Baghdad civilian casualties, DU, etc.

[dannubis]

Re: Re: Baghdad civilian casualties, DU, etc.

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Duhhhhhhhhhhhh! Why dance around "indirect" when the Department of the Army (and the other services have their versions) have long-published, publicly available policies and procedures for handling DU ordnance and for decontamination?

The "issue" is HOW ****ING DANGEROUS. Nobody from the Pentagon ever said the stuff was chocolate-****ing-chip cookie dough. It's just not the make-you-glow-in-the-dark-while-your-schlong-drops-off neurosis that the constant DU whiners make it out to be.

Wait until this stuff is fired at your back yard... I think you wouldn't be so causiously forgiving then.

Uranium is in finely dispersed condition very toxic as it is easily inhaled. And if you fire a uranium hall at several times the speed of sound at a hard object you get a finely dispersed uranium dust.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


So the right thing to do was to invade Saudi, then. Were the US forces using outdated maps again?



As I recall, UNSCR 1441 did not authorise the use of force in any eventuality at all. Also, it seemed to me that the weapons inspectors were making progress, and much of the US "intelligence" was found to be bunk.



Was Saddam Hussein implying he had NBC weapons? If not, what's your point?

1. saudi - not prudential to go after saudi first, with saddam still in power.

2. UNSC 1441 promised serious consequences. That meant war. War was not mentioned explicitly for reasons that have already been discussed here.

3. Weapons inspectors progress - the progress they made was to demonstrate that Saddam was not cooperating - he didnt account for his allegedly destroyed weapons, and he didnt cooperate with interviews of scientists. Ergo he was in violation of 1441 - no further inspection was required to confirm that.

[Az]

The "issue" is HOW ****ING DANGEROUS. Nobody from the Pentagon ever said the stuff was chocolate-****ing-chip cookie dough. It's just not the make-you-glow-in-the-dark-while-your-schlong-drops-off neurosis that the constant DU whiners make it out to be.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Re: Re: Re: Baghdad civilian casualties, DU, etc.

Originally posted by dannubis
Wait until this stuff is fired at your back yard... I think you wouldn't be so causiously forgiving then.

Uranium is in finely dispersed condition very toxic as it is easily inhaled. And if you fire a uranium hall at several times the speed of sound at a hard object you get a finely dispersed uranium dust.

Been there, handled that. The dust inhalation problem has been studied extensively. The zone of significant risk from a 120mm M829A1 APFSDS round (largest DU round in US use, with a 40mm x ~ 890mm DU penetrator) impact on MBT armor (hitting a lighter vehicle causes less vaporization and shear-fragmentation, resulting in less dust) is approximately 50 meters from the impact site for a period of 5-10 minutes. DU once it hits the ground is the densest stuff down there, so initially, it's the last to get kicked up by wind and the first to settle out. In the long term, it sinks progressively into the soil where likelihood of human ingestion is minimal, and the contact toxicity is similar to lead.

There are established procedures for decontamination, and DU is far from the only chemical hazard on a battlefield - do you think breathing air containing burned fuels, synthetic rubber and hydraulic fluid is good for you?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Azazel
LotM, a spread of those deseases can be prevented by sanitation.

"Don't drink from the toilet, kids.".

I realize that utilities are in the crapper, but from some people here, you get the feeling that people are supposed to drop like flies in Iraq.

If you have a functioning water supply, with source water given at least primary biological treatment (typically, a chlorine or alternative {Potassium permanganate, etc.} drip system is attached to water production wells, to continuosly inject the proper ratio of treatment agent), then you have your sanitation issue solved.

If you have to crap in a bucket, and take another bucket down to the river and get water that way, then you've got problems.

[Az]

Well, don't **** in the river, then.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Trouble is Basra is downstream - so even if people upstream don't **** in the river (but where do you think Baghdad, etc., sewage discharges to?), then about 50 billion goats on farms all up the valleys are ****ting in the river (well, it washes down) as are all sorts of swamp critters in the wetlands areas.

On the lower Tigris and Euphrates rivers, I wouldn't consider walking on water to be miraculous.

[Az]

Well, clear water is a known *****.

And yes, Chlorination is rather swell at cleaning the water.