Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (63171)	12/27/2002 10:49:57 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Nadine Carroll; Re: "However, I find it curious that you don't mention what is considered the chief danger of natural uranium or U 238, inhalation of the dust ... Since U 238 is considered too weakly radioactive to cause real dangers of radiation poisoning ... I would think that this would be the chief worry, especially when the stuff is being used in munitions, yet you never mention it. Why not?" My post was a critique of Steven den Beste's science, not a tome on the dangers of Uranium. In fact, my second sentence made it clear that I do not think that DU has killed very many Iraqis: "While I agree with him that DU is not enough of a hazard to have killed significant numbers of Iraqis, he's dead wrong about several comments on the subject." On the subject of the danger of U238 in dust form, I would think that the dry winds in Iraq would put up a lot of dust every now and then. But it's my guess that U238 is heavy enough that it does not form an appreciable fraction of the stuff that you'd breathe over there. Even 100 tons of DU is only a tiny fraction of what the Iraqi desert weighs, LOL. In general, I agree that the hazards of DU are frequently exaggerated, especially by the left. My complaint is not with the side that he's arguing, but with his misuse of physics in his argument. -- Carl