First of all, we have established that good common sense dictates that nothing hard should be in the lung blood or lymph systems and not one person here has entered a cite that addresses these issues. As to how many cites, go look for yourself, as quite a few others have given certain cites.
I don’t remember you being in this debate till now, were you unable to debate the issues?
Great googly moogly that is the funniest thing I have read in ever so long a time!
I would like to follow up this assertion with the following.
Since it has been proven that Invisible Pink Dragons live in my garage, why do no cites point that out either?
It’s your thread. It’s your point. It’s your responsibility to back up what you’re saying with cites that you find and provide. If you cannot do this, then you cannot convince me. So far as I can tell from the facts you’ve cited, depleted uranium fragments go great on toast and we should all be happy that we’re living in a nuclear age.
Again.
PROVE.
ME.
WRONG.
I’m with Ethilrist on this one. None, until you prove otherwise.
No, that hasn’t been proven. We’ve done your homework for you on the first two parts – it turns into small micronized ceramic spheres. But entering the bloodstream or the lymphatic system? I need some proof. You’re not going to provide any, but here it is: will you please, pretty please, with sugar on top, at least show me a website where someone other than you claims this occurs?
I didn’t think so.
I already have a cite above that points out that your circulatory system is a two-phase flow, and that micron-scale particles are already omnipresent in your blood. The burden is on you (as ever) to prove your claim that blood is “not supposed to have anything hard” in it.
Because it’s a red herring, or possibly because you made it up out of whole cloth…?
Again, the burden of proof is on you. Present us with proof that DU enters the lymphatic system. I have provided cites for nearly every fact I have stated here; you have not yet provided one cite. I contend that DU was never associated with the lymphatic system in any of the cites I presented. Since you have not presented any cites, then we’ve only got mine to go on.
I clearly understand your premise. You contend that microscopic particles of DU are causing damage to the human body by clogging up the lymphatic and circulatory systems.
Can you articulate why you think DU particles would do this if, for example, wood smoke and silicon dioxide won’t? What is special about DU that makes it such an insidious clogging agent? Was the radiation and heavy metal toxicity just a red herring then?
Quite a few people have posted web sites for your perusal and common sense has been cited in many cases, that only lend credibility to the entire debate, but if you are too lazy to read and fully comprehend, there is no use for me to answer you, as nothing will matter to you. See ya.
I am. I’d rather that asbestos fibers passed from my lungs into my blood stream and lymphatic system, but they stay in the lungs forever and cause massive tissue damage. Oxygen is a very toxic chemical but that gets dissolved into your blood (and lymphatic system?) but you’d hardly be upset about that. You still have a long way to go in showing that once in the blood stream and lymphatic system that DU particles of any sort cause damage to the vessles or tissues they are in. Radioactive and toxic dangers are known and documented, your ‘little cutting edges’ bit is not.
Hey, we’re not the net police. If you want to research all the websites out there, but I’d be my Clydesdale that you’ve never done any real research in your life.
At this point, I think I would welcome the sweet darkness of alcohol poisoning. Thank you. 
Wouldn’t want to be ya.
There, how’s that for some thrilling discourse?
I have, but maybe you missed it. Your reluctance to follow or read others’ posts suggests that I might have to say something a few times before you catch on. That’s fine, I don’t mind repeating myself.
(1) Blood is a two-phase flow containing suspended solids such as iron and oxides of iron. Blood is only 55% liquid (plasma). The rest of your blood’s volume (45%) is suspended solids.
(2) The purpose of the lymph system is to carry foreign solids from the circulatory system to the lymph nodes where they are dissolved.
Have they? You wouldn’t know it to look at the posts you’ve offered us so far.
No, he just joined in when he saw that you were easy pickings. And don’t kid yourself: you are. You’re losing this debate badly, you’re making a fool of yourself, and you’re convincing people who started out on your side that maybe DU is harmless after all.
…but if you’d been paying attention, BoyScout11, you’d notice that they were posted for your perusal. For all the good it’s done us.
Holy SHIT! How many times do we have to say this? “Common sense” is not a cite, and doesn’t lend any credibility to the debate whatsoever!
If I had said this to you, it would have been the most insightful thing posted in this thread so far. But I’m too stubborn for that, and when you say it, it makes a mockery of the whole concept of debate.
Bloody scintillating, by comparison. 
I’m sorry, were you under the impression that only people who had been actively debating the issues from the first page get to bring up points on the fifth page? If so, why are you still posting? :wally
OTOH, if you’ll look, I’ve been here since the first page. I’ve read the entire thread, and, as Jurph indicated, I was willing to believe you when you said that DU is bad… provided you proved your point. Now that you’ve given ample opportunities for people speaking the other side to cite their opinions, and given that you haven’t provided any support for your argument other than waiting for other smart people to come along and provide cites, then say, “Look! Cites!”, I’m no longer so convinced that DU is bad.
You know the really ironic thing here? All you had to do was copy the cite in one of the posts where somebody provided one for you, say “Here’s a cite”, and then you would have been able to say you brought a cite to the table. Second-hand, maybe, and then there’d be that whole problem of every cite that anybody trotted out in support of your side got completeley 0wned by your opponents, but still. Cite.
Since the cutting edge bit was proven incorrect, it was still my idea, that those hard glass spheres, probably obstruct a heck of a lot on the blood and lymph systems, but I know that its just too difficult for you and many others to understand and admit that thru true debate, things like this come to lite.
I would also point out, that if someone presents new thinking, that it is up to those of you that believe that person is wrong, to cite how and why. While debate is best based on common sense and each of our lived experiences, we still allow those of you not smart enough to debate without some web site to join in, we would,'t want you to feel left out, just because you have so little common sense and intelligence.
Have you heard of people that have common sense and debate from that and lived experiences, or does everything come from the web, instead of your own common sense and intelligence? People like myself, like to think for ourselves, we are not sheep.
LOL, you call me a Jewish name–putz, which this site claims should not be done here, but hey, no problem, you run your mouth and cite web sites all you want and avoid seeing all that is offered, because you and your buddies have no minds, but hey, you do have web sites you can base your arguements on.
Something else, if anyone comes on here and posts something, it is up to YOU and others that wish to challenge, to disprove what the origional poster says, because that is what debate is all about. Oops, sorry, you didn’t understand that people that are debating each have a job and it is not up to one individual to post it and then prove it, because then, it’s not a debate, it’s a LESSON :wally
wrong Wrong WRong WROng WRONg WRONG! The scientific method requires the person advancing the claim to provide the proof. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
The folks in this thread have shown astonishing patience with you, trying to bring you along, trying to show you how a debate is properly advanced. I’m amazed at their patience; I couldn’t do it.
My apologies. I had not read the GD rules recently and didn’t remember that the use of the wally smiley was an insult. It won’t happen again.
What’s going on here, BS, is that this isn’t IMHO. If you had just stated as your opinion that DU works the way you said it did, and you posted it in IMHO, we’d have been fine with that. But that’s not where you’ve been posting. Without some facts to counter the facts being presented to you, you’re not debating, according to board custom.
Have a nice day.
Fair enough, I accept your apology and I too apologize to you.
I see what you are saying, that this should have been in IMHO, but that was raised before, right on this thread and you did say, that you read this whole thing, so why do you repeat that?
What would you say, if I can prove there are many more threads on this board, that do exactly the same as this thread? I have not thought about proving that till just this minute, but do you think that is possible? Shall I go look?
Well, gee, I dunno. How badly do you want to convince people that you have facts to back up your argument, rather than, you know, not?
bolding mine
Were do you get the “we”?
No, no, no, a thousand times NO! That’s not how it works. If you have a new idea, it is *your * responsibility to support it with facts (not common sense) preferably facts from multiple sources (and the plural of anecdote is not data). To continue to insist that we must refute unproven assertions makes you look like an idiot.
What planet are you from? Debate is best based on facts. Facts supported by citation to authority. The veracity of the cited authority may then be debated. For example:
BS11: DU is bad.
Jurph: Cite?
BS11: <link to www.DU_is_bad.com\duisbad.html>
Jurph: That cite is biased in the extreme. They say DU is bad because they say it is and offer no proof.
BS11: How about this? <link to www.homemd.com reatingabeesting.html>
Zakalwe: That cite says nothing about DU. It’s about how to treat bee stings.
BS11: How about <link to www.NEJM.com\DUdoesbadthings.html>
ALL: Wow, a peer-reviewed study in a reputable journal. DU is bad!
Yes, I have. It generally happens every night in every bar in America. In most cases, neither side of the “debate” has any idea what they’re talking about and are probably wrong to boot (and quite frankly it’s amazing how often neither of them gets it right).
WRONG. Again. Maybe you weren’t paying attention earlier. Because you entered the proposition into the debate, the burden of proof is on you. You step forward, put out your proposition, and then back it up with evidence.
Our job is to “test” your proposition by playing the Devil’s Advocates. We seek out contrary evidence. This will strengthen a weak argument, and bring the debate’s outcome closer to the truth of the matter.
No, you’re WRONG. It’s a real live debate. We take up the contrary position and try to shoot your proposition full of holes. It’s your job and your job alone to prove your position. You may – if you’re friendly and lucky – get some help from other posters who are also interested in proving your proposition (or foiling your opposition!). That’s not bloody likely at this point, though.
We accept citations of other websites as authoritative until proven otherwise. I only mention it in case anyone else is confused; I have no illusions that you intend to ever enter into an intellectually honest debate here.
It’s becoming more and more clear to me (can something have a negative refractive index?) that you don’t even know what a debate is.