nike shoes,men's nike shoes,women's nike shoes,
nike football shoes,nike shox shoes, men's nike shox, women's nike shox, nike airmax shoes, nike airmax 180, nike airmax 2003, nike airmax 2009, nike airmax 360, nike airmax 87, nike airmax 88, nike airmax 89, nike airmax 90, nike airmax 91, nike airmax 90, nike airmax 95, nike airmax 97, nike airmax tn, nike air stab shoes, nike air yeezy shoes, nike airmax ltd, Air Jordan 1 , Air Jordan 10 , Air Jordan 11 , Air Jordan 11.5, Air Jordan 12 , Air Jordan 13, Air Jordan 14 , Air Jordan 15.5, Air Jordan 16, Air Jordan 17, Air Jordan 18, Air Jordan 19, Air Jordan 2.5, Air Jordan 20+AF1, Air Jordan 23, Air Jordan 24,Air Jordan 25, Air Jordan 3, Air Jordan 4, Air Jordan 4.5+13 Fusion,Air Jordan 5, Air Jordan 6, Air Jordan 6+AF1 Fusion, Air Jordan 7 , Air Jordan 8 , Air Jordan 9, Air Jordan Embroidery 4.5, Air Jordan Fusion 11+23, Air Jordan Fusion 12, Air Jordan Fusion 23, Air Jordan Fusion 5, Air Jordan Gold, Air Jordan Fusion 9, Air Jordan Six Mixed One, Air Jordan Three Mixed One, Air Jordan+Obama 11.5, Jordan Six Rings+Obama, Air Jordan Six Rings 11, Jordan True Flight

Posted by: any at June 25, 2009 02:30 AM

Yes, DU is harmful. Despite the
swift and decisive victory achieved in Operation Desert Storm, at least one fourth of the nearly 700,000
U.S. military personnel who served in the war have experienced a complex of difficult and persistent
health problems since their return home. Illness profiles typically include some combination of chronic
headaches, cognitive difficulties, widespread pain, unexplained fatigue, chronic diarrhea, skin rashes,
respiratory problems, and other abnormalities. (This is quoted from the Executive Summary check the VA website for the Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans' Illness report http://www1.va.gov/RAC-GWVI/) many have similar symptoms to the Iraqi population. Many of their children also have birth defects. The situation is similar in Afghanistan. Most veterans whose children were born without limbs, etc. are still in the military so they can get good, affordable medical assistance for their children, and are unlikely to speak out against the war or DU.

Posted by: Joe Dyck at March 13, 2009 12:57 AM

It was my pleasure to visit your blog. It is really a mirecle to visit your blog in this wide world. And I also have the feeling that it was really a pity that we didn't meet each other earlier. Because the kindness and warmth in your blog can make me completely relaxed and happy. I hope that you will visit my blog too to see if you can have the same feeling.

afake rolex watch replica shoes

http://www.lowestmall.com
http://www.easyforbuy.com
http://www.ecforshop.com
http://www.gomykick.com
http://www.onestoptown.com
http://www.rolex8u.com
http://www.watchinstyle.com
http://www.yourshop.cc
http://www.instylewatch.com
http://www.sellbestshoes.com
http://www.buynikeshoes.com
http://www.PICKHANDBAG.COM
http://www.PICKMYWATCH.COM
http://www.PICKTHEBAG.COM
http://www.ROLEXWATCHFORU.COM
http://www.REPLICAWATCHFORU.COM
http://www.wearmyrolexnow.com

Posted by: replicashoes at October 23, 2008 09:32 PM

rolex replica watches

Posted by: rolex replica watches at August 25, 2008 01:59 AM

replica watches

Posted by: replica watches at August 25, 2008 01:52 AM

fake watches

Posted by: fake watches at August 25, 2008 01:47 AM

I tired the tiger, although only get the little warhammer gold, I would not move, I was scared die.

Posted by: warhammer gold at August 18, 2008 03:56 AM

You can also buy kal gold, to allow you to buy the necessary items!

Posted by: kal gold at August 18, 2008 12:34 AM

30 can play around the ancient city of the strange upgrade, remember that every 10 to replace equipment, or behind the strange not to KO you. Maybe do you need rose zulie!

