I'm sure that there is a good reason, but I don't understand many military tactics. I've never been a General, so I really can't answer you.

UG, they dump nuclear waste disguised as munition. it is just sad.

There is no other reason, it will bring profit to some kind of company.

It is bad.

Fighting wars, OK, but why this need to dump nuclear waste into some other country, it really is not needed while fighting this war in Afghanistan.

.

Hmmm. That's an interesting and plausible angle; use DU as a weapon and in so doing, dump their nuclear waste which would otherwise be a headache to dispose of.

Again, it's all about profits for a bunch of businessmen.

they dump nuclear waste disguised as munition. it is just sad.

There is no other reason, it will bring profit to some kind of company.

I have to consider the source and as far as I can see, you are usually full of (sh)it.

I'm sure that there is a good reason, but I don't understand many military tactics. I've never been a General, so I really can't answer you.

UG, they dump nuclear waste disguised as munition. it is just sad. There is no other reason, it will bring profit to some kind of company. It is bad.

Fighting wars, OK, but why this need to dump nuclear waste into some other country, it really is not needed while fighting this war in Afghanistan.

Hmmm. That's an interesting and plausible angle; use DU as a weapon and in so doing, dump their nuclear waste which would otherwise be a headache to dispose of. Again, it's all about profits for a bunch of businessmen.

being a physicist, i [not so] humbly beg to interrupt the speculations of amateur physicists. the depleted uranium used in ammunitions is not identical with that of 'exhausted' fuel rods from nuclear power plants. it is much cheaper to obtain DU for military purposes when processing (enriching) natural Uranium instead of using spent fuel rods. nevertheless, Alex is right by claiming that DU is a health hazard.

Thanks....I learn something new every day.

Alex is right by claiming that DU is a health hazard.

Munitions usually are.

Alex is right by claiming that DU is a health hazard.

Munitions usually are.

conventional ammunition is a only a health hazard once it explodes. DU is a different and radiating animal. look at the half-value period which is counted in billions of years.

Half-life of BILLIONS of years????? Wow.....I would have guessed hundreds.....still, if it was hundreds, that's bad enough.

Would a shorter halflife mean it gives off more radiation in a given time and is therefore more dangerous in the short term?

Physics wasn't really my thing, bad first year teacher, but loved chemistry because I had good teachers in that subject.

http://www.battlespaceonline.org/#

More pictures.....Click on enter exhibit at top left of page.

Be aware these are pictures of war in Iraq & Afghanistan. As such some show the results of war on both sides.

Do not click if offended by such.

A couple that caught my eye were the cataloging of live people with serial numbers.

I had read about it (also cataloging with photos)but had not really thought it was being done.

They call it checking/tracking population movement.

they dump nuclear waste disguised as munition. it is just sad.

There is no other reason, it will bring profit to some kind of company.

I have to consider the source and as far as I can see, you are usually full of (sh)it.

Please investigate and return with a proper honorable reply.

Thanks Fly for the link, some impressive pictures there, I just wonder why they are not on the front page of some newspapers.

Confronting the people at home with reality sucks I guess.

Cheers,

Alex

they dump nuclear waste disguised as munition. it is just sad.

There is no other reason, it will bring profit to some kind of company.

I have to consider the source and as far as I can see, you are usually full of (sh)it.

Please investigate and return with a proper honorable reply.

Someone has already commented on your demented theory.

being a physicist, i [not so] humbly beg to interrupt the speculations of amateur physicists. the depleted uranium used in ammunitions is not identical with that of 'exhausted' fuel rods from nuclear power plants. it is much cheaper to obtain DU for military purposes when processing (enriching) natural Uranium instead of using spent fuel rods.

So how about you?

I have to consider the source and as far as I can see, you are usually full of (sh)it.

I already commented on it too.

Would a shorter halflife mean it gives off more radiation in a given time and is therefore more dangerous in the short term?

Physics wasn't really my thing, bad first year teacher, but loved chemistry because I had good teachers in that subject.

I used to hate chemistry apart from when Mr Neumann blew holes in the ceiling by dropping large chunks of sodium into a bowl of water. He'd never get away with it today. 'Elf and safety would be on him like a ton of bricks

Would a shorter halflife mean it gives off more radiation in a given time and is therefore more dangerous in the short term?

