Should NATO ban the use of depleted uranium?

[Machjo]

[Oleg Bach]

OF course they should not ban it - spreading poison all over the damned planet has become our tradtion - why stop now..things are going so well and depleted urianium has made weapons manufacturers a ton of money - this stuff can destroy high end military machinery - which needs to be replaced - hence more profit -- I say use more depleted uranium and why fuck around - lets start using limited nukes - just little ones of course - just enough to end a war and start a real big one..but of course - it does not matter seeing America is waging war on itself with oil as we speak - go figure.

[Machjo]

OF course they should not ban it - spreading poison all over the damned planet has become our tradtion - why stop now..things are going so well and depleted urianium has made weapons manufacturers a ton of money - this stuff can destroy high end military machinery - which needs to be replaced - hence more profit -- I say use more depleted uranium and why fuck around - lets start using limited nukes - just little ones of course - just enough to end a war and start a real big one..but of course - it does not matter seeing America is waging war on itself with oil as we speak - go figure.

Yup.

I know you're being tongue in cheek, but for those of you who haven't seen the videos, how can we tolerate the use of deplete uranium when it has a half life of about 1.4 billion years? This means that that uranium will continue to be active for a long, long time to come. Sure in about 800 years or so it will eventually wash down deep beneath the soil or the ocean floor where it will be less likely to harm us, but in the mean time, cancer rates and infant deformities will continue to be high among populations living in those areas for generations to come, unless of course contaminated areas are cordoned off for the next few hundred years. Otherwise the other option is to clean those areas up, but as it turns out NATO has not ye cleaned up it mess from Kosovo, let alone Iraq and Afghanistan. In Kososo, since the Red Cross lacks the necessary safety gear to dispose of the contaminated products, shelled tanks and such continue to sit in the fields and all the Red Cross can do is tell the local population to stay away from them. Yet as long as that nuclear waste sits there, it will be a permanent danger for years to come.

In Iraq it's even worse. over 300 tons of depleted uranium has been used already, even in populated areas like Iraq. In one story a child with cancer was found playing with abandoned contaminated materials!

And as it turns out, US soldiers are not immune either. Some of them have described the classic symptoms of mild radiation poisoning (and when it comes to radiation poisoning, even mild poisoning is a long-term death sentence) and many of them have given birth to deformed children and are dying from cancer themselves and the US DOD continues to deny that depleted uranium is dangerous. I heard that the Iraqi government is supposedly planning on suing the US for this at a future date, owing to wide spread radiation contamination across the country and the medical and human costs involved. This is just a milder version of Chernobyl for crying out loud, and the effects will be felt for generations to come. Heck, many Japanese continue to suffer from radiation-induced illnesses today. This is going to be a sad reminder generations from today, long after the war is distant history generations from now, when there are still areas cordoned off because of radiation dangers, and continued high cancer rates in those parts of the world.

What the US seems to forget, is that the depleted uranium they've deployed in Iraq and Kososo will continue to poison their environment hundreds of years from now, unless it gets blown away by the wind of washed out by the rivers to somewhere else, though even then it will just kill elsewhere for the next many generations to come.

[Machjo]

And another question. Are Canadian troops exposed to this depleted uranium in Afghanistan? After all, if some of that DU is in dust form, and floating around in the wind, then it's reasonable that if some locals are affected by it that Canadian troops could be exposed to it too, and DU not only hurts the troops themselves, but beyond this it also affects their reproductive organs, meaning a future generation of deformities in military children, and yet more cost to our health care system for at lest another generation to come.

[Machjo]

In fact, I'd like to know what Canada does with the depleted uranium from its nuclear reactors. Does it in fact recycle it through the weapons industry via cheap metal like the US does?

If we buy US military technology, and they use it, we might even be importing this poison and exposing our own troops to it too.

[bush_cheney2004]

In fact, I'd like to know what Canada does with the depleted uranium from its nuclear reactors. Does it in fact recycle it through the weapons industry via cheap metal like the US does?

Canada exports depleted uranium for various uses, from kinetic energy rounds to yacht keel ballast.

"There is absolutely no doubt that every bit of depleted uranium (in the munitions used in the Balkans) has Canadian uranium in it," says Gordon Edwards, president of the Montreal-based Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility.

http://carleton.ca/Capital_News/19012001/n1.htm

If we buy US military technology, and they use it, we might even be importing this poison and exposing our own troops to it too.

