socialist policies on both sides are leading this country straight into bankruptcy.

Clinton balanced the budget. It's not socialist policies, it's war and tax cuts for the top 1% that are bankrupting the United States.


Let's look at how stupid and hypocritical this is:
1. Video implies that Democrats respect the constitution. Oh, really? Is that why Obama voted for the patriot act and gun bans, both violations of the Bill of Rights.

Since then both Obama and the Democratic Party have supported removing the most heinous parts of the Patriot Act. Obama also supported an effort against telecom immunity in the wiretapping scandal. Neither Obama nor the democratic party has attempted to ban all guns outright, just certain types of guns. Don't forget to read the first half of the sentence in the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment is about maintaining a militia, and does not say you have to let every mentally ill person buy an M-249

Or how about joint support for easily inflatable fiat currency, in violation of Article 1, Section 10 which mandates gold backing.

Bullshit. It says: "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."

The states are not allowed to make their own fiat money, but the federal government is allowed to make fiat money.


How about going to war without congressional declaration in Korea, Vietnam, Kosovo and others? All illegal under the same Article and section and all started by the Democrats.

Once again, Article 1 Section 10 is about restrictions on state governments, not restrictions on the federal government. You fail.



2. Video says abortion is about respecting a woman's right to her own body. I'm not even religious and it seems rather obvious to me that abortion is murder of inconvenience. Didn't want the kid? Why did you have unprotected sex? Furthermore, why is a being one minute apart, from womb to exiting, the difference between having no rights and having rights. That makes no sense. Life has to be defined at conception.

Which would you rather save, a conscious adult or a single-celled fertilized egg? The brain of a fly has 200,000 cells. Until the fetus develops enough of a nervous system to become sentient, its only rights are with respect to preventing suffering that might happen to it in the future after it becomes sentient. I.E., causing birth defects should be illegal but early abortion should be allowable for any reason whatsoever. Birth is NOT the single point where rights are granted; the supreme court has previously upheld a ban on late-term abortions (minus a few exceptional circumstances like saving the life of the mother).



3. Video implies that allowing drugs to be chosen immediately is a bad thing because they haven't been tested. Dude, that's against freedom. If you're dying of cancer, and you want to try an experimental drug, who the fuck cares if it's unsafe? YOU'RE GOING TO DIE. Government has no right to restrict you that opportunity to research and get advice from your doctor about it. And what about all the people who die during the delays that the FDA imposes on new drugs. How can those deaths ever show up in statistics?


You can get non-FDA-approved drugs by participating in the human studies required for FDA approval, which is exactly what you would be doing if you got an experimental treatment.

We need the FDA to keep the snake oil salesmen at bay. Selling bad medicine is not just fraud, it's often manslaughter.


4. Video implies that we should continue to block domestic drilling to prevent potential harm to some wildlife. This isn't a cartoon, drilling doesn't leave an area in shambles. Have fun trying to fly planes with solar panels and meeting our power needs without emission-free nuclear, recyclable nuclear, which you've blocked for thirty years with fear-mongering campaigns about shitty soviet reactors from the 70s. Have fun watching Bush starting insane wars in the middle east and begging Saudi princes to increase production because we have to import 70% of our oil from abroad because of these insane energy policies. Say hello to peak oil and $300 a barrel oil in the coming years.

Pelosi, Clinton, Obama Favor More Nuclear Plants
The anti-nuclear fear mongering is lessening as people realize that it's better for the environment than coal. It won't do shit about dependence on foreign oil unless people buy plug-in electric cars, but it will reduce our dependence on domestic coal.


You can't lower the price by debasing your currency to pay for 60 trillion in unfunded ponzi scheme welfare promises started by FDR, blocking oil, and blocking nuclear.


Sweden's deficit is 0.01% of its GDP, and France's deficit is under 3% of its GDP, while the USA's deficit is 4% of its GDP, despite the fact that both France and Sweden have much broader welfare programs than the USA.

If Bush's tax cuts for millionaires were undone, and the Iraq war (and "homeland security" pork) never happened, the budget would be balanced. (do the math)

>> ^Aemaeth:
Jwray, how many victimless crimes do we have? Prostitution, drugs, etc. Again, we're looking at the social issue and not the political.


Anything about what the law ought to be is political. We're talking about whether gay marriage should be legal.

