M-1A1 Not Invincible?

[ApTyp]

Exactly. I never seen anyone breathing with their mouth, most just stand as far away from the smoker as they can. Which is stupid, personally I like the smoke more than I enjoy smoking itself.

[Radoteur]

K dude, only smokers like it because they are addicted. Us normal people aren't addicts so we don't like it. Anyways, I grew up in a polluted country and had some lung problems when I was younger.
If I were going to get into one of the vices, I'd probably go for some of the good old alkeehall. Actually, probably not. My grandpa is an alcoholic and he's a jerk.

[-=Felix=-]

hate to burst your bubble, Felix, but second hand smoke is obviously more harmful as normal smoke

Negetive. (

It's been shown that the alveoli within the lung sponge up the carcinogenic material, hence why you get lung cancer...

It was shown in this study that only 3% of those cacinogenic substances continue to exist within second hand smoke (While 14% of those substances continue to exist after inhaling wood-fire-based-smoke). Unless your face is going to be within inches of the smokers face, the air dillutes the smoke meaning a lower amount of this material per cubic foot.

The last part of this study crammed 13 smokers smoking various carcinogenic tobacco products into a 30 by 10 foot room with a 9 foot ceiling.

It was shown that after 10 minutes of people puffing, the air samples taken from certain areas of the room still contained lower than 3% of the material.

Rotated smokers.

Again.

And again.

After 4 hours of constant 'hardcore' smoking, the room finally came to .8%

ONOZ.

Second hand smoke is an annoyance - Yes. Will it give you cancer? No.

[Mandalorian FaLLouT GoD]

whos ass did you pull those "facts" out of?

http://health.yahoo.com/health/cancer_c ... smoke.html

[iohkus]

mandalore you goon, everyone knows those sources are fabricated by the CIA to set up a moon station to train monkeymen to fight the US' wars...

