china, China, CHINA

[aurelius]

Yeah, I guess.

But Titan has greatly improved the quality of their lifting equipment while keeping prices down, so im hesitant to cut China off just yet.

At least until I'm done building my home gym.

And now we see the real culprit. Not the international conglomerate 'shipping jobs overseas' or a China manipulating their currency: It is the American consumer more than happy to borrow from China for cheaper goods and services today ignoring the long term consequences.

[hector]

Yeah, I guess.

But Titan has greatly improved the quality of their lifting equipment while keeping prices down, so im hesitant to cut China off just yet.

At least until I'm done building my home gym.

And now we see the real culprit. Not the international conglomerate 'shipping jobs overseas' or a China manipulating their currency: It is the American consumer more than happy to borrow from China for cheaper goods and services today ignoring the long term consequences.

China gives me reasonably priced lifting equipment as an alternative to Rogue, nice Nike gear, and affordable TVs. As long as I can avoid thinking about the regular Foxconn suicides, or the Uygher slave labor, or the coal plants destroying the climate there seems little downside to me getting all this awesome stuff now and China taking IOUs for a currency destined to grossly inflate later.

*I don't know why I would have expected more, but the economist article this week about the Uygher slave labor used to make Nike (among other things) bummed me out.

[aurelius]

China gives me reasonably priced lifting equipment as an alternative to Rogue, nice Nike gear, and affordable TVs. As long as I can avoid thinking about the regular Foxconn suicides, or the Uygher slave labor, or the coal plants destroying the climate there seems little downside to me getting all this awesome stuff now and China taking IOUs for a currency destined to grossly inflate later.

*I don't know why I would have expected more, but the economist article this week about the Uygher slave labor used to make Nike (among other things) bummed me out.

Everyone ignores externalities until they are no longer externalities. It is why they are externalities to begin with.

Global trade and sweat shops are amazing. I'm all for sweat shops. If anything the world needs more sweat shops and the US just needs to toughen up and do the hard work of creative destruction. The majority of Western sweat shops pay double the average wage in those regions. They are sought after jobs. When we look at the Asian Tigers, sweat shops were definitely a key factor in the development of their economies. Slavery is definitely something else.

I'm not advocating for protectionism. Simply that rogue nations that will not play by the WTO rules should be excluded from global trade until they do.

The United States is consuming more than it produces. Has for a long time. The only way a trading partner willingly accepts less in a trade is a future promise for more. Essentially, the trading partner rents the US the money to cover the deficit. Mechanically this is done when the Chinese buys US bonds. This is neither good nor bad. It simply is. IF the US is borrowing and investing enough of that into infrastructure, education, whatever that will increase future production more than what the rate to rent the money is, we will be okay.

As to destined to experience significant inflation: IMO, it is 50/50. Consider me an optimist. Even in 2007-2009, with Bernanke printing more money than God the US real estate market in tatters; the rest of the world was buying US bonds. They saw us as a safe bet. That we would right the ship and future production would outpace debt obligations. That is why we didn't experience inflation from all the money we printed. We can still 'right the ship' and start investing in human capital and infrastructure again. Battling the cronyism at the top of our capitalist structure would be nice too.

But all signs point to hard decisions resulting in short-term sacrifices for long-term gains in the near future. The sooner we do it, the less severe the sacrifices. Think Paul Volker's choices in the late 70's. The US was caught in a cycle of inflation due to poor monetary and fiscal policy decisions from Nixon and Burns. Volkers jacked up the Federal Reserve rates in 1979. In the short term it hurt but by 1983 inflation was at a reasonable 4%. Which set the stage for the economic growth (and spending) in the 80's. We need to be able to make decisions like that now.



*I thought most of Nike's shoe operations were in Vietnam.

[hector]

China gives me reasonably priced lifting equipment as an alternative to Rogue, nice Nike gear, and affordable TVs. As long as I can avoid thinking about the regular Foxconn suicides, or the Uygher slave labor, or the coal plants destroying the climate there seems little downside to me getting all this awesome stuff now and China taking IOUs for a currency destined to grossly inflate later.

*I don't know why I would have expected more, but the economist article this week about the Uygher slave labor used to make Nike (among other things) bummed me out.

Everyone ignores externalities until they are no longer externalities. It is why they are externalities to begin with.

Global trade and sweat shops are amazing. I'm all for sweat shops. If anything the world needs more sweat shops and the US just needs to toughen up and do the hard work of creative destruction. The majority of Western sweat shops pay double the average wage in those regions. They are sought after jobs. When we look at the Asian Tigers, sweat shops were definitely a key factor in the development of their economies. Slavery is definitely something else.

