Should NATO ban the use of depleted uranium?

[bush_cheney2004]

I just don't think its the evil bogey man that it was made out to be in the opening post.

Agreed....there are many other substances in far greater quantity that pose higher, clearly demonstrated health risks. Examples would include lead based paints, leaded gasoline, and cadmium in jewelry.

[Sir Bandelot]

DU is a regulated hazardous substance, in both Canada and the US. It cannot be transported without a special permit from the nuclear regulatory agency. It cannot be handled without special training. DU is used as radiation shielding in some applications and must be encapsulated in thick acrylic or epoxy coating, to avoid shedding of dust granules. Where it is used, special tests need to be done to the installation to check that there is no contamination. These tests are to be done at least annually. It is not adviseable to even touch DU without wearing gloves. These rules are set out by our Canadian federal regulatory body.

Given all that, it seems bizarre to me that DU can be used by the military to harden the tips of their bullets and shells. I read a report it was used on machine gun and rifle bullets in Iraq. These bullets are embedded in the walls of many buildings. It might be possible to find them with a geiger counter, but the dust and debris would be very hard to collect, and that's the stuff that kills. So it's no wonder that the Iraqi government is very upset about this. To ignore the threat of depositing this debris randomly all over the countryside in another country, while having such strict rules about it in our own seems quite hypocritical to me. But, there it is.

[bush_cheney2004]

If person A sells drugs to person B, and person B forces person C to take those drugs, is person A liable for what happens to person C in the same way they would be liable if person B had taken the drugs?

From a product liability standpoint, the answer is maybe, should a court find that person A sells drugs to person B with the full knowledge of how person B would use or distribute them. The lawyers would certainly go after person A if they have deep pockets.

[dre]

Yeah, well, when one sells a hammer, unless they sell it to a customer who has knowingly used the hammer to smash in someone's skull, it's pretty safe to assume it's not going to be used for "nefarious purposes."

However, we have people in this thread speaking of how the U.S. has used DU in other wars, so it's no secret. So Canada, by selling it to the U.S. while we're involved in another war, shouldn't be shocked that it's being used for "nefarious reasons."

Furthermore, since Canada is involved in Iraq, even if it's not "officially," Canada, I'm sure, is very well aware of what's going on.

I'm reminded of those who dismiss sending someone away to be tortured vs. torturing them themselves. Seems to me the "Canada's not as bad" crowd is critical of that.

I am seriously amazed by how many Canadians simply minimize, make excuses for, what Canada does. But Canada is not the 'good guy' to our 'bad guy' the way it's portrayed to be. Apparently, though, image is everything, to some.

I am totally against what the U.S. is doing regarding the use of DU, but if I were a Canadian, I wouldn't be minimizing my country's role in it.

Yeah thats the result of a world where "ethics" has been replaced by "liability avoidance". Modern nation states and corporations rarely give a rats ass about ethics as long as they have liability avoidance, and plausible deniability.

[Machjo]

Actually, if you look at my post, I already dealt with the issue of inhalation when I pointed out that if you're in a position where you're inhaling DU dust, then you're probably more likely to die in combat. I rather suspect that the average Iraqi civilian is not going to be in a position where they are in regular contact with DU in a form that will pose a significant dander.

There are abandoned Iraqi tanks lying out in the open that were attacked by DU munitions. On impact they do create dust, these tanks are still highly radioactive, and they're lying out in the open to any uneducated and curious passer by who knows little to nothing of radiation to approach it out of natural curiosity. DU materials are still lying around in Baghdad of all places, with children playing with them.

Some building struck by DU munitions had been torn down in Fallujah, and apparently some of them landed in the water, possibly allowing some DUst making it downstream into the drinking water supply. Etc. etc. etc. Whe're talking about well over 300 tons of Du having been scattered indiscriminately all over Iraq! It's bound to make it into the local population sooner or later.

Actually I never claimed it was harmless... There certainly are risks: as I said, inhalation of DU particles can be bad (but its not a situation that non-combatants will find themselves in). And there is the fact that uranium is a heavy metal, and as such there is a certain amount of chemical toxicity that must be dealt with. (But then, the same would be true of almost any metal used in combat.)

The chemical toxicity is on top of the radiological effects. And as for the particles, can you be sure that the wind did not blow them into the air miles away from their original location or even into the water supply? Well over 300 tons is a lot of DU lying around or floating around depending on its composition.

I just don't think its the evil bogey man that it was made out to be in the opening post.