Posted by: rose zulie at August 18, 2008 12:33 AM

Now in one after another to conquer the new BOSS, Unlimited fun, a lot of fun, makes the World of Warcraft Gold lot, a lot of experience.

Posted by: World of Warcraft Gold at August 18, 2008 12:31 AM

it is necessary to have Final Fantasy XI gold .So，Whether or upgrade to complete the task in the high-grade and more than low-grade rare.

Posted by: Final Fantasy XI gold at August 18, 2008 12:30 AM

Equipment uniformity, although many props FF11, although costs FFXI Gil, I still prefer that the items in Diablo 2 set，So that each person has their own unique equipment (whether good or bad).

Posted by: FFXI Gil at August 18, 2008 12:27 AM

Equipment uniformity, although many props FF11, although costs FFXI Gil, I still prefer that the items in Diablo 2 set，So that each person has their own unique equipment (whether good or bad).

Posted by: FFXI Gil at August 18, 2008 12:25 AM

So I need to buy FFXI gold! I deeply appreciate collect missing a pair of long suffering people killing (originally End of the lateness of the hour, the low levels so people do not laugh).

Posted by: FFXI gold at August 13, 2008 09:09 PM

Of course must be having kal geons, because what is needed equipment! Archer Series: archers from a distance with bow and arrow attack enemy forces.

Posted by: kal geons at August 13, 2008 09:06 PM

Opened a trumpet, then let a friend to help turn the point rose zuly, (Price Guia, not to buy equipment to buy, build, when not sent to the 2 million, 200 million, not 20 million).

Posted by: rose zuly at August 13, 2008 09:04 PM

I played wow 2 years later, from beginners, just to find task, fight with BL,until crying want to have wow gold, I play fast WOW 2 years, from the beginning has the task of finding everywhere, and the other players (BL), fighting together, cried shouted want towow gold, and then to the TBC.

Posted by: wow gold at August 13, 2008 09:03 PM

Equipment uniformity, although many props FF11, although costs FFXI Gil, I still prefer that the items in Diablo 2 set，So that each person has their own unique equipment (whether good or bad).

Posted by: FFXI Gil at August 13, 2008 08:59 PM

rolex replica watches - $98 swiss , we don't sale replica watches.The Art of E-commerce

Posted by: replica watches at August 5, 2008 09:09 PM

No longer, I met a boy, he help me earn goonzu gold and teach me use them to change for goonzu money. We get a good relation each other, we became good friends, at the last days, we build team to kill enemy and buy goonzu gold. I forgot my boy friend. I think he forgot me, too. I hadn’t pull out in it when he came back to find me.

Posted by: goonzu gold at August 5, 2008 08:47 PM

I thought my husband who married in game was very kind, he always sent the goonzu online gold to the new that started to played the game. Perhaps the reason I like him. However our reins last long time, I was so sad at beginning. But the game is only the game, like the cheap goonzu gold. It had no worthiness.

Posted by: cheap goonzu gold at August 5, 2008 08:41 PM

At beginning , you are a poor, but don’t worried, the style of game give you a little habbo credits, it is very cheap, you can use them to buy equipment, you can use this equipment to exercise the rank, when you get to a certain rank valid, you don’t need the equipment, you should buy the better equipment. This time, you need the habbo gold.

Posted by: habbo credits at August 5, 2008 08:24 PM

At beginning , you are a poor, but don’t worried, the style of game give you a little habbo credits, it is very cheap, you can use them to buy equipment, you can use this equipment to exercise the rank, when you get to a certain rank valid, you don’t need the equipment, you should buy the better equipment. This time, you need the habbo gold.

Posted by: habbo credits at August 5, 2008 08:22 PM

If anyone could send me som information of DU for my science research for my gcses it would be graetly appreciated!
LAURENxo@hotmail.co.uk

Posted by: Lauren at February 27, 2008 09:43 AM

There is a reason why there is a call for the ban of DU weapons through out the world. Birth defects and cancer rates in Iraq have been skyrocketing since 1991, do a little research. The DU is in the soil, water and in the people involved in the Iraq wars. THat contamination is there for centuries and the bottom line is if you were raising your family in that country I don't think you would be likely to support the use od DU. Setting aside the fact that you would be in the country that is being occupied.

