depleted uranium

[i_wish_i_was_smart]

if the army make rounds with depleted uranium, wouldt the radioactivity emmited be enough to cause cancer after a while?

[Njorl]

As one poster to this forum was so fond of noting, one single particle of radiation can cause a fatal cancer. It is not a question of whether DU ammunition is dangerous, it is a question of whether it is better or worse than the alternatives. The alternative to DU ammunition is not peace. The alternative is lead. Lead is so toxic, that without even being radioactive it is a far greater environmental hazard than DU. However, depleted uranium has a much scarier sound to it, and that mobilizes the howlers. Granted, we'd all be better off not shooting any high-velocity, heavy, metal objects around, but if we're going to be doing it anyway, we're better off with DU than lead.

Njorl

[Matt-235]

Since U-238 is primarily an alpha emitter, cancer would most likely come if it was inhaled or otherwise injested, so gnawing on your magazine isn't terribly suggested. As Njorl said, yeah, one particle can do the trick, but the average person can withstand far more than that (which is good, considering we get a dose just by sitting here).

[i_wish_i_was_smart]

thanks guys, i didnt know the ins and out of it, i knew lead was toxic (lead poisoning) but i thought it was only through ingestion

[russ_watters]

if the army make rounds with depleted uranium, wouldt the radioactivity emmited be enough to cause cancer after a while? "Depleted" means 'no longer significantly radioactive.' For some reason the hippies can say that word without even noticing they said it.

That said, Urainium has chemical properties that are worse than lead (which is itself pretty bad, as Njorl said).

[i_wish_i_was_smart]

i know what depleted means, it still has some radioactive properties left in it, so i was wondering how harmfull they were

[faust9]

"Depleted" means 'no longer significantly radioactive.' For some reason the hippies can say that word without even noticing they said it.

That said, Uranium has chemical properties that are worse than lead (which is itself pretty bad, as Njorl said).

I don't know if I'd go so far as to say significant. DU weapons and armor are made of alloyed U238 which is an alpha emitter. Granted alphas are easily blocked; however they are much more detrimental to one's health when ingested or inhaled. Is it as bad as cobalt-60 (that lovely deep blue found on china plates contains trace amounts of Co-60)--no. Is it dangerous (yellow/orange hand glazed playes from Mexico can contain quite a bit of natural U)--yes.

My 2 cents

[swansont]

"Depleted" means 'no longer significantly radioactive.' For some reason the hippies can say that word without even noticing they said it.

That said, Urainium has chemical properties that are worse than lead (which is itself pretty bad, as Njorl said).

Depleted means depleted of significant amounts of U-235. If it's uranium it's radioactive, with the corresponding half-life. You can't "deplete" the radioactivity of a substance other than turning it into a stable substance - in that sense, you'd have to call it "Lead."

And on the topic of lead, I don't think lead is the alternative to DU in artillery shells, because lead doesn't have the mechanical properties you want.

[Njorl]

Depleted means depleted of significant amounts of U-235. If it's uranium it's radioactive, with the corresponding half-life. You can't "deplete" the radioactivity of a substance other than turning it into a stable substance - in that sense, you'd have to call it "Lead."

And on the topic of lead, I don't think lead is the alternative to DU in artillery shells, because lead doesn't have the mechanical properties you want.

DU isn't used in explosive rounds. The destruction comes from kinetic energy. It is used for it's density. The round is fired at an ultra-high velocity. Light metals, like steel, would lose too much kinetic energy to be effective. The alternatives are tungsten, for heavily armored targets, and lead for softer targets. Tungsten is really just for use against main battle tanks, though.

Njorl

[Dayle Record]

There is a ton of misinformation deliberately diseminated by the users of this substance. This very hard metal, is used on the tips of cruise missles, and armour piercing shells, on the exterior of tanks. Yes it is used on explosive rounds. It is highly toxic, and these missles vaporize on contact, and the DU is thrown into the air, and carried on high winds. I have read that Greek soldiers in Kosovo went home and died from sudden kidney failure associated with DU use. Iraqi doctors have stated that there is a 48% cancer rate in areas that were bombed with DU weapons in the first gulf war, and there is a strong association between the use of DU and gulf war syndrome. Inhaled it is causative in lung cancer, ingested in every form of cancer of the digestive tract. Aside from the radiation, it is toxic.

I recently had a long winded discussion with a Nuclear Physicist in real time, who works with this stuff, and with underground testing. He just can't get over the idea that DU is indepensible. My thoughts on this are considerably more cynical. My thoughts are that instead of disposing of this nuclear waste, they actually sold it to the military instead with claims of its wonderous properties. There is considerable solid science to prove that this form of nuclear war is deadly, and spreading indiscriminately. Now the local nuclear waste storage people are boasting about how they will build a dump in Iraq, for the leavings from this technology. Well, if they used bunker busters in downtown Bagdad, there will be no removing this from that environment. They should be more concerned with the DU all over the area just 30 miles north of them.

I live 75 miles east of a bombing range where this stuff has been repeatedly used. You can be sure that the wind blows that stuff around. Toole, Utah, home of the big chemical weapons burner, has the highest rate of cancer in the nation. They do 3 things there, that put them at risk.

1. They are near Dugway Proving Ground.
2. They spray endlessly for locusts.
3. they are directly downwind from that bombing range.

It is obvious that no one is behaving sensibly in regards to this technology.

When the "scientist" first walked up with this hideous plan to utilize nuclear waste as weaponry, radioactive pollution be damned; he should have been blacklisted and fired. This was supremely shoddy thinking and extremely cynical marketing. I know there were radiation tests over the Salt Lake Valley, just before the start of the 2002 Olympics, well at that time I couldn't figure out what they were testing for. Now it is very clear. Again, the powers that be have determined just how much poison Utahans will take. They work day and night to discredit the danger of this substance, and take minds off of this questionable use of nuclear weaponry.

[Njorl]

This very hard metal, is used on the tips of cruise missles, and armour piercing shells, on the exterior of tanks. Yes it is used on explosive rounds.

There are designs, and there are possibly tested prototypes, but no weapon system using DU with an explosive warhead has ever been aknowledged to be in use, or found to have been used.

It is highly toxic, and these missles vaporize on contact, and the DU is thrown into the air, and carried on high winds.

It is not correct to say the missiles vaporize on contact. It is actually a bit worse, environmentally speaking. High velocity shells, on contact, generate sufficient heat to support cumbustion of the metal, causing it to oxidise. However, it requires a hard target for this to occur, so misses do not lead to this process. Even hits burn away only about 1/3 of the material. If someone is near a hit, and manages to survive, they might receive a large dose of uranium. Others, receiving doses dispersed by high winds receive a less severe dose.

Typical humans are one part per billion uranium by weight naturally. In some parts of the world, natural levels are 30 times as high. Before insulin was invented, uranium was used to control diabetes. Doses of a few milligrams a day for prolonged periods resulted in no problems. No deaths from uranium poisoning have ever been reported.

I have read that Greek soldiers in Kosovo went home and died from sudden kidney failure associated with DU use. Iraqi doctors have stated that there is a 48% cancer rate in areas that were bombed with DU weapons in the first gulf war, and there is a strong association between the use of DU and gulf war syndrome. Inhaled it is causative in lung cancer, ingested in every form of cancer of the digestive tract. Aside from the radiation, it is toxic.

You can read a lot of things. It doesn't mean they happened. While gulf war syndrome, unlike the other things you mentioned, is a prevalent reality, its cause is unknown. I find it much more likely that it is related to the toxins from the oil well fires than DU. The smoke from the oil well fires is known to be much more toxic, much more easily incorporated into the body, and was more abundant by many orders of magnitude.

I recently had a long winded discussion with a Nuclear Physicist in real time, who works with this stuff, and with underground testing. He just can't get over the idea that DU is indepensible. My thoughts on this are considerably more cynical. My thoughts are that instead of disposing of this nuclear waste, they actually sold it to the military instead with claims of its wonderous properties. There is considerable solid science to prove that this form of nuclear war is deadly, and spreading indiscriminately. Now the local nuclear waste storage people are boasting about how they will build a dump in Iraq, for the leavings from this technology. Well, if they used bunker busters in downtown Bagdad, there will be no removing this from that environment. They should be more concerned with the DU all over the area just 30 miles north of them.

I live 75 miles east of a bombing range where this stuff has been repeatedly used. You can be sure that the wind blows that stuff around. Toole, Utah, home of the big chemical weapons burner, has the highest rate of cancer in the nation. They do 3 things there, that put them at risk.

1. They are near Dugway Proving Ground.
2. They spray endlessly for locusts.
3. they are directly downwind from that bombing range.

It is obvious that no one is behaving sensibly in regards to this technology.

When the "scientist" first walked up with this hideous plan to utilize nuclear waste as weaponry, radioactive pollution be damned; he should have been blacklisted and fired.

After all, it is important to avoid thinking. One must always react from emotion and never think. We should blacklist and fire people, and not do any research to see if they are right.

This was supremely shoddy thinking and extremely cynical marketing. I know there were radiation tests over the Salt Lake Valley, just before the start of the 2002 Olympics, well at that time I couldn't figure out what they were testing for. Now it is very clear. Again, the powers that be have determined just how much poison Utahans will take. They work day and night to discredit the danger of this substance, and take minds off of this questionable use of nuclear weaponry.

This is a very good example of irrational fear-mongering. It shows how many people think. Because it is uranium, all rational thought goes out the window, and all bad things that happen in its vicinity are blamed on it. Because there is a convenient boogeyman, all sorts of obviously false stories pop up around it (the 48% cancer claims are just made up stories). It may very well be the case that DU is not fit to be used in weaponry, but it should be subject to no more prohibition or fear than any other ordnance. It is actually less toxic than lead, and its greater effectiveness means less of it gets used. Its environmental effects are probably less deleterious than the diesel fuel exhaust of the many large vehicles used in any army.

Over 150 million dollars have been spent on almost 200 research projects investigating the effects of depleted uranium weapons. You want to guess how much has been spent on research into the environmental effects of tungsten weapons? Nothing.

edited to add - MY mistake. The $150 million for almost 200 projects were not all about DU, they were about health issues in from the first gulf war. Many of them considered DU, but none considered tungsten.

Njorl

[Thallium]

Since U-238 is primarily an alpha emitter, cancer would most likely come if it was inhaled or otherwise injested, so gnawing on your magazine isn't terribly suggested. As Njorl said, yeah, one particle can do the trick, but the average person can withstand far more than that (which is good, considering we get a dose just by sitting here).

So I am being granted a certain dose of U-238 as we sit here typing on my keyboard?

[faust9]

The dose of U-238 isn't the problem. The large moving charged particle resulting from a decay of U-238 is. If you have paint on your walls then chances are you are breathing in a little bit of alpha radiation. If you are below ground level then chances are you are breathing in a little alpha radiation. Are you subjected to U right now? That all depends on where in the world (your location says Norway) you are. Certain parts of the world have higher concentrations of U than others (just like any other mined resource) so the levels of exposure depend on the concentrations of U at your location. Can I find U anywhere in the world--yes, but the levels of natural U in here in Michigan would require a lot more sample concentration that if I were in Nevada, or Niger.

Personally, I'd be more concerned with the radiation from the screen of your computer than from the alpha decay of natural U. I'd be more concerned with pesticide use than natural U or DU for that matter. I'd be more concerned about K-40 because most people eat Banana's or use potassium salt (BTW Morton season salt really makes a gamma detector click a lot-- if I recall we saw about 10 or 20 cps above baseline from common season salt).

[Dayle Record]

When the defense industry wants to use something, they have all the funding they could want to make research turn in their favor. Common sense, would have said no to the use of Uranium, for any new weapons. Common sense. Now the government wants to resume nuclear testing in Nevada, because they want to make bunker buster nukes, regardless of the tactical necessity of such weapons. They say it is just fine to do this.

The Iraqi cancer figures, came from Iraqi doctors. New troops in Iraq are being sickened with this DU dust, causing pneumonias. This is just one more thing. I think all the time, not just sometimes, and emotionally I am somewhat flat, the truth be known.

However it is characteristic to call women, or naysayers, emotional.

Bunker busting bombs, or DU tipped cruise missiles, they all carry an explosive charge. They do not send a DU tipped dud to make holes in tanks. The DU penetrates armor, and then the weapon explodes. Please this is how this works. Let me google up some DU Toxicity.

[Dayle Record]

The Royal Society of England published data showing that battlefield
soldiers who inhale or swallow high levels of DU can suffer kidney
failure within days.(8) Any soldier now in Iraq who has not inhaled
lethal radioactive dust is not breathing. In the first two weeks of
combat, 700 Tomahawks, at a cost of $1.3 million each, blasted Iraqi
real estate into radioactive mushroom clouds.(9) Millions of DU tank
rounds liter the terrain. Cleanup is impossible because there is no
place on the planet to put so much contaminated debris.


