(Untitled)

[blatantlysilent]

This video is about the use of depleted uranium as ammunition shells.

It's really pretty gruesome...don't watch it if you don't think you can handle it. If you've got an especially weak spot for children, this will upset the shit out of you.

http://www.bushflash.com/pl_lo.html

Comments

[vund]

Depleted uranium is a heavy metal that is also slightly radioactive. Heavy metals (uranium, lead, tungsten, etc.) have chemical toxicity properties that, in high doses, can cause adverse health effects. Depleted uranium that remains outside the body can not harm you.

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.

When fired, or after "cooking off" in fires or explosions, the exposed depleted uranium rod poses an extremely low radiological threat as long as it remains outside the body. Taken into the body via metal fragments or dust-like particles, depleted uranium may pose a long-term health hazard to personnel if the amount is large. However, the amount which remains in the body depends on a number of factors, including the amount inhaled or ingested, the particle size and the ability of the particles to dissolve in body fluids.

The health effects of uranium have been studied extensively for over 50 years. In September 1999 the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry published a Toxicological Profile for Uranium, an update to the original profile published in May 1989. While natural and depleted uranium are considered chemically toxic, they are not considered a radiation hazard.

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.

[daterapestylee]

dude you are so wrong. heavy metal is kick ass music! \m/ \m/

[winteroffensive]

Seeing as how you obviously cut and pasted that, you should source it.

Yeah and that is what the problem is, its internal... from the dust. It said that in the video.

Oh and Iraqi civilians dont usually have BDUs.

[vund]

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil

And if you also read in what I posted, the uranium is not considered a hazard. So unless I am already physically weak (in which I would die anyway) or went out of my way to breath in/eat uranium, it won't kill you. And if you were close enough to have a piece of uranium shot into you, then you were pretty much dead anyway. Depending on the circumstances, you would have to be generally close to an infected area to be guaranteed contaminated.

In 1993, the Department of Veterans Affairs has done medical testing on soldiers who still have retained DU shrapnel within their bodies. Interestingly, their claims indicate no direct threat from DU.

Regardless of whether or not people were 'contaminated,' there is still no proof DU caused the increase in cancer, despite the evidence. And you should note that even before the Gulf War, much of Iraqi soil was already highly contaminated from previous conflicts (e.g. chemical and biological warfare against Iran, Iraqi Kurds).

And if you're going to pull credibility, you can bet that a biased site (whose sole purpose is to make fun of Bush, conservatives, and push for liberal ideas, (nor does it even have a title)) is credible. /sarcasmoff Since bushflash.com is mostly a propoganda site, it is not credible.

Don't get me wrong- I'm not denying this happened. I'm not denying that cancer rates may have gone up in Iraq, Bosnia, etc. But to trust in something where there is no present link is not logical. It is logical to look for a link, but to take action before it's proven is stupid.

It is believed that DU causes cancer. While it is believed, there is no proof. It is not fact until it is proven/disproven. It was commonly believed that stomach ulcers were caused by stress. For years and years, doctors told that to their patients. A few researchers did not believed, and actually disproved it (and they recieved a Nobel prize in medicine recently.) My point is, unless you or someone actually proves DU causes cancer, I'm not going to believe it.

DU is invaluable on the battlefield. To be perfectly honest, I would much rather that our soldiers be safe than hostile Iraqis. It is unfortunate that Iraqi civilians have been killed by cancer by an unproven source. It is wrong to put the 'cost' of civilian deaths into the ethical equation of was using DU worth it?

This is a good site.

http://cseserv.engr.scu.edu/StudentWebPages/IPesic/ResearchPaper.htm

And website ending in .mil, .edu, .org, are GENERALLY dependable. (Keyword: generally.)

And for a more personal question: Do you believe the government and the military have legitimacy? If not, then you should leave the country. Now.

[winteroffensive]

Fuck you, make me leave.

[blatantlysilent]

Yeah, I didn't know anything at all about depleted uranium when I posted that...and I knew that it was certainly biased, and I planned on checking out the credibility of it, but I hadn't gotten around to it yet. Either way, it was something to spark interest in the matter, something to get people thinking.

Legitimacy in general or legitimacy for the Iraq war?

Because I can understand why people would say that the US government is generally legitimate...well, I can't understand it, but I can at least see it...but at this point, to say the Iraq was legitimate is to ignore the facts in a trance of dogmatic patriotism.

