Some Good Things George W Bush Has Done Domestically

I linked that clip earlier with sound

Just a 1 fingered victory salute

also note GWBs war on the US in HIS OWN WORDS

I love all Americas...North, South, and even Central!

Thank you, however, for soooo cleverly pointing out that the America I was referring to is really called ::gasp::: the United States of America...that was quite a catch!

YW! =)

Damn, I missed this one while it was still a hot thread!

Someone did point out that the tax cuts basically ignored the middle class, while tons were given to already-gluttonous oil companies, right?
And that the Social Security reform package failed miserably due to ... lack of any coherent details?
And that America has poverty levels not seen since the Great Depression?
And that we're 9 trillion in debt, 80% to China, a communist nation?
And that personal bankruptcies are up, wages have been stagnant while prices of goods up, and something ridiculous like 1/3 of Americans lack health care?

Yes? These have been mentioned. Right, then.

Man you missed it, GWB won 49-51 (the supreme court intervened and gave him the win despite popular notions of scoring saying the majority of the votes should win)

Damn Hiro, I sure hope whatever it was that you were doing was worth it. The fate of the universe was in your hands and you were fiddling with some intern in a blue dress and a pizza, thereby detstroying the digninty of the office you hold.

It is a good thing impeachment is only used in the most important of times and crimes (such as oral sex). No use using such powers in the frivolous pursuit of things like justice, war crimes, crimes against humanity, theft of an election, ignoring the oath of protecting and defending the constitution, the illegal use of torture, ignoring the geneva conventions, destruction of the environment, imprisoning people without trial indefinatly, and looting wealth of a once great nation that is now a disgrace to the very principles it was founded upon.

Remember folks, you are either "with us or agasinst us!"

Hey, you watch your mouth!

I can stand some comments, but implying this about Bush is just wrong!

..

Everyone knows mercury is good for the environment!

Not to mention depleted uranium --the gift that keeps on giving!

Ah, that's honestly not so bad. Want to talk about Bush promoting radioactive poisoning? Coal and oil plants produce hundreds of times more radioactive waste than a nuclear plant - and it's put directly into the air. Bush has loosened air pollution regulations, and has cut taxes to big oil and coal - so that sort of radioactive waste is much more likely to give people cancer than some depleted shells.

I got it, 1 good point about GWB!!!!!!!!

He failed to steamroll the development of brand spanking new Bunker Busting Nukes!

W00t, in failure, GWB has done somethign good !

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that there's really never been any scientific evidence that depleted uranium has any significant environmental effect.

The idea that depleted uranium is bad, stems mainly from the idea that uranium is some kind of crazy glowing stuff, like the little green rods that Homer Simpson handles.

Depleted Uranium is the stuff that we don't use for nuclear fission, and the reason we don't use it is because it's really not that radioactive.

The stuff we use for nuclear fission is U235, which has a halflife of 700 million years, and is significantly radioactive. Depleted Uranium is U238, and has a half life of over 4.5 billion years, meaning that it's really not very radioactive at all.

In addition, uranium is mainly an alpha particle emitter. Alpha particles are really not dangerous, as they get blocked by things as simple as a paper bag. The only time alpha particles really become an issue at all, is when you inhale or ingest them.

The main problem with Uranium, is that the things that it decays into are sometimes gamma particle emitters, and gamma particles are far more dangerous. They're the things you need lead shielding to protect yourself from. But, as I pointed out, U238 has such an incredibly long half life, that very few of the atoms ever decay into things that create gamma particles. Thus, a quantity of U238 is going to produce a pretty negligable quantity of radiation.

The only time when people handling uranium really need to watch out, is when they're in an area with huge amounts of it, where the small amounts of gamma emitters add up. And, even in this case, the amount of radiation is pretty low. But this isn't really ever going to be the case when we're talking about things like depleted uranium weapons rounds out on the field. The reason that depleted uranium is used for munitions is purely due to its high atomic weight. In other words, it's very heavy.

So... In reality, mercury is actually far more dangerous to you than depleted uranium.

Depleted uranium (DU) is one of my father's pet protests in the Iraq war, so I've gotten an earful. Essentially what the U.S. military is doing is taking what would otherwise be classified as highly toxic nuclear waste, loading it into guns, and firing it all over the place where people live.

You can visit this site to find out more about it: http://www.idust.net/

A couple of pertinent quotes about why this is so damaging to health and the environment:

"DU is a highly toxic heavy metal with a radioactive half-life of four and one-half billion years. DU has accumulated in enormous quantities since the dawn of the nuclear age. Despite the name "Depleted" Uranium, DU has more than 1/2 the radioactivity of Natural Uranium, which is pure uranium."

"DU is very appealing in military weapons because of its heavy weight and pyrophoric qualities which cause it to burn like a cutting torch through steel when a DU penetrator strikes a hard target. This material which would otherwise be nuclear waste and cost the Department of Energy billions of dollars to dispose of is now provided free of charge for military use and to private industry. It is the pyrophoric quality that makes this weapon so horrific, the burning of DU creates respirable size radioactive dust that can have short and long term health effects on the human body, such as kidney problems, followed by cancers and birth defects.

The U.S. military uses DU in various weapons such as armor-piercing bullets, shielding on tanks, counter weights and ground penatrators on missiles and fragments in cluster bombs and mines that penetrate armor. NATO forces have used such weaponry in combat since the Persian Gulf War, and most recently in Yugoslavia. Yet use of weapons containing DU are considered illegal under international laws governing weapons of war."

This is a good example of misleading information.

It's certainly true that depleted uranium has more than half the radioactivity of "natural uranium". But that's because "natural" uranium consists of 99.3% U238.

