http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1220/p01s04-wome.html

DU is made from nuclear-waste material left over from making nuclear weapons and fuel. American gunners used 320 tons of it in 1991 to destroy 4,000 Iraqi armored vehicles and swiftly conclude victory.

But the invisible particles created when those bullets struck and burned are still "hot." They make Geiger counters sing, and they stick to the tanks, contaminating the soil and blowing in the desert wind, as they will for the 4.5 billion years it will take the DU to lose just half its radioactivity...

Ooh, the Christian Science Monitor! Sure they're telling the truth, Jesus wouldn't let them lie. Those assholes at http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/faq_17apr.htm must be working for, oh, I don't know...

SATANNNNNNNNNNNN?!?!?!?!?!?

I don't think the A-10 Warthog is being used by the US military in this conflict. The only folks flying those are state-side Guard units. Not that facts should ever get in the way of a rant.

Well done JPB. However, I take exception to the bs about the moral justification for GW1. Saddam was given every indication by the U.S. govt. that there would not be retaliation if he moved on Kuwait, and like the good little attack dog he is, he took the bait. Read William Blum's account of GW1 in Killing Hope.
The Iraqi genocide that has been occurring for the past dozen years has been systematic and, seemingly, according to plan.

girard31, Google News sez the A-10 is being used.

Oh, so hard radiation is the only carcinogen/reproductive hazard? Set aside for a moment the question of whether or not DU radiates above safe levels--the discussion is obviously too politicized for anyone to believe any reports on that detail. Does no one remember that uranium and many of its decay products are heavy metals and chemically hazardous as such, in any isotope?

Barlow's piece is about the best I've seen on the larger meanings and consequences of this attack. It would be nice if it got a lot more exposure than just a letter. But that would take valuable facetime away from Iran-Contra criminals.

hoo-ha: if you will crack open a basic physics textbook it will show you that there is a direct relationship between how long something takes to decay and how "hot" it is, something that takes 4.5B years to decay is basically inert. My watch will make a geiger counter sing, but that does not mean it is going to lead to wide-scale birth defects in the people around me. There is more radioactivity in your backyard than in one DU shell from an A-10.

The heavy metal impact is worth considering, but to keep things in perspective: how much of an impact did WWI and WWII have on long-term European health from all that heavy metal (Pb) that was thrown around?

I'm opposed the Bush administration and their unilateral war, but the whole "Evil Uranium" thing bugs me. Yes, DU is toxic. So is lead. The US Army is working on _replacing_ lead in bullets because of the toxic buildup where they train. Would the Iraqis really be that much better off if the US had shot at them with lead instead of DU?

I wonder if all the folks who are too smart to fall for DU effects were also too smart to fall for Gulf War Syndrome?

jleader /m14: an interesting question. The reports that criticise DU mention that is pryophoric--when it hits something at high speeds, it shatters into flakes that ignite and throw uranium compounds into the air. I couldn't find reports either way of whether lead bullets do the same thing. If it doesn't, then the answer to your question is yes, it would have been far better to use lead from the standpoint of toxic contamination. If lead does also form an aeresol, it still seems less desirable to be breathing or eating a toxic metal that also emits the occasional alpha particle than one that doesn't. (The ever-useful Google turned up several links that put chemical toxicity for uranium and lead at about equal.)

Then again, all of this raises a bigger question: should the toxic residue of a military action be factored into the cost and accountability of that action? DU or lead bullets are hardly the only toxic substances on the battlefield--you wouldn't want residue from explosives in your drinking water, either. But of course, landmines/unexploded ordinance present a far more dramatic danger, and I think that UXO is a more important place to start than DU for reducing the long-term damage of armed conflict.

Dan, thanks for getting my point!

The only toxicity info I could find on DU when I looked into this a few months back gave its LD50 (dosage that will kill 50% of the organisms exposed to it) as roughly half that of lead, I don't remember the actual numbers. In other words, DU is roughly twice as toxic, gram for gram, as lead. I believe that takes into account all forms of toxicity, including the chemistry of the element itself, its radioactivity, and the chemistry of its decay products. Keep in mind too that lead, unless purified, contains traces of other heavy metals, including some radioactive isotopes.

I don't know if lead is pyrophoric, either. That would make a difference, I agree. My impression was that the phenomenon being described for DU was that it hits with so much energy that part of it is vaporised; lead hitting with similar energy would presumably do the same.

The bottom line is, war kills people (and animals, and plants). Some now, some years later. Singling out DU gives me the impression that people are saying "if the military wouldn't use DU, then war wouldn't be so horrible".

Edited by author 03-25-2003 04:15 AM
According to the NYTimes, as of Sunday only 3 civilians had been killed in Baghdad, although 215 were reported as injured. So despite Barlow's ridiculing the idea, it seems like precision weaponry really can create a very large reduction in civilian casualties. For an up-to-date accounting of how many Iraqi civilians have been reported killed, see this site:

http://www.iraqbodycount.com/

If you look at the actual breakdown at http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm it seems most of the casualties come from missle strikes in Kurdistan and from bombing of Basra, where cluster bombs were used.

Great discussion, lotsa funny links and stuff. I enjoyed my stay and will come back again. You can visit my discussions arimidex tamoxifen webpage devoted to arimidex tamoxifen. sleeping pill cheap no prescription webpage devoted to sleeping pill cheap no prescription. too.