Posted by: Mark CAN. at April 10, 2007 11:09 AM

http://blip.tv/users/view/aliveinbaghdad

^ this is what many claim DU's legacy is

Posted by: stephen s at August 5, 2006 07:35 PM

One other responder wrote: “There are plenty of (military) studies with regards to the effects of Depleted Uranium. At least those effects on our soldiers. There were a decent number of our troops exposed to burning DU during the first gulf war. (Usually via friendly fire: One of our DU penetrators destroying a DU armored tank.) Amongst those tank crews, and emergency responders, there didn't seem to be any serious health issues. (Link: http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du_ii/)”. That is wrong and part of the dis-information game implemented by the infamous March 1991 Los Alamos directive (http://www.traprockpeace.org/twomemos.html). Out of over 113 individuals who survived DU friendly fire incidents, over 300 who were involved in recovery operations with absolutely confirmed DU exposures requiring medical care and testing and thousands more who were should have received care per U.S. Army medical orders the Department of Veterans Affairs physicians only tested 270 individuals in 14 years according to the VA’s Gulf War Review, volume 13, number 1 page 12 (www.va.gov). Sadly, DOD officials told President Bill Clinton’s staff during September 1998 that they had only notified less than 120 individuals that they absolutely required testing and care for known DU exposures. The health problems that have been diagnosed include respiratory, neurological, gastro-intestinal, cancers, dental, eye, rashes, kidney, fibro-myalgia, birth defects, reproductive, and of course too many have died. Some scientists complete desktop calculations to determine probability but forget about reality. Although respiratory problems and rashes were the first observed medical effects the first cancers started within 9 months of initial exposure and deaths from lung cancer within 3 years. Sadly that continues. The reality is that our health problems started within 24- 48 hours of exposure and still persist today. Although Army medical directives require a radio-bioassay within 24 hours of exposure it does not occur and prompt and effective medical care has been, is being, and will be denied even though it has been and is still required by published orders and regulations. Also because medical care is mandatory for all U.S. DU casualties then that medical care should be provided to all other military and especially all civilian casualties.

Doug Rokke

Posted by: Dr. Doug Rokke at February 24, 2006 02:34 PM

I found the comments regarding use of and consequent adverse health and environmental effects of depleted uranium interesting. I believe that there is a need for clarification. (1) DU kinetic energy munitions are solid rods of uranium. They are not tipped or coated. (2) the “ADAM” and “PDM” DU sub-munitions (land mines) and bunker busters have a uranium casings and are filled with high explosive. (3) Cancer is only one of the many documented- diagnosed- adverse health effects from DU contamination exposures. (4) Dr. Al Marshall, Sandia Labs, did not review actual reports or include findings of (a) the Gulf War 1 3rd U.S. Army DU team, (b) the findings or background information of the U.S. Army Environmental Policy Institute report, (c) the findings of the U.S. Army Depleted Uranium project, (d) the actual medical records showing documented adverse health effects for actual DU casualties (including myself), and (e) hundreds of other essential Army documents. (5) Sadly, Dr. Marshall never talked to any of us who were actually involved with DU clean up efforts, the Army’s DU project, or DU medical care while ignoring U. S. Army Regulation 700-48 requirements as he prepared his Sandia report on depleted uranium. (6) DU munitions are extremely effective, have been used, are being used, and will be used against all hard and soft targets. (7) USAF pilots flying A10’s have destroyed apartment buildings, houses, water treatment plants, and sanitation facilities in Iraq. (8) Abrams Tank and BFV gunners have shot up all kinds of targets.
As the U.S. army officer, health physicist, who (a) cleaned up the DU mess following Gulf War 1, (b) wrote numerous reports, (c) was the U.S. Army Depleted Uranium project director, and (d) is a confirmed DU casualty with a 40 % VA disability I have attempted for years to ensure that Army, DOD, VA, and NATO officials provide already mandatory medical care to all DU casualties and complete mandatory environmental remediation. Simply:

