hello everyone who thinks depleted uranium is ok!!

well hello, just me again. if you think depleted uranium is ok to use or think that its safe etc, would you eat some, put some in your mouth or snort it like cocaine?? if its so safe there would be no problem right??

tell me yes or no i'd love to know. if you dare

 

I think DU is safe based on out best research for artillaery shell uses.

I'm not staying online long, so I'd love to point out how irrelevant this argument is.But I don't have the time. I feel cement is appropriate for paving sidewalks, however I wouldn't eat cement. THere is no difference between the arguments.

THis post is asinine.

 

But you don't have to eat depleted uranium for it to be harmful. Breathing it is just as bad. At least concrete is harmless as long as you don't injest it. DU, on the other hand, is harmful to everyone exposed to it. This stuff not only forever pollutes the earth, it is readily spread across the globe through the air to the extent that even WE are breathing it on the other side of the globe. This might explain the suspicious spike in lung cancer over the past 3-4 years in the US alone. If the problem is so bad that it's having an affect on other countries, just think of how bad it must be in Iraq. Grotesque deformities in newborns are now commonplace, and the cancer rates have skyrocketed. It has polluted the Iraqis' air, food and water. But don't expect to hear about any of this on the controlled corporate news.

Soldiers returning home from their tours are also carrying large amounts of depleted uranium, not only on themselves and in their bodies, but on their clothes and belongings as well. This is then passed on to the families of the soldiers, who are then exposed to this stuff.

The US' use of depleted uranium is nothing short of a crime against humanity, and no doubt the earth itself.

Anyone who thinks DU is safe needs to wake up and become informed. Don't let the misleading word "depleted" fool you. Even depleted uranium is still highly radioactive and detrimental to all those exposed to it.

If DU was safe, it wouldn't cause such horrific, ghastly deformities as seen in these pictures below.

 

Like I say, I'm not in the position to deabte right now, I turned 21 yesterday and I've been drinking a bit copiously.

I got many St. Ambroise Oatmeal Stout.. Probaby the best thing to ever come out of Canada.

Posting a few picture of malforemd babies, which is a shkreiking plea, while I've never seen any source if they were from Iraq, doesn't constitute a logical inquiry into the effects of DU.

And I'll enforce this contention much more tommorow, but much of our 'increased cancer rates' involve us becomming much better at recognizing cancer earlier.

Our rapid increase in recognising cancers through the 80's and 90's heas been extensivly documented, while small numbers of DU claims have been somewhat dubiously handled.

But I'll get back to this more later. Take it easy Matt.

 

lodui this is all very interesting but would you eat some? yes or no.

 

Wan't my comment clear homeboy? I tend not to eat chucnks of metal, or anything for industrial purposes. Leads used in bullets and I sure as fuck wouldn't eat that.

If you wan't it very differct, no, I wouldn't eat DU, although there are trace amounts in all natural and organic and stroe bought crops due to levels of U-238 in the soil.

So your argument that DU causes radiological deformities consists of possible photoshopped deformieties of magnlged children from a few tabloids?

Hurt babys are a powerful emotional plea, used when the scientific debate is completly ignored.

DU isn't highly radioactive. It's radioactive, as are human bodys, and is somwhere near the degree of 30% less radioactive then U-238, which i farily plentiful in all dirt. It is much much less radioactive then direct exposure to sunlight, which has been commmon in Iraq long before the caliphate.

Forever pollutes the earth means the metal just stays there for a very long time. Du degradion over billions of years is fairly positive for the enviornment which means it keep the radiation levels very low.

You post mis information with an alarmist view Matt. Lung Cancer deaths in th US have in fact been decreasing.And research shows that toxicity from DU may cause several forms of cancer and birth defects, but lung cancer isn't one of them.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5128204/

You listen to anything anyone wearing tin foil will tell you, and you use misinformation and fear to perpetuate it. The only argument you can come to the contraty with is we don't hear the 'facts' because all information is owned by the corporations/llumanati. And we should listen to men who claim things about mind control serums and lizards running the world.

You seem like a pretty smart guy and you can be pretty funny too, so I don't see why you don't laugh at this stuff.

Once again, horrible deformities are SHOCK news. It would be the same as me finding photography of mass graves, digging them up, and posting them as a justification for invading some other midle eastern nation.

If DU isn't safe? Why sailboats? Are the military trying to conduct radiological war on affluent boaters?

If you want to read a little more of why this doesn't make sense, I posted some in CatStevens thread. I can post some more stuff if you want.

Like I said rat, I'm not trying to come off as patronising, but you do say things that don't hold up to scrutiny, and insist on them by calling the people who disagree sheep and resort to tactics of posting grotesque dubious pictures. It's not civil debate.

 

So you're saying that the pictures were 1) photoshopped, and 2) taken from a "tabloid." I'd like to see some evidence that supports either of these claims. What you are seeing in those pictures are the common characteristics of newborns that were exposed to DU in utero. It is COMMON KNOWLEDGE that those characteristics are indicative of exposure to high levels of radiation. There is nothing photoshopped or made up about it.

