Some earlier links addressed that.
Rather than cutting and pasting links, I'll just refer interested readers to earlier posts in this thread.
Lots of soldiers from Gulf War I (1991) have lots of DU in them. They're being monitored. Uranium miners have uranium in them. They're also being [link|http://www.eh.doe.gov/ohre/roadmap/uranium/append.html|studied].
Uranium can be bad in the body. Heavy metals can be toxic. Alpha emitters can be hazardous when injested. All of that I agree with.
A lot is known about uranium chemistry ([link|https://chppm-www.apgea.army.mil/documents/UrineTesting.pdf|https://chppm-www.ap.../UrineTesting.pdf] discusses how it acts on the body). (z doesn't like https links.)
The problem, as I see it, is one of which side do you come down on as far as the studies are concerned. Do you trust the US military's [link|http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/faq_17apr.htm|FAQs] and studies or not? I generally do.
It also comes down to how you view the relative risk. Radioactivity is all around us. Heavy metals are all around battlefields. There are risks in replacing DU with other materials. Soldiers facing an enemy tank are much more at risk from explosives or bullets than from DU, IMHO. Our soldiers in a tank with DU armor are much better protected than a tank with armor made from other materials.
Getting rid of DU isn't going to make the problem of injesting of heavy metals by soldiers, or civilians who come across debris, go away. DU is a tool, and a very effective tool.
My $0.02.
Cheers,
Scott.
