veiled4allah: depleted uranium veiled4allah: depleted uraniumAll comments are copyright their authors
Here's who's pinging me:
(no pings yet)The following is a list of the ten most recent entries in veiled4allah as of Mar 07, 2006:
View a list of all entries in veiled4allah
This entry has been tagged as covering the following subjects: antiwar. The following is a list of the ten most recent entries in Al-Muhajabah's Islamic Blogs that share any of these tags:
A semantic analysis of this entry also suggests the following keywords to search for related content on: depleted uranium, flash presentation, shock awe, birth defects, scientific evidence, been, weapons, evidence, Kucinich, kucinich, posted, shells, scientific, our, here, article, time, uranium, depleted, may, people, little, say, point, flash
What links here: View a list of other entries in this blog (if any) that link to this entry
Or look generally for informational pages on my website tagged with antiwar
A semantic search of Al-Muhajabah's Islamic Blogs suggests the following as the ten entries most closely related to this entry:
Check out other web pages (if any) that I've bookmarked via del.icio.us that share the same tags: antiwar
Explore reference materials from Answers.com about these subjects: antiwar
Read news stories at Common Times about these subjects: antiwar
View search results at gada.be metasearch service for these subjects: antiwar
Find books at Amazon.com on these subjects: antiwar
Check Waypath for blog entries generally related to this entry, or Technorati or Bloglines for blog entries that link to this entry.
Technorati tags: View blog entries, bookmarks and photos tagged by others with the same subjects as this entry: antiwar
For external resources on the topic of this entry, you can run a search for its title depleted uranium (Google, DayPop, Feedster) or keyword(s) antiwar (Google, DayPop, Feedster). DayPop is a search engine similar to Google that focuses on searching news sources and blogs. Feedster searches blogs via RSS feeds.
Subject: Depleted Uranium
Background: I was a Phalanx weapon's system (called CIWS) technician for 5 of my almost 10 years in the US Navy. Which means that I lived with the stuff - sometimes literally.The 20 and 30 mm Gatling gun systems used by all of the services and the penetrators contained in the tank penetrators and several other weapons for armor penetration were given this material for 2 purposes:
The first and public purpose (for which it was extremely effective) was that, as it was over 2 and 1/2 times as hard as the best steels and ceramic steel armors, meaning it would punch holes in just about everything and then shatter and gasify, trashing everything inside of its target. Great for killing tanks (and those inside) and for knocking down missiles especially the supersonic variety.
The second (and not public) purpose was as a use and disposal method for some of that used reactor fuel that is accumulating around or nuclear sites. Supposedly the stuff was denatured enough to harmless while it was contained in the ammunition cans it was shipped in. We got quite the surprise, me and all of my workshop mates, after we spent a good part of 4 months sleeping in our ammunition magazine on our first Persian Gulf cruise (Hey, it was quiet and cool in there which was a vast improvement over our berthing area!)
Anyway, just for giggles, when we got home and while the magazine was empty, I decided to check it out with one of the Geiger counters that I borrowed from our corpsman. Imagine the look on our faces when the little beast started buzzing like an electric razor on steroids. Never, ever believe them when they tell you its safe.
The US military started to phase the stuff out in favor of a newer tungsten compound about 12 years ago but, given the cost of making them in the first place and the usual military mindset - phasing them out means using them up and THEN replacing them. Waste not want not. I figured this was one time when I wished they would be a little less efficient with our money than they usually are. They will all be gone eventually, but they made millions of them so it will probably be a problem that remains for years to come.
Subject: DU shells
The post by the Wayne is disturbing, and raises questions about the safety of US servicemen in close proximity to great concentrations of these shells. But I'm a bit taken aback by the Kucinich flash and your apparent endorsement of it. I'm unaware of any really definitive research establishing DU shells as the cause of these birth defects. The total amounts fired are actually tiny when you consider how widespread (geographically) their use has been. A few years ago I actually asked a friend who is a radiation oncologist (and so has no particular weapons expertise, but certainly an above average understanding of the links between radiation and health risks) about this issue. He basically said that in theory the link between birth defects and other problems is possible, but, in his view, in practice the numbers are just not believable. He felt they had been used in no where near the concentrations necessary to cause this. Can you point me to real scientific evidence of otherwise? I'm not saying I agree or disagree, but I would want more evidence. The Kucinich video has shock value, but proves nothing.Subject: Re: DU shells
Here is more detail from Kucinich's website about depleted uranium.From my understanding, Kucinich is working with Dr. Doug Rokke on DU issues. Here is an excellent article that provides an overview of the DU question and discusses Rokke's position. It also discusses the birth defects in Iraqi babies that the Flash presentation addresses.
