[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internets about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Matrix

IRC Chat

Pleroma

Mumble

Telegram

Discord



File: 1672399823705.jpeg (35.38 KB, 600x352, Нато_бомбе_изазивале_екол….jpeg)

 No.463418

>mass genocide taking place by insane serbians
>Multiple attempts at peace from NATO
>only around 1000 civilians died
>stopped a fucking literally genocide

Why was the bombing of Yugoslavia necessary?
>>

 No.463419

>In the 1990s, several authorities asserted that ethnic cleansing as carried out by elements of the Bosnian Serb army was genocide.[11] These included a resolution by the United Nations General Assembly and three convictions for genocide in German courts (the convictions were based upon a wider interpretation of genocide than that used by international courts).[12] In 2005, the United States Congress passed a resolution declaring that the Serbian policies of aggression and ethnic cleansing meet the terms defining genocide.[13]
It's genocide because the USA said so.
>>

 No.463420

>>463419
Yeah it had nothing to do with all the genocide or anything.
>>

 No.463422

>>463420
>>>based upon a wider interpretation of genocide than that used by international courts
Btw, we are talking about like 8,000 dead here. When the US kills 1 million iraqi civilians, that's not genocide.
>>

 No.463424

>>463422
What does what the US did here have to do with anything?
Why do you want to keep score between 1mill and 8 thouands especially when serbs were literally going around torturing bosnians. Also you are being quite dishonest because iraq lasted many many years and yugoslavia only alsted a few months.
>>

 No.463429

>>463424
>going around torturing
what's guantanamo bay and CIA black sites all around the world, you retard?
>>

 No.463430

>>463429
What do you not understand that the United states doing these things does not make the intervention not a good thing? the intervention was still necessary to stop fucking insane serbians.
>>

 No.463438

>>463418
I mean, you kind of said it, fam.
>>

 No.463588

>>463418
>>only around 1000 civilians died
*cough* depleted uranium *cough*
>>

 No.463592

less than 1000 died in 9/11

no point in any 'terrorist' op oh wait i mean these are oil-rich states, yeah
>>

 No.463593

>>463592
2996 people died in 9/11 along with a failed targeting of the white house and a successful strike on the pentagon. The reason for the invasion of Afghanistan was the Taliban's refusal to hand over Osama Bin Laden to the US.
>>

 No.463595

>>463593
>The reason for the invasion of Afghanistan was the Taliban's refusal to hand over Osama Bin Laden to the US.
kek
sure it was, natofriend
>>

 No.463596

>>463595
Is there another reason? Afghanistan is a worthless rock with nothing to recommend it except poppy fields.
>>

 No.463598

>>463596
Afghanistan also has a wealth of mineral resources, in addition to being the world's #1 heroin provider.
>>

 No.463599

>>463598
Yeah, hard rock lithium deposites in mountains that haven't got mines on them or transportation infrastructure attached to them and poppy fields. It's not worth any investment.
>>

 No.463601

>>463599
You couldn't be a more transparent shill if you tried.
>>

 No.463603

>>463601
For pointing out the plain fact that Afghanistan has absolutely nothing of any potential value on it except for hard rock lithium and opium poppies? Why? Did your worldview depend on Afghanistan being this amazing treasure trove that anglo imperialism was simply unable to unearth?
>>

 No.463605

>>463596
I thought Afganistan had oil.
>>

 No.463606

>>463588
They used depleted uranium in Yugoslavia?
>>

 No.463607

>>463605
Afghanistan does not have oil in significant quantities. Certainly not enough to spend 20 years there. Afghanistan was an earnest effort at nation building, but the US thought it could do it on a budget like it mostly did in Iraq. What Afghanistan needed was a lot more expenditure and a core intelligentsia to bring out some kind of national identity. The US invested in neither of these things and this is the result. Afghanistan had a relatively weak central government, but the US had no interest in trying to prop it up more than necessary and this is why it fell apart. That doesn't exactly mean the war ended. Combat is ongoing in Afghanistan because the Taliban government has basically the same problems as the US-backed government.
>>

