Slashdot Mirror

Depleted uranium is still uranium, and still highly radioactive. It is the u238 that is left over after the enrichment process to get reactor grade fuels. It still has a radition level 60% of natural uranium, so it is by no means safe. It seems like people try to make it sound like its not even uranium at all, or that everything harmful has been taken out, which is not true at all. WHO(UN) link

(goes to read the linked report)
I think you read the wrong section. the section you quote is page 8, and "oral toxicity" means ingestion, not inhalation. The important part is about inhalation of Uranium particles (p6).
says the article: "Soluble components of uranium absorbed from the pulmonary tree are deposited in the skeleton within a few weeks, with a biological half-life in the lungs of 120 days. A considerably longer pulmonary retention of 1,470 days is expected in the case of inhalation of uranium oxides."

I conclude evil Uranium Oxides, if inhaled, lasts about four years in your lung.

The WHO site on depleted uranium has a report too.
sez the report: "Due to the pyrophoric nature of uranium metal and the extreme temperatures generated on impact of depleted uranium ammunition on a hard target, it ignites and produces an aerosol of fine particles of uranium oxides."
it goes on to explain that three components formed will be "U3O8" "UO2" and "UO3". We already know that they are not very nasty when ingested, but when inhaled?
says the article: "it has been postulated that uranium is mobilized from the lungs into systemic circulation, over 60% ending in the bone and kidney and 40% excreted in urine"
Now we have a radioactive, toxic compound, that lasts four years in your lungs and then deposits itself into your bones. nice.

Whats more: "KFOR informed the mission that it did not exclude the possibility that traces of plutonium could be present in depleted uranium."
Ahhh so we have yet another toxid metal we inhale, with an estimated ld50 (50% of an exposed population dies) of about 0.0002 to 0.003 g/Individual (seems to be disputed, since the lower number is actually the percentage you need to inhale to develop cancer for sure, thus dying of cancer, not plutonium) and deadly dose of about 0.025 g/Individual when inhaled.

I'd say since Areas of DU-use and increased cancer and mutations of newborns in the civil population are that overlapping that a possible link cannot be dismissed. That's the only reason I'd need to ban DU ammo.

The arguments about how DU has supposedly caused Gulf War Syndrome, etc, are not borne out by any legitimate medical studies. In fact, those studies that have been done have concluded that the use of DU ammunition does not pose a health risk.

For example, the European Union found this: (PDF link)

"The fact that there is no evidence of an association between exposures sometimes high and lasting since the beginning of the uranium industry and health damages such as bone cancer, lymphatic or other forms of leukemia shows that these diseases as a consequence of an uranium exposure are either not present or very exceptional."

The World Health Organization had this to say:

"...because DU is only weakly radioactive, very large amounts of dust (on the order of grams) would have to be inhaled for the additional risk of lung cancer to be detectable in an exposed group. Risks for other radiation-induced cancers, including leukaemia, are considered to be very much lower than for lung cancer."

They also report this in their findings on DU exposure: (PDF link)

"The radiological hazard is likely to be very small. No increase of leukemia or other cancers has been established following exposure to uranium or DU."

Studies of DU exposuring during the NATO action in Kosovo found that DU does not remain in the bloodstream long enough to cause any significant health risks.

DU does emit alpha radiation, which decreases in power exponentially with distance. There is absolutely no credible scientific evidence that connects depleted uranium to "Gulf War syndrome" or any other health problems. The World Health Organization and the European Union are far more credible sources than an organization that is clearly biased in favor of the contention that DU poses a health risk in spite of the clear evidence against such a contention.

The arguments about how DU has supposedly caused Gulf War Syndrome, etc, are not borne out by any legitimate medical studies. In fact, those studies that have been done have concluded that the use of DU ammunition does not pose a health risk.

For example, the European Union found this: (PDF link)

"The fact that there is no evidence of an association between exposures sometimes high and lasting since the beginning of the uranium industry and health damages such as bone cancer, lymphatic or other forms of leukemia shows that these diseases as a consequence of an uranium exposure are either not present or very exceptional."

The World Health Organization had this to say:

"...because DU is only weakly radioactive, very large amounts of dust (on the order of grams) would have to be inhaled for the additional risk of lung cancer to be detectable in an exposed group. Risks for other radiation-induced cancers, including leukaemia, are considered to be very much lower than for lung cancer."

They also report this in their findings on DU exposure: (PDF link)

"The radiological hazard is likely to be very small. No increase of leukemia or other cancers has been established following exposure to uranium or DU."

Studies of DU exposuring during the NATO action in Kosovo found that DU does not remain in the bloodstream long enough to cause any significant health risks.

DU does emit alpha radiation, which decreases in power exponentially with distance. There is absolutely no credible scientific evidence that connects depleted uranium to "Gulf War syndrome" or any other health problems. The World Health Organization and the European Union are far more credible sources than an organization that is clearly biased in favor of the contention that DU poses a health risk in spite of the clear evidence against such a contention.

So I'd love for you to cite some specific examples of having been explicitly lied to by advertisements. And please be specific. I am honestly curious about your perceptions.

If by 'largely removed' you mean 'more than half', then you are correct. However, your general tone suggests that you believe that 'largely removed' means "greater than 99%", when in fact that number is about 70-75%.

The best reference I can find on this on short notice is the World Health Organization, which I hope is sufficiently credible.

In a nutshell, the amount of radioisotopes is reduced from the ~.7% level present in naturally occurring uranium, to approximately .2%. That's still a significant amount of dangerous material, and nothing to be waved off as inconsequential.

Sex education programmes in schools and on the radio focused on the need to negotiate safe sex and encouraged teenagers to delay the age at which they first have sex. Since 1990, a USAID-funded scheme to increase condom use through social marketing of condoms has boosted condom use from 7% nationwide to over 50% in rural areas and over 85% in urban areas. The social marketing scheme involved sales of condoms at subsidized prices or free distribution by both the government and the private sector. The scheme was also backed up by health education and other public information. Meanwhile more teenage girls reported condom use than any other age group -- a trend reflected in falling infection rates among 13-19 year old girls in Masaka, in rural Uganda. And among 15-year-old boys and girls, the proportion who had never had sex rose from about 20% to 50% between 1989 and 1995."

