Here in Florida we have 'gypsum stacks' which are huge piles of ... Gypsum a by-product from the processing of phosphate to "fertilizer". It is somewhat (very low level) radio-active, and as such cannot be used for road beds, construction etc. I'll bet that DU is stronger, and worse for the imbibers. And excreted or not, we are seeing high rates of deformities in babies in Afghanistan, Iraq, (where the DU is used) and among returning soldiers' families as well. DU is a great way to dispose of waste products that normally would not be allowed to be disposed of most places in the US. Why not make it into munitions (yes, its high density makes it a perfect armor piercing weapon). The fact that it pollutes the immediate area, its users as well as anyone in the area of its firing is not important to the US Government, nor will it ever be.
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chip Mefford Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 1:32 PM To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Depleted Uranium Shells Used by U.S. Military Worse Than Nuclear Weapons Chip Mefford wrote: > Craig Barrett wrote: >> Hmmmm... while DU may be dangerous, this article doesn't help much with the >> way it's written - poor use of statistics, no references to support its >> claims. It's exactly this kind of shoddy work that causes the raising of >> the skeptical eyebrow at those who're fighting against things like DU. This >> is a real pity because I think it hampers what might otherwise be a really >> good cause. > > Wholly agreed. >SNIP I kinda want to change my language, but it's already posted, so I'll just add my after-thoughts. Point, my use of 'non-issue' just doesn't feel right. But it really does seem that the who has really played this down. Point. I agree with the basic premise of the original article. However, this statement "The genetic future of the Iraqi people, for the most part, is destroyed. The environment now is completely radioactive." I've read before, elsewhere, I can't substantiate it. Against the background radiation of other areas in the region, yeah, it's up a bit. And it's my feeling/opinion, that a 'bit' is a huge amount, but with what passes for 'expertise' in these areas, folks seem to think that's okay, when going for health expert citations. See the who report I linked earlier. yes, I think that service folks are paying a terrible price, and the people of the area we all call Irag are paying a staggeringly price orders of magnitude above. This is all happening whether there is 'consensus' by us or not. Uranium is just fine, left in the ground, in it's natural state, unrefined, and not touched, the way it should be. Doing anything else with it, is just insane. That's my take. Proving that, otoh, has proven to be pretty difficult. _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