Tobacco Use: References

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Peto R, Lopez AD, Boreham J, Thun M, Heath C, Jr. Mortality from Smoking in Developed Countries 1950-2000. New York: Oxford University Press; 1994.
McGinnis JM, Foege WH. Actual causes of death in the United States. JAMA. 1993;270:2207-12.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Cigarette smoking-attributable mortality and years of potential life lost�United States, 1984. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1997;46:444-450.
US Department of Health and Human Services. Reducing the Health Consequences of Smoking: 25 Years of Progress. A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health; 1989.
National Center for Health Statistics. Health, United States, 2000 with Urban and Rural Chartbook. Hyattsville, MD: Public Health Service; 2001.
US Department of Health and Human Services. Tobacco Use Among US Racial/Ethnic Minority Groups�African Americans, American Indians and Alaska Natives, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, and Hispanics: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health; 1998.
US Department of Health and Human Services. Women and Smoking: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office of Smoking and Health; 2001.
Giovinio GA, Schooley MW, Zhu B-P, Chrismon JH, Tomar SL, Peddicord JP, et al. Surveillance for Selected Tobacco-Use Behaviors�United States, 1900-1994. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep CDC Surveill Summ. 1994;43(SS-3).
US Department of Agriculture. Tobacco Situation and Outlook Report. Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture, Market and Trade Economics Division, Economic Research Service; 2001.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Trends in Cigarette Smoking Among High School Students�United States, 1991-1999. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2000;49:755-758.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Tobacco use among high school students�United States, 1997. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1998;47:229-33.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance�United States, 1999. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep CDC Surveill Summ. 2000;49(SS-5).
US Department of Health and Human Services. Preventing Tobacco Use Among Young People: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health; 1994.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Cigarette Smoking Among Adults�United States, 1999. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2001;50:869-873.
US Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Using Smokeless Tobacco: A Report of the Advi sory Committee to the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: US Depart ment of Health and Human Services, Public Health Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute; 1986.
US Department of Agriculture. Tobacco Situation and Outlook Report. Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture, Market and Trade Economics Division, Economic Research Service; 1999.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. State-Specific Prevalence of Current Cigarette and Cigar Smoking Among Adults�United States, 1998. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1999;48:1034-1039.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Tobacco Use Among Middle and High School Students�United States, 1999. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2000;49:49-53.
Shanks TG, Burns DM. Disease Consequences of Cigar Smoking. In: Burns D, Cummings KM, Hoffman D, editors. Cigars: Health Effects and Trends, Monograph No. 9. Bethesda, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute; 1998.
US Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Benefits of Smoking Cessation. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health; 1990.
Zhu SH, Sun J, Billings SC, Choi WS, Malarcher A. Predictors of Smoking Cessation in US Adolescents. Am J Prev Med. 1999;16:202-207.
US Department of Health and Human Services. Reducing Tobacco Use: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health; 2000.
US Environmental Protection Agency. Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders. Washington DC: US Environmental Protection Agency; 1992. (Report # EPA/600/6-90/006F)
California Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Health Effects of Expo sure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke: Final Report. Sacra mento, CA: California Environmental Protection Agency; 1997.
National Institute of Environmental Sciences, National Toxicology Program. 9th Report on Carcinogens. Research Triangle Institute, NC: National Institute of Environmental Sciences; 2000.
Steenland K. Passive smoking and the risk of heart disease. JAMA. 1992;267:94-9.
World Health Organization. The World Health Report 1999: Making a Difference. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 1999.
Warner KE, Hodgson TA, Carroll CE. Medical costs of smoking in the United States: estimates, their validity, and their implications. Tobacco Control. 1999;8:290-300.
Bartlett JC, Miller LS, Rice DP, Wax WB. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Medical-care expenditures attributable to cigarette smoking�United States, 1993. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1994;44:469-472.
Miller VP, Ernst C, Collin F. Smoking-attributable medical care costs in the USA. Soc Sci Med. 1999;48:375-391.
Miller LS, Zhang X, Novotny T, Rice DP, Max W. State estimates of Medicaid expenditures attributable to cigarette smoking, fiscal year 1993. Public Health Rep. 1998;113:140-151.
Zhang X, Miller LS, Max W, Rice DP. Costs of smoking to the Medicare program, 1993. Health Care Fin Rev. 1999;20:179-196.

[atoga]

Felix: that has nothing do with breathing. Of course air will be less smoky over time, shitbird. Your study has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

post 2003 or something

[Aneurysm]

Heh I am not an expert in Du munition nor I fell like searching for information on the internet and then copy paste , but I would like to share a few things , that I think are interesting for this discussion. My country was part of a peacekeeping force in kosovo , we had a few men stationed there in areas known to have been targeted by planes using du munition. After some time a small part of the men that were stationed started suffering from cancer or similar symptoms , the Italian peacekeeping force also had a few with cancer symptoms. They were advised not to eat local food. Tho I think du munition has low radiation it's weird there was so many cases of cancer in that particular area.

[Jimmyjay86]

Yeah there are lots of reports of DU causing sickness but obviously the military wants to downplay it.

[Kashluk]

Which is pretty understandable. But shouldn't they just admit it's dangers? I mean soldiers are soldiers, they obey orders and they go where they're sent to.

It's not like going to bullet rain is very healthy either.

[Aneurysm]

Yes soldiers are soldiers but public opinion in a democratic gov is a different matter...

[Menno]

the Italian peacekeeping force also had a few with cancer symptoms. They were advised not to eat local food.

I don't know about other cases, but the Italian gov't researched it thoroughly and they found the few Italian peacekeepers' who had cancer were comparable to the rest of the Italian civilian population, so in other words DU had nothing to do with it. Most armies also advise their soldiers not to eat/drink the local food/water due to sanitary reasons. These third-world countries have deplorable sanitation conditions, and disease can spread rapidly among soldiers. Kosovo's air and water supply contains levels of Lead over 200X higher than World Health Organization guidelines. That's mainly because NATO bombed a great deal of industrial targets (in which most of those factories used materials such as lead and asbestos). French soldiers are routinely tested for Lead levels in their blood, and are asked not to conceive any children until several months after their deployment, due to the massive amounts of Lead and Asbestos polluting Kosovo. Most of Kosovo's buildings have a great deal of Asbestos and Lead, and when those are bombed it doesn't take a genius to figure out all that dust is breathed in by the local populace. Hepatitus A is increasing rapidly because of poor sanitation, and I remember reading about a tank containing nearly 160,000 gallons of sulphuric acid ruptured in September, leaking its contents into the Sitnica River and killing tens of thousands of fish.

