http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin...cgi?read=62203

CAUTION! The picture is not pleasant.

On 27/04/2005 3:29 PM, Dan wrote:
In article ,
Al Patrick wrote:

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin...cgi?read=62203

CAUTION! The picture is not pleasant.

The "picture" has nothing to do with "troops" - it's showing birth
defects - which are not shown to be even remotely connected with
"DEPLETED URANIUM WEAPONS" - whatever *those* are.

Indeed, the "picture" might have little to do with depleted uranium
shell casings. This does not change the fact that such ordnance is
known to cause all sorts of health problems in soldiers as well as the
people who collect the casings months or years after hostilities end.

The stuff is poison, and pretending otherwise is disingenuous, at best.

Nice attempt at anti-war propaganda though. Do you work for CBS "News"
or something?

No, CBS, Fox, et al, are extremely fond of branding their particular
flavours of propaganda. This is simply web agitprop. Nothing more,
nothing less.

Dan wrote:

In article ,
Al Patrick wrote:


http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin...cgi?read=62203

CAUTION! The picture is not pleasant.


The "picture" has nothing to do with "troops" - it's showing birth
defects - which are not shown to be even remotely connected with
"DEPLETED URANIUM WEAPONS" - whatever *those* are.

Nice attempt at anti-war propaganda though. Do you work for CBS "News"
or something?

Dan, Did you read the text, including the "references" source material
or just look at the picture? Do a Google search for ["Depleted Uranium"
& DNA] - without the brackets - and you'll get 23,600 hits. Follow just
a few of those.

Now, Do YOU work for someone in the government, or some other nuclear
firm, who bribed someone else to get them to PAY for what would
otherwise be a hazardous material, costly to dispose of?

Kind of reminds me of fluoride, a byproduct of the aluminum industry and
a biohazard which someone decided to start putting in our drinking
water! Did you know this is the same thing circuses put into the
drinking water of any new lion they get to make it more managable? Did
you know that if fluoride wasn't "so good for our teeth" that water
departments had to pay to include it in our drinking water someone would
have to pay to get it otherwise disposed of?

I *think* there's a parasite or two in the wood pile some place!

"Al Patrick" wrote in message
...
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin...cgi?read=62203

CAUTION! The picture is not pleasant.

Al,

Your infantile gullability is exceeded only by your ignorance. Is it
possible that DU has as yet unknown hazards? Certainly. Our country has a
long a glorious history of such deceit and blunder, e.g., nuclear radiation
testing in the fifties, agent orange in the sixties, etc., so I won't argue
that point. What I will argue is your inability to do independent research
beyond the internet.

Point 1: The picture of the B-52 dropping bombs in your source is absurd.
DU is used (by-the-way, I spent 24 years on active duty in USAF and the last
15 as a USAF civilian) in anti armor projectiles such as the 30 mm rounds
used in the A-10 and the tank rounds in the M-1.
Therefore, the credibility of the article becomes suspect immediately.
Point 2: I have personally handled the 30mm DU rounds fired by the A-10.
Although I may die a horrible death, at present (I am almost 60) I am in
excellent health. Moreover, my wife, children and grandchildren are in
excellent health nor do I know of any of my comrades (numbering in the
hundreds) who have experienced any of the alleged horrors of DU.
Point 3: You have a history of being reactive. Why don't you make a feeble
attempt to determine your mental limitations and work within your abilities
with an understanding that you are probably wrong 90% of the time.

luigi wrote:

I have personally handled the 30mm DU rounds fired by the A-10.
Although I may die a horrible death, at present (I am almost 60) I am in
excellent health.



There's a huge difference between handling nice smooth metal and breathing in
the metallic dust caused by the impact. It's the same as asbestos, in that the
solid stuff is pretty well harmless. When it becomes airborne in a fine powder,
you die.




mike

m II wrote:

luigi wrote:

I have personally handled the 30mm DU rounds fired by the A-10.
Although I may die a horrible death, at present (I am almost 60) I am in
excellent health.

