i think they'd be used more as an environmental contaminant than something intended to actually cause death... setting off a big one in a city wouldnt kill THAT many people, but it'd keep them out of the contaminated area until the radioactive material was cleaned up (or a few millions years passes, whichever comes first). in that respect, i think the result is a bit similar
On Wed, Dec 29, 2004 at 04:56:14AM -0500, David Raleigh Arnold wrote: > On Tuesday 28 December 2004 08:28 pm, Sam Watkins wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 27, 2004 at 02:46:33PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote: > > > >The worst "terrorist" is America, with your depleted uranium > > > >"dirty-bombs" which you throw around at every opportunity, > > A dirty bomb is a nuclear device designed to kill by radiation > instead of blast. Depleted uranium has no dangerous radiation. > That's why it's depleted. Instead, it is extremely toxic. > People get sick on account of good ol' chemical poisoning, not > radiation. > > Obvious ignorance does not help with what is your apparent > cause. Know what you are talking about before you open your > yap. daveA > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
