Here's one we can't shrug off

[GingerV]

I'm honestly sure how it's having its effect. I think the radiation damage from decaying radioactive particles causes genetic damage. The uranium itself may act as an antagonist. I'm not a cancer specialist, so I'm not sure where the tumor proliferation is coming from (way out of my field). Based on the stuff I was reading about the illnesses they're looking at, it seems to have effects both on the generation that injests the stuff (various cancers etc) as well as chromosomal damage that causes the birth defects. So it looks like 6 of one and half a dozen of the other?

Hopefully, you'll get a better answer soon, I'm curious to know the answer too....or reask the question and I'll see what I can dig up.

G

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

The DU issue aside (yeah I know I sound heartless saying that but *shrug*), I think the whole thing says a lot about Americans in general. We like to think of war as a game, something we can use to feel good about ourselves as "winners". If the country is winning and no one you personally know is dying or having their lives affected, then there is a feeling of patriotism that makes your dick all hard and shit.

We as a country like to bandy around our winner status, yelling at the French for losing WW2 after fighting two world wars primarily on its own soil and having its main defenses flanked and bypassed. We like to emphasize how we won by coming in at the end after the Russians and Brits spent some time resisting and spreading their forces.

Overall, in this winner in the video game of war as we like to see it, we don't want to think about what war is. The reason we are able to do this is we haven't fought any wars on American soil since the Civil War. We've been minorly attacked twice since then, but we haven't fought a war. We haven't seen cities being reclaimed block by block, the desperation as bombs destroy your friends as you huddle with your family, haven't struggled against a foreign occupier.

Thus, anytime something shows us some sign of the devastation that the true face of war is, we turn a blind eye and decry those that show it as harbringers of "losingdom". It is the same angry cry of a man whose erection has been killed by a phone call bearing bad news about STDs.

So people die and we cheer. Yea War, yea Ares, conquer, place the bloody entrails upon our nation's organ and always keep your eyes closed.

 

[OldnotDead]

The histerical link and stories of malformation is another example of attempts to get people all worked up about something based on non factual representations.

Depleted Uranium is not some new invention. In 1958 private companies were already in the business of extracting and working with the by products of nuclear refining and the resulting heavy metals.

Photocopy toner was one application of such work.

Armor piercing ammunition another. Heavier than lead and not as soft, the spent uranium represents an interesting advance over copper and steel jacketed shells. This ammunition is not cheap, nor is it plentiful. To represent that everywhere guns are fired or bombs are dropped that depleted uranium is present is not accurate.

Pesonally, as mentioned already, I think the direct damage done by ALL instruments of war is reason enough to try and avoid it. Once engaged, however, I would prefer that my soldiers, sailors, aviators and marines all have the advantage when it comes to weaponry.

 

[cantdog]

OnD

They are getting the advantage of the increased punch of the DU rounds.

They are actually sharing the poison of the dust, as well. Certain sites were particularly likely to make people sick and cause kidney damage. Not just for our own American troops but also for those of other countries who moved into those same sites. Initially denying the nature of the problem and preparing to sweep it under the rug, the DOD was stopped by two doctors in Germany who received the patients and recognized what the symptoms meant. Another physican in the US advocated testing of ALL returnees in the unit and all who had been stationed nearby where they were stationed. The DU dust in kidneys and lungs especially seemed to the stateside person to be the culprit.

So fine. Ignore the clear threat of illness for the Iraqi populace.

You still ought to support the troops by ceasing to advocate writing the problem off. Sick is sick. Let them get their treatment and let's try to prevent others (and just American others if that's how you feel about it) from getting the same sicknesses.

You will find sources denying the DU issue, and you will find they are DOD sources. Agent Orange, and the Gulf War Syndrome of the first Iraq war received the same reaction from DOD. That's because it would cost taxpayers money and cost it out of DOD's budget.

Support the troops, OnD, and add your voice to those who demand returnee testing and appropriate treatment.

I find it reprehensible that you are trying to confine the debate to the direct impact of the DU rounds, when in fact it is the indirect impact, on enemy and friend alike, which is the point here. Maybe if the returning troops found there was treatment available instead of official denial, and cleanup of the poisoned ground to prevent more such casualties, the public at large would be less willing to make videos like the one you call hysterical, and less likely to believe them.

cantdog

 

[OldnotDead]

OnD

They are getting the advantage of the increased punch of the DU rounds.

They are actually sharing the poison of the dust, as well. Certain sites were particularly likely to make people sick and cause kidney damage. Not just for our own American troops but also for those of other countries who moved into those same sites. Initially denying the nature of the problem and preparing to sweep it under the rug, the DOD was stopped by two doctors in Germany who received the patients and recognized what the symptoms meant. Another physican in the US advocated testing of ALL returnees in the unit and all who had been stationed nearby where they were stationed. The DU dust in kidneys and lungs especially seemed to the stateside person to be the culprit.

