They are saying that they're filtering things. Go look at Google China and do a search for 'oysters' to see what comes up. Then do a search for 'Tiananmen Square' and look at the bottom of the page for a line that doesn't appear on the first search. There, you'll see the following:
That translates roughly to "According to the local laws, regulations and policy, some search results are not shown." (That's cleaned up a bit from Google's own translation services.) Hopefully, this will lead the Chinese to ask what's not being shown and, more importantly, why it's not being shown.
The Chinese people are getting used to the idea of freedom, and the power is slowly slipping out of the hands of the Party as the country reshapes itself. China has always been a bit slow to change, but once a change begins, it's hard to stop it.
The Supreme Court has recognized that a right to privacy implicitly exists under the Bill of Rights, especially from the Fourth and Ninth Amendments. (Those that claim that only rights specifically enumerated in the Constitution are present are ignoring the presence of the Ninth.) This started with Griswold v. Connecticut, and has been upheld and extended numerous times over the forty years since.
In any case, your law would be struck down as presenting an undue burden on those who are expected to follow it.
Being pulled over implies an investigation is underway, whether it's to confirm a broken taillight, speeding, or whether you have a car that's been reported stolen, and you are being detained. Being detained is not the same thing as being under arrest.
Maybe I've just been lucky. I've been pulled over a couple of times for expired registration, and each time the officer was very polite. Each encounter I've had with a cop outside of the car has been polite and professional. A woman who lived directly across the hall from me in an apartment complex was found dead in her apartment, and all I was asked was how long I'd lived there, whether I knew the deceased, and if I'd seen her recently. No demand for ID, no orders that I tell them things; just a few simple questions.
Term limits aren't always that cool. The California legislature has become an even worse place for actual business to be conducted since we (including my vote in favor) brought term limits to its members. Unfortunately, instead of doing things to stay in power for 20 years, they now do things to set themselves up to make the jump from one house to the other, and then a move into a senior elected or appointed position. It's become a pool of kindergartners -- and like such a pool, there are things in the water you just don't want to touch.
At one time, I was very much in favor of term limits, but now I approach them with a great deal more caution.
You presume he learns better from reading than listening. Some people learn better hands-on. Some require a mix. One learning method isn't perfect for everyone.
It's more likely that if it made the jump, it happened because someone butchered an infected ape, and the blood got into a cut or something similar to that.
There's also the recent revelation that ebola infections may be coming not from apes infecting humans, but from fruit bats. Several species of fruit bat were found to harbor ebola, but they don't get infected by it. However, the bats are common fare in the areas where ebola most commonly turns up. It's possible that HIV had similar alternate infection vectors.
As I understand it, the judge is tired of the case and all of the legal maneuvering, and wants it off of his plate. The case has been going on for years, and is, on its face, a straightforward patent issue, unlike things like the SCO case, which have a few convoluted turns in them such as the purchase/license/copyright issues with Novell.
The deregulation laws were extremely poorly written, filled with loopholes. One of the requirements was that the major utilities (PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E) divest themselves of most of their power plants, allegedly to avoid monopoly concerns. The real reason was to move more of them under the control of the very same companies that would later manipulate their maintenance and fueling schedules at the very peak of things. Later review of the records showed that the uptime under the utilities was far better than under these separate companies, but only when power was peaking. During off-peak times, availability was comparable.
As to the recall election, it's not an easy thing to get on the ballot. There have been at least a half-dozen attempts to set up a recall for Gov. Schwarzeneggar, but all have failed, even when his rating fell below 40%. Gray Davis simply was hated by pretty much all of California. He was despised by Republicans, hated by independents, and really not liked all that much by even enthusiastic Democrats, largely because of perceived corruption (for example, a hugely expensive Oracle contract that was derided as far too big by the state auditor) and his exceedingly poor handling of the electricity "crisis," which resulted in him signing deals with the companies in secret and signing away the rights to sue to recover damages in some cases. It's telling that even in a strongly Democratic state like California, the sitting Democrat governor was recalled 55/45 in favor of a moderate Republican.
There are a lot of things wrong with California, gerrymandering among them. Maybe in the next couple of years, we can get something passed to deal with that after the next census, since no one wanted to deal with it in the middle of the decade this time.
The California legislature brought that on itself when it jumped in the pockets of the industry. I'm not happy about the electric rates here, but I do what I can do keep them down (and am looking at more things, like LED replacements for the fluorescent bulbs).