Then how do you explain that authorities in Fallujah are now advising women to not have children?!

Clearly there is concern of an epidemic of reproductive organs having been damaged among the local population. Granted it's not been conclusively proven that it's because of DU, but so far the symptoms appear to match the effects of radiation. At the very least we owe them further studies and research to determine what the cause is. Clearly this is something that happened after Saddam's regime, whatever it may be.

Edited June 27, 2010 by Machjo

[Machjo]

DU is a regulated hazardous substance, in both Canada and the US. It cannot be transported without a special permit from the nuclear regulatory agency. It cannot be handled without special training. DU is used as radiation shielding in some applications and must be encapsulated in thick acrylic or epoxy coating, to avoid shedding of dust granules. Where it is used, special tests need to be done to the installation to check that there is no contamination. These tests are to be done at least annually. It is not adviseable to even touch DU without wearing gloves. These rules are set out by our Canadian federal regulatory body.

Riiight.

Morning in a typical primary school in Iraq:

Good morning class. I hope you enjoy your first day of school. Now let's begin kids. First off, who here plays with little pieces of metal you find lying on the ground now and then?

Oh, many hands up. Do you have a permit to play with these pieces of metal? Do you get the proper training while in kindergarten? And if you do decide to play with anything you find on the ground, make sure it's covered in thick acrylic or epoxy coating, to avoid shedding of dust granules, and get your toys tested annually, and make sure you are always wearing gloves whenever playing in the fields outside. If you do that, you'll be safe; nothing to worry about.

Now tomorrow, I'll teach you how to write the letter 'alif'.

Given all that, it seems bizarre to me that DU can be used by the military to harden the tips of their bullets and shells. I read a report it was used on machine gun and rifle bullets in Iraq. These bullets are embedded in the walls of many buildings. It might be possible to find them with a geiger counter, but the dust and debris would be very hard to collect, and that's the stuff that kills. So it's no wonder that the Iraqi government is very upset about this. To ignore the threat of depositing this debris randomly all over the countryside in another country, while having such strict rules about it in our own seems quite hypocritical to me. But, there it is.

Oh come on now. If you give those Iraqi kindergarten kids the same rigorous training US troops get in the handling of DU, it should be safe. Here's a video US troops are to watch during training:

Why couldn't Iraqi children learn this? And use those protective suits you see in the video as the standard school uniform. How cool.

[bush_cheney2004]

Here is a thorough (but somewhat biased) treatment of the topic for the lay person. Note the process flowchart starting with....Mining, Milling, and Conversion. CAMECO, a Canadian company, has an office in building....nice folks!

http://cseserv.engr.scu.edu/StudentWebPages/IPesic/ResearchPaper.htm

Edited June 27, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Machjo]

But why don't Iraqi children get the same training as US troops in dealing with all the DU all over their country?

[bush_cheney2004]

...I am seriously amazed by how many Canadians simply minimize, make excuses for, what Canada does. But Canada is not the 'good guy' to our 'bad guy' the way it's portrayed to be. Apparently, though, image is everything, to some.

Alas, this minimization is important to the collective psyche for many, but thankfully not all Canadians. For them, were it not for the the evil USA or or other "rogue" powers in the world, Canada would not be "forced" to do such things as an allied country with common interests.

That's one of the reasons I have droned on all this time, demonstrating the complicity and culpability that some dearly wish to ignore and wish was not true.

Edited June 27, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Machjo]

Alas, this minimization is important to the collective psyche for many, but thankfully not all Canadians. For them, were it not for the the evil USA or or other "rogue" powers in the world, Canada would not be "forced" to do such things as an allied country with common interests.

That's one of the reasons I have droned on all this time, demonstrating the complicity and culpability that some dearly wish to ignore and wish was not true.

I'm not denying Canada' possible complicity. And indeed if Canada has violated any international laws, it ought to be taken to task to the fullest extent of international law.

And as mentioned in a post above, Canada ought to stop playing both sides of the fence. I won't deny that it does in fact do that, and is certainly engaged in hypocrisy.

When did I ever deny this?

[bush_cheney2004]

But why don't Iraqi children get the same training as US troops in dealing with all the DU all over their country?

Because they don't need the same "training".

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm not denying Canada' possible complicity. And indeed if Canada has violated any international laws, it ought to be taken to task to the fullest extent of international law.

I am not, and assume that neither did AM, single you out for this general observation.

And as mentioned in a post above, Canada ought to stop playing both sides of the fence. I won't deny that it does in fact do that, and is certainly engaged in hypocrisy.