U.S. and British military personnel continue using illegal uranium munitions- America's and England's own "dirty bombs" U.S. Army, U.S. Department
of Energy, and U.S. Department of Defense officials while denying that there are any adverse health and environmental effects as a consequence of the manufacture, testing, and/or use of uranium munitions to avoid liability for the willful and illegal dispersal of a radioactive toxic material - depleted uranium. They arrogantly refuse to comply with their own regulations, orders, and directives that require United States Department of Defense officials to provide prompt and effective medical care "all" exposed individuals [Medical Management of Unusual Depleted Uranium Casualties, DOD, Pentagon, 10/14/93, Medical Management of Army personnel Exposed to Depleted Uranium (DU) Headquarters, U.S. Army Medical Command 29 April 2004), and section 2-5 of AR 70-48]. They also refuse to clean up dispersed radioactive Contamination as required by Army Regulation- AR 700-48: "Management of Equipment Contaminated With Depleted Uranium or Radioactive Commodities" (Headquarters, Department Of The Army, Washington, D.C., September 2002) and U.S. Army Technical Bulletin- TB 9-1300-278: "Guidelines For Safe Response To Handling, Storage, And Transportation Accidents Involving Army Tank Munitions Or Armor Which Contain Depleted Uranium" (Headquarters, Department Of The Army, Washington, D.C., JULY 1996).
Specifically section 2-4 of United States Army Regulation-AR 700-48 dated September 16, 2002 requires that:
(1) “Military personnel "identify, segregate, isolate, secure, and label all RCE" (radiologically contaminated equipment).
(2) "Procedures to minimize the spread of radioactivity will be implemented as soon as possible."
(3) "Radioactive material and waste will not be locally disposed of through burial, submersion, incineration, destruction in place, or abandonment" and
(4) "All equipment, to include captured or combat RCE, will be surveyed, packaged, retrograded, decontaminated and released IAW Technical Bulletin 9-1300-278, DA PAM 700-48" (Note: Maximum exposure limits are specified in Appendix F).
The previous and current use of uranium weapons, the release of radioactive components in destroyed U.S. and foreign military equipment, and releases of industrial, medical, research facility radioactive materials have resulted in unacceptable exposures. Therefore, decontamination must be completed as required by U.S. Army Regulation 700-48 and should include releases of all radioactive materials resulting from military operations. The extent of adverse health and environmental effects of uranium weapons
contamination is not limited to combat zones but includes facilities and sites where uranium weapons were manufactured or tested including Vieques; Puerto Rico; Colonie, New York; Concord, MA; Jefferson Proving Grounds, Indiana; and Schofield Barracks, Hawaii. Therefore medical care must be provided by the United States Department of Defense officials to all individuals affected by the manufacturing, testing, and/or use of uranium munitions. Thorough environmental remediation also must be completed without further delay. I am amazed that fourteen years after was asked to clean up the initial DU mess from Gulf War 1 and over ten years since I finished the depleted uranium project that United States Department of Defense officials and others still attempt to justify uranium munitions use while ignoring mandatory requirements. I am dismayed that Department of Defense and Department of Energy officials and representatives continue personal attacks aimed to silence or discredit those of us who are demanding that medical care be provided to all DU casualties and that environmental remediation is completed in compliance with U.S. Army Regulation 700-48. But beyond the ignored mandatory actions the willful dispersal of tons of solid radioactive and chemically toxic waste in the form of uranium munitions is illegal (http://www.traprockpeace.org/karen_parker_du_illegality.pdf) and just does not even pass the common sense test and according to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, DHS, is a dirty bomb. DHS issued “dirty bomb” response guidelines, http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/fr-cont.html
, on January 3, 2006 for incidents within the United States but ignore DOD use of uranium weapons and existing DOD regulations. These guidelines specifically state that: “Characteristics of RDD and IND Incidents: A radiological incident is defined as an event or series of events, deliberate or accidental, leading to the release, or potential release, into the environment of radioactive material in sufficient quantity to warrant consideration of protective actions. Use of an RDD or IND is an act of terror that produces a radiological incident.” Thus the use of uranium munitions is “an act or terror” as defined by DHS. Finally continued compliance with the infamous March 1991 Los Alamos Memorandum that was issued to ensure continued use of uranium munitions can not be justified.
In conclusion: the President of the United States- George W. Bush and
The Prime Minister of Great Britain-Tony Blair must acknowledge and accept
responsibility for willful use of illegal uranium munitions- their own
"dirty bombs"- resulting in adverse health and environmental effects.
President Bush and Prime Minister Blair also should order:
1. medical care for all casualties,
2. thorough environmental remediation,
3. immediate cessation of retaliation against all of us who demand compliance with medical care and environmental remediation requirements,
4. and stop the already illegal the use (UN finding) of depleted uranium munitions.