Some drugs (and Truancy) ought to be illegal solely because they impair the ability of the actor to give his informed consent to future actions. Reproductive incest is illegal because it harms (via birth defects from inbreeding) the offspring without their consent. But prostitution should be legalized consistent with the principle before stated, because it harms no nonconsenting party.

Gay Marriage does not lead to any sort of harm PERIOD, let alone harm without the informed consent of the harmed, therefore it should be legal.

Upbeat music suggests we've found a four-leaf clover instead of a debilitating birth defect. Otherwise this video would be sad.

It's difficult to roast you, thesnipe. You have been here quite some time and, as in the real world, you have found it hard to develop a personality recognized by average social mores-This may be the direct result of having stayed indoors to recapture some childhood you never want to abandon(coaching the mighty Ducks), your fetish for doe-eyed Japanamation babes (androgynous males with swords for cocks), or perhaps due to some horrible birth defect (assinchairitis). Nevertheless, here you are to burden our minds with the reality that Jersey is still going strong, cranking out the best of the best-falling close to the nest.

I had a roommate from Jersey once (can't recall which exit) He was a dedicated worker, paid his rent on time, very tolerant of most of my vices (except for unsolicited critiques of his music) and a girlfriend that had multiple orgasms , each and every time she thought of sex, which he did not deserve, I might add. He worked all day, 9-5, I was off 3 off 4 alternating weeks, and yadda yadda-ANYHOW, I remember one thing about him and most New Joisians......cheesy. Cheesy tastes in just about everything.
Speaking of which, thanks for the 2-3 hrs of mixing last night, kept up some groovy sounds fro the evening's activities,...... get a day job.

Neighborhood watch can get exciting-thesnipe tells me that from his bedroom window in the burbs, he has spotted all manner of nefarious activity, usually involving minorities, and children of adjacent homes. Survivalist that he is, he keeps his replicas locked, loaded, chambered and bored-

All seriousness here, my advise to you my friend, if you really want a hot Japanese goddess, is to get yer white(FABRIC-EMBOSSED)ass to the mainland....they are hungry for men that treat their women like princesses, you should be able to find one the minute you step off a train in Osaka-they are waiting for you, ripe for the pikkin's, what the FuCK!!, are you doing in Jersey???!!!
What a nice fella, thesnipe has been a great pal for me here on the sift, hope to meet ya someday-sooner than you imagine, perhaps.

Cheers guido.....isn't it about time to spring for some cornrows or dreads-or maybe Whal or Oster can help you break out. BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZz

The trees may have already been dead, but now all of the cute little baby animals born in that stretch of desert will have lead induced birth defects.

but asserting that Iraq has an influx of fast food from america...
you won't find me disagreeing with you that nutrition plays a large part in the development of a fetus. And I would also agree that they have a very large stress factor, (having bombs going off, foreign troops invading your homeland and numerous other factors Iraqi's have to live with on a daily basis)
But imagine the scale of fast food joints that there would have to be to accomplish what your talking about. Heck, do they even have any of our westernized food joints over there ? Before the war we had sanctions placed against them and U.S. businesses could not do business with Iraq.

we are the original fast food nation (many more FF joints for a much longer time), so where are all the reports of birth defects due to FF?

noting there is a difference between "birth defects" and things like being born malnourished, jaundiced, IBS, etc...

In reply to this comment by jwray:
Poor nutrition, such as folic acid deficiency, has been proven to cause birth defects. Most vitamin/mineral deficiency in the mother could possibly harm the fetus. 3 out of 4 deaths in the USA are caused by diseases or complications of diseases that are strongly linked to diet, such as heart disease, high blood pressure, stroke, cancer, and diabetes. Stress and greasy fast food can aggravate inflammatory bowel disease and irritable bowel syndrome, which can both cause malabsorption.

I agree with you, Smibbo, about the food choices. There's no question that Norman Borlaug and the Green Revolution have helped to feed the world. It's just that their methods have turned out to do a lot of harm in the long run, resulting in greatly diminished soil fertility and ever-increasing dependence on crop protection chemicals. So there need to be some sustainable alternatives. Organic farming still has a ways to go before it can feed the world, but to me it promises far more long-term potential than conventional agriculture.

As far as science being good for breeding plants, I'm not disagreeing in general. But I do believe that agricultural science has taken a wrong turn, and that the vast majority of research is following some bankrupt principles. My main objection is the utter lack of taking into account polygene relationships and complex biological systems -- they just keep breeding in "a gene" for this and that (whether by genetic engineering or conventional breeding) when the reality is that almost all characteristics are determined by polygenes.

