In war, the advantages of Depleted Uranium munitions are many. However many people oppose its use.

The United States and its NATO allies maintain that Depleted Uranium dust (a by-product) doesn't cause cancer and birth defects, however, 136 countries are citing other research saying that it does.

Which side do you think is right?


Here is the wikipedia entry:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium

Obviously Uranium causes cancer.

Yeah, I thought that was pretty obvious.

Shouldn't have brought that up. Now it's gonna get political.

Well, I wouldn't want to get hit by one either way.

Just from reading the linked article it doesn't sound to me like there has be any official determination that depleted uranium is safe but plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise. Under these circumstances I think it would be a good idea for governments to cease use of depleted uranium in military applications, even if only to appease the general public. Besides, uranium isn't the only high density metal out there. Osmiridium is even denser and would probably make an good substitute for armor piercing shells.

: (

Dont they use depleted uranium on the front of their main battle tanks to deflect missile shots and other high powered cannons.

Well obviously America is always right.

Even when we're blatantly wrong, we're right.

Dont ask a military super power about ethical standards in war.

uh huh. Not to nitpick, but Wikipedia isn't a legitimate source. Do proper research techniques and use credible sources.

It is on an internet forum.

And either way, would it really be worth giving thousands of people cancer if it turns out America was right?, It's not like we need another Agent Orange.

Or...back it with credible sources. Gotta use credible sources, otherwise, it's just words on the screen.

Of the heavy metals, the one that worries me the most is that mercury is used in florescent lights. It's less in modern CFLs, but still in there. Older ones had a considerable amount in them. These things break and most people don't follow http://epa.gov/cfl/cflcleanup.html. Especially worrisome if a florescent light breaks and a little kid messes with it before a parent notices, as a smaller person is more susceptable to the small amount of mercury.

I also don't like that flourescent lights just get thrown away oftentimes rather than being properly disposed. Even though in modern CFLs it is only a small amount of mercury, when you consider how many people are throwing them away every year in a given population, that's a decent amount of mercury to seep into the earth and underground water at the landfill.

Honestly, I'm not worried about the dust given off from a DU round disintegrating. The person on the receiving end is more than likely dead and if it's a DU round, it'll probably be at least a little while before any soldier walks by, allowing the dust to settle away from the lungs, and greatly reducing exposure risks.

EDIT: Also, googling the OP turns up multiple threads matching word-for-word

Had a few of those break during my time in college. Wasn't good that I was the only one in my fraternity who knew how to properly dispose of them when they do break.

They are literally the only globes you can buy now.

Good call

We've had a lot of problems with spammers recently.