Subject: Re: DU shells
Thanks for the article and replies. Unfortunately, the article suggests that there simply is no weight of scientific evidence one way or another. And there are two immediate problems with the birth defect argument that I see here:1. It relies primarily upon anecdotal evidence and official Iraqi statistics. So in terms of gauging the problem, its hard to say what the magnitudes are here (official health statistics from regimes like Iraq's are notoriously unreliable).
2. There are so many other things that were changing here as well. Unless you can control for those things its really tough to say what the unique role of DU shells has been.
Somewhat more convincing is the experience of the veterans (their exposure was pretty concentrated) but even then we have failed to control for so many other possibilities.
I'm a little upset that the Kucinich campaign has made such a strong statement on so little real scientific evidence. I was hoping for allot more controlled, replicable studies done in respected peer reviewed journals.
Subject: Re: DU shells
Perhaps you could explain why you feel that DU should be used despite the concerns that have been raised about its dangers. Or perhaps you know of studies that show that DU will definitely not cause any damage like this.Its clear to me that people within the scientific community do believe that DU causes these problems. Kucinich has chosen to side with these individuals. Other people do not believe that. You have chosen to side with those people. That does not make the other view invalid.
I am still waiting for a reason why we should continue to use these weapons.
Subject: Re: DU shells
The reason for using them, assuming the absence of a particular and compelling counter argument, is that they are very effective. All weapons systems involve certain risks against returns. DU shells are not exceptional qualitatively in that such a tradeoff may exist. For instance, it is pretty uncontroversial that the Humvees patrolling the streets of Iraq's cities are often top mounted with machine guns. But you must concede that there is always a risk of accidental discharge, endangering soldiers and nearby civilians. As the various articles point out, the armor piercing capability of DU shells is pretty remarkable. As for the scientific opinion, it certainly is true that some scientists have expressed concerns about the use of them-and they may, at the end of the day, be justified in their concerns. But for now, little in the way of concrete evidence has been put forth. Opinion only goes so far. (I'm a research economist, so the research process is something that I can speak to.) You have concerns (and I am not dismissing them; I might even be willing to entertain the idea of a moratorium on their use pending further study), but I think it is important to recognize at this point that as a matter of policy we are being asked to discontinue the use of a very effective weapon with only limited and inconsistent evidence (remember the standard: what counts for science-based policy making is controlled, replicable studies). Once you go down that road, where does this stop? DU weapons are not exceptional in the sense that the government has lots of weapons, systems, policies, programs, etc. that might raise human impact concerns in some quarter or another. Do we throw acceptable scientific standards of policymaking out the window in all of these cases? If not, why do so only with respect to DU shells?Subject: Re: DU shells
You make some good points. I would certainly support a moratorium as a step in the right direction. You seem to feel that we should continue to use all weapons unless and until they are definitely proved to be inhumane; I approach it by feeling that we should err on the side of caution and cease using weapons that raise these concerns unless they are definitely proven to be acceptable. You might find it helpful to read my post on Islamic non-violence to understand my point of view better.I recognize that this is probably not realistic but I feel that it is still something worth speaking up about and I respect Kucinich for doing so. If he believes, based on the evidence, that the use of certain weapons is immoral, he should certainly say so. If others agree with him that the evidence is sufficient to show that DU is immoral, then we as a society will take action to oppose the use of DU. If people do not agree with him, that's fine. He's said what he thinks is right.
Subject: Re: DU shells
By the way, this debates highlights one of the reasons I am generally so reluctant to go to war: sensible policymaking in war compels you to make exactly these sort of nasty decisions.This is a very good, and unusual, site, by the way.
Subject: Re: DU shells
ThanksI freely admit to be an unreconstructed idealist. I may just be living in a different world.