While putting off virginity loss was one aspect of the campaign, it was accompanied by a huge increase in condom use. Up to 85% in cities.

And don't even be trying to deny it. .int domains are hard core.

During November 2002--July 2003, a total of 8,098 probable SARS cases were reported to the World Health Organization (WHO) from 29 countries, including 29 cases from the United States; 774 SARS-related deaths (case-fatality rate: 9.6%) were reported

A recent United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) report giving field measurements taken around selected impact sites in Kosovo (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) indicates that contamination by DU in the environment was localized to a few tens of metres around impact sites. Contamination by DU dusts of local vegetation and water supplies was found to be extremely low. Thus, the probability of significant exposure to local populations was considered to be very low.

Suicide rates in Japan are high for sure, but not nearly as 'disturbingly' high as people tend to think.
See the World Health Organization or check this nice overview of a view selected countries.

Let me repost a comment I made from the Hafnium story. Depleted nuclear materials are still DEFINITELY dangerous. Heightened security stateside sounds like a case of closing the barn door after the horse got out...
Hey, kiddies. We're worried about the evilbadnasty terrorists getting their hands on rogue nukes from the former USSR that might be floating around out there, or worse, constructing their own 'dirty bomb' with internet-fueled recipies, sneak it into the land of the Great Satan and start nuke-nuke-nukin' on heaven's door in the name of Allah. Bush & Co. are shrieking 'For God's sake, don't let those crazy Muslim fundamentalists get hold of nuclear materials!'
Problem is we've already given them all the material anyone could ever want or need to make a 'dirty bomb', delivered right to their sandy li'l front doors courtesy of the United States Armed Services. That's right, kiddies, we're talking about DEPLETED URANIUM, that nuclear fairy dust that's now littering Iraq and Afghanistan by the megaton! Thanks to the fabled generosity of the good ol' USA, it's possible to drive around and pick up this stuff with nothing more than a shovel and a dedication to a deity stronger than your fear of radiation poisoning.
A dedicated Boy Scout could easily make either a low-yield nuclear bomb using enough 'spent' uranium to make a subcritical mass (remember, Mouseketeers, that 'spent' fuel rods are still highly radioactive and it just takes a lot more to reach subcritical mass than ordinary uranium) OR even more easily, mix the DU with conventional explosives to make a bomb with a radioactive plume capable of poisoning an entire city for decades!
Fun Fact for th' Day: The most recent draft of the Geneva Convention considers depleted uranium to be a 'weapon of mass destruction', as its effects linger for decades to centuries after a war has ended, causing such amazing things as severe birth defects, mental retardation, cancer and other ailments endemic to a high degree of radioactive contamination. Any nation employing DU in its weapons will be considered to be in serious breach of the Geneva accord. (Ho ho ho! Not that the US actually gives a damn about those silly Swiss! There's profits to be had, and it's a convenient way to dispose of all that nuclear waste that would otherwise require safe disposal!)
Check HERE and HERE for more info.

Hey, kiddies. We're worried about the evilbadnasty terrorists getting their hands on rogue nukes from the former USSR that might be floating around out there, or worse, constructing their own 'dirty bomb' with internet-fueled recipies, sneak it into the land of the Great Satan and start nuke-nuke-nukin' on heaven's door in the name of Allah. Bush & Co. are shrieking 'For God's sake, don't let those crazy Muslim fundamentalists get hold of nuclear materials!'
Problem is we've already given them all the material anyone could ever want or need to make a 'dirty bomb', delivered right to their sandy li'l front doors courtesy of the United States Armed Services. That's right, kiddies, we're talking about DEPLETED URANIUM, that nuclear fairy dust that's now littering Iraq and Afghanistan by the megaton! Thanks to the fabled generosity of the good ol' USA, it's possible to drive around and pick up this stuff with nothing more than a shovel and a dedication to a deity stronger than your fear of radiation poisoning.
A dedicated Boy Scout could easily make either a low-yield nuclear bomb using enough 'spent' uranium to make a subcritical mass (remember, Mouseketeers, that 'spent' fuel rods are still highly radioactive and it just takes a lot more to reach subcritical mass than ordinary uranium) OR even more easily, mix the DU with conventional explosives to make a bomb with a radioactive plume capable of poisoning an entire city for decades!
Fun Fact for th' Day: The most recent draft of the Geneva Convention considers depleted uranium to be a 'weapon of mass destruction', as its effects linger for decades to centuries after a war has ended, causing such amazing things as severe birth defects, mental retardation, cancer and other ailments endemic to a high degree of radioactive contamination. Any nation employing DU in its weapons will be considered to be in serious breach of the Geneva accord. (Ho ho ho! Not that the US actually gives a damn about those silly Swiss! There's profits to be had, and it's a convenient way to dispose of all that nuclear waste that would otherwise require safe disposal!)
Check HERE and HERE for more info.

Now, the hypothosis of global warming has not been irrefutably proven and certain discrepencies have not been accounted for.

For instance, A volcanic erruption can cause so much more so called "greenhouse" gasses to be released into the atmosphere than all the polutants man has expelled since the first machine of industry.

Since there is no explanation for the past trend nor the fact that looking even further back the entire planet had a higher median temperature. as is evident by the many hypothosis that the thunder lizards may have died due to an ice age... I don't really have to point out there weren't humans then to contribute to that natural disaster that caused a dramatic shift in the planet's climate.

