Ah, well. The cdc said it so it must be true. Hard to believe these things are said out loud with a straight face.
Ah, well. The cdc said it so it must be true. Hard to believe these things are said out loud with a straight face.
If used correctly they will not cause cancer because the cancer is caused by the mutation of a living cell.
More seriously there are many stable isotopes of uranium. These isotopes are not radioactive. If introduced into the human body in a non-lethal fashion uranium acts in much the same way as lead. Yes, it is toxic and will cause damage to the brain and other organs. No, we have no way to chelate it and remove it from the body.
If used correctly they will not cause cancer because the cancer is caused by the mutation of a living cell.
More seriously there are many stable isotopes of uranium. These isotopes are not radioactive. If introduced into the human body in a non-lethal fashion uranium acts in much the same way as lead. Yes, it is toxic and will cause damage to the brain and other organs. No, we have no way to chelate it and remove it from the body.
CDC: "Hello? It's called DEPLETED uranium. That means there is nothing left."
CDC: "Hello? It's called DEPLETED uranium. That means there is nothing left."
She would lose her shit if she was told that a dozen DU rounds had been hidden around her home and property. But the CDC says it's okay, right?
She would lose her shit if she was told that a dozen DU rounds had been hidden around her home and property. But the CDC says it's okay, right?
Just Curious, what studies did the CDC use or undertake to substantiate that assertion, lady , or is more of a case that the CDC has simply disregarded any potential evidence ?, and did she just say the IAEA unequivocally stated there is no proven link of DU exposure to .... significant health or environmental impacts ? - So another case of semantics with 'significant' meaning 'anything not found to be 100% of the time'.
I guess all the safety handling procedures, storing and discarding protocols are completely irrelevant.
Fcking honk honk.
Just Curious, what studies did the CDC use or undertake to substantiate that assertion, lady , or is more of a case that the CDC has simply disregarded any potential evidence ?, and did she just say the IAEA unequivocally stated there is no proven link of DU exposure to .... significant health or environmental impacts ? - So another case of semantics with 'significant' meaning 'anything not found to be 100% of the time'.
I guess all the safety handling procedures, storing and discarding protocols are completely irrelevant.
Fcking honk honk.
They're safe and effective.
They're safe and effective.
(post is archived)