Read the forum code of contact
By: - 15th April 2005 at 14:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well, just one detail, I wouldn't classyfy DU as WMD. That material is used because it is very hard, and can penetrate blindage.
Don't get me wrong, its radiation is something ugly, but it is not a WMD (and surely never used in that goal).
To those problems, you could add the highly toxic hydrazine (suel for emergency generators in planes - F-16 comes to my mind), or cluster bombs, which are landmines. Both are ugly too.
By: - 15th April 2005 at 14:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I agree with what you are saying Dave, but don't see these shells in the same league as the weapons of mass distruction that the Iraqi's were supposed to have had prior to Gulf War part deux.
By: - 15th April 2005 at 14:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well, I might have come to the same conclusion as you, but this scientist who works with the after effects every day said they were most definately weapons of mass destruction. Just because the effects are not immediately seen, doesn't mean it isn't being destructive.
Think of all the veterans with Gulf War Syndrome, which these weapons have caused according to the scientist, and then think how many more locals come into contact with the sites, it is massive and it is destructive, It kills thousands he said.
By: - 15th April 2005 at 15:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
These are not "shells". (Shells explode). These are DU (depleted uranium) ball or subcalibre-dart ammo fired by various anti-armor weapons.
And what he said is oversymplified. DU, which is U238, is only an alpha emitter, but its decay products are beta emitters - also that will take millions of years. Read here on the decay chain http://www.health.state.ny.us/nysdoh/radon/chain.htm
But DU is toxic, which is especially bad since on penetrating an amored target the DU ammo vaporizes and enflames (pyrophoric reaction) and the dust is blown around by the wind. And that is much more dangerous than a little alpha radiation from a DU rod that won't even penetrate your shorts, the dust when inhaled will ionize the tissue it is embedded in, that is the lungs.
By: - 15th April 2005 at 15:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thanks Distiller for those points. Actually it was me oversimplifying I fear. He did mention that about the alpha and beta differences, but I'd forgotten that point . It was a few days ago I heard it.
My mind boggles thinking about the damage being down to not just people but the enviroment.
Think about this, they probably fired some of these things into buildings at some point and I wonder how many building's have been patched up and how many people continue to live there, the occupants continually being exposed!
By: - 15th April 2005 at 15:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I take in what you are saying, however still not sure that these would be classed in the same area as the alleged WMD's.
Another tack to the question is that these weapons would have been used in live firing practice, so are there areas of the UK, that would have been contaminated by the fall out from these practices.
By: - 15th April 2005 at 15:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Think you'll find that they don't practise in Britain with these weapons... - Nermal
By: - 15th April 2005 at 22:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Depleted Uranium isn't that radioactive. However it is effectively nuclear waste and, like all heavy metals, highly toxic. Ingestion or inhalation of DU dust is a problem (particularly when it burns, which is the case when used in weapons or when aircraft using it as ballast crash), but more serious is being hit by sharpnel from a DU munition. The number of friendly fire incidents have meant that a significant number of the personnel that survived such incidents have dangerous amounts of DU embedded in their bodies.It's pretty nasty stuff, but WMD it ain't.
I do agree that we shouldn't be using weaponry that causes such contamination of the environment after use. I remember some TV footage of a ministry building in Baghdad, probably unoccupied, being strafed by an A-10 which uses DU in its shells. Struck me as pointless - strikes all over the face of the building - and just means the building is now effectively a toxic waste dump.
if that's the case, some one should stop people from eating them
By: - 16th April 2005 at 10:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
ANY heavy metal particles is toxic...Gulf war syndrome is due to fallout from improper chemical dump disposal...your cell phone packs more radiation than DU...or so i've heard.
By: - 16th April 2005 at 21:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Don't you love this stuff that spreads around the Internet?
Depleted Uranium, used because of its weight, suddenly becomes a WMD. :rolleyes:
Moggy
By: - 16th April 2005 at 22:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Having said that, Moggy, one does have to wonder how the US and GB governments would have presented Iraqi use of such inherently chemically toxic munitions.