It is good strategy for Canada, wherein the populace needs/wants to believe one thing while the government does another. It is a very practical approach given Canada's alliances and economic dependencies.

[dre]

I'm not denying Canada' possible complicity. And indeed if Canada has violated any international laws, it ought to be taken to task to the fullest extent of international law.

And as mentioned in a post above, Canada ought to stop playing both sides of the fence. I won't deny that it does in fact do that, and is certainly engaged in hypocrisy.

When did I ever deny this?

I'm not denying Canada' possible complicity. And indeed if Canada has violated any international laws, it ought to be taken to task to the fullest extent of international law.

Again this is the paradigm I pointed out before where ethics has been replaced by liability avoidance. If you exports are being used in a way that has horrible effects on innocent people we should stop those exports or attach conditions on them, regardless of what international law lets us get away with (as you kind of alluded to in the second part of your post).

[Machjo]

Because they don't need the same "training".

Of course I was being tongue in cheek there, but not totally. It's clear from the video that the DOD considers DU to be highly hazardous without the proper training, yet DU rounds are allowed ot scatter the civilian landscape. If the DOD thinks soldiers need such training to handle DU, then how can it expose the general population to DU without also warning it not to play with such rounds. Let's face it, a kid who sees a DU round lying on the ground might think it's cool, keep it as a souvenir, wash it, play with it, make a whistle out of it, etc. Some kids might approach bombed out Iraqi tanks filled with DUst, thinking them cool and wanting to play on them. Buildings filled with DU shrapnel might be torn down,with DUst washing away into the air and water supply, etc. Have we not considered these things before using such dangerous weapons? US soldiers might be trained to handle such weapons, but clearly the average child in Iraq is not.

[Machjo]

Again this is the paradigm I pointed out before where ethics has been replaced by liability avoidance. If you exports are being used in a way that has horrible effects on innocent people we should stop those exports or attach conditions on them, regardless of what international law lets us get away with (as you kind of alluded to in the second part of your post).

Sorry. Then let me clarify. Of course international law ought to be only the minimum standard, yest sometimes Canada does not even meet that most bare minimum of standards.

But I do agree with you that beyond that, as I'd pointed out in a previous post, law or no law, Canada should be prohibited from selling products it bans on its own soil, and certainly even products it does allow but only under the most stringent of circumstances ought to meet the same standards abroad. Quite simply, would we tolerate the RCMP using DU-tipped rounds for their pistols? If the answer is no, then how can we tolerate such a product being scattered by the ton across a foreign land without it being under any control. It's ust left to float around in the environment for anyone to handle. If we would not tolerate that on our own soil, then we should not tolerate it abroad.

On that front, law or no law, we should ban the selling of DU to any country that uses it so maliciously. I fully agree with you on that.

[bush_cheney2004]

If the DOD thinks soldiers need such training to handle DU, then how can it expose the general population to DU without also warning it not to play with such rounds. Let's face it, a kid who sees a DU round lying on the ground might think it's cool, keep it as a souvenir, wash it, play with it, make a whistle out of it, etc.

This is not just an issue for DU, as it applies to unexploded ordnance, mines, spent batteries, etc., all the goodies of a modern war. Vietnam is still cleaning up.

Some kids might approach bombed out Iraqi tanks filled with DUst, thinking them cool and wanting to play on them. Buildings filled with DU shrapnel might be torn down,with DUst washing away into the air and water supply, etc. Have we not considered these things before using such dangerous weapons? US soldiers might be trained to handle such weapons, but clearly the average child in Iraq is not.

True, but that will come in time. The Iraqi authorities will recover and clean up as needed...there are other far more pressing problems and risks to deal with right now. The Americans and British will even help them do it!

Edited June 27, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Machjo]

This is not just an issue for DU, as it applies to unexploded ordnance, mines, spent batteries, etc., all the goodies of a modern war. Vietnam is still cleaning up.

True, but that will come in time. The Iraqi authorities will recover and clean up as needed...there are other far more pressing problems and risks to deal with right now. The Americans and British will even help them do it!

The UK is still finding unexploded ordnances from WWII buried under its soil on occasion. In fact I think just a few months ago a WWII bomb exploded in a suburb. I can't remember about injuries, but either way, you get the point.

Look at how the US is helping Vietnam clean up the mess the US left behind. My guess is it will help Iraq and Afghanistan just as much.

