"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ...
"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


Most agencies in the USA seem to be getting out of hand and more and
more prosecutorial and even draconian. They are getting 'self
serving'. I've seen this in divisions in a company, charities,
political organisations etc and even the military.

Once they do their basic job they start expanding their area of
interest and adding extra goals and visions. This builds careers,
empires, power etc. The usual practice in business is to kill a
division now and then.

All of these agencies in the USA don't seem to be counterbalanced
effectively anymore. I think it simply takes to many resources to
fund the court battles to do so while the agencies have access to
effectively unlimited resources. All those MBAs and Lawyers and
Phiranhas gotta eat.

Something like the EPA is obviously needed in a population of 250
million althout the need for it would be minimal in a population of
125 million.

I know a woman who ate fish 6 times a week to stay slim and healthy.
She had nearly a dozen miscariages. When she had her deformed
placenta tested it was 200-400 times the safe limit. There are lots
of sources of it: combution of oil and coal adds a lot. You need to
know what fish to eat. Basically short lived fish low in the food
chain.

Given that most military personel are probably some of the better
specimens in society it's extremely important to protect their
reproductive health.