There are a lot of entries for DU, and apparently the explosion creates heat that aerosolizes materials that are not usually melted, and inhalation of those nano particles does a great deal of damage.

Again, there are a lot of injured personel, and civilians, and all the science that created the war, will not explain how this damage was done, nor will it take responsibility.

[Dayle Record]

The Rand Corp said there is no credible evidence linking DU to injury, Ronald Baily said so too, Ronald also says that global warming is a myth.

[Matt-235]

So I am being granted a certain dose of U-238 as we sit here typing on my keyboard?

Sorry, slightly unclear terminology, by dose, I meant dose of radiation from any source, not just Uranium. We get doses from a variety of sources naturally. Dose is measured in energy absorbed per mass (1 J/kg = 1 Gray = 100 rad), and on average per year, we recieve about 360 millirad (3.6 mGy)* from sources such as radon, diagnostic x-rays, cosmic rays, and food as well (Bananas, for example are high in Potassium (K). And 0.017 per cent of K is K-40, and is radioactive with a half life of 1.27 billion years, so if you have a banana, you have K-40.).

I was just saying that compared to what we already recieve just by sitting here, the dose from a single particle is virtually nothing. (The energy of an alpha particle emitted from a U-238 atom is on the order of 5 MeV, which is about 8 * 10^-13 J.) So while yes, all it takes is one particle to get a good cancer going, not nearly every particle is going to do that, and it's only once you start to get good doses over time I would start to get worried.

*Source: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulatory Guide 8.29, p. 11
If you Google for NUREG 8.29 you can get it in .pdf format.

[swansont]

Sorry, slightly unclear terminology, by dose, I meant dose of radiation from any source, not just Uranium. We get doses from a variety of sources naturally. Dose is measured in energy absorbed per mass (1 J/kg = 1 Gray = 100 rad), and on average per year, we recieve about 360 millirad (3.6 mGy)* from sources such as radon, diagnostic x-rays, cosmic rays, and food as well (Bananas, for example are high in Potassium (K). And 0.017 per cent of K is K-40, and is radioactive with a half life of 1.27 billion years, so if you have a banana, you have K-40.).


Terrestrial living things tend to have C-14 in them, which is radioactive. So just being around people will give you a dose.

[Dayle Record]

Well I do understand much of this, and people do vary tremendously in their radiant qualities, and their ability to withstand radiation. The children who handle DU, (leftover shells, bullets, who play in the dust) do get leukemia. People really vary on very fundamental levels. I got some neodymium magnets yesterday, they are attracted to my daughter, but not to me. There are some really big shoulds here, we are still trying to get the lead out and away from our children, meanwhile we are creating other monsters. I am so idealistic, I thought we all knew better than to engage in nuclear warfare of any type, silly me. I am fresh back from hearing the downwinders speak, and limp about and discuss how they are the last living members of families who all died of radiation caused cancers.

[Simon666]

As has been said already, depleted uranium is not only a radiological threat, but also a chemical one. It is a heavy metal and just like most of them isn't exactly very healthy. The kidney damage the Royal Society of England spoke of, is such a chemical effect, not a radiological one as seems insinuated judging from an above post. Depleted uranium is mainly an alfa emitter, and produces low levels of it, yet that doesn't mean it is "no longer radioactive" judging from the BS post emitter russ_watters. Alfa particles are stopped by the upper layer of skin, which is dead material, so you have to sit many many years in a DU tank in order to get an increased risk of skin cancer, in bulk the material is pretty much harmless. However, when a DU impacts, some of it vaporizes and some of it burns producing a very fine aerosol that can be carried by the wind. When inhaling it directly or ingesting it as the dust settles on crops, there is no dead skincells to protect you but the alfa radiation will kill and/or damage the cells near the inhaled particle.

Another thing is that depleted uranium isn't just a byproduct of the enrichment process, there have been found isotopes in DU rounds that couldn't have been there naturally but are found in nuclear reactors. I very much wonder what the legal regulations are in the United States concerning DU. I have been thinking whether perhaps there are legal restrictions to the amount of radioactivity and the amount of U-235 that DU should contain and if the DU uranium that is a waste product of the enrichment process is below these limits, they might mix some spent fuel rods in them as it is much, much cheaper to get rid of it that way. It would explain some of the finds and would make it as well a beta and gamma emitter.

[Simon666]

Terrestrial living things tend to have C-14 in them, which is radioactive. So just being around people will give you a dose.
So what, we naturally have lead in our body as well, does that mean we shouldn't care about lead poisoning? :rolleyes:

[Njorl]

When the defense industry wants to use something, they have all the funding they could want to make research turn in their favor.

I would say of all the people in the world in all of the different professions that it has been my experience that scientists are the hardest to bribe. Politicians, judges, lawyers, teachers, doctors, police, news reporters, clergy - they are all easy to bribe. Virtually every scientist alive could make more money doing something else. How do you bribe people like that?
Common sense, would have said no to the use of Uranium, for any new weapons. Common sense.

Common sense showed the Earth was flat and that the sun went around the Earth. Common sense has its limits. It is aften wrong. That is why we have science. Science is why we don't live in caves and wear animal skins.

Now the government wants to resume nuclear testing in Nevada, because they want to make bunker buster nukes, regardless of the tactical necessity of such weapons. They say it is just fine to do this.

I agree. It is foolish to do this. It is also absolutely irrelevent. It is indicative of your thought process though. You believe using DU ammunition is nuclear warfare.

The Iraqi cancer figures, came from Iraqi doctors. New troops in Iraq are being sickened with this DU dust, causing pneumonias. This is just one more thing. I think all the time, not just sometimes, and emotionally I am somewhat flat, the truth be known.

Is this a divine inspiration that you know with certainty? Where did you get this information? Has the information been critically examined? Or, did you just accept it uncritically because the word "uranium" was involved?


However it is characteristic to call women, or naysayers, emotional.

First, I had no idea you were a woman. I never base base my assessment of argument upon the sex of the disputant. Further, it has been my experience on this board that women are considerably more rational than men. Virtually all the total crackpots are male.

Second, you are not a naysayer. You are the exact opposite. You accept and repeat without criticism popular opinion and rumor. You are a yes-man. You just say yes to a different crowd than the typical sycophant.

Bunker busting bombs, or DU tipped cruise missiles, they all carry an explosive charge. They do not send a DU tipped dud to make holes in tanks. The DU penetrates armor, and then the weapon explodes. Please this is how this works. Let me google up some DU Toxicity.

You are clueless. No DU ordnance with explosives have been approved for deployment. Several have been designed, and possibly tested.

The anti-tank weapon is not "DU tipped". It is a long, slender, solid rod. No explosive is involved. It penetrates the armor relying only on kinetic energy. Friction during penetration raises the temperature to pyrophoric levels.

If some other metal with the exact properties of DU were used, but it did not have the name "uranium" it would cause no objections. It is the whole "nuclear magnetic resonance" vs "magnetic resonance imaging" fiasco all over again.

Njorl

[Simon666]

I would say of all the people in the world in all of the different professions that it has been my experience that scientists are the hardest to bribe. Politicians, judges, lawyers, teachers, doctors, police, news reporters, clergy - they are all easy to bribe. Virtually every scientist alive could make more money doing something else. How do you bribe people like that?
The tobacco industry wouldn't have been able to pretend so long cigarets don't cause cancer if it didn't have a bunch of scientists working as mercenaries selling their name and fame. They still do for the effects of passive smoking.

I agree. It is foolish to do this. It is also absolutely irrelevent. It is indicative of your thought process though. You believe using DU ammunition is nuclear warfare.
Why not? Some of the effects are similar: cancers, birth deformations, genetic damage that will last for generations.


If some other metal with the exact properties of DU were used, but it did not have the name "uranium" it would cause no objections. It is the whole "nuclear magnetic resonance" vs "magnetic resonance imaging" fiasco all over again.
I think anything remotely radioactive would cause it to become suspect, but you have a point.

[swansont]

So what, we naturally have lead in our body as well, does that mean we shouldn't care about lead poisoning? :rolleyes:
No, all I was doing was pointing out a radiation source not mentioned in the other post. Did you have a point?

[Simon666]

I was afraid you were one of those trivializers, apparently you're not, so sorry.

[russ_watters]

This is a very good example of irrational fear-mongering. It shows how many people think. Because it is uranium, all rational thought goes out the window, and all bad things that happen in its vicinity are blamed on it. Because there is a convenient boogeyman, all sorts of obviously false stories pop up around it (the 48% cancer claims are just made up stories). It may very well be the case that DU is not fit to be used in weaponry, but it should be subject to no more prohibition or fear than any other ordnance. It is actually less toxic than lead, and its greater effectiveness means less of it gets used. Its environmental effects are probably less deleterious than the diesel fuel exhaust of the many large vehicles used in any army. Though I may have understated the radioactivity a little, this is the reason why: people see the word "uranium" and after that, there is no reasoning with them. But with a 4.5 billion year half life, its radioactivity is extremely small. The tobacco industry wouldn't have been able to pretend so long cigarets don't cause cancer if it didn't have a bunch of scientists working as mercenaries selling their name and fame. They still do for the effects of passive smoking. That's not really true. The evidence that has gotten out has shown that even the studies comissioned by the tobacco companies showed the dangers: the tobacco companies and their lawyers squashed the studies. Why not? Some of the effects are similar: cancers, birth deformations, genetic damage that will last for generations. Those effects are also similar to inhaling diesel fumes. Njorl's right: its not correct to characterize it as nuclear warfare. Nuclear warfare has a specific meaning: the energy that binds the nucleus of the atom together is the energy utilized in the explosion. I think anything remotely radioactive would cause it to become suspect, but you have a point. Indeed, its pretty irrational how people panick at the sight of an "NMR" machine and don't think twice about an X-ray. And thank goodness most people don't know how much exposure you get from a plane ride. "anything remotely radioactive" includes you. Even if you wore lead lined clothes, you'd still be subject to nuclear radiation. Hence, it is important to quantify and weigh the risks.

[russ_watters]

Depleted uranium is mainly an alfa emitter, and produces low levels of it, yet that doesn't mean it is "no longer radioactive" judging from the BS post emitter russ_watters. Putting words in quotes that I didn't say and attributing them to me is called a lie. Don't do it again.

When I said that depleted uranium was not significantly radioactive, my point was that its radioactivity is an insignificant health risk compared to its chemical properties. This is true.

Njorl has done a good job framing the real issue here: perception.

[Simon666]

When I said that depleted uranium was not significantly radioactive, my point was that its radioactivity is an insignificant health risk compared to its chemical properties. This is true.
That is not true since it is unsufficiently studied. The amount of radioactivity may be low, but when they are stuck pretty permanently in your lungs even low levels of radiation can eventually kill you. Besides, as I already said, there are indications that nuclear waste was mixed with DU, pretending that low level alfa radiation is the only thing that is emitted is only true in case of "pure" depleted uranium.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0121-02.htm

[Dayle Record]

We all know about "normal background radiation". We all know there is naturally occuring radiation of everysort. We all know to come in out of the sun, before we have third degree burns, or second degree, or first degree. We all know that distributing uranium, or arsenic, or lead, or selenium, or sulphur dioxide, or DDT, all over the place is not a good idea. Never a good idea. Someone thought that this is an acceptible practice especially if it is a way to toss low level radioactive waste, that would otherwise be costly to transport and bury. This is the only genius part of the equation. Creators of nuclear waste, actually made money off of it. Knowing how poorly the government pays attention to military spending, I gauge that they made untold fortunes on this. Maybe even more than they made generating electricity with nuclear power; certainly enough to offset production costs. There are a lot of fine points to be made about this, vs that, or some areas of the world are radioactive in nature, but the big point is that we have trashed a very dry, and windy nation with this stuff. The leftovers are strewn from hell to breakfast over there, and I don't think that the residents downwind from the bombing range here are safe from it, especially in light of the fact that they are also downwind from Kennecott Copper, and the Chemical Weapons burn plant. All those factors make it unsafe. Add to it, that the government wants to resume nuclear testing just southwest of us. :surprise:

[Kojac]

You know, I'm going to have to go with the 95% of people who are well versed in matters of chemistry/physics/radiation... and try to tell Dayle that he's wrong. I looked up what threat DU poses and I saw a lot of people saying it's "probably" or it's "possible" that it causes health problems. Any concern that is attributed to U.S. investigation of DU should be seen under the light of politics, because the biggest rule for U.S. politicians is "cover your ***" which they do, quite well. If they hadn't looked into it, how much bigger would the public outcry be when it was realized that *gasp* URANIUM was being used to tip projectiles? We've got one group saying it's emmitting deadly radiation, and the other saying it's no threat at all. As is usually the case in these types of scenarios, both are probably wrong. It most likely poses a moderate risk which is acceptable considering it's capabilities in weapons. We face plenty of moderate risks each day, all day. There's radiation in smoke detectors, glow in the dark watch faces, most electrical devices, x-ray machines... BANANAS for pete's sake. Getting worked up about something that's directly helping save the lives of the soldiers who have it on their side is just stupid. But hey, that's just my opinion.

