The scientific heavies of Mudcat are assembled in this thread to display the best of their knowledge.

you are saying it's safe? (Peace) (and similar arguments)
If you would read what you pretend to respond to you'd realise that no one has ever said it is safe. The only real question to debate is the level of damage. The argument you have to argue with is that the level of damage is very low compared to natural background
Bobert's health food store argument is at an even worse level. Don't you realise how stupid you present yourself(ves) when you offer this type of argumentation?
Arne's intake argument, on the other hand, that's a meaningful counter-argumentation.

The statistics about birth defects in Iraq or other health problems are also an argumentation that assumes that those reading it must be incredibly stupid to swallow it.
DU has been suspected by many campaigners of causing the unexplained cancers among Iraqi civilians, particularly children, since the previ ous Gulf war. Chemicals released in the atmosphere during bombing could equally be to blame. (from one link provided by Peace!). I follow these discussions here since quite long, and the same statistics have been used as an argument against the UN sanctions, as an argument for the ecological impact of Saddam's plan to set the oil wells on fire, as an argument that the coalition forces have not been able to restore the availability of clean water.

You cannot simply compare health statistics before and after a series of events, one of which was the use of DU ammunition as a meaningful argument without making an assessment how large the contribution of DU in comparison to other events may have been.

One of the highlights for me in this thread was Dianavan telling GUEST you don't know what you are talking about..

WHO - Depleted Uranium - Fact Sheet No: 257 last updated January 2003 (Teribus)
I'm at a loss of understanding how Don Firth who sometimes is a bit more careful than the rest of the crowd can link two posts later (his second link in that post) to an article from 2002 in the prestigious scientific journal Le Monde Diplomatique. At the very least you should have made clear that and argued why and in which respect you think that the WHO update has not taken the arguments of preceding articles into account.

What do you actually want? A debate with an open outcome or a search for support for previously made up opinions?

Wolfgang