levels of uranium close to DU contaminating events. Over the days and years following such an event, the contamination normally becomes dispersed into the wider natural environment by wind and rain. People living or working in affected areas may inhale contaminated dusts or consume contaminated food and drinking water.

• 
  
  Reading through those links that Neon sent me onto, I'm starting to come around to Colly's POV. Everything I'm reading is saying that it is raising the local levels of DU (well, obviously) and the dust can be harmful when inhaled (again, obviously). However, what it is also saying is that the major risks are chemical toxicity, rather than radiation and, although radiation is a problem, it is not environmental catastrophe kinda scale.
  
  I was reading this report from the UN and they are saying that, although there is radiation in the localised area and there is definite need for cleanup, it's not significantly impacting on the area at large.
  
  To be honest, it's a war and things will get fucked up. That's why wars are bad. If DU was removed from the arsenal, then there would still be lead tipped missiles which would produce lead poisoning and there would still be pollution problems which required cleanup. My major concern was for an irradiation of the area that could impact for generations and from what the Royal Society and WHO are saying, the radiation just isn't large enough to do that on a grnad scale.
  
  Of course, any deaths are terrible, but it has to be realised that in war people die. Terrible, but it's a tradeoff; your soldiers vs their civilians and from the evidence laid out here, I think the deaths of civilians is far smaller than I would have expected.
  
  More research needed of course, but in the meantime, I'm actually on Colly's side.
  
  The Earl

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I think the debate got ugly because it really wasn't about the toxicity of depleted Uranium, not really. The DU was just a stalking horse for our feelings about the attitudes and policies of the US and UK governments, and positions on the issue were probably more reflective of our feelings about our government and the situation in Iraq than they were of the toxicological data on DU. It all has to do with whether you see the use of DU as symbolic of American arrogance and imperialism or as the result of some tough decisions made by basically good men dealing with some very ambiguous data.

Toxicological data--especially when you're trying to establish threshold values or maximum permissible exposures--is rarely as clear as cause-and-effect wherein exposure to a given amount of substance X will invariably produce effect Y in all subjects. At best it's statistical: if so many people are exposed to this amount of substance X, you can reasonably expect so many to exhibit effect Y.

Experts differ on how to interpret this kind of data. Some will say that in such a case, we have to ban substance X entirely, that no amount of risk is acceptable. Others (and this is the more usual response) will do a cost-benefit analysis and reach some consesnus on an acceptable level of risk. I imagine that this debate is behind a lot of the attitudes in the Vanity Fair piece Bullet posted: some experts find any exposure to DU unacceptable, others look at the military benefit and weigh that against the risks. There's no doubt that DU is not the kind of stuff you want your kids to play with. The question is, what's an acceptable level of risk?

 

[BlackShanglan]

Great links, Neonlyte. Thanks for providing some excellent evidence.

On the whole the report looks good in terms of support for continued use of DU. There's one issue that concerns me here, though, and it's at the bottom of page three of the report:

There is recent evidence that uranium may directly damage genetic material and there is a possibility of damage to DNA due to the chemical effects being enhanced by the effects of the alpha-particle irradiation.

The problem is that there's nothing else on this topic. We just know that it might happen. We don't know at what exposure level, or whether long-term small dosage exposure (of the sort that civilians are likely to encounter) might be associated with it. This to me is the most disturbing of the questions raised about DU, and I'm uncomfortable with the fact that it hasn't been answered.

That said, I have to go with the Earl on the report's comments on cancers, kidney malfunction, and other shorter-term effects. That's good news for our soldiers and for the civilian population, and certainly puts to rest some of the concerns I've felt about the weapons' use. I'm just still a bit torn on the question of possible genetic damage. That's an ugly possibility to face.

Has anyone done more studies on that topic?

Shanglan

 

[Op_Cit]

Debate is a silly waste of time. Deciding the validity of any issue by voting is silly.

Deciding the validity of an issue by how many alleged experts (weighted by the human abstract called credentials) support which end of the argument is absurd (though common): it means nothing, they may or may not be actually correct. Sometimes the minority is correct, and sometimes the majority is correct. But true Reality is not defined by majority opinion. Reality doesn't care.

I would wager that I have more practical experience in the area of health physics than anyone participating in this thread. But that means didley-squat, it has no bearing on whether I'm right or wrong.

A few people have gone and researched some of the basic science involved, and this is encouraging. But the majority are just floundering around looking for a guy or agency with the biggest label on his forhead ("expert here") to follow blindly.

This is why the world is so fucked up: nobody wants to put in the effort to truly know, but everyone is willing to throw their support behind someone who says they do. And it's always the rosiest sounding, sleep-well-at-night myth that gets the most followers--and these are usually the ones that cause the most problems in the world.

This is where someone jumps up and says, "you can't know everything, you have to rely on others..." And my response is "why?"

One doesn't have to be on Side A or Side B of an issue. There is a third option: one can choose to realise that he doesn't know, and stay out of the fray. From that single point of true enlightenment (awareness of ignorance) one can choose to find a way to know.