Depleted uranium is simply natural uranium, where the U235 has been removed. (the U235 component being much more radioactive) So, you're basically removing 0.7% of the mass, and reducing the radioactivity down by nearly half.

The fact is though, that natural uranium simply isn't that radioactive... and, as I pointed out, its radiation comes in the form of alpha particles, which are not that harmful unless you inhale or ingest the uranium directly.

Even ingestion of uranium is really not that harmful... In large quantities, it causes kidney toxicity, but this is temporary. It's basically inhalation of significant quantities of uranium dust that is the only danger, as it then sits in your lungs for months or years, and causes the internal tissues to be hit with alpha particles the whole time.


In all honesty, simply traditional munitions made from lead are more harmful to the environment, as the lead will get into groundwater and ingestion of even fairly small quantities of lead have been scientifically shown to have neurological effects on very young children.

A big thing about depleted uranium, is simply that people hear the word uranium and think that it's some kind of crazy glowing radiation machine that will make you into a mutant.

jamie, was this post a troll?

1> lowered taxes - added military expenses - increased deficit

2> tried to cut a social welfare net that prevents higher rates of poverty

3> reduced medical services for the poor

are you a secret bush basher?

This would be precisely the danger faced by troops and civilians in Iraq. It's about how the substances are being used. The tendency of these munitions is to burn when fired, spreading uranium particles throughout the environment. If you were to spray aerosoled mercury or lead around in this manner, it would also pose a significant health hazard. Lead doesn't do that.

But this is only an issue when you inhale significant quantities of uranium.

When fired in an open air environment, such as the open desert, the ammount of uranium dust that people could inhale (especially civilians living in the region, whose exposure would mainly come after firing) would be largely insignificant.

largely insignificant? how in the hell do you know man? it only takes a speck of a radioactive particle to give someone cancer. face it, it is a callous inhuman evil thing to use radioactive munitions around civilians.

No, that's not really the case.

Radioactive substances cause harm by decaying and releasing particles. You're exposed to radioactive substances every day. One common form would be carbon 14, which you are explosed to all the time. This is how we are able to use it for dating.

Carbon 14 has a much shorter half life than Uranium, at only 5700 years. That means that it's far more radioactive than Uranium (which has a half life of over 4.5 billion years). But it's not shooting cancer rays everywhere.

In order to cause cancer, an active particle that has been released from a decayed atom of a radioactive substance hits your DNA, and causes a mutation that results in cancer. But it's not like every time an active particle hits your dna, that it results in such a mutation. The vast majority of the time, it would result in no perceivable change in genetic expression.

I mean, think about it... You go to the dentist, right? You've had X-Rays taken, right? The radiation used there is higher energy than the alpha radiation emitted by uranium when it decays. Do you fear getting cancer when you get your teeth X-Rayed? I'd think not.. and you're getting a far more massive dose of X-Rays when you go to the dentist, than you'd get from the weaker alpha radiation emitted by even a large quantity of uranium.

I think a big problem here is that people often confuse uranium with plutonium. Certain plutonium isotopes are VERY radioactive, with a half-life of less than 15 years. That means that in 15 years, half of all the atoms in that plutonium sample would have decayed and shot off little particles in the form of radiation.

But Uranium's not like that.

If you are arguing that not enough is known about the effects of long-term low-level radiation exposure, I'll go along with that. What is known is that in many parts of Iraq now, civilians are being exposed to levels of radiation far in excess of U.S. guidelines for what is considered "safe". It's just another cost of the war.

Or to put it another way, "the gift that keeps on giving" is a perfectly apt description of the situation.

I'm mainly pointing out that the recent facination with depleted uranium is something concocted by the media. It's honestly not that dangerous a substance, when you look at the radioactive characteristics of U238. It's also not a new addition to the US military's munitions. But uranium is a "sexy" word, that makes peoples ears perk up.

I'm certainly not saying, "Hey! Pass me the uranium pills!" I'm just suggesting that it's really not as big a deal as some folks think. Personally, I'm more worried about things like fossil fuel plants. They release more radioative material into the atmosphere than anything else.

I'm not defending Bush here. I'm mainly just discussing the matter from a purely scientific point of view.

Could you please direct me to some of those studies detailing the radiation exposure levels you're talking about? I'd be interested to read them.

ahhh to be carefree....

Just Google "radiation levels in Iraq". I'm sure you'll find plenty to support whatever position you feel like having on it.

Hey, I'm curious- Does depleted uranium leave dust when it hits solid objects or does it remain completely intact? When the wind blows, will anyone breathe that dust?

On a related note, a few years ago I read something about fecal dust being a big problem in parts of Mexico due to inadequate sewage systems. Feces isn't normally "that" dangerous, but you make it into dust and it can be a deadly issue.

It depends on the munitions type, and what you're shooting, I'm sure.

One of the things about it blowing in the wind though (a big concern in Iraq's deserts), is that any uranium caught in the wind would dissipate very quickly, to insignificant levels.. It's not like you'd have big clouds of uranium floating around.

Another thing to consider, is that uranium is very heavy. That means that it really would not lend itself to blowing around that much. It would tend to always settle down to the bottom, and eventually be buried.

1. George the Second's So-Called Tax Cut only helped the top 5% of the Nation.

2. George The Second only wants to end Social Security

3. How dare you call me a leach. I am Disabled and unable to work. I should report this post as abuse.

4. Medicare is the only thing that is keeping me alive.

George the Second needs to be impeached. And how dare you call me a Leach !!!

The reason George the Second did not respond quickly to the disaster in New Orleans is that the state Governor and Mayor are Democrats. Compair this with Florida where his little bitty baby brother is the dictator, er I mean Governor there.