References- these references are copies the actual regulations and orders and other pertinent official documents:
http://www.traprockpeace.org/twomemos.html
http://www.traprockpeace.org/rokke_du_3_ques.html
http://www.traprockpeace.org/du_dtic_wakayama_Aug2002.html
http://www.traprockpeace.org/karen_parker_du_illegality.pdf
http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/fr-cont.html
http://cryptome.org/dhs010306.txt

Doug Rokke

Posted by: Dr. Doug Rokke at February 24, 2006 11:39 AM

I happened upon this site while trying to answer a question on DU reports. I noticed some discussion about the news clip on the work I did on depleted uranium. A couple of comments addressed the statement that the average risk of lung cancer was about 7%. The commenters pointed out that this is misleading because virtually all of the lung cancer risk results from smoking. These commenters are 100% correct, and the comment taken out of context is misleading. The news article followed a very lengthy discussion with a reporter. My principal cancer risk comparison was with an average fatal cancer risk of 24% from all causes and for all types of cancer. During the interview I discussed the fact that most lung cancers were caused by smoking. The reporter warned me that what would be printed would be very brief and would not include all of the qualifiers I had discussed. In the interest of getting information out to the public, I agreed to the interview even though I realized that a complete explanation would not be possible.

Most of the comments at this site are very good. I suggest that you download the full report "An analysis of uranium dispersal and health effects using a Gulf War case study, SAND2005-4331. This report contains all of the information necessary for an independent peer review. I also included much discussion to help the non-scientific reader. Hope this helps.

Al

Posted by: Al Marshall at February 6, 2006 09:01 PM

I always think its hilarious how protracted the argument surrounding the dangers of depleted uranium are. Anyone here have formal physics education? Anyone know about the nuclear fuel cycle and and what "depleted uranium" is? It's metal left over from reactors that contains U236 and U237 isotopes and is very dangerous. How dangerous? The thing is you can't know that for sure because the amount of various materials varies. You want you hard science? It's sitting right under your nose.

It's because of this smattering of isotopes that the Uranium has a pyrophoric nature. Also it smashes into particles that evade gas masks and although the US Dept or Energy hasn't rated it as a health hazard, they probably should when it comes to military use. The thing is when it's solid it's not too dangerous and ironically can be used for radiation shielding.

Is it dangerous? Hell yes! Are you gonna die standing next to it? No. Does pollution from it's use as a weapon create great radiological risk when it's delivered in the form of micro-particles? Undoubtedly. However in my opinion once the particles have been dispersed into the environment they should pose decreased risk compared to what many opponents say, because our bodies and those of other life forms are already suited to disposing of trace amounts of uranium anyway. But should the U.S. use such a material when it will be obselete in a few years compared to nano-diamondoid materials? I think that the entire idea was foolhardy, and I kind of understand why you conservative Americans stick your heads in the sand instead of actually reading up; it's a scary subject. Permanent damage has a way of taking all the fun out of war (awwwww.). But seriously, I'm glad DU will become obselete soon as I would never want to live on the same continent as a DU littered battle ground.

Posted by: Jim at December 10, 2005 12:55 AM

CK thanks for the link. plenty to chew on... good to see that the reasearch is being done, even if the public health studies will take longer, and will be harder to nail. Meanwhile I know I'm glad that DU round haven't been fired off in my neighborhood!