If someone here thinks I'm an idiot, he can choose to ignore me. It's simple and requires little effort. Personal attacks in retaliation for perceived personal attacks is... ok have I used that word "silly" too much?. I know for a fact I'm an idiot, and I spend all my effort trying not to be.

 

[sun_lover_61]

Debate is a silly waste of time... I would wager that I have more practical experience in the area of health physics than anyone participating in this thread.

This post is for all, but to begin with...

Op_Cit. I'll take up your wager. I worked as a physicist/nuclear engineer for 4 years (working with lovely trans_Uranic elements like plutonium, americium and californium) and have lectured on radiation safety at university. It is interesting then that my contributions have been criticised for being too emotive, and not technical. My only defence is that as a technical person I don't want to come on to this website like this, where there a wide range of technical expertise, and talk technical. I have gone for brevity over detail.

But you make some interesting points about political debate - an area which utterly fascinates me!! That is not to say that I can debate - as you all know I am far too brusque and impatient - but I am interested in teh process. What interests me is how two intelligent people, replete with the same data, can arrrive at totally opposite views on a topic. Like conservative and liberal wold views for instance.

It seems to me, that in political debate (And i am as guilty of this as anyone)the opinion comes first, and then a considerable amount of intellect is mobilised in order to defend the position. Although sometimes I don't bother to mobilise the intellect.

Its a fascinating process to observe, but a tedious one to engage in (for me anyway). The reason why people interpret data differently is because they have different underlying beliefs and priorities. It is those things that drive the intellectual effort to defend indefensible viewpoints - like Creation Scientists arguing that the world is 6000 years old (from physical evidence no less!) - like neo-Cons arguing that the Greenhouse Effect doesn't exist - or that DU is not so bad, or tht the Iraq war is justifies, or that we should cut off all social welfare. Debating those issues point by point is futile unless underlying beliefs are addressed.

Dr. Mabeuse has made that point that DU is no worse than lead. It is a heavy metal toxin like lead, to be sure, but it is more toxic by an order of magnitude. Just thought I would mention it.

If I seem way too brusque it is because I do not have the mental stamina or interest to engage in a point by point struggle with the the likes of Colleen Thomas, with her boundless enthusiasm for debate. If I thought it were worthwhile, I would, but its like trying to capture Stalingrad street by street. Anyway, Neo-cons have won all the public debates in the last 15 years, and have therefore set the agenda on certain "common underlying beliefs" in debates. That frustrates me, but I am not the person to change them.

And on the topic of hyperbole, I have been accused by some of resorting to it. Well I call it "emotion" - and I do not apologise for resorting to it. I want to put an emotional case forward because that is where the heart of the issue lies, so far as i am concerned. If we all connected emotionally with one single horror from a war (Don't try to feel it all at once), or the suffering of a DU induced cancer victim, we would begin to appraise the data (readily available to all) differently.

That is where I come from.

Now back to smut

SL61

 

[BlackShanglan]

Anyway, Neo-cons have won all the public debates in the last 15 years, and have therefore set the agenda on certain "common underlying beliefs" in debates. That frustrates me, but I am not the person to change them.

I'm curious. What "common underlying beliefs" are these? I'm not sure if you mean the manner in which one debates, or the topics that one debates. Just curious.

I want to put an emotional case forward because that is where the heart of the issue lies, so far as i am concerned. If we all connected emotionally with one single horror from a war (Don't try to feel it all at once), or the suffering of a DU induced cancer victim, we would begin to appraise the data (readily available to all) differently.

I think that you are right - that is, that our sense of less tangible things like justice, empathy, mercy, and pity must play a role in how we interpret data. Otherwise we're back in the 1800's playing at being Utilitarians, and Charles Dickens will come chronicle our ridiculous obsession with "hard facts."

That said, one has to have facts and information to which to apply that emotive/empathetic focus. As you note, once one has the emotional reaction, one tends to look for facts to support that initial reaction rather than examining the pool of available information and weighing it all fairly and carefully. I think it's better to get as many facts as possible, and to keep open the possibility that one's assumptions, while emotionally stirring, might be wrong. For example, I found the WHO and UN reports on DU very interesting reading, and fairly persuasive. However emotionally powerful I might find the image of a man dying early from lung cancer induced by DU exposure, it behooves me to find out if such people exist or are ever likely to exist. My initial position was that if there was anecdotal support suggesting that such things might be true, we would do best to restrict our use of DU weapons pending a more thorough investigation by a relatively unbiased source. Neonlyte was good enough to supply a link showing that we actually have a close investigation by a relatively unbiased source. In light of that, however terrifying the image of villages of walking dead irradiated by DU weapons might be, I have to concede that they don't seem to exist and probably will not exist. There's good evidence, in the form of those reports, that the body does not react that way to doses of DU likely to be received even in combat, and even less so to the more minute doses founds in wind-dispersed DU. I admit, the idea that it could have such affects seemed quite reasonable to me. However, the careful attention of many person well-educated in the topic seems to show that it doesn't. That is, quite frankly, a relief. I would still like to see more on genetic issues, as I think that that is a key concerns for civilians returning to the area. However, on the other topics, at the moment reason says that there is nothing to get emotional about.

Shanglan

 

[BlackShanglan]

Debate is a silly waste of time.

(...)