[vund]

If a government has legitimacy, then a majority of the people under that government trust it. A good test of legitimacy is how much police a country has or how the police are used. (I'm not talking about crime, although those types of police are related.) United States? Sure, we have police. And lots of them (although more can't hurt =/) because we have a large population. Soviet Russia? Jesus. They had police crawling all over the place. Not just for crime, but for sniffing out people who even consider talking about the government. It's safe to say, countries like the US and the UK have legitimacy.

Usually if a government has legitimacy, and you believe in the government, then you believe in most of the government's actions. A lot more people supported the war (and Bush) when it first happened and now the government has started to lose legitimacy because the media has drilled into the public's mind that it is an utter failure (which it's not.) Bascially, the same thing happened in Vietnam.

I would say the government has legitimacy in general, but is losing legitimacy for the Iraq war.

I personally believe in both the government (in most cases) and the Iraq war. I've noticed that the left media (the majority of the media) never NEVER says anything good that happens in Iraq. It's always that soldiers were killed, suicide bomber, hostage taken, etc. Only recently have they shown anything about the progress of the Iraq police, but still downplay it everyway they can. I'm saying the media can influence a lot of the legitimacy in a nation. The only way for TRUE legitimacy is to have a government-sponsored news station that is HONEST (pshh, like that will happen.)

Is it unfair to say that the media partially controls legitimacy? I don't think so. I think if the media said only positive things about the war,(instead of its negative) then more people would support the war. The reason most people hate the war is because they only hear bad things about it.

[blatantlysilent]

If you want to talk about how the police are used, I would say that that's a pretty fair indicator that the general legitimacy of the country is falling as well as the legitimacy of the Iraqi war. And of course the war wasn't a failure...US companies control the oil and US government controls the Iraqi government. That was the idea. I seriously doubt that they ever planned on removing troops from Iraq...the war wasn't meant to end. The idea is occupation.

Before you start talking about a leftist media, realize what a leftist is. If you're talking about CNN or something, they're not leftist. They're centrist at best. Same with a majority of the Democratic Party. There is not a "liberal" media bias, there is only a less conservative media bias. There are those like Fox News, who many times don't even report real information and shouldn't even be called a news program, and then there are others who take a more realistic (emphasis on "more") perspective.

[vund]

They're not liberal! They're just less conservative!

Hah, I'm sorry, I just thought that was a funny way to put it. =P

But if you're going to talk about saying that FOX News doesn't report real information, all media outlets are guilty of that. All claim they don't, and all claim everyone else does. It comes down to what stations you believe. (Gasp! BELIEVE?!) <----believe, there's that word again.

While I could vaguely see the United States occupying Iraq for a while, I don't support your conspiracy theory. What evidence is there to suggest that?

[blatantlysilent]

Well it's true! Most everyone has never seen liberal media before in their lives.

I don't really buy into television news stations, because they're all corporate stations, so they report information from a corporate point of view. That's all there is to that, really. I do read the New York Times, and that's all the mainstream news I'll look into. Other than that, I favor independent media over mainstream media.

It's not really a conspiracy theory, I was exaggerating. I just imagine them being there for a really long time, like they were with Haiti. And they're always going to keep United States troops there...I mean, there are still troops in Vietnam. And Korea, too, right? You would probably know that better than I would.

[vund]

While there are troops stationed in other countries, they don't control the government. They are there to extent the capabilities of the military- just in case. Let's say we were to go to war. (*cough*Iraq*cough*) If we had a military base in the general area (*cough*Saudi Arabia*cough*) we would already have a head start, and that would allow US forces to assemble much faster, or provide an immediate attack with the forces already there.

[blatantlysilent]

"It is believed that DU causes cancer. While it is believed, there is no proof. It is not fact until it is proven/disproven."

I fail to see how this justifies using it. If there is ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL that the shit causes cancer and deformities, it's use should be stopped. Immediately.

"But to trust in something where there is no present link is not logical."

You mean like Saddam and al-Qaeda?

Also, the gulflink.mil page or whatever seems to have a different outlook than the other link you posted. Gulflink says pretty much "It's insignificant, don't worry about it." Where the other one says "There is a substantial amount of evidence that the shit is dangerous, and if there is depleted uranium dispersed here anywhere we usually take measures to remove it."

[vund]

Like I used in my example. It was believed that stress caused stomach ulcers. Doctors told their patients to drink milk and relax. In reality, bacteria causes stomach ulcers. What I'm saying is that, sure, you can take steps to try and solve the problem, but it doesn't mean you're doing it the right way.