And let's just imagine that they were really successful in producing a plant that was incredibly and permanently resistant to all pests and diseases. What would happen then? It would become an invasive species and crowd out everything else. To some degree this has already happened -- some of the genetics of Roundup Ready canola have crossed into wild rapeseed. And as to the effects on the human body of eating GE foods, that has had very little testing at all. Everybody thought Thalidomide was great, until all the birth defects.

So I'm not against science -- not at all -- I have just seen that scientists tend to get excited by the work they're doing, and forget or ignore the big picture and long term effects of their work.

And greed is also a great motivator in setting aside principles.

Sometimes, if you want to accuse me of never having read the Bible and have a discussion about cherry picking quotes out of context, then start a sift talk post about it. I'll be glad to debate you there, but in here, let's just keep to the topic at hand please.

MINK, I don't understand people that assume that if you don't agree with something, you must be afraid of it in some capacity. I see homosexuality as disgusting because it makes no sense biologically. I agree with Doc_M and I believe he phrased it better with the three basic groups. I think, from personal experience of speaking with gays and lesbians I've known in my life, that most people actually make a concious decision that it is what they want in life and attempt to stick with it. I've known lesbians that stay away from men for reasons other than biology and actually have sometimes wondered why they made the choice they did. I've seen men that are completely masculine that I grew up with make the choice to become gay after coming out of bad home lives and working in an environment with other gay men spouting the same lines as you. "You're probably gay inside." "Who is really hetero?" I think that's garbage. The video that Eric3579 linked to has shown some science involving hormones inbalances that can cause children to come out more masculine or feminine, but there is still no definitive answer on whether that is ultimately what causes homosexuality. If it is 100% genetics or hormone inbalances, that would make homosexuality a birth defect, just like any other. Again, this doesn't mean that they should be treated poorly or have no rights. I just can't agree with people that say this is natural or that everyone that disagrees is a latent gay.

"And since when did people get cancer from living in a shitty house?"

I, also agree that this is rather insensitive. One has to realize that the overall impact of continued war on a population will be reflected not only in cancer rates (thanks bunker busters!), but also in nutrition, infant mortality (there actually has been an incredible increase in birth defects among Iraqi newborns in the last 4 years- thanks again bunker busters!), childhood disease management, adult life span, and chronic illness. All these problems are exacerbated by long term military action in a region... not to mention the other results of disrupted normalcy, like a decrease in education standards and literacy, both of which are important for the 'spread of democracy'.

The effects of a war for the people who live on the battlefield are long term, your tour of duty may be over and now you are back here in the good old US of A where things are all happy and healthy, but for the Iraqis you left behind, they will be dealing with what you helped create for decades to come.

I'm not saying these things to be mean MGR, I just think you need to realize the broader picture of your actions in Iraq.

Talk out your arse much cobalt?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_issues_and_the_effects_of_cannabis

[edit] Toxicity
According to the Merck Index,[2] the LD50 (dosage lethal to 50% of rats tested) of Δ9-THC by inhalation is 42 mg/kg of body weight. That is the equivalent of a man weighing 75 kg (165 lb) inhaling the THC found in 21 grams of extremely high-potency (15% THC) marijuana all in one sitting, assuming no THC is lost through smoke loss or absorption by the lungs. For oral consumption, the LD50 for male rats is 1270 mg/kg, and 730 mg/kg for females—equivalent to the THC in about a pound of 15% THC marijuana.[3] The ratio of cannabis material required to saturate cannabinoid receptors to the amount required for a fatal overdose is 1:40,000.[4] There have been no reported deaths or permanent injuries sustained as a result of a marijuana overdose. It is practically impossible to overdose on marijuana, as the user would certainly either fall asleep or otherwise become incapacitated from the effects of the drug before being able to consume enough THC to be mortally toxic. According to a United Kingdom government report, using cannabis is less dangerous than tobacco, prescription drugs, and alcohol in social harms, physical harm and addiction.[5]





[edit] Confounding combination
The most obvious confounding factor in cannabis research is the prevalent usage of other recreational drugs, including alcohol and tobacco.[6] One paper claims marijuana use can increase risk of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. [7] Such complications demonstrate the need for studies on cannabis that have stronger controls, and investigations into the symptoms of cannabis use that may also be caused by tobacco. Some people question whether the agencies that do the research try to make an honest effort to present an accurate, unbiased summary of the evidence, or whether they "cherry-pick" their data, and others caution that the raw data, and not the final conclusions, are what should be examined.[8]

