3 ms·
In what sense is it worse than nuclear bombs?
by mikeash 9y ago
In what sense is it worse than nuclear bombs?
- dagw 9y agoOne argument is that since it's officially 'safe' to use them, they're used liberally without any concern for the effect they will have one health of the people living in the area. At least with nukes people know to be very very careful with regards to using them.
- mikeash 9y agoBy that logic, everything that currently kills people is worse than nuclear weapons, including cars, sharks, baseball bats, and ice cream.
- godelski 9y agoThe post might be a little hyperbolic (I'm not the poster), but uranium oxide is fairly dangerous. Though you won't get radiation poisoning from it, it is extremely dense and the dust is very dangerous. It is toxic for inhalation and ingestion, like all heavy metals. Here's the SDS sheet [1] on it that goes into more detail. [1] https://science.energy.gov/~/media/nbl/pdf/price-lists/SDS/SDS-Uranium_Oxide_UO2.pdf https://science.energy.gov/~/media/nbl/pdf/price-lists/SDS/S...
- mikeash 9y agoSeems like a lot hyperbolic to me. I know which one I’d rather be a mile away from when it’s used, or have contaminating the landscape afterwards.
- godelski 9y agoI definitely wouldn't call it worse than nuclear, because you're right. I'd rather be near depleted uranium than a nuclear blast, especially with current nuclear weapons. And not to mention the side effects of nuclear attacks.
- blacksmith_tb 9y agoIt could only be argued to be worse in the sense that it has been used more often (and that it can be used rather more quietly).