DU isn't highly radioactive in a purely radioactive sense, but its radioactive effects are no less damaging to the body when it is exposed to it.

Why don't you provide some evidence that DU is less radioactive than dirt, which is just ridiculous?

You say I am spouting misinformation, as if the mainstream media is actually going to report on this. What they are spouting about DU being harmless is the REAL DISINFORMATION!

If you think DU is harmless, talk to one of the families who lost a son in Iraq from DU poisoning.

 

You fuckin twat - pressed rat - you know that those pictures are the result of American bombing in Iraq - they have fuck all to do with depleted uranium - I've seen them before
dont twist the truth

 

Are you referring to me or to Lodui? I think you mean Lodui, since he's the ones who claims the pictures have been doctored, or are the result of something other than DU.

 

sorry man I got it wrong - I disagree with you and loudi - they are not doctored ant they were not born that way - this is the effects that heat from the bombs have on human tissue

 

No, those are birth defects you see from the effects of the radiation on the fetus.

 

so you refuse to eat du. a wise decision, as scientific bodies can't make their mind up whether spreading nuclear waste is detrimental on man or the environment. you'll find that du is classified as a "low level" nuclear waste. as for boaties - just because someone can afford a yacht doesn't mean they are an expert on du, they probably wouldn't know it was even there. du used to be used as a trimming weight on aircraft but you'll find that this is going out of favour. the problem with du is that it has known toxic effects and has ongoing studies into its suitability for anything other being locked up in safe waste disposal.

ok if you refuse to eat du would you at least consider putting some in your mouth as a lozenge for a couple of weeks? if you want you could even have a plastic coating on it to separate your mouth physically from the material. if its so safe you would have no qualms about doing this - right?

 

hmm... still no takers on the depleted uranium, silence from the usual bunch that sing its praises. i guess when it comes to the crunch it turns out this manna from nuclear heaven isn't everything its cracked up to be.

 

Nobody responded because it was a freaking retarded question.

I wouldn't put DU anywhere near my mouth, because it is both corrosive when in an uncomposite form and toxic.

I was saying not highly radioactive. I wouldn't put poison in my mouth, and neither are Iraqi's. Unless they're wandering up to field where artillery shells have been fired and eating them.

DU isn't safe to ingest or put in your mouth.... Much like lead, which we're using much more. I don't hear anyone bitching about how toxic lead is.

Because people don't eat metal.

Due to the fact that it is corrosive, it is made into composite metal with lead so it won't leak into the soil.

Futhermore, it's use is for artillery shells. Very few artillery shells are being used in urban areas of Iraq, if any. We're simply using amunition.

DU is being taken out of aircraft because in the event of a crash, the metal couldoxidize into a fine powder in a fire, which would spread into local enviornments.

I used bold because apparently you aren't capable of seperating the terms toxic from radioactive.

 

so though unwilling to put it in your mouth even in a shielded way you feel it perfectly correct to spread this nuclear waste on the lands of foreign people and make them put it in their mouths. has it ever occured to you that this material enters the food chain or is literally spread onto the food that people will have to eat. if you are unwilling to take your own medicine then why make it comulsory to make others eat it?

you yourself have admitted that " DU is being taken out of aircraft because in the event of a crash, the metal couldoxidize into a fine powder in a fire, which would spread into local enviornments"

- right if it were so safe this "fine powder" would be fine to be in the enviroment? aircraft companies obviously realised the potential lawsuit.

"Futhermore, it's use is for artillery shells. Very few artillery shells are being used in urban areas of Iraq, if any. We're simply using amunition."

- what makes you so sure that these artillery shells aren't being used in urban enviroment? america invaded iraq because of WMDs - there were none, then they started torturing a heap of people, then they gave up doing this and just got into the business of finishing off the civillian populace because they were the untermenschen, word on the street is that america is lying and will use the means necesasary to take the population of iraq down.

without putting you on the defensive - has it ever occurred to you that you are being lied to? ask yourself the hard questions not the easy ones. despite all the evidence why america is in iraq, what they are doing and how they are doing it, ask yourself if what you are being told by the government is actually true. start breaking down this stuff into bite sized chunks. an old trick of governments is to tell people how good something is - if its so good why do they need to keep telling us its so good?

at the end of the day the real question is why are the americans are in iraq. if after searching your conscience you can really say that whole "aktion" in iraq was necessary and spreading nuclear waste onto good land is good, then i don't really have much more to say to you here. as i have said to other people - just think about it. this is not a battle of wits, it is in many ways a search for what is good and what is bad.

 

My main concern would be to prevent the toxicity from DU. If it we're sheilded, I still wouldn't put it in my mouth because it sounds uncomfortable.

If you we're to pay me to put a sheileded DU lozenge in my mouth, then I would consider it. Although Iraqi's aren't putting metal scraps into their mouth for fun or profit, so I fail to see th relevance of the experiment.