And what about Canada? Do we keep track of where our rounds go, etc. so that we can in fact clean up properly before we leave? Or again, will we just abandon explosive rounds for kids to play and maim themselves with?

[Machjo]

And as for the spike in cancer rates and birth defects in Iraq at least, I'm sure for many Iraqis thinking of having children, it is a serious issue. They will notice the spike or read about it in the newspapers, and then start thinking, what if I've been exposed. You're likely to find a sharp drop in births in Iraq in the next few decades resulting from this fear. but then who will take care of the elderly? The US sure as hell won't.

It would seem to me that this is a pressing matter.

[bush_cheney2004]

...It would seem to me that this is a pressing matter.

It is not a pressing matter given other priorities and exigencies for Iraq. DU is not harmless, but it is less harmful than many other things.

[Machjo]

It is not a pressing matter given other priorities and exigencies for Iraq. DU is not harmless, but it is less harmful than many other things.

Perhaps. But if so, but either way, when local health authorities must advise women not to have children, that's pretty serious. Essentially, it's genocide. So will the US conduct research to find out why that has happened, and how it's happened?

[bush_cheney2004]

Perhaps. But if so, but either way, when local health authorities must advise women not to have children, that's pretty serious. Essentially, it's genocide. So will the US conduct research to find out why that has happened, and how it's happened?

No...it is not GENOCIDE. Not by any definition....why are people so quick to invoke the "G" card? Hell, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't even "genocide".

As for research, will Canada?

[Machjo]

No...it is not GENOCIDE. Not by any definition....why are people so quick to invoke the "G" card? Hell, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't even "genocide".

As for research, will Canada?

Well, if you're killing off the gene pool of an entire community, what do you call that? Sure I may be exaggerating there, but still, harming the reproductive organs of a large segment of an entire local community, to the degree that the local authorities have to advise that people no longer have children, is pretty alarming to say the least.

Now as for Canada, it is involved in Afghanistan, and certainly if we should find alarming rates of cancer or birth defects, etc. compared to what would normally be considered normal, I'd strongly advise the Canadian government provide funding for an international objective study to find the cause, and if it should be found that Canada's involvement in Afghanistan is partly to blame, then Canada ought to take responsibility and do all it can to make it right, by compensating affected families, cleaning up the local environment, publicly accepting responsibility, etc. Indeed.

[bush_cheney2004]

Well, if you're killing off the gene pool of an entire community, what do you call that?

Nonsense...that's what I call your assertion of genocide. Is every industrial toxin in the environment to be considered genocide?

Now as for Canada, it is involved in Afghanistan, and certainly if we should find alarming rates of cancer or birth defects, etc. compared to what would normally be considered normal, I'd strongly advise the Canadian government provide funding for an international objective study to find the cause,

No...let's keep playing drama games...it is mostly if not all Canada's fault, because Canada knew of the dangers going back to having First Nations laborers hauling uranium ore from Great Bear Lake. Canada is the uranium gift that keeps on giving...like herpes!

and if it should be found that Canada's involvement in Afghanistan is partly to blame, then Canada ought to take responsibility and do all it can to make it right, by compensating affected families, cleaning up the local environment, publicly accepting responsibility, etc. Indeed.

Yay...Canada ought to do all these things! Now, back to reality....

Edited June 27, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest American Woman]

Well, if you're killing off the gene pool of an entire community, what do you call that? Sure I may be exaggerating there, but still, harming the reproductive organs of a large segment of an entire local community, to the degree that the local authorities have to advise that people no longer have children, is pretty alarming to say the least.

Now as for Canada, it is involved in Afghanistan, and certainly if we should find alarming rates of cancer or birth defects, etc. compared to what would normally be considered normal, I'd strongly advise the Canadian government provide funding for an international objective study to find the cause, and if it should be found that Canada's involvement in Afghanistan is partly to blame, then Canada ought to take responsibility and do all it can to make it right, by compensating affected families, cleaning up the local environment, publicly accepting responsibility, etc. Indeed.

Canada SOLD the DU to the U.S., so what is this 'if Canada is found t be involved.....' and 'partly to blame' crap??

[Bonam]

Stupid thread. Depleted uranium is no more dangerous than normal uranium found in nature. In fact, depleted uranium poses less of a radiological threat than the natural uranium mix. Furthermore, this metal has a variety of legitimate industrial, research, and military uses, and is in fact considered so safe that anyone can obtain a license for its use.

This is no different than saying that the use of iron should be banned because if you are stupid enough to ingest too much iron it might kill you.