Subject: Re: DU shells
I would like to suggest a future topic. In my opinion, France's decision to try to ban the Muslim veil in public places is misguided, and that's putting it charitably. I would like to hear your thoughts on it. For instance, women's liberation and maintaining the separation of church and state have been advanced as central arguments for the ban. How would you reply to the first in terms of your own personal perspective and the second from a social standpoint?Thanks
Subject: France hijab ban
See here (also briefly here, and I posted this article that I agree with).Subject: Re: France hijab ban
I've been thinking about our exchange and have a suggestion in light of it. If you wanted to focus attention on a weapon a. that the US military reaches to early and often and b. for which there is really consistent evidence for potentially unacceptably large collateral consequences for civilians, might I suggest the cluster bomb. The in one fashion or another dis-assemble from a parent bomb into many bomblets, and their impact on civilians is often horrific (the real problem comes not from their initial use, but unexploded duds later on). Today's NYTimes has an article about a little boy in Iraq unfortunate enough to come across one.Subject: Re: cluster bombs
The reason that I posted about depleted uranium is that something happened to be in the news about it (in this case, Kucinich's speech and posting of the Flash presentation on his website). That doesn't mean that it's the only thing I'm concerned about! I wanted to point people to a resource (the Flash presentation) that was newly available.Cluster bombs are quite horrible from everything I've seen, along with land mines, nuclear weapons, and probably many other weapons as well. If you followed the link I provided to my entry on Islamic non-violence, you can see that pretty much any weapon that kills civilians indiscriminately along with military targets is morally problematic. Last year at this time, I posted some materials against the proposed "shock and awe" campaign in Iraq. I've also posted about other topics as they come up.
You might wish to take a look at my archives to see what I've posted about in the past.
The nature of a blog is to post about new things as they happen; that doesn't mean that other things aren't important, only that they aren't in the news at a given time.
Subject: Re: cluster bombs
True enough about a blog-but check the article out, you'll probably find it interesting. Where is the thing about "shock and awe" thing? (I just couldn't find it.) I have no problem with shock and awe in principal-as long as we could in principal fairly narrowly shock and awe people like Uday, Qusay, and Sadaam. Have you ever posted comments on this book by Sayyid Qutb "The Shade of the Quran"? BTW, don't get the impression that these posts are potshots at you: I may not agree with everything you say, but I do respect the fact that you are raising issues that usually fly under the radar!Subject: Re: cluster bombs
I did a search of the blogs myself but the results were inconclusive. I'm sure that I did say something about the "shock and awe" bombing campaign on Baghdad, but it may have been in the comments rather than in a blog entry and the search won't turn that up. Sorry for sending you on a wild goose chase; it's hard for me to remember exactly what all I've posted over the nearly two years I've been blogging and what may only have been a discussion in my comments section.In terms of cluster bombs, I do have a number of links to articles about the use of cluster bombs in Afghanistan on a page in my static website; this was before I had started my blogs.
I've also posted a number of articles to my Clipboard blog over time that make points I agree with; a number of these have been about various aspects of the war in Iraq.
Anyway, I'm glad you've dropped by; this debate has been very interesting and it's good to see somebody new in the comments (no offense to all my long-time commentors who still drop by from time to time).
Subject: Re: DU shells
Let me be clear about something else, as well. You refer to siding with those who believe or do not believe that DU shells are risky. It is not accurate to say that I identify with one group or another. I do not. My position is far more conservative and hence defensible: in some absolute sense, from my current vantage point I can't know whether DU shells are dangerous or not in the manner that Kucinich and others suggest. But it is clear enough that right now there appears to be no consistent evidence for their risk in many circumstances. Their risk is not an article of faith: scientific assertions must be backed by scientific evidence. So far I don't think that the case has not been convincingly made that they cause the birth defects (does that mean it can never be made? No). And so I am taken aback that that which has not been clearly established is being passed off as established fact, and that we are being asked to use it as the basis of policy. Besides, even if all of the assertions about DU weapons are true (and that hasn't been established), that still does not end the debate. The real question is, given their efficacy, do they at the end of the day save more lives (by, for instance, helping to quickly and decisively end battle) than they take?Subject: Allah SWT
Its me again. I've been reading your site and have a question that has nothing to do with DU shells. What does "Allah SWT" mean? Allah means God, correct? But what about SWT? I read your section about putting on a veil, and was generally wondering about allot of the acronyms.Subject: Re: Allah SWT
There is a link to a glossary of Islamic terms in my sidebar. SWT stands for "Subhana Wa Ta'ala", an Arabic phrase that means "Glorified and exalted be He", roughly.