 No.463608

I'll genocide you faggot uighur op. All uighurs like you need to be sent on a Croatian spelunking tour
>>

 No.463609

>>463608
t. Serbian to his own mother
>>

 No.463612

>>463606
USA did, yes
>>

 No.463616

>>463588
There is no medical evidence to date that suggests that DU causes cancer. DU munitions were used in Iraq and Afghanistan and nobody complained about that. Serbs complain about it because that's the only thing they have left to try and bitch about not being allowed to do a genocide.
>>

 No.463617

>>463606
Yeah, they also armored their own tanks with the stuff. They told everyone that it was perfectly safe. Call me skeptical.
>>

 No.463650

>>463616
>>463616
So what is the point of depleted uranium then?
>>

 No.463651

>>463650
Depleted uranium is a hard metal that is tremendously massive. It makes for incredibly dense shells and armor.
>>

 No.463652

>>463651
This government link says depleted uranium causes cancer if it enters the body but is otherwise harmless.

https://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/depleted_uranium/
>>

 No.463654

>>463652
I guess. I still don't trust the stuff, but I get why they use it.
>>

 No.463672

>>463654
I mean I can see why it should be a war crime to use it as ammunition.
>>

 No.463673

>>463672
No. There are plenty of things more carcinogenic that are regularly used in war. DU is just good shit. You have to swallow a lot of it for it to even begin affecting your health, and a bit used in rounds isn't going to give native populations cancer.
>>

 No.463677

>>463673
Define "Alot" because a whole round seems like "a lot"
>>

 No.463685

>>463677
Well, if you ate a whole round of DU munitions, cancer is the least of your worries. You realize lead is also a carcinogen, right?
>>

 No.463687

>>463685
Yeah but there's a difference between lead and radiation, lol.
>>

 No.463692

>>463687
Not really, and DU is only mildly radioactive anyway. You're not going to get cancer just by being in proximity with it, nor has there been a direct link between it and cancers. Lead is much worse in this respect, and again, if you get hit with DU, cancer is the least of your problems, especially since DU rounds come in big calibers.
>>

 No.463726

File: 1673061009442.pdf (279.87 KB, 232x300, health-overview-04.pdf)

Fun stuff that uranium can do, in addition to its radioactivity:
-fuck your kidneys up
-make you stupid
-damage your DNA
-mess with bone replacement and muscle healing
-fuck your reproductive organs and your children up
-various crippling lung diseases
-fuck your immune system up
-fuck your eyes up
-make your blood anemic
-inflame your heart
>>

 No.463728

>>463692
>DU is only mildly radioactive anyway
I've heard 40%, which sounds far from safe to me. I learned a long time ago not to trust the military when it gives me something suspicious and tells me that it's safe.
>>463726
In fairness, lead does pretty much all of that shit as well.
>>

 No.463737

>>463726
>The chemical health effects assessment hazard index for chronic uranium exposure by the public produced by a hypothetical UO2 conversion facility (a facility that is used to convert depleted UF6 to DU-oxide or metal) has been determined to range from 0.000001 to 0.00005 (Hartmann et al., 2000). A hazard index less than 1 indicates that an exposed person is unlikely to develop adverse health effects. Thus, it is highly unlikely that the general public would be at risk for toxicity due to chronic exposure to DU from conversion facilities.
Again, nothing in your article states that use of DU rounds is any more dangerous than lead. You're reaching.
>>

 No.463738

>>463728
>I've heard 40%, which sounds far from safe to me.
Yes, but the kind of radiation that comes from DU is just alpha particles. Just don't fucking swallow it. It's not that fucking hard.
> I learned a long time ago not to trust the military when it gives me something suspicious and tells me that it's safe.
Except nobody has demonstrated that use of DU in a military context has this kind of effect. Again, just don't fucking eat the stuff.
>>

 No.463739

File: 1673064604960.png (64.74 KB, 545x767, uranium-decay-chain.png)