In the longer term perspective, a recent expert study estimated that the world is approaching the limits of global food production capacity based on present technologies. Its most optimistic projection suggests that a doubling of food production by 2050 might be technically feasible, and this could feed 7.8 billion people if grain is largely used as human food and not for animals. A likely higher level of population growth, or a failure of sufficient commitment to increase food supplies around the world, will create severe problems for a major part of the world population (Kendall and Pimentel, 1994). The pessimistic assumptions seem more likely, as present per capita food production is stagnating if not declining, and some crops may be close to biological and environmental limits. Already 700 million people experience endemic hunger, not counting those added by natural disasters (Serageldin, 1995).

Further,

The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) expects the world's population to grow to more than 8 billion by 2030. The FAO projects that global food production must increase by 60 percent to accommodate the estimated population growth, close nutrition gaps, and allow for dietary changes over the next three decades. Food charity alone simply cannot eradicate hunger. Increased supply--with the help of tools like bioengineering --is crucial.

Last year Ethiopia's population grew by 2.7%; according to this article: 'Most years, Ethiopia has to depend on some level of food aid as it rarely grows enough to feed the whole population.' The reliefweb article also states: 'many impoverished rural families say they have no choice but to have large families to help raise their incomes.' This strongly suggests that poverty is a vicious circle: because people are poor and famine-stricken they have more children; which leads to even greater pressure on food production; which, at its non-GM present state, is unable to answer with requisite increases in the amount it yields; which leads to even greater poverty; and so on and on and on. A way to break that vicious circle would be to provide people with the means to farm their own food locally and with better chances of success. In their article Technology That Will Save Billions From Starvation Prakash and Conko write:

The productivity gains from G.M. crops, as well as improved use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, allowed the world's farmers to double global food output during the last 50 years, on roughly the same amount of land, at a time when global population rose more than 80 percent. Without these improvements in plant and animal genetics and other scientific developments, known as the Green Revolution, we would today be farming on every square inch of arable land to produce the same amount of food, destroying hundreds of millions of acres of pristine wilderness in the process.

It is estimated that Vitamin A deficiency leads to some 1,000,000 children dying and some additional 300,000 being struck by blindless every year. According to the WHO between 100 and 140 million children are vitamin A deficient and between 250,000 to 500,000 children per year become blind due to Vitamin A deficiency. If, as Patrick Moore says, 'adding a daffodil gene to rice in order to produce a genetically modified strain of rice can prevent half a million children from going

Completely irrelevant. Cell phone radiation intensity is already miniscule compared to the ambient radiation we receive from space and our surroundings.

I'm quite sure you're incorrect on this point. For all intents and purposes, you can consider a cell phone to be a point source -- intensity of radiation varies with the inverse of the cube of the distance from the source. Background radiation is almost by definition the same everywhere. You're not going to see anywhere near the equivalent of a 200mW microwave radiation source (CDMA power level) from background radiation in that frequency band. Reference: How Cellular Phone Technologies Compare

Furthermore, one can show almost with high school physics that even if the intensities were much higher, the radiation from cell phones CANNOT disrupt biological systems.

(Rest snipped: Summary is that non-ionizing radiation cannot disrupt biological systems except by heating effects). Counter-argument: If it's so safe, then why are there standards bodies which set exposure limits for non-ionizing radiation? Microwaves can, and do, disrupt biological systems at levels well below those which would apparently cause heating effects. This is due to micro-heating of small areas -- interference patterns. In fact, there's enough concern that the WHO wrote a paper on it: Biological Effects of Microwaves and Mobile Telephony.

Getting back on topic, one interesting conclusion of the paper is that CDMA is considerably safer than GSM -- GSM's maximum transmit power level is about 1 watt, whereas CDMA has a maximum transmit power level of about 200 milliwatts.

Overall, I don't like that the US is shoving their weight around, but I also don't think CDMA is a technically inferior solution. Possibly the Japanese are suffering from not-invented-here or not-funded-here syndrome on this one. Time will tell.

I have seen this, and it always brings tears to my eyes. Now, with these solutions so close, yet banned by the selfish ignorance of others, it stirs deep anger within me for those who would do this to children.

Most of us on here agree that OSS is a very important issue. But even it is dwarfed by the importance of this issue. The sanctity of human life, a child's life. The ending of the suffering of millions. Hundreds of millions of suffering people regaining the ability to lead a normal life and be like most moms, dads and children.

Yes, the individuals denying this research do not raise their hands directly to do harm, but they enforce the continuation of harm, suffering and death by not allowing this hope to be researched. It is like a Mafia Don who does not pull the trigger, but gave the order. Do you really think a pacemaker is a good alternative to a healthy heart? A syringe to healthy islet cells? Paralyzation to a working nervous system?

If religious belief is your answer to denying this, I challenge you to post where in what Bible (Hindu, Christian, Muslim, whatever) it is written anywhere that talks about anything like this. I have never seen it written or heard of it written. I have only heard people in power use it to whip up their flock to action on something else they tie to it.

Ignorance is not an excuse for violence, in God's eyes, whether it be passive or active!

-InnerWeb

vCJD is variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease.

The nature of the TSE agent is being investigated and is still a matter of debate. According to the prion theory, the agent is composed largely, if not entirely, of a self-replicating protein, referred to as a prion. Another theory argues that the agent is virus-like and possesses nucleic acids which carry genetic information. Although strong evidence collected over the past decade supports the prion theory, the ability of the TSE agent to form multiple strains is more easily explained by a virus-like agent.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs180/en /

We might need it as the White House recommends we eat junk food (usually the preffered gaming food) as long as we excercise.

The World Health Organization recommends eating better but they have probably never played video games.

ACHTUNG!!!

I don't know how this turned into a racial discussion, but your facts are ridiculous. Negroes on average weigh more than Whites. That is a fact. This is apparent to anyone who cares to walk around a major US city in which they reside. Best bet, check out Manhattan. There, the dichotomy is most severe.

I am not familiar with other racial studies, but from what I see on the streets orientals are rarely overweight.

