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.
They aren't that dangerous as a weapon of war. The uranium is depleted, as the name suggest. The alternative is heavy metal, which is also dangerous to breathe in. It's war and it sucks for health. Maybe there shouldn't have been an invasion...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7903104/ this shit is still causing birth defects in Iraq. This is Ukraine's future now.
And so do other heavy metals. What do you suggest they use that won't have negative health impacts (which is ironic for something designed to kill, but whatever)?
Not that dangerous?
Any heavy metal causes similar issues. Heavy metal will be used, whether it's uranium or something else. Should they just stop shooting?
Unironically yes. A peace deal was in the works last year until, according to the Ukranian Pravda, Boris Johnson pressured Zelensky not to go through with it. This would have stopped the fighting and resulted in some withdrawal of Russian troops, but since the West is more interested in weakening their geopolitical rivals and helping the weapons industry rake in profit than ending the war, they squashed any possibility of that happening.
Uranium is a very dangerous heavy metal, it just isn't radioactive.
Depleted Uranium is definitely radioactive. It's depleted but there are still radioactive isotopes in it. It's relatively same to handle until it's fired and some of it turns to dust. The dust is both poisonous and radioactive. The toxicity of it is probably worse than the radiation but they're both still bad.
The radioactivity is a problem its just like, not significant compared. Sorry my b
Nowhere did I make the claim that it was, that doesn't change a thing
I'm replying to the person replying to you
My bad, I got the colors of the bars mixed up