One doesn't have to be on Side A or Side B of an issue. There is a third option: one can choose to realise that he doesn't know, and stay out of the fray. From that single point of true enlightenment (awareness of ignorance) one can choose to find a way to know.

I approach debate from a different perspective, and so I come to a different conclusion. I feel that it does have immense value, as I believe that its best role is as a learning tool. Debate is, in fact, most important to the person who doesn't know, or who knows a little and would like to know more.

I don't believe that true debate a process whose goal is to force others to concede that one is correct. Rather, I follow Aristotle in believing that the goal of debate is, ultimately, to uncover the truth. The theory (which we have enshrined in our legal system) is that if the people on each side of an issue each bring the best possible arguments and evidence to their respective positions and debate and rebut each other in an intelligent fashion, those engaged in the process and those watching it will come to a better understanding of what is actually true. Good arguments and evidence will be kept, bad theories will be shown to be flawed, and we will all advance in learning together. In a really good debate, as I have sometimes seen happen with intelligent and open-minded people, it's even possible to end up agreeing that neither side was right to start with and that the debate itself has uncovered a more likely hypothesis. This is because a really good debate often introduces evidence that one or the other side did not have available, and because in learning how others see a situation, we develop new ideas ourselves - not merely "what I know" + "what they know," but "what I know" + "what they know" + "what both of us putting our heads together can come up with that neither would arrive at without the help."

Debates, of course, do not always end in the discovery of truth - although, ironically, this thread is one that substantially informed me and led me to largely believe a position that I did not initially support. But even when debates have no conclusive end, one learns. Even if I end up convinced that I am right, I've had to defend my beliefs. I've had to make them coherent and well-supported to myself as well as to others, examine what I think and why I think it, and figure out how to answer the most difficult questions that the opposition can pose. If I still believe as I did when I began - and if I'm not simply clinging to my position through stubborness or ego - then it's because I've developed an even stronger and better grasp of my position than I had when I started.

This is (amongst other things) at the root of my strong objections to uncivil conduct in debate. It's not simply about hurting the feelings of others, although I think it's wretched that that doesn't seem to carry any weight with many people. Rather, it's a resentment of the intellectual damage done. A really good debate informs, enspirits, and sharpens the wits of everyone involved. Hurling insults, invective, and broad, scathing personal manifestos into such a process is akin to tearing pages out of books for fun. It's not merely unmannerly; it destroys a source of enlightenment (and pleasure) for others while accomplishing nothing but advertising one's spite.

Shanglan

 

[Op_Cit]

Op_Cit. I'll take up your wager.

Ouch! SL likely has me there (my experience was mostly focused on health issues in nuclear power) See? Nobody believes me when I tell them I'm an idiot.

But wait a minute! We're both on the same side of this issue that must mean we win, right?

Now back to smut

At least somebody's got his mind in the right place.

 

[JohnMorrison]

but the alternative to depleted Uranium is???...oh right Lead...Lead doesnt do anything, in fact you can eat it.

 

[LadyJeanne]

I think that you are right - that is, that our sense of less tangible things like justice, empathy, mercy, and pity must play a role in how we interpret data. Otherwise we're back in the 1800's playing at being Utilitarians, and Charles Dickens will come chronicle our ridiculous obsession with "hard facts."

That said, one has to have facts and information to which to apply that emotive/empathetic focus. As you note, once one has the emotional reaction, one tends to look for facts to support that initial reaction rather than examining the pool of available information and weighing it all fairly and carefully. I think it's better to get as many facts as possible, and to keep open the possibility that one's assumptions, while emotionally stirring, might be wrong. For example, I found the WHO and UN reports on DU very interesting reading, and fairly persuasive. However emotionally powerful I might find the image of a man dying early from lung cancer induced by DU exposure, it behooves me to find out if such people exist or are ever likely to exist. My initial position was that if there was anecdotal support suggesting that such things might be true, we would do best to restrict our use of DU weapons pending a more thorough investigation by a relatively unbiased source. Neonlyte was good enough to supply a link showing that we actually have a close investigation by a relatively unbiased source. In light of that, however terrifying the image of villages of walking dead irradiated by DU weapons might be, I have to concede that they don't seem to exist and probably will not exist. There's good evidence, in the form of those reports, that the body does not react that way to doses of DU likely to be received even in combat, and even less so to the more minute doses founds in wind-dispersed DU. I admit, the idea that it could have such affects seemed quite reasonable to me. However, the careful attention of many person well-educated in the topic seems to show that it doesn't. That is, quite frankly, a relief. I would still like to see more on genetic issues, as I think that that is a key concerns for civilians returning to the area. However, on the other topics, at the moment reason says that there is nothing to get emotional about.

Shanglan

I take this a step further, Shanglan. I believe we have an obligation as humans to determine that DU, or anything else we elect to use to kill other people, doesn't have long term effects on innocents BEFORE we go out and use it. Otherwise, the earth and the innocent people on it become guineau pigs to the interests of the military. The military has no right to experiment in the field on humans. They should be damned sure they're not causing future genetic deformities or cancers before using a particular weapon.