Perhaps there is a genetic disorder that causes type II diabetes, but the frequency of this disease has increased far too rapidly in the last 10 years alone to be explained by that alone. I have read studies regarding populations of orientals, and there is a much higher incidence of Type II diabetes in Hong Kong than the rest of China. That supports a dietary difference, and not a genetic one. This same study I read just recently highly contradicts your statements regarding orientals. Diabetes is rare amongst them . Of course, you could be using term "asian" to apply to all people on that continent of which the minority are orientals. If that is the case, you could be right. I don't know. I am not familiar with statistics regarding Arabia for instance.

But even though I don't know it off the top of my head, I am smart enough to check the World Health Organization's Website. As you can see, there are 20,756,772 people in China with the disorder. That is out of a population of over 1 billion. Now look at the United States with over 17,701,942 cases, out of a population of 280 million.

Think about that chief. Clearly, you have not gotten your facts from any reputable source. I will accept your challenge, only because I am an ardent National Socialist. But first, you will have to revise your criteria. I can't explain why Asians get diabetes with greater frequency BECAUSE IT ISN'T TRUE.

The genetic argument is also JUST A THEORY. No specific gene has been identified that can be proven in a large scale test.

Seig Heil.

He gives the source of those numbers. From that, it's a matter of a very quick google search to corroborate the claims. (Also here). So, do you have an actual refutation, or are you just arguing out of laziness?

He gives the source of those numbers. From that, it's a matter of a very quick google search to corroborate the claims. (Also here). So, do you have an actual refutation, or are you just arguing out of laziness?

You make some interesting points. As you say, correlation is not causation.

There are really two points to be made:

1. Cigarette companies have been targeting youth with their advertising.
2. Cigarette advertising encourages increased consumption of cigarettes.

The King and Siegel study is not trying to prove the second point, only the first. It makes no comment on the effectiveness of this advertising, it is only showing that cigarette companies are specifically targeting advertising to youth. It speaks of their intentions, not the results.

You are right that I did not back up the second point adequately.

Here are some exerpts from a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1998:

This study provides "the first longitudinal evidence to our knowledge that tobacco promotional activities are causally related to the onset of smoking." According to the authors it "provides clear evidence that tobacco industry advertising and promotional activities can influence non-susceptible never-smokers to start the process of becoming addicted to cigarettes ... our data establish that the influence of tobacco promotional activities was present before adolescents showed any susceptibility to become smokers ... we estimate that 34 per cent of all experimentation in California between 1993 and 1996 can be attributed to tobacco promotional activities."

Here is a quote from Emerson Foote, former Chairman of the Board of McCann-Erickson, which handled $20 million in tobacco account sales:

"The cigarette industry has been artfully maintaining that cigarette advertising has nothing to do with total sales. This is complete and utter nonsense. I am always amused by the suggestion that advertising, a function that has been shown to increase consumption of virtually every other product, somehow miraculously fails to work for tobacco products."

Here is a quote from a leaked internal paper by Claude Teague, Assistant Chief in R&D at RJ Reynolds:

At the outset it should be said that we are presently, and I believe unfairly, constrained from directly promoting cigarettes to the youth market ... if our company is to survive and prosper, over the long term we must get our share of the youth market ... Thus we need new brands designed to be particularly attractive to the young smoker, while ideally at the same time appealing to all smokers ... Perhaps these questions may be best approached by consideration of factors influencing presmokers to try smoking, learn to smoke and become confirmed smokers.

You make some interesting points. As you say, correlation is not causation.

There are really two points to be made:

1. Cigarette companies have been targeting youth with their advertising.
2. Cigarette advertising encourages increased consumption of cigarettes.

The King and Siegel study is not trying to prove the second point, only the first. It makes no comment on the effectiveness of this advertising, it is only showing that cigarette companies are specifically targeting advertising to youth. It speaks of their intentions, not the results.

You are right that I did not back up the second point adequately.

Here are some exerpts from a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1998:

This study provides "the first longitudinal evidence to our knowledge that tobacco promotional activities are causally related to the onset of smoking." According to the authors it "provides clear evidence that tobacco industry advertising and promotional activities can influence non-susceptible never-smokers to start the process of becoming addicted to cigarettes ... our data establish that the influence of tobacco promotional activities was present before adolescents showed any susceptibility to become smokers ... we estimate that 34 per cent of all experimentation in California between 1993 and 1996 can be attributed to tobacco promotional activities."

Here is a quote from Emerson Foote, former Chairman of the Board of McCann-Erickson, which handled $20 million in tobacco account sales:

"The cigarette industry has been artfully maintaining that cigarette advertising has nothing to do with total sales. This is complete and utter nonsense. I am always amused by the suggestion that advertising, a function that has been shown to increase consumption of virtually every other product, somehow miraculously fails to work for tobacco products."

Here is a quote from a leaked internal paper by Claude Teague, Assistant Chief in R&D at RJ Reynolds:

At the outset it should be said that we are presently, and I believe unfairly, constrained from directly promoting cigarettes to the youth market ... if our company is to survive and prosper, over the long term we must get our share of the youth market ... Thus we need new brands designed to be particularly attractive to the young smoker, while ideally at the same time appealing to all smokers ... Perhaps these questions may be best approached by consideration of factors influencing presmokers to try smoking, learn to smoke and become confirmed smokers.

No one (serious) pretends to understand the effects of non-ionizing radiation on people and other critters. No one has really done the science yet. Any practical scientist will admit there must be some effect on neurological functioning, but no one knows what the effect is. It might even be an overall positive effect, sort of like the sound of ocean waves is soothing.

For instance, from WHO:

Exposure to low-levels of RF fields, too low to produce heating, has been reported to alter the electrical activity of the brain in cats and rabbits by changing calcium ion mobility. This effect has also been reported in isolated tissues and cells. Other studies have suggested that RF fields change the proliferation rate of cells, alter enzyme activity or affect the genes in the DNA of cells. However, these effects are not well established, nor are their implications for human health sufficiently well understood to provide a basis for restricting human exposure.

Those people who say there is no significant effect or that mechanically generated radiation is the same as natural radiation from the sun and the cosmos have no idea what they are talking about. We just don't know yet, and we don't even really have any way to talk about it.

