On Mon, Dec 31, 2001 at 12:29:05PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I have not the slightest sympathy for Saddam Hussein or his military, but the > suffering of the people of Iraq does move me, even though I know it doesn't > move Hussein at all.
I feel the same. But I have not seen convincing evidence that depleted uranium has caused most of the problems that some have attributed to it. I have two unanswered questions in my mind: 1) Are the problems that are being reported statistically significant, i.e., greater than what would be expected during warfare without any harmful substances present 2) If the answer to (1) is yes, than what other possible causes are there than depleted uranium? For example, the article does not convincingly make the point that chemicals cannot be the cause. The time argument is bogus, since it assumes that no new chemicals are being released, an assumption for which there is no supporting evidence. I expect there to be a correlation between the locations of chemical reasearch facilities and the places the US bombed in Iraq (since that is probably one of the criteria that was used to pick bombing targets). -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.com/