Perhaps it's because I have family in the Balkans and know first-hand how unsurgical surgical strikes are, all of my empathy and sympathy lies with the innocent people who have to live in the areas destroyed by military. In Iraq, no one is even pretending our strikes are in any way surgical. Where do you think those people go when we select their city as a target? They go to the places we've already been through or hide in the areas surrounding the targets - they are right there to catch the fallout when it settles, they clean up their bombed out houses, and they drink the water because they have no other. Let's not kid ourselves about the destruction and contamination.

 

[TheEarl]

I take this a step further, Shanglan. I believe we have an obligation as humans to determine that DU, or anything else we elect to use to kill other people, doesn't have long term effects on innocents BEFORE we go out and use it. Otherwise, the earth and the innocent people on it become guineau pigs to the interests of the military. The military has no right to experiment in the field on humans. They should be damned sure they're not causing future genetic deformities or cancers before using a particular weapon.

Perhaps it's because I have family in the Balkans and know first-hand how unsurgical surgical strikes are, all of my empathy and sympathy lies with the innocent people who have to live in the areas destroyed by military. In Iraq, no one is even pretending our strikes are in any way surgical. Where do you think those people go when we select their city as a target? They go to the places we've already been through or hide in the areas surrounding the targets - they are right there to catch the fallout when it settles, they clean up their bombed out houses, and they drink the water because they have no other. Let's not kid ourselves about the destruction and contamination.

Jeanne: I'll agree that there are a lot of cockups which cost a lot of livesi n war and 'surgical' strikes are nothing of the kind. However, war does cause death and devastation and the longer a war continues for, the more death and devastation will occur. If DU is withdrawn, then wars involving UK and US will last longer and cause more destruction as the firepower is reduced. If the health risks of DU are as minimal as the WHO and Royal Society reports suggest, then more destruction and death has occured (on both sides) for minimal benefit.

Sun-lover: Agreed with you on your passionate defence of debate. Although I have to say, the WHO and Royal Society reports that Neon provided links to are very enlightening on the specialist areas of weaponry and war and are why I've changed my mind on this issue.

Don't confuse Colly with a neo-con though. For a start, she's rational and listens to other people's POV. Secondly, she's a nice person.

Op-Cit: Nobody is saying "We're right because the WHO says so." We're saying that we are learning through the reports of these experts. It is not invoking them for their name, but hoping to use their knowledge to teach ourselves. That is the point of debate - learning.

The Earl

 

[cantdog]

Jeanne: I'll agree that there are a lot of cockups which cost a lot of livesi n war and 'surgical' strikes are nothing of the kind. However, war does cause death and devastation and the longer a war continues for, the more death and devastation will occur. If DU is withdrawn, then wars involving UK and US will last longer and cause more destruction as the firepower is reduced. If the health risks of DU are as minimal as the WHO and Royal Society reports suggest, then more destruction and death has occured (on both sides) for minimal benefit.

However, war does cause death..

That's what she was complaining of, Earl. Unwarranted death, widespread death, longterm disease, malnutrition, impoverishment and among whole populations. That in any debate like this, as Mabeuse points out, the political divide sets the terms.

Consequently, the nationalist/pro-empire side cannot attach importance of any kind to the issue of civilian misery, even if it's millions, even if it's preventable, even if it's utterly depraved to do these things. Because it represents (that is, the so-called collateral damage represents) the tarnish on the brass.

Earl, to say that war is destructive and the more the worse is a banality. No one can possibly disagree with it. It is breathtakingly clear to all. So why say it?

When I evaluate that question, I see that you say it as if it were a reply in some fashion to a story. A story from a friend about some people she knows and cares about, of callous destruction of civilian homes and water supplies, callous and casual destruction of public health, casual military action which increased disease and put children and families in almost irretrievable straits.

In response to this story you reply that war is bad. You say I'll agree the military fucks up and makes little mistakes. You agree they deviate from the letter of the word 'surgical' but you say, However war is bad.

This can only make sense, Earl, if what you mean is"however, war is necessary." Why do you not say that at once, since it is crystal clear you mean to oppose the story with that argument? I hope you also mean to say that the damage was unintended, truly collateral. That the intent was much more surgical than the result. That, infact, you find the result as repugnant as anyone, even though you believe that the cause had a justification.

Because it is there, on that ground, that the discussion of LadyJeanne's story can be fruitful. If it is repugnant and unintended, then we can perhaps agree it ought to be fixed. Perhaps we can agree that there is a responsibility upon an actor for the result of her actions, intended or unintended.

Intended and justified destruction, as for example of tanks, we can allow the empire builders to write off. They meant to do it, they did it, they take responsibility and they don't believe fixing it is a good idea.

Machine gunning a ten-year old or sending ordnance into civilian neighborhoods is where the rub comes. To what extent are these actions intended? That depends. Some men who are there in the field have told me they develop an attitude that everyone there is dangerous to them, that it is safer to wreak indiscriminate havoc because it leaves no one in the vicinity who is trying to kill you. Some people who have been in that place become very racist about it. As a psychological defense, perhaps, but they mean every word. Intent depends on the individual.

War is bad. We are in one. What should be our response to stories from friends of this kind?

 

[dr_mabeuse]

This post is for all, but to begin with...