Physics wasn't really my thing, bad first year teacher, but loved chemistry because I had good teachers in that subject.

the answer is no as half-life and radiation intensity are not connected.

Half-life of BILLIONS of years????? Wow.....I would have guessed hundreds.....still, if it was hundreds, that's bad enough.

approximately 4.5 billion years.

From here: http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/2009/102009Lindorff.html

Snip:

Of course, as in the case of Agent Orange in Vietnam, the toxic effects of this latest battlefield use of toxic materials by the US military will also be felt for years to come by the men and women who were sent over to fight America’s latest wars. As with Agent Orange, the Pentagon and the Veterans Affairs Department have been assiduously denying the problem, and have been just as assiduously denying claims by veterans of the Gulf War and the two current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan who claim their cancers and other diseases have anything to do with their exposure to DU.

The record on Agent Orange should lead us to be suspicious of the government’s claims.

From here: http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/2009/102009Lindorff.html

Snip:

Of course, as in the case of Agent Orange in Vietnam, the toxic effects of this latest battlefield use of toxic materials by the US military will also be felt for years to come by the men and women who were sent over to fight America's latest wars. As with Agent Orange, the Pentagon and the Veterans Affairs Department have been assiduously denying the problem, and have been just as assiduously denying claims by veterans of the Gulf War and the two current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan who claim their cancers and other diseases have anything to do with their exposure to DU.

The record on Agent Orange should lead us to be suspicious of the government's claims.

Yes. Even before agent orange, there were the crew on the ships that went to Bikini Atoll for the nuke testing. There was another bunch of tests in the outback of Oz and the personell there suffered some stuff which was denied untill only recently.

I think that once you don a uniform you achieve a certain level of expendability in the eyes of the government.

Probably even more so than the citizens who choose not to wear one.

Anyone who has ever worn a uniform would agree with you. That is why the military has its own seperate "justice" system.

I was a sapper. I think most soldiers sign up knowing that they may get a fatal bullet or shrapnel...they don't sign up to be irradiated or poisoned.

But the point is not whether or not soldiers are expendable, but that when exposed to radiation poisoning or chemical agents that cause their offspring to be abnormal, the government denies the causes, denies having any responsibility at all.

If the government said, "yeah, well, you signed up for it, lump it", they at least would maintain credibility.

A further point, actually the original point, is the use of DU has nasty consequences for generations to come, and not just for the enemy combatants but the entire civilian population.

What is a sapper? I have only read the term used about Vietnamese soldiers.

What is a sapper? I have only read the term used about Vietnamese soldiers.

Engineer. Build bridges and blow up bridges. Lay minefields, and clear minefields.

I think sapper is a Brit Army term from waaaaaay back.

In the case of Viet Cong, I would guess it refers to the tunnellers and booby trap layers.

I was a sapper. I think most soldiers sign up knowing that they may get a fatal bullet or shrapnel...they don't sign up to be irradiated or poisoned.

You're 45 yrs old from a country that doesn't send it's soldiers off to fight in foreign wars. I would suspect whatever your job in the military you weren't expecting to get wounded. Kind of like the Dutch (cheers, Alex )

Although...I read where over a 10-yr period from the 80s-90s something like 11,000 US military personnel died from various non-combat related causes (health, accidents, training exercises, etc). That's a higher rate then when we're at war so you never know.

I was a sapper. I think most soldiers sign up knowing that they may get a fatal bullet or shrapnel...they don't sign up to be irradiated or poisoned.

You're 45 yrs old from a country that doesn't send it's soldiers off to fight in foreign wars. I would suspect whatever your job in the military you weren't expecting to get wounded. Kind of like the Dutch (cheers, Alex )

Although...I read where over a 10-yr period from the 80s-90s something like 11,000 US military personnel died from various non-combat related causes (health, accidents, training exercises, etc). That's a higher rate then when we're at war so you never know.

NZ has soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq, and peace keeping missions in Sierra Leone, East Timor, Solomons, to name a few.

I was part of the contingent that mobilised to go to Fiji after the first coup there.

