Depleted Uranium: Army Use & Radioactivity Risk

[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?

 

[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?