I'm not advocating for protectionism. Simply that rogue nations that will not play by the WTO rules should be excluded from global trade until they do.

The United States is consuming more than it produces. Has for a long time. The only way a trading partner willingly accepts less in a trade is a future promise for more. Essentially, the trading partner rents the US the money to cover the deficit. Mechanically this is done when the Chinese buys US bonds. This is neither good nor bad. It simply is. IF the US is borrowing and investing enough of that into infrastructure, education, whatever that will increase future production more than what the rate to rent the money is, we will be okay.

As to destined to experience significant inflation: IMO, it is 50/50. Consider me an optimist. Even in 2007-2009, with Bernanke printing more money than God the US real estate market in tatters; the rest of the world was buying US bonds. They saw us as a safe bet. That we would right the ship and future production would outpace debt obligations. That is why we didn't experience inflation from all the money we printed. We can still 'right the ship' and start investing in human capital and infrastructure again. Battling the cronyism at the top of our capitalist structure would be nice too.

But all signs point to hard decisions resulting in short-term sacrifices for long-term gains in the near future. The sooner we do it, the less severe the sacrifices. Think Paul Volker's choices in the late 70's. The US was caught in a cycle of inflation due to poor monetary and fiscal policy decisions from Nixon and Burns. Volkers jacked up the Federal Reserve rates in 1979. In the short term it hurt but by 1981 inflation was at a reasonable 3%. Compared to inflation of 17% in 1980. Which set the stage for the economic growth (and spending) in the 80's. We need to be able to make decisions like that now.

*I thought most of Nike's shoe operations were in Vietnam.

What political leadership do you see making those hard decisions? I don't see it happening. But I also don't think the Fed is quite as independent as is alleged to be.

The article didn't say what Nike stuff was made in the Uyghet concentration camps. Maybe it was Nike clothes? I too thought the shoes were from Vietnam.

[aurelius]

What political leadership do you see making those hard decisions? I don't see it happening. But I also don't think the Fed is quite as independent as is alleged to be.

The article didn't say what Nike stuff was made in the Uyghet concentration camps. Maybe it was Nike clothes? I too thought the shoes were from Vietnam.

Maybe I just don't see it as hopeless as that.

Take so called 'green' energy and the case for creative destruction. The oil companies are reeling. BP just layed off 10,000 people. Shell just wrote off huge losses. They are all planning for a long-term world where oil demand never returns. We can either move to protect these industries with huge government subsidies OR invest in alternative energy. Either fight creative destruction by having the government intervene on behalf of a legacy industry or embrace it. The economic decision should be obvious.

'Green' energy (I hate that name) would be a HUGE investment into the US that would increase future productivity. As alternative energy (better but not great) is regional and cannot be outsourced. But we have to invest in infrastructure and human capital (reeducation of workers) to make it happen. Which can be a combination of market forces (already happening), incentivizing private investment, and direct public investment. The bonus is that it mitigates the climate externalities! That's just a bonus. The meat is creating jobs and real economic growth. Why is that controversial?

At some point, we will be forced to address our entitlement programs. The only options will be to reduce entitlements or raise taxes. It is a looming generational battle between workers and retirees. That choice will be forced upon us. I don't have any wisdom or insight into how that will turn out.

What I will say is that these are NOT partisan issues. Again. These are NOT partisan issues. And there are people on both sides of the political aisle that are economically literate who understand the choices we face as a nation. We need to be bigger than the partisan hacks that are not. Previous generations of Americans rose above and compromised* to keep this experiment going. It is our collective responsibility to openly and honestly discuss these issues AND THEN VOTE ON THEM. Because politicians at the end of the day respond to votes. I'm not ready to throw in the towel.

*Except for that whole Civil War thing.

[omaniphil]

Also, China is just flat out evil with its human rights abuses against the Uighurs and other ethnic minorities. They haven't quite made it to gas chambers, but I'm not sure if it's not a long way off.

https://apnews.com/269b3de1af34e17c1941a514f78d764c

[hector]

What political leadership do you see making those hard decisions? I don't see it happening. But I also don't think the Fed is quite as independent as is alleged to be.

The article didn't say what Nike stuff was made in the Uyghet concentration camps. Maybe it was Nike clothes? I too thought the shoes were from Vietnam.

Maybe I just don't see it as hopeless as that.

