>>463837>And breathing it. And getting particles imbedded in your skin. Say it with me, "And breathing it.
Munitions do not create enough particulate for this to be an issue. >And getting particles imbedded in your skin." All of the sources we have looked at have talked about those methods of having uranium introduced into your blood stream.
So either you work in a Uranium mine or you got hit with DU munitions. I fail to see how this means the US shouldn't use DU munitions or how it was wrong to use them on the former Yugoslavia. >It is talking about how it is not as safe as they had initially thought to store depleted uranium near the surface.
Yes, over millions of years at industrial levels of waste. >How much is "industrial levels?" How much depleted uranium gets produced by power plants in comparison to how much the military rains on a battlefield?
From a quick research, the US generates about 2000 metric tons of waste per year. That is what is being stored. The US dropped a total of 15 tons of DU munitions over the whole area. Of course that is offset by the fact that tonnage includes casings and explosives inside the bombs, so it's considerably less. >Again, in terms of volume what is the difference?
It's a gigantic difference. And no studies have shown links between use of DU in the battlefield and long term effects for populations in those areas related to DU use. >Yeah, they probably did try to cook the study honestly. I remember that investigation.
Oh, so now any study that doesn't agree with your histeria is cooked? >Really? You talk like a marine, and, no, that is not a compliment. I suppose that would explain why you haven't developed a healthy distrust of anything that the DoD calls "safe."
I didn't get my facts from the DoD, so you can stop bitching about them now. >It would also explain why you think that the VA just hands out money without having its arm twisted first.
The idea that the VA denies your claims comes mostly from people with lack of documentation and inherent bureaucracy, not that the VA is unwilling to acknowledge ailments. >Every last one of them is saying that depleted uranium is more dangerous in theory but that they have not seen it in effect yet in affected soldiers.
No. It said that there is cause for concern because of the nature of the material, but have found no evidence
that it is any more toxic or dangerous. That is what that means. You're just being a hysteric nancy. >Whaaaat? I thought that you could only eat it.
Yes, or get hit by it, in which case cancer is the least of your worries. I've said this many times. You accuse me of speaking like a Marine, but it seems you have the reading comprehension of one. >Shrapnel is usually steel.
Sure and everything else around that steel as well as things like mortar rounds and small arms munitions. That all counts as shrapnel. > I know a guy who had steel shrapnel in his back for twenty years before it all just worked its way out of him. He would set off metal detectors at the airport.
Sure, but you realize that even veterans with DU fragments in them have shown no adverse effects to their presence, right? Your own studies said that. >"Mostly!" Lel.
Yes, mostly. You can cry about it all you want.
Let's get down to the original subject matter.>>463606>>463616
These two posts started the conversation. DU munitions on Serbian genociders was not a war crime. Was not any more deadly than conventional munitions, and any bitching and moaning about it is just for petty sympathy for people that were doing something nobody here should support. If you want to help American veterans for one reason or another, that is on you, but it does not and will not ever justify Serbians bitching about being bombed by NATO, and somehow claiming that it was not and appropriate response.