>>463738
>just alpha particles bro
Do you think uranium just sticks around after shedding an alpha particle? No, it transmutes into another element. Not only are some of them significantly more radioactive than uranium itself, every single one of them is also toxic at a chemical level. Not all of them are solids at room temperature as well. Uranium decay products also have a habit of spreading a distance away from the original source because one of the elements in their chain, Radon, is a gas. That is how one can spread around the toxic products of uranium decay without coming into physical contact with uranium itself.
>>

 No.463746

File: 1673068474195.mp4 (2.27 MB, 480x360, Elton Britt - Uranium Feve….mp4)

>>463738
>Just don't fucking swallow it.
Or breathe any particles or have any otherwise introduced into your blood stream.
>Except nobody has demonstrated that use of DU in a military context has this kind of effect.
It took them long enough to demonstrate that Agent Orange had that kind of effect as well. Hell, they just recently recognized Gulf War Syndrome as an actual thing with presumptive conditions. Man, I am not waiting for the proof that depleted uranium is dangerous, because the proof often doesn't come along until decades later.

Another thing, depleted uranium is supposedly about as radioactive as naturally occuring uranium. I don't think that the uranium in the ground is all that safe either. Yeah, I know that it's just folksy shit from a bunch of hunter-gatherers, but the places where prospectors found uranium in the Upper Midwest were considered forbidden, evil places by the natives. Uranium is something to be avoided in general.
>>

 No.463749

>>463739
>o you think uranium just sticks around after shedding an alpha particle? No, it transmutes into another element.
Yes, and what is the half-life of Uranium? I'll give you some time to check.
>Not only are some of them significantly more radioactive than uranium itself, every single one of them is also toxic at a chemical level.
Yes. If you ingest them.
>Uranium decay products also have a habit of spreading a distance away from the original source because one of the elements in their chain, Radon, is a gas.
Yes, how much do you think you would get from a single round of DU? I'll give you time to check.
>>

 No.463750

>>463746
>Or breathe any particles or have any otherwise introduced into your blood stream.
Why are you breathing DU? And if it's been introduced into your bloodstream, you're either eating this shit, or been shot by DU munitions, in which case cancer is the least of your worries.
>It took them long enough to demonstrate that Agent Orange had that kind of effect as well.
No. It really didn't. We knew about its effects in the 70s.
> Hell, they just recently recognized Gulf War Syndrome as an actual thing with presumptive conditions.
>A team at the University of Portsmouth led by Professor Randall Parrish tested urine samples of 154 US veterans in 2021, reporting that no soldiers with the syndrome were exposed to significant amounts of depleted uranium and that it "is not and never was in the bodies of those who are ill at sufficient quantities to cause disease"
Yeah, so not DU, if Gulf War Syndrome is even real.
>Man, I am not waiting for the proof that depleted uranium is dangerous, because the proof often doesn't come along until decades later.
Then don't fucking swallow it, retard.
>Another thing, depleted uranium is supposedly about as radioactive as naturally occuring uranium.
Which exists all over the earth's crust.
>I don't think that the uranium in the ground is all that safe either
Well, it's in all soils and water. So I guess you better stop touching anything.
>Yeah, I know that it's just folksy shit from a bunch of hunter-gatherers, but the places where prospectors found uranium in the Upper Midwest were considered forbidden, evil places by the natives. Uranium is something to be avoided in general.
It's something you literally can't avoid, you jackass.
>>