Point is Kosovo is an environmental mess, long before DU even entered the picture. DU has not been proven to cause any of the symptoms the local populace has had; and from the evidence above it's not difficult to realize where a great deal those birth defects are coming from. Haha, we'll use Anuerysm as our guinea pig; if he develops cancer in the near future than I'll admit I'm wrong about everything.

Yeah there are lots of reports of DU causing sickness but obviously the military wants to downplay it.

Again the military has been bluntly honest about it, as have most of the organizations who conducted tests. DU can be a hazardous material if ingested in large quantities; but this goes in line with all the other heavy metals used in today's industries.

Which is pretty understandable. But shouldn't they just admit it's dangers? I mean soldiers are soldiers, they obey orders and they go where they're sent to.

They do admit the dangers. Its dangerous when ingested in large quantities, just like every other heavy metal such as Lead and Tungsten (which are also used in many military munitions).

[MurPHy]

So basically what this entire discussion is talking about boils down to this: DU isn't harmful unless a soldier tries to eat it. Period. Sounds reasonable to me (how 'bout you?).

[Mr Carrot]

Firstly the M1a1 uses Chobham armour a ceramic steel and kevlar mix, its not known how the process is undertaken however it most likely contains no depleted uranium.

The Chobham 2 on the Challanger 2 might contain DU but as all information on Chobham is classified at the highest level backdating to the early 80s no one really knows who will tell you.

DU is harmfull but only for 1/2 days after a target has been hit when particulate matter is still airborn within the interior of the hulk. Much the same as radioactive fallout is more dangerous when inhaled DUs effects only come about when ingested or inhaled in comparatively LARGE amounts.


As for the main problem the general public have with DU is that some bloody peacenick shites maintain that DU is the cause of Gulf War Syndrome.

DU even if it could be considered dangerous would have no effects other than those shown by other forms of long term radiation poisoning which have little or nothing to do with Gulf War Syndrome. Now giving soldiers massive quantities of untested drugs in a cocktail is however a bad idea.

[OnTheBounce]

Firstly the M1a1 uses Chobham armour a ceramic steel and kevlar mix, its not known how the process is undertaken however it most likely contains no depleted uranium.

That's odd, since while I was an Abrams crewman (MOS 19K20G) I was told that the armor did indeed contain DU, and this was by several graduates of the Master Gunner school. This is only true of the M1A1 Heavy, however, this is the configuration that most of the M1A1s currently in service with the Regular Army are. The amount is actually very small, amounting to only perhaps the equivalent of 2-1/2 cups, and it's spread out over the front of the tank.

While I was stationed in Korea back in '92-'93 we had M1 IP's that sat in the motor pool loaded with service ammunition, including Sabot rounds made of DU. There were no handling instructions like having to wash your hands after handling the ammuntion (which we did once per month when we did our ammo inspection), but we were also told that except under combat conditions were weren't to spend more than 8 hours on the tank while service Sabot rounds were on board. (They were stowed during training exercises to prevent tragedy and/or squandering of resources.)

Edit: Regarding the issue of DU ammo, in the case of 105mm and 120mm Sabot rounds, the DU does not form an armor piercing cap. Rather, the entire penetrator is made of the stuff. That's actually what makes a DU round so damned nasty. For instance, in the 120mm Sabot round the body of the penetrator (which is the part of the projectile that is not discarded after exiting the muzzle) is only 40mm wide and is roughly 900mm long. That means that you have a long dart that is propelled at very high velocity (just under 2000 m/s for a 120mm) and a tremendous amount of energy is focued on a very small surface of the target. Cold rolled, homogenous steel can't be laid thick enough on a tank (unless you don't want a tank able to move) to withstand that kind of impact.