Ballot-box governing is one of the things that I like about California, though it does seem over the last few years that voters are tiring of it, since so many from both sides of the aisle have been voted down.
I challenge you on your disfunctional government, placing California's up for comparison. At least New York can come together in time of crisis. All California can do is fracture into twenty different political camps, all allies and all backstabbers.
The last manufacturer that I think had a fairly universal bad reputation was Conner, and they were bought out years ago. A friend and I have had a serious problem over the years with WD; other friends swear by them. I prefer Maxtor for the most part, while others won't touch them. Seagate is about the only company where I've never had a drive fail, but others have had them bad out of the box.
Most people here don't have enough experience with hard drives to have their failure biases mean anything statistically. I recognize that WD is a good brand, just that I've had bad luck with them.
Two huge parts of the question are how much you need to do with it, and how much you have to spend on it.
We've been looking at Entrust, and they have some impressive offerings. However, for a full implementation (we're a medium enterprise with a few thousand certificates needed), it's really expensive. Low end of estimates is a fair amount into six digits, and it's several weeks of dedicated work to get all of the policies and procedures in place and accepted by Entrust. But at the end of it, there's really not much that we won't be able to do.
Apple couldn't have gone with AMD for a simple reason: volume. AMD could not have provided Apple with all of the CPUs required, and continued courting Dell, and maintained existing OEM volume commitments, and kept up with the retail market. At best, it would have to pick three of the four, and probably drop to two.
AMD's fortunes, though, will probably change over the next few years. As the profits continue, more fabs will be built, and if they can get a good commitment from Dell, they'll be able to finance even more. At some point, Apple will probably be interested in looking across the way, especially if AMD can keep avoiding the performance bottlenecks that seem to have plagued Intel over the last few years and which, according to some recent things I've read, are hampering the abilities of the new breed of Apples.
I am taking the physics into mind. You're the one leaving out the reactions of the driver. I also said that they were more likely to know what to expect when ABS is activated, not that they are better drivers. There's a significant difference. I consider myself an average driver who has gotten lucky on a couple of occasions when swerving to avoid accidents. In each case, I was not distracted by the ABS because I knew what it was. (Anecdotal evidence, yes, but so was yours when you mentioned your rollover.)
A driver in an emergency situation will be able to focus on only one thing at a time. If that thing is suddenly that the braking system is not functioning as expected, then steering may drop from the picture momentarily. The results of this can be a continuation of a swerve beyond what would have happened if the brakes had not distracted the driver to a point of rollover.
I don't believe I have ever stated that the study was invalid now. What I suggested was that the situation may have changed as ABS became more widely used, accepted, and understood. As I look about the internet, I see a lot of references that go back to the study which you quote. I merely question the current relevance because of changing behaviors.
Again, since this information is a decade old, from when ABS was comparatively uncommon, I suggest that the situation may have changed significantly in that time as people have grown used to it and understand it better.
I went and looked up the rollover ratings for the Tahoe, BTW. Rollover testing didn't start until 2001, but in that year, the NHTSA rollover resistance rating for the 2WD model is only two stars, and the rating for the 4WD model is three stars. Not exactly spectacular, though better than Ford seems to have done -- they apparently don't have ratings for many of their SUVs, and where they do, they tend behind at least the Tahoe.
Now with the SUVs not being any safer for kids, the same is true with antilock breaks. They are both better at reducing injuries in not so hazardous situations, but both are more likely to kill you in serious situations.
I might have bought into this a decade ago, when people were still unfamiliar with how ABS worked. Early on, people would slam on the brakes, get the feedback, and pull back because it felt wrong. They were then dealing with two issues -- whatever they were trying to avoid, and an unexpected sensation from their car. This led to a number of accidents being more severe than they could have been. ABS is far more common now, and most drivers of cars with ABS know what to expect.
My first car with ABS was a 1993 Saturn SL2, and I was warned by the dealer that it was different. So I found a good-sized parking lot, would accelerate to about 20mph and then nail the brakes so I knew the feeling and wouldn't be surprised by it in an emergency. This has helped in a few occasions where I had the need to hit the brakes hard and steer, and the feedback is now in a way slightly comforting because I know that the system is working.
I wonder how practical this is. I can't think of much at all that would sit under that tree and be executable. Then again, the WMF may not need to be executable, just read. Really poor design, that is.