Posted by: KC at November 23, 2005 05:54 PM

KC,

There are plenty of (military) studies with regards to the effects of Depleted Uranium. At least those effects on our soldiers. There were a decent number of our troops exposed to burning DU during the first gulf war. (Usually via friendly fire: One of our DU penetrators destroying a DU armored tank.) Amongst those tank crews, and emergency responders, there didn't seem to be any serious health issues. (Link: http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du_ii/) And due to DU's Pyrophoric nature, they were likely inhaling a non-trivial amount of burning DU particles. There are also plenty of soldiers with embedded DU fragments. (shrapnel from our penetrators or armor) Again, no significant health effects.

That being said...the US uses a -LOT- of DU. The first Gulf war looks like ~300 tons of DU. 50 of which were tank penetrators that will basically burn when hitting armor, due to the pyrophoric/self sharpening nature of DU. (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2003/03/mil-030314-dod01.htm) The second gulf war probably used several hundred tons as well. (Per http://www.defensetech.org/archives/000518.html, we burned through 75 tons via A-10 fire alone) I'm unaware of what sort of studies are involved with the effects this might have on the native population. Introducing several hundred tons of heavy metal into the environment could possibly be a problem. Especially those rounds that burned upon impact. Relatively short contact with DU really isn't a problem -- our own troop studies show that with confidence. But havng DU particles contaminating the air, food, and water supplies might be. (In a chemical sense, likely not a radiological one)

It's understandable that we don't know too much about this. We probably don't have worthwhile baselines for countries that we invade. Furthermore, it may take quite some time for the health affects to make themselves known. (10 years isn't a terribly long time for some conditions to be readily apparant) Furthermore, it's hard to pin a problem solely on DU, when there are so many other health risks on the modern battlefield: Any number of ugly materials are burning, leaking, or exploding. Drinking groundwater contaminated with regular old tank fuel might not *sound* as scary as DU, but I'd bet it's just as big risk, if not moreso.

--Chris Karel

Posted by: Christopher Karel at November 23, 2005 10:16 AM

well if you're saying that nonsmokers have a 7+ percent chance and that is what raises the populations' average, then DU is not going to take the average person from <1% to 8.5 percent. it's going to take them from <1% to about 2% AFAIK.

I'd think it stacks on top of the average, instead of instantly bringing everyone up to the new average regardless of other issues, magically.

iirc, depleted uranium has a half life of some 3.5 billion years. that means that nearly half the uranium 238 that was present at the beginning of the earth is still around. the threat from radioactivity from it is practically nonexistant, but like other people said, it causes heavy metal poisining.

of course, so does lead, and we throw that around by the ton, and have done so for centuries, so I wouldn't be that concerned about the long term effects. we should be more concerned on preventing unnecessary casualties, which can be done by winning quickly, and decisivly.

Posted by: Max at November 22, 2005 10:28 PM

We've known that DU does not pose a significant radiological risk. This has been well established for a long, long time -- I'm pretty sure it was well known when the ordinance was under development in the early '80s. Not sure why another skeptic seeing the obvious is press worthy.

We've also known that the remaining issue on the table is the heavy metal toxicity of DU, especially when it turns to dust and gets dispersed into the environment. That is a very real risk, and we cannot judge that risk with simple physical analysis.

These rounds have been used for over a decade. Were they first used in Kuwait, or were they used earlier? In any case, we should have compiled at least a decade's worth of data from Kuwait, as well as a few years wotth from Bosnia.

Where are the population studies from these battle zones?

Posted by: KC at November 22, 2005 08:59 PM

While I personally continue to think that DU rounds are probably worth the risk, the use of statistics cited in the article is misleading, at best. Claiming a 7% lung cancer rate for the US population is not really honest. Almost all of that 7% comes from smokers and those with other extraordinary exposure to carcinogens. A normal, non-smoking person has almost no chance of developing lung cancer. So, for a non-smoking solider (if there are any), the risk goes from <1% to 8.5%. That's not trivial.

Both sides of this discussion have an obligation to be honest with each other, and distortions like this serve neither side well.

Posted by: ATLDave at November 22, 2005 01:43 PM

As I'm looking at these articles, I see a trend from the doubters - do we really need DU-tipped rounds, how do we know that the DOD isn't lying about the risk, and what's the long-term threat to the environment. I'm not going to answer all of these questions in full, but can make some observations.

