[Clavius]

We aren't using nuclear ordnance.

What's this then?
Depleted uranium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's munition, made from nuclear waste. Proven to be a very carcinogenic agent.

Since 2001, medical personnel at the Basra hospital in southern Iraq have reported a sharp increase in the incidence of child leukemia and genetic malformation among babies born in the decade following the Gulf War. Iraqi doctors attributed these malformations to possible long-term effects of DU, an opinion which was echoed by several newspapers.[75][104][105][106] In 2004, Iraq had the highest mortality rate due to leukemia of any country.[107] The International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons (ICBUW) has made a call to support an epidemiological study in the Basra region, as asked for by Iraqi doctors,[108] but no peer-reviewed study has yet been undertaken in Basra.
A medical survey, "Cancer, Infant Mortality and Birth Sex Ratio in Fallujah, Iraq 2005–2009" published in July 2010, states that the "Increase in cancer and birth defects…are alarmingly high" and that infant mortality 2009/2010 has reached 13.6%. The group compares the dramatic increase, five years after the actual war 2004, or exposure, with the lymphoma Italian peacekeepers [109] developed after the Balkan wars, and the increased cancer risk in certain parts of Sweden due to the Chernobyl fallout. The origin and time of introduction of the carcinogenic agent causing the genetic stress, the group will address in a separate report.

A term that the Vietnam people used to refer to US soldiers comes to mind. I shall refrain from repeating it though.

What part of deterrence do you not understand?

A. When deterring people aren't supposed to get hurt.
B. Deterrence is what cause the cold war.

Deterrence theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have yet to address what a terrorist sponsor nation such as Iran plans on doing with such ordnance.

Same thing as the US maybe? Again, as Iran hasn't ever used nuclear weapons yet, they have even MORE right to own them, then the US.

I guess you forgot about Iraq and there Skud missile attacks.

Yah, you had a lot of trouble coping with all those skud missile impacts in America.

[Blue]

What's this then?
Depleted uranium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's munition, made from nuclear waste. Proven to be a very carcinogenic agent.



A term that the Vietnam people used to refer to US soldiers comes to mind. I shall refrain from repeating it though.



A. When deterring people aren't supposed to get hurt.
B. Deterrence is what cause the cold war.

Deterrence theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Same thing as the US maybe? Again, as Iran hasn't ever used nuclear weapons yet, they have even MORE right to own them, then the US.



Yah, you had a lot of trouble coping with all those skud missile impacts in America.

Depleted uranium isn't nuclear ordnance. It is used in arty to knock out armor. It is safer to use that in the 105, 155 etc to knock out a tank or apc than have those in your face. An enemy tank is proven to be very dangerous to your health. You won't live long enough to get cancer. Taliban and Alq. aren't concerned about environmental conditions and such things.

As far as your Vietnam stuff goes, there are also some Vietnamese Americans that could tell you a few things about the Viet Cong and N.V.A. They made us look like Boy Scouts.

No nuclear war heads have been detonated. As far as the Cold War goes, there were other sides to it like the Soviets. They own Chernobyl. Of course you think the Iranians are better at it.

You are naive regarding the potential of Iran providing nuclear weapons to terrorist factions. That or a closet sympathizer.

Skud missiles were lobbed at our military camps in Kuwait.

Edit: Depleted Uranium

http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q746.html

[Clavius]

Depleted uranium isn't nuclear ordnance.

It gives off nuclear radiation. And I wasn't talking about the cancer danger for the US soldiers. I was talking about the systematic spreading of carcinogenic agents to affect the civilian population, long after the battle.

Why don't you just try to read it first:
Depleted uranium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A warcrime within a warcrime:
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va

As far as your Vietnam stuff goes, there are also some Vietnamese Americans that could tell you a few things about the Viet Cong and N.V.A. They made us look like Boy Scouts.

Ohw, they were supposed to just let you waltz in there then? The Vietnamese fought a colonial war, to take back their country.

[Blue]

It gives off nuclear radiation. And I wasn't talking about the cancer danger for the US soldiers. I was talking about the systematic spreading of carcinogenic agents to affect the civilian population, long after the battle.

Why don't you just try to read it first:
Depleted uranium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A warcrime within a warcrime:
Depleted Uranium: A War Crime Within a War Crime



Ohw, they were supposed to just let you waltz in there then? The Vietnamese fought a colonial war, to take back their country.

You are trying to argue that depleted uranium arty ordnance is nuclear warheads. You are wrong. I gave you a non-wikepedia and non-propaganda link above, why don't you try to read it.

Furthermore, I wasn't talking about why the Vietnamese war was fought. Nice dodge there. We call that kind of dodge the Texas side step. The Viet Minh were fighting a Colonial War with the French. Then it turned into a Communist takeover. Unlike, South Korea, the South Vietnamese Gov. wasn't up to the task and they got some unlucky breaks along the way. The "Waltz" comment by the way was ignorant. Plus, it wasn't a U.S. only "policing action."

The Boy Scout comment wasn't about the military fighting, but about the atrocities. You know, cutting children's arms off because they had been vaccinated?