Take so called 'green' energy and the case for creative destruction. The oil companies are reeling. BP just layed off 10,000 people. Shell just wrote off huge losses. They are all planning for a long-term world where oil demand never returns. We can either move to protect these industries with huge government subsidies OR invest in alternative energy. Either fight creative destruction by having the government intervene on behalf of a legacy industry or embrace it. The economic decision should be obvious.

'Green' energy (I hate that name) would be a HUGE investment into the US that would increase future productivity. As alternative energy (better but not great) is regional and cannot be outsourced. But we have to invest in infrastructure and human capital (reeducation of workers) to make it happen. Which can be a combination of market forces (already happening), incentivizing private investment, and direct public investment. The bonus is that it mitigates the climate externalities! That's just a bonus. The meat is creating jobs and real economic growth. Why is that controversial?

At some point, we will be forced to address our entitlement programs. The only options will be to reduce entitlements or raise taxes. It is a looming generational battle between workers and retirees. That choice will be forced upon us. I don't have any wisdom or insight into how that will turn out.

What I will say is that these are NOT partisan issues. Again. These are NOT partisan issues. And there are people on both sides of the political aisle that are economically literate who understand the choices we face as a nation. We need to be bigger than the partisan hacks that are not. Previous generations of Americans rose above and compromised* to keep this experiment going. It is our collective responsibility to openly and honestly discuss these issues AND THEN VOTE ON THEM. Because politicians at the end of the day respond to votes. I'm not ready to throw in the towel.

*Except for that whole Civil War thing.

If you can speak half as well as you write then you would demolish Biden in a debate.
F the DNC for running a Biden when the stakes are this high.

I hope you are right.

[DoctorWho]

Maybe the economics above are right (I have some quibbles), but I think it addresses the wrong question. Left & right agreed that free-trade made everyone better off. So as China's economic ties to the west and middle class grew, it would transform China politically. Meanwhile the benefit of China manufacturing are huge, not only in cheap stuff we find on Amazon, but in cheaper and high quality US brand products. The left/right consensus/conventional wisdom turned out to be wrong.

In addition to what's going on inside China (it seems to me to be worse than described above), the Chinese government inserts spying capabilities into electronics and social media products, spies in US universities, bribes US media, promotes trade secret theft, slowly swallows Hong Kong, and quietly nods as fentanyl ingredients are sent to the US.

The Trump administration appears to be countering, even though I don't blame Clinton/Bush/Obama administrations for believing the consensus view.

[DoctorWho]

Also, China is just flat out evil with its human rights abuses against the Uighurs and other ethnic minorities. They haven't quite made it to gas chambers, but I'm not sure if it's not a long way off.

https://apnews.com/269b3de1af34e17c1941a514f78d764c

I think China has cracked the code.
- Enough free market for efficiency and a growing economy, while the government owns enough to call all the important shots.
- Get the press to control itself with social credit and careerism, so no need for violence.
- Swallow Hong Kong, but go slow and do it with incremental regulations.
- "re-educate" the Uighurs and others, but mostly out of sight.

[aurelius]

Maybe the economics above are right (I have some quibbles), but I think it addresses the wrong question. Left & right agreed that free-trade made everyone better off. So as China's economic ties to the west and middle class grew, it would transform China politically. Meanwhile the benefit of China manufacturing are huge, not only in cheap stuff we find on Amazon, but in cheaper and high quality US brand products. The left/right consensus/conventional wisdom turned out to be wrong.

In addition to what's going on inside China (it seems to me to be worse than described above), the Chinese government inserts spying capabilities into electronics and social media products, spies in US universities, bribes US media, promotes trade secret theft, slowly swallows Hong Kong, and quietly nods as fentanyl ingredients are sent to the US.

The Trump administration appears to be countering, even though I don't blame Clinton/Bush/Obama administrations for believing the consensus view.

Quibbles can be fun.

I agree the prevailing wisdom on China from the late 90's until present has been wrong. It was a nice thought based on some historical comparisons. I think we all underestimated the control the Chinese Communist Party has and what they are willing to do to keep it.

I believe free trade CAN make everyone better off. It works at every level of the economy. It certainly has made you and I better off. We are allowed to specialize at what we are good at (lawyer and engineer). Then trade our productivity for goods and services we need but do not produce efficiently (or simply can't). Why would that not work on the global level? Of course, the benefits are not instantaneous. Creative destruction is not pleasant for those that experience it. There is a strong case for 'distributing' the gains of progress to those impacted through reeducation. But I digress: Free Trade requires that everyone plays by the same set of rules (WTO). China is not doing that.

IMO: Trump has raised awareness to the China issue and played to his base. More of an agent of chaos. As I previously stated, the US needs a comprehensive plan to deal with China. Because China has a plan. I don't see the Trump administration developing any such plan. And of course Bolton's claims on Trump's relationship with Jinping calls into question many of those actions.

[DoctorWho]

Maybe the economics above are right (I have some quibbles), but I think it addresses the wrong question. Left & right agreed that free-trade made everyone better off. So as China's economic ties to the west and middle class grew, it would transform China politically. Meanwhile the benefit of China manufacturing are huge, not only in cheap stuff we find on Amazon, but in cheaper and high quality US brand products. The left/right consensus/conventional wisdom turned out to be wrong.

In addition to what's going on inside China (it seems to me to be worse than described above), the Chinese government inserts spying capabilities into electronics and social media products, spies in US universities, bribes US media, promotes trade secret theft, slowly swallows Hong Kong, and quietly nods as fentanyl ingredients are sent to the US.

The Trump administration appears to be countering, even though I don't blame Clinton/Bush/Obama administrations for believing the consensus view.

Quibbles can be fun.

I agree the prevailing wisdom on China from the late 90's until present has been wrong. It was a nice thought based on some historical comparisons. I think we all underestimated the control the Chinese Communist Party has and what they are willing to do to keep it.

I believe free trade CAN make everyone better off. It works at every level of the economy. It certainly has made you and I better off. We are allowed to specialize at what we are good at (lawyer and engineer). Then trade our productivity for goods and services we need but do not produce efficiently (or simply can't). Why would that not work on the global level? Of course, the benefits are not instantaneous. Creative destruction is not pleasant for those that experience it. There is a strong case for 'distributing' the gains of progress to those impacted through reeducation. But I digress: Free Trade requires that everyone plays by the same set of rules (WTO). China is not doing that.

IMO: Trump has raised awareness to the China issue and played to his base. More of an agent of chaos. As I previously stated, the US needs a comprehensive plan to deal with China. Because China has a plan. I don't see the Trump administration developing any such plan. And of course Bolton's claims on Trump's relationship with Jinping calls into question many of those actions.

I'm guessing that the steps against Huewai, countering the China claims to the sea lanes a million miles from its coast, and tariffs are part of a larger China policy. Just below the headlines, there are lots of signs that US intelligence agencies are focused on China.

But like I said, China cracked the free-trade code.

[aurelius]

I'm guessing that the steps against Huewai (definitely good move), countering the China claims to the sea lanes a million miles from its coast (you mean we issued a formal statement? I'm sure China is seriously reconsidering their claims to the South Sea), and tariffs are part of a larger China policy (the execution was fooking terrible). Just below the headlines, there are lots of signs that US intelligence agencies are focused on China (you mean the Deep State that is trying to overthrow Trump and can't be trusted?).

But like I said, China cracked the free-trade code. (China has yet to have anyone stand up to them. It's all easy when there is no resistance.)

A comprehensive plan would involve multiple approaches. Reaching out and building stronger alliances with other trading partners. Including investment in infrastructure in other parts of the world. That should sound familiar because China is doing that. China is already looking at 'what comes next'. We should be too.

Regarding tariffs, The Federal Reserve has studied the issue:

https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/ ... 086pap.pdf

We find that the 2018 tariffs are associated with relative reductions in manufacturing employment and relative increases in producer prices. For manufacturing employment, a small boost from the import protection effect of tariffs is more than offset by larger drags
from the effects of rising input costs and retaliatory tariffs. For producer prices, the effect of tariffs is mediated solely through rising input costs. 20
These results have implications for evaluating the effects of recent U.S. trade policy. While one may view the negative welfare effects of tariffs found by other researchers to be an acceptable cost for a more robust manufacturing sector, our results suggest that the tariffs
have not boosted manufacturing employment or output, even as they increased producer prices. While the longer-term effects of the tariffs may differ from those that we estimate here, the results indicate that the tariffs, thus far, have not led to increased activity in the
U.S. manufacturing sector.

In addition, our results suggest that the traditional use of trade policy as a tool for the protection and promotion of domestic manufacturing is complicated by the presence of globally interconnnected supply chains. While the potential for both tit-for-tat retaliation on import protection and input-output effects on the domestic economy have long been recognized by trade economists, empirical evidence documenting these channels in the context of an advanced economy has been limited. We find the impact from the traditional import
protection channel is completely offset in the short-run by reduced competitiveness from retaliation and higher costs in downstream industries.

The Trump tariffs REDUCED employment and INCREASED prices. They did worse than nothing. If I was a Trump supporter I wouldn't be talking about them.

The US needs a comprehensive plan that looks at the entire global supply chain. Where will the US get its inputs? How will tariffs and predictable retaliatory tariffs impact those inputs. It isn't as simple as raise the price on a few Chinese goods and magically everything will get better. That is naive at best. But par for course with the policy makers in the Trump administration.

[Skid]

Also, China is just flat out evil with its human rights abuses against the Uighurs and other ethnic minorities. They haven't quite made it to gas chambers, but I'm not sure if it's not a long way off.

https://apnews.com/269b3de1af34e17c1941a514f78d764c

LOL - Having 7 children is a responsible thing to do in an overpopulated country of 1.4 billion people. Seems like there are laws against that which apply to everyone in China, but my human rights are being abused...

America killed off most of their ethnic minorities (Indians). Or, How many Iraqi children died because US sanctions on medicine, or the wholesale destruction of its infrastructure, or lest I forget the tons of depleted uranium polluting/radiating the country with a half life of billions of years.

[mettkeks]

lest I forget the tons of depleted uranium polluting/radiating the country with a half life of billions of years.

That sounds so horrible.

SpoilerShow

4. Does depleted uranium pose a radiation hazard?
All isotopes of uranium are radioactive. Both uranium and depleted uranium, and their immediate decay products, emit alpha and beta particles and a small amount of gamma radiation.

Depletion of U-235 during processing leaves DU appreciably less radioactive than naturally occurring isotopic mixtures. It typically contains 30-40 per cent of the concentration of U-235 found in natural uranium, or about 0.2 to 0.3 per cent by weight. This means that the radioactivity of newly produced DU is only about 60 per cent of natural uranium.

DU munitions collected in Kosovo also contained trace amounts of other radioactive elements, but they increase the overall radioactivity by less than one per cent.

You poor americans, I hope you get all that nasty Uranium out of your soil that's been polluting your country for billions of years.

[omaniphil]

Also, China is just flat out evil with its human rights abuses against the Uighurs and other ethnic minorities. They haven't quite made it to gas chambers, but I'm not sure if it's not a long way off.

https://apnews.com/269b3de1af34e17c1941a514f78d764c

LOL - Having 7 children is a responsible thing to do in an overpopulated country of 1.4 billion people. Seems like there are laws against that which apply to everyone in China, but my human rights are being abused...

America killed off most of their ethnic minorities (Indians). Or, How many Iraqi children died because US sanctions on medicine, or the wholesale destruction of its infrastructure, or lest I forget the tons of depleted uranium polluting/radiating the country with a half life of billions of years.

Your tu quoque argument aside, you're okay with eugenics then? Forced sterilizations and re-education camps?

[Skid]

Your tu quoque argument aside, you're okay with eugenics then? Forced sterilizations and re-education camps?

Tu quoque yourself.
I don't see any eugenics. These people are allowed to have a reasonable amount of children. Frankly I don't really care about China's internal affairs as that is their own problem. China isn't telling the US how to behave, and they aren't supporting subversiveness in the US as far as I know unlike the US in China.

[Skid]

lest I forget the tons of depleted uranium polluting/radiating the country with a half life of billions of years.

That sounds so horrible.

SpoilerShow

4. Does depleted uranium pose a radiation hazard?
All isotopes of uranium are radioactive. Both uranium and depleted uranium, and their immediate decay products, emit alpha and beta particles and a small amount of gamma radiation.

Depletion of U-235 during processing leaves DU appreciably less radioactive than naturally occurring isotopic mixtures. It typically contains 30-40 per cent of the concentration of U-235 found in natural uranium, or about 0.2 to 0.3 per cent by weight. This means that the radioactivity of newly produced DU is only about 60 per cent of natural uranium.

DU munitions collected in Kosovo also contained trace amounts of other radioactive elements, but they increase the overall radioactivity by less than one per cent.

You poor americans, I hope you get all that nasty Uranium out of your soil that's been polluting your country for billions of years.

Well, when you concentrate all that uranium in one area the levels increase to hazardous levels. Perhaps you should go work in an uranium mine with no PPE if it is so safe?

[omaniphil]

Tu quoque yourself.

Ok, that's pretty good.

I don't see any eugenics.

I think maybe we have different definitions of eugenics, because quotes like the below are indicative of practices I think most would classify as relating to eugenics.

The Chinese government is taking draconian measures to slash birth rates among Uighurs and other minorities as part of a sweeping campaign to curb its Muslim population, even as it encourages some of the country’s Han majority to have more children.

The state regularly subjects minority women to pregnancy checks, and forces intrauterine devices, sterilization and even abortion on hundreds of thousands

But while equal on paper, in practice Han Chinese are largely spared the abortions, sterilizations, IUD insertions and detentions for having too many children that are forced on Xinjiang’s other ethnicities, interviews and data show.

[mettkeks]

Well, when you concentrate all that uranium in one area the levels increase to hazardous levels. Perhaps you should go work in an uranium mine with no PPE if it is so safe?

I would actually wear signifcantly less PPE than at work doing welding.

Look. It isn't enough to throw some U-238 on a pile to make it dangerous. That's not how it works. U-238 is primarily a weak alpha emitter. That means it emits Alpha-radiation (duh.) some Beta radiation and trace amounts of Gamma-radiation. Gamma radiation itself is very dangerous, but not in the amounts emitted by U-238. Alpha radiation does not penetrate the outer layer of skin, or a thin sheet of paper, Beta radiation is stopped by a T-shirt and both types lose most of their energy after a foot or two of travel through air. In fact, handling uranium ore or even Yellowcake all day in a Tshirt and latex gloves will hurt 1000x less than welding in a T-shirt for 1 minute or standing in the sun for an hour.

To make Uranium dangerous, you have to enrich it with U235, the fissile isotope. Commercially used Uranium is enriched with about 3% U235, while you need over 30% for nuclear weapons grade Uranium, which then has to be condensed using explosives to reach critical mass. Depleting Uranium does exactly the opposite, it makes the stuff that's naturally occuring even less radioactive by lowering the amount of U235 even further.

If you put sheets of U238 on a pile, the outer layer would actually protect you from the radiation of the inner layers, because U238 is not fissile, the radiation not cumulative. In fact U238 is just used as a carrier for U235. When you pull the rod out of a used core, The U238 is still there but the U235 has decayed and left over its highly irradiating fission products.

Depleted U238 is not only used for Armor Piercing ammunition, but also Tank Armor.

The radio-toxicity of DU is insignificant. The toxicity of the metal is much more dangerous. But it's just as toxic as Lead. Lead is in fact the decay product of U238. Lead was Uranium-238 5 billion years ago. We don't eat lead anymore tho.

So TL;DR:

Depleted Uranium in yer yard = Just as harmless as the Uranium IN the ground.

Irradiated country = Impossible. Most of the Background radiation is coming from Radon gas. Even the fossile Uranium plays a small part in it. A couple of tons of mildly radioactive material that irradiates an area of 10m² surrounding it's surface has exactly 0 influence on that.

Half life of billions of years = That actually indicates how little radioactive the material is. The longer the half life, the lower the amount of energy emitted in a given timeframe.

[Skid]

Thanks for the science lesson Mettkeks!

It is speculated that when DU is aerosolized (like when the bullets hit a target) that it causes issues. The microscopic dust is breathed into the lungs. Its the toxicity not the radioactivity. Seems like nasty stuff regardless although how it compares to lead munitions I don't know. Just glad I don't live there although it sounds like you would have no worries

" Dust created by used DU weaponry is increasingly thought to be the cause of the increase in cancers and child deformities among both the northern Iraqi population, and among children of American and British servicemen who served in that country. Exposure to DU dust causes chromosomes of cells to mutate and die.

Babies born to soldiers who were deployed in Iraq are showing the same deformities – hands directly linked to shoulders – as seen in Iraqi infants, a strong indicator that something in the environment, most likely dust from the 1,300 tons of used DU-laden shells, is responsible.

[ii] In Falluja, Northern Iraq, some 25% of newborn infants have major congenital abnormalities] "


Wise, John, and toxicology colleagues at the University of Southern Maine in Portland, ‘Chemical Research in Toxicology’ (DOI: 10.1021/tx700026r) from issue 2603 of New Scientist magazine, 14 May 2007, page 4-5
[ii] Miraki, Daud, Dr., director of the Afghan Depleted Uranium and Recovery Fund, ‘The Deadly Legacy of the Invasion of Iraq’ New America Media, News Digest, Jalal Ghazi, Posted: Jan 06, 2010