Bobby

Had they not surrendered it would've been completely justified to hit another target. The casualties of an invasion of the main islands would've been far worse for US forces than the bloody taking of Okinawa. Besides the radiological contamination ,was the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki really any worse than the fire-bombing of Tokyo or Dresden ?

And to relate this to the topic at hand. Would the locals be better off if the contaminant was lead particulates ? Lead in Paint, Dust, and Soil | Lead in Paint, Dust, and Soil | OPPT | OPPTS | US EPA

Hit another target, I agree. Yes. But that lingering effect of the radiation is too much to overlook. I'd rather not. It has to be part of the equation, no way around it.


"Would the locals be better off if the contaminant was lead particulatesWould the locals be better off if the contaminant was lead particulates"

Good question. Perhaps not. I need to study more on this, but when I consider future generations, I think that poisonings are equal if the result is death. Some just take longer with lasting effects. Rat poisoning and Antifreeze, can become deadly if digested, but there are warnings on the label.



Bobby

Please re-read my post, DC. If you will notice, it said that tungstun melts and spalls more easily than DU. It takes a great deal of heat and pressure to cause DU to either melt or spall. That's the reason we use it as an anti-tank shell.

Furthermore, what is the basis of your conclusion that DU "smoke" is dangerous? Which scientific authority has stated that? And which scientific authority has stated that inhalation of any such smoke has been the cause of any of the sicknesses associated with Gulf War syndrome or cancer? What is the mechanism by which inhalation of small amounts of smoking DU (which is rare because it is so hard to get the stuff to smoke or melt in the first place) is more dangerous than ingestion of massive amounts of raw uranium?

Elliot