Just because America has the highest rate of friendly fire deaths in the world, does not mean that other countries do not suffer casualties.

Anybody joining the military must expect to face armed conflict. In the case of American military, they must expect to face death from their own cowboys too, so I guess American volunteers are the bravest.

You're 45 yrs old from a country that doesn't send it's soldiers off to fight in foreign wars. I would suspect whatever your job in the military you weren't expecting to get wounded. Kind of like the Dutch (cheers, Alex wink.gif )

Depends on what you call fighting in a war I suppose.

NZ troops fought in Vietnam with the Americans and since then have provided peace keeping forces in many countries. NZers also served in Iraq on a post war reconstruction basis.

They are playing a role in Afghanistan as well.

New Zealand's heaviest military involvement in the Middle East in recent decades has been in Afghanistan following the United States-led invasion of that country after the September 11 attacks. SAS personnel were dispatched, and in March 2002 they took part in Operation Anaconda against about 500 to 1000 al-Qaeda and Taliban forces in the Shahi-Kot Valley and Arma Mountains southeast of Zorma, Afghanistan. New Zealand has also supplied two transport aircraft and a 122-strong tri-service Provincial Reconstruction Team, which has been located in Bamyan Province since 2003. A further deployment in 2004 resulted in members of a further SAS contingent receiving gallantry decorations that were gazetted in 2007, including a Victoria Cross for Corporal Willie Apiata.

Wiki

There's some interesting figures on the Dutch contribution in Iraq and Afghanistan as well if you care to do a search.

But then you probably wont.

Just because America has the highest rate of friendly fire deaths in the world, does not mean that other countries do not suffer casualties.

Anybody joining the military must expect to face armed conflict. In the case of American military, they must expect to face death from their own cowboys too, so I guess American volunteers are the bravest.

Tha English have the bravest soldiers. Most of our friendly fire incidents are involving them.

Just because America has the highest rate of friendly fire deaths in the world, does not mean that other countries do not suffer casualties.

Anybody joining the military must expect to face armed conflict. In the case of American military, they must expect to face death from their own cowboys too, so I guess American volunteers are the bravest.

Tha English have the bravest soldiers. Most of our friendly fire incidents are involving them.

I recall you guys shot up a bunch of Canadians in Iraq, too....and other "friendlies".

But nevertheless, it's more US troops that have been injured by their own friendly fire, therefore the US volunteers must be the bravest.....or the stupidest.

Bravest will do.

You're 45 yrs old from a country that doesn't send it's soldiers off to fight in foreign wars. I would suspect whatever your job in the military you weren't expecting to get wounded. Kind of like the Dutch (cheers, Alex wink.gif )

Depends on what you call fighting in a war I suppose.

NZ troops fought in Vietnam with the Americans and since then have provided peace keeping forces in many countries. NZers also served in Iraq on a post war reconstruction basis.

They are playing a role in Afghanistan as well.

New Zealand's heaviest military involvement in the Middle East in recent decades has been in Afghanistan following the United States-led invasion of that country after the September 11 attacks. SAS personnel were dispatched, and in March 2002 they took part in Operation Anaconda against about 500 to 1000 al-Qaeda and Taliban forces in the Shahi-Kot Valley and Arma Mountains southeast of Zorma, Afghanistan. New Zealand has also supplied two transport aircraft and a 122-strong tri-service Provincial Reconstruction Team, which has been located in Bamyan Province since 2003. A further deployment in 2004 resulted in members of a further SAS contingent receiving gallantry decorations that were gazetted in 2007, including a Victoria Cross for Corporal Willie Apiata.

Wiki

There's some interesting figures on the Dutch contribution in Iraq and Afghanistan as well if you care to do a search.

But then you probably wont.

Willie Apiata is back there again. He was unwittingly photographed by a French journalist recently, returning from an urban firefight. The fact that his image was published created the news story as NZSAS traditionally try to remain under the radar.

I don't suppose that the Americans would appreciate the import of the VC. I recommend they google it.

There is an NZSAS chap that instructs US Marines.....I'll try to remember his name for the sceptics.

Whatever......NZ does contribute to global conflicts, and, perhaps more importantly, NZ forces don't shoot their own, or their allies.