Do we need DU rounds? Well, our military is spoiled in the way that we believe in getting the best stuff and lots of it - DU rounds are amazingly effective and tungsten is rarer, so of course we're going to want the cheaper, as effective solution. US military believes in overmatching and beating the enemy, not in a fair fight. Fair fights are for naive idiots.

Is DOD lying about the risk? Well. JimGoodfellow,
the degree of danger poised by DU rounds is not open to dispute. Any risk can be measured and quantified, that's what the Sandia guy did. The analysis should be open to review, the only dispute comes in when there's been questionable assumptions or calculations. For instance, when you say that a nonsmoker has a near-zero chance of lung cancer, I would openly question that assumption, since I know there are many people that get lung cancer from second-hand smoke and other environmental pollutants.

As for long-term exposure, there are lots of official independent reports that talk about the issue of DU exposure, they're in the DOD link in the article. Alpha radiation isn't really a threat unless you eat the DU chips, WW. As many have already noted, it's the heavy metal exposure that's bad, so yes, someone should clean up the battlefield and wear a respirator while they do so. Whalla! no more hazard. But in any case, what Marshall suggests is a 1.5% increase in your chances to get cancer. That's pretty minimal, especially if you're a military person. Lots of other toxic stuff out there, and that's why we have a medical department that's interested in preventive medicine and tracking the health of deploying troops.

It's all about risk management, folks. DU is legal, it's safe, it's very effective, and we're going to keep using it as long as it busts up tanks and armored vehicles.

Posted by: Jason at November 22, 2005 01:23 PM

The need for DU is highly disputed. When you look at the huge overmatch between current DU APFSDS rounds and the armor in use in Iraq, you really have to wonder why tungsten wasn't used instead. No toxic waste, no arguments about radiation.

Now, if we were up against late-model Russian tanks it might be another matter, but using DU to shoot up T-62s and buildings is questionable.

Posted by: Wembley at November 22, 2005 12:10 PM

One of the problems with defense reports is that Defense department often releases a report that says that x is not true only to a few days later release another report taht x is true.

Any truthful reports get buried by the others.

War kills and pollutes and that is a fact. The degree of danger left behind by DU is open to dispute.

Take this quote "The average U.S. adult faces a 7 percent lifetime risk of death from lung cancer, Marshall notes. That number might climb to 8.5 percent in a person who breathed a heavy dose of uranium dust, Marshall estimates."

The risk of lung cancer to a non smoker is almost zero. If these stats are correct, and I cannot confirm them with a quick google, they can only apply to smokers. So the quote appears to be misleading. Taking the risk to a civilian from war debris from zero to 7% is significant.

It is sorta like saying that because war is less dangerous than driving, it is a good thing as opposed to driving.

Posted by: JImGoodfellow at November 22, 2005 09:59 AM

I worked in the manafacturing plant that made thes DU.rounds.we had two radioactive monitor badges at all times,very seldom did anyone get what was called" hot",which was the max.amount of safe exposure.The company was Nuclear Metals in Concord,Ma. these rounds were or are used in the M-1 Tank ,A-10 Tank Killer,and the Navy in there anti missle ship defense,this is all common knowledge.The characteristics of depleted uranium bullets are amazing,they were the most effective material we had to use against enemy armor.They are used in war and using the best saves American troops lives. They ate up Saddams tank force in Desert Storm which proves that. If these critics want to whine about the (non documented)cancer risk ,if they are really concerned about cancer why don't they lobby together against cigarettes and fight to get the biggest cancer causing agent around out lawed.It seems that no matter what the subject is some people just have to whine long before they do any research which proves them to be fools.Why not do some research into what is making our vetrans sick over there or is that asking too much?

Posted by: charles at November 22, 2005 09:49 AM

Brian: The anti-armour performance of DU is undisputed, and I imagine it's an incredibly useful weapon on the battlefield.

However I do take issue with your assessment of the danger of DU dust. I agree that the radiological hazard is low, but as JR posted above, uranium is a toxic heavy metal.

Take lead for instance. Radioactive? No. Would you be happy if your kids were ingesting lead dust? I'd hope the answer would be no.