Dr. Mabeuse has made that point that DU is no worse than lead. It is a heavy metal toxin like lead, to be sure, but it is more toxic by an order of magnitude. Just thought I would mention it.

That's not what I meant to say, and I apologize if I gave that impression. Uranium is much more toxic than lead. I was only trying to suggest that worrying about ingesting uranium from a battlefield where it was used is analogous to worrying about lead poisoning from a battlefield in which conventional (lead) projectiles were used. I think the risks of airborne ingestion are pretty low in both cases, the greater toxicity of U metal notwithstanding.

It seems that we do have a number of people here who are rather knowledgable in radiological medicine. My own experience was at Argonne National Laboratory where I worked for two years in anayltical chemistry. Most of the work at Argonne involved nuclear reactor technology, and we were all trained pretty thoroughly in matters of radiological health and the safe handling of radionuclides. I used to handle fairly hot materials pretty regularly (like spent fuel rods from reactors). You're always careful and aware of what you're doing, but, as with everything else, the more you know about them, the less you fear them.

FWIW, one of the projects I worked on at Argonne involved the notorious "Radium Dial Painters" study. Dyring the 20's when radiation was fairly new and unknown, they used to make glow-in-the-dark watch and clock dials by mixing radium with zinc oxide and painting the numbers on the dials. The painters had a habit of licking their brushes to put a tip on them, and thus ingested fairly large amounts of radioactive radium during the course of their careers. The study was undertaken to find out where the radium ended up in their bodies, and to do that, permission was obtained to to exhume and autopsy some of the corpses. Samples of bone were taken (radium is in the same chemical family as Calcium and is known to be a "bone-seeker". It ends up in your bones.) and sent to my lab where we'd dissolve them and analyze them for radium.

I don't remember all the results, but I do remember that one of the places it ended up was in the bones around the nasal sinuses.

I also remember that, for the sake of control, we also had to determine the radium content of the kinds of food they would have eaten, and radikum in fecal and urine samples. (No, they didn't smell. They were freeze-dried.)

The food with the highest content of radium on a per weight basis is Brazil Nuts.

Anyhow, if you want to see some of the bona fide tox and environemtal safety data on Uranium and see why even the experts might get confused, here's a link to a pretty good site:

http://www.antenna.nl/wise/uranium/utox.html

You'll see that there are different standards depending on whether the exposure is acute, intermediate, or chronic; on what the route of ingestion is; whether the U is insoluble or in water-soluble form; and what the test animal was.

As we've said, no one's safe from radioactivity. Here's some information on the kind of uranium exposeure you can expect from eating off glazed plates:

http://www.antenna.nl/wise/uranium/ruxh.html

Uranium is often present in ceramic glazes, and is used to color glass too. As I recall, it makes an especially attractive red glass (gold does too.)

 

[TheEarl]

However, war does cause death..

That's what she was complaining of, Earl. Unwarranted death, widespread death, longterm disease, malnutrition, impoverishment and among whole populations. That in any debate like this, as Mabeuse points out, the political divide sets the terms.

Consequently, the nationalist/pro-empire side cannot attach importance of any kind to the issue of civilian misery, even if it's millions, even if it's preventable, even if it's utterly depraved to do these things. Because it represents (that is, the so-called collateral damage represents) the tarnish on the brass.

Earl, to say that war is destructive and the more the worse is a banality. No one can possibly disagree with it. It is breathtakingly clear to all. So why say it?

When I evaluate that question, I see that you say it as if it were a reply in some fashion to a story. A story from a friend about some people she knows and cares about, of callous destruction of civilian homes and water supplies, callous and casual destruction of public health, casual military action which increased disease and put children and families in almost irretrievable straits.

In response to this story you reply that war is bad. You say I'll agree the military fucks up and makes little mistakes. You agree they deviate from the letter of the word 'surgical' but you say, However war is bad.

This can only make sense, Earl, if what you mean is"however, war is necessary." Why do you not say that at once, since it is crystal clear you mean to oppose the story with that argument? I hope you also mean to say that the damage was unintended, truly collateral. That the intent was much more surgical than the result. That, infact, you find the result as repugnant as anyone, even though you believe that the cause had a justification.

Because it is there, on that ground, that the discussion of LadyJeanne's story can be fruitful. If it is repugnant and unintended, then we can perhaps agree it ought to be fixed. Perhaps we can agree that there is a responsibility upon an actor for the result of her actions, intended or unintended.

Intended and justified destruction, as for example of tanks, we can allow the empire builders to write off. They meant to do it, they did it, they take responsibility and they don't believe fixing it is a good idea.

Machine gunning a ten-year old or sending ordnance into civilian neighborhoods is where the rub comes. To what extent are these actions intended? That depends. Some men who are there in the field have told me they develop an attitude that everyone there is dangerous to them, that it is safer to wreak indiscriminate havoc because it leaves no one in the vicinity who is trying to kill you. Some people who have been in that place become very racist about it. As a psychological defense, perhaps, but they mean every word. Intent depends on the individual.

War is bad. We are in one. What should be our response to stories from friends of this kind?

