I would never say such a thing, because it is a stupid thing to say. Coal ash is radioactive. Cement is radioactive. Decaying plants are radioactive. Bananas are radioactive. Cat feeces is radioactive. You are radioactive. And a great many other things that are made radioactive on purpose, like wristwatches and smoke detectors. So you see, I have enough scientific knowledge to understand that "radioactive" is not in itself something to be afraid of. You are operating off of fear and the unknown, I go off of hard facts.
Yeah, it is a stupid thing to say. That's the whole reason I corrected you for it. You did say it, don't try to deny it. Post 17: Please stop misrepresenting me.. I said it was hazardous. YOU are the one who conjured up the word "radioactive" and introduced it into the discussion, not me. I merely corrected your false claim about it not being radioactive. I then said it emmitted alpha particles. I didn't say anything about how EVERYTHING that is radioactive is harmful, or that automatically makes something harmful in and of itself. Alpha particles, when they get inside the human body, are very damaging to chromosomes. Like your accusation about me going to paranoia websites, stop misrepresenting me and start addressing the facts. In order to get this to stop skewing what I say, I will be very clear: Depleted uranium munitions are incendiary. When they impact and cause their damage, and then burn, this combustion causes DU particulates to be dispersed about. They can be carried by the wind and inhaled by others, where they live inside of them, decaying and causing chromosome damage, as well as other horrific diseases. They can also find their way into the water supply. If you drink the water, you get these particles. They can cause severe chromosome damage, hence the birth defects. This is a hazard that doesn't apply to xray shielding vests, dentures, ink, bananas, wristwatches, etc. None of these mundane objects get lit on fire do they? None of these things are inhalable aerosols. And, unless you grind up any of these things into tiny particulates so they can be inhaled.. If you eat a wristwatch, yeah that might be bad. Wearing it on your wrist is harmless. Enough of the oranges, let us know when you've got an apple to compare. Now stop the ad-hominem attacks like I dont know anything about science because like I said: YOU are the one demonstrating ignorance by thinking that this is the same as bananas. Radiation comes in many forms and degrees. SOME types are harmful in SOME circumstances..You are claiming it's black and white, either everything radioactive is harmful or it's not. So you are the one doing that which you are accusing me of doing. Otherwise, why would you bring up all these other objects? Now if you disagree, I suggest you offer your peer review for the following scientific studies: Metal Contamination and the Epidemic of Congenital Birth Defects in Iraqi Cities http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00128-012-0817-2/fulltext.html Uranium and other contaminants in hair from the parents of children with congenital anomalies in Fallujah, Iraq http://www.springerlink.com/content/u35001451t13g645/?MUD=MP Teratogenicity of depleted uranium aerosols: A review from an epidemiological perspective http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/1476-069X-4-17/fulltext.html Unless of course peer reviewed scientific studies written by experts in the field are considered "paranoia websites".
DU is more hazardous as a toxic heavy metal then it is a radiation hazard. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium#Radiological_hazards The exact same hazards are a threat from pretty much any Heavy Metal, Uranium, Lead, Lithium, etc, etc, etc. It is not the radiation that is a threat, but the metal itself. And did you even read your references? Here, I clicked on one of them, and this jumped out at me right away: And that entire reference you provided went on to cover and discuss a great many hazardous metals, never once mentioning Uranium alone, and only mentioning it 3 times in the entire article (lead came up 8 times, mercury came up 5 times. And Table 2 listed a large number of various heavy metals that may cause birth defects. So you apparently are not refering the journals correctly in the first place. Those are from your own references. So if I have to guess, the scientists are thinking that the main cause is actually lead, not uranium or DU. RTFM
happy fun dude, et al, That is interesting. (COMMENT) Depleted Uranium (DU) are generally used in tank-on-tank battles. My understanding is that there were no DU rounds used in Fallujah. http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/docs/160.pdf http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/docs/161.pdf The idea that DU rounds caused anything is speculation. What I find interesting, is that there are no medical incident reports that show a rise in the cancer rate in areas where major tank battles were fought (ie high use DU). Hmmmm. What reports do you have? Now heavy metal poisoning is something different. Anyone who has seen how the Iraq lives, and how contaminated there water is, could just about imagine anything over there. Most Respectfully, R
There is some insinuation that exposure to DU shells, particularly in tanks, contributed to what is referred to as Gulf War syndrome. Another contribution may be the anthrax vaccination...or the pollutants from the rampant oil fires set by retreating Iraqis; but a large number of veterans who served in the Persian Gulf war between '90 - '91 have complained about various maladies. I haven't seen overwhelming evidence of birth defects relating to the children of these veterans; born subsequent to their deployments and exposure to DU, however.