 No.463759

>>463750
Do you really want to die on this "uranium is safe" hill?
>And if it's been introduced into your bloodstream, you're either eating this shit, or been shot by DU munitions
Or if it's been rendered into dust or if you happen to have an open cut. They warn hobbyists about that shit with radioactive paint.
>No. It really didn't. We knew about its effects in the 70s.
Yes, it really did. Everyone knew that that the shit was dangerous–much like we know that uranium is dangerous now–but it took the government decades to finally admit that what former GIs and Vietnamese people were suffering from was the effects of Agent Orange. …Let's see, it was 1991 when the Agent Orange Act was passed. You're a fool if you trust those people.
>if Gulf War Syndrome is even real.
Are you fucking real? Even the government admits that it is now, and, holy shit, you have no idea how many claims the VA is getting now.
>Then don't fucking swallow it, retard.
That is not the only way to get poisoned by it, no matter what your sergant told you.
>Which exists all over the earth's crust.
In compounds, just like how other poisonous metals are found in the soil like lead as we were discussing earlier. It's only the uranium-rich compounds like pitchblend that are particularly dangerous, and that's the stuff you find in the Badlands.
>It's something you literally can't avoid, you jackass.
You can avoid it just as easily as you can avoid lead.
>>

 No.463765

>>463759
>Do you really want to die on this "uranium is safe" hill?
Depends on quantity and if you swallow it or not. You realize Uranium is all around you, right?
>Or if it's been rendered into dust or if you happen to have an open cut. They warn hobbyists about that shit with radioactive paint.
So, again, if you're swallowing it or if you've been shot by DU munitions.
>Yes, it really did.
1970s is a long time?
> Everyone knew that that the shit was dangerous–much
So did we know, or did we not know? Do you know how to read English?
>much like we know that uranium is dangerous now–but it took the government decades
You realize that I'm not referencing the government when it comes to DU, right? Find me a single medical organization saying DU munitions are fundamentally unsafe. I'll wait.
>Are you fucking real?
Yes.
>Even the government admits that it is now, and, holy shit, you have no idea how many claims the VA is getting now.
What the government admits is does not dictate reality. Gulf War syndrome is completely undefined and nobody knows what it actually is or if it even exists, no matter what the government passes as law.
>That is not the only way to get poisoned by it, no matter what your sergant told you.
It's spelled "sergeant," and I didn't get it from one.
>In compounds, just like how other poisonous metals are found in the soil like lead as we were discussing earlier. It's only the uranium-rich compounds like pitchblend that are particularly dangerous, and that's the stuff you find in the Badlands.
Pitchblende is not "particularly dangerous." Again, just don't eat it.
>You can avoid it just as easily as you can avoid lead.
Cool, so don't eat it. If this shit gets in your system in a war zone, it's because you're eating it or have been hit by a projectile. That goes for DU and lead.
>>

 No.463770

>>463765
>You realize Uranium is all around you, right?
In compounds. Just like lead and antimony and every other metal that happens to be poisonous on its own.
>So did we know, or did we not know? Do you know how to read English?
Yes. Do you know how to follow an argument, or do you need for me to draw you a cartoon manual to explain every concept?
>Find me a single medical organization saying DU munitions are fundamentally unsafe. I'll wait.
Scroll up. >>463726. The substance is inherently dangerous. It doesn't matter if you pound it into the shape of a shell or an armor plate.
>What the government admits is does not dictate reality.
Right, which is why when it gives you shit like depleted uranium and tells you that it's safe you shouldn't believe it.
>It's spelled "sergeant," and I didn't get it from one.
Oh god, please tell me that you aren't pulling this shit out of some military magazines.
>If this shit gets in your system in a war zone, it's because you're eating it or have been hit by a projectile.
Or it has been rendered into dust in one way or another or you have an open cut.
>>