I guess the World Health Organization's crowing about smallpox eradication was a bit too early!

I guess the World Health Organization's crowing about smallpox eradication was a bit too early!

"Impressive" to your uncle must mean something along the lines of "capable of destroying all humanity." Which is, I admit, one possible definition. A bit sick, though.

Ebola is so scary because of how little would have to change for it to become "impressive". Ebola is an incredibly efficient killer, way more than smallpox's 30%-50% fatality rates. The Ebola that's around right now would be nothing compared to that incubated in an (infectious) victim for 6 months before the victim bled out. You could see epidemics wipe out entire countries in just a few years, if such a virus existed.

There are some interesting models for Ebola infection. They're all pretty scary.
Here's one, in an Excel spreadsheet. Your uncle may have higher standards, but I get a bit freaked out when mathematical models start predicting 80% population losses.

FWIW, there are alot of interesting papers out there, if you want some hair-raising science...

P.S. AIDS is not a virus, its a syndrome caused by the HIV.

> Another absurd statement; health care in the
> USA is the best in the world

If so, explain why the average life expectancy in the US is one of the worst of OECD countries. It sits on part with that of Puerto Rico.

Read this WHO report. It offers some explanation as to why US is not faring that well too.

Gore Vidal is not concerned about the availability of health care. If you are very rich in any country you can afford the best health care as well. People routinely fly into the US or other countries such as the UK for tricky operations.

What he is saying is that the average American's access to health care is not that great, and this is well supported by evidence.

No world wars in 50+ years

No world wars? Do you recall the Cold War? Or more recently, the (insert brassy fanfare) "War on Terror"?!? Just because it wasn't an all-out, killeverythingthatmoves kind of war doesn't mean that hostilities didn't occur, or that it didn't involve the "world".

Has negotiated and enforced many peace treaties throughout that time.

And it has failed to negotiate and enforce just as many. Look up a country called Rhodesia and the history of the land it inhabited. No UN intervention there, and we're still seeing the fallout in central Africa. Or better yet, look at the strength of UN resolutions at work in Israel. There have been UN sanctions for decades against Israel, and it hasn't stopped the crimes one bit.

Economic and other sanctions have had positive effects on some countries.

Such sanctions have allowed dictators to divert funds from aid programs to build military infrastructure, enabled "ethnic cleansing" such as that in former Yugoslavia, and created situations leading to attacks on the US and other member nations.

WHO has done some fantastic work in the 3rd world.

Work which includes proposing some of the most restrictive "health" laws ever seen.

Is the world's first supra-national organization and, more remarkably, has had its power seriously challenged only a few times.

First?!? Even the UN admits that the League of Nations existed. And as for serious challenges to UN authority, you can look at the record of the last 50 years to see the endless challenges and flaunts of that authority. The UN has been ignored from Korea to Iraq.

Has, respectively, saved the countries of Korea, Kuwait,and many others i'm forgetting by using multinational forces to defeat a common agressor enemy.

The UN saved Korea? The Korean War didn't end. It is still in a negotiated ceasefire, and is still a divided country. As for Kuwait, the country it was ceased to exist when they were invaded. To say that the UN saved these countries is to ignore the facts. It would be more proper to say that the UN helped to alleviate some of the destruction caused by internal or external aggressors, and in some cases aided the victimized society to rid itself of the invading force.

I'm not trying to say that the UN is a failure. However, the current political and economic climate make the organization more of a pawn to a few powerful nations than a true supranational entity charged with protecting the peace and enforcing international law. While it has contributed somewhat to international stability, it can be seen to offer selective stability, chiefly for Western nations that expect UN backing for their own whims.

</offtopic rant>

Err, ok, I looked up a definition and found one from the WHO. Sorry, it's a Word file :( Here is what I found:

The confusion between addiction and dependence is more difficult to clarify because WHO no longer uses the term addiction. Hence there is no authoritative WHO definition of addiction to compare with that of dependence.
The current definition of dependence given by the WHO Expert Committee on Drug Dependence is:
A cluster of physiological, behavioural and cognitive phenomena of variable intensity, in which the use of a psychoactive drug (or drugs) takes on a high priority. The necessary descriptive characteristics are preoccupation with a desire to obtain and take the drug and persistent drug-seeking behaviour. Determinants and problematic consequences of drug dependence may be biological, psychological or social, and usually interact.

So you are dependend (formerly known as 'addicted') on games if you have a constant desire to play. I'd say that any damaging behaviour is a consequence of a dependency, not a prerequisite.

I like to talk to my girlfriend every day but if I didnt I wouldnt feel "abnormal", so therefore I'm not addicted to her.

I'm pretty sure she's happy to hear that ;) But it's actually true, IMHO: if you don't feel that anything is missing after talking to your girl for a few days, then yes, you are not addicted... err... dependend on her.

But if I don't wear brush my teeth every day its feel odd so I am addicted to brushing my teeth?

Besides this being a social issue, yes, you are dependend on brushing your teeth - even by your definition, because not brushing your teeth is damaging to you, physically and socially.

Many people have repeating habits that are not damaging to them - I'm not sure if coffee drinking is a good example, because I'm not current on research about health issues regarding coffee. But if we assume that coffee is not a health risk, drinking coffee is not damaging to you or anyone else. And a heavy coffee drinker need two or more per day just to stay awake - they are dependend. Those who drink it only from time to time may get a "kick" out of it. If you consume it regularly over a period of time, you need it not to fall asleep.

I admit that discussing addiction & dependencies is very dependend (no pun intended) on the definitions one uses. And I'm certain there are plenty definitions that support your point of view, which is very feasible :)

Small mistake. USA has approx 12% of its population living below the poverty line. That is absolutely unheard of in western europe for example.

Ah, I see - the world consists of Western Europe and North America, and the rest of the world doesn't count. My bad.