Posted by: Geoff T at November 22, 2005 04:35 AM

We use DU because it's the baddest stuff on the planet at penetrating armor. If we fired a tank shell made out of steel, it'll bounce off the armor of any tank made since the middle of WW2. Tungsten works okay, but DU is better. DU has the added advantage that we've got tons of it laying around, while we import tungsten from China (the US doesn't have large reserves of tungsten).

DU is the byproduct of Enriched Uranium (needed for nuclear bombs and nuclear reactors). We put uranium in a cyclotron, and once we've finished spinning the stuff at incredible speeds, we get both Enriched U (where most of the radioactivity is contained) and DU (which emits less radiation than the microwave in your kitchen). Standing next to large amounts of DU is less dangerous than getting an X-Ray at the dentist.

The problem with DU is that when it hits a hard target, microscopic pieces flake off in the form of dust (this is actually wonderful for penetrating armor, because the sabot actually "self-sharpens" when it hits, by having the edges flake away). This dust still emits very low amounts of radiation. So if you go eating DU dust (which will be all over the destroyed tank you just shot), you'll get dust in your system that is giving off alpha particles--and since alpha particles can't even penetrate a piece of paper, that means they're sticking around in your lungs or stomach. Still, the danger is minimal. Anyone whose tank is shot by a DU penetrator has more to worry about than breathing dust that will increase their risk of cancer in 15 years, and DU gives our troops such a huge advantage on the battlefield, most are willing to risk the minimal cancer risk (safety tip: do not lick destroyed enemy tanks) in exchange for virtually 100% guaranteed success in a firefight. The US has taken to burying destroyed enemy tanks to prevent kids from playing in them in times of peace. But honestly, the kids run a higher risk of death from old refrigerators than they do from DU dust.

Posted by: Brian at November 22, 2005 12:03 AM

I don't really know about the DU round but I would bet the projectal has somekind of coating to prevent ingestion that burns off "on the way"
Yes I'm an old soldier retired after 24 yrs. Stan

Posted by: stan at November 21, 2005 05:49 PM

I have to disagree with J.R. DU is derived from uranium that has been separated into the isotopes usable for fuel and weapons and less fissionable isotopes. It still spontaneously fissions, but slowly. The hazard is actually two-fold. There is a toxicity, but there is also a radiation hazard from the alpha particles. They have very little penetrating power (ironic!) but are extremely damaging to lung cells or if ingested and incorporated into a cell.

Posted by: WW at November 21, 2005 03:26 PM

The big problem with DU is that you can't have a rational discussion about it. People hear "uranium" and immediately think of three-eyed fish, radiation, and nuclear hazards. The real problem with DU is its heavy-metal toxicity. Like lead or beryllium or cadmium, fine uranium dust is very harmful when inhaled, and can cause all sorts of nasty side effects -- but not because of radiation.

Separating DU's dangers from your average reader's understanding of uranium is an uphill battle.

Posted by: J.R. at November 21, 2005 02:09 PM

In passing, folks, let's try not to feed the troll.

Posted by: TheMasterTimekeeper at November 21, 2005 01:25 PM

@Gregg, thanks for clearing that up for me.

Posted by: Bob NL at November 21, 2005 01:09 PM

Uranium pentrates armor much better than most other metals, due to its extreme density and hardness. If you can't get through a tanks armor, the people inside won't be dead, simple as that.

Posted by: Gregg at November 21, 2005 12:57 PM

why would a government doctor claim that DU is dangerous when it would open the government to criticism? check out some documentaries and non-governmental studies of DU and read for yourself about the terrifying damage it exacts -- or you can trust people that use banal cliches like "left wing lawfare."

Posted by: yoni at November 21, 2005 12:56 PM

I can understand the use of WP in a breaching or "flushing out" situation from a tactical point of view, but i cant seem to figure out what the perpose is of depleted uranium-tipped munitions. A bullet is a bullet and dead is dead, why the uranium??

Posted by: Bob NL at November 21, 2005 12:34 PM

It's good to have some real science to examine in the highly emotional discussion surrounding this topic. what debate??? its not illigel and neither is white phosphorus. end debate. its just more left wing 'lawfare' (yawns).

Posted by: Shep UK at November 21, 2005 12:16 PM