Makes me consider trying it out at home. Do you know anyone who has done this?
Feynman is not especially well-known outside of science and geek circles. If you asked most people to name scientists, there's a good chance that Einstein would be on the list, and then perhaps Hawking, and maybe Newton or Galileo, but Feynman would, among the general populace, be fairly rare. Stephen Jay Gould would be more likely to appear, IMHO.
They're providing free credit monitoring services to those affected. That's more proactive than most companies, who usually do little more than notify the affected people.
This was done because it was the only way that he could strengthen the military, which those like Tip O'Neill wouldn't let him do without boosting social spending significantly. By the time he left office, federal government income had increased an annualized 7% rate even while taxes were reduced. The prime rate had fallen from its peak rate of 20.5% in July 1981 to 10.5% by the time he left office. Unemployment had halved from its Nov-Dec 1983 peak of 10.8% to 5.4% in January 1989. The GDP, in 2000 dollars, had grown 29% (compare to Clinton's 32.5% growth in his eight years). Defense spending grew from $157.5B to $290.4B, an 84% increase, but welfare grew by 67%, Medicare by 101%, and agriculture by 177% (and that by 1986 alone, though it later dropped to a 52% increase between 1988 and 1981 numbers).
Had Reagan had his way and limited social spending while targeting defense spending increases -- which we later saw were an attempt to force the Soviets into an economic battle they could not win -- the deficits, while they still would have existed, would not have been nearly so large.
Now lets look at the world today. US still working on Star Wars. A reaganite in the white house. USSR collapsed and in huge uncertainty of what is going to happen next with the US doing everything it can to upset the russian goverment and people.
The whole idea of SDI, I've begun to think, was a smokescreen. Reagan knew it wasn't feasible technically, but it forced the Russians into excessive military spending, hastening their downfall. Only one possibility, but a fair amount of evidence points that way.
Even the current version are quite limited, though. Even by combining the Standard Mk 3, the ABL, and the Alaska interceptors (and only the Standard seems to be consistently working), you still get a capability of stopping only a fraction of the warheads from a serious opponent such as Russia (or hypothetically Britain or France, but those are pretty unlikely). Even China would probably get several missiles through.
I take issue, BTW, with calling Bush a Reaganite. He's not. Reagan was highly intelligent, calculating his moves, and did a much better job of backing up his ideas. He was also economically conservative, and while he did increase some spending and cut taxes, it was done more responsibly and more clearly benefited the middle class. While I don't think Bush is unintelligent, I also don't find him all that similar to Reagan. Hell, I think Clinton was closer to Reagan than was Bush.
Finally, I wouldn't be so worried about desperation in Russia. They paid off all of their IMF debts in early 2005, and were planning to make a $10B payment later in 2005 (not sure if they did it) to the Paris Club, well in excess of the scheduled $5.7B payment. (The oil market has been good for Russia.) Oil exports are expected to climb significantly next year, too, so there are fewer worries about it.
China has about 24 or so ICBMs, which are capable of hitting parts of the United States, each containing a 2MT warhead. There are perhaps a further 2000 warheads in the Chinese aresenal, used in short-range missiles, bombs, and artillery. China does not present a serious nuclear threat threat to the US, though Taiwan, South Korea, and perhaps Japan are another story.
Everyone but the Americans and Blair and the Egyptians and the Syrians and the Russians and the Saudis and the French and the Jordanians and possibly the Germans. Gen. Tommy Franks, who headed the coalition effort, was warned by his Arab intelligence contacts that he was going to be sending home a lot of Americans in body bags for closed-casket funerals. Israel and Iran probably knew, too, but I suspect they'd be shot down as biased.
As for the risk of depleted uranium being fired in combat zones, the WHO has conducted follow-up studies that has resulted in findings that there is minimal or no risk in being in the area. While it's not advised to extensively handle it, the overall risk of cancer increase is slight. They advise monitoring an affected environment, but concluded that for the populace at large, even military use of DU does not represent a significant risk over background uranium exposure.
Unless, of course, you can present evidence of the deaths of "civilians in the many thousands"?
Slashdot Mirror
Apparently, the Chinese doesn't come through. Anyway, there is a line at the bottom of the page. You can run it through Google Translate to verify.
