Nuclear power

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Nuclear power is an issue often discussed in other sections of this forum, and the general consensus is that leftists support nuclear power. I was just wondering what you capitalists think?

[colonelguppy]

i'm baffled as to why anyone wouldn't support it.

damn hippies, imagine how different our energy situation would be if we had continued forward with nuclear research.

[VonClausewitz]

It has my full support, it's reliable, cleaner than most things, has less visual imapct than wind-farming, only produces one kind of waste in any quantities, and it doesn't need huge areas of the world to be dug up/mined.

The main rant about nuclear power that I always hear is that just because the Russians managed to blow one up... well, that was them, the rest of the world can manage well enough, as we have already been doing. Nuclear power for the win. :)

[RebelDog]

I'm against it for my own country (Scotland) because here we have easily exploitable renewable sources such as hydro, wind and wave which are much cheaper and we could exploit them now. It takes lots of time and resources to build a nuclear power station. We are lucky in Scotland that our renewable potential is massive but I realise other areas of the world are not so lucky and probably require nuclear power to meet their needs.

[Intellectual47]

I support nuclear power because it creates a great source of DU(depleted uranium).


I think it might also help people, but that's not why I love it.

[Delirium]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2006 09:29 am
I support nuclear power because it creates a great source of DU(depleted uranium).


I think it might also help people, but that's not why I love it.
why do you like du so much?

[Intellectual47]

Because it makes a much better penetrator than tungsten and makes hippies extremely angry when it actually has almost no health defects.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2006 05:13 pm
Because it makes a much better penetrator than tungsten and makes hippies extremely angry when it actually has almost no health defects.
http://www.aztlan.net/depleted_uranium/untitled03.jpg

http://www.aztlan.net/depleted_uranium/untitled06.jpg

http://www.aztlan.net/depleted_uranium/untitled10.jpg

[Qwerty Dvorak]

LU, where/when were these photos taken?

[Intellectual47]

Where the hell did you get those pictures?
What proof do you have that they were caused by DU?
Do you have any scientific studies?

Scientists agree that Du is a safe battlefield weapon. It does not cause very noticable health defects. Unless you are hit by it.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2006 05:41 pm
Where the hell did you get those pictures?

Google.


What proof do you have that they were caused by DU?

several hundred sites, and BBC seem to think so.


Do you have any scientific studies?

Yes.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/

http://www.cadu.org.uk/

and if you have toruble digesting that, Watch this short film (http://www.bushflash.com/pl_lo.html)

furthermore;

U.S. Representative, Jim McDermott:

"Depleted Uranium is used on the ends of bullets
and on the ends of shells because it is so hard {that}
almost any armament is vulnerable to something that is tipped with Depleted Uranium."

"We went to a hospital in Southern Iraq,
and a woman was there with a very deformed child and
her husband had been in the Iraqi Army and had been
in the battles in Southern Iraq and
came home and they produced a baby with very severe
malformations... Both the Leukemia rates in children and
malformations at birth had increased by 600%
and it was clearly an epidemic where all this
DU had been dumped... It becomes a dust that can be
inhaled and infect the blood stream and the rest
of the body and it was the opinion of the
doctors there that this was caused by depleted uranium...
They simply saw this as being a direct result of the
war by United States."


Scientists agree that Du is a safe battlefield weapon. It does not cause very noticable health defects. Unless you are hit by it.

Exactly. It has no noticeable health defects for those using the weapons, if they follow basic training. For those shot by it, or even come into contact with it for any time up to the next 4.5billion years after it has been deposited, the effects are very real.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

EDIT: Sorry, I was wrong, DU does not decompose into U-234. However, it is still slighty radioactive, and even slight radioactivity can have devastating effects when taken into the human body.

[Intellectual47]

Why did you quote the UN report? It completley disagrees with you. They say that DU is relativley harmless and it is very unlikely to be affected by it. Unless you get a DU-tipped bullet lodged in you.


several hundred sites, and BBC seem to think so.
Are any of them scientific sites or are they all just the hippies I decribed earlier who get angry at it for no reason, except for the fact it has Uranium in the name.

You mention Leukemia rates rising. Surely this had nothing to do with the massive amount of oil that Saddam burnt :rolleyes:

And one case is not enough to convince me. Nor are a few photographs. That is called Junk science. Please see this (http://Junkscience.com) for a better understanding of what junk science is. They may also have something on
DU.\

Also the IAEA (international Atomic Energy agency) had this to say
"The International Atomic Energy Agency reported in 2003 that, "based on credible scientific evidence, there is no proven link between DU exposure and increases in human cancers or other significant health or environmental impacts," although "Like other heavy metals, DU is potentially poisonous. In sufficient amounts, if DU is ingested or inhaled it can be harmful because of its chemical toxicity. High concentration could cause kidney damage." [21]"

You people seem to make judgments based on your feelings, not on scientific fact.

[Blue Collar Bohemian]

LU, correlation does not prove causation. Its equally possible that weapons developed by the Iraqi Military are to blame for such defects, though your point does warrant further investigation.

Also, as far as the dangers of nuclear power go, chew on these facts.

-You receive more radiation from working inside a granite building than from living near a Nuclear Power Plant.
-You receive more radiation from flying from New York to L.A. once than from living next to a Nuclear Power Plant for a year.
-The average person living next to a nuclear power plant receives more radiation from their color TV than from living in close proximity to a Nuclear Power Plant.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2006 05:56 pm
Why did you quote the UN report? It completley disagrees with you. They say that DU is relativley harmless and it is very unlikely to be affected by it. Unless you get a DU-tipped bullet lodged in you.


urm. I didn't link to a UN site.

But You clearly mean the WHO site, because the logos are similar :lol: . Anyway if you actually read it properly, you'll see that it doesn't contradict established science at all. It simply recognises the limitations, while addressing the known dangers.

