From: "Geo." 

"Frank Haber"  wrote in message
news:3e9764ea$1{at}w3.nls.net...

> But it's a radiological weapon to the locals who have to muck around in
that
> contaminated dirt for the rest of their lives.  I think we should
> acknowledge that.   Oh yes, isn't uranium poisonous and doesn't it collect
> someplace nasty in a kid's bones, and have a half life of lebenty
kiloyears?
> I just have to get used to that.

I think that depends on where it's used. If it's a dozen tanks out in the
middle of a vast desert (you have seen the images of bombs hitting these
tiny dots?) then does it have any real effect beyond the immediate? I mean
it's a big desert with nothing much in it so how far does it remain
concentrated enough to present a threat?

Next thing you have to ask is what's the alternative?

Go to spaceimaging.com and take a look at the bombed out areas in baghdad,
they are a different color, like something has coated everything in the
area. I'm sure that can't be good for rock sucking kids either.

Geo.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4