By: - 16th April 2005 at 22:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hey Moggy, I was merely repeating what this scientist said. He emphatically stated the DU weapons were weapons of mass destruction, despite not being recognised as such.
Either way, the use of them should be banned - I mean, much less harmful weapons like dum dum bullets have been banned - why not these extremely destructive and harmful weapons? Still, why not use questionable weaponry when you wage questionable wars I suppose.
By: - 16th April 2005 at 23:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hey Moggy, I was merely repeating what this scientist said. He emphatically stated the DU weapons were weapons of mass destruction, despite not being recognised as such.Either way, the use of them should be banned - I mean, much less harmful weapons like dum dum bullets have been banned - why not these extremely destructive and harmful weapons? Still, why not use questionable weaponry when you wage questionable wars I suppose.
Oh Dave.
It's too late at night here to go into all this bollox.
Scientists have as much chance of being wrong as anyone else. I've an Arts Degree, I can talk total blarney about arts matters until you are so bored your bum falls off. My qualification doesn't make it right.
'Dum-dum' bullets are not banned. They are proscribed under the Hague convention. So what? If you are killed by a jacketed soft point you are just as dead.
Good night.
Moggy
By: - 16th April 2005 at 23:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If DU is now a WMD, and we used loads of it back in 1991, then nobody can complain that there are no WMDs in Iraq I suppose :D
By: - 17th April 2005 at 00:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There's never a meteorite strike just when you need one, is there? :rolleyes:
Posts: 5,576
By: Dave Homewood - 15th April 2005 at 14:35
A few days ago I heard a British scientist talking on New Zealand's National Radio. He is here in NZ on a tour sponsored by some peace committee.
He was talking about the US forces in Iraq and their usage of a weapon of mass destruction. They used in the first Gulf War, and again in the second, spent uranium tipped shells, as anti tank weapons. Rather than put a dent on a tank these shells are so powerful they blow them apart and several dozen metres.
It is not the effect on he tank and the crew that is the immediate problem, but he says the after effects that is putting the Iraqi people and others at great risk.
The shells and everything that they blow up are highly radioactive. He said over the years scientists have tried to get theusage of them banned (I have seen this before on TV, including the then chief clean up guy for the fallout, who was dying himself rom radiation exposure).
This scientist says that the Iraqi countryside is literally littered with radiation zones around battle sites, and that the UN has done nothing to stop the usage because when they did their own enquiry, they measured the radiation levels wrong. He said the UN used Geiger counters, but apparently the type of nuclear fallout left does not register on a Geiger metre. He said you need something called a Scintillate Metre (sp?), and in an everyday setting this metre would measure about 2, but in the areas where these shells exploded in 1991, they get measurements of around 1600.
He was saying how he has worked in Chernobyl, Iraq and some other place where there was a leak (Romania perhaps) and this was the worst. He said farmers still use the land, kids play on the old tanks, etc, and because they cannot see, hear or smell radioactivity, they are totally unaware of what damage is being done.
This scientist also stated that the US and British forces fighting in iraq today are also at great risk because they have been camping and battling in radioactive areas, without ever realising it because their Geiger counters show nothing. He said in battle they have used tanks and trucks blown up in the first war as cover in the second, and are in fact being eradiated.
This man seemed a very sensible, learned scientist with a very, very important message. He wants the use of these weapons stopped. And lets face it, are they even that necessary over conventional weapons?
I think this raises a wider political and moral issue too. The fact that the USA (and perhaps Britain and others) have used WMD's in a supposed crusade to stop a tyrant from using WMD's he never had. What is with that?
Another point this scientist made was, there is nothing that can be done to treat th affected areas. They cannot go in, hose it down and say, it's safe now. The weapons have ruined the area, the soil, everything, for good (or at least several million years).
I think there could be a very good case for treating the usage of these weapons as war crimes.How did they ever get sanctioned for use in the first place?
I'd like to hear what other people think. Sorry, I cannot recall the name of the man who was interviewed.