They are saying that they're filtering things. Go look at Google China and do a search for 'oysters' to see what comes up. Then do a search for 'Tiananmen Square' and look at the bottom of the page for a line that doesn't appear on the first search. There, you'll see the following:
That translates roughly to "According to the local laws, regulations and policy, some search results are not shown." (That's cleaned up a bit from Google's own translation services.) Hopefully, this will lead the Chinese to ask what's not being shown and, more importantly, why it's not being shown.
The Chinese people are getting used to the idea of freedom, and the power is slowly slipping out of the hands of the Party as the country reshapes itself. China has always been a bit slow to change, but once a change begins, it's hard to stop it.
The Supreme Court has recognized that a right to privacy implicitly exists under the Bill of Rights, especially from the Fourth and Ninth Amendments. (Those that claim that only rights specifically enumerated in the Constitution are present are ignoring the presence of the Ninth.) This started with Griswold v. Connecticut, and has been upheld and extended numerous times over the forty years since.
In any case, your law would be struck down as presenting an undue burden on those who are expected to follow it.
Being pulled over implies an investigation is underway, whether it's to confirm a broken taillight, speeding, or whether you have a car that's been reported stolen, and you are being detained. Being detained is not the same thing as being under arrest.
Maybe I've just been lucky. I've been pulled over a couple of times for expired registration, and each time the officer was very polite. Each encounter I've had with a cop outside of the car has been polite and professional. A woman who lived directly across the hall from me in an apartment complex was found dead in her apartment, and all I was asked was how long I'd lived there, whether I knew the deceased, and if I'd seen her recently. No demand for ID, no orders that I tell them things; just a few simple questions.
Term limits aren't always that cool. The California legislature has become an even worse place for actual business to be conducted since we (including my vote in favor) brought term limits to its members. Unfortunately, instead of doing things to stay in power for 20 years, they now do things to set themselves up to make the jump from one house to the other, and then a move into a senior elected or appointed position. It's become a pool of kindergartners -- and like such a pool, there are things in the water you just don't want to touch.
At one time, I was very much in favor of term limits, but now I approach them with a great deal more caution.
You presume he learns better from reading than listening. Some people learn better hands-on. Some require a mix. One learning method isn't perfect for everyone.
It's more likely that if it made the jump, it happened because someone butchered an infected ape, and the blood got into a cut or something similar to that.
There's also the recent revelation that ebola infections may be coming not from apes infecting humans, but from fruit bats. Several species of fruit bat were found to harbor ebola, but they don't get infected by it. However, the bats are common fare in the areas where ebola most commonly turns up. It's possible that HIV had similar alternate infection vectors.
If you want to be pedantic, the percent reduction in temperature was:
25.6C = 298.8 K
17.8C = 291.0 K
(291.0 K / 298.8 K) = 0.974
That makes it a drop of about 2.6%, not 14% or 31%. Doesn't sound nearly as impressive, but it is more accurate.
As I understand it, the judge is tired of the case and all of the legal maneuvering, and wants it off of his plate. The case has been going on for years, and is, on its face, a straightforward patent issue, unlike things like the SCO case, which have a few convoluted turns in them such as the purchase/license/copyright issues with Novell.
The deregulation laws were extremely poorly written, filled with loopholes. One of the requirements was that the major utilities (PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E) divest themselves of most of their power plants, allegedly to avoid monopoly concerns. The real reason was to move more of them under the control of the very same companies that would later manipulate their maintenance and fueling schedules at the very peak of things. Later review of the records showed that the uptime under the utilities was far better than under these separate companies, but only when power was peaking. During off-peak times, availability was comparable.
As to the recall election, it's not an easy thing to get on the ballot. There have been at least a half-dozen attempts to set up a recall for Gov. Schwarzeneggar, but all have failed, even when his rating fell below 40%. Gray Davis simply was hated by pretty much all of California. He was despised by Republicans, hated by independents, and really not liked all that much by even enthusiastic Democrats, largely because of perceived corruption (for example, a hugely expensive Oracle contract that was derided as far too big by the state auditor) and his exceedingly poor handling of the electricity "crisis," which resulted in him signing deals with the companies in secret and signing away the rights to sue to recover damages in some cases. It's telling that even in a strongly Democratic state like California, the sitting Democrat governor was recalled 55/45 in favor of a moderate Republican.
