|
Has anybody considered that some of the reported health effects may in fact
be due to the destruction of "targets" ... effects such as the burning of oil,
rubber, propellants (some of which are not very nice chemicals) and other
structures? It seems to me that it takes a rather narrow view of the world to
attribute all of the reported health effects during a wartime situation and to
attribute them to a single cause ... the use of DU ammunition. Seems to me that
what is being said is "here's the effect, and we don't like this particular
action, so it must be the cause of this effect".
My $0.02 worth ...
Jim Hardeman
Jim_Hardeman@dnr.state.ga.us
>>> <RuthWeiner@AOL.COM> 11/26/2002 9:07:27 >>> In a message dated 11/25/02 6:54:37 PM Mountain Standard Time, ncohen12@comcast.net writes: There's alot of unknowns about DU and its efefcts and alot of claims have been made that may or may not be true. There are also a lot of "knowns" about depleted uranium, and about the chemistry of uranium in general, and about the specific radioactivity of uranium. No, you can't use the "but we don't know" dodge, because: (1) the specific radioactivity is insignificant compared to background, (2) ingested uranium affects the kidneys in a manner similar to many other heavy metals -- it is a chemical, not a radiological, effect, and the effective concentrations are quite well understood, and (3) the solubility of either uranium metal or the oxide (which would be the result of burning uranium) at physiological pH is small and has been studied extensively. Certainly a lot of claims "may not be true" -- most of these are claims about the health effects. Ruth Ruth Weiner, Ph. D. ruthweiner@aol.com |