There's a huge difference between handling nice smooth metal and breathing in
the metallic dust caused by the impact. It's the same as asbestos, in that the
solid stuff is pretty well harmless. When it becomes airborne in a fine powder,
you die.

mike

Since DU has been routinely used in commercial aircraft for many years I'd be
interested to know how many people have died as a result of exposure at aircraft
crash sites?

Dave

My house has solid asbestos shingles on the outside of my house.I am
dieing from asbestos poisoning.NO,I am not.
cuhulin

I once heard on a radio talk show years ago that DU is being used in the
manufacturing of things such as kitchen silverware and kitchen utensils
and braces,the kind of braces for teeth that some people wear to
straighten their teeth.I don't know if it's true though.
cuhulin

Agreed,
CW, ex tanker.

"luigi" wrote in message
...

Al,

Your infantile gullability is exceeded only by your ignorance. Is it
possible that DU has as yet unknown hazards? Certainly. Our country has
a
long a glorious history of such deceit and blunder, e.g., nuclear
radiation
testing in the fifties, agent orange in the sixties, etc., so I won't
argue
that point. What I will argue is your inability to do independent
research
beyond the internet.

Point 1: The picture of the B-52 dropping bombs in your source is absurd.
DU is used (by-the-way, I spent 24 years on active duty in USAF and the
last
15 as a USAF civilian) in anti armor projectiles such as the 30 mm rounds
used in the A-10 and the tank rounds in the M-1.
Therefore, the credibility of the article becomes suspect immediately.
Point 2: I have personally handled the 30mm DU rounds fired by the A-10.
Although I may die a horrible death, at present (I am almost 60) I am in
excellent health. Moreover, my wife, children and grandchildren are in
excellent health nor do I know of any of my comrades (numbering in the
hundreds) who have experienced any of the alleged horrors of DU.
Point 3: You have a history of being reactive. Why don't you make a
feeble
attempt to determine your mental limitations and work within your
abilities
with an understanding that you are probably wrong 90% of the time.

On 27/04/2005 5:11 PM, Dan wrote:
In article ,
clvrmnky wrote:


On 27/04/2005 3:29 PM, Dan wrote:

In article ,
Al Patrick wrote:


http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin...cgi?read=62203

CAUTION! The picture is not pleasant.

The "picture" has nothing to do with "troops" - it's showing birth
defects - which are not shown to be even remotely connected with
"DEPLETED URANIUM WEAPONS" - whatever *those* are.


Indeed, the "picture" might have little to do with depleted uranium
shell casings. This does not change the fact that such ordnance is
known to cause all sorts of health problems in soldiers as well as the
people who collect the casings months or years after hostilities end.

The stuff is poison, and pretending otherwise is disingenuous, at best.


So you are using an unrelated, possibly doctored picture to "illustrate"
how "DEPLETED URANIUM WEAPONS" are "killing our troops".

I'm doing nothing of the sort. I am not the OP, and I specifically said
the embedded image on that linked page had little to do with the subject
of the original post. Go back and reread my reply.

It's quoted, above.

One has nothing to do with the other. Kind of like using forged
documents in a phony story about President Bush in the last election.
Hence my "CBS News" reference.

I "got" your reference. I never made any assertion that these two
things had anything to do with each-other. You expressed incredulity at
"depleted uranium weapons." I pointed out that the dangers of using
depleted uranium in weapons systems is harming people right now,
including the soldiers using them.

I pointed out that commercial propaganda machines usually like to brand
their "news" in a more slick, professional manner so we are more likely
to accept it as fact. I trotted out the tired old CBS and Fox as
examples of this. This web page is pure agitprop, and is easily dismissed.

Try not to think of every reply as some sort of argument. This is a
threaded discussion of sorts. I'm merely running with the ball, as they
say.