[gokenin]

Potential Effects of Exposure to Depleted Uranium

In the kidneys, the proximal tubules (the main filtering component of the kidney) are considered to be the main site of potential damage from chemical toxicity of uranium. There is limited information from human studies indicating that the severity of effects on kidney function and the time taken for renal function to return to normal both increase with the level of uranium exposure.
In a number of studies on uranium miners, an increased risk of lung cancer was demonstrated, but this has been attributed to exposure from radon decay products. Lung tissue damage is possible leading to a risk of lung cancer that increases with increasing radiation dose. However, because DU is only weakly radioactive, very large amounts of dust (on the order of grams) would have to be inhaled for the additional risk of lung cancer to be detectable in an exposed group. Risks for other radiation-induced cancers, including leukaemia, are considered to be very much lower than for lung cancer.
Erythema (superficial inflammation of the skin) or other effects on the skin are unlikely to occur even if DU is held against the skin for long periods (weeks).
No consistent or confirmed adverse chemical effects of uranium have been reported for the skeleton or liver.
No reproductive or developmental effects have been reported in humans.
Although uranium released from embedded fragments may accumulate in the central nervous system (CNS) tissue, and some animal and human studies are suggestive of effects on CNS function, it is difficult to draw firm conclusions from the few studies reported.

WHO | Depleted uranium

From the WHO no way you can claim that as American propaganda, we sure as heck have no control over the UN

[ihasa]

Yes and doesn't that just get your goat!

[pickles]

That's another one in the same league: "We didn't know that was going to happen." Sure...

But when are you finally going to comment on the US still using nuclear munition today, even though you said they stopped that after the atrocities at Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

More of your absolute & utter nonsense....I suppose you learned this in school too?
YOU chose to ignore, how many Allied & Japanese (if that is at all important to you) lives were saved in WW11 by dropping two nuclear weapons....if you haven't read that....well do so....unlike your "fantasies", it is FACT.
It is also a FACT, that sinse that time, the U.S, has not used any Nuclear stuff in anger.
It is also a FACT, that after the War in the Pacific was won, the U.S. was virtually responsible for the "rebuilding" of Japan......and oh yes, once again.....if you didn't realize this....from your history books...America was NOT the aggressor.......they also paid a pretty fair part in the liberation of your country too......or didn't you "read" that either......or in the absense of the U.S., would you have preferred to have existed under the 3rd Reich.....or even the USSR?.....well, would you?
Sure, the U.S. ain't perfect, but it sure has a lot more credibility than you do.
Adapt a more sensible, balanced approach......and you may be able to achieve a reasonable level of cerdibilty.....but I doubt it.
My parents lived in England during WW11. I now live in Australia, & I know VERY WELL my friend what would have been the fate of both of these countries, were it not for America....but,....DO YOU?
Cheers, Pickles.

[Wheatfield]

Potential Effects of Exposure to Depleted Uranium

In the kidneys, the proximal tubules (the main filtering component of the kidney) are considered to be the main site of potential damage from chemical toxicity of uranium. There is limited information from human studies indicating that the severity of effects on kidney function and the time taken for renal function to return to normal both increase with the level of uranium exposure.
In a number of studies on uranium miners, an increased risk of lung cancer was demonstrated, but this has been attributed to exposure from radon decay products. Lung tissue damage is possible leading to a risk of lung cancer that increases with increasing radiation dose. However, because DU is only weakly radioactive, very large amounts of dust (on the order of grams) would have to be inhaled for the additional risk of lung cancer to be detectable in an exposed group. Risks for other radiation-induced cancers, including leukaemia, are considered to be very much lower than for lung cancer.
Erythema (superficial inflammation of the skin) or other effects on the skin are unlikely to occur even if DU is held against the skin for long periods (weeks).
No consistent or confirmed adverse chemical effects of uranium have been reported for the skeleton or liver.
No reproductive or developmental effects have been reported in humans.
Although uranium released from embedded fragments may accumulate in the central nervous system (CNS) tissue, and some animal and human studies are suggestive of effects on CNS function, it is difficult to draw firm conclusions from the few studies reported.

WHO | Depleted uranium

From the WHO no way you can claim that as American propaganda, we sure as heck have no control over the UN

You are quoting a WHO report that is nearly a decade old. There is a growing body of evidence pointing to DU residue in areas where it has been used on the battlefield as being responsible for health problems. The stuff is, at the very least, a heavy metal. We banned the use of lead in gasoline and paint due to heavy metal toxicity, it's rather odd to deny that uranium wouldn't be toxic as well.

[gokenin]

Yes and doesn't that just get your goat!

I assume that this is Commenting on my comment about the UN? If it is no not really the UN is an organization that makes grand claims without the power to back it up, it is a blazing example of rule by committee and why it doesn't work in practice. It lives on the charity of countries to provide it with money and forces to enforce its random rulings. So no it doesn't "get my goat" that the UN is an independent ineffective organization.