So what? Troops are exposed to far greater risks just in their training pipelines.

[Machjo]

So what? Troops are exposed to far greater risks just in their training pipelines.

Right. So we need to expose them along with entire populations for generations to come and their offspring to even more risk?

As it turns out, Iraq intends to sue the US and the UK:

But good luck with that I suppose. If Japan is anything to o by, Iraqis will suffer from this for generations to come.

[bush_cheney2004]

Right. So we need to expose them along with entire populations for generations to come and their offspring to even more risk?

There are numerous environmental risks for military personnel and civilain populations. DU is not at the top of the list.

As it turns out, Iraq intends to sue the US and the UK:

Great...Iraq should sue all parties including DU suppliers like....Canada!

But good luck with that I suppose. If Japan is anything to o by, Iraqis will suffer from this for generations to come.

That's right....war is hell!

[Machjo]

Great...Iraq should sue all parties including DU suppliers like....Canada!

If Canada has used such materials in Afghanistan, then would it not make more sense for Afghanistan to sue Canada seeing that we were never in Iraq?

[Machjo]

Yes, war is hell, and that's why we should think before jumping into it.

What, the Geiger counter industry ain't doing well? Well, now you have a market.

Edited June 26, 2010 by Machjo

[bloodyminded]

If Canada has used such materials in Afghanistan, then would it not make more sense for Afghanistan to sue Canada seeing that we were never in Iraq?

I think the point was not about Canadians "Not being in Iraq" (which isn't exactly accurate, as Bush-Cheney and others have quite nicely pointed out), but where our depleted uranium itself is.

Surely we're responsible for that, if there is responsibility to be assigned? It wasn't stolen.

[Machjo]

I think the point was not about Canadians "Not being in Iraq" (which isn't exactly accurate, as Bush-Cheney and others have quite nicely pointed out), but where our depleted uranium itself is.

Surely we're responsible for that, if there is responsibility to be assigned? It wasn't stolen.

Canada never used depleted uranium in Iraq to the best o my knowledge. Though as for Canada selling such to other countries, then it's debatable. We sell it to them and they are free to do what they want with it. However, if we know they are using it in a criminally negligent manner exposing their troops and more importantly civilian populations to it, then yes I see your point. I don't know the details there but maybe Canada could be held accountable for Iraq too to some degree. As for Afghanistan, if Canada used depleted uranium there, then there is no ambiguity. Clearly Canada is responsible for any rise in cancer rates, birth defects, etc. for generations to come there too.

[bush_cheney2004]

.....Surely we're responsible for that, if there is responsibility to be assigned? It wasn't stolen.

Indeed, but most Canadians don't consider such things or culpability...going back to WW2 atomic bombs. The UK and USA are said to have receipts for Saddam's chemical weapons pre-cursors, but Canada is not to be held to the same standard when it comes to the thermonuclear arsenals of the same UK and USA.

[bloodyminded]

Indeed, but most Canadians don't consider such things or culpability...

Really? No kidding? Canadians aren't good at considering culpability?

Canadians are terrible at this. Perhaps it's an acquired skill, and we need more time....

[Machjo]

Indeed, but most Canadians don't consider such things or culpability...going back to WW2 atomic bombs. The UK and USA are said to have receipts for Saddam's chemical weapons pre-cursors, but Canada is not to be held to the same standard when it comes to the thermonuclear arsenals of the same UK and USA.

Why shouldn't Canada be held to the same standard. If it's determined that Canada is also legally responsible for the irradiation of Iraq, then sure it ought to be held accountable too. Let international law decide that. Why should Canada be protected from any possible breach of international law on its part?

[eyeball]

Right. So we need to expose them along with entire populations for generations to come and their offspring to even more risk?

Apparently we also need to export asbestos...

[bloodyminded]

Apparently we also need to export asbestos...

And Celine Dion, if we're feeling exceptionally cruel.

[Machjo]

Apparently we also need to export asbestos...

I agree. Again, I don;t know the specifics of what international laws say on this, but if Canada is in violation of any international law with regards our export of asbestos, then definitely we ought to comply with them and take responsibility for any violations on our part.

Again, I don't know what international laws say on this, but I'm just saying if.