 No.463776

>>463770
>In compounds. Just like lead and antimony and every other metal that happens to be poisonous on its own.
And is DU somehow chemically nonreactive with oxygen and other chemicals? Or does it wait around to poison you somehow?
>Yes. Do you know how to follow an argument, or do you need for me to draw you a cartoon manual to explain every concept?
I guess you need me to. The first thing you said is that "It took them long enough to demonstrate that Agent Orange had that kind of effect as well." I answered with "No, it really didn't." and proceeded to tell you that we knew about it in the 70s. You then answered "Yes, it really did. Everyone knew that that the shit was dangerous." So which is it? Did we know quickly or not?
>The substance is inherently dangerous.
Your article only says if you're ingesting it. Simple external contact doesn't do it, again, like lead, certainly not because of radioactivity.
>Right, which is why when it gives you shit like depleted uranium and tells you that it's safe you shouldn't believe it.
Well, show me a scientific body saying its any more unsafe than lead in munitions.
>Oh god, please tell me that you aren't pulling this shit out of some military magazines.
Who the fuck reads magazines?
>Or it has been rendered into dust in one way or another or you have an open cut.
You realize DU projectiles don't disintegrate, right? Their whole deal is that they stay whole through hard barriers. And you've yet to demonstrate how open cuts are more dangerous with DU munitions than simple lead.
>>

 No.463781

>>463776
>And is DU somehow chemically nonreactive with oxygen and other chemicals? Or does it wait around to poison you somehow?
Oh my god. Do you know how it's safe to drink out of a pewter cup, but it's not safe to drink out of a lead pipe? It's a similar idea.
>So which is it? Did we know quickly or not?
You really do need those cartoon manuals. In the 1970s doctors and scientists knew that Agent Orange was dangerous, but until the nineties the military just kept saying, "nah, the health problems that all those GIs and Vietnamese people are suffering from have nothing at all to do with exposure to Agent Orange. The stuff is only dangerous if you swallow it." That is why the DoD turned down almost every related disability claim until Congress forced them to recognize it.
>Simple external contact doesn't do it
We're not talking about using the things as paperweights, although they are very good for that. I had a sergeaeaeaent who used a round for just that. We're talking about flinging them at very high speeds into things that are made of metal. All metals sheer, and all metals fragment. Uranium absolutely does get rendered into dust, although how dangerous that dust may be is not yet clear.
>Well, show me a scientific body saying its any more unsafe than lead in munitions.
Will the VA do?
https://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/depleted_uranium/index.asp
>Who the fuck reads magazines?
I don't know you.
>You realize DU projectiles don't disintegrate, right?
Everything disintegrates with enough force.
>>

 No.463786

Sorry, I just HAD to bomb Yugoslavia. It was in my nature. I can't do anything about it.

You want a "reason" for it? Uhm, well, I guess these ugly serbs were genocidal or some shit…
>>

 No.463787

File: 1673135322492.jpeg (7.96 KB, 474x266, th-3078867304.jpeg)

Not gonna cry crocodile tears for fucking "Yugoslavia", ie actually Serbia with nationalist brainworms.
As I would not cry for any post-socialist nationalist shithole getting curb stomped by the capitalist world policeman.

Enjoy your nazoid paradise bitch.
>>

 No.463792

File: 1673142923852.jpg (27.2 KB, 610x461, kids react to nato bombing….jpg)

>>463781
>Oh my god. Do you know how it's safe to drink out of a pewter cup, but it's not safe to drink out of a lead pipe? It's a similar idea.
Yes, which is why you SHOULD NOT EAT IT. How hard is this?
>In the 1970s doctors and scientists knew that Agent Orange was dangerous
Okay. Today doctors and scientists are not saying DU is dangerous unless you eat it. Good to know.
>Uranium absolutely does get rendered into dust, although how dangerous that dust may be is not yet clear.
Same as lead, which many militaries still use.
>Will the VA do?
The VA is not a scientific body, but let's give you Gulf War Syndrome, just to get that out of the way. VA does not recognize DU usage in munitions as a cause of any service related illness. Neither does anyone else.
>https://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/depleted_uranium/index.asp
>To date, in a group of Veterans exposed to DU in friendly fire events, there has been no health impact to the kidney noted, however, recent research shows there may be an association between elevated urine uranium in these Veterans and lower bone mineral density (BMD). The BMD results require further study to determine if they persist over time and researchers and clinicians continue to monitor the health of these Veterans.
So, again, don't eat the stuff. It's perfectly safe otherwise unless it's literally inside you. Bombing Yugoslavia didn't give them cancer.
>I don't know you.
And that's my purse.
>Everything disintegrates with enough force.
DU generally doesn't when used for munitions, at least not into dust particles like you expect of lead when hitting steel. And that's still missing the point. DU isn't causing health effects in former Yugoslavia.
>>