There are a lot of things wrong with California, gerrymandering among them. Maybe in the next couple of years, we can get something passed to deal with that after the next census, since no one wanted to deal with it in the middle of the decade this time.
The California legislature brought that on itself when it jumped in the pockets of the industry. I'm not happy about the electric rates here, but I do what I can do keep them down (and am looking at more things, like LED replacements for the fluorescent bulbs).
Ballot-box governing is one of the things that I like about California, though it does seem over the last few years that voters are tiring of it, since so many from both sides of the aisle have been voted down.
I challenge you on your disfunctional government, placing California's up for comparison. At least New York can come together in time of crisis. All California can do is fracture into twenty different political camps, all allies and all backstabbers.
The last manufacturer that I think had a fairly universal bad reputation was Conner, and they were bought out years ago. A friend and I have had a serious problem over the years with WD; other friends swear by them. I prefer Maxtor for the most part, while others won't touch them. Seagate is about the only company where I've never had a drive fail, but others have had them bad out of the box.
Most people here don't have enough experience with hard drives to have their failure biases mean anything statistically. I recognize that WD is a good brand, just that I've had bad luck with them.
Two huge parts of the question are how much you need to do with it, and how much you have to spend on it.
We've been looking at Entrust, and they have some impressive offerings. However, for a full implementation (we're a medium enterprise with a few thousand certificates needed), it's really expensive. Low end of estimates is a fair amount into six digits, and it's several weeks of dedicated work to get all of the policies and procedures in place and accepted by Entrust. But at the end of it, there's really not much that we won't be able to do.
Apple couldn't have gone with AMD for a simple reason: volume. AMD could not have provided Apple with all of the CPUs required, and continued courting Dell, and maintained existing OEM volume commitments, and kept up with the retail market. At best, it would have to pick three of the four, and probably drop to two.
AMD's fortunes, though, will probably change over the next few years. As the profits continue, more fabs will be built, and if they can get a good commitment from Dell, they'll be able to finance even more. At some point, Apple will probably be interested in looking across the way, especially if AMD can keep avoiding the performance bottlenecks that seem to have plagued Intel over the last few years and which, according to some recent things I've read, are hampering the abilities of the new breed of Apples.
I am taking the physics into mind. You're the one leaving out the reactions of the driver. I also said that they were more likely to know what to expect when ABS is activated, not that they are better drivers. There's a significant difference. I consider myself an average driver who has gotten lucky on a couple of occasions when swerving to avoid accidents. In each case, I was not distracted by the ABS because I knew what it was. (Anecdotal evidence, yes, but so was yours when you mentioned your rollover.)
A driver in an emergency situation will be able to focus on only one thing at a time. If that thing is suddenly that the braking system is not functioning as expected, then steering may drop from the picture momentarily. The results of this can be a continuation of a swerve beyond what would have happened if the brakes had not distracted the driver to a point of rollover.
I don't believe I have ever stated that the study was invalid now. What I suggested was that the situation may have changed as ABS became more widely used, accepted, and understood. As I look about the internet, I see a lot of references that go back to the study which you quote. I merely question the current relevance because of changing behaviors.
Again, since this information is a decade old, from when ABS was comparatively uncommon, I suggest that the situation may have changed significantly in that time as people have grown used to it and understand it better.
I went and looked up the rollover ratings for the Tahoe, BTW. Rollover testing didn't start until 2001, but in that year, the NHTSA rollover resistance rating for the 2WD model is only two stars, and the rating for the 4WD model is three stars. Not exactly spectacular, though better than Ford seems to have done -- they apparently don't have ratings for many of their SUVs, and where they do, they tend behind at least the Tahoe.
Now with the SUVs not being any safer for kids, the same is true with antilock breaks. They are both better at reducing injuries in not so hazardous situations, but both are more likely to kill you in serious situations.
I might have bought into this a decade ago, when people were still unfamiliar with how ABS worked. Early on, people would slam on the brakes, get the feedback, and pull back because it felt wrong. They were then dealing with two issues -- whatever they were trying to avoid, and an unexpected sensation from their car. This led to a number of accidents being more severe than they could have been. ABS is far more common now, and most drivers of cars with ABS know what to expect.
My first car with ABS was a 1993 Saturn SL2, and I was warned by the dealer that it was different. So I found a good-sized parking lot, would accelerate to about 20mph and then nail the brakes so I knew the feeling and wouldn't be surprised by it in an emergency. This has helped in a few occasions where I had the need to hit the brakes hard and steer, and the feedback is now in a way slightly comforting because I know that the system is working.
