DEPLETED URANIUM BABIES

this is beyond words.

Depleted Uranium shells are not nuclear weapons-- in fact depleted Uranium has 40% less radiation than natural uranium, itself not considered a health hazard. While there is some controversy around the use of the material in armor piercing shells, it is not responsible for the effects pictured on these babies-- while they may be victims of war, violence, malnutrition, still-birth and disease.

Anyway-- this type of disgusting propaganda is misguided to what should be the goal of restoring peace in Iraq which is suffering under a Regime that is determined to increase their military power and establishment at the expense of innocent civilians.

The oldest trick in the book is to show pictures of wounded/dead children and inflame emotions toward a particular cause....

>natural uranium, itself not considered a health hazard.

Not by you, maybe. But then, you're obviously clueless. Otherwise, you would know that there is NO safe dose of radiation.

it's just a questions of concentration....low levels of raditation are virtually harmless...

ever get an x-ray?

ever go out in the sun?

both of the above are more dangerous than being exposed to natural uranium.

The second poster on here is the most dangerous kind of idiot. Allowing radioactive weapons to be used in this day and age is pure idiocy, and is reflective of a US foreign policy intent on destruction for profit.

Depleted uranium is a by-product of extracting uranium-235 from natural uranium to be used as fuel in nuclear reactors. The byproduct is 99.8% fissionable uranium-235.

According to the UN Commission on Human Rights, depleted uranium weapons are categorized as a weapon of indiscriminate effect, along with cluster bombs, biochemical warfare and nuclear weapons.

Ever heard of Gulf War Syndrome? Or the "sickness" that soldiers got after the Kosovo War? Depleted uranium is widely suspected as the culprit. Unfortunately, the "democratic" US government refuses to investigate further, even after a huge movement of U.S. veterans campaigned to demand accountability.

When a depleted uranium weapon hits its target, it triggers an explosion which is hot enough to melt aluminum. The uranium also burns and explodes, throwing radioactive debris and dust everywhere (with a half-life of 4.2 billion years).

Although depleted uranium has a low level of radioactivity (lower than naturally-occurring uranium), the exploding dust and debris of radioactive weapons is (as anyone with common sense realizes) not good. Depleted uranium is more than a radioactive risk, it is also a chemical and toxic waste hazard.

For instance, is the depleted uranium finding its way into sources of water? Sources of food (i.e. cattle)? In addition, the presence of uranium oxide in the air can create cancer-causing dust.

Italy has called for a moratorium on the use of depleted uranium weapons. Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Spain and Portugal have joined in the investigations and call for a moratorium.

The United States response? According to ex-Defense Secretary William Cohen: "I think adequate warnings were given and there is a very low risk of coming into contact with this provided there is sufficient protection taken."

There you have it. I've said it before. I'll say it again. Americans are stupid.

Michael Albert, editor of Z magazine, wrote this essay about depleted uranium. There is evidence such as the cancer cluster around the site of the El Al crash in the netherlands which had used depleted uranium as ballast for the plane, but he argues that there were plenty of other poisons being spread around in the Iraq war (and the past 10 years of bombing), but depleted uranium by itself has been studied and doesn't necessarily pose this sort of risk. That's not to say that there aren't tons of people dying of cancer and other things, and that these children didn't exist:
http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2001-01/16albert.htm

when you make a statement like "americans are stupid" it pretty much certifies that you are of questionable intelligence in your own right. It's a generalization much like "black/asian/white people are dumb"-- which of course, is also a ludicrous statement.

Anyway, given the explanation you gave about "radioactive weapons", I think you also managed to prove that the babies pictured at the top of this thread (which was the point of my posting), are NOT the result of the use of depleted uranium shells on armored targets.

The most interesting aspect of your "explanation" however:

"Although depleted uranium has a low level of radioactivity (lower than naturally-occurring uranium), the exploding dust and debris of radioactive weapons is (as anyone with common sense realizes) not good."

By "not good" you are simply implying what I stated explicitly, which was that exposure to uranium, while not good, is are FAR LESS harmful than a) Having an x-ray at the hospital or, b) Being exposed to sunshine.

So, your basically your point about stupidity was lost in your inability to draw an opposing argument to what I already posted, and actually validating my point.

