S
Steezie
Guest
Considering the harm that results from the use of DU (Depleted Uranium) rounds, should they be banned from use by armed forces across the world?
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Nithavela
you're in charge you can do it just get louis
- Apr 14, 2007
- 32,141
- 23,803
- Country
- Germany
- Faith
- Other Religion
- Marital Status
- Single
The real question is, would banning them have any result at all? Who is ruthless enough to shoot another human doesn't care about long time damage done by the shell.
Upvote
0
S
Steezie
Guest
Its not the initial damage of the shell thats the problem, its the prolonged damage caused by radioactive debris put out when the shell strikes a target. When a DU shell strikes a target, it puts out a spray of very fine metallic dust that is radioactive. That dust gets into water supplies, into people, and causes problems via radiation poisoning.
Upvote
0
S
Steezie
Guest
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium#Ammunition
"It is thought that between 17 and 20 states have weapons incorporating depleted uranium in their arsenals. They include the USA, the UK, France, Russia, Greece, Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Egypt, Kuwait, Pakistan, Thailand, Iraq and Taiwan. DU ammunition is manufactured in 18 countries. Only the US and the UK have acknowledged using DU weapons"
Upvote
0
invisible trousers
~*this post promotes non-nicene christianity*~
I'm going to side with the IAEA on this one.
There needs to be clear and unquestionable evidence that DU rounds cause all these problems before we ban them.
There needs to be clear and unquestionable evidence that DU rounds cause all these problems before we ban them.
Upvote
0
S
Steezie
Guest
The WHO seems to feel that there are risks
http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/pub_meet/en/Depluranium4.pdf
"Under most circumstances, use of DU will make a negligible contribution to the overall natural background levels of uranium in the environment. However levels of DU may be significantly raised over background levels in close proximity to DU contaiminating events (Where DU shells are used). Over the days and years following such an event the contamination will become dispersed into the wider natural environment"
Meaning the groundwater, the soil, and people living there. The conclusion goes on to state that there is definately a problem with the use of DU. Most of the safety recommendations that the WHO states (Such as cleanup and monitoring of areas where DU has been used) are currently not followed worldwide.
Research done at the US army's own Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Center also points to negative health effects of DU
And since I know this report is going to come up, the WHO report on DU in Kosovo http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/pub_meet/en/Report_WHO_depleted_uranium_Eng.pdf
The report states there is no noticeable impact of DU in Kosovo nor have there been any conclusive studdies to show a negative aspect of DU.
There are two problems
One: The use of DU was not widespread in Kosovo, only used by the two armored divisions (One American, one British) witch did not see heavy action.
Two: This report is from 2001, before major problems with DU began appearing. The statement that there are no studies that show negative effects of DU is no longer true.
http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/pub_meet/en/Depluranium4.pdf
"Under most circumstances, use of DU will make a negligible contribution to the overall natural background levels of uranium in the environment. However levels of DU may be significantly raised over background levels in close proximity to DU contaiminating events (Where DU shells are used). Over the days and years following such an event the contamination will become dispersed into the wider natural environment"
Meaning the groundwater, the soil, and people living there. The conclusion goes on to state that there is definately a problem with the use of DU. Most of the safety recommendations that the WHO states (Such as cleanup and monitoring of areas where DU has been used) are currently not followed worldwide.
Research done at the US army's own Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Center also points to negative health effects of DU
And since I know this report is going to come up, the WHO report on DU in Kosovo http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/pub_meet/en/Report_WHO_depleted_uranium_Eng.pdf
The report states there is no noticeable impact of DU in Kosovo nor have there been any conclusive studdies to show a negative aspect of DU.
There are two problems
One: The use of DU was not widespread in Kosovo, only used by the two armored divisions (One American, one British) witch did not see heavy action.
Two: This report is from 2001, before major problems with DU began appearing. The statement that there are no studies that show negative effects of DU is no longer true.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
