E.g., in Andy's article a Doug Rokke is cited. He's got lots of problems if [link|http://www.ntanet.net/traprock.html|this] article can be believed (and I think it can).

The language isn't just hyperbolic in Andy's link, it's about as shrill as anything I've ever read. Humanity has changed the genome of the entire planet forever. And, Think of the "atomic diserntegrations" as little atomic bullets. And, Once the uranium gas and dust is in their lungs and bodies the soldiers and civilians become radiation poisoning victims and are forever changed. And, That's the purposeful targeting of a race or ethnic group of people for extermination. That's our red blooded, By Gawd, All American Policy. Exterminate them! And on and on... It's scare-mongering nonsense.

People who claim that depleted uranium is poisoning people need to come up with a physical mechanism. Depleted uranium isn't some mysterious evil material that has magical properties. It's a chemical. It's a heavy metal. It, like other heavy metals, has known effects on the body, effects that can be tested and measured.

Consider things like this, from the ntanet.net link:

The best expert opinion, including a report of the United Nations Scientific Committee on Effects of Radiation, is that "radiation exposure has never been demonstrated to cause hereditary effects in human populations". One of the largest study populations is that of the survivors of the atomic bombing of Japan. According to the U.N. report, "The absence of observable effects in children of survivors of the atomic bombings in Japan, one of the largest study populations, indicates that moderate acute radiation exposures of even a relatively large human population must have little impact."

It is important to note here that the report does not claim that it is impossible for radiation to produce hereditary effects, but that the frequency of hereditary effects (from radiation) is very low compared to the baseline frequency of hereditary effects from other causes even if a substantial radiation dose is assumed. According to the U.N. report a substantial dose of 1 Gray is likely to produce adverse effects at a frequency of less than one percent of the baseline frequency of these adverse effects. [A one Gray dose is approaching a lethal dose] Another factor that enters into the situation is that when the activists show photos of birth defects, there is normally an absence of information as to the radiation exposure, if any, of the parents. Two unlikely probabilities, multiplied together, immensely reduce the chances that the observed birth defects were caused by depleted uranium. That unlikely situation does not reduce the shrill cries of alarm from the activist groups, however. A three page summary of the United Nations report can be found at the following link:

[link|http://www.unscear.org/reports/2001.html|United Nations Report]


So much for "chang[ing] the genome of the entire planet forever."

I'm willing to listen to evidence, but not shrill rants from people like those cited in Andy's alt.conspiracy.jfk link.

My $0.02.

Cheers,
Scott.