351
Exclusive: US to send depleted-uranium munitions to Ukraine
(www.reuters.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2023
351 points (91.9% liked)
World News
32328 readers
497 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
From what I've read depleted uranium is not proven to cause cancer, nor is it not proven (With the exception that you inhale it or eat it).
In Iraq it's still up to debate if it causes cancer or birth defects, since burning buildings and other burning stuff also causes a lot of nasty things to humans.
From what I've read they were also used in Bosnia, and they haven't had similiar effects to Iraq.
So let the Ukrainians have their depleted uranium.
The problem with depleted uranium isn't that it is poison to touch, but that it dissolves into the dirt and dust and poisons everything because people will, in fact, be breathing it in as an aerosol and drinking what gets in the water supply.
Sounds plausible, but wouldn't it cause the same types of effects in Bosnia if that were the case?
Yes
https://press.un.org/en/2002/unep124.doc.htm
In the follow follow up report they said that the risks of the DU dust causing any harm are minimal.
(EXTREME CW: the link is exactly what it says, but worse)
Listen. You just saw the report that proves health effects exist. It was right above you, yet youre still talking. Every time you reply, you just pick a single piece of the last argument to 'debunk', even if the rest of the comment answers your whole useless fucking question. By now I'm convinced youre only dragging out this discussion to waste our time. Ive seen at least 30 separate people pull this twitter-lib trick and not one is from our instance. Fuck off.
You know why wartorn countries keep mysteriously suffering birth defects? Because of people like you, who dance around and confuse anyone who tries to protest these weapons. Yet if i ever sent you a graphic picture of a deformed baby, whose defects entirely stem from uranium, you'd recoil in disgust and call me a psychopath. You couldn't look at the end-product of your beloved bomb, much less any bomb, without throwing up. You want to prove me wrong now, so fucking look.
Call me a propagandist. Tell me i photoshopped the fucking brain-sac onto that kid second-from-left. Look at the pictures until you feel something, or cease all feeling in your pointless shaking little body.
Next you'll try to criticize my "needless aggression." But you know where it came from. Fuck outta here
Here it is again, in case you missed or tried to ignore it.
radiation asside it's a highly toxic heavy metal yes it will cause health defects
So what's the difference between lead, tungsten, and depleted uranium? They all cause cancer and other symptoms, and both tungsten and depleted uranium must be decontaminated if the tank carrying them is destroyed.
And from what I've read you will die of the toxicity before you will die of the radiation.
So youre telling us there's an even more deadly aspect than the radiation, and youre still defending this like your life depends on it, huh?
I thought liberals had a rule against bending science to fit political agendas. Guess that's another lie you tell yourselves
Depleted Uranium isn't radioactive, really. U-238, stripped of all the U-235 (hence, depleted) is incredibly stable. While it is technically radioactive, it barely registers. So maybe learn what you're talking about?
Read it again. Keyword "toxicity". No patience for you flipflopping around points like this
Your comment specifically said, "you're telling us there's an even more deadly aspect than the radiation" so I'm not sure what you're on about my guy.
Literacy rates in capitalist nations continue to plummet.
But I said that in my original comment, didn't I? Maybe I just said it a but unclearly, since English isn't my first language, but it's there.
Here's the part I mentioned it.
And then you said go ahead and give Ukraine depleted uranium rounds
Yes I did say that.
Firstly. The main cause of concern with depleted uranium is that according to some research it can linger around the area where they were used, and give people depleted uranium poisoning. Note that there hasn't yet been any concrete evidence to prove this is the case.
Secondly. Ukraine themselves asked for these weapons, so they have most likely gone over the risks of using depleted uranium ammunition and have deemed their usefulness to outweigh the potential health down sides that comes from using depleted uranium.
Thirdly. The rounds given to Ukraine are armor piercing rounds, so the chances of them being fired at buildings are minimal, thus minimizing the possibility of them affecting people if they really were as dangerous as some research tells us.
yes because the ukrainian government couldn't give a shit about the welfare of the people being poisoned
Refer to point one
If only the world were so simple that we could trust the organization tasked with banning the substance rather than reading primary sources.
I agree that depleted uranium shouldn't be used, but your quote from the International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons means nothing.
That's like not listening to doctors about whether or not you should quit smoking because doctors are biased
That aligns with their chosen reality. People are simple creatures and any money will turn them into obedient slaves. The only doctor you can trust is the one who isn't going paid because they've been ostracized for speaking the truth.
What are you on about? @rogrodre@hexbear.net was doing exactly the thing that you're describing. Treating statements from an organization called "The Coalition to Ban Something" as fact, without any other review, is only believing information that confirms your beliefs.
That's not the same thing at all.
The comment above mine is more akin to wanting to ban water because the Coalition to Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide said so. Or wanting to ban abortion because Americans United for Life said they're immoral. Or to increase fossil fuel usage because OPEC said it isn't bad for the environment. You're citing an opinionated secondary source without even considering the other side.
If you want facts, you go to unbiased, peer reviewed primary sources. Or at least hear both sides. If you want opinions, go to a "coalition to ban something."
The comment 2 above mine was saying that depleted uranium's effects are up for debate. The next commenter provided only one side of the argument and claimed that it was fact, even mocking their literacy for not seeing it.
yes it is an opinionated source but it is also an opinionated source with scientific evidence to back up its claims. What you are doing is seeking false balance between the position that has been reached trhough scientific peer reviewed study and the position "nuh uh"
I'm agreeing that depleted uranium weapons are a bad idea. I'm disagreeing that someone is illiterate for not believing an opinionated source.
I could easily quote Wikipedia just as the prior comment quoted OP's article:
Surely the DoD has at least some scientific research, no? It would be foolish to take this quote and believe that depleted uranium is safe, and it would be even more foolish to insult someone's intelligence for not doing so.
I was just gonna say, you're correct, and I'm pretty sure there are WAY more toxic chemicals and debris on a battlefield. Think of all the older structures built with asbestos products being destroyed, for example...
Last I read, alot of the effects Vets ended up with from Iraq, were from the immense open pits they burnt their trash in.