Gauss Rifles

OO said:

[Tomb] Yes, sorry, I meant to say an 80% greater chance of brain 
cancer. The odds are still fairly low, but an 80% increase is a 
statistically significant increase. You and I are probably talking 
about the same study.

If you're worried about EM radiation causing brain cancer, then you 
really shouldn't use those fancy helmet-mounted headsets and visor-
mounted HUDs :-)

[Tomb] Well, after having worked in wireless for a few years and seen 
a number of friends come down with various cancers that aren't 
directly (yeah right) attributable to the environment, I'll pass. 
Plus I'm suspecting the amount of energy to squirt out a transmission 
to a sensitive receiver is quite low. (The power required is 
constantly dropping due to the ability to resolve things better - 
sort out noise, etc). I'm not sure that your Gauss rifle will have 
the luxury of such a low-power setting. 

 (Of course that'll leave you wide open to enemy laser dazzlers, and 
you can't use the tac-data net without taking a break from the 
fighting, but that's life <g>)

[Tomb] I thought I saw a materials-based solution to the lasing 
threat that did not involve electromagnetic controlled polarization - 
something that used a material that was reactive so it was a 
materials property rather than something driven/controlled by a power 
source.OTOH, I'm not sure it was ever truly viable and I can't 
remember where I saw the reference (web/magazine/TV/?). 

Flak said:

So someone (Army or individual) who takes the increased chance of a
tumor or something by using the equipment is *Supposed* to be more
effective than someone who doesn't.  Being more effective than the 
enemy is a good thing, because that limits their ability to put 
bullets into your body... and frankly I like my odds vs EM radiation 
induced brain cancer a lot better than the odds vs. flying lead.

[Tomb] I'm sure a lot of the veterans exposed to DU who have 
manifested mysterious health problems might have a different 
perspective on that general sentiment. It's easy when one is a health 
individual to sit back and analyze the risk and say "yeah, that's 
okay I can live with it" and it's another to actually have things go 
bad for you. 

Besides, "Army studies (concoted lies) have shown that the risk of
<whatever it is that you're saying is harmful to it's user> is well
within acceptable parameters (because we decided we can bury the 
human cost after the war anyway).  Trust us, (you beguiled sheeple) 
we are not the lying, manipulative warmongers that brought you 
Radiation tests on soldier, Agent Orange and the Gulf War Syndrome, 
(but we're following in their footsteps by brining you Vets from the 
Kra'Vak wars home with brain seizures and short-term memory loss from 
repeated magnetic fields scrambling their brains.  It's a non-risk 
situation for us, because by the time the Truth comes out, it will be 
decades from now and we'll just name some high-ranking guy from today 
who died in the interim as the decision-maker to be the scapegoat.)

[Tomb] This is possible - and the attitude isn't even that 
improbable. 

But note that international scientific standards do advance and we do 
learn things and set acceptable standards. Even the military changes -
 they don't handle radioactives like they used to, nor 
chemical/biological weapons. And their own internal workplace 
regulations have changes for occupational health and safety reasons. 

Yes, if all you ever dealt with was war-war-war, your perspective on 
the risks is likely to be such that they are acceptable. A lot of 
soldiering in the modern age (and I suspect in the GZGverse) is 
peace/garrison/training/etc. and not a condition of all-out-war-win-
or-be-destroyed.  

That tends to put a different perspective on threats. If your health 
care systems are having to support a pile more guys in VA hospitals, 
etc. then you've got a different concern. And the military has 
perhaps learned (at least in the civilized world) that old crimes 
come back to haunt you - look at the cleanup costs arising from the 
Canadian bases in the Far North and the horrible stuff (PCBs, other 
crap) they dumped their for years. 

No one said being a soldier was the world's safest job. And things 
that offer you a better chance to survive combat (if combat is a 
likely risk***) are generally acceptable even if they come with some 
other long term risks (doubly so if they appear when you are in or 
heading into combat and then the short term threat is more of an 
issue than the long term one). However, if your 
forces don't fight all that often or only a small proportion of them 
see action at 
any time, then the long term risk (and associated costs) takes on 
more weight. Especially when your government is paying for health 
care and disability pensions and supporting spouses and children and 
paying life insurance, etc. (which happens to varying degrees