[gokenin]

The SCHER adopted this opinion at its 7th plenary on 18 May 2010 after public consultation

Measured concentrations of DU in environmental samples - Specific concerns have been raised regarding human and environmental exposure to DU in areas where DU ammunition has been used. A detailed assessment of such potential exposures has been performed in Kosovo (Danesi et al., 2003b; Salbu et al., 2003; UNEP, 2001), Serbia- Montenegro (McLaughlin et al., 2003), Bosnia and Herzegovina (UNEP, 2003), Kuwait (IAEA, 2003; Salbu et al., 2005) and Iraq (Gerdes et al., 2004; IAEA, 2009). Residues of DU ammunitions have also been detected in military proving grounds (Sowder et al., 1999). Concentrations of DU in areas with intensive use of DU ammunition in Kosovo varied from a few mg DU/kg soil at depths of 40 cm up to about 18,000 mg DU/kg soil close to the surface. Some small spots contained hundreds of thousands of DU particles in a few milligrams of soil. However, despite the reported huge variability in DU concentrations, in most (80%) of the soil (core) samples, 238U was lower than 100 Bq per kg soil (the lowest was 8.8 Bq per kg soil), even in locations with intensive use of DU ammunitions (Papastefanou, 2002) (table 7). Other studies did not observe the presence of DU in soil samples collected randomly all over Kosovo (Uyttenhove et al., 2002).
Very low concentrations of DU were detected in plant material (bark, lichens, mosses). DU was mostly absent in water samples (Di Lella et al., 2004; Popovic et al., 2008), with very low concentrations of DU detected only in a few samples. The detection limit in water was 0.22 mBq/L for U-238 and U-234 and 0.022 mBq/L for U235 and U-236 (Jia et al., 2006; Jia et al., 2004). In general, the concentrations of DU detected in environmental samples in areas with intensive use of DU ammunition, except for very localized hotspots, was much lower than DU concentrations predicted by scenarios based on assumed releases of DU from military activities and conservative assumptions. It should be noted that even soil concentrations of DU estimated with a conservative scenario (6 mg DU/kg) are within the typical concentration range of natural U in soil (UNEP/UNCHS, 1999).

Since DU has a much lower radioactivity as compared to natural U and U-containing ores, it is generally agreed that the chemical toxicity of U is the major hazard descriptor regarding assessment of health risk due to potential exposures to DU (UNEP, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2007; UNEP/UNCHS, 1999; WHO, 2001, 2003b). SCHER agrees with this concept. Therefore, the toxicity data on natural U can be applied to assess DU since the chemistry and the chemical toxicology of isotopes are identical. Human health risk due to chemical toxicity and radiation from U and DU only occur when the uranium is ingested or inhaled.
The human toxicity of U is comparatively well studied; the major target organ for soluble U salts is the kidney. Both in rodents and in rabbits, repeated administration of U with drinking water gave NOAELs or LOAELs of 60μg/kg bw/day based on subtle histopathological changes in the kidney. These NOAELs/LOAELs have been transformed in tolerable daily intake for natural U with an uncertainty factor of 100 to give a TDI of 0.6 μg/kg bw per day. Since DU shows an identical toxicity to that of natural U, this TDI is also applicable to DU.
As alpha particles emitted from DU have a very limited range in tissue, DU is not a significant external radiation hazard. Therefore, health effects expected from external radiation caused by DU are limited to unrealistic direct skin contact scenarios. Intake of DU from the environment after use of DU ammunition could not be demonstrated and environmental concentrations of DU, except very close to deposited penetrators and tanks hit, are very low. SCHER therefore agrees with the conclusion of UNEP, IAEA and others that environmental and human health risks due to a potential widespread distribution of DU are not expected due to the very limited exposure to DU as compared to background exposures to natural U (EU-EURATOM, 2001; UNEP, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2007; UNEP/UNCHS, 1999; WHO, 2001, 2003b). Higher exposures to DU dust will only occur when entering vehicles hit by DU ammunition shortly after the hit, and in combat situations when in close proximity to a tank hit by DU ammunition. Therefore, vehicles hit by DU should be made inaccessible to the general public and be properly disposed. Used DU ammunition should also be collected and properly disposed.

In case you wanted something newer than the WHO report wheatfield

[Medium FormatPro]

Plus, it wasn't a U.S. only "policing action

But america lied & made up a complete set of false stories (The Gulf of Tomkin incident) to get america more fully involved in Vietnam. Yet another lie to cause americans to lose their lives for nothing.

It seems that most american citizens realy get in an uproar and beat the war drums when the united states government comes up with their version of a press release; most of which are never challenged. It's almost like; Oh look Antartica attacked us and only we have proof, but here is our version of the story to back it all up. You must believe your government and lay down your life for your contry; and do so without question.

Sure that sounds unbelieveable, but it happens all of the time. It hapened in Vietnam, it happened in Korea, in Iraq, and even today continues in the middle east. Now it is happening with Iran. Even wonder why??

Again here are the facts... IF Iran does continue with their nuclear program take a guess at how many weapons they will be able to produce within the net five to en years - and what the yield of those weapons would be? Then take a guess at what weapon delivery programs they have available for a weapon of that physical size. Perhaps we should shed more american blood for nothing.