Say Something Good About Prez. Bush

I was always mislead into thinking that uranium was harmful.
Free lesson:
When a DU pennetrator hits a hard target, the fricton heats the pennetrator to the point that some, even most, is vaproized into plasma. This hot gas, once inside the target, ignites pretty much anything that's flammable, as well as does physical damage thru direct impact. This generally causes the fuel and ammo inside the target to explode, sometimes resulting in a catatriphic failure of the structure of the vehicle.

The danger from the DU expended in this manner is is exactly this:
Whatever dust is left over from the vaorization of the pennetrator is inhaled or ingested by a person, leading to exceptionally low-level exposure of radiation to the internal organs of said person. Once the DU passes, so does the exposure.

SO... to even be exposed to DU from expended ordnance, you need to be in an area where it was used to kill tanks. You then need to ingest it and/or inhale it.

Oh, the horror of DU.
:eusa_hand:

I guess people who wear special suits and carry geiger counters when around the stuff are only trying to scare us.
This is sheer ignrance on your part..
There are --no-- special precautions for handling DU ammunition.
 
What makes depleted uranium a potential hazard?

Depleted uranium is a heavy metal that is also slightly radioactive. Heavy metals (uranium, lead, tungsten, etc.) have chemical toxicity properties that, in high doses, can cause adverse health effects. Depleted uranium that remains outside the body can not harm you.

A common misconception is that radiation is depleted uranium's primary hazard. This is not the case under most battlefield exposure scenarios. Depleted uranium is approximately 40 percent less radioactive than natural uranium. Depleted uranium emits alpha and beta particles, and gamma rays. Alpha particles, the primary radiation type produced by depleted uranium, are blocked by skin, while beta particles are blocked by the boots and battle dress utility uniform (BDUs) typically worn by service members. While gamma rays are a form of highly-penetrating energy , the amount of gamma radiation emitted by depleted uranium is very low. Thus, depleted uranium does not significantly add to the background radiation that we encounter every day.

When fired, or after "cooking off" in fires or explosions, the exposed depleted uranium rod poses an extremely low radiological threat as long as it remains outside the body. Taken into the body via metal fragments or dust-like particles, depleted uranium may pose a long-term health hazard to personnel if the amount is large. However, the amount which remains in the body depends on a number of factors, including the amount inhaled or ingested, the particle size and the ability of the particles to dissolve in body fluids.

DEPLETED URANIUM FACT SHEET
 
Maybe in the United States.

But I wonder how many thousands of square miles of other countries land is now contaminated with DU (depleted uranium 238) from our weapons and bombs?

your kidding me right?

there's no measurable problems from DU, none, or there would be WAY more issues with our troops.

Don't delude yourself into thinking it's harmfull.
My bad.

I was always mislead into thinking that uranium was harmful.

I guess people who wear special suits and carry geiger counters when around the stuff are only trying to scare us. :doubt:

That's b/c uranium in high doses, like people that work with it daily, is harmfull

DEPLEATED uranium can be kept in your pocket b/c it' benn DEPLEATED of it's harmfull radiation.

Why do you think soldiers can carry it around?

sorry, but you bought into the misinformation, and not the facts.
 
What does Bush have to do with depleted uranium?
 
He tried very hard to find those WMDs. See video, he looked high and low.


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvliUuXjbL4[/ame]
 
President Bush then and now had some wrong ideas on some things, mismanaged some things, got some things wrong, and he was terrible with a teleprompter. But I never doubted that he loved his country and the people in it, that he was operating from conviction or at least hope that something would work, and never backed down in what he believed. Keeping in mind that speaking an untruth is not the same thing as an intentional lie, I think he may have been one of the most genuine and honest people we have ever elected to high office. He has always been at his best when he spoke from the heart, extemporaneously, and as the thoughts came to him.

I think he won't go down in history as the best President we've ever had but I think history will be more kind to him than those who still hate him will want to acknowledge. I like and respect him as a man and a patriot.
 
President Bush then and now had some wrong ideas on some things, mismanaged some things, got some things wrong, and he was terrible with a teleprompter. But I never doubted that he loved his country and the people in it, that he was operating from conviction or at least hope that something would work, and never backed down in what he believed. Keeping in mind that speaking an untruth is not the same thing as an intentional lie, I think he may have been one of the most genuine and honest people we have ever elected to high office. He has always been at his best when he spoke from the heart, extemporaneously, and as the thoughts came to him.

I think he won't go down in history as the best President we've ever had but I think history will be more kind to him than those who still hate him will want to acknowledge. I like and respect him as a man and a patriot.

No doubt that Bush was a likeable man

But he will still be held accountable for his decisions
 
Even though he concealed the fact from Conservatives, Bush saved millions of Africans from AIDS and starvation.

Commentary: Bush saved 10 million lives - CNN

A legacy of President George W. Bush will be that he saved 10 million lives around the world.

His critics ignore it, but name another president about whom one can say that with such certainty. It is what historians will say a decade from now looking back. Not bad for a president who leaves office with the lowest approval rating in recent memory.



In my annual medical mission trips to Africa during the Bush administration, I saw the cost of treatment for HIV with life-saving antiretrovirals (ARVs) drop from $4,000 a year to $125. The number of Africans on ARVs jumped from 50,000 to 2.1 million.

And the multiplier effect of Bush making this a presidential global priority was reflected thereafter in every meeting I had as Senate majority leader with the world leaders, including those from Russia, China and India. If you were dealing with the United States, you'd better have made HIV a national priority, because we had.

I really wish it were true. By banning US money to any organization that taught the use of condoms and explained "safe sex" insured that only the most conservative and ignorant organizations received money and many more people became infected with AIDs than should have. Conservative can't even take comfort in the fact that outside of the US, the majority of those infected are "straight" and not gay. Fortunately, this ban was rescinded by President Obama.
 
Positive accomplishments of the Bush Administration:

-Massive aid to Africa stemmed the tide of HIV infections, gave people access to medical services and clean water.
-Opened a huge underwater federal park near Hawaii.
-Initial invasion of Afghanistan a huge sucess and totally justified. Smashed terrorist network in that country.
-Aid to Tsunami victims in Indochina (Thailand), earthquake victims in India and Iran went a long way and saving many lives.

Strange that everything everyone mentions is in other countries.

Bush gave medicine to people in Africa for those who became infected. His "condom" policy and lack of a "safe sex" policy did zero to actually stop new infections.

Just say "no" has never worked, not even in this country.
 
He's a catalyst for stemming the AIDS epidemic in Africa.
He seems like a nice guy.
He refuses to talk smack about Obama, in spite of having different politics.

Wow, I came up with 3!

Why do right wingers keep repeating this "AIDs" myth. His policies were disastrous. However, he did send medicine for those infected, but did nothing for "prevention". Could this be any more documented?
 

Forum List

Back
Top