I wonder how practical this is. I can't think of much at all that would sit under that tree and be executable. Then again, the WMF may not need to be executable, just read. Really poor design, that is.
Makes me consider trying it out at home. Do you know anyone who has done this?
Feynman is not especially well-known outside of science and geek circles. If you asked most people to name scientists, there's a good chance that Einstein would be on the list, and then perhaps Hawking, and maybe Newton or Galileo, but Feynman would, among the general populace, be fairly rare. Stephen Jay Gould would be more likely to appear, IMHO.
They're providing free credit monitoring services to those affected. That's more proactive than most companies, who usually do little more than notify the affected people.
This was done because it was the only way that he could strengthen the military, which those like Tip O'Neill wouldn't let him do without boosting social spending significantly. By the time he left office, federal government income had increased an annualized 7% rate even while taxes were reduced. The prime rate had fallen from its peak rate of 20.5% in July 1981 to 10.5% by the time he left office. Unemployment had halved from its Nov-Dec 1983 peak of 10.8% to 5.4% in January 1989. The GDP, in 2000 dollars, had grown 29% (compare to Clinton's 32.5% growth in his eight years). Defense spending grew from $157.5B to $290.4B, an 84% increase, but welfare grew by 67%, Medicare by 101%, and agriculture by 177% (and that by 1986 alone, though it later dropped to a 52% increase between 1988 and 1981 numbers).
Had Reagan had his way and limited social spending while targeting defense spending increases -- which we later saw were an attempt to force the Soviets into an economic battle they could not win -- the deficits, while they still would have existed, would not have been nearly so large.
Now lets look at the world today. US still working on Star Wars. A reaganite in the white house. USSR collapsed and in huge uncertainty of what is going to happen next with the US doing everything it can to upset the russian goverment and people.
The whole idea of SDI, I've begun to think, was a smokescreen. Reagan knew it wasn't feasible technically, but it forced the Russians into excessive military spending, hastening their downfall. Only one possibility, but a fair amount of evidence points that way.
Even the current version are quite limited, though. Even by combining the Standard Mk 3, the ABL, and the Alaska interceptors (and only the Standard seems to be consistently working), you still get a capability of stopping only a fraction of the warheads from a serious opponent such as Russia (or hypothetically Britain or France, but those are pretty unlikely). Even China would probably get several missiles through.
I take issue, BTW, with calling Bush a Reaganite. He's not. Reagan was highly intelligent, calculating his moves, and did a much better job of backing up his ideas. He was also economically conservative, and while he did increase some spending and cut taxes, it was done more responsibly and more clearly benefited the middle class. While I don't think Bush is unintelligent, I also don't find him all that similar to Reagan. Hell, I think Clinton was closer to Reagan than was Bush.
Finally, I wouldn't be so worried about desperation in Russia. They paid off all of their IMF debts in early 2005, and were planning to make a $10B payment later in 2005 (not sure if they did it) to the Paris Club, well in excess of the scheduled $5.7B payment. (The oil market has been good for Russia.) Oil exports are expected to climb significantly next year, too, so there are fewer worries about it.
China has about 24 or so ICBMs, which are capable of hitting parts of the United States, each containing a 2MT warhead. There are perhaps a further 2000 warheads in the Chinese aresenal, used in short-range missiles, bombs, and artillery. China does not present a serious nuclear threat threat to the US, though Taiwan, South Korea, and perhaps Japan are another story.
Everyone but the Americans and Blair and the Egyptians and the Syrians and the Russians and the Saudis and the French and the Jordanians and possibly the Germans. Gen. Tommy Franks, who headed the coalition effort, was warned by his Arab intelligence contacts that he was going to be sending home a lot of Americans in body bags for closed-casket funerals. Israel and Iran probably knew, too, but I suspect they'd be shot down as biased.
As for the risk of depleted uranium being fired in combat zones, the WHO has conducted follow-up studies that has resulted in findings that there is minimal or no risk in being in the area. While it's not advised to extensively handle it, the overall risk of cancer increase is slight. They advise monitoring an affected environment, but concluded that for the populace at large, even military use of DU does not represent a significant risk over background uranium exposure.
Unless, of course, you can present evidence of the deaths of "civilians in the many thousands"?