However, contrasting studies have linked the smoking of cannabis to lung cancer and the growth of cancerous tumors.[9][10][11][12] A 2002 report by the British Lung Foundation estimated that three to four cannabis cigarettes a day were associated with the same amount of damage to the lungs as 20 or more tobacco cigarettes a day.[13] Some of these finding may be attributed to the well-known custom that many British citizens often mix tobacco with marijuana. It should also be noted that a recent study conducted at a lab in UCLA has found no link between marijuana usage and lung cancer.[citation needed]

Cannabis also has a synergistic toxic effect with the food additive Butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) and possibly the related compound butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT). The study concluded, "Exposure to marijuana smoke in conjunction with BHA, a common food additive, may promote deleterious health effects in the lung." BHA & BHT are man-made fat preservatives, and are found in many packaged foods including: plastics in boxed Cereal, Jello, Slim Jims, and more. [14]


[edit] Memory
Cannabis is known to act on the hippocampus (an area of the brain associated with memory and learning), and impair short term memory and attention for the duration of its effects and in some cases for the next day[15]. In the long term, some studies point to enhancement of particular types of memory.[16] Cannabis was found to be neuroprotective against excitotoxicity and is therefore beneficial for the prevention of progressive degenerative diseases like Alzheimer's disease.[17] A 1998 report commissioned in France by Health Secretary of State Bernard Condevaux and directed by Dr. Pierre-Bernard Roques determined that, "former results suggesting anatomic changes in the brain of chronic cannabis users, measured by tomography, were not confirmed by the accurate modern neuro-imaging techniques," (like MRI). "Moreover, morphological impairment of the hippocampus [which plays a part in memory and navigation] of rat after administration of very high doses of THC (Langfield et al., 1988) was not shown (Slikker et al., 1992)" (translated). He concluded that cannabis does not have any neurotoxicity as defined in the report, unlike alcohol and cocaine.[18][19][20]


[edit] Adulterated cannabis
Contaminants may be found in hashish when consumed from soap bar-type sources[21]. The dried flowers of the plant may be contaminated by the plant taking up heavy metals and other toxins from its growing environment[22]. Recently, there have been reports of herbal cannabis being adulterated with minute (silica [usually glass or sand], or sugar} crystals in the UK and Ireland. These crystals resemble THC in appearance, yet are much heavier, and so serve again to increase the weight, and hence street value of the cannabis[23].


[edit] Pregnancy
Studies have found that children of marijuana-smoking mothers more frequently suffer from permanent cognitive deficits, concentration disorders, hyperactivity, and impaired social interactions than non-exposed children of the same age and social background.[24][25] A recent study with participation of scientists from Europe and the United States, have now identified that endogenous cannabinoids, molecules naturally produced by our brains and functionally similar to THC from cannabis, play unexpectedly significant roles in establishing how certain nerve cells connect to each other. The formation of connections among nerve cells occurs during a relatively short period in the fetal brain. The study tries to give a closer understanding of if and when cannabis damages the fetal brain[26][27].[28]

Other studies on Jamaica have suggested that cannabis use by expectant mothers does not appear to cause birth defects or developmental delays in their newborn children.[29][30] In a study in 1994 of Twenty-four Jamaican neonates exposed to marijuana prenatally and 20 non exposed neonates comparisons were made at 3 days and 1 month old, using the Brazelton Neonatal Assessment Scale, including supplementary items to capture possible subtle effects. Results showed there were no significant differences between exposed and nonexposed neonates on day 3. At 1 month, the exposed neonates showed better physiological stability and required less examiner facilitation to reach organized states. The neonates of heavy-marijuana-using mothers had better scores on autonomic stability, quality of alertness, irritability, and self-regulation and were judged to be more rewarding for caregivers. This work was supported by the March of Dimes Foundation.[31]


