Merged Depleted uranium

[clarsct]

Most of the DU we used in the Gulf War was in Kuwait, (where Saddam's army was) not Iraq.

So? Do/did Kuwaitis get Gulf War Syndrome? Iraqis? The Egyptian guy who was driving the cab when everything went down?


BTW, I'll just have to side with the numbers on DU. Rather than get scared by the word 'Uranium', I choose to make a rational decision based on the evidence available.

Also BTW, I noticed that someone mentioned that DU was used against tanks, and when they burned a bunch of, and I'm paraphrasing here, icky stuff gets put into the air. DUH! The lead could vaporize as well, and create the same, if not worse, health hazard. Of course, the burning fuel would be my main worry. Not to mention the rubber and plastic going up. Then again, on a battlefield, I might just be more worried about the idea of someone shooting me. That silly logic and reasoning again. Trips me up all the time.

 