True. To say war causes death is an utter banality. I won't say war is necessary, because there are some wars that are unnecessary. But, if a war is in progress, then the best case scenario is one that keeps death and destruction to a minimum (also a banality. The point will be arriving soon).

From what I've been reading, DU gives a significant tactical advantage to US and UK troops. This means that the war will finish quicker and there will be less death and destruction from the war itself. This must be balanced against any damage that DU does after the war has finished. From what I've read, it is said that the health risks from DU ammunition are fairly minimal; if you're unlucky enough to be wrong place, wrong time, then you're screwed, but it is not widespread and is not lingering. As far as I can see, the extra number of people killed by DU is dwarfed by the number whose lives have been saved by the foreshortening of the war due to DU. Therefore I'm in favour.

I personally don't see a difference between the value of two lives - civilian and soldier. The soldier volunteered for the job and thus is a reasonable target during actual warfare, which the civilian is not. However when the situation is observed holistically, I don't see that a civilian is any less 'deserving' of death than a soldier. There should never be intent to kill a civilian, but if they do die, I'd value their lives at exactly the same as the soldier.

This is why I (begrudgingly) support the atomic bomb in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They killed people and poisoned the area, but they shortened the war and, in effect, saved more people than they killed. I believe this is a similar situation to DU.

The Earl

 

[cantdog]

From what I've been reading, DU gives a significant tactical advantage to US and UK troops. This means that the war will finish quicker and there will be less death and destruction from the war itself. This must be balanced against any damage that DU does after the war has finished. From what I've read, it is said that the health risks from DU ammunition are fairly minimal; if you're unlucky enough to be wrong place, wrong time, then you're screwed, but it is not widespread and is not lingering. As far as I can see, the extra number of people killed by DU is dwarfed by the number whose lives have been saved by the foreshortening of the war due to DU. Therefore I'm in favour.

I personally don't see a difference between the value of two lives - civilian and soldier. The soldier volunteered for the job and thus is a reasonable target during actual warfare, which the civilian is not. However when the situation is observed holistically, I don't see that a civilian is any less 'deserving' of death than a soldier. There should never be intent to kill a civilian, but if they do die, I'd value their lives at exactly the same as the soldier.

This is why I (begrudgingly) support the atomic bomb in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They killed people and poisoned the area, but they shortened the war and, in effect, saved more people than they killed. I believe this is a similar situation to DU.

The Earl

How on earth do you come to an idea how many lives have been saved in the antitank phase? You have the conviction that it dwarfs the other problem's probable casualty rate. I do not see that in what we've seen here.

Not even a little. That phase of the war is long since over, I remind you. It was ridiculously short anyway since the Iraqi military and industrial capability had already been ruined by ten years of bombings and blockade. We were essentially walking into the place. Iraq was no Fortress Europe. A fair proportion of our casualties, US ones especially, occurred after that phase was a memory, during the occupation and insurgency phase, wherein tank armor is not the thing we are worrying about.

In the meantime the figures for Kosovo are better than ten times lower than the tonnage of DU in Iraq. Hundreds of metric tonnes of the metal discharged against bunkers and armored vehicles in a country where there was very little armed force and almost no capacity to manufacture and repair equipment, little opportunity to replace troops lost, and so on. A token force, easy to knock down. Brown people, unlike the Europeans in Kosovo. They got ten tonnes there.

There it is. Upon hitting targets it "ignites" the sources say, and it becomes dust. The government sources say a "low" quantity of dust. They concede being in the wrong place is a hazard, and we have anecdotes to show that this was true for some Brit troops, Aussies, Italians, and what-have you. Remember these were Aussies and Brits AT TWO TEST FIRING SITES and Italians and Belgians in Kosovo.

I don't think these fellows with their "nothing new to report since 2002" have been out taking water samples and urine samples in Iraq during a full scale insurgency. Anecdotes about Iraq vets are not available in any place but biased lefty sites and papers. Those are not otherwise being spoken of. I think if you have twenty or thirty times the dust and heavy metal in the soil and water and air you may be reasonably correct to assume at least a fivefold hazard level.

You say here "not widespread and not lingering." Okay for the widespread, but it is localized in population centers. "Not lingering" is not what the sources are saying, either. Quite the opposite. They make a point of emphasizing that it doesn't spread out rapidly from the inital area, in fact. It lingers just fine. It's heavy metal, it's gonna linger.

Read it again. They specify that there should be cleanup efforts made in the Royal Society paper. If that's done, the exposure and sickness levels should be "low." Of course, it's not being done. There are no plans to do any cleanup. We're still having people blown up every day. They're only studying, not cleaning up, in Kosovo. Cleaning up costs money.

Please re-evaluate with less preconception.

 

[TheEarl]

Please re-evaluate with less preconception.

Cant: May I remind you that I was intially in the "DU is bad" camp and have been won over by the arguments and the reports that I have been reading. My preconception was that DU was evil, a war crime and unforgiveable. Please do not make snippy comments about 'evaluating with preconceptions'. I am open to the possibility that my opinions may be erroneous and that I may have something to learn from this debate and I am not impressed by you treating myself and Colly as idiots who are blinded by our biases just because we hold a differing opinion.

A reply to the points you raised will be forthcoming.

