Comments on: Get Something Straight: Depleted Uranium and Opposing Wars are Different Issues

By: Josh

Josh — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 10:15:38 +0000

Also, it’s more radioactive than most substances that you would think of it’s so radioactive that it will be a hazard for five billion years which is even longer than the highest level nuclear waste produced by regular power plants.

Erm, I don’t think you’ve quite understood the nature of radioactivity. Longer half-lives mean a lower activity. The reason it is so long lived is because it is NOT very radioactive at all.

By: Nimmy

Nimmy — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 06:08:45 +0000

I’m not so sure about DU, because I have heard a lot of negative about it too but the page is informative. But I don’t think 14truth is the kind who I’d trust for any information, but I don’t think all of those who say DU is dangerous are as extremists wacks as 14truth.

By: DV82XL

DV82XL — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 03:00:44 +0000

Of course it is overly optimistic, but it’s all the load the sector says it is going for in the investment literature. The point being that if they haven’t got the stones to promise more than that, any talk of powering modern Western civilization on ‘renewables’ is wishful thinking.

By: drbuzz0

drbuzz0 — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 01:56:08 +0000

Just one thing on that, I’d tend to consider wind or solar as 20% on an 80% of energy (baseload) provided by something else to be extremely and probably unrealistically generous to solar/wind. In practice, I have a lot of doubt that you could ever get solar and wind to make up as much as 10% of total energy even with a huge investment. 20% seems like the absolute best case/most liberal/generous/optimistic estimate.

By: DV82XL

DV82XL — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 23:44:30 +0000

It seems to me that non-scientists are obsessed with solar for ideological reasons and the longer that they continue this obsession the longer coal power plants will be spewing toxic heavy metals, soot and excessive carbon dioxide into our atmosphere. Wind farms or solar are not the answer –you need an 80% base load system first with the rest made up of wind or solar farms or of course wave power as well — so that leaves ya coal –oil –gas – or the most CO2 friendly Nuclear.

It is my honest belief that future generations will look back on the near universal loathing of nuclear power by society in the western world with the same confused disbelief that most of us feel when we look back to previous generations that believed as an article of faith that people of other colors were there natural inferiors.

By: Ray

Ray — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 22:36:10 +0000

I have to say that I find this website almost as enlightening as it is disturbing. I’m not opposed to nuclear power but I have NEVER seen another website talk down wind and solar so much. I’m not saying that it is wrong, because it sounds like it checks out. I think my whole life I’ve heard about how solar and wind and other stuff like that was the next thing. I even remember in grade school playing with little solar cells and making pictures of houses with solar panels on the roof. It sounds a lot less optomistic when I read about the costs and how small the energy actually is. I don’t know why this is so unknown because literally EVERY site seems to think that every solar power project is wonderful. I agree if it costs so much and doesn’t make a difference it’s not even worth bothering with. The other thing is that it seems like all the professionals and scientists have always been on solar and wind but I guess that’s not true?

I don’t understand this stuff because the numbers, like I said, it sounds like it checks out and the tone of the page is definately pro-enviornment and not a global warming denier, but why would everyone be so obsessed with wind and solar if this is the truth? Where is everyone else? it sounds like it’s just about undebiable that it won’t be enough to make the difference needed. Also, I knew coal was bad but this page has scared me on that one too because I didn’t know it was so horrible. It gets attention but I think it needs more.

I’m interested to read more of the posts here but I can see how people won’t receive them well in general. I can’t imagine saying solar power sucks without getting laughed at or punched in the face these days

By: drbuzz0

drbuzz0 — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 22:10:05 +0000

Here are some links I’d recommend. Admittedly, a couple are US or NATO military sources, but I think you’ll find that they square pretty well with the non-US/Nato sources:

UN/International Sources:

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Features/DU/faq_depleted_uranium.shtml
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/

Health-Physics organizations and sources:

http://www.orau.org/busops/ivhp/health-physics/hp-links.htm
http://www.umich.edu/~radinfo/
http://hps.org/documents/dufactsheet.pdf
http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q754.html

http://hps.org/publicinformation/asktheexperts.cfm < --- info on DU and other issues in plain English from "ask the experts"

British Sources:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1122566.stm
http://royalsociety.org/landing.asp?id=1243 < --- read this one with caution as it does talk quite a bit about the potential hazards under the worst case senerio of heavy metal poisoning, so take it in context

French Sources:
http://www.iarc.fr/ENG/Units/uranium.html

US government/Military:

http://web.ead.anl.gov/uranium/faq/index.cfm
http://fhp.osd.mil/du/healthEffects.jsp

I can try to find more but the one I’d recommend most is this one: http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/cat57.html

I think if you look at the HPS website you’ll find that they are not pro-war or caviler about radiation protection. They do a pretty good job at being balanced.

Rember that nobody is going to say DU is non-toxic. It is a toxic heavy metal, not unlike many others which are somewhat toxic and could be dangerous in high doses. This is important because it’s possible to be very misleading by talking about the acute effects of high doses. If you want context just substitute lead for DU, because they’re actually not that far off in terms of toxicity and their effects on the body are not identical but they are reliatvely similar. Their biological uptake and retention is extremely similar.

By: DV82XL

DV82XL — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:34:15 +0000

I applaud you for having the commonsense to do your own research in this matter, Ray and the commonsense to see through the paranoid ravings of 1 4 Truth.

I would suggest using the term ‘Uranium-238′ in any search for information as ‘depleted uranium’ returns mostly propaganda.

You will also need to familiarize your self with radiation health effects and here you may wish to use resources from the governments of countries that do not use DU in military programs,

By: Ray

Ray — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:40:26 +0000

I have my doubts about depleted uranium and I’m going to have to look into this further I guess, but 14truth is coming across as just plain insane and I checked the links and they’re all conspiracy theories from very far out in left field, so I’m not sure that I’ll consider that poster to be a reliable source of anything.

By: 1 4 Truth

1 4 Truth — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 14:40:13 +0000

I forgot to say that as bad as DU is (and it is really really bad) the worst thing going is HAARP. Depleted Uranium is a nuclear weapon and that’s pretty bad, but HAARP is the next level because it’s not a nuclear weapon but the next step up. It’s not a weapon of mass destruction, it’s a weapon of TOTAL destruction which the idiots in charge are going to soon be using a lot more and they are so keen to kill those who get in the way they don’t realize that it can actually cause the end of the world if they’re not careful. Do some research on HAARP it’ll terrify you