Teribus The argument over the toxity of depleted uranium gathers adherents and detractors just like brexit. Likewise all constituents of the spectrum fund studies to support their viewpoint. Extracting the truth is a challenge. It is a low level radiation risk, probably masked by background radiation in many places. But the same argument could be applied to radon, However in confined spaces radon is regarded as a (relatively recently recognised)significant hazard, hence the production of radon maps in the UK and radon sumps being incorporated in new builds in Ireland. A parallel argument could be applied to depleted uranium, inhaled nanno particles can penetrate deep in the lung and show no rush to vacate once ensconced.
From the WHO Guidance on Exposure to Depleted Uranium: "Inhaled depleted uranium particles that reside in the lungs for long periods may damage lung cells and increase the possibility of lung cancer after many years. The scientific evidence for this is tenuous because studies of uranium mill workers have not shown any excess of lung cancer

I liked your clarification of the Exocet story. One's education is ongoing.

There are many allegations of birth defects in areas where DU has been used but I do not know if any formal epidemiological surveys have been carried out. We need politicians to realise that the military are in denial over DU, and that generals are not necessarily the best people to advise on epidemiology.
" Similar questions were raised over the Vietnam war when Agent Orange, a herbicide containing the dioxin TCDD, was sprayed by the US army over rainforest to prevent it providing cover for hostile forces. The chances of a definitive answer were lost when the US government cancelled an investigation into it in 2005, but some blame it for deformities of the children and grandchildren of those exposed to it."