The use of depleted uranium munitions has been fiercely debated, with opponents like the International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons saying there are dangerous health risks from ingesting or inhaling depleted uranium dust, including cancers and birth defects.

  • mintyfrog@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    If only the world were so simple that we could trust the organization tasked with banning the substance rather than reading primary sources.

    I agree that depleted uranium shouldn’t be used, but your quote from the International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons means nothing.

      • Red Wizard 🪄@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        That aligns with their chosen reality. People are simple creatures and any money will turn them into obedient slaves. The only doctor you can trust is the one who isn’t going paid because they’ve been ostracized for speaking the truth.

        • mintyfrog@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          What are you on about? @rogrodre@hexbear.net was doing exactly the thing that you’re describing. Treating statements from an organization called “The Coalition to Ban Something” as fact, without any other review, is only believing information that confirms your beliefs.

      • mintyfrog@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s not the same thing at all.

        The comment above mine is more akin to wanting to ban water because the Coalition to Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide said so. Or wanting to ban abortion because Americans United for Life said they’re immoral. Or to increase fossil fuel usage because OPEC said it isn’t bad for the environment. You’re citing an opinionated secondary source without even considering the other side.

        If you want facts, you go to unbiased, peer reviewed primary sources. Or at least hear both sides. If you want opinions, go to a “coalition to ban something.”

        The comment 2 above mine was saying that depleted uranium’s effects are up for debate. The next commenter provided only one side of the argument and claimed that it was fact, even mocking their literacy for not seeing it.

        • usernamesaredifficul [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          yes it is an opinionated source but it is also an opinionated source with scientific evidence to back up its claims. What you are doing is seeking false balance between the position that has been reached trhough scientific peer reviewed study and the position “nuh uh”

          • mintyfrog@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m agreeing that depleted uranium weapons are a bad idea. I’m disagreeing that someone is illiterate for not believing an opinionated source.

            I could easily quote Wikipedia just as the prior comment quoted OP’s article:

            The U.S. Department of Defense claims that no human cancer of any type has been seen as a result of exposure to either natural or depleted uranium.

            Surely the DoD has at least some scientific research, no? It would be foolish to take this quote and believe that depleted uranium is safe, and it would be even more foolish to insult someone’s intelligence for not doing so.