Depleted Uranium: Army Use & Radioactivity Risk

[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 receive 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 receive 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 receive 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?

 

[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?

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 occurring 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 ass" 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 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 into 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 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 exposure from other sources and the valid studies associated with Rn (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 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 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]

EMF danger

'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 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: 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 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 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 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: 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 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?