[Dayle Record]

Read what the victims have to say, about their illness. Children in the war zones are sickened to death from this, adults fare better with the DU it is the other micro fragments of metal that do them in. Read about this, not just what the guys who profit from it have to say. Look at what the world thinks of it.

[Simon666]

Getting worked up about something that's directly helping save the lives of the soldiers who have it on their side is just stupid. But hey, that's just my opinion.
Who says it saves soldiers lives? Would they be unable to destroy the Iraqi tanks if they didn't use it? I very much doubt so, there are alternative, the Iraqi tanks are pretty old and if necessary they just have to shoot at it twice. It is not like any of the tanks the Iraqis came up with posed any threat. Saying "it saved soldiers lives" is completely unbased and used as a convenient excuse to avoid further debate.

It reminds me of when Agent Orange was used in Vietnam, it was claimed as well it saved soldiers lives, but it took over a decade to find out it killed many as well, will still kill many and give them health problems and has caused genetic mutations that will stay in the US gene pool for generations to come. Not to mention what the effects are for the Vietnamese people the US so generously tried to "liberate" from communism.

It also reminds me of shortly after WWII when the US tested atomic bombs on their own soldiers in the 1950s (http://www.record-eagle.com/2003/may/11atomic.htm). They knew pretty well or could have known pretty well of the risks, but they chose to shovel that under the carpet. For the atomic bomb "had saved many soldiers lives at Hiroshima and Nagasaki" and it would save many soldiers lives as it would deter enemy countries.

[russ_watters]

Read what the victims have to say, about their illness. Children in the war zones are sickened to death from this, adults fare better with the DU it is the other micro fragments of metal that do them in. Read about this, not just what the guys who profit from it have to say. Look at what the world thinks of it. Victims are by far the worst source of good information on real risks. Not only are they not doctors/scientists (even those that are - doctors do not diagnose their own illnesses, for this very reason), but their judgement is clouded by their personal experience.

Additionally, focusing on individual victims is a tactic used to generate emotion in order to override contradictory evidence or hide the lack of supporting evidence.

[Dayle Record]

In many cases the victims are truly a bad source of information, as they are dead. There were a number of deaths from the Balkan conflict, where young people came home and died of leukemia, in groups. The only common factor in their lives was exposure to DU rounds. One Soldier from the first gulf war described that a high percentage of deaths came from friendly fire, of DU rounds, because of confusion in sand storms. Now gentlemen, the government really wants to use this substance from now on. Keep in mind that in Iraq, the wind blows at high velocity, it is very dry, it is a contaminant that will always now be a part of their lives. Why is the Iraqi medical establishment not to be believed on this issue, why not the victims of Gulf War Syndrome? Why is it that I am being called a "Howler" for discussing the dangers of a nuclear pollutant that normally is buried in low level nuclear waste dumps, but because it is an efficient weapon, it is rained down indescriminately, on a nation we invaded? "Emotion" is a messenger in the human body, it helps describe the relative safety of the terrain we wander. Science needs all human faculties to function properly, including emotion. We are in a huge mess in the world, because the scientific method, in consort with the corporate world, has in an atmosphere of "rational activity" made a long string of handy decisions, that have huge negative impact on the future of life on this world. When danger is sensed, or complaints are made of injury or potential for injury, then those that speak up are "emotional", (feminine, weak, illogical).

It has taken one hundred years, to get the lead out, and we still haven't done it. We know of the dangers of Mercury, and we have relaxed rules regarding its release in to our environment, by entities that profit from doing so. Now we have DU to contend with. It is like saying that small pox isn't nearly as bad as plague, as far as I am concerned.

[swansont]

In many cases the victims are truly a bad source of information, as they are dead. There were a number of deaths from the Balkan conflict, where young people came home and died of leukemia, in groups. The only common factor in their lives was exposure to DU rounds.


Then you should have no trouble documenting this, and showing that the death rate differed significantly from the statistical average. In other words, doing it scientifically.

[russ_watters]

"Emotion" is a messenger in the human body, it helps describe the relative safety of the terrain we wander. Science needs all human faculties to function properly, including emotion. Could you please quote for me the part of the SCIENTIFIC METHOD (http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html) that deals with emotion?

Ask a cop, a lawyer, a scientist, an engineer - in professions where facts and logic rule, emotion is a detriment. The scientific method exists largely to remove emotion from scientific investigation.

I'm sorry, but as of yet, you have provided absolutely nothing of scientific value to back up these claims.

Relatve safety, btw, is a mathematical thing: probability and statistics. Irrational emotion is why my aunt and uncle used to drive to the airport together before taking separate flights for fear of a plane crash. Then you should have no trouble documenting this, and showing that the death rate differed significantly from the statistical average. In other words, doing it scientifically. Indeed. Do you have any scientific evidence or not?

[Dayle Record]

There is a lot of talk about this substance. The "Scientific Method" was applied by scientists and agencies, working for the companies that profit enormously from the use of DU. The use of DU was sold to the government, as a very efficient weapon, utilizing nuclear waste, that would otherwise have to be buried and stored at great expense. Just figures like that alone make the whole project suspect. The other aspect in the toxicity of this is the metals that are vaporized that assume new forms, and cause internal damage as well. Again the pieces of weaponry are scattered among populations where children don't know of their danger. You won't find any American research that says this is bad stuff, not coming out of the Military Industrial establishment. No I talked with one of the designers of this weaponry, and he was just where he was to gauge the unrest in the Democratic party regarding resumption of nuclear testing. Big smile, the stuff is okay, the stuff is okay, well, actually it isn't okay he says. He inhaled some of the dust at one point and he said he knows he carries a long term cancer risk. One thing about the Scientific Establishment, and its close out of "human/emotional" issues in the process of science; is that once they use this method and convince themselves they are right and justified, there is no easy reversal process, especially where big money is involved. I want to look at how much is charged for DU, and how much has been sold. That is where the problematic gets erased. When you see the money, you will see the reason. Money now/death and apologies later.

[Dayle Record]

http://www.tv.cbc.ca/national/pgminfo/du/index.html

Here is an article, toward the middle of this long piece, it discusses the lengths, taken to insure very limited discussion of the toxic effects of DU. It demonstrates that the troops weren't properly protected or instructed, and the negative effects were to disappear in the public mind, so use of the weapon could continue despite environmental problems associated with it.

You can believe that if the troops weren't protected then certainly the civilians involved now and in the future won't be. I am looking for a scholarly article that came out of India this year, addressing the proliferation of this weapon, and the effects on global health.

[Dayle Record]

http://www.geocities.com/iraqinfo/index.html?page=/iraqinfo/gulfwar/du.html

[Dayle Record]

Former Basra Dean of Medicine Dr. Alim Abdul-Hamid says he has "plenty of first-hand experience with Iraq?s unprecedented plague of cancers and birth defects." The Iraqi physician is seeing breast cancer among women in their 20s. "In their 20s!" he repeats. "There are increased incidences of colon cancer, thyroid cancer ? in addition to, of course, leukemias and lymphomas." [Counterpunch Dec. 28, 2001]


TARGETING CHILDREN

Children are 10 to 20 times more sensitive to the effects of radiation than adults. Today more than half of all cancers in Iraq are occurring among children under the age of five.

Helpless pediatricians in Basra have watched childhood leukemia and cancer increase up to 12-times peacetime rates. Hospitals throughout Iraq have reported as much as a 10-fold increase in birth defects since cities and countryside were strafed with radioactive munitions. [Counterpunch Dec. 28, 2001]


Pointing to a map of Basra, Dr. Abdul-Hamid demonstrated the dose-response relationship between DU and cancers, saying, "Areas which have got the higher level of background radiation have higher levels of cancers."

[swansont]

Former Basra Dean of Medicine Dr. Alim Abdul-Hamid says he has "plenty of first-hand experience with Iraq?s unprecedented plague of cancers and birth defects." The Iraqi physician is seeing breast cancer among women in their 20s. "In their 20s!" he repeats. "There are increased incidences of colon cancer, thyroid cancer ? in addition to, of course, leukemias and lymphomas." [Counterpunch Dec. 28, 2001]


TARGETING CHILDREN

Children are 10 to 20 times more sensitive to the effects of radiation than adults. Today more than half of all cancers in Iraq are occurring among children under the age of five.

Helpless pediatricians in Basra have watched childhood leukemia and cancer increase up to 12-times peacetime rates. Hospitals throughout Iraq have reported as much as a 10-fold increase in birth defects since cities and countryside were strafed with radioactive munitions. [Counterpunch Dec. 28, 2001]


Pointing to a map of Basra, Dr. Abdul-Hamid demonstrated the dose-response relationship between DU and cancers, saying, "Areas which have got the higher level of background radiation have higher levels of cancers."

You've been asked for scientific data, which is not the same as "anecdotes." "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc" is a logical fallacy (happened after was therefore caused by), and correlation does not mean causation. "Happened after" and "correlated" are first steps, not last steps, in reaching a conclusion. Also quantify - what kind of radiation, and what were the levels?

Until you do that sort of thing, people won't know be able to differentiate this from "power lines cause cancer" type scares. I'm not saying you are wrong here, just that you aren't making your case (even if you happen to be right).

[faust9]

There seems to be a little intellectual dishonesty on both sides of this debate. Those who preach DU weapon safety are disregarding the effects of U (http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/cgi-bin/nuclide?nuc=U238) exposure from other sources and the valid studies associated with Rn (http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/cgi-bin/nuclide?nuc=Rn222) (alpha emitter that release about twice as much energy per decay). It's not easy to draw a direct line between Rn and U because one is a short lived gas while the other is a long lived solid. Exposure to radioactive gases via inhalation is less severe than inhaling radioactive particulate. Gases move in and out rather easily while particles tend to stay. So, looking at radon and making a collating that to U is not that much of a stretch. Holding this line the "DU is completely safe because we haven't read the studies", or "Lead is more worse" are dishonest arguments. Modern bullets are jacketed (http://www.ladedaten.info/tbl/arten/winchesterfmj.jpg) thus limiting the bodily damage caused when used as a weapon along with the unintended effect of limiting the environmental effects. I could go on in this regard but I'm sure y'all get my point. Denying the dangers is dishonest.

On the flip side we have the DU haters. Is it as bad as you say? Maybe, but most likely not. Most studies looking into battlefield effects of DU look at other causes of illness as well. Chemical effects of DU and chemical effects from other chemicals. As of yet there are no real studies of the effects of DU, and DU alone, on the health of humans (or critters for that matter). Using Utah as an example is not a good source because the military has had at least one test facility in Utah for 50+ years. Utah has more sources of chemical and radioactive contamination than DU. Utah has more natural U (http://www.eq.state.ut.us/EQRAD/milllst.htm) than a lot of places on earth for that matter.

My opinion: I wouldn't want to suck an a vulcan shell but I've worked with them and don't fear them. Small amounts of aerosolized U which (may) result from shell usage are insignificant when compared to other contaminates associated with war, or life in general. Do I own hand painted orange and yellow plates from Mexico--yes. Would I eat off them--no. There are so many sources of natural radiation we encounter every day (especially in Utah) that inconsequential exposure to DU is less of a factor IMO.

[Njorl]

I certainly never intended to say DU was utterly without risk. But it is not a question of absolutes. Yes, not firing any weapons would leave a cleaner healthier environment, but that is not the question. In this argument, it is a given that battles will be fought in which heavily armored targets will be destroyed.

Without DU:

-More high explosives would be used. The lower kinetic energy of standard munitions is incapable of penetrating armor. High explosives are, by orders of magnitude, more likely to cause collateral damage to unintended targets.

-More tungsten, another heavy metal, would be used. There have been no tests whatsoever on the effects of aerosolized tungsten on humans.

-More lead would be used. Considering the inefficiency of the lead munitions, much more of it would be necessary. Lead poisoning is considerably more harmful than uranium poisoning (brain damage instead of kidney damage). For this application, jacketing the lead would be meaningless, as the jackets would be vaporized.

-The vastly increased weight of the ordnance would require more fuel be burned by the platform delivering it. The exhaust of diesel engines and jet engines is extremely toxic.

-The targets would be more likely to survive, lengthening battles, lengthening wars.

If the problems posed by DU contamination are worse than the above, then by all means eliminate DU weapons. But first, prove it, scientifically.

To claim that DU weapon makers are using corrupt studies to protect their product is not enough. You must show the corruption. Do you expect me to believe that the makers of high-explosives, lead based weapons, and tungsten based weapons would allow themselves to be shut out of a market by corrupt studies? They would all profit if DU weapons were eliminated. They have the money and power at their disposal to make it happen.

Njorl

[russ_watters]

There is a lot of talk about this substance. The "Scientific Method" was applied by scientists and agencies, working for the companies that profit enormously from the use of DU. The use of DU was sold to the government, as a very efficient weapon, utilizing nuclear waste, that would otherwise have to be buried and stored at great expense. Just figures like that alone make the whole project suspect. I agree!! But a suspicion does not equal a fact and a story does not equal evidence.

swansont - 'power lines cause cancer' is a great example of the same type of thing. My mother stopped using her electric blanket in the '80s.

[hitssquad]

'power lines cause cancer' is a great example of the same type of thing. My mother stopped using her electric blanket in the '80s.She was ahead of her time:


Breast (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14561670) cancer risk associated with use of an electric bedding device increased with the number of years of use, the number of seasons of use, and the length of time of use during sleep. When women who used an electric bedding device for more than 6 months per year (and therefore were more likely to have used a heated water bed, which generates lower magnetic fields) were excluded, the corresponding dose-response relations were more striking. Similar trends in dose response were shown in both premenopausal and postmenopausal women and for both estrogen receptor-positive and estrogen receptor-negative tumors. The use of electric bedding devices may increase breast cancer risk in African-American women aged 20-64 years.

CONCLUSIONS (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10658687): The biologic plausibility of an association between EMF and breast cancer, coupled with suggestive data from occupational studies and unexplained high incidence rates of breast cancer, suggests that further investigation of this possible association is warranted.

Using (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9888286) data from a case-control study conducted in Group Health Cooperative (GHC) of Puget Sound, we examined the relation between the use of electric blankets or heated water beds and the risk of prostate cancer. Cases were 175 prostate cancer patients ages 40-69 years. Controls were 258 male GHC members frequency matched to cases. The odds ratio (OR) for prostate cancer associated with the use of an electric blanket or heated water bed was 1.4 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.9-2.2).

For (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9684710) electric blanket use by the child before diagnosis, the adjusted ORs were: leukemia, 2.2 (95 percent confidence interval [CI] = 0.7-6.4); central nervous system cancers, ORs = 1.6 (CI = 0.4-7.1); and other solid cancers, OR = 2.4 (CI = 1.0-6.1). Leukemia risk was increased for the highest category of the mean measured bedroom magnetic field (> or = 0.2microT cf < 0.1 microT), with an adjusted OR of 15.5 (CI = 1.1-224).

Electric (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=7985659) blanket use, estimated to significantly increase background exposure to 60-Hz electromagnetic fields, has been hypothesized to increase breast cancer risk. From 1986 to 1991 in western New York State, the authors investigated the use of electric blankets as a risk factor for breast cancer in a case-control study of premenopausal women. A total of 290 premenopausal breast cancer cases and 289 age-matched randomly selected community controls were queried in regard to their use of electric blankets in the previous 10 years, including frequency of use in season and mode of use. After adjusting for age, education, and other risk factors, the odds ratio for use of an electric blanket at any time in the previous 10 years (40% of cases and 37% of controls) was 1.18 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83-1.68). Estimates of risk did not differ in a dose-response fashion for number of years of electric blanket use. The risk associated with daily use in season relative to nonuse was 1.27 (95% CI 0.86-1.88). The risk of breast cancer among those who reported use of the blanket through the night was 1.43 (95% CI 0.94-2.17).

[Kojac]

For one, I think it's much ado about nothing, and for another, I'm too lazy, but obviously, some of you do, so why doesn't someone look up the rate at which DU releases radiation and start comparing it to UV radiation and radiation from your various electrical devices around your house? (TV's, monitors, toasters, cell phones...) Stop bickering. And yes, DU can directly influence saving soldiers lives, Simon. The more time your enemy has before he's neutralized, the more time he has to direct fire at you. 2 shots? Assume each shot takes a minimum of 1-1.5 seconds (tank shell) to cycle back to the next shot. That's plenty of time for a HEAT round or a sabot round or an enemy's DU round to come back and bite you in the butt. Why do you think the Defense Department even has DARPA? Fighting with sharp sticks would be VERY environmentally friendly, but quite frankly, we'd get our asses kicked. That's why we develop things like DU rounds, or nuclear bombs, or tear gas, or high powered lasers. Bigger, badder weapons for us means less of our guys get hurt or die, and more of theirs are put down before they can do any damage.

[Simon666]

And yes, DU can directly influence saving soldiers lives, Simon. The more time your enemy has before he's neutralized, the more time he has to direct fire at you. 2 shots? Assume each shot takes a minimum of 1-1.5 seconds (tank shell) to cycle back to the next shot. That's plenty of time for a HEAT round or a sabot round or an enemy's DU round to come back and bite you in the butt.
If you can inform me of some kind of mechanism by which a T-whatever number tank can take down a tankkiller plane, please let me know.

[swansont]

She was ahead of her time:
CONCLUSIONS (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10658687): The biologic plausibility of an association between EMF and breast cancer, coupled with suggestive data from occupational studies and unexplained high incidence rates of breast cancer, suggests that further investigation of this possible association is warranted.

Something you didn't include: "However, six of the studies did not find any significant effects and two found effects only in subgroups. The results of the eight studies of residential exposure and four electric blanket studies have been inconsistent, with most not demonstrating any significant association. However, this might be attributed, at least to some extent, to difficulties in assessing residential exposure in these studies, as well as other methodological considerations."

Using (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9888286) data from a case-control study conducted in Group Health Cooperative (GHC) of Puget Sound, we examined the relation between the use of electric blankets or heated water beds and the risk of prostate cancer. Cases were 175 prostate cancer patients ages 40-69 years. Controls were 258 male GHC members frequency matched to cases. The odds ratio (OR) for prostate cancer associated with the use of an electric blanket or heated water bed was 1.4 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.9-2.2).

What you left out: "The risk, however, did not tend to be higher with increasing months per year or years of use. This study did not provide clear evidence on the hypothesized association."

[russ_watters]

She was ahead of her time:Oh, man, I really didn't do that on purpose. Thanks for covering it, swansont... If you can inform me of some kind of mechanism by which a T-whatever number tank can take down a tankkiller plane, please let me know. If it were just about the lives of those in the tank-killer planes, the planes wouldn't even need to be there, would they?

[Simon666]

Oh, man, I really didn't do that on purpose. Thanks for covering it, swansont... If it were just about the lives of those in the tank-killer planes, the planes wouldn't even need to be there, would they?
Why is that, what do you mean?

[Njorl]

Russ was pointing out the spurious logic in your plane vs. tank comment. The plane is not destroying the tank in self defense. If the only object were to protect the plane, the best option is to not have it fly into battle. The plane is destroying the tank for any number of other reasons.

Of course, it is moot, since tanks can carry any number of anti-aircraft options, and attack craft, being slow, are more vulnerable than most planes.

Njorl

[hitssquad]

What you left out: "The risk, however, did not tend to be higher with increasing months per year or years of use.This would be consistent with hormesis.

[Simon666]

Well excuse me, but my point was that DU bullets in tankkiller planes do not save people's lives and instead cause a pollution that might lead to cancersand severe birth deformations, which are plenty in Iraq. There is no need to take the risk of having another agent orange type of disaster.

[russ_watters]

Well excuse me, but my point was that DU bullets in tankkiller planes do not save people's lives.... You're anti-war. We get it. Like it or not though, war exists and it is the job of the military to do it well and the job of the government to equip the soldiers and fight them in such a way as to get as few soldiers killed as posble. Yes, tank-killer planes and DU bullets save people's lives: soldiers are people too.

[Simon666]

You're anti-war. We get it. Like it or not though, war exists and it is the job of the military to do it well and the job of the government to equip the soldiers and fight them in such a way as to get as few soldiers killed as posble. Yes, tank-killer planes and DU bullets save people's lives: soldiers are people too.
You avoided the question, by what mechanism would a decade old Soviet tank down a tankkiller plane if it used other ammo? You keep repeating your false mantra as if repitition of the same will get you anywhere.

[Njorl]

Tanks can carry SAMs. Tanks can relay information to SAM batteries. That is beside the point though. War has not been reduced to individual challenges for several hundred years now. The A-10 destroys the tank so the tank can not destroy the infantry.

DU ordnance is accurate from longer range than other ordance. The A-10 is exposed to less enemy AA fire. It can destroy the tank sooner, saving lives of those menaced by the tank.

DU ornance is more effective. Fewer missions need to be flown because of this. Fewer pilots are needed . Fewer training missions are flown. Every take-off and landing, in active missions or training, is a real risk of death.

DU ordnance unquestionably saves lives. The question is does it save enough lives to warrant the slight, but real environmental damage. Scientific studies, so far, indicate that it does.

Njorl

[BCRion]

DU, being less radioactive than natural Uranium pulled straight out of the ground would really not be that hard to dispose of. It's radioactivity is so low and of such a short range that merely digging a hole and putting it inside would be enough.

As far as bunker busters and such, there is a fundamental difference to make them a bad idea. They would utilize a chain reaction which produces fission products. These are much, much, much, much more toxic that DU particles and would have much greater health effects. Granted, one would still need to compare the costs of developing and deploying such weapons. For instance, one suggested use would be to destroy a biological or chemical weapons facility while totally neutralizing the agents within. Conventional weapons would just spread the stuff around and may be much worse than the fission products. This is a cost analysis.

It would be great if we could live in a world without war. But it would be great if we could live in a world without many things. As long as we are human and as long as there are things worth fighting for, there shall always be war of some sort. Depressing, but true.

[russ_watters]

You avoided the question, by what mechanism would a decade old Soviet tank down a tankkiller plane if it used other ammo? You keep repeating your false mantra as if repitition of the same will get you anywhere.I thought Njorl made it clear in his previous post - he was exactly correct about what I meant. But he's elaborated on it again...

[Dayle Record]

I have a question. Would the DU be re-enriched by the thermonuclear explosion, as a bunker buster, and triple the radioactive pollution post explosion?

[Kojac]

hey, thanks for explaining what i should have. i've been busy at work for a few days. the soviets had several armored anti-air units. the most prevalent one that comes to mind is the 2S6 Tunguska. if i remember correctly, it had dual weapon mounts on each side of the chassis that fired SA-19 SAMs. it may also have had some "dumb" anti-air weapons systems as well. (guns) remember also that the A-10 Warthog isn't exactly a fast moving aircraft. It's a big, mean, green monster meant to withstand damage, not outrun it. Thus, it MUST be equipped with powerful weapons to quickly eliminate ground threats, otherwise all the armor in the world won't save it. A-10's take a lot of damage as it is, and you propose taking one of their best weapons away from them? Should I hand you a gun or poison to go after our soldiers? Anyway, until you go flying against the enemy in what moves like a Cesna... I'm sorry. Why should we ditch DU shells again?

[faust9]

I have a question. Would the DU be re-enriched by the thermonuclear explosion, as a bunker buster, and triple the radioactive pollution post explosion?

What!?! Thermonuclear!?! U-238 just doesn't go super critical, on the contrary it is "fairly" stable. There's a reason they (we) isolate U-235/234 from natural uranium and that is because 234/235 will go super critical fairly easily from instinsic neutron production when a critical mass is reached or can be made to go supercritical by adding slow neutrons from an external source to a slightly less than critical mass. 238 Takes a heck of a lot energy (about 8 times more if I recall correctly) to even make it go "nuclear". Man alive, read on page three my little rant about intellectual dishonesty.

How would 238 be "re-enriched"? U-235 comes from:

Possible parent nuclides:
Beta from Pa-235
Electron capture from Np-235
Alpha from Pu-239

while U-238 comes from:

Possible parent nuclides:
Beta from Pa-238
Alpha from Pu-242

and decays to:

Th-234.

For 238 to become U235, 238 would need to absorb a neutron (has to be a fast neutron unlike 235) turn into U239, live for 23 minutes, beta decay to Np239, live for 2.5 days, beta decay to Pu239(which is worse than U235), live for 24110 years, then finally alpha decay to U235. Not gonna happen.

The above was brought to you by any'ol handy-dandy chart of the nuclides.

[Dayle Record]

I just asked. There is nothing dishonest in my question. I just asked.

[faust9]

I just asked. There is nothing dishonest in my question. I just asked.

Then I apologize for my reactionary presumptive response.

[Simon666]

DU ordnance unquestionably saves lives. The question is does it save enough lives to warrant the slight, but real environmental damage. Scientific studies, so far, indicate that it does.
Studies you invented? Get real.

[Kojac]

you think that DARPA or some other Defense Department doesn't research EVERYTHING U.S. soldiers use? Since the world wars our policy has drifted ever closer to training and equipping soldiers so we'd need less of them and they'd die far less frequently. That, my friend, requires research, and lots of it. I'm glad you've decided (with minimal information, it seems) that one of the most elite military forces in the world is incredibly sloppy and careless, and just goes about laying waste to civilians through sheer incompetance. Good call.

[russ_watters]

I have a question. Would the DU be re-enriched by the thermonuclear explosion, as a bunker buster, and triple the radioactive pollution post explosion?This question doesn't make sense - are you saying you think a bunker buster has a thermonuclear bomb in it? "Thermonuclear" refers to a hydrogen fusion bomb. It has nothing at all to do with DU or conventional munitions.

Frankly, this explains a lot about your fears. If you understood it better, you probably wouldn't fear it as much.

[Dayle Record]

The Gov't wants to start testing nuclear weapons encased in DU outer shells, to penetrate deep bunkers, and once penetrated, have the little nuke therein do the rest of the dirty work. It is a tasty outer liner with a red hot filling. I do understand how toxic DU is, and how it trashes the environment where it is used, for longer than you or I will live. One person writes that it saves our troops, I say it attacks innocents for generations to come. No one deserves that. I did celebrate Memorial Day, yesterday with a woman whose father was sent in to clean up Nagasaki with a caterpillar, and was told that there was no risk involved, everything was perfectly safe. The man is still alive, and his daughter, though asthmatic, is alive too. I am not a fearful person, I am a pragmatic individual. I used to watch the multi colored clouds from nuclear tests, come over where I lived. It was all perfectly okay, just stay indoors while they are overhead, well they were overhead while I walked to school. Planners tend to think in numbers, instead of lives.

The nuclear devices are supposed to be tested just to the west of us, even some military experts feel that they are useless weapons. No one out here but Mormons, fire away.
They won't be testing nukes just west of Boston, or just west of Memphis, no just west of Salt Lake City. I take this personally, because it is personal. We have had fierce winds this year, and I know that DU dust is in town.

[Njorl]

Studies you invented?
No.
Get real.
I am.

Show me convincing evidence that the harm of DU ordnance outweighs the benefit. I will gladly, and passionately switch to your side. Do you think that I would prefer a poisoned world? I just ask for evidence.

Njorl

[Njorl]

Being afraid of an atomic bomb because it has a DU shell is like being afraid of a grizzly bear because it has a switchblade. There is reason to be afraid. The DU isn't it. A fission bomb consumes only about 3% of its fuel. The rest is vaporized and spread through the atmosphere. The fissionable fuel and the products of fission are orders of magnitude more dangerous than DU. Also, just a note, virtually every fission bomb ever made uses a DU shell around the core to reflect neutrons.

I don't think they can legally do atmospheric testing anymore. It has been shown to kill many people. As I recall, scientists like Linus Pauling led the way to the atmospheric test ban treaty, though they were opposed by people who rely only on emotion. It was estimated that each atmospheric test, on the average, would shorten about 5000 lives by about 80000 years total, if I recall correctly. It was the cold-hearted, statistical study by scientists that put an end to atmospheric testing.

Njorl

[Simon666]

Show me convincing evidence that the harm of DU ordnance outweighs the benefit. I will gladly, and passionately switch to your side. Do you think that I would prefer a poisoned world? I just ask for evidence.
Trying to switch the burden of proof? That lies with you pal, you claimed such studies exist. I asked you to put your money where your mouth is and name them.

[Njorl]

Trying to switch the burden of proof? That lies with you pal, you claimed such studies exist. I asked you to put your money where your mouth is and name them.

Actually, the burden of proof lies with the one who wishes to alter the status quo, but that is moot.

Here is a link to a World Health Organization report that summarizes many researchers works:

http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/pub_meet/ir_pub/en/

It is hard to find links directly to scientific studies. Though many are available on-line, they are only available through paid services.

It does not say there is nothing to worry about. It makes very few judgements at all. It calls for more studies to be done. But it also does not sound any alarms. No significant dangers have been found. If you dive into it, you can see that they dismiss the toxicity dangers, without coming out and saying it. Nobody is getting the repeated high doses necessary to cause kidney damage. The radiological dangers are compared very favorably to American uranium miners, who suffer only slightly higher than normal health effects due to radiation, and have significantly higher exposure levels than those who live within 10 meters of strikes involving DU. It is also believed that virtually all of the uranium miners health issues are due to exposure to high levels of radon, not uranium.

Now, where are the studies showing that the dangers of DU are significant enough to demand that our military use inferior weapons?

Njorl

[russ_watters]

The Gov't wants to start testing nuclear weapons encased in DU outer shells, to penetrate deep bunkers, and once penetrated, have the little nuke therein do the rest of the dirty work. Ok, that's just a misunderstanding then - there is a "bunker buster" in service now and that's what I thought you were referring to. The nuclear one they are thinking about testing is a different issue.

Nuclear weapons are kinda funny: even ones they say are tactical (battlefield weapons) are still strategic (political/wmd/deterrents) and that makes a difference in how they are used (they aren't ever used). I really wouldn't worry about them except maybe the political issue of resuming nuclear weapons testing.

[hitssquad]

A fission bomb consumes only about 3% of its fuel.Preventing Disassembly and Increasing Efficiency (http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sciences/Chemistry/NuclearChemistry/NuclearWeapons/FirstChainReaction/IntrotoNucl/FissionWeapon.htm)

By the time a significant percentage of the atoms have fissioned, their thermal kinetic energy is so high that the pit will expand enough to shut down the reaction in only a few of shakes. This severely limits the efficiency of fission weapons (percentage of material fissioned). The practical efficiency limit of a typical pure fission bomb is about 25%, and could be much less. The Fat Man implosion bomb was 17% efficient (counting only the energy produced by the fissile core, the natural uranium tamper contributed another 4% through fast fission). Little Boy had an efficiency of only 1.4%. Very large pure fission bombs can achieve efficiencies approaching 50% but have been supplanted by thermonuclear weapon technology. Anything that will increase the confinement time of the fissionable core or decrease the generation time, even slightly, can cause a significant increase in bomb yield.


The fissionable fuel and the products of fission are orders of magnitude more dangerous than DU.U235 is about as dangerous as DU. Pu239 is more dangerous than either U235 or DU.



Also, just a note, virtually every fission bomb ever made uses a DU shell around the core to reflect neutrons.I believe that many fission bombs use one or the other of beryllium (http://www.google.com/search?q=fission+reflector+beryllium) and tungsten as neutron reflectors. The Fission Weapon Physics (http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sciences/Chemistry/NuclearChemistry/NuclearWeapons/FirstChainReaction/IntrotoNucl/FissionWeapon.htm) webpage I linked to above, however, cites uranium as one of the metals typically composing tampers. Presumably, tampers always double as reflectors.


A layer of dense material called a "tamper" (typically made of natural or depleted uranium or tungsten) surrounds the critical mass....

The tamper has an additional benefit, it can also scatter or "reflect" neutrons back into the critical mass after they escape from its surface. This means that a smaller amount of fissionable material is necessary to make the critical mass. The importance of this effect is often overstated in the nuclear weapons literature however. Only a portion of the neutrons are scattered back, and since it takes on average several shakes for the neutrons that do return to reenter the critical mass, their significance is further reduced through "time absorption" (see section 2.1.3). This is offset somewhat by the fact that some neutron multiplication occurs in natural uranium tampers through fast fission of U-238.


A (http://www.iraqwatch.org/perspectives/bas-iraq-rules-nuke-8-91.htm) Hiroshima gun-type weapon would be much easier to make, especially with weapons-grade uranium instead of the lower-enriched material available in August 1945, and a non-uranium reflector such as beryllium or tungsten carbide to minimize the possibility of pre-detonation.

[Dayle Record]

that one of the most elite military forces in the world is incredibly sloppy and careless, and just goes about laying waste to civilians through sheer incompetance. Good call



I call that like I see it. Utah is full of civilians that were terribly harmed by the most elite military force in the world. Guardsmen and Women from Utah went into Iraq this time without food supplies and adequate water, Moms here were sending food to their children in the field. Vets from this elite military had to shout their heads off to get medical attention after the last gulf war. So surely you were kidding with that post. It had to be sarcastic....

[Simon666]

Actually, the burden of proof lies with the one who wishes to alter the status quo, but that is moot.
I know that, but this is a different issue. I simply asked you to back up what you say.

[Simon666]

Considering your WHO link:

WHO ‘suppressed’ scientific study into depleted uranium cancer fears in Iraq (http://www.sundayherald.com/40096)

Radiation experts warn in unpublished report that DU weapons used by Allies in Gulf war pose long-term health risk
By Rob Edwards, Environment Editor



An expert report warning that the long-term health of Iraq’s civilian population would be endangered by British and US depleted uranium (DU) weapons has been kept secret. The study by three leading radiation scientists cautioned that children and adults could contract cancer after breathing in dust containing DU, which is radioactive and chemically toxic. But it was blocked from publication by the World Health Organisation (WHO), which employed the main author, Dr Keith Baverstock, as a senior radiation advisor. He alleges that it was deliberately suppressed, though this is denied by WHO.

Baverstock also believes that if the study had been published when it was completed in 2001, there would have been more pressure on the US and UK to limit their use of DU weapons in last year’s war, and to clean up afterwards. Hundreds of thousands of DU shells were fired by coalition tanks and planes during the conflict, and there has been no comprehensive decontamination. Experts from the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) have so far not been allowed into Iraq to assess the pollution.

“Our study suggests that the widespread use of depleted uranium weapons in Iraq could pose a unique health hazard to the civilian population,” Baverstock told the Sunday Herald. “There is increasing scientific evidence the radio activity and the chemical toxicity of DU could cause more damage to human cells than is assumed.”

Baverstock was the WHO’s top expert on radiation and health for 11 years until he retired in May last year. He now works with the Department of Environmental Sciences at the University of Kuopio in Finland, and was recently appointed to the UK government’s newly formed Committee on Radio active Waste Management. While he was a member of staff, WHO refused to give him permission to publish the study, which was co-authored by Professor Carmel Mothersill from McMaster University in Canada and Dr Mike Thorne, a radiation consultant . Baverstock suspects that WHO was leaned on by a more powerful pro-nuclear UN body, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

“I believe our study was censored and suppressed by the WHO because they didn’t like its conclusions. Previous experience suggests that WHO officials were bowing to pressure from the IAEA, whose remit is to promote nuclear power,” he said. “That is more than unfortunate, as publishing the study would have helped forewarn the authorities of the risks of using DU weapons in Iraq.”

These allegations, however, are dismissed as “totally unfounded” by WHO. “The IAEA role was very minor,” said Dr Mike Repacholi, the WHO coordinator of radiation and environmental health in Geneva. “The article was not approved for publication because parts of it did not reflect accurately what a WHO-convened group of inter national experts considered the best science in the area of depleted uranium,” he added.

Baverstock’s study, which has now been passed to the Sunday Herald, pointed out that Iraq’s arid climate meant that tiny particles of DU were likely to be blown around and inhaled by civilians for years to come. It warned that, when inside the body, their radiation and toxicity could trigger the growth of malignant tumours.

The study suggested that the low-level radiation from DU could harm cells adjacent to those that are directly irradiated, a phenomenon known as “the bystander effect”. This undermines the stability of the body’s genetic system, and is thought by many scientists to be linked to cancers and possibly other illnesses. In addition, the DU in Iraq, like that used in the Balkan conflict, could turn out to be contaminated with plutonium and other radioactive waste . That would make it more radioactive and hence more dangerous, Baverstock argued.

“The radiation and the chemical toxicity of DU could also act together to create a ‘cocktail effect’ that further increases the risk of cancer. These are all worrying possibilities that urgently require more investigation,” he said.

Baverstock’s anxiety about the health effects of DU in Iraq is shared by Pekka Haavisto, the chairman of the UN Environment Programme’s Post-Conflict Assessment Unit in Geneva. “It is certainly a concern in Iraq, there is no doubt about that,” he said.

UNEP, which surveyed DU contamination in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 2002, is keen to get into Iraq to monitor the situation as soon as possible. It has been told by the British government that about 1.9 tonnes of DU was fired from tanks around Basra, but has no information from US forces, which are bound to have used a lot more.

Haavisto’s greatest worry is when buildings hit by DU shells have been repaired and reoccupied without having been properly cleaned up. Photographic evidence suggests that this is exactly what has happened to the ministry of planning building in Baghdad. He also highlighted evidence that DU from weapons had been collected and recycled as scrap in Iraq. “It could end up in a fork or a knife,” he warned.

“It is ridiculous to leave the material lying around and not to clear it up where adults are working and children are playing. If DU is not taken care of, instead of decreasing the risk you are increasing it. It is absolutely wrong.”

[russ_watters]

Utah is full of civilians that were terribly harmed by the most elite military force in the world. That's news to me - do you have any quantitative info on that? And better yet, some evidence?
...that one of the most elite military forces in the world is incredibly sloppy and careless, and just goes about laying waste to civilians through sheer incompetance. Good call ?? Not sure who that is addressed to or what you are talking about, but by now you should know that that type of shock-talk has no effect on us (it actually looks pretty silly). If you want to convince a scientist of something, you need a scientific argument.I call that like I see it. It should have become abundantly clear to you through this thread that you don't see the issue clearly and your opinion reflects that. Take the opportunity to learn from this discussion.

[Njorl]

Considering your WHO link:

WHO ‘suppressed’ scientific study into depleted uranium cancer fears in Iraq (http://www.sundayherald.com/40096)

Radiation experts warn in unpublished report that DU weapons used by Allies in Gulf war pose long-term health risk
By Rob Edwards, Environment Editor



An expert report warning that the long-term health of Iraq’s civilian population would be endangered by British and US depleted uranium (DU) weapons has been kept secret. The study by three leading radiation scientists cautioned that children and adults could contract cancer after breathing in dust containing DU, which is radioactive and chemically toxic. But it was blocked from publication by the World Health Organisation (WHO), which employed the main author, Dr Keith Baverstock, as a senior radiation advisor. He alleges that it was deliberately suppressed, though this is denied by WHO.



If his work is any good, he can publish it in any number of scientific journals printed in any number of countries. No conspiracy can keep it out of print. When his work is reviewed by his peers, we will have a good idea if his work is worthwhile. The Sunday Herald is not the arbiter of good science. Until then, I see no reason to believe this. He could be wrong. The Herald could be quoting him out of context. The Herald could be making the whole thing up.

edited to add ->I checked out Keith Baverstock on web of science. He has a pretty good list of publications about health effects of radiation, including a very well received "Nature" article. He does not have a single publication about the health effects of DU ammunition.

Njorl

[Dayle Record]

Dear Russ, in Utah there is a large population, called "The Downwinders". The downwinders died in great numbers from radiation related cancers, entire family lines were injured. The number of women killed by breast cancers from above ground nuclear testing were statistically, and personally significant. There is a reason that the US Government settled claims with these "Downwinders", they were severely maimed and outright killed by the open air nuclear testing that went on earlier in this century.

Logically speaking they were killed by the US Department of Defense. The government acknowledges their liability in this issue. There is a huge public money trail to attest to this. At the time of these tests, they were proclaimed safe by the scientists hired by the government. So Utahans watched the tests because they were convinced by the scientific community, and the defense establishment that they were perfectly safe. Then anti radiation pills were offered to the women who were pregnant, to the community as it was declared less and less safe. Or, it is safe, but take these pills, just in case.

[Dayle Record]

Here is a link to a symposium regarding quantity and levels of exposure, in the nuclear conflicts where this substance has been used.

http://www.umrc.net/downloads/health_consequences_of_radiological_warfare.pdf

[russ_watters]

Dear Russ, in Utah there is a large population, called "The Downwinders". Ah, ok - nothing at all to do with the topic of this thread (DU). Got it.

[russ_watters]

Here is a link to a symposium regarding quantity and levels of exposure, in the nuclear conflicts where this substance has been used.

http://www.umrc.net/downloads/health_consequences_of_radiological_warfare.pdf The last slide says it all: 'we think DU weapons are nuclear wepons.' I have several other problems with it:

-Most of the battlefield pictures could not possibly have anything to do with DU weapons.

-All of the pictures of people are there for shock value and contribute nothing to the case.

-No info is given about that Canadian soldier who supposedly died from "Gulf War Illness" (like how exactly did he die, where did he serve, were his problems radiological or chemical in cause, etc?). If he really did have a conclusive link to DU, he (and others like him) would be the centerpiece of the case. And if he's one of very few, sorry, but there is a cost/benefit calculus involved there.

edit: a little google reveals he died of cancer, but couldn't find any other info. Sounds suspicious.

-Lots of data, no analysis.

-Uranium content in urine data (trip1) is skewed by one sample. Why? No other info is given on those tests (maybe it would have been in the oral presentation).

[Dayle Record]

I replied to the shock jock, entry, regarding civilian harm from our highly organized fighting force etc... yes I was lured by the trolling.

[Njorl]

Here is a link to a symposium regarding quantity and levels of exposure, in the nuclear conflicts where this substance has been used.

http://www.umrc.net/downloads/health_consequences_of_radiological_warfare.pdf


The "time zero" doses of DU range from 0 to 1.54 mg. A typical human has anywhere from 0.009 to 0.90 mg of natural uranium in their body at all times. A one-time dose of 1.54 mg is just not significant, even with the slower elimination of aerolsolized ceramic uranium oxides in the lungs.

Njorl

[BCRion]

I don't think they can legally do atmospheric testing anymore. It has been shown to kill many people. As I recall, scientists like Linus Pauling led the way to the atmospheric test ban treaty, though they were opposed by people who rely only on emotion. It was estimated that each atmospheric test, on the average, would shorten about 5000 lives by about 80000 years total, if I recall correctly. It was the cold-hearted, statistical study by scientists that put an end to atmospheric testing.


Keep in mind this uses the linear-no threshold model. Keep in mind back when those studies were done, we knew a lot less about the effects of small radiation doses. Although we are still not absolutely certain, we do know that a linear-no threshold approach is wrong and very much overly conservative.

[Simon666]

edited to add ->I checked out Keith Baverstock on web of science. He has a pretty good list of publications about health effects of radiation, including a very well received "Nature" article. He does not have a single publication about the health effects of DU ammunition.
Well, he is for sure mentioned as contributor in this WHO publication about the health effects of depleted uranium (http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/pub_meet/en/Depluraniumintro.pdf) and since he goes speaking on conferences such as this one (http://www.uraniumconference.org/English.html), I doubt they quoted him out of context. He seems to believe indeed what is claimed in the article.

[Njorl]

Well, he is for sure mentioned as contributor in this WHO publication about the health effects of depleted uranium (http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/pub_meet/en/Depluraniumintro.pdf) and since he goes speaking on conferences such as this one (http://www.uraniumconference.org/English.html), I doubt they quoted him out of context. He seems to believe indeed what is claimed in the article.

"The article was not approved for publication because parts of it did not reflect accurately what a WHO-convened group of international experts considered the best science in the area of depleted uranium," he added.

When his science is good enough, he can publish. He does not need to publish in a WHO report. As it is now, we have only his and the Sunday Herald's word. If he believes in his work, it should take less than 6 months to get it into print. That will be August 2004 at the latest. Edited to add - While the Sunday Herald article came out in February 2004, the WHO report came out in April 2001. Dr. Baverstock has had three years to put his concerns in print, and has failed to do so.

He did not demand that his name be removed from the WHO report. This indicates that he either largely agrees with it, or has no ethics. I assume the former.

Njorl

[Kojac]

Ok... having checked the ever growing thread again... The quote about the U.S. military being incompetant and careless was originally a bit of (childish) sarcasm in response to what seems to be the attitude I see towards them. I'm quite aware that this isn't a political forum, but it's not only DU that's been dogged after. Every time the U.S. military takes some sort of action, it seems like somehow their actual mission of dealing with a threat or defending people or ideals gets pushed under a flood of victimization. DU is a tough, dense metal. We use it to pierce armor. It's very good at doing so. The military researchers have obviously decided that whatever trace radiation that is emitted from the use of such weapons is a reasonable tradeoff for the efficiency at which they perform their job. If that wasn't the case, they wouldn't be in use. And as with anything that has a wiff of controversy, there are activists, and chances are, that minority that is the activists is VERY LOUD. And as long as they're VERY LOUD no one takes them seriously because they don't provide really good evidence to back up their views. They rely on shock value and the fact that most people won't challenge a picture of a child with cancer out of social decency.
(steps off soapbox)
Sorry guys. I felt somewhat obligated to say that, and I'd have rather done it in a different place, but this forum has people posting in it who I'd like to read it.

[Dayle Record]

"The military researchers have obviously decided that whatever trace radiation that is emitted from the use of such weapons is a reasonable tradeoff for the efficiency at which they perform their job. If that wasn't the case, they wouldn't be in use."

The military is concerned with protecting US interests. US interests turn out to be the military and its contractors in many cases. They have become a self perpetuating system, that functions outside the realm of normal everyday human activity. The corporations that sell to the military, sell to the military, they are not humanitarian organizations. The "War Market", is the largest market in the world, it is self perpetuating. There is not a concern for the lasting effects of weaponry used on a chosen battlefield, weapons are not designed for the benefit of the civilian population that will later inhabit a previous war zone. Money, the making of money, the making of war to achieve monetary and territorial ends is innately unethical. So if/then statements regarding how we determine the lethal qualities of ordinance are propaganda. One of the articles I posted demonstrated that the negative aspects of DU were known, by military researchers and were to be suppressed.

I grew up in the military. I am well aquainted with the thought process involved in that kind of system. It is a headless authoritarian system, where only in cases of gross, obvious misconduct, or heavy losses on our side; is there ever public questioning of this system. Then the questioning happens in Congress, and is generally poo poo'd and considered a trying inconvenience by the military.
The military hires people to talk their talk, and among themselves, the civilians that govern the activities of the military; are people to be endured, unless there is a republican president in office. This doesn't even cover the contempt that civilians who counter things like DU, will receive.

It is interesting, the PR aspects of this thread, people are accused of being emotional rather than scientific; there is a kind of us and them quality in this too. I can just tell you that the research into the uses of this weapon might seem unnecessary in light of what you know, but it has been conducted by the individuals that are going to use it, regardless of the effects, because it is what they have determined that they will do.

In the culture of this kind of doing, someone with money to make comes up with the idea. Someone who is interested in the science of this, and making money from "research", and making money from the entities that want to throw their DU at people, rather than dumping it in costly waste dumps, is courted by the owners of such waste, the idustry that would have to deal with it. The scientists feel great making these bad bullets that are so effective in the field. In all the grinning and anticipation of the project, and the projectiles the wait a minute voices are just an annoyance. Some little Lieutenant writes a cautionary paper that is filed under a fifty year security caution, and "bam" we have a brand new way to make money.

If some large shells were rained down in the town I live in, say a couple of dozen, what would the health department be saying about the dust, and remains of the ordinance?

[Kojac]

A: I'm going to have to disagree with your 'military money making machine' theory, for a couple Big Reasons.
-Congress appropriates funds to the military, not the Joint Chiefs or any part of military beaurocracy.
-The mentality of a soldier isn't hell bent on making money. It's hell bent on killing threats and following orders. On being tough and mean and dangerous to the enemies of those he's loyal to. That mentality doesn't really change as he increases rank, it just becomes more political.
And furthermore, if war makes money, why am I hearing that it's costing the government billions and billions of dollars? (which, in turn, drives interest rates up and SLOWS the economy down because business has a harder time investing in capital)

B: Military PR hardly talks about weapons. It talks about jobs and idealogy, and it enters the media in the form of optimistic battle reports. Why even bother to open a topic that most Americans care little about? We just want to know that our military is doing really well, and there's no threat to us or our ideals.

C: I really don't think the health department would be giving the military heat if they tested shells on your town. I think that duty would fall to the supreme court.

D: War isn't pretty. It never will be. However, because the whole world isn't a utopia of peace and harmony, people have conflicting ideals and interests. The U.S. thinks they're right (I happen to agree) and so do the Radical Islamic groups who we're using our weapons on.

(speaking of radical religious rights...think Aryan Nation, KKK, Neo-Nazis. These are the type of people that the Taliban, Al-Quaida, etc. are made up of. The only difference is that they're Arab Muslim instead of White Anglo-Saxon Protestant. And no, I'm not against Christianity or Islam. Just radical idiots who kill people because they're bigots. I don't feel a bit sorry when a terrorist get's a .50 cal round in the chest or when a DU round tears through a truck carrying suicide explosives, or even when a cruise missle vaporizes half of the building terrorists are hiding out in.)

[russ_watters]

Lets not turn this into a political thread. If you guys want to keep talking about the science behind DU (including combat effectiveness), fine - otherwise this thread will need to be closed.

[Dayle Record]

The money is flowing out of the military and into the private sector, where research, and acts occur that are not sanctioned by military governance, or by the legislature of the United States. Many things that you might trust to the government are now handled by private companies, that owe their allegiance to the bottom line, and can be owned by whomever has the money to buy in. So, for instance, the computer systems for the FBI are handled by a private concern, who also ships chemicals all over the world, maintains aircraft in South America, and has its own large private army. Please someone, do the math on this? The MATRIX system for tracking everything and everyone, is privately owned; but used by the government. We wouldn't allow the government to do this, but the private sector making money off the government does this as they please. Many weapons systems considered too heinous to be developed by the military of a free nation, microwaves and mind control; are handled by private corporations that contract for, but aren't the US Government. The money flows to them from our pockets, but in a carefully stacked scheme to avoid control by the conscience of legislators, elected by the American People. What I am saying here is that the Soldier on the ground, the people on the ground, whether American, or civilians in harms way; are at the mercy of ruthless corporations that operate outside the control of the military, or tor the enemy, [I]or the American People.

I have the deepest respect for the American Soldiers in harms way, and the civilians caught in the middle. The war we are currently engaged in, is full of innocents at risk. We can start with the multitude from Utah alone. The Salt Lake papers today are again discussing the ill effects of radiation on the Utah populations, as the bill to fund nuclear research on nuke bunker busters, was scuttled in congress.

Questioning what is being done in the name of the American People, is the name of the game, in a democracy. Just as "enlightened obedience" is the name of the game, in the Military. The culture of the defense of this nation, and sales in regarding to the defense of this nation; surely has to be scrutinized on a continuing basis. The theft inherent in the system is enormous, but the theft of life from long term ill effects of some sell-jobs, is particularly grim. For instance, when the shuttle crashed, there were severe warnings regarding touching any part due to the toxicity of hydrazine fuel. Now that the shuttle is scuttled, suddenly there is being marketed several domestic uses for hydrazine. You know that has to do with selling off toxic waste instead of just dealing with it, and hanging on to the technology to produce it in quantity. I can see NASA handling some hot stuff, but I can't see Zeke down at wherever, living through the experience.

Numbers is always in interesting game. In the opening days of the war in Iraq, your chances of dying as a us combatant were 1/600. If you were a journalist your mortality rate was 1/30. In war the figures are well established that 80% of casualties are civilian, women, and children. The combatants are the best protected. So upwards of 10,000 Iraqis have died from this current conflict. According to Iraqi medical people, untold thousands have died from cancers related to the earlier conflict, and will die because of the current one. Please don't forget how long it took for the Government to recognise Gulf War Syndrome. The Iraqi people surely have a huge case of this. This isn't happening in a vacuum.

A Ranger, or a Navy Seal makes a certain amount of money. A civilian defense contractor, paid out of the same budget makes $15,000-$30,000 per month to be in Iraq, or Afghanistan; or wherever they contract to. Do the math, there is a large scale robbery taking place, and it is happening, because it can happen. This cavalier use of nuclear waste to make weaponry is a result of some very slick sell job. You can't prove that lives have been saved by this stuff. I mean really, do it, [I]prove it. You will see that the loss of life will be catastrophic in aftermath, and a very slim numbers game, in real time.

But, anyway, read this. This regards promises made and kept, this whole rant of mine isn't necessarily off topic, because I know that hucksterism, rather than science often rules the arena; where scientists could and should be heard; but are silenced.

http://www.sltrib.com/2004/Jun/06102004/commenta/174102.asp

[Dayle Record]

Dear Russ, I wrote this reply just after reading the last entry. There is some science in here, but it has to do with the relationship of the scientific community, and its responsibility to the world at large. I have learned a lot during this thread, but mostly I have learned about how a wall can be effectively built around a real issue; by weighted issues that have little bearing on the reality, but a lot of bearing on spin.

[Kojac]

ok. no more politics. got it. however, i'm going to direct you to the page on the military's gulf war site that tells you all about DU and calmly tries to tell you that you're hyping the living crap out of it. Radiation hazard? hardly. Heavy metal? yeah, but how big is the likelihood of ingesting or inhaling it? it's not like we disolve them in water supplies. we shoot them at stuff.
anyway, go here-> http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/faq_17apr.htm

[Kojac]

ooh. got another one. check out the risk of leukemia from inhaling 1 g of DU. 1 in 230,000. http://www.antenna.nl/wise/uranium/dbkcr.html

[Dayle Record]

I have just read the pro statements, by the vested interests. I have also read some statements by WHO. Here is a statement from someone more actively involved with the scene. Now I am just concerned by the enormous variance in opinion regarding use of this stuff.

***************************************

Dr. Doug Rokke was an Army health physicist assigned in 1991 to the command staff of the 12th Preventive Medicine Command and 3rd U.S. Army Medical Command headquarters. Rokke was recalled to active duty 20 years after serving in Vietnam, from his research job with the University of Illinois Physics Department, and sent to the Gulf to take charge of the DU cleanup operation.

Today, in poor health, he has become an outspoken opponent of the use of DU munitions.

"DU is the stuff of nightmares," said Rokke, who said he has reactive airway disease, neurological damage, cataracts and kidney problems, and receives a 40 percent disability payment from the government. He blames his health problems on exposure to DU.

Rokke and his primary team of about 100 performed their cleanup task without any specialized training or protective gear. Today, Rokke said, at least 30 members of the team are dead, and most of the others -- including Rokke -- have serious health problems.

Rokke said: "Verified adverse health effects from personal experience, physicians and from personal reports from individuals with known DU exposures include reactive airway disease, neurological abnormalities, kidney stones and chronic kidney pain, rashes, vision degradation and night vision losses, lymphoma, various forms of skin and organ cancer, neuropsychological disorders, uranium in semen, sexual dysfunction and birth defects in offspring.

"This whole thing is a crime against God and humanity."

Speaking from his home in Rantoul, Ill., where he works as a substitute high school science teacher, Rokke said, "When we went to the Gulf, we were all really healthy, and we got trashed."

Rokke, an Army Reserve major who describes himself as "a patriot to the right of Rush Limbaugh," said hearing the latest Pentagon statements on DU is especially frustrating now that another war against Iraq appears likely.

"Since 1991, numerous U.S. Department of Defense reports have said that the consequences of DU were unknown," Rokke said. "That is a lie. We warned them in 1991 after the Gulf War, but because of liability issues, they continue to ignore the problem." Rokke worked until 1996 for the military, developing DU training and management procedures. The procedures were ignored, he said.

"Their arrogance is beyond comprehension," he said. "We have spread radioactive waste all over the place and refused medical treatment to people . . . it's all arrogance.

"DU is a snapshot of technology gone crazy."


BIRTH DEFECTS IN IRAQ

[Dayle Record]

This is a long set of comparisons regarding cancers, and rates of cancers among military personnel exposed to DU explosions, and those not exposed. The graphs are fairly expressive, and the data is fairly clear. There is such a great divide regarding the pro and con data, the pro and con statements.

http://www.web-light.nl/VISIE/DUREPORT/mirror_dureport.html

[geometer]

An interesting and illuminating quote from a World Health Organization Fact Sheet on DU.

"A recent United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) report giving field measurements taken around selected impact sites in Kosovo (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) indicates that contamination by DU in the environment was localized to a few tens of metres around impact sites. Contamination by DU dusts of local vegetation and water supplies was found to be extremely low. Thus, the probability of significant exposure to local populations was considered to be very low."

[Mista T]

Yeah, nukes are these one bombs where you die.

[Kojac]

err... right. quit your jibberjabber. :) anyway, I see the work of one scientist (who may have gulf war syndrome) Which may or may not be related to DU, and may be related to quite a few other things as well, verses the analysis of many tests and studies run by the DoD which show, among other things, range of contamination, comparisons of radiation levels, and even such illuminating facts like the fact that abrams' tank crews have an overall radiation level much lower then they would outside their tank, despite being surrounded by DU plating (albeit the DU hasn't been recently vaporized) but they've noted DU dust pretty much settles in a 10 m radius, which doesn't really seem so bad.

In general, it seems to me that using DU is no more dangerous then hand-soldering a circuit board in terms of heavy metal exposure.

[swansont]

This is a long set of comparisons regarding cancers, and rates of cancers among military personnel exposed to DU explosions, and those not exposed. The graphs are fairly expressive, and the data is fairly clear. There is such a great divide regarding the pro and con data, the pro and con statements.

http://www.web-light.nl/VISIE/DUREPORT/mirror_dureport.html

The data are clear? I can't tell from that report exactly what they were comparing. It looks like they think there's a difference in the occurrences of different types of cancer for people exposed to DU. I don't understand what their control group is.

The all have a common experience of exposure to a DU explosion, but I'll bet they also have a common exposure to MREs as well as a lot of other factors. Correlation is not causality. Unless I'm missing something, this doesn't look like good science at all.

[russ_watters]

The data are clear? I can't tell from that report exactly what they were comparing. It looks like they think there's a difference in the occurrences of different types of cancer for people exposed to DU. I don't understand what their control group is. That was my assessment as well. I don't see a description of the groups - not even how many people are in each. Without that, its impossible to draw conclusions from the data.

[Dayle Record]

The data is cross cultural, being combined efforts of Iraqi scientists, and data from the University Of New Mexico school of public health. There are a lot of radioactive sites in New Mexico and there is a lot of valid research regarding public health dangers of these various things out of the University Of New Mexico. The Iraqi research was documenting a well defined rise in numerous cancers, over several years following the first DU use there. The graphs showed a dramatic and clear increase of cancers over time past the first DU use in Iraq. While thrashing about looking for some good research, I came across statements regarding plutonium on the ground as much as a mile away from the Nevada Test Site, and Tritium plumes entering the water tables there. I was reading that the date 2070 has been set for the end of cleanup of that stuff.

Keep in mind a lot of damage has happened while we were being assured that there was no danger, at any time.

Those graphs were simple to read, and the method was simple, were you present at a DU explosion, yes/no; then the data regarding cancer, yes/no.

[BCRion]

The Iraqi research was documenting a well defined rise in numerous cancers, over several years following the first DU use there. The graphs showed a dramatic and clear increase of cancers over time past the first DU use in Iraq. While thrashing about looking for some good research, I came across statements regarding plutonium on the ground as much as a mile away from the Nevada Test Site, and Tritium plumes entering the water tables there. I was reading that the date 2070 has been set for the end of cleanup of that stuff.

Keep in mind a lot of damage has happened while we were being assured that there was no danger, at any time.

Those graphs were simple to read, and the method was simple, were you present at a DU explosion, yes/no; then the data regarding cancer, yes/no.

But it is not so simple. We need to rule out other potential causes of cancer as well. It may be true there is a correlation between the use of DU weapons and a rise in cancer rate, but was DU singled out as the agent actually causing the increase in cancer? I think not.

In a war you have literally hundreds of chemicals and who knows what put into the atmosphere and inhaled or absorbed into the lungs, blood, etc. Are we sure that it is DU causing this, or the other residues of the chemical explosives used in war? These questions are not addressed.

As far as the Nevada Test Site, so what? They tested real live nuclear (fission, if you will) weapons there and a lot of them. Two entirely different situations that do not apply.

[russ_watters]

The data is cross cultural, being combined efforts of Iraqi scientists, and data from the University Of New Mexico school of public health. Ahh - a "meta-study." I really, really hate those things. It eliminates all accountability for the data, treating all studies as equals. The Iraqi research was documenting a well defined rise in numerous cancers, over several years following the first DU use there. I thought the study was all American servicemen?

edit: reread. Ok, this changes everything. A combination of Iraqi studies on Iraqi soldiers - sorry, but that scores reallllllly high on my B.S.-O-Meter. I have no confidence whatsoever in the accuracy of those numbers.and the method was simple It may have been, but I don't know because it wasn't explained.But it is not so simple. We need to rule out other potential causes of cancer as well. It may be true there is a correlation between the use of DU weapons and a rise in cancer rate, but was DU singled out as the agent actually causing the increase in cancer? I think not. For a comparison, Dayle, have you heard about the data regarding cancer risk from power lines? Same idea. A statistical correlation exists, but no causation has been identified. Most scientists think there are more cancers around power lines because there are more poor people living around power lines.

[faust9]

Correlation and Causality.* One common mistake made by people interpreting a correlational coefficient refers to causality.* When we see that depression and low self-esteem are negatively correlated, we often surmise that depression must therefore cause the decrease in self-esteem.* When contemplating this, consider the following correlations that have been found in research:


Positive correlation between ice cream consumption and drownings

Positive correlation between ice cream consumption and murder

Positive correlation between ice cream consumption and boating accidents

Positive correlation between ice cream consumption and shark attacks



link: http://allpsych.com/researchmethods/correlation.html


I always love these ice cream correlations. The bread is evil correlations is another good one.

Studies that don't involve the scientific method are easy to skew. In the case of DU the studies are focusing on DU as the cause because there is a correlation; however, the more significant correlation is war in general causes illness.

[swansont]

For a comparison, Dayle, have you heard about the data regarding cancer risk from power lines? Same idea. A statistical correlation exists, but no causation has been identified. Most scientists think there are more cancers around power lines because there are more poor people living around power lines.

I think you can even go further than that. The idea that power lines caused cancer cropped up because in some power line areas, there were higher-than-normal cancer rates. But IIRC once a full, statistical study was done, it was found that there was no overall correlation, once you removed the economic status bias.

This situation is similar to the silicone breast implants that were banned - women got sick after having the implants, and were convinced that the silicoone was the cause. But the statistics showed that the chances of getting ill after implants was no higher than in general. A case of post hoc, ergo propter hoc. (Robert Park discusses this in Vodoo Science, which is a must read, right after Sagan's The Demon Haunted World) This fallacy is why I disregard the earlier statement of 'XXX blames his illnesses on DU exposure.' It's anecdotal, and doesn't constitute evidence. It has no more weight than saying that there were no nuclear weapons until after women got the right to vote in the US. True, but meaningless from a causality standpoint.

[russ_watters]

...there were no nuclear weapons until after women got the right to vote in the US. I am soooo using that one.

[hitssquad]

Ahh - a "meta-study." I really, really hate those things....So did Eysenck. He discusses meta-studies a bit in Genius (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521485088).

[Dayle Record]

Plenty of reputable scientists claim that DU is carcinogenic. I read aplenty regarding this, and thought about it too. I really don't have a lot of emotion about this subject, but I enjoy seeing what happens when this is discussed.

Let us see, those that do not embrace the technology of Depleted Uranium, are:

Hippies
Emotional wrecks
Non thinkers
Poorly versed in Science

If I didn't know better, I would think this were an election year. I don't kiss babies though, they might be radioactive.

When all the money is made
And all the doers are daid,
Then we will find the terrible
The unbearable sad reality;
But only after the statute of
Limitations has run out.
Death is always in fashion.
When you have a pipeline to broker
Oil or drug you take your pick.
We did not go there to make life better,
Nor did we remove a single fetter.
The blue burkas blow in Kabul still,
The old men lie with the boys and the girls
They always will.
The Oilmen, the deathmen bored of their trailers,
Are brushing the dust off their khakis
Picking up their guns,
And looking for rich fields to drain,
Into the deathstream.
The nuclear dust now flows
In the Euphrates and the Tigris,
If only it were blood instead,
This history flows forever now,
Not just the tale of vicious monkeys,
But the tale of poison to deaden
A world. Poison on poison,
Into the veins of the world
The Amazon, the Mississippi,
The Orinoco, the Rhine, cannot
Drown our misdeads.
If there is a judgement day
How the scientists will cry,
I was just doing my job,
The figures bore this out,
The studies said...
It was within acceptible limits...
The risk outweighed the consequences,
I did what I was told to do.
It was the lesser of the two evils.

[faust9]

I don't think anyone here disputes the fact that DU is a know carcinogen. The sun is a know carcinogen. Diesel fuel is a know carcinogen. Acrylamide is a known carcinogen. Smoking is a known carcinogen.... I could go on but it'd be pointless. The simple fact that a material is a carcinogen doesn't make it any less or more dangerous than the 1000 plus things you encounter on a daily basis that are just as harmful. Heck working with epoxy or super glue can be more dangerous than the limited exposure to DU on a battle field.

[Kojac]

Seriously. Everyone absorbs carcinogenic material daily. Who really cares if DU is too? The point is that it's not really adding any discernable risk. Hell, our soldiers probably are in more danger from the cigarettes they smoke and the secondhand smoke their teamates blow their way. I kinda figure we've gone over this 5 zillion times now...there is no hard data that backs up claims of real danger stemming from DU. There are plenty of nay-sayers who don't like the word 'Uranium' and scream 'radioactivity', when in reality, what we've got is an emitter of alpha's and beta's (hardly a DEADLY killer), and a bunch of people who should be more worried that it's a heavy metal then a source of radiation poisoning. Shoot. Until you can really show us some data, quit with the poetry and the claims that it's as harmful as *gasps* Aspartamine.

[Yggdrasil]

Depleted uranium is uranium at its final isotope, where it can not release any more radioactivity.

[swansont]

Depleted uranium is uranium at its final isotope, where it can not release any more radioactivity.

Uh, no. There are no stable isotopes of Uranium.

[russ_watters]

Plenty of reputable scientists claim that DU is carcinogenic. Dayle, with statements like this, you continue to display your willful ignorance on the subject. Like the others said, of course its a carcinogen: its a heavy metal! What we've been trying to pound into you (unsuccessfully) is there is a difference between chemical properties and radiological properties. You are still mixing the two up. Besides which, just saying a substance is carcinogenic doesn't say much of anything about what the risks are with it.
I really don't have a lot of emotion about this subject...
There are a lot of things that could kill you - or me, or an Iraqi schoolchild. DU is one of them. But DU is so low on the list that it does not warrant the attention you and some others give it. Why not pick on cigarette smoke? Air pollution? Stairs! As I said before, you latched on to DU because of an emotional reaction to the word "urnanium."

[Dayle Record]

I "Latched onto this" because this stuff is being tested extensively less than 40 miles from where I live. There are a lot of conflicting discussions regarding this, in the scientific community. I know that as a heavy metal it is poisonous, and radiologically it is carcinogenic, if it is taken into the body. It is taken into the body if you are in close proximity to a DU weapon discharge, or if you pick up a shrapnel wound, or if you are a child, handling pieces of spent ordinance, and playing in the dust, and putting your hands in your mouth as children do. I am not sure what happens if you grow a vegetable garden over where DU explosions occurred. I don't need to be pounded. I have done a lot of reading about this, especially since starting this thread, and I have followed up on every point. I don't like the patronizing tone, you take with me.

The future of warfare needs to be peaceful distribution of the world's resources, and conflict resolution before it becomes war. The money spent on weaponry, and warfare, insures that it will persist, as it impoverishes the world, and instability from that results in warfare. When war becomes more and more toxic, and new and longer lived pollutants are disbursed we pay for generations into the future, for whatever short term gain came from warfare.

This substance is, whether mildly or massively, radioactive. This substance is toxic, and carcinogenic. These explosions occur at such a high temperature that new compounds are formed at impact whose nano properties have not been tested, because that is one of those side issues that was skirted when DU was approved for use. It is thought that the new compounds that form, and the unusual shape of the molecules are the main carcinogen.

Again, I don't need to be pounded, and why don't you substitute a more blatant mysogynistic name for the emotion that you are projecting onto me. All of this personal projection of my supposed emotional state, is highly subjective, and innacurate. I am concerned that this will turn out to be one of those things that will really cost this nation, enormous amounts of monies in reparations later.

[Kojac]

yeah...world peace would be nice. I agree. Nice, however, is a whole different ballgame then realistic. By the way, no one fusses about our soldiers handing out cigarettes to the residents of warzones, or the fact that we use x-rays, MRI's, or CAT scans in medicine, or the radiation emitted by smoke detectors, TV's, your computer monitor, microwaves...or any other things I see every day. Aspartamine is used in everything, along with MSG, and every circuitboard I've ever encountered is covered in soldering- tin and lead. no one fussed about the fact that when they started ripping asbestos out of schools and public buildings they actually put more asbestos into the air and exposed more people to it then would have happened had they just left it. you know what it is? it's political. it's a card that's being played to advocate change beyond just changing ammunition. it's a card that's being played because some people don't like the fact that we even have a military, because we're involved in conflicts that offend their sensibilities. I really don't know about you, but my view is that the bigger and badder our guns our, the more likely it is that the friends i personally have in Iraq right now will come home alive and well, because the tank that might have shot them, or the truck carrying radical gunmen was shredded with a nice, dense bullet, eliminating the threat before it really even became a threat. thank God they are testing such materials, and for all i care, they can test them around where i live. (as long as they're not too loud, i'd like to get some sleep at night) shoot. the things aren't any more harmful then tons of stuff we see every day. just quit it.

[russ_watters]

I don't like the patronizing tone, you take with me. Ditto for you, though your tone is maybe a little more sanctimonious than patronizing. The future of warfare needs to be peaceful distribution of the world's resources, and conflict resolution before it becomes war. Thats all well and good, but 1. that has nothing to do with this discussion, 2. that world does not exist, and 3. wishful thinking will not make it happen. Again, I don't need to be pounded... If you keep posting, I'll keep responding. If you interpret that as "pounding," that's up to you....and why don't you substitute a more blatant mysogynistic name for the emotion that you are projecting onto me. The only person here to make an issue of your gender is you. With a name like "Dayle," I initially assumed you were male. But it doesn't really matter to me either way. On issues like this, being emotional is not strictly a female trait.All of this personal projection of my supposed emotional state, is highly subjective, and innacurate. Your initial arguements made comment on your emotional point of view relevant: your initial arguments were based largely on emotion, not science (your very first sentence was an emotionally charged accusation of disinformation). You've gotten better, but you haven't let go of the emotion and argued strictly based on science. edit: reading back, you argued specifically that emotion should play a role in science. You seem to be backing away from that, which is good, but you haven't let go of the emotional content of your argument yet.

[Yggdrasil]

Here is a website about DU:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium

[Oyéah]

Today in New Scientist the link between plutonium and cancer is discussed. This is an article that discusses the fact that the DU being manufactured is not pure and contains Plutonium, and other more radioactive isotopes. The article also stated that the Navy has withdrawn from use of DU due to health concerns. Here is a link to the Dirty Du article.

http://www.firethistime.org/plutoniumcontamination.htm

Here is a link to today's New Scientist article

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996152

[Arctic Fox]

Could the DU be recycled for use in something like an RTG?

I’m thinking that DU wouldn’t get (temperature)hot enough to run an RTG... comments?

[russ_watters]

Could the DU be recycled for use in something like an RTG?

I’m thinking that DU wouldn’t get (temperature)hot enough to run an RTG... comments? I don't think so either - it has an extremely slow decay rate.

[flylake]

As one poster to this forum was so fond of noting, one single particle of radiation can cause a fatal cancer. It is not a question of whether DU ammunition is dangerous, it is a question of whether it is better or worse than the alternatives. The alternative to DU ammunition is not peace. The alternative is lead. Lead is so toxic, that without even being radioactive it is a far greater environmental hazard than DU. However, depleted uranium has a much scarier sound to it, and that mobilizes the howlers. Granted, we'd all be better off not shooting any high-velocity, heavy, metal objects around, but if we're going to be doing it anyway, we're better off with DU than lead.

Njorl


I question everyone's paranoia about lead. I've worked around lead my entire life and show no ill effects. My grandfather worked lead for 60+ years and was alert, healthy and physically and mentally active well into his 90s (died in an auto accident - hit by a drunk driver, not of illness). New England's only natural resource is lead, and if you live anywhere in northern New England you are exposed to it every time you hike through the mountains or fish in a river.

Sure, if you sit down and ingest a meal of lead every day, you'll have issues, as you would if you were hit by a lead bullet, but I have never seen any documented studies that legitimately show "lead pollution" is creating any sort of hazard to humanity.

[Francis M]

I noticed the next to last post on this was in July. Question did anybody actually answer the persons question in the first place or did this degenerate into an argument (as usual)? I can only hope that this "discussion" ended up in either the trash heap or was moved to the POLITICAL/OPINION section of the forum. The health risks from DU rounds are worse as a heavy metal than from the radiaton, no doubt. But that would be from inhalation or ingestion. SO unless we're grinding these bullets up and sniffing/eating them I wouldn't worry. Id' be more worried about the health risk of getting hit wiht a DU round. YOu know there has been a proven corollation to getting shot with one of these things and death. The AP round a tank uses is a thin metal rod (about 40mm)? shot out of a 105-120mm cannon. It's nothing more than a kinetic kill weapon. Also if you were close enough to breathe the vapor/dust from a DU tipped cruise missile or cannon round the cuncussive blast would kill you. There's more of a health risk from the general vaporized smoke and debris from the destroyed target. How do we seperate that possible health risk from that of the DU? PLease lets answer this persons question and take the political discussion to that section of the forum?

[russ_watters]

I question everyone's paranoia about lead.....

Sure, if you sit down and ingest a meal of lead every day, you'll have issues Well, that's just it: with DU, the trouble happens when you inhale it. With lead, the trouble typically happens when you eat it. That's why lead paint was a problem (kids would eat it), lead pipes - and in the middle ages in England, lead utensils. I have never seen any documented studies that legitimately show "lead pollution" is creating any sort of hazard to humanity. "Lead pollution" would be difficult and that's where most criticism of DU comes in: DU oxidizes and vaporizes easier. Nevertheless, I have seen studies of lead-linked illness in shooting ranges.

[russ_watters]

There's more of a health risk from the general vaporized smoke and debris from the destroyed target. How do we seperate that possible health risk from that of the DU? This is my biggest criticism of anti-DU arguments. War is unhealthy, period. Whether you're standing next to a tank that just blew up, breathing everything from DU to burning plastic, to burning diesel fuel, or just inhaling the fumes your rifle gives off when you fire it, soldiers are exposed to a lot of hazardous chemicals.

I doubt DU makes up a significant fraction of reports of "Gulf-war syndrome," for example.

[Francis M]

This is my biggest criticism of anti-DU arguments. War is unhealthy, period. Whether you're standing next to a just blewtank that up, breathing everything from DU to burning plastic, to burning diesel fuel, or just inhaling the fumes your rifle gives off when you fire it, soldiers are exposed to a lot of hazardous chemicals.

I doubt DU makes up a significant fraction of reports of "Gulf-war syndrome," for example.

I Also have to wonder what kind of health risks and problems are brought on by psychological trauma and stress.

On a side note I also saw a post with a poll asking if war was good or necessary? Boy is that a slippery slope to get on.

[Dayle Record]

Sure, if you sit down and ingest a meal of lead every day, you'll have issues, as you would if you were hit by a lead bullet, but I have never seen any documented studies that legitimately show "lead pollution" is creating any sort of hazard to humanity.
flylake is offline Reply With Quote


There is significant danger from lead, in every pediatrician's office in Salt Lake, there is a map, showing that you should be tested for lead poisoning if you live in the older area of town.