"The Enlightenment" wrote in message
...

"Tank Fixer" wrote in message
k.net...
In article ,
on 5 May 2004 11:24:25 -0700,
robert arndt attempted to say .....

http://www.citizen-soldier.org/CS09-uranium.html

It's toxic, moron... and the Germans can do just as much damage
with
their tungsten rounds
Believe me, the L55 main gun plus DM-53 ammo will ruin your day.
At least the Germany Army isn't poisoning its own troops by using
"partially-depleted (correct term)uranium"...


Hmmm,
isn't tungsten considered a heavy metal ?

I don't think I'll be jumping in any damaged tanks after a strike of
your
"uber"round without the proper protective measures.

I'm not fond of heavy metal poisoning...

Not all heavy metals are equaly dangerous. Silver is highly toxic but
doesn't concentrat in tissues which is why it has antiseptic
properties. I haven't bothered checking in regards to tungsten.

Heavy metals are generaly nasty for people. It is possible to use
chelating substances to remove some. Selenium is chelating (don't
overdose on it) and believe it or not a modified form of chelating
citrus pectin sold by life extension foundation http://www.lef.org

Much of the heavy metal contamination such as mercury and lead comes
from coal and heavy bunker oil. It concentrates in the food chain
especialy fish and althougt it may spare a mature male it can wreak
havoc with an embroyo and its rapidly dividing cells or possibly screw
with sensitive parts of the body, sperm or egg cells etc.

We need to keep this stuff away from our women and children. After
all what is war for but them.

Beware being a bit overly alarming vis a vis lead contamination. There was a
case here in the US a few years back where the EPA tried to steamroll into
the Aspen, CO area with prognostications of serious health risks and the
need for immediate remediation efforts to handle the high lead levels that
were a result of silver mining/processing back in the good ol' days. Luckily
for the locals, they were a bit more savvy and better financed than some of
the other areas where the EPA has ridden in roughshod to "improve" the
quality of life. The EPA was *certain* they would find lead levels in the
blood exceeeding their 10 micrograms per deciliter limit in "99% of the
local children". The locals insisted upon testing before they would agree to
any remediation effort, and the actual blood tests revealed an average level
around 3 micrograms per deciliter, which was actually among the lower levels
observed around the nation. Even in the face of that proof the EPA was
reluctant to give up on taking control in the local area...

Brooks