[edit] Cancer
On 23 May 2006, Donald Tashkin, M.D., Professor of Medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA in Los Angeles announced that the use of cannabis does not appear to increase the risk of developing lung cancer, or increase the risk of head and neck cancers, such as cancer of the tongue, mouth, throat, or esophagus.[32]The study involved 2252 participants, with some of the most chronic marijuana smokers having smoked over 22,000 marijuana cigarettes.[32][33][34][35] The finding of Donald Tashkin, M.D., and his team of researchers in 2006 refines their earlier studies published in a Dec. 17th 2000 edition of the peer-reviewed journal Cancer Epidemiology Biomarker and Prevention.[12] Many opponents of marijuana incorrectly cite the original finding of UCLA Medical Center from 2000 as "proof" that marijuana leaves the users at higher risk for cancer of the lung, and cancerous tumors,[9] even though the researchers at the UCLA Medical Center have revised their finding with a more in-depth study on the effects of the use of marijuana. This seemed to contradict assumptions made after some studies, like those from Dale Geirringer et al., which found that 118 carcinogens were produced when marijuana underwent combustion, and two carcinogens {2-Methyl-2, 4(2H-1-benzopyran-5-ol) & 5-[Acetyl benz[e]azulene-3,8-dione} formed when marijuana underwent vaporization with the Volcano Vaporizer.[36] To help explain this seemingly chemical proof of carcinogenity inherent in the process of combustion, Tashkin noted that "one possible explanation for the new findings, he said, is that THC, a chemical in marijuana smoke, may encourage aging cells to die earlier and therefore be less likely to undergo cancerous transformation."[32]

We don't yet know whether embryonic stem cells are necessary to cure Parkinson's. Adult stem cells might work, and might not. An entire branch of research should not be closed for the sake of dubious moral objections.

There is no one point at which a fertilized egg becomes a person, because the change occurs tiny bit by tiny bit, continuously. However, a fertilized egg is clearly not a person, because it cannot think anything, cannot feel anything, and cannot know anything. Is an acephalic child (a birth defect in which the baby is born with no skull, head, or brain) a person? I think not.

The potential human life argument goes nowhere. If every time you prevent a person from coming into being is murder, then every time you use a condom or abstain from sex you are comitting murder. It would be quite convenient for clergy to lead people to believe all forms of avoiding reproduction are immoral, since that would cause the population of their flocks to exceed that of competing religions. Most religion spreading occurs by fucking and indoctrinating offspring, not by conversion. Indeed clergy tried to outlaw contraception and persecute some nonchildbearing women with witch trials. But most people eventually saw through that bullshit.

As someone who has had a vasectomy (and vasovasostomy) I can happily say we've had no birth defects so far!

*save

To really understand the issue one needs to know how DU is used, mostly as a kinetic force penetrator in ammunition. DU is very dense; at 19050 kg/m³, it is almost 70% denser than lead, thus a given weight of it has a smaller diameter than an equivalent lead projectile, with less aerodynamic drag and deeper penetration due to a higher pressure at point of impact. DU projectile ordnance is often incendiary because of its pyrophoric property.

So upon impact the DU tip vaporises and spreads into the air, since DU rounds usually hit a combustible target and there is a subsequent explosion the spread of the material is wide. This was all covered after Gulf War when DU first started getting used widely and created the now commonly known Gulf War Sickness or Balkans War Sickness.

Various goverment studies keep pushing the question back and forth between goverment committees as the issue of exposure, since no scientific based way can be worked about how DU gets into the human system, so some reports say there is too little to cause harm and others say it depends on exposure and the issue basically starts to revolve on how people get it into their system, how much is lethal, etc etc.

At the end of the day the fact is that even though we have various treaties prevent the use of chemically and biological arms, DU is not covered within any of them, and the issue is such that nothing can really be done until a treaty can be worked out on DU usage. That is not likely to happen anytime soon. The US, France, UK and other nations actively use DU as the cheapest form of kinetic penetrator known to man, and shot down various treaties designed to go against the usage of DU.

Regarding this debate, the above mentioned working paper published in 2002 by the United Nations Sub-Commission on Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, at paragraph 171 under the title "Moratorium" reads:

“Considering the disturbing reports on the ill effects of DU weapons in the Gulf and the Balkans, it is saddening to note that so far appeals for a moratorium coming from different quarters have not yet prevailed. Killing first and asking questions later has, however, never been a sensible solution.

Ironically

Aircraft may also contain depleted uranium trim weights (a Boeing 747-100 may contain 400 to 1,500 kg). This application of DU is controversial. If an aircraft crashes there is concern that the uranium would enter the environment: the metal can oxidize to a fine powder in a fire. Its use has been phased out in many newer aircraft; Boeing and McDonnell-Douglas discontinued using DU counterweights in the 1980s.