"The behaviour of DU in the body is identical to that of natural uranium."

If it's all a bit complicated for you, (with similar logos and all) read the other site I linked to.


Are any of them scientific sites or are they all just the hippies I decribed earlier who get angry at it for no reason, except for the fact it has Uranium in the name.

There are several scientific papers on this issue, none of them agree with you In fact you are the only person I know that holds this standpoint. I reccomend reading; Use of Ammunition Containing Depleted Uranium and Human Health by Margaret Ryle, Ph.D,


And one case is not enough to convince me. Nor are a few photographs. That is called Junk science. Please see this (http://Junkscience.com) for a better understanding of what junk science is. They may also have something on DU.

Well, im sure your assertions and "junkscience.com" are enough to confront the world health organisation, the Ministry of Defence (UK) and several PH.D holding researchers, in your warped mind. But it's not really convincing me. And you're the one making wild claims that contradict mainstream science, so the onus really is on you.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

LU, correlation does not prove causation. Its equally possible that weapons developed by the Iraqi Military are to blame for such defects, though your point does warrant further investigation.
DU is the only possible explanation fro the symptoms described. Unless you can prove that Iraq developed weapons that would bring about the same symptoms.

[Intellectual47]

But You clearly mean the WHO site, because the logos are similar . Anyway if you actually read it properly, you'll see that it doesn't contradict established science at all.
I never said it contradicted "established science". I said it contradicted YOU. Your point is not supported by this site you linked it to, so why did you link it. If you read it, it says that the risk of health defects from DU is extremely low. Please see this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium#Health_considerations) for more evidence that Scientists support me.


There are several scientific papers on this issue, none of them agree with you In fact you are the only person I know that holds this standpoint
Did you not see the IAEA statement? They would seem to be pretty smart people. Many of them have P.H.Ds. How could I be the only person who says that DU isn't dangerous.


P.S. sorry RedStar for hijacking your post. I still support nuclear power because it is cheap, effective, and reliable. It also will last a long time. I also support fusion.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2006 06:10 pm

But You clearly mean the WHO site, because the logos are similar . Anyway if you actually read it properly, you'll see that it doesn't contradict established science at all.
Please see this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium#Health_considerations) for more evidence that Scientists support me.

The article you linked to goes neither way, and contradicts you on many points;


newer studies have and offered explanation of birth defect links... ... it induces them in several other species of mammals, and human epidemiological evidence is consistent with increased risk of birth defects in the offspring of persons exposed to DU


Some people have raised concerns about the use of this material, particularly in munitions, because of its proven mutagenicity

Proven mutagenicity? holy fuck.

[Intellectual47]

read the rest of the quote

Some people have raised concerns about the use of this material, particularly in munitions, because of its proven mutagenicity [14], teratogenicity [15],[16] in MICE. (emphasis added)

last I checked I am not a mouse.

And the article says that many scientific studies don't agree that DU causes Health defects. It also says that "There is no direct proof that uranium causes birth defects in humans."

Read the whole thing next time. You appear to have a problem with this idea of reading the entire source.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2006 06:21 pm
And the article says that many scientific studies don't agree that DU causes Health defects. It also says that "There is no direct proof that uranium causes birth defects in humans."


There is enough evidence suggesting a significant health risk to win over a large part of the scientific community. That is, parts of the community not linked to or funded by some sort of Military bias. Similarly, such a split occurred in the 1960s when it was declared that Agent Orange (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange) didn't cause birth defects in humans. Either way, more research needs be done to shut up people like you :rolleyes:

Furthermore, you actually do have significant biological parallels to a mouse, look at the research done into penicillin if you get the chance.

[Blue Collar Bohemian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2006 01:05 pm

LU, correlation does not prove causation. Its equally possible that weapons developed by the Iraqi Military are to blame for such defects, though your point does warrant further investigation.
DU is the only possible explanation fro the symptoms described. Unless you can prove that Iraq developed weapons that would bring about the same symptoms.
So you have all knowledge of every possible variable in this situation? Amazing.

[Intellectual47]

There is enough evidence suggesting a significant health risk to win over a large part of the scientific community.
But then why hasn't it? If there were enough evidence the scientific community would be won over by now. And don't say capitalist/military bias. Blaming other people for your problems is irresponsible.

DU is the only possible explanation fro the symptoms described. Unless you can prove that Iraq developed weapons that would bring about the same symptoms.
Any at all health defects in Iraqis would be caused by the smoke produced when Saddam set the oil wells on fire. That is a far greater health hazard then the tiny, insignifigant amount caused by DU.

Furthermore, you actually do have significant biological parallels to a mouse
Yes, but scientists do not consider a test done on a mouse the same as if it were done on a human. Also the dosage matters. The correlation means nothing if they gave the mice a ridiculous amount of DU. That is called junk science when you don't note the dosage.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2006 08:57 pm
But then why hasn't it?




It has.

[Intellectual47]

Yes it has. The IAEA says it doen't have a harmful health effect in the war setting.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

So you have all knowledge of every possible variable in this situation? Amazing.
Actually I have very little knowledge of the situation, so I trust the most experienced scientists who have the most knowledge of the vast majority of variables in this situation, and they blame DU.

So, do you have more knowledge of more variables than these professionals? I'd quite like to read your scientifically backed, inarguably conclusive thesis, if you would be so kind as to provide a link.

[Intellectual47]

Try this (http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/faq_17apr.htm). or this (http://www.ntanet.net/traprock.html). Or what about this (http://www.nato.int/du/). Or if all else fails try this (http://deploymentlink.osd.mil/du_library/)

I'm sure that these can help you.


P.S. sorry Redstar I think I stopped all debate over this with my links. Sorry