If you use the term "footprint" conversationally, are you an environmentalist?

It depends entirely on the context for me. Many of my discussions concerning "footprint" involve racing tires under hard acceleration...

 

The military uses the term quite a bit. While many in the military are concerned about the environment I wouldn't categorize them as environmentalists.

 

In my opinion, "footprint" in terms of human footprint is simply a marketing term that has been well publicized to raise general awareness. The term is outgrowing it's subject and becoming part of everyday vocabulary. Evidently people today are not capable of understanding the term "impact" so "footprint" will, in a narrow way, replace the term for awhile at least.

 

Not if you're a tracker.

 

Or a scout.

 

...or a hiker, watching for bear.

Yeah, the shoe fits, but it doesn't have to.
I think you can use any term/word/label you want without having to be what you're describing.

 

ROTFL!

you mean, those people who blow up things and people, who poison the air, water, ground and destroy the DNA of newborn with DU ammunitions do care about environment?!

wow, you learn something everyday....

 

OK mate, I'm gonna bite. How does depleted uranium detroy the DNA of newborns? please elaborate on that one.

 

Except for the depleted uranium, I think most people on this Earth are guilty of the things you listed to some degree or another.

 

Wow, me too. Pretty broad brush. >3000 hours flying around in aerospace machines, 24 years wearing the uniform, hmmm. Gee, I really wanted to be an environmentalist...shucks.

Like Forest might say...I think I'll go work in my garden now.

 

You mean the people who protect our freedom to post and complain?

 

ok, here it is:
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Uranium’s Effect On DNA Established[/FONT]
The use of depleted uranium in munitions and weaponry is likely to come under intense scrutiny now that new research that found that uranium can bind to human DNA. The finding will likely have far-reaching implications for returned soldiers, civilians living in what were once war-zones and people who might live near uranium mines or processing facilities.


Uranium - when manifested as a radioactive metal - has profound and debilitating effects on human DNA. These radioactive effects have been well understood for decades, but there has been considerable debate and little agreement concerning the possible health risks associated with low-grade uranium ore (yellowcake) and depleted uranium.
Now however, Northern Arizona University biochemist Diane Stearns has established that when cells are exposed to uranium, the uranium binds to DNA and the cells acquire mutations, triggering a whole slew of protein replication errors, some of which can lead to various cancers. Stearns' research, published in the journals Mutagenesis and Molecular Carcinogenesis, confirms what many have suspected for some time - that uranium can damage DNA as a heavy metal, independently of its radioactive properties. "Essentially, if you get a heavy metal stuck on DNA, you can get a mutation," Stearns explained. While other heavy metals are known to bind to DNA, Stearns and her team were the first to identify this characteristic with uranium.
Depleted uranium - what is left over when the highly radioactive isotopes of uranium are removed - is widely used by the military. Anti-tank weapons, tank armor and ammunition rounds are just some of the applications. "The health effects of uranium really haven't been studied since the Manhattan Project (the development of the atomic bomb in the early 1940s). But now there is more interest in the health effects of depleted uranium. People are asking questions now," Stearns said.
Her research may shed light on the possible connection between exposure to depleted uranium and Gulf War Syndrome, or to increased cancers and birth defects in the Middle East and Balkans. And closer to home, questions continue to be asked about environmental exposure to uranium from mine tailings; heavily concentrated around Native American communities. "When the uranium mining boom crashed in the '80s, there wasn't much cleanup," Stearns said. Estimates put the number of abandoned mines on the Navajo Nation in Arizona at more than 1,100.

Source: Northern Arizona University
-----------------------------------------
I am sure you do not want me to paste the pictures of deformed babies
that were born after their parents were exposed to DU.

 

how do they "protect our freedom" by blowing up countries, spreading DU and having military presence in some 180 countries?

pretty soon there would be no countries to blow up

 

I would be far more concerned about mine tailings than DU pollution. DU is used in a variety of AT munitions and in M1-A1/2 armour. In the latter, it's not directly exposed to the atmosphere, but is sandwiched in with steel and ceramics. DU would only be an issue in the case that rounds were actually fired at a target. I don't think the training rounds contain DU as that would be a bit expensive, so it's only rounds fired in anger. That hasn't happened much. I'd be more concerned about a host of other environmental issues before tackling DU.

 

I, for one, will be glad to run out of places to fight.

The first line of protection for our rights and freedoms (one of these is the pursuit of happiness) is to vote. When other people or governments try to bypass this non-violent action then the politicians get involved. If this breaks down then we resort to our Nation's "fifth arm of diplomacy" which is usually executed by swift and violent action by our Armed Forces -- that is why they are armed.

By the way, the best way to spread DU is to put it in any enemy tank -- preferably through a small hole formed when the DU projectile uses the wonderful laws of physics to defeat lots of protective armor. Also, the Army's tanks don't just keep DU shells lying around. They only get put on the tanks when they are in combat and face other tanks -- not something we are running into at the moment.

One last comment. The military doesn't just take a vote and decide to go on a shooting spree in a foreign country -- the government sends us there. The current Commander-in-Chief may have made the overall decision to put us where we are, but it is entirely within the power of the officials you and I elected (there is that voting thing again) to stop it. The President is not a dictator nor does he command a military junta like Myanmar. Thank goodness we have the freedoms we currently enjoy. God bless America.

 

Terbium footprinting.

 

Had to GOOGLE that one. Im going to try and work it into the next dinner conversation.