"You mean like Saddam and al-Qaeda?"

HEY! THAT WAS NOT MY DECISION! 0.o

But then by your logic (saying that you should take action before a solid link is established, I'm under the impression you're defending that stance since you dissaprove of mine,) it was believed that Saddam had WMD's and was an immediate threat to the United States and/or the interests of the United States.

Mostly, I put that first site as my source. The gulflink.mil stresses that there is not link between increasing cancer rates and using DU. I thought it generally supported my argument. The other site I liked because it gave both sides to the argument- and that people would be able to make a decision for themselves (although it leans towards NOT using DU.)

[blatantlysilent]

Well, the point I was making was that by your logic, going into Iraq in the first place was wrong because there was no actual proof (nor was there even evidence) about Saddam having anything to do with the 9/11 attacks. And if that was your thinking, I'd agree with you.

The difference is this--if you're going to go to war, you need to have not only substantial, but indisputable evidence that what you say you're going to war for is true. But, if you're using a new kind of ammunition and then notice suddenly that cancer and deformities (AMONG CIVILIANS) rises, you should stop using the ammunition--ESPECIALLY if evidence exists against it--until you know for sure that the ammunition you're using is not what's causing the new problems.

So, in short, if you're going to have a reason to kill people, make it a damn good and damn true reason, but if you're going to help people (or at least harm them less), then act first and figure it out later.

[vund]

Yes, by the logic saying that you need indisputable evidence before going to war, going into Iraq was incorrect.

If it were me personally, I would have gathered more evidence. But in the present, it is hard to gain concrete facts. The only thing our government can do is gather evidence, and take action based on the evidence (which they did.) The Iraq war seemed like a good idea at the time (to the government.) However, their ideas have proven incorrect (or simply, not proven right...yet.) What I meant by my argument (that there needs to be facts,) is that I think DU should still be used. There is too much of a benefit for the US military to pass up. (I'm not contradicting myself, I'm being very careful in stating my position so that it seems that way.)* But at the same time, it all comes down to whether or not you can compare the lives of Americans vs. Iraqi civilians. I certaintly value the lives of my countrymen over Iraqis, and I bet Iraqis feel the same way. Hurting civilians is indeed wrong, but our military is going to worry about itself first, then others. It's not that it's being selfish, it's simply acting in the best interest of it's own entity and the country is represents.

*There is no proof (despite the coincidence of using DU) that DU caused the increase in cancer. It could be some other reason (not being ignorant of the situation, simply considering other possibilities.)

Despite the belief (however false it was) that Saddam had something to do with the 9/11 attacks, that was not the only reason. It was believed Saddam had possession of WMD's and was an immediate threat to security. Russian, American, British, and French intelligence suggested that. I would have to say the intelligence of those nations are pretty sophisticated.

I'm not saying it ok to gamble lives and large sums of government money, but to be honest- would you rather the United States gone into Iraq and found nothing, or the United States NOT gone in and there be WMD's?

Hopefully I got my ideas across without seeming too self-contradictory:

I would not have gone to war without more evidence or proof.
I believe we should use DU until there is concrete proof that it causes cancer.
Killing civilians is wrong. (If it is proven that DU causes cancer than it should be stopped.)
I'd prefer the safety of American troops/civilians over Iraqi troops/civilians.
Roger Moore > Sean Connery
The Intelligence of several world powers decreed that Iraq was in possession of WMD's and was an immediate threat to security, the US acted upon it.
I would rather the US gone into Iraq and found nothing, than to miss the opportunity and severely pay for it later.

Hopefully I didn't forget anything...

[blatantlysilent]

I personally never understood valuing one human life over another based simply on the country from which they're from. I think nationalism can be pretty dangerous, and I think history proves me right. It just gets people killed, and a lot of them.

Define WMDs for me. Like, once and for all. I know it's not limited to nuclear weapons, but what counts? We all know Saddam had biological and chemical weapons, because he got them through arms deals with the United States. Are those included under the "WMD" umbrella?

I still think that DU should be put aside until they're sure it DOESN'T cause cancer and shit. And I still think that, with all the UN inspections, there was insufficient reason to go to war. If you noticed, the reasons for war changed as stuff kept falling through...They didn't find WMDs, so suddenly Saddam was in part responsible for 9/11. There were no apparent ties to Saddam and the attacks, and people realized it, so suddenly it was Operation Iraqi Freedom. I just think it's an interesing trend.

Sean Connery is way better.