Clearly when used in ammunition it doesn't catch fire... The NATO countries of France, the United Kingdom and the United States have consistently rejected calls for a ban, maintaining that its use continues to be legal, and that the health risks are entirely unsubstantiated. The UK government further alleges that cancers and birth defects in Iraq could be blamed on the Iraqi Government's use of chemical weapons on its own citizens.

Depleted uranium (DU) was used in tank kinetic energy penetrator and autocannon rounds on a large scale for the first time in the Gulf War. DU munitions often burn when they impact a hard target, producing toxic combustion products. The toxicity, effects, distribution, and exposure involved have all been the subject of a lengthy and complex debate.

Because uranium is a heavy metal and chemical toxicant with nephrotoxic (kidney-damaging), teratogenic (birth defect-causing), and potentially carcinogenic properties, uranium exposure is associated with a variety of illnesses. The chemical toxicological hazard posed by uranium dwarfs its radiological hazard because it is only weakly radioactive, and depleted uranium even less so.

Early studies of depleted uranium aerosol exposure assumed that uranium combustion product particles would quickly settle out of the air and thus could not affect populations more than a few kilometers from target areas, and that such particles, if inhaled, would remain undissolved in the lung for a great length of time and thus could be detected in urine. Uranyl ion contamination has been found on and around depleted uranium targets.

DU has recently been recognized as a neurotoxin. In 2005, depleted uranium was shown to be a neurotoxin in rats.

In 2001, a study was published in Military Medicine that found DU in the urine of Gulf War veterans. Another study, published by Health Physics in 2004, also showed DU in the urine of Gulf War veterans. A study of UK veterans who thought they might have been exposed to DU showed aberrations in their white blood cell chromosomes. Mice immune cells exposed to uranium exhibit abnormalities.

Increases in the rate of birth defects for children born to Gulf War veterans have been reported. A 2001 survey of 15,000 U.S. Gulf War combat veterans and 15,000 control veterans found that the Gulf War veterans were 1.8 (fathers) to 2.8 (mothers) times as likely to report having children with birth defects. In early 2004, the UK Pensions Appeal Tribunal Service attributed birth defect claims from a February 1991 Gulf War combat veteran to depleted uranium poisoning.

In 2005, uranium metalworkers at a Bethlehem plant near Buffalo, New York, exposed to frequent occupational uranium inhalation risks, were alleged by non-scientific sources to have the same patterns of symptoms and illness as Gulf War Syndrome victims.

The NATO countries of France, the United Kingdom and the United States have consistently rejected calls for a ban, maintaining that its use continues to be legal, and that the health risks are entirely unsubstantiated. The UK government further alleges that cancers and birth defects in Iraq could be blamed on the Iraqi Government's use of chemical weapons on its own citizens.

"Considering the disturbing reports on the ill effects of DU weapons in the Gulf and the Balkans, it is saddening to note that so far appeals for a moratorium coming from different quarters have not yet prevailed. Killing first and asking questions later has, however, never been a sensible solution"

- United Nations Sub-Commission on Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, at paragraph 171 under the title "Moratorium" for the use of military DU rounds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium#Military_applications

EDIT - Unfortunately I don't see this issue being addressed by anyone soon, because pulling DU out of the entire military ammunition apparatus did not happen since 1991 and Gulf War Sickness when VA vets complained, and I don't see it happening now. This being all sickly ironic given that --

Aircraft may also contain depleted uranium trim weights (a Boeing 747-100 may contain 400 to 1,500 kg). This application of DU is controversial. If an aircraft crashes there is concern that the uranium would enter the environment: the metal can oxidize to a fine powder in a fire. Its use has been phased out in many newer aircraft; Boeing and McDonnell-Douglas discontinued using DU counterweights in the 1980s. Some amount of depleted uranium was released eg. during the Bijlmer disaster, when 152 kg was 'lost'. Counterweights are manufactured with cadmium plating and are considered non-hazardous while the plating is intact.

So unsafe in airplanes, safe in war zones. Huh.

Gluonium, you know about the increasing incidence of birth defects and cancer in Iraq, don't you? I'm not buying that the uranium dust is being safely dispersed, with radioactive levels same as found in nature. Pregnant Iraqi women are coming into contact with harmful, genetically mutating elements, somehow. You reckon it's just something in the water?
http://www.videosift.com/video/Rising-incidence-of-birth-defects-in-Iraqi-babies