But, would you be pushing the cystic fibrosis issue if your daughter didn't have it? Probably not. If I recall correctly, you once posted something similar to me when you didn't agree with one of my posts. Seems as if you are always eating out at different (sometimes expensive places), couldn't you donate some of that money to CF instead? If you were serious about it, you would.

Isn't that what you are doing to him?

• vm7mm Said:

I posted my reply before you completly edited your comment and changed its entire meaning. Your edited comment has no relevance. I am not the one trying to tell others they do too little. If I were, then I would need to justify what I do. Chico is claiming that we (you included) have no concern for kids being hurt. He makes this claim as he is shopping for homes in a tropical paradise. My only point is, lead by example.

• mgrayar Said:

Seems to me you are telling him he does to little by posting this:
(quote) Rather than passing judgment, how about you sign up and help. You can find out how by clicking on the link below. Maybe you can find some time in between your searchs for real estate in paradise.

Translation please!

I think Chico is talking more about the Government doing something about this situation more so than you and I. It is not something that existed as a disease, it was caused.

Here is a question:

If (that is IF) the DU rounds do indeed leave radioactive contamination where they hit and the uranium round pulverizes...

And if this contamination is killing/injuring people, particularly children now and in years to come..

And given our government is using these rounds (controversial since they were first introduced in the 1980s) knowing, or at least suspecting that they are leaving contamination...

And given that our government is using this weapon in our name...

And given we support the government and its use of these rounds...

Do we, as individuals, bear a moral burden for this action? A moral burden for the illness and death that results?

Or, are we absolved of all moral responsibility?

Interesting question.

• Aolain Said:

That's a lot of if's, but if all of them are true then yes all of us (from Nancy Pelosi to Sarah Palin, Glen Beck to Reverend Sharpton, Missing Chico to Maurice, me and you) bear the moral burden for the sickness and death the DU ammunition is causing.

It was not a knee jerk reaction to go into Iraq. Was it wise, based on the intel at the time it appeared to be. As for Bin Laden, I have a major problem with that dirtbag still breathing and will be happy when he's taken down.

Yes, we Americans care little about everyone in the world because we're the ultimate evil and Bush is the cause for all the ills in the world and Obama is the answer to everything. If you hate it here that bad and it's so much better in other countries, I'm very surprised that you're still residing here. That's very Alec Baldwin of you.

We ALL bear responsibility for this travesty.

• MissingChico Said:

Is there really a travesty? For a long time, there have been people making claims about DU as well as people claiming to have debunked this. I've been hoping to see discussion about reality of this situation. I listened to one of the videos, but it only claimed an increase in cancer rates in a region. I didn't really hear direct proof that DU was what caused it. Maybe I missed that.

Studies indicating negligible effects

Studies in 2005 and earlier have concluded that DU ammunition has no measurable detrimental health effects.

A 1999 literature review conducted by the Rand Corporation stated: "No evidence is documented in the literature of cancer or any other negative health effect related to the radiation received from exposure to depleted or natural uranium, whether inhaled or ingested, even at very high doses,"[104] and a RAND report authored by the U.S. Defense department undersecretary charged with evaluating DU hazards considered the debate to be more political than scientific.[105]

A 2001 oncology study concluded that "the present scientific consensus is that DU exposure to humans, in locations where DU ammunition was deployed, is very unlikely to give rise to cancer induction".[106] Former NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson stated in 2001 that "the existing medical consensus is clear. The hazard from depleted uranium is both very limited, and limited to very specific circumstances".[107]

A 2002 study from the Australian defense ministry concluded that “there has been no established increase in mortality or morbidity in workers exposed to uranium in uranium processing industries... studies of Gulf War veterans show that, in those who have retained fragments of depleted uranium following combat related injury, it has been possible to detect elevated urinary uranium levels, but no kidney toxicity or other adverse health effects related to depleted uranium after a decade of follow-up.”[108] Pier Roberto Danesi, then-director of the IAEA Seibersdorf +Laboratory, stated in 2002 that "There is a consensus now that DU does not represent a health threat".[109]

The International Atomic Energy Agency reported in 2003 that, "based on credible scientific evidence, there is no proven link between DU exposure and increases in human cancers or other significant health or environmental impacts," although "Like other heavy metals, DU is potentially poisonous. In sufficient amounts, if DU is ingested or inhaled it can be harmful because of its chemical toxicity. High concentration could cause kidney damage." The IAEA concluded that while depleted uranium is a potential carcinogen, there is no evidence that it has been carcinogenic in humans.[110]

A 2005 study by Sandia National Laboratories’ Al Marshall used mathematical models to analyze potential health effects associated with accidental exposure to depleted uranium during the 1991 Gulf War. Marshall’s study concluded that the reports of cancer risks from DU exposure are not supported by veteran medical statistics, but Marshall did not consider reproductive health effects.[111]

It's easy to find links supporting either side. I seem to recall that the WHO (listed in your last link) reported that it wasn't a big deal.

For what it's worth, here are some studies that claim that it's not a big deal:
Wikipedia quote with links here:

• Quote: