I’m speaking to radiation since that’s my interest. The specific activity of uranium is generally around 14.8 Bq/mg vs. 25.4 Bq/mg for natural uranium, where one Bq is one nuclear transformation per second. That sounds like a lot but as far as radioactive materials goes is incredibly low. The Americium-241 used in smoke detectors for instance has 127 million Bq/mg.

Incorrect, if anything, understated - but because it’s a bunch of brown people and nobody cares enough to read the research

As I said before there certainly are health impacts but they are largely arising from the chemical toxicity, not the radiological activity. It is ONLY the radiological aspect where I said the risk was overstated, I recognize that the chemical one is very real. For example, the WHO 2001 report on depleted uranium that your second source cites gave a limit on depleted uranium of 0.28 mg/L in drinking water for its radiological toxicity… and a 140x smaller (!) provisional guideline of 0.002 mg/L for the chemical toxicity.

Your third source states this in its summary:

In this report, it is concluded that the radiation doses from DU do not pose a radiological hazard to the population at the four studied locations in southern Iraq. The estimated annual committed effective radiation doses that could arise from exposure to DU residues are low, always less than 100 µSv/a and only to a few, if any, individuals, and therefore of little radiological concern. The estimated radiation doses are less than those received on average by individuals from natural sources of radiation in the environment (worldwide average 2.4 mSv/a), below internationally recommended dose limits for members of the public (1 mSv/a) and below the action level of 10 mSv/a set out in the IAEA Safety Standard on Remediationof Areas Contaminated by Past Activities and Accidents [1] to establish whether remedial actions are necessary.