The Earl

 

[LadyJeanne]

How on earth do you come to an idea how many lives have been saved in the antitank phase? You have the conviction that it dwarfs the other problem's probable casualty rate. I do not see that in what we've seen here.

Not even a little. That phase of the war is long since over, I remind you. It was ridiculously short anyway since the Iraqi military and industrial capability had already been ruined by ten years of bombings and blockade. We were essentially walking into the place. Iraq was no Fortress Europe. A fair proportion of our casualties, US ones especially, occurred after that phase was a memory, during the occupation and insurgency phase, wherein tank armor is not the thing we are worrying about.

In the meantime the figures for Kosovo are better than ten times lower than the tonnage of DU in Iraq. Hundreds of metric tonnes of the metal discharged against bunkers and armored vehicles in a country where there was very little armed force and almost no capacity to manufacture and repair equipment, little opportunity to replace troops lost, and so on. A token force, easy to knock down. Brown people, unlike the Europeans in Kosovo. They got ten tonnes there.

There it is. Upon hitting targets it "ignites" the sources say, and it becomes dust. The government sources say a "low" quantity of dust. They concede being in the wrong place is a hazard, and we have anecdotes to show that this was true for some Brit troops, Aussies, Italians, and what-have you. Remember these were Aussies and Brits AT TWO TEST FIRING SITES and Italians and Belgians in Kosovo.

I don't think these fellows with their "nothing new to report since 2002" have been out taking water samples and urine samples in Iraq during a full scale insurgency. Anecdotes about Iraq vets are not available in any place but biased lefty sites and papers. Those are not otherwise being spoken of. I think if you have twenty or thirty times the dust and heavy metal in the soil and water and air you may be reasonably correct to assume at least a fivefold hazard level.

You say here "not widespread and not lingering." Okay for the widespread, but it is localized in population centers. "Not lingering" is not what the sources are saying, either. Quite the opposite. They make a point of emphasizing that it doesn't spread out rapidly from the inital area, in fact. It lingers just fine. It's heavy metal, it's gonna linger.

Read it again. They specify that there should be cleanup efforts made in the Royal Society paper. If that's done, the exposure and sickness levels should be "low." Of course, it's not being done. There are no plans to do any cleanup. We're still having people blown up every day. They're only studying, not cleaning up, in Kosovo. Cleaning up costs money.

Please re-evaluate with less preconception.

Thanks, Cant. This is what I meant about not kidding ourselves about the contamination. It lingers. It settles. It seeps into the ground and groundwater, which is where people get their food and water, especially as people still grow their own food, or take it down to the cities' farmers' markets where everyone else buys it from them. We don't know about exposures and sickness levels because they can't afford to test people and perform scientific studies, even if they had the facilities.

People die and no one knows from what because they don't have the medical resources we do. They don't go to a hospital to determine what they're sick from because the hospitals are triage, not cancer treatment centers with labs and chemo. They don't know they have cancer. They just die and are buried and mourned by their loved ones. And they're not part of any WHO or Royal Society statistics because they never talked to a single researcher.

 

[TheEarl]

How on earth do you come to an idea how many lives have been saved in the antitank phase? You have the conviction that it dwarfs the other problem's probable casualty rate. I do not see that in what we've seen here.

Not even a little. That phase of the war is long since over, I remind you. It was ridiculously short anyway since the Iraqi military and industrial capability had already been ruined by ten years of bombings and blockade. We were essentially walking into the place. Iraq was no Fortress Europe. A fair proportion of our casualties, US ones especially, occurred after that phase was a memory, during the occupation and insurgency phase, wherein tank armor is not the thing we are worrying about.

In the meantime the figures for Kosovo are better than ten times lower than the tonnage of DU in Iraq. Hundreds of metric tonnes of the metal discharged against bunkers and armored vehicles in a country where there was very little armed force and almost no capacity to manufacture and repair equipment, little opportunity to replace troops lost, and so on. A token force, easy to knock down. Brown people, unlike the Europeans in Kosovo. They got ten tonnes there.

I'm not actually referring to Iraq at all. The question under debate is not 'Should DU be used in Iraq', but 'Should DU be allowed to be used at all'. In Iraq, I think I'd agree with you. Nothing much in the way of tanks, no real large-scale battles and no long-term fighting. DU should not have been used.

However, take a conflict where the enemy side have tanks and armoured vehicles. You have DU. They do not. If you use DU, then you may end the war quickly by destroying their armoured capability. If you do not use DU, then the war may contain a number of long, drawn-out battles where neither side has the upper hand. Lots of death, lots of destruction, lots of carnage. If (and I do say if) the health risks and contamination from DU usage are as minimal as the WHO and Royal Society reports suggest, then it is obvious that (assuming a cleanup) using DU will lower the total number of lives lost by shortening the war and bringing forward a surrender. Although those in the wrong place may die from side effects of DU, they are outweighed by the number of lives saved by shortening the war.

You say here "not widespread and not lingering." Okay for the widespread, but it is localized in population centers. "Not lingering" is not what the sources are saying, either. Quite the opposite. They make a point of emphasizing that it doesn't spread out rapidly from the inital area, in fact. It lingers just fine. It's heavy metal, it's gonna linger.