As I stated, DU is corrosive, so it is combined with lead in artillerty shells. Which means it doesn't leak into the enviornment over short periods of time.

It's used in batlefields for anti-tank warfare, which hasn't been common since the invasion began in '03.

Moreover, the logistics of battlefileds in Iraq which Du shells we're used, were in primarially desert reas, not near the Euphrates, which is the principle source of agriculture within Iraq.

I would be more then happy to eat iraqi grown produce. I haven't had the oppurtunity yet, but I wouldn't put shards of metal in my mouth for free because of the obvious discomfort.

The military can face lawsuits too, much more a target then Boeing. The DU can turn into unsafe material when it is burned at high tmperatures as the result of jet fuel brunrning.

That has nothing to due with radioactivity.

Because the point of artilerally shells is anti-tank. There aren't tanks being fromed aginst US military in Iraq.

There are much better way's to conduct civilian warfare the using anti-tank artillery shells. You're political message becomes intertwined with the realism of the military appliacations of DU from here on in. They are incoherent arguments.

When the Iraq invasion began in 2003 I was opposed to it. That has no effect on my scientific research into the effects of DU, which I believe is as safe and more effetive for artllery shells then lead. My research is based on scientific bodies unconnected with the US government, and for all intensive purposes, I contend that DU is safe for artillery shell used. Not to eat.

Who keeps telling us it's all good? You're the one who's quoted dubious sources and not made clear the recognition of radioactivity and corosivness and toxicity, which are real concerns of DU.

That's an entirely different subject then the saftey of DU. I would be willing to debate this, although to not confuse the debate, I suggest making this a seperate thread.

 

just one more thing!

you yourself said that du when used turns into fine dust - then you said that the iraqis wouldn't be eating meatl shards, quite true, they would be eating the fine dust that you have spoken about, the same stuff you are still unwiliing to put in your mouth.

you said you would be uncomfortable about putting some in your mouth as a lozenge what about some fine dust? you still won't put any in your mouth yet you still defend its use and safety with points that i have consistently proven false by you own logic. du may be combined with lead because its "corrosive" but so what if it doesn't form an electrolyte with water and hence "leak" into the environment. a radioactive dust doesn't need to dissolve into water to kill. if i mixed it up with concrete would it make it safer? (or form a compound with another element if you want to get technical). i'd say that if the shell would either be an alloy of nuclear waste and lead, or du (nuclear waste) tipped backed with lead and/or steel.

the relevance of the experiment is that you won't put your money where your mouth is ie if its so safe eat some , put some in your mouth. if you won't it means that its a problem right? by your own admission of not wanting to put it in your mouth or you might consider it if it were shielded, this proves that you don't consider it safe.

du in aircraft, there was obviously something unsafe about the stuff being in aircraft. i'll look into the heat of reaction for du and get back to you on that one. when used to tip shells the du (nuclear waste) reacts with o2 (when striking an object) and crates a burning radioctive liquid spray (due to the fact the temp has melted the substance) which then cools to a solid in the form of dust. the aircraft industry realised the potential for radioactive waste to cover a crash scene and quietly shelved du.

by the way du is not just used for artillery shells it is used to tip the shells of much smaller calibre projectile weapons, the yanks are poisoning the great barrier reef of australia with this stuff at the moment, all thanks to the present government.

you say that du is being used in the desert not agricultural areas, given that the whole war is a lie (a fact already admitted by the politicians who started it) would it not be also be drawing too much of a long bow to suggest that they may be lying about du use? has it ever occured to you that deserts get windy, dust storms etc? has it occurred to you that the planets enviroment is not static? has it occurred to you that this du dust gets lifted from the desert and deposited else where? has it occurred to you that this dust will be eaten? has it occurred to you that hydrochloric acid is used by our stomachs to break down food. being the informed chemist that you are i'm sure that you would immediately realise that this dust would then then probably be broken down in the acid metal reaction like any other metal? god i could go on but i won't.

the political "message" is entwined with du military use because it is sanctioned for use by the government which has sent the army to war. using du weapons is tantamount to using nuclear weapons. radioactive fallout kills too.

anyway i'm off to do better things. in the meantime dust off your chemistry books and get back to me.

 

You're one of those people who thinks flouride is put into toothpaste to control our brains aren't you?

Iraqi's don't eat dust. Of course and DU becomes fine dust when burned, not when expelled from a shell.

And of course it's possible that a small amount might eventaully find it's way into the food system, however considering the earth already has a fairly high concentration of natural uranium, which is much more radioactive, uranium is in our food system too.

You're argument is incoherent. Please do find better things to do then debate, it's not your strong point.

 

Yes I've heard that the U.S. gives depleted Uranium shells to its military. Only to the soldiers in training though and they use them as blanks for rifles, mortar, etc. They say that these depleted uranium shells are completely safe but there is speculation as to how safe.

 

DU is only used for artillery shells because their higher density makes them useful for peircing thicker tank armor.

Artillery shells are primarially anti-tank weapons and are very uncommonly used in the modern Iraq front.The Insurgents don't have tanks.