Before gets too carried away with how nasty this round is, it does have some very serious drawbacks. Mainly it's the lack of what's termed "visible target effect". Unless you put the round through the ammo supply or something else that instantly explodes there isn't anything to let you know what kind of damage you did, even if the crew is killed and/or the vehicle is disabled. I've seen this with my own eyes, and unless you are close enough to actually see the hatches on the target flapping like penants in a breeze it very likely will not look like you've hit and killed the tank. I saw Iraqi T72s take hits that must have instantly killed the crew, but the vehicle continued to drive for a ways before finally coming to a halt. Meanwhile the tank that had shot it continued to put rounds into the target. This is a problem that has vexed gunners pretty much since armor piercing shot was invented, and we still haven't really solved it.

As for the main problem the general public have with DU is that some bloody peacenick shites maintain that DU is the cause of Gulf War Syndrome.

DU even if it could be considered dangerous would have no effects other than those shown by other forms of long term radiation poisoning which have little or nothing to do with Gulf War Syndrome. Now giving soldiers massive quantities of untested drugs in a cocktail is however a bad idea.

I agree. GWS is most likely the result of exposure to either some form of microbe, or -- to my mind the more likely -- the result of the drugs that we were fed over there. The symptoms of GWS is more like nerve agent poisoning, with the palsy-like shaking, etc. (One fellow I knew shook so bad he could hardly write his name, and he also suffered from narcolepsy and so his wife had to drive him to work every day.)

For those of you that don't know, US troops were given pills that were later found to have nerve agents in them. It was part of an experimental treatment designed to "prep" the body for exposure to chemical weapons. The medications were given on a voluntary basis, meaning that we were told that we didn't have to take them, but it was highly recommended since they were designed to help combat exposure to nerve agents. (We were not told how, though...)

Personally, I took them for the first three days. Then I developed a really bad case of diaherea and stopped right then and there.

OTB

[Mr Carrot]

The M1A1e i believe (if that is what you are referring to the heavy as) has revised type Chobham armour and the larger bore gun, as such might contain DU, i made the distinction though because the majority of the M1a1s in the original Gulf War were not of this type.

Also having been dressed down many a time by my mates in the army, anything your told about Chobham is hersay, anyone who does actually know is bound under the official secrets act to not tell anyone whose not meant to know. On pain of buggery etc.

the uk MOD page is down atm but theres a superb study on DU and its effects in Iraq undertaken during UN inspections il see if its up tmrw.

It had some intresting comparisons on its effect to humans in its fired and non fired state.

[OnTheBounce]

The M1A1e i believe (if that is what you are referring to the heavy as) has revised type Chobham armour and the larger bore gun, as such might contain DU, i made the distinction though because the majority of the M1a1s in the original Gulf War were not of this type.

Yes, that's true. I don't think the M1A1 Heavy was even in service at the time of the first Gulf War. I wasn't on one until '94 when I was with the 3rd ACR, although they were issued to select units in Germany a year or to before that.

Also having been dressed down many a time by my mates in the army, anything your told about Chobham is hersay, anyone who does actually know is bound under the official secrets act to not tell anyone whose not meant to know. On pain of buggery etc.

You'd be surprised what you can find out w/o being "supposed to know". For instance, I'd found out that the standard M1A1's frontal armor was rated as the equivalent of 690mm of cold rolled, homogenous steel before that was declassified.

Conversations like this make me wish I'd stuck it out for two more years and gone to Master Gunner school. That and that I could still afford a subscription to Jane's...

OTB

[Stainless]

Just a note on the cancer aspect. Anything can give it to you. Drinking too much tap water for instance can cause cancer (due to the chlorine). When this study was found Chile, I believe, stopped putting chlorine into their drinking water, and soon had an epidemic of cholera.

