The use of depleted uranium munitions has been fiercely debated, with opponents like the International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons saying there are dangerous health risks from ingesting or inhaling depleted uranium dust, including cancers and birth defects.
Literacy rates in capitalist nations continue to plummet.
If only the world were so simple that we could trust the organization tasked with banning the substance rather than reading primary sources.
I agree that depleted uranium shouldn't be used, but your quote from the International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons means nothing.
That's like not listening to doctors about whether or not you should quit smoking because doctors are biased
That aligns with their chosen reality. People are simple creatures and any money will turn them into obedient slaves. The only doctor you can trust is the one who isn't going paid because they've been ostracized for speaking the truth.
What are you on about? @rogrodre@hexbear.net was doing exactly the thing that you're describing. Treating statements from an organization called "The Coalition to Ban Something" as fact, without any other review, is only believing information that confirms your beliefs.
That's not the same thing at all.
The comment above mine is more akin to wanting to ban water because the Coalition to Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide said so. Or wanting to ban abortion because Americans United for Life said they're immoral. Or to increase fossil fuel usage because OPEC said it isn't bad for the environment. You're citing an opinionated secondary source without even considering the other side.
If you want facts, you go to unbiased, peer reviewed primary sources. Or at least hear both sides. If you want opinions, go to a "coalition to ban something."
The comment 2 above mine was saying that depleted uranium's effects are up for debate. The next commenter provided only one side of the argument and claimed that it was fact, even mocking their literacy for not seeing it.
yes it is an opinionated source but it is also an opinionated source with scientific evidence to back up its claims. What you are doing is seeking false balance between the position that has been reached trhough scientific peer reviewed study and the position "nuh uh"
I'm agreeing that depleted uranium weapons are a bad idea. I'm disagreeing that someone is illiterate for not believing an opinionated source.
I could easily quote Wikipedia just as the prior comment quoted OP's article:
Surely the DoD has at least some scientific research, no? It would be foolish to take this quote and believe that depleted uranium is safe, and it would be even more foolish to insult someone's intelligence for not doing so.
But I said that in my original comment, didn't I? Maybe I just said it a but unclearly, since English isn't my first language, but it's there.
Here's the part I mentioned it.
And then you said go ahead and give Ukraine depleted uranium rounds
Yes I did say that.
Firstly. The main cause of concern with depleted uranium is that according to some research it can linger around the area where they were used, and give people depleted uranium poisoning. Note that there hasn't yet been any concrete evidence to prove this is the case.
Secondly. Ukraine themselves asked for these weapons, so they have most likely gone over the risks of using depleted uranium ammunition and have deemed their usefulness to outweigh the potential health down sides that comes from using depleted uranium.
Thirdly. The rounds given to Ukraine are armor piercing rounds, so the chances of them being fired at buildings are minimal, thus minimizing the possibility of them affecting people if they really were as dangerous as some research tells us.
yes because the ukrainian government couldn't give a shit about the welfare of the people being poisoned
Refer to point one