Depleted Uranium: Army Use & Radioactivity Risk

[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]

EMF hormesis

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 going to 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 into 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]

Nuclear weapon efficiency and composition of nuetron reflectors

A fission bomb consumes only about 3% of its fuel.

• Preventing Disassembly and 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 and tungsten as neutron reflectors. The 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.

• 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:

http://www.sundayherald.com/40096 [/size]

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:

http://www.sundayherald.com/40096 [/size]

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 http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/pub_meet/en/Depluraniumintro.pdf and since he goes speaking on conferences such as 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 http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/pub_meet/en/Depluraniumintro.pdf and since he goes speaking on conferences such as 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, 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, 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.