Depleted Uranium - classic or dud

12-foot-NATO-lizard #1: "Yes the bombs give off hideously toxic dust forever haha."
12-foot-NATO-lizard #2: "But I thought we engineered the break-up of Yugoslavia in order to seize control of oil pipelines?"
12-foot-NATO-lizard #1: "D'oh!!"

If Lizard #2 is on the money, then Lizard #1's knowledge is something that war-planners have to lie to themselves about (at least on the Chomskoid assumption that the lizards are ruthlessly rational in the pursuit of their interests, and intelligent and well-informed and good at internal communication). But I can't work out what the lie could be, to be convincing: "Actually uranium is safe in this form" seems implausibly feeble.

especially since in this country there are all kinds of laws (which are still typically lenient and indulgent towards the profitmaking of corporations) regulating the oil industry's by-products of naturally occurring radioactive materials. Am working in a lab that tests soils for these isotopes right now. $1.6 BILLION was awarded to someone for some contaminated Exxon Mobil pipe in a lawsuit in New Orleans, and that stuff is not remotely as dangerous as depleted uranium. (http://www.lawyersweekly.com/2verdict2001.cfm) To think that these materials are so hazardous that they must be stringently regulated, even though they are the by-products of the feds' favorite lobby group, OIL, yet the U.S. wants to bomb and shell people with depleted uranium, more nasty and dangerous than typical NORM, is insane.

and to remember that Bosnia is linked to oil lust is just plain weird.

Bad for people. Bad environmentally. Bad economically (if there is every to be any effort at cleaning up the contamination.) Bad ethically.

Enron has already been pushed to the back burner by Iraeli- Palestinian conflict anyway. There's no need to continue to wag the dog by bombing Iraq now, like Bush I and Iran-Contra. Am so confused why the grab for oil in Iraq would be worthwhile if Russia makes it to full production, as it's not as if the area is going to become more stable anytime soon? Does Halliburton just need the U.S. to destroy Iraq's oil drilling equipment again so that it can sell it to them again like '98 thru '00? (http://www.gwbush.com/spots/postpage.html)

I don't understand, & i'd be surprised if the folks making these idiotic policy decisions do either.

DUD DUD DUD DUD.

i only know this because a research group at my school is developing new materials (glassy metals) which the millatary is interested in using as an alternative to DU. or so i've been told.

note: same research group spun-off materials to make KILLER golf club.

i want to discuss further the connection between DU and anal canals.... so email me.

mike_anderson67@excite.com

Kodak, onetime uranium stockpiler

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/15/us/new-york-kodak-uranium/index.html

Denser than tungsten, so ideal for the anti-armor 30mm gatling gun on the A-10 and discarding sabot rounds on the M1. Not used in cluster munitions, which are anti-personnel.

Probably overkill in Afghanistan, as the Taliban have no armor and tungsten would do fine penetrating stone houses.

Does leave dust upon impact that causes heavy-metal poisoning, just like tungsten would.

Really hope the travelling wave breeder reactor funded by Bill Gates, which provides a much more useful way of disposing of depleted uranium (U-238) gets off the ground:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaF-fq2Zn7I

Eh, Kodak had it in a scientific instrument that's highly-shielded inside a highly-shielded room and it was a small amount. It'd be incredibly hard to get your hands on anything like that these days for scientific reasons through legit channels, but even up through the 70s there would have been a lot of labs that either were connected to research or refinement with radioactive materials that a number of pieces of equipment were probably built.

Not seeing too many other Google results for non-Kodak machines, likely due to this article clogging up the news, but it looks like at least one other machine like this one exists: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0029554X77906528