Look, Folks, the claim was as follows (with one explanatory note by me included) :
" 'Yikes is right,' he responded. 'This nightmare [meaning the dirty-bomb-type scenario] has now essentially come true with the use of depleted uranium on anti-tank and other shells in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq. The military rationale is that the super-hard depleted uranium helps shells penetrate tanks and other hard structures. But the long-term effect is that the uranium vaporizes upon explosion and contaminates everything for hundreds of yards, if not miles.'
'Thus there are now whole regions that are heavily radioactive. Reports are pouring in from all three countries about soaring cancer rates, infant death rates and more. The mysterious 'Gulf War Syndrome' may have been caused by radiation exposure suffered by U.S. troops. So, though 'off the books,' the last three major U.S. attacks have in fact been nuclear in nature.'"
First of all, uranium is super-dense, not super-hard and it burns but that's not the question. Yes, the uranium vaporizes and becomes uranium oxides, but these are even less concentrated forms of uranium (in terms of radioactivity). To say that depleted uranium "contaminates everything for hundreds of yards if not miles" stretches the definition of the word "contaminates" beyond the breaking point. One could just as easily, if not more easily, say that uranium oxides spread over this large an area are "diluted until harmless". So the idea that the use of depleted uranium shells constitutes an attack which is "nuclear in nature" is absurd.
It's unhealthy. It's unpleasant. But the purpose of a DU shell is to kill the enemy, thus preventing him from inserting schrapnel and bullets under the skin of our soldiers and (in the cases of Kosovo and Iraq) Kosovars, Shia and Kurds. Uranium is a heavy metal. So is lead and plenty of lead is sprayed around a battlefield, wouldn't you agree? Battlefields are a mess and a calamity but this bugaboo about depleted uranium strikes me as silly compared to issues like landmines and pollution generally. Lefties' obsession with anything radioactive as if it is a Ring of Mordor or something makes us look stupid.
Depleted Uranium has risks, but these risks are relatively well-understood and uranium, fairly uniquely among environmental pollutants, is at least easily quantifiable because of its radioactivity (albeit low radioactivity). If people really are being poisoned by depleted uranium it will not just show up epidemiologically but it will be provable physically. Show me the proof of large numbers of civilians with uranium in their bodies and the argument is over. Show me high concetrations in the soil and in the air. If it's there it will be easy to find. Until then, this depleted uranium stuff is idle speculation.
Again, I would be far more worried about solvents and other chemicals, particularly when they are being used in a combat situation. The armed forces may follow OSHA regulations on a base or ship at peace, but under attack I dare say that the standards may get looser. Moreover, who knows what is released when a modern tank, fighting vehicle or aircraft gets blown up and starts burning?
Battlefields are polluted, nasty places but depleted uranium shells are not nuclear warfare and getting hysterical about them makes lefties look as though they are too squeamish to be trusted with matters of war and peace.
peace,
boddi