Research on Tumbleweeds for killing people efficiently after long-lasting pain

Pollution Online News for pollution control professionals

From the discussion forum of the Bioremediation Group Bio@bioremediationgroup.org

Dear All,

two citations from the 'news-wire'

Depleted uranium (DU) is used in armor-piercing munitions. Although it produces only a low level of radiation, the metal poses a hazard in soils because it - like some other heavy metals - is toxic if ingested.

Ulmer-Scholle's work is funded by the U.S. Department of Defense, which is looking for innovative, cost-effective, and efficient ways of cleaning up soils at weapons testing areas and battlefields where DU has been used.


So it is time to raise some ethical questions, which deserve to be a central issue of research.

As the application of depleted uranium implies severe health effects for military and civil persons it equals application of chemical weapons.
Prevention is better than cure.

Money, time and human intelligence should not be spent on killing people 'cost-effectively'.

I hope most of BioGroup members can agree on this point.

Reply by Christian McGrath

Speaking only for myself (certainly NOT for the US Army), I welcome any tool that helps in the mission to contain and, when necessary, destroy the enemies of freedom and democracy.

I perceive the environmental impacts of DU in armor-piercing weapons to be comparable with less frightening heavy metals such as chromium or lead -- a serious issue, but not insurmountable. Obviously, there is little concern for the health effects on the occupants of a target tank, but there is certainly concern for the health of the soldiers, civilians, and post-conflict effects. That is why the Army continues to develop ways to reduce exposure and clean up the residue. The immediate health concerns are due to the atomization and potential inhalation of the DU after impact. In military training ranges, DU weapons also can glance off targets and scatter in pieces or intact.

I agree that we should look for alternative ways to immobilize enemy tanks or pierce armor. If for no other reason than to save money in cleanup operations, that search is ongoing.

All war is a sickening waste of lives and resources; it is a hideous, painful, and destructive endeavor, never to be entered into lightly.

Personally, I believe that there must be better ways to constrain or convince the enemies of freedom to abandon their oppressive ways. That may be a naively rational, civilian, or Christian perspective (also a true Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, and Buddhist one ... evidence of how little secular democracies pay attention to religion between elections). The power of dictators is a severe challenge to overcome because they are driven by avarice and self-preservation and rarely encumbered by honor or decency.

Your concerns are well founded and appreciated, even within the military. But until the world is free of violent aggressors, the struggle between freedom and oppression will continue. The elimination of oppression sometimes will require overwhelming force, perhaps at the cost of reversible environmental damage.

reply

We certainly disagree on the point that it is necessary to destroy the enemies of freedom and democracy.

But I still hope that we can both come to the conclusion that the end does not justify every means.

Every wrongdoing in the name of freedom and democracy corrupts freedom and democracy. When accepting poisoning of the Iraqi civilian population with depleted uranium the US gets very close to Saddam poisoning his own population. Never forget the application of Agent Orange in the Vietnam

war!

reply Christian McGrath I appreciate your response and agree that there should be (and there are) limits on the weapons that should be used. We don't use chemical or nuclear weapons anymore. But what would you do if you had a DU weapon in your hands and a terrorist was driving his tank into your home, intent on killing you and your family? Some people are so rabidly hateful or on some delusional mission from 'god', that only deadly force can stop them. Sometimes there is no time or room for reason or talk of peace. You don't talk calmly to a charging lion ... and you can't outrun her.

reply given its nature depleted uranium is a kind of chemical weapon, even if its main intent is different. I would judge this from the point of the action.

I certainly will not have a DU weapon at hand when a terrorist threaten killing me. It is my tiny contribution that I will give them not the slightest reason to do this.

I know this might not stop them. However killing innocent people in the name of freedom and democracy is a good breading ground for terrorists.

Reply by Louis Barreales
absolutely agree with U.
Taking into account that this new could be worth in the future as
innovative, cost-effective tech, on the other hand this topic sounds so
surreal.
It is not the first time I'm in contact with it, since we have prepared and
gained several tenders for the Army to investigated contamination
associated with lead, TNT, etc, in ammunition within test sites.
The last new I've got about environment related to war weapons is that the
US Army / Navy / AF are considering to replace the lead and other toxic
chemicals in ammunition by "more healthy and ecological" metals and
chemicals. Is it not unbelievable? So, the main concern is the
environmental liabilities of bombarded and bursted areas!!!! What about the
human life?
Human beings must be turned mad


reply by Ashwani Vasishth:
I agree, and am actively opposed to the use of DU munitions. My purpose in sending the message to the list was two-fold--to the extent that DU munitions are currently in use, its good to know that we can remediate some of the adverse impacts; and I hoped that reading the item would get people to ask exactly the sorts of questions you raise.

see also discussion Depleted Morality