[bush_cheney2004]

Why shouldn't Canada be held to the same standard. If it's determined that Canada is also legally responsible for the irradiation of Iraq, then sure it ought to be held accountable too. Let international law decide that. Why should Canada be protected from any possible breach of international law on its part?

Let international law decide what? There is no breach of "international law", feeble that it is. Iraq can pursue a "lawsuit" if it pleases, but nobody will hold their breath waiting for that outcome. As for Canada, shall it also be held accountable for dioxin laden defoliants used in Vietnam?

[Remiel]

To make a long story short, I do think that it should be banned, and if Canada plays a significant role in its poisoning people, then we should clean up our act too. If someone tried to sue us though, selling the stuff should not be incurring anywhere near the liability of actually using it.

[bloodyminded]

To make a long story short, I do think that it should be banned, and if Canada plays a significant role in its poisoning people, then we should clean up our act too. If someone tried to sue us though, selling the stuff should not be incurring anywhere near the liability of actually using it.

Ultimately that might be true, but I think it's more complex. I can think of three scenarios...there might be some other(s), some further complexities, that haven't occurred to me, but for the moment I can only imagine three:

1. We sold materials with knowledge that they would be used for criminal behaviour;

2. We sold materials, not knowing nor caring that they would be used for criminal behaviour;

3. We sold them and were promised they wouldn't be used for such purposes, but we were lied to.

The first two, in my view, would make us complicit in the crimes committed: the first directly complicit, in a way that has always been understood under the law, and the second a sort of criminal negligence.

The third might exonerate us, depending on the precise circumstances, but I personally have my doubts that this circumstance is often real.

Edited June 26, 2010 by bloodyminded

[bush_cheney2004]

...If someone tried to sue us though, selling the stuff should not be incurring anywhere near the liability of actually using it.

What a twist...compared to...say...illicit drugs!

[bush_cheney2004]

....The third might exonerate us, depending on the precise circumstances, but I personally have my doubts that this circumstance is often real.

This has always been Canada's out, even when faced with the obvious (e.g. Agent Orange and napalm used in Vietnam). Very convenient!

Even the Canadian built Lancasters used for strategic bombing in Europe were not Canada's fault!

[segnosaur]

Should NATO ban the use of depleted uranium?

Nope, they shouldn't.

Ummm... proof by youtube video is no proof at all. Where are the scientific studies? Where are the control groups?

The first video talked about some tragic cases of birth defects. But there were no numbers to back things up. Birth defects happen even in our non-war affected North American populations. Simply pointing to people with birth defects in Iraq doesn't illustrate

A: whether such birth defects are actually occurring at a greater rate than 'normal'

and:

B: Whether such birth defects (if they are more common than they should be) actually are caused by depleted uranium (as opposed to some other cause)

In fact, there have been multiple studies which have shown that depleted uranium has no long term health effects. Here is a summary of the information (published by the U.S. military):

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/library/randrep/du/index.html

And just in case you don't trust the statements made because it comes from a government web site, we have a reference to the journal Science:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/297/5588/1801?ck=nck

They've also compared gulf war vets to non-vets, and haven't found significant problems (more than would be expected in similar populations):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1569626/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16687262

So, if gulf war vets aren't getting sicker in significant numbers, its likely that DU isn't causing these health problems.

...but for those of you who haven't seen the videos, how can we tolerate the use of deplete uranium when it has a half life of about 1.4 billion years?

Ummm... first of all, having such a long half like doesn't exactly make depleted uranium more scary, It actually makes it less scary. A long half life means that it is decaying more slowly (and thus causing less exposure to radiation.) I'd be a lot more concerned if it had a half life that was hundreds of years.

Secondly, uranium is an alpha emitter. Of the various types of radiation, this is the one that's of least concern. Alpha particles don't even have the ability to penetrate the skin. (And yes, inhaling particles of DU isn't a good thing, but if you're in a position where you're inhaling DU dust, then you're probably more likely to die in combat.)

edited to add: You do know that Uranium is actually very common throughout the world. Its contained in all soil and water. You have some of it in your back yard. And depleted uranium is actually less radioactive than naturally occurring uranium

Edited June 26, 2010 by segnosaur

[Remiel]

What a twist...compared to...say...illicit drugs!

Well, drugs are used to harm yourself, and uranium to harm other people. That is a rather important difference, do you not think, ?