So fine. Ignore the clear threat of illness for the Iraqi populace.

. . .

Support the troops, OnD, and add your voice to those who demand returnee testing and appropriate treatment.

I find it reprehensible that you are trying to confine the debate to the direct impact of the DU rounds, when in fact it is the indirect impact, on enemy and friend alike, which is the point here. Maybe if the returning troops found there was treatment available instead of official denial, and cleanup of the poisoned ground to prevent more such casualties, the public at large would be less willing to make videos like the one you call hysterical, and less likely to believe them.

cantdog

I'm not suggesting that we ignore the problem. I'm suggesting that such an histerical site does nothing to promote an intelligent discussion about the very real issues involved.

As you point out, the primary source of statistical, scientific analysis is Defense related because it is the military that is most concerned about the issue. But just because the military has reported on the research does not necessarily taint it.

http://deploymentlink.osd.mil/du_balkans/

This is a summary of a multi-national investigation into the issue and represents our DOD's assessment of the risks involved. It is probably one of the better ones because being Balkan oriented, the report summarizes reports from not only our assessors, but a number of other countries that contributed a lot more total troups than ours.

In addition to the military sponsored reports, there are also reports from the United Nation's and World Health Organization's investigations. The reviews include reports on both site investigations of targeted areas as well as follow up health analysis of troops. The Balkans reviews are our best source of data because no one group did all the research and the different organizations had access to each others' information.

Several countries did do the follow up testing you suggest and found no elevated readings or higher incidences of suspected illnesses. Our own military has specifically targeted 90 or our own personnel that were exposed through some friendly fire incidents to provide the best information about personal exposure and effects. Some of the information from that report as well as comments about the above efforts can be found here:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~stgvisie/VISIE/du-briefing-15-3-2003.html

There is at least one veterans group that disputes these findings and continues to press for compensation.

No, I was not attempting to confine the debate. I was merely pointing out that such histerical appeals are, in my opinion, not helpful. I'm sorry you find my approach reprehensible. I've always preferred reason as the best place to start what is a very emotional discussion. But if you truly believe that we are engaged, as the site wishes to represent, in a nuclear war, then I can accept that you would find it reprehensible that I dispute that.

 

[cantdog]

OnD

Hysterical video worked this time. It started an intelligent debate. Not the best way? You see any other way working, lately? You felt, perhaps, an urge to begin with reason? I thought not.

I'm sure the 10-ton Balkan data is better studied than anything in Iraq where forty times the amount was used. I figure forty times the contamination produces a different set of results, too. Hooray for the Balkan data. Now let's look at the place where the DU really is, instead.


cantdog

 

[shereads]

Have you got a forty-year old watch or clock with luminous markings?

You mean the glow-y one that burned a hole in Aunt Pearl's wrist, the year before she grew the extra thumbs?

Is that watch valuable?

 

[shereads]

Hysterical video worked this time.

Extremists tend to be the people who get things done. Say what you will about PETA, for example; without their efforts, "Not Tested On Animals" would never have become an added-value marketing tool, and a majority instead of a minority of cosmetics companies would still be cutting the eyelids off of rabbits to make burning the eyes with chemicals more convenient. PETA can be faulted for lumping medical research and frivolous research together as one topic, but thanks to PETA people at least debated the merits of each and most of us decided that a new mascara formula wasn't worth the price of torturing animals.

Greenpeace, ditto. It took hysteria and stunts to create sufficient consumer awareness that "dolphin safe" became a label designation that people look for on canned tuna.

The women's movement became popular because of "bra-burning feminists," not inspite of them. The Civil Rights movement in the U.S. would never have drawn much notice without the willingness of a few people to break the law, so they could be arrested and sue to change the law.

It's unfortunate that reasoned, wholly rational appeals to our better nature don't typically accomplish very much. The creators of hysterical videos know us better than we know ourselves.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Depleted Uranium slugs shred tank armor. While DU dust might kill a serviceman years from now, the 120mm cannon and coaxil MG's of a tank will save him from having to worry about it if he runs into one still functional in the here and now.

As a weapon of war DU makes other platforms such as the A-10 and M-1A1 significantly more leathal. That's war at it's most basic level, defensive value vs. penetrating value. This constant struggle drove the invention of Armor from the Curiass & hauback of the midevil knight to the MBT, from Oak planking to battleship steel at sea. The armorer's art is always tested by the latest in pentrating power.

Shock video, based on nothing or based on the latest scientific findings isn't going to alter that. As long as the armorer cannot produce an armor that will stop DU slugs, they will continue to be used. As soon as they are rendered only nominally effective in achieving penetration, the gunmakers will have to come up with something else. That's a battlefield reality.

-Colly