Actually, your inability to read does two things: 1) Allows most of my original comment to stand, which illustrates the inherent danger in radioactive weaponry, and 2) Proves that, yes, most Americans are stupid --- yourself being a perfect example.

Unfortunately, by ignoring most of my comment, you leave out the part where I already answered your objection. Depleted uranium bombs are far worse than getting an x-ray or being in the sun.

For instance, it is not a problem if the sun shines on a drinking water source. However, would you drink out of a lake which had depleted uranium shrapnel in it? I don't think so. Would you eat meat from a cow which had pieces of the shrapnel embedded in its body? Again, I don't think so.

Furthermore, an x-ray machine and the sun don't explode next to you, tearing flesh and inflicting unimaginable and indiscriminate death and destruction.

Your analogy would be better extended like this. I don't fear getting an x-ray. However, I would be very opposed to someone dumping an x-ray machine from 30,000 feet into my backyard.

If the U.S. would stop its violent and illegal pursuit of profit by any means necessary, as dozens of nations around the world have begged it to do, we wouldn't have to worry about it. Cluster bombs and depleted uranium are tools of terrorism. Period.

now, your quote has changed to: "most Americans are stupid". I'm glad you're learning to construct sentences that don't entirely reflect your lack of reason. This is cause for celebration.

As to the discussion at hand, I see you're trying to twist the argument to adhere to your screwed up logic. I don't think anyone was arguing that a depleted Uranium shell that hits your house is not dangerous. But, thank you for clarifying that fact for us. Thanks to you, I now know that a uranium shell that hits me in the head is more dangerous than a hospital x-ray, or the radiation in sunshine. Good.

Now, on to the cows and lakes (not too many cows and lakes in Iraq by the way, but let's run with it).

Would I eat a cow with shrapnel in it? No, and I don't know anyone who would, no matter how hungry they are. But, if you did, I would concur that you would be at a marginally higher risk of developing some form of cancer over a period of many years.

Would I drink from a lake with shrapnel it it? Yes, and I would not end up looking like the babies pictured in this thread. In fact, the water would be perfectly safe, but I'll spare you the science lesson...

Which brings us back to the babies! The whole point of this. Radiation from depleted uranium is not the cause of the condition of those babies. There is not *nearly* enough radiation in depleted uranium to do this, and no logical connection between the two-- unless of course, as you were so clever to point out-- a shell hit actually them in the head.

One, the UN never used any depleted uraniums near any civilian populace during Operation Desert Storm (1991), specifically, the Iraqi civilians.

Two, depleted uraniums are used mostly as armor piercing munitions, with the aircraft A-10 Warthog (Tank Killer) sporting the bulk of the usage. Most Iraqi armors (tanks, etc) were in the desert near or around Kuwait (Kuwait City), not Baghdad. As a matter of fact, three days after the ground war started, the UN forces were called off chasing the retreating Iraqi, days from reaching Baghdad.

The bulk of the uranium slugs would then be found mostly around Kuwait, since the Iraqi forces defended Kuwait much more than the vast uninhabited desert border of Iraq. UN bombs that landed in Baghdad were either "smart," pinpoint-accurate conventional bombs or cruise missiles loaded with conventional warheads.

If ever, there is such thing as "uranium babies" it would most likely be exhibited by Kuwaiti citizens, not Iraqis.

One, the UN never used any depleted uraniums near any civilian populace during Operation Desert Storm (1991), specifically, the Iraqi civilians.

Two, depleted uraniums are used mostly as armor piercing munitions, with the aircraft A-10 Warthog (Tank Killer) sporting the bulk of the usage. Most Iraqi armors (tanks, etc) were in the desert near or around Kuwait (Kuwait City), not Baghdad. As a matter of fact, three days after the ground war started, the UN forces were called off chasing the retreating Iraqi, days from reaching Baghdad.

The bulk of the uranium slugs would then be found mostly around Kuwait, since the Iraqi forces defended Kuwait much more than the vast uninhabited desert border of Iraq. UN bombs that landed in Baghdad were either "smart," pinpoint-accurate conventional bombs or cruise missiles loaded with conventional warheads.

If ever, there is such thing as "uranium babies" it would most likely be exhibited by Kuwaiti citizens, not Iraqis.