Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by diamond geezer, Feb 24, 2004.
oh my word...
The same problem arose from Gulf War I and to a lesser extend in the Balkans. We thus have other problem areas, and a reasonable timeline to draw on.
I have a bit of questioning, based in part on some knowledge of uranium and radioactive materials, and some ignorance as to some of the methodolgy of hazard. That is, the DU is U-238, and has no U-235. Yet, uranium strip mine areas such as those around the town of George West, south of San Antonio has U-235 as well as the U-238--which is why they mine it. People have been living there and plowing fields for eons. And the uranium is right at the surface, exposed in gullies and ravines. Folks breathe the dust...
I guess where I'm coming from is that, yeah, lots of stuff is indeed hazardous, but there is a threshold below which serious concern as to a problem is not justified.
Another for-instance is the large percentage of east Texas where a scintillometer lights up happily, indicating radioactive material in the soil. However, it's not commercially mine-able. People do live there in apparent good health, just as most anywhere else.
So, how much hazard is actually there in Iraq?
Ahh perhaps we have found the reason folks from Texas do things like ban vibrators.... Didn't you say that was happening in East Texas?
Maybe someone doesn't want us to find out.
here's a pretty descriptive article on DU in Iraq...horrible stuff for them and our troops.
btw, this is about Iraq before dubya dubya II...it's gotta be even worse now.
The comparative radiation counts seem less important than the issue of the ceramic dust. It's quite possible that the area has a lower than common background count of radiation. That dust, however, is another story. Once it settles in the lungs, it's not only a bit radioactive--accepting the "40% less"--but SFAIK almost all heavy metals have some degree of toxicity...