Read it again. They specify that there should be cleanup efforts made in the Royal Society paper. If that's done, the exposure and sickness levels should be "low." Of course, it's not being done. There are no plans to do any cleanup. We're still having people blown up every day. They're only studying, not cleaning up, in Kosovo. Cleaning up costs money.

IMHO, entering into war should be done with thought of what's going to happen afterwards. War should only be entered into if you know that that war will make the world a better place and that involves planning for the aftermath. This will involve cleaning up all the toys such as landmines and unexploded ammunition and decontaminating anywhere that has become buggered by lead or DU-tipped missiles.

Obviously, this won't happen as the governments of both of our countries are selfish fuckers. However, that is my belief - going to war fucks up an area. If you're doing it for the sake of 'the people' then you should clean up the mess you've made once you're done.

The Earl

 

[TheEarl]

Thanks, Cant. This is what I meant about not kidding ourselves about the contamination. It lingers. It settles. It seeps into the ground and groundwater, which is where people get their food and water, especially as people still grow their own food, or take it down to the cities' farmers' markets where everyone else buys it from them. We don't know about exposures and sickness levels because they can't afford to test people and perform scientific studies, even if they had the facilities.

People die and no one knows from what because they don't have the medical resources we do. They don't go to a hospital to determine what they're sick from because the hospitals are triage, not cancer treatment centers with labs and chemo. They don't know they have cancer. They just die and are buried and mourned by their loved ones. And they're not part of any WHO or Royal Society statistics because they never talked to a single researcher.

Not meaning to belittle the effect, but so does lead. Landmines screw up the area, as well as unexploded ammunition. Destroying hospitals with 'surgical' strikes or not bothering to control the riots after peace has been declared don't do much either.

War screws places up; it's one of the reasons it is a bad thing. IMHO if we're going to go to war, as big and rich countries, we should clean up after ourselves.

The Earl

 

[LadyJeanne]

Not meaning to belittle the effect, but so does lead. Landmines screw up the area, as well as unexploded ammunition. Destroying hospitals with 'surgical' strikes or not bothering to control the riots after peace has been declared don't do much either.

War screws places up; it's one of the reasons it is a bad thing. IMHO if we're going to go to war, as big and rich countries, we should clean up after ourselves.

The Earl

I agree. My point is that we don't have enough data to determine the long-term effects of DU. We don't know how much worse than lead DU will prove itself to be in the future in terms of genetic abnormalities and cancers. And, as I stated in my original post, I believe it is our obligation as humans to refrain from using something as a weapon if we don't know what its effects will be. If we have no way of determining the long term effects, we should err on the side of caution even if it means we don't have the military advantage it would provide.

 

[neonlyte]

cantdog et al,

I provided those links - without comment attached. I provide the following link with Additional Information updated at February 2005.

Anyone who want to wade through this has my admiration - it is easier than it looks.

Time for me to comment.

Regardless of the rights & wrongs of the wars in the Gulf and the FR Yugaslavia, depleted uranium was used.

The word Uranium carries connatations that transcend the issues of its toxicity in use and residual toxicity after use. If you use Uranium in/as a weapon, people will notice.

There is no doubt that high radiation levels exist at the point of use, little information is available on its effect on humans as the dang thing explodes, people die and get buried.

Anyone who wades through the information supplied will see on 14th April 2003 the US stated it will not 'clean up' DU debris 'as it is not dangerous.' To whom?

It certainly is not dangerous to the combat troops, few show ill effects (according to the studies). It is safe to assume combat and other military personell are advised to avoid unprotected contact with DU debris. This might be difficult, 1 in 5 light light armour piercing rounds are DU tipped, tank piercing rounds are DU tipped, US Dept of Health confirms an estimated 140,000kg of DU ammunition was expended in GW2.

I can find no information at all about civilian exposure or civilian illness other than from sources unverifiable - by this I mean a reporter writing up what he has been told by people in hospitals without recourse to institution, dates, or names.

I am gullible enough to believe the worst. Reasoned arguement tells you some civillians must ingest or inhale uranium particles. It is likely they are unaware of their symptoms until it is too late to use the toxic flushing treatments available to the military.

As we all agree - the residue is not going away.

So why the fuck are the US and UK governments refusing a clean up job?

The reason is quite simple. It costs more to clean it up than the lives of Iraqi cilvilians is worth. Its cheaper to provide medical facilities than vacumn the desert, and, once things settle down, prosperity and the feel good factor will compensate for the loss of a few lives. Finally, uranium poisoning is rarely immediate, symptoms take time to develop, it will not embarrass either Blair or Bush in five years time if the problem assumes a greater magnitude than is being predicted.

It's the morals of economics - they stink like shit and regardless of the semantics of the arguement of war, the US and UK put the shit on the ground and should clean it up or have the guts, for once, to explain the economic logic for leaving it behind. As someone pointed out in one of the articles linked 'DU weapons are an economically viable solution to the disposal of low grade nuclear waste'.

 

[cantdog]

High-level nuclear waste has a future being pulverized on battlefields, then?

I really don't see that I'm treating you contemptuously, Earl. What part of my post struck you that way?