revising my opinion on the war - Page 6 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-24-2003, 01:18 PM   #76
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:36 PM
Klaus,

"I can look for Depleated Uranium Studies if you like"

I've already done that. I suggest you look at Natural Uranium studies since there are more of those. There is no proven evidence that anyone has suffered from the effects of Depleted Uranium. There are allegations, but thats it. If Depleted Uranium was really dangerous, the military would not use it. There are to many easy and good alternative shells in stock such as Tungsten or HEAT warheads. More importantly, Science shows that only in unusual large amounts of consumption would there be any effects. There are soldiers that have depleted Uranium embedded in their bodies and they do not suffer effects.

Depleted Uranium rounds are used all the time in Maryland at the proving grounds. There are no side effects for anyone living on the base there or in the area's around it.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-24-2003, 01:39 PM   #77
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:36 PM
Klaus,

The US military has studied the problem and is trying to reduce the numbers on ordanance that does not explode. But at this time, the military has concluded there is no reason to stop using them. This is not something that is a 100 times greater than your average shell. It is a problem, but at this time, their continued use in warfare saves far more lives than it kills, because it helps to accomplish the objective faster there by ending the war sooner. There are to many people out there they rage about the problem but they don't understand the fact that this is a problem with all explosives.

As far as "bodycount", they rely on second hand sources that are simply other media most likely reporting inaccuratetly the numbers of people killed. Again, I mention JENIN! 7,000 people were not killed at Jenin, but "Bodycount" would have supported a similar figure with its second hand sources. Once a real investigation of JENIN was done, it was found that only 48 civilians had been killed and all were thought to be accidental.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-24-2003, 06:20 PM   #78
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 08:36 PM
If it is harmless why should they reduce it?

It's like the filter cigarettes - the industry said "no our studies show smoking isn't unhealthy" but in the background they developed things to reduce cancer-risk.

Since you can see every single database entry you can make up your own mind how trustworthy that is. I prefer sources like these over statements like "My government tells me there were "x" dead people" - no backgrounddata - nothing.
This works as long as you know you can trust your government. The more they don't tell the truth in public (accidentially or with a intension) the less people listen to their official statements unless they can proof it.
So if you give me a more credible source (including the informations how they created their statistics) I'm happy to compare it to http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 07-24-2003, 08:57 PM   #79
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:36 PM
Klaus,

I never said it was harmless. Accidents happen everywhere, and we should do everything to reduce the probability that they happen. But there is no reason to recall an effective weapon system that is helping to win wars quickly, which saves far more lives than these accidents take.

I would never compare a private company like the cigarette industry to the US military. The US military is there to serve. The Cigarette company is there to make a profit.

If you think "Bodycount" is accurate fine. But they are not on the ground reporting and investigating themselves like the UN specialist did in Jenin. Bodycount may have an accurate estimation of what has been reported in the media. But that is not an accurate estimation of what actually happened, as JENIN proves.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-24-2003, 10:20 PM   #80
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,296
Local Time: 02:36 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Klaus,
There is no proven evidence that anyone has suffered from the effects of Depleted Uranium. There are allegations, but thats it.
Are you a molecular geneticist, STING?

Because if you read the research published on MEDLine (you won't have access unless you're in a bioresearch facility or at a university), you would not really make such bold statements. The data is there and some of it is a hell of a lot more convincing, so much so that I have had multiple professors lecture on it and none of these world class folks have ever said it was mere "allegations."
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 07-25-2003, 02:27 AM   #81
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:36 PM
anitram,

The data for the Uranium miners is widely available. The US government has looked into this multiple times and is indeed concerned about the health of the local population and especially the soldiers. After over a decade of study, there is nothing that has led them to conclude that DU is a serious enough hazard to warrent not using DU. Soldiers from the Gulf War who injested DU and and have parts of DU shells imbedded in their bodies have not suffered any more health problems than similar groups among the uneffected general population. This is not only the US finding by the finding of NATO has a whole.

If DU were a serious problem, it would be easy enough to switch to another shell whether it be with Tungsten, or some other dense core. In addition, shells with HEAT Warheads can be used in the same role as well.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-25-2003, 01:49 PM   #82
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 08:36 PM
Sting2: it's not as easy as you think, DU is much much cheaper (it's nuclear waste) than Tungsten.
All the Studies i tried to find quickly were classified (NATO/US/GB)

But on one page i read the Agent Orange which was used in the Vietnam war was used also the scientists of the US military knew already the bad side-effects - true?.

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 07-25-2003, 04:19 PM   #83
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:36 PM
Klaus,

"it's not as easy as you think, DU is much much cheaper (it's nuclear waste) than Tungsten."

Do you have the difference in cost of a Anti-Armor penetrater with a Tungsten Core as apposed to a Depleted Uranium one?

In addition, every US Tank has a ready supply of Shells that use a HEAT Warhead, which uses chemical energy rather than kinetic energy to destroy targets.

I have seen studies done by the US Army and NATO posted on the internet. I'll have to dig them up again because I can't remember the websites off hand.

The USA and other countries have been using Depleted Uranium for over 25 years now. Plenty of studies have been done over that time period, and the majority of the evidence has not suggested that the USA or any other countries should stop using DU.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-26-2003, 01:57 AM   #84
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 08:36 PM
STING2:

Maybe you can easier get the prices out from your NATO resources, but if not i can quote the people who have written that statement (that DU is much much cheaper, because it is an expensive to store waste of the Atomic Energy)

I am extremely careful with classified studies where i can just hear the result "don't worry" - the health of the soldiers as well as the liberated civilians is too important to just trust studies which are paid by the people who might want to use that stuff just for economical reasons

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 07-27-2003, 05:18 PM   #85
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 11:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Klaus,



I have seen studies done by the US Army and NATO posted on the internet. I'll have to dig them up again because I can't remember the websites off hand.

The USA and other countries have been using Depleted Uranium for over 25 years now. Plenty of studies have been done over that time period, and the majority of the evidence has not suggested that the USA or any other countries should stop using DU.

And the tobacco industry had studies (for many years) that said tobacco was not addictive or even harmful.
__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com