> I'd like to believe Nato that depleted uranium is harmless. But I
> don't. And this is why...
there's no great mystery to this. OT1H, there's the pentagon's public twaddle about how DU is no more dangerous than granola; OT0H, there are its internal policies and procedures for hand- ling DU munitions and cleaning (more likely: disposing of) DU- tainted materiel. the latter should, by pentagon standards, be relatively easy to obtain. if anyone bothers to do so i'm cer- tain that they will very systematically treat DU as incredibly toxic and requiring very strict radiological precautions. that would put an end to all this needless 'speculation.'
as an aside, this is one thing that rubs me the wrong way with fisk. he's so enamored with the heroic task of dispelling mys- teries that he ends up gadding about in a steambath, thrusting the clouds aside.
there are simple and constructive things that could be done in this regard, if anyone cares to do more than speculate. dredge up some public interest group willing to pony up a bit of cash to underwrite some of the research and sick someone at the na- tional security archives on it. better still, find someone who is even-handed and experienced with military research (for ex- ample, michael mcclintock) to look into it.
isn't there an editor at _the nation_ on this list or something?
cheers, t