DU is certainly bad stuff but that article is so chock full of misinformation and propaganda that I almost can’t begin. I explained to a good friend of mine once regarding DU that if one wants to take a stand on something it’s important to be truthful—at all times. Half-truths, deception and lies are how those other people operate (like those in the Bush Administration.) Telling half truths about a subject which you feel strongly about only weakens your own position.
For, those on the fence will get out and find the truth.
Since I don't know much about DU I certainly cannot argue with you. I do know that it can't be good for people and that is about it. If you have a link to a good article about DU please pass it on to me.
There is a good FAQ at http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/faq_17apr.htm
This was published by the Office of the Special Assistant for Gulf War Illnesses so it might be construed as biased--understandabley so.
Here’s a similar opinion from FAS http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/du.htm
And of course http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium
The truth of the matter is, DU is bad stuff. It’s a heavy metal and can cause illness when embedded in animal tissue. Just like lead and iron are toxic(which are both slightly radioactive too.) it’s not used because of its radiological properties like many people would have you believe, it’s useful in munitions simply because it’s heavy. Just like it’s useful as ballast for commercial aircraft.
Personally I don’t think it’s a good idea for the US military to leave tons of this junk on the battlefield but, I think it’s a really bad idea to overstate the problems associated with it.
Overstating anything to the absurd levels that people have attributed to DU only strengthens the arguments of proponents for weapons like this. It also marginalizes the arguments against.
3 comments:
Hey Lesley;
DU is certainly bad stuff but that article is so chock full of misinformation and propaganda that I almost can’t begin. I explained to a good friend of mine once regarding DU that if one wants to take a stand on something it’s important to be truthful—at all times. Half-truths, deception and lies are how those other people operate (like those in the Bush Administration.) Telling half truths about a subject which you feel strongly about only weakens your own position.
For, those on the fence will get out and find the truth.
The Odd Emperor
Since I don't know much about DU I certainly cannot argue with you. I do know that it can't be good for people and that is about it. If you have a link to a good article about DU please pass it on to me.
There is a good FAQ at http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/faq_17apr.htm
This was published by the Office of the Special Assistant for Gulf War Illnesses so it might be construed as biased--understandabley so.
Here’s a similar opinion from FAS http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/du.htm
And of course http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium
The truth of the matter is, DU is bad stuff. It’s a heavy metal and can cause illness when embedded in animal tissue. Just like lead and iron are toxic(which are both slightly radioactive too.) it’s not used because of its radiological properties like many people would have you believe, it’s useful in munitions simply because it’s heavy. Just like it’s useful as ballast for commercial aircraft.
Personally I don’t think it’s a good idea for the US military to leave tons of this junk on the battlefield but, I think it’s a really bad idea to overstate the problems associated with it.
Overstating anything to the absurd levels that people have attributed to DU only strengthens the arguments of proponents for weapons like this. It also marginalizes the arguments against.
Post a Comment