Comments on: Happy Veterans Day?

By: spaz Zapper

spaz Zapper — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 07:10:37 +0000

Bird Brain: your name is apt.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 05:17:35 +0000

I smell “James Hatch”.

By: bird brain

bird brain — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 02:07:58 +0000

spaz,
plez join military… then you can blog from iraq!!!

By: spaz Zapper

spaz Zapper — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 01:55:28 +0000

Here's an exerpt from a story from CBS online, that seems to have eluded scrutiny: In 2005, for example, in just those 45 states, there were at least 6,256 suicides among those who served in the armed forces. That’s 120 each and every week, in just one year.

By: Brian

Brian — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 21:52:44 +0000

If you scroll down on that site the guy has all these forms of radioactive minerals and other related radioactive items. The “fiesta bowl” is an interesting oddity. It’s very “hot”.
You are right that he does mention possible hazards of DU. But I don’t think he is an expert on the subject nessesarily.
The person at this link has spent a good part of her life in the field and is probably better informed. You will no doubt consider this propaganda though. Oh well, here it is anyway.
http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/news/na_harley_03jan00.html

By: Tyler

Tyler — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 18:11:10 +0000

phalarope – three or more hyperlinks in a comment will hold up the comment for moderation. otherwise, comments go live immediately.
note to our readers/commenters – if you post a comment that gets held up for review or moderation, you might want to email me to keep an eye out for it. my contact info is on the Contact Us page (linked in the left column)

By: phalarope

phalarope — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 18:05:48 +0000

Brian -
That is an interesting website, but you’re aware that it clearly spells out some of the environmental dangers and enduring collateral health risks inherent in the use of DU rounds, right? The author rightly claims that exposure to the DU is probably a lot less dangerous than merely being at war in the first place, but his comments on the toxicity of depleted uranium rounds are pretty clear that DU is a nasty gift that keeps on giving:
There’s a lot of controversy about the use of depleted uranium munitions, because people are afraid of the environmental effects on the countries that have been shot up with them. If they stayed intact there really wouldn’t be much to worry about. But they don’t stay intact, they vaporize on impact, and this turns out to have a huge impact on their potential for harm.
The radiation from uranium is largely of a type that does not penetrate skin much past the outer layer of dead cells, and hence is not particularly harmful if it’s outside of you. But if you inhale particles of such an alpha emitter, the radiation gets direct access to sensitive cells in the lungs and can do a great deal of damage. Outside the body, alpha emitters are the least hazardous form of radioactive materials, and hence DU rounds, intact, pose little danger to, for example, the people shooting them. But inside the body, they are the most dangerous.
Besides the radioactivity, uranium is also a toxic heavy metal, sort of like mercury. Would you want someone to dump hundreds of tons of mercury in the countryside around you? Probably not. The net effect of the chemical toxicity and radioactivity are such that powdered uranium in and around a battlefield has the potential to cause serious long term medical problems for anyone who comes in contact with it, on both sides of the conflict.
On the other hand, the number of people killed by uranium poisoning is probably significantly smaller than the number killed by whatever difficulty was causing their country to get shot up in the first place. It might be a more efficient use of ones efforts to worry about that than about the uranium dust that’s left over. But like land mines, DU is a real problem that the people who clean up the mess of war have to deal with.

By: phalarope

phalarope — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 17:52:19 +0000

Spk, phalarope,
I would just like to congradulate you two on actually presenting a plusible argument and presenting facts to back that argument up!
Thanks, Brian. I still have a long way to go when it comes to remembering to sign my name, and to proof-read my comments before I hit “Post”. The non-functioning link to the CDC publication in my last post (as Anonymous) should be http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5423a1.htm
Maybe that will work.
Occasionally, I have a comment held for review by Tyler or whoever is moderating the blog at the time, and that post was an example — I submitted it yesterday, and it just appeared today. When I submitted it, I found myself at a page telling me that the comment had been held for review by the blog owner. I’m not sure what causes this. Posting anonymously and including links in the same post?

By: Brian

Brian — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 16:32:50 +0000

Here is an interesting uranium site:
http://theodoregray.com/PeriodicTable/Elements/092/

By: Brian

Brian — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:01:02 +0000

Spk, phalarope,
I would just like to congradulate you two on actually presenting a plusible argument and presenting facts to back that argument up! You all have come a long way in your evolution of debate. The lead vapor levels in shooting ranges is a strong argument for your point. Wheather or not DU when shot in the battle field poses a long term risk maybe another matter. But it merits further investigation. It could be that the lead is worse that the DU.