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: mistermj who wrote (174218)	11/4/2005 9:29:25 PM
From: SiouxPal	Respond to of 281500

So what's your point? You are wasting good cyberspace here. You've been debunked about a million times, although that's being liberal with my verbs and accounting thingies. Do you like being smashed in the face with your garbage? Cookie Monster

To: mistermj who wrote (174218)	11/4/2005 10:18:14 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

"Once the DU aerosols settle on the ground, the depleted uranium particles combine with other material and increase in size, becoming less of an inhalation hazard. The potential risk from inhalation will be associated with material that is re-suspended from the ground by the action of the wind or by human activities, such as ploughing. With time, the concentrations of depleted uranium on the ground surface will decrease due to wind and precipitation that will transport the depleted uranium away or wash it into the soil. Any risk associated with inhalation of re-suspended material will thus decrease with time. " Did you actually READ this? Once it settles it combines with other materials - but BEFORE it settles (when, for example, our soldiers inhale it, or Iraqis in battle zones inhale it) it is a great inhalation hazard. It becomes "less" of a hazard when it's particulate size increases, but does not become "no" hazard. The RISK of inhalation will decrease with time- do you get that your very own article is supporting what I am saying? That small particles of this stuff are a RISK. NO, you probably don't get that. I'm amazed, truly. I hope everyone else here gets this, even if you don't. "Consumption of water and food is a potential long term route of intake of DU. Given this, monitoring of water sources may be a useful means to assess the potential for intake via ingestion. If the levels were considered unacceptable, some form of filtration/ion exchange system could be implemented to reduce levels of DU. " Why would we want to filter out DU if it were safe? Why? Because it isn't. The government is trying very hard to spin this- and I sympathize with them. Nothing penetrates like DU, but that doesn't make it safe- as your article so clearly says. Thanks for posting it. I really appreciate your support!