But I didn't mention poverty level, did I? I mentioned death by starvation. According to the World Health Organization, Protein-Energy Malnutrition (PEM), the most lethal form of malnutrition, affects 1 out of every 4 children worldwide. "...more than 70% of PEM children live in Asia, 26% in Africa and 4% in Latin America and the Caribbean." The United States isn't mentioned. Neither is Europe. If I were a child, I'd rather live in the US or Europe than, say, Asia or Africa - nevermind the climate, I'd like to eat on a regular basis!

Now let's take a look at that 12% figure. If you'll reread my previous post, you'll notice that I said that even the poor of America might be considered wealthy by the standards of many other nations. According to the US Census Bureau, 12.6% of all Americans over the age of 15 earn less than or equal to the dollar amount which it says defines the "poverty level" income of an individual. This excludes government aid payments, and every person is counted - including non-working teens aged 15-18 who live with their parents (even if those parents are wealthy), people who need not work because their spouses make money by the bushel, retired people who live on pensions, savings, and Social Security retirement benefits, permanently and temporarily disabled people who live on Social Security disability benefits and private disability insurance, and those whose wages are paid "under the table" and do not report or pay taxes on their income.

"Poverty level" is defined by the US Census Bureau strictly by individual income per year, and doesn't take into account the income of other family members, government aid income, or "allowances" such as the $5,000/month Little Rich Johnny gets from his parents every month while he attends college out of town.

Note that I didn't say that American poor were wealthy by the standards of the United Kingdom, or France, or Sweden - I said "many nations". Places like Ethiopia, Somalia, Laos, Cambodia, Bhutan, Malawi, Haiti, and so forth. Places where you're likely to see Sally Struthers pitching another Save The Children fund-raising campaign.

Now, let's take a look at someone who is part of that 12.6% who's under the poverty level - me. My income put me below the "poverty level" last year, as well as 2001, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1994, and every year from 1988-1993. I will probably just barely clear the poverty level this year, but only if the Dow Jones doesn't close out for the year any lower than its level as of last Friday (capital losses due to drops in stock prices deduct from your Adjusted Gross Income dollar-per-dollar). I own a modest but nice 3-bedroom, 2-bathroom house with a mixture of new hardwood floors and new carpet, on a 1/2-acre level lot, in a good neighborhood. I own it outright - no mortgage. I own a 1996 Ford full-sized pickup truck outright, no payments. I have 4 computers, a cellular phone, thousands of dollars worth of books, cable television with 300 or so channels, high-bandwidth internet access, a refrigerator full of food, a Ridgeway grandfather clock/curio cabinet made from cherry wood, and about $9500 in savings. But according to the US Census Bureau, I've been hovering right around the poverty level since I became old enough to be included in the statistics, with the exception of 2 years when I lucked out and made a "middle-class" income. According to the rhetoric spewed forth by the liberals, I've been screwed over by the rich, and should be getting big fat checks every month, financed by the "wealthiest 10%" - which, BTW, means those making about $65,000 a year or more.

Don't be so ready to accept statistics blindly. Sir Benjamin Disreali was right - there are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics.

I'm not sure how many people followed this, but really, diarrhea is a leading cause of death for children worldwide. It is the result of dehydration and contaminated water supplies and results in over 2 million deaths annually.

http://www.who.int/health-topics/diarrhoeal.htm

I'll rationalize my obsessive desire at making sure the AC is on just the right centrigrade, will lead to a breakthrough discovery that will allow every country to be as it wants to be immediately. ;)

Malaria causes more than three hundred million acute illnesses and kills at least one million people every year. Ninety per cent of deaths due to malaria occur in Africa, south of the Sahara, and most deaths occur in children under the age of five.

And oh, what about those "chemicals the Iraq used"? Seems to me they didn't have or use any.

And oh, what about those "chemicals the Iraq used"? Seems to me they didn't have or use any.

quoted statement says DU is weakly radioactive, but it does not say that is is weakly radioactive compared to uranium ore miners are exposed to.

Has all reading comprehension gone out the window?

Again, from the WHO DU FactSheet
"The main difference between DU and natural uranium is that the former contains at least three times less 235U than the latter."

2. Should staff have special medical examinations before, during or after working in DU areas?

Staff undertaking a medical examination prior to taking up duties in areas where DU munitions were used should [emphasis added by me] be healthy. If there is kidney impairment, judgement should be made on the basis of their fitness to perform the tasks required and not on any possible exposure to DU.

Even if present in areas in which large amounts of DU munitions were used, the possibility that significant quantities of dust and debris could have been inhaled or ingested by civilians is remote. Small intakes of DU will be passed quickly by the urine or faeces without residual effects.

Unless there are special circumstances where significant amounts of DU could have been inhaled or ingested [emphasis added by me], people should only be treated on the basis of symptoms observed. People normallly do not show any symptoms related to DU exposure.

Given the extremely high levels of birth defects and rare cancers seen by Iraqis since 1991, the general consensus among the medical community is that DU munitions do cause considerable harm when used in battle.

Given that the WHO, in their DU FactSheet, does not agree with your statement, I call BS.

Potential health effects of exposure to depleted uranium
"Erythema (superficial inflammation of the skin) or other effects on the skin are unlikely to occur even if DU is held against the skin for long periods (weeks).
No consistent or confirmed adverse chemical effects of uranium have been reported for the skeleton or liver.
No reproductive or developmental effects have been reported in humans."

WHO FactSheet on Depleted Uranium.

Quite: (some excerpts from the FactSheet)
Exposure to uranium and depleted uranium
"A recent United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) report giving field measurements taken around selected impact sites in Kosovo (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) indicates that contamination by DU in the environment was localized to a few tens of metres around impact sites. Contamination by DU dusts of local vegetation and water supplies was found to be extremely low. Thus, the probability of significant exposure to local populations was considered to be very low."

Absorption of depleted uranium
"About 98% of uranium entering the body via ingestion is not absorbed, but is eliminated via the faeces.
Of the uranium that is absorbed into the blood, approximately 70% will be filtered by the kidney and excreted in the urine within 24 hours; this amount increases to 90% within a few days."