 No.463796

>>463792
>Yes, which is why you SHOULD NOT EAT IT. How hard is this?
How do you even come to this conclusion? You are not arguing in good faith.
>Okay. Today doctors and scientists are not saying DU is dangerous unless you eat it. Good to know.
Liar.
>The VA is not a scientific body
Right. It's just the only body doing any scientific study.
>So, again, don't eat the stuff.
DURR HURR that's the only way it could ever be in your blood stream.
>DU generally doesn't when used for munitions
Bullshit. Metal projected against metal at high speeds makes dust and shards.
>>

 No.463809

>>463796
>How do you even come to this conclusion? You are not arguing in good faith.
How did I come to the conclusion that you should not eat DU? The same way that I came to the conclusion that you should not eat lead.
>Liar.
Yes, so feel free to post a scientific body arguing that DU is more dangerous than conventional munitions. I'll wait.
>Right. It's just the only body doing any scientific study.
It's not, and if you had any such evidence, you would have already posted it.
>DURR HURR that's the only way it could ever be in your blood stream.
Or you could get hit with a DU munition, in which case cancer due to radiation is the least of your worries. How is this any more dangerous than lead?
>Bullshit. Metal projected against metal at high speeds makes dust and shards.
This is how we know you're stupid. DU is used specifically because it maintains most of its mass and shape, allowing it to penetrate armor. It doesn't disintegrate on contact. It would be shit for armor penetration if that were the case.
>>

 No.463828

>>463809
>How did I come to the conclusion that you should not eat DU?
That the only way to get it into you is by eating it. You probably heard that shit from an officer and have just been parroting it ever since.
>Yes, so feel free to post a scientific body arguing that DU is more dangerous than conventional munitions. I'll wait.
Scroll up.
>It's not, and if you had any such evidence, you would have already posted it.
Oh, it isn't? Do enlighten me. In fact, why don't you provide a link to one of these studies that you say exists. The VA says that it is dangerous, and they are shelling out money to treat people who were exposed to it. Now, tell me why they are wrong.
>Or you could get hit with a DU munition
Or you could get it into you in all of the ways that the VA describes.
>This is how we know you're stupid. DU is used specifically because it maintains most of its mass and shape, allowing it to penetrate armor.
You seem to think that after the round goes through an armor plate that it stays one solid, unsheared chunk. Is that right?
>>

 No.463830

>>463828 (me)
While I am waiting, here is a report that the Europeans made about it.
https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/opinions_layman/depleted-uranium/en/l-2/5.htm#0
Yes, depleted uranium shears and gets rendered into dust. They think that should be dangerous, but they have not yet observed significant related health problems in veterans who breathed the dust or got bits of shrapnel in them.

Oh, and here's something interesting from Utah. Aparantly, depleted uranium starts off as being less radioactive than naturally occuring uranium but becomes more radioactive as it ages.
https://deq.utah.gov/waste-management-and-radiation-control/depleted-uranium-energysolutions

And here is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission talking about how depleted uranium waste near the surface poses a perpetually increasing radiological hazard.
https://www.nrc.gov/waste/llw-disposal/llw-pa/uw-streams/bg-info-du.html

Of course there is also the decay chain of uranium which produces radon gas–something that is very dangerous. How much depleted uranium was dumped on yugoslavia, and how much of it was recovered and disposed of?
>>

 No.463831

File: 1673195248893.jpg (346.37 KB, 800x1262, page11.jpg)

>>

 No.463832

>>463830
>https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/opinions_layman/depleted-uranium/en/l-2/5.htm#0
>opinions
So not actual research, then. Let's read it.
>Outside the laboratory, there is evidence on health effects of lower DU exposures from medical monitoring of Gulf War veterans. Some have embedded DU shrapnel, and have much higher concentrations of uranium in their blood than civilians or soldiers without direct exposure to DU. So far, no serious health effects have been observed after 16 years monitoring.
And the other mention of adverse effects is just eating the stuff. I'm sure you'd have higher lead content in your blood if you had shrapnel in you from a conventional round.
https://deq.utah.gov/waste-management-and-radiation-control/depleted-uranium-energysolutions
>Uranium decays very slowly, with a half-life in the range of millions of years. The decay products of uranium become more radioactive over time due to ingrowth.
>millions of years
Yes, I know. We all know that. You aren't going to live for millions of years, and this is talking about industrial levels of waste DU.
https://www.nrc.gov/waste/llw-disposal/llw-pa/uw-streams/bg-info-du.html
> Additionally, the nature of the radiological hazards associated with DU presents challenges to the estimation of long-term effects from its disposal – namely that its radiological hazard gradually increases due to the ingrowth of decay products, eventually peaking after 1 million years, rather than decreasing significantly over a few hundred years like that of typical LLW.
>1 million years
Yes, we get it. The US government is worried about industrial levels of waste over the long term. Nobody is worried about DU used in munitions.
>Of course there is also the decay chain of uranium which produces radon gas–something that is very dangerous. How much depleted uranium was dumped on yugoslavia, and how much of it was recovered and disposed of?
It's not enough for it to matter.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969704004991?via%3Dihub
>The results of this study clearly indicate that DU was added to the soil of the study area. Nevertheless, the phenomenon was very limited spatially and the total uranium concentrations fell within the natural range of the element in soils. Moreover, the absolute uranium concentrations indicate that there was no contamination of the earthworm species studied.
So Serbian faggots can stop bitching about getting bombed with DU to stop their genocide.
>>

 No.463833

>>463828
>That the only way to get it into you is by eating it. You probably heard that shit from an officer and have just been parroting it ever since.
Your own sources say that. You can breathe it if you work in a mine. You're not going to get enough exposure from munitions. And for the record, I'm not in the military, nor have I ever been in.
>Scroll up.
None of your sources said that. You're just lying.
> In fact, why don't you provide a link to one of these studies that you say exists. The VA says that it is dangerous, and they are shelling out money to treat people who were exposed to it. Now, tell me why they are wrong.
The VA is not a scientific body and is an organization that routinely pays out money because of ED and other shit that is not service-related.
>Or you could get it into you in all of the ways that the VA describes.
Yes, by directly having shrapnel inside you. In what way is this more toxic than lead?
>You seem to think that after the round goes through an armor plate that it stays one solid, unsheared chunk. Is that right?
It stays mostly solid. The destructive effects come from heat and other molten metal that is part of the vehicle. DU does break up, but it isn't going to turn into particulate like conventional rounds.
>>

 No.463837

>>463832
>And the other mention of adverse effects is just eating the stuff.
And breathing it. And getting particles imbedded in your skin. Say it with me, "And breathing it. 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.
>this is talking about industrial levels of waste DU
It is talking about how it is not as safe as they had initially thought to store depleted uranium near the surface. 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?
>The US government is worried about industrial levels of waste over the long term. Nobody is worried about DU used in munitions.
Again, in terms of volume what is the difference?
>So Serbian faggots can stop bitching about getting bombed with DU to stop their genocide.
Yeah, they probably did try to cook the study honestly. I remember that investigation.
>And for the record, I'm not in the military, nor have I ever been in.
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." It would also explain why you think that the VA just hands out money without having its arm twisted first.
>You're just lying.
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.
>Yes, by directly having shrapnel inside you.
Whaaaat? I thought that you could only eat it.
>In what way is this more toxic than lead?
Shrapnel is usually steel. 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.
>It stays mostly solid.
"Mostly!" Lel.
>>

 No.463843

>>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.
>>

 No.463848

>>463787
>westoid thinks that it's actually Eastern Europe that is fascist
many such cases

Unique IPs: 21

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]