"Bill" wrote in message
...
....
a long time ago, a major commercial transport airplane then in production
used depleted uranium counterweights - we kept the test article in a paint
can - there is some issue with the dust from those shells, I believe the
metallic dust is toxic, however the article is about 98.974% nonsense, I
agree.

Many heavy and some light metals are biochemically toxic, especially if they
easily substitute for the normal metal in necessary biological processes and
then inhibit them. For instance Arsenic mimics Phosphorus and Lead replaces
Calcium.
http://www.hbci.com/~wenonah/hydro/heavmet.htm

Uranium:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2819790/
If that's too technical for you, large amounts cause reversible kidney
damage. The effects of small amounts aren't strong or obvious enough to
stand out clearly from from other stress factors. The author argues that
low level exposure is similar to Lead.
"In the situation of war zones however, other chemical contaminant and the
disruption of society would complicate such studies."

Plutonium:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf15.html
"In the 1940s some 26 workers at US nuclear weapons facilities became
contaminated with plutonium. Intensive health checks of these people have
revealed no serious consequence and no fatalities that could be attributed
to the exposure."

A careful study of those who entered Hiroshima soon after the blast showed
very little if any long-term effect. Fear-mongering agitators have inflated
the risk perception far above that of MORE toxic but familiar hazards like
artificial tanning and Botox. When you lie on the beach you expose yourself
to the cancer-causing radiation from the nuclear reactor in the sky.

My interest isn't political. As a young chemist I found that new employees
got the dirty jobs so I studied the hazards. Knowing that Beryllium was
toxic got me tossed out of an interview.

jsw