Depleted Uranium (DU) Weapons

I'm not sure that this is accurate. There is no question in anyone's mind that DU can be toxic. There IS, however, a certain amount of question as to whether how the risks have been portrayed is accurate and what the risks actually ARE. But you're right about one thing, the absolute civilian risk of unexploded cluster bomblets and mines - not to mention other ordinance - is orders of magnitude more significant.

Hmm, my link didn't show up.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/362543.stmDo you not think that 5,000 times the acceptable level might constitute heavy metal poisoning?(and yes, I do campaign against cluster bombs and landmines).------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Yes, of course, I should have been clearer. DU is highly toxic and mildly radioactive. The question though is not whether the substance itself is harmful, but whether it's use represents a significant risk to the civilian population. On this point there are conflicting reports.

Well of course it would. No-one has disputed that. The discussion is not, however, as one sided as you seem to think. Or do you think that WHO are deliberately distorting the evidence? While I would have no faith in reports from the American or British military I consider the WHO, in general, to be a trustworthy organisation. There is also the report Dr Cresswell cited on civilian DU use which also points to low risk to consider.Having said that I think our militarys should be considerably more circumspect in their use of weapons with such a debatable health record, until clear evidence either way is well established. Quite frankly when fighting troops as hopelessly out-classed as the Iraqi's or the Taliban I see no clear reason for us to employ any such weapons.

WHO's report deals with the risk of ingestion of DU from contaminated areas after the conflict ends. It does not address the situation that led to people like Dr. Rokke's contamination, which is being in the location of the incineration of DU armor/munitions before it has settled. We used DU in Baghdad during this conflict - don't you think it's unfair to pretend that that isn't giving its residents a quite significant health risk?Chemical warfare was banned because of the long term, debilitating suffering that it causes to its victims that survive. Heavy metal poisoning is no different.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

No, that's not true. WHO's report also looked for any increase in related health problems following the use of weapons. This would show up any risk from being in the vicinity as the weapons were used.

Check this informative flash about depleted uranium: G.W. BUSH- THE THIEF, THE LIAR - ANTI-WARThe pictures are undoubtedly from Hiroshima/Nagasaki, but the effects are essentially the same.Also note that tungsten alloy ammunition can reach equal penetration characteristics (or even better) as depleted uranium ammunition, but tungsten is much more expensive; depleted uranium is practically free. Great Britain, France and Germany all use tungsten alloys in their anti-tank ammunition - US prefers DU simply for its price.[This message has been edited by Exel, 02-08-2004]

---

God did not create man. Man created God.