this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2023
291 points (90.5% liked)
World News
32372 readers
660 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's not about them. It's the children who find the spent ammo later.
This crap is the reason that there are birth defects spikes anywhere the US military operates.
Ok but the alternatives are not environmentally conscious either, finally the people who’s land it is should be the ones making choices about the conditions of that land
The alternative bring tungsten? It's very stable so anything besides eating a spent rod isn't going to have effects. If it's in the air it'll just be inert. Even if it gets in your lungs it'll be like any other dust. DU on the other hand would keep emitting radiation internally.
But which people? Government or the people who actually own the land?
And I guess, their favourite choice of "Don't use any weapons on my land and just clear off voluntairily" is not an option.
I don't get why people hate on the Ukraine for using weapons to defend themselves. Not like they chose to be attacked.
Is ammo made from lead that much better? I honestly don't know. Sure the radiation sucks but Uranium, at least the isotope they're sending is "barely" radioactive. It's the same Uranium people had in their plates etc. The toxicity is probably the far more relevant factor but I don't know how Uranium compares to lead.
Depleted uranium is not really that radioactive. Everything is technically radioactive eventually though. Depleted uranium is what's left behind when you seperate the radioactive stuff out. It's a heavy metal still, so isn't good for you, but heavy metals will always be involved. Trying to have a war using only healthy, organic, ethically sourced munitions isn't going to happen.
It's nothing to do with radioactivity, it's the toxicity that comes with most heavy metals.
There isn't radiation in Depleted uranium.
This makes sense.
I imagine there's a lot more reasons for birth defect spikes post US mil ops in addition to this. The military isn't exactly an environmentally conscious operation. ☠️
Agent orange is what plants crave
Sure, burn pits and other crap will help.
But this kind of ammo, kids will find and hang on to. They bring it home, add it to their collection of other cool shit they've scavenged...and then their brothers and sisters are born with malformed limbs, mishaped heads, etc.
There have been a lot of stories written about it over the years. The one I read was specifically about Iraq I believe, but it was a while ago.
To be fair, the impact of DU is mostly because of heavy metal poisoning, not radioactivity.
You’re acting like being near this stuff is akin to standing in Chernobyl while it just isn’t true
The amount of Ukrainians dying right now will pale in comparison to those effected by the munitions.
The controversy around depleted uranium rounds is way overblown.
Even in Iraq the evidence is super inconclusive. And yes birth defects rose however the entire country basically collapsed for years and nothing clearly indicates it was the DU used.
Don't get me wrong, it's nasty stuff. But this is war, more people are getting killed by bombs then any DU related cancer can cause.
In Basra the rate of leukemia in children rose dramatically and that is too specific of a disease to not be linked to DU exposure due to the heavy use of it in surrounding tank battles.
How do you you it's not linked to any of the other hundreds of dangerous chemicals?
Because the issue is specific to the region and started specifically after the tank battle where DU ammunition was used. If it would be a general issue with some dangerous chemical being used, we'd expect to see similiar issues in other regions. Of course it is hypotheticakky possible that at the same time some dangerous and persistant chemical exposure happened in the region, but that is not plausible and also the US would have a strong interest in finding such an alternative explanation. But there isn't any research published, that provided an alternative.
Also look into the wording of the US when sending the ammunition to Ukraine. They state that no radiation hazard is to be expected for the Ukrainians. They do not talk about a toxicological hazard.
i never said it had to be because of radiation. Even just in its effect as a heavy metal it seems to be much worse. Also it could be that it becomes airborn more easily than other metals such as lead, so the wreckage of tanks shot with DU are more dangerous to the people cleaning them up.
Why are you so worried about speculated harms when Ukrainians are actually being raped, tortured, and murdered by russians? Your lack of humanity is showing
Turning "we need to weigh benefits and costs" into "your lack of humanity is showing" is quite a take and obviously has nothing to do with reality.
How about letting Ukrainians make that cost/benefit analysis for their own country? I think they're grown-ups, no need to patronize.
it's not the Ukrainian people who decide, it's the Ukrainian government that decides, and America basically decides what they decide
Ukrainian government has a very high approval rate among the population.
Are you really this delusional? Sure Ukraine has their own uranium munitions that they can decide to use anytime they want... When does the public get to decide on what happens with the tax money - fund schools, build infrastructure, etc. or send radioactive ammunition to fuel a proxy war in some corrupt country?
Weighing costs and benefits happens with a comprehensive set of actual facts, not a hodgepodge of speculations and fearmongering that play into the fascists' hands