It is now deemed a suitable risk to use chlorine then compared to the cost of not using it.

[Grey Fil]

And talking about personal experience with the smoky business I can say that I have worked for 9 years in a pathology lab specialised in lung diseases and 3/4 of lung cancer cases where in havy smokers(40+ cig. during more then 20 years). A study conducted locally agreed with what is known world wide, that non-smokers (those you call 2nd hand) have a very small risk of having lung cancer. People who smoke less then 5 cigarretes a day are very near the same values and the risk increases slowly between 5 and 20 a day for a period of 20 years and then rapidly from there on until you reach the 40/ day for the same period of 20 years smoking. Over 40/day the risk is very high but becomes stable. IE 40 or 50 makes little difference. Other deseases show similar but less pronunciated increases in risk. The conclusion I take is that 2nd hand smoking is a negligible risk to your health. And then again whe can have very different situations of so called 2nd hand smoking, it will probably be very different if you work in a small room with a lot of smokers nearby and having a passerby smoking near you. I can understand that it is disagreable for some people and I usually dont smoke in other peoples house without permission because its theyre place and theyre rules. I also dont smoke in closed spaces where many people meet as an act of courtesy. But that 2nd hand smoke hurts more than 1st hand smoke is BS.
People who dont like dogs tend to make a big scene when they see my "little" doggy on the elevator but I obey the law by having him on the leash and I know that he is a civilized animal. I dont feel that I am obligated to not enter the elevator because people are scared of dogs. Likewise I can understand that smoking should be avoided in some places but if a squeamish health obsessed person feels bothered with the smoke of my cigarette in a park or on the street they can move as far away as they want because im not going to bother.

[Kashluk]

That's a good policy, but of course it might be troubling if a guy with an allergy ends up in the same elevator with you and your bud

I was a bit surprised about the amount of cigarettes you need to smoke before there are any serious effect on one's health.

But then again, I guess this one's only covering the cancer issue. Other things it causes, like impotence, bad teeth, yellow fingers (beauty, not health matter really) etc. are not counted in this one.

So what about those things then? I know they won't *kill you* but they aren't nice to have nevertheless. Any decent & up-to-date reasearch with statistics about it?

[Grey Fil]

I was a bit surprised about the amount of cigarettes you need to smoke before there are any serious effect on one's health.

I may have not been very clear about it, I dont really know the actual percentage numbers (it was some years ago). But it goes something along these lines:

Suppose that a non smoker has 2% of chance of getting a certain type of lung cancer by the age of 60.
The same person will have about 2.5% if smoking 10/day during 20 years. The increase is actually 25% of the previous value but the risk is slightly higher.
If the person smokes 20/D the risk increases something like 100% or 4% chances of getting that kind of cancer.
When the person smokes 40/d the risk may be 1000% of base value or 20% and then the increase begins to level up, but by now it is already very high.

Other types of diseases are less easy to correlate because they are more easily influenced by other causes but it is still easy to make a correlation in many cases (like emphysema).

For the beauty issue, there are some studies I think but that is another issue. People have the right to look as good as they want or can. Each person should have the right to choose what is important for him/herself. Shinny white teeth and a minty breath may be your thing but it may not be mine. I personally think that all the BS about 2nd hand smoke trough the nose (AHAHAH) is just a justification to impose some peoples views on others.

If i where to impose my views on others just because it´s the right thing to do, here goes what I would do:
-To many people on this planet, 2 children max per couple and then sterilization.
-Food with to much salt, fat and sugar are unhealty, close all the fast food chains.
-Alcohol is unhealty and causes social problems, ILEGALIZE.
-Recreational drugs (including tobacco), see previous.
-Cars should only be used as a means of transportation and not as a status symbol, limite size and fuel consumption.
-Race is the source of social conflict, people are therefore not allowed to marry people of the same race to eliminate racial diferences.
-Guns are dangerous in the hands of irresponsible people, to have a gun a person should pass rigorous phisical and mental tests and prove the need of owning a gun.

Should I continue?
-