Potential health effects of exposure to depleted uranium
Erythema (superficial inflammation of the skin) or other effects on the skin are unlikely to occur even if DU is held against the skin for long periods (weeks).
No consistent or confirmed adverse chemical effects of uranium have been reported for the skeleton or liver.
No reproductive or developmental effects have been reported in humans.

Interesting once you get past all the scarey words, isn't it?

Hehe...the link didn't go through. I must learn to preview my posts first :-)

Here's an updated link: The WHO report on DU

WHO FactSheet on Depleted Uranium.

I'm sorry, were we talking about sub-Saharan Africa and other parts of the world where organ transplants are pure fantasy and I failed to notice? You have my apologies. See, more than 20.8 million of those cases you cite are down there where the men think condoms are evil, raping virgins cures AIDS, and any kind of vaginal lubrication whatsoever spoils the wonderful dry sex feel. Almost as good for tearing tissue as anal sex. Or a needle.

Oh and, no, you're right, I did not cite sources. I thought my casual remark reflected pretty general knowledge. But I can, and I will. (And, ironically, you cited one for me. See below.)

Only 860,000 AIDS cases (adults and children) were in the US in 1997 when the world total was about 31 million (it's 42 million in your reference), feel free to scale up if you like, but the point remains that AIDS populations in the 3rd world are vastly different than in industrialized nations. BTW, those international numbers seem suspect, especially since they don't give any info on how this "estimation" takes place in places where you can't even get AIDS drugs in without them being stolen and sold at a profit in Europe. Note that there are many pages on who.org and who.int that do explain the estimation procedure for the US, such as the one I mentioned, but the point is we're not talking about world AIDS, we're talking about AIDS in places where organs are transplanted with some reasonable level of frequency, so we'll use your own referenced site, but a different table on the page to see what we can learn about how people get AIDS. OK?

CATEGORY MEN WOMEN TOTAL*
Men who have sex with men 368,971 - 368,971
Injecting Drug Use 145,750 55,576 201,326
Men who have sex with men and inject drugs 51,293 - 51,293
Hemophilia/coagulation disorder 5,000 292 5,292
Heterosexual contact 32,735 57,396 90,131 (riight)
Recipient of blood transfusion, blood components, or tissue 5,057 3,914 8,971
Risk not reported or identified 57,220 23,870 81,091

(Hilariously, the * is marked on TOTAL with this note below the table: Includes 3 persons whose sex is inknown. (sic) Inknown? That crazy W.H.O.!)

Now, let's take what we learned from the table above, which comes from your own referenced source page, and get back to the thing that really irritated you: my claim that most people get HIV/AIDS from gay sex or IV drug use. Now, keep in mind that we only have the sufferers's words to go on, and I'm guessing some people with AIDS/HIV will lie about how they might have caught it either way for whatever reason. I'm pretty sure that more lie by saying they had no gay sex or IV drug use than the other way around, but let's ignore that and accept the word of the sufferers at face value.

So, we'll include the women too (to your advantage, since they can't have gay sex with men), and see that of the nice 800k sample size there, the WHO chart above, your reference now, tells us that 77% of the AIDS/HIV cases are from admitted gay male sex0rs and/or IV drug users. I'm so sorry for assuming AIDS was mostly associated with these behaviors. Why, it's only 77%.

Moreover, IMHO you can throw in the 10% where "no risk was reported" and get it up to a cool 87% without any serious fight from anyone. I'd also bet some fraction of the 2% claiming medical (transfusion or hemo disorder) and the 11% calling straight-sex only are being less-than-honest to save the family some misery, but let's leave them alone. According to your W.H.O. source, 77-87% of everyone with AIDS reported that they had gay male sex, used IV drugs, or both, or refused to comment.

Finally, because I want to be done with you and cease this

I'm sorry, were we talking about sub-Saharan Africa and other parts of the world where organ transplants are pure fantasy and I failed to notice? You have my apologies. See, more than 20.8 million of those cases you cite are down there where the men think condoms are evil, raping virgins cures AIDS, and any kind of vaginal lubrication whatsoever spoils the wonderful dry sex feel. Almost as good for tearing tissue as anal sex. Or a needle.

Oh and, no, you're right, I did not cite sources. I thought my casual remark reflected pretty general knowledge. But I can, and I will. (And, ironically, you cited one for me. See below.)

Only 860,000 AIDS cases (adults and children) were in the US in 1997 when the world total was about 31 million (it's 42 million in your reference), feel free to scale up if you like, but the point remains that AIDS populations in the 3rd world are vastly different than in industrialized nations. BTW, those international numbers seem suspect, especially since they don't give any info on how this "estimation" takes place in places where you can't even get AIDS drugs in without them being stolen and sold at a profit in Europe. Note that there are many pages on who.org and who.int that do explain the estimation procedure for the US, such as the one I mentioned, but the point is we're not talking about world AIDS, we're talking about AIDS in places where organs are transplanted with some reasonable level of frequency, so we'll use your own referenced site, but a different table on the page to see what we can learn about how people get AIDS. OK?

CATEGORY MEN WOMEN TOTAL*
Men who have sex with men 368,971 - 368,971
Injecting Drug Use 145,750 55,576 201,326
Men who have sex with men and inject drugs 51,293 - 51,293
Hemophilia/coagulation disorder 5,000 292 5,292
Heterosexual contact 32,735 57,396 90,131 (riight)
Recipient of blood transfusion, blood components, or tissue 5,057 3,914 8,971
Risk not reported or identified 57,220 23,870 81,091

(Hilariously, the * is marked on TOTAL with this note below the table: Includes 3 persons whose sex is inknown. (sic) Inknown? That crazy W.H.O.!)

Now, let's take what we learned from the table above, which comes from your own referenced source page, and get back to the thing that really irritated you: my claim that most people get HIV/AIDS from gay sex or IV drug use. Now, keep in mind that we only have the sufferers's words to go on, and I'm guessing some people with AIDS/HIV will lie about how they might have caught it either way for whatever reason. I'm pretty sure that more lie by saying they had no gay sex or IV drug use than the other way around, but let's ignore that and accept the word of the sufferers at face value.

So, we'll include the women too (to your advantage, since they can't have gay sex with men), and see that of the nice 800k sample size there, the WHO chart above, your reference now, tells us that 77% of the AIDS/HIV cases are from admitted gay male sex0rs and/or IV drug users. I'm so sorry for assuming AIDS was mostly associated with these behaviors. Why, it's only 77%.

Moreover, IMHO you can throw in the 10% where "no risk was reported" and get it up to a cool 87% without any serious fight from anyone. I'd also bet some fraction of the 2% claiming medical (transfusion or hemo disorder) and the 11% calling straight-sex only are being less-than-honest to save the family some misery, but let's leave them alone. According to your W.H.O. source, 77-87% of everyone with AIDS reported that they had gay male sex, used IV drugs, or both, or refused to comment.

Finally, because I want to be done with you and cease this

Nope. That's U-238. Depleted Uranium is 99.8% U-238, 0.2% U-235, and 0.001% U-234. It is about 60% as radioactive as natural Uranium (99.27% U-238, 0.72% U-235, and 0.0054 U-234. source.

Take a look at this report then think about the alternitives.

Use DU and leave DUoxide all over the place or have an crack pot dictators armored collumn rolling down the street.

What is more likely to be hazardous to ones health?

Also the whole duck and cover thing IS A good idea. Most of the deaths and near 100% of injuries are from blast/shrapnel. The only way you are going to have to worry about radation is if you are ground zero (in which case you are dead faster than you can think it) or the weapon was a ground burst (fallout)

You see there are roughly 2 ways a nuke is used...
1. Air burst. This is used for destroying a large area/ soft target. the weapon is detonated high up... I have the numbers for 1 MT of 17,500 ft. At this altitude there is effectivly 0 fallout. You will get a flash exposure of gamma, Xray and thermal over a limited radius, about 7 mi for 1MT thermal radius, and if you can protect your self from the thermal the others are generally survivable. Duck and cover. next is blast, this is the workhorse for nukes.
25 Mt air burst follow...
12 PSI 6.5 Mi radius: Area is a glass ash tray 90% dead 10% wishing
5 PSI 10.7 Mi radius: Heavy damage to all structures 50% dead 40% injured
2 PSI 20 Mi radius: moderate damage to structures 5% dead 45% injured.
1 PSI 30.4 Mi radius: light damage 0 dead 25% injured

now if you do the math to calculate the surface area there are more people in the rings further out that in the ash tray zones on the inside, thus debris/shrapnel is the biggest killer and duck and cover is VERY good advice

2. Surface Burst. Used for taking out bunkers/silos/millitary stuff. Gererally away from population centers. This use has fallout. The blast radius is much smaller as the earth is absorbing a lot of the energy.
Info from google and here

World Heath Org has a little fact sheet about DU (close enough to uranium ore for a /. posting I think. After DU is refined to contain almost nothing but uranium and these rocks are mostly rocks with a little uranium.)

Some highlights
Of the uranium that is absorbed into the blood, approximately 70% will be filtered by the kidney and excreted in the urine within 24 hours; this amount increases to 90% within a few days.

In a number of studies on uranium miners, an increased risk of lung cancer was demonstrated, but this has been attributed to exposure from radon decay products. Lung tissue damage is possible leading to a risk of lung cancer that increases with increasing radiation dose. However, because DU is only weakly radioactive, very large amounts of dust (on the order of grams) would have to be inhaled for the additional risk of lung cancer to be detectable in an exposed group. Risks for other radiation-induced cancers, including leukaemia, are considered to be very much lower than for lung cancer.

Due to its high density, about twice that of lead, the main civilian uses of DU include counterweights in aircraft, radiation shields in medical radiation therapy machines and containers for the transport of radioactive materials. The military uses DU for defensive armour plate.

Erythema (superficial inflammation of the skin) or other effects on the skin are unlikely to occur even if DU is held against the skin for long periods (weeks).

Dear Sir or Madam:

I regret to inform you that it has come to the attention of our agents at the World Health Organization that your post is so funny as to be in violation of international treaty. A study conducted by our investigators conclusively indicates that fits of laughter caused by your jokes induce suffocation, burst arteries, and wetting in over 10% of all viewers. Thus, your post has been classified as a weapon of mass destruction. Please cease your comedy immediately, for the good of humanity.

Sincerely yours,
Dr Gro Harlem Brundtland, Director-General of the World Health Organization
http://www.who.int

irc://irc.who.int

Could somebody near the centre of the action tell Dr Gro Harlem Brundtland, or her Dr Jong-wook Lee, her replacement, about irc. A Slashcode server would not be a bad idea either.

It might save quite a few lives one day.

irc://irc.who.int

Could somebody near the centre of the action tell Dr Gro Harlem Brundtland, or her Dr Jong-wook Lee, her replacement, about irc. A Slashcode server would not be a bad idea either.

It might save quite a few lives one day.

True, but it's the death rate you should be concerned with, not how many people died. The flu kills a thousands more people in a year then SARS because hundreds of millions of people (Billions?) get the flu in a year.

The death rate for people infected with SARS is much , much higher then the death rate for people infected with the flue.

True, but compared with something like yellow fever, which afflicts 200,000 every year and kills 30,000, SARS affects many fewer people AND has a lower mortality rate. But I don't see any headlines about yellow fever and no mad rush to find a cure.

And I wouldn't rule out a disease as a problem just because of a lower mortality rate. The very fact that 1.9 million children die of diarrheal diseases every year, 1 million people die of malaria every year, and 2 million die of tuberculosis every year means that they are more serious health problems than SARS. The fact that the mortality rate can be low for these diseases with proper care is irrelevant. In the real world these are the killers, not SARS.

For more information on the diseases we still really need to worry about, check out the WHO Infectious diseases site