Originally posted by leonheartmm
untrue. the gulf war syndrom has been atributed to DU rounds. it is the US MILITARY'S stance{which no1 finds surprising cause they use this stuff in bulk} that it isnt harmful, however, there is TONS of contrary views which clearly state that the shattering particles and glass particles generated are extremely carcinogenic in nature and can be inhaled easily over long distances and have lonog half lives, containing numerous alpha/beta/gama emittors.also, if they are as harmful as tehy are claimed to be then why are they stored with eavy plastic caps when being handled for loading and storage or by personel around????? depleted uranium is still radioactive and ganderous. i agree that its heavier but then, you can always find alternatives in the types of rounds used. just being better at military applications does not make the rounds any more jutsified for use. ofcourse, there is the fact that DU rounds can potentially COOK every1 in armoured vehiecles. doesnt matter, they are inhumane and it is wrong to use em.
No. That is untrue. Do you even know what the primary radiation source is for a DU? Do you know how deep that can penetrate?
Like I said before, you are victim of DU propaganda. Look up information from sources OTHER than Anti US military sites and sites that DON'T believe in DU rounds being part of Gulf War Syndrome. That "myth" has already been debunked many times.
First, the Gulf War Veterans who had the HIGHEST exposure limits of DU.
http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/DU_speech.html
"Tier 1 is the highest exposure group, it includes soldiers who were in or near combat vehicles at the time DU rounds struck, or entered the vehicles immediately afterwards. Some of these soldiers were struck by DU fragments. Others inhaled DU particles, or had DU contaminate their wounds. CHPPM's preliminary estimate of worst case exposure, based on test data and assuming that the DU rounds impacted a DU protected, heavy Abrams tank, is that the estimated radiation exposure is about one years background radiation, about the same radiation dose as a person would get from living in the United States for ONE YEAR. We estimate there were 113 US troops in Tier 1."
Does that compute? 1 years worth of radiation from just living. If you are not familiar with radiation exposure, 1 years worth of radiation is not very much at all.
Here's an article
http://www.unep.org/cpi/briefs/Brief10Jan.doc
Just search about DU rounds and don't fall for the hype. They are usually ONLY used for their armor piercing capabilities and are not used in training except for the Navy. Even then, the radiation is so low that it should fall between 5-15 REM. (I couldn't verify that...but I am sure you could find something on that.)
Again, the myth has been virtualy debunked. If a military person is suffering from DU round exposure, then they would have exposure related kidney problems. NONE from the Gulf War have so far...NONE.
One of my old bosses is a golf war veteran...he had one of the highest exposure rates of anyone in the gulf war because he was one of those "tank" dudes. (I forgot what he called his title.) Basically, he inhaled a lot of that dust crap. Because of the hype around DU rounds, he was practically ordered to be medically reviewed 5 times over 5 years. Of course, nothing bad came back. He finds the Gulf War Syndrome to be too convenient of an excuse. (On a side note, he has some awesome war stories. He later served in Columbia fighting some of the bad guys there. His Columbia stories are the best.)
Originally posted by leonheartmm
untrue. the gulf war syndrom has been atributed to DU rounds. it is the US MILITARY'S stance{which no1 finds surprising cause they use this stuff in bulk} that it isnt harmful, however, there is TONS of contrary views which clearly state that the shattering particles and glass particles generated are extremely carcinogenic in nature and can be inhaled easily over long distances and have lonog half lives, containing numerous alpha/beta/gama emittors.also, if they are as harmful as tehy are claimed to be then why are they stored with eavy plastic caps when being handled for loading and storage or by personel around????? depleted uranium is still radioactive and ganderous. i agree that its heavier but then, you can always find alternatives in the types of rounds used. just being better at military applications does not make the rounds any more jutsified for use. ofcourse, there is the fact that DU rounds can potentially COOK every1 in armoured vehiecles. doesnt matter, they are inhumane and it is wrong to use em.
So it's "inhumane" to kill everyone in a enemy tank with a DU round, but it isn't "inhumane" if you killed them all with a conventional concussive explosive? Sound pretty stupid, no?
I always love it when people get pissed because one side proves to be the more effective killer in a war, never mind that if the lesser-side had the ability to kill more/better they wouldn't hesitate for a moment to do so. Perfect example would be Israel vs Lebanon/Hezbollah '06.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium
not as clear as you make it seem at all. and as a rule, i do not trust the government and military's OWN funded research on this. plus the whole withholding findings thing. same with the world health organisation.
the best way to lend time for this type of things is to obscure an issue by giving conflicting and wrong and biased evidence from ur organistion's side.
and robtard, i was not referring to the soldiers killed but the long term affects on civilians.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uraniumnot as clear as you make it seem at all. and as a rule, i do not trust the government and military's OWN funded research on this. plus the whole withholding findings thing. same with the world health organisation.
the best way to lend time for this type of things is to obscure an issue by giving conflicting and wrong and biased evidence from ur organistion's side.
and robtard, i was not referring to the soldiers killed but the long term affects on civilians.
I read the article, it seemed to be a bit one sided in favor of my argument so I did not cite it...it would not have been appropriate. I try to not use wikipedia to make my points too much because of the nature of where the articles come from.
Originally posted by SoylentBlue
Yet more irrelevance.EDIT: Was there any other candidate going for a democratic government, RocasAtoll? I'm not that well-read into Pakistani politics, so it'd be interesting to know >>
Musharraf and Sharif are the only two left, and both are almost as bad as Bhutto, and then there's Bhutto's 19 year old son. Pakistan's screwed for the next 5-7 years in reality.
Originally posted by Fishy
Is that a threat? Because if it is I'm really scared...Or wait maybe not.
Threats arn´t allowed on this forum, it was just a statement.
If you were to go around calling people idiots on the street just because they hold a different opinion to yourself, you wouldn´t live long in some countries.
And "waking up dead" is an illogical statement, unless you believe in reincarnation.
Originally posted by Bicnarok
why are your knees knocking then?😈Threats arn´t allowed on this forum, it was just a statement.
If you were to go around calling people idiots on the street just because they hold a different opinion to yourself, you wouldn´t live long in some countries.
And "waking up dead" is an illogical statement, unless you believe in reincarnation.
Wow, I never knew that. Then again I still don't have anything to worry about because I do live in a free country. Now stop being an idiot, oops I did it again, and either threaten me good or stop trying to disguise it as a warning. Neither is funny, but at least one makes sense
Originally posted by Bicnarok
why are your knees knocking then?😈Threats arn´t allowed on this forum, it was just a statement.
If you were to go around calling people idiots on the street just because they hold a different opinion to yourself, you wouldn´t live long in some countries.
And "waking up dead" is an illogical statement, unless you believe in reincarnation.
Originally posted by exanda kane
There's been forensic reports that it was the blast, not any gunshot that killed her. Although it's hard for a thorough post-mortem considering the scene of the explosion was hosed down a few hours later. Bit suspect aye.
I find this hard to believe also. There is really no way to tell if it was the gunshots or the blast...