Hacker News Reader

Comment by fauxpause_ | Hacker News Reader

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7197787/

This study from 2020 found an 89% increase, which is a large effect size, but it’s still just 1’s of people per 100,000 more getting cancers. It’s not a massive public health hazard. War is complicated.

Regardless the effects are highly localized. You’re fine if you’re not nearby.

View on HN

I do not understand your ultimate point. Going by your line of reasoning, the utilization of nerve gas on the frontlines, chemical weapons and maybe even low-yield nuclear weapons should not be considered a big deal since they are all 'highly-localized' anyways, right?

It might all be 'highly-localized', but DU is there to stay in the ground virtually forever, until it is blow elsewhere by the wind of carried underground by rain, both of which are equally undesirable outcomes.

My ultimate point is that if you are in Bulgaria you have nothing to worry about from DU ammo in Ukraine. Which was the original question. I find your other points to be a straw man. Most banned weapons are about indiscriminate civilian killing or needlessly harming soldiers that would be already removed from the battlefield.

There’s no evidence that this stuff can blow elsewhere at concentrations sufficient to cause harm very far (maybe a couple dozen miles). Hence, “highly localized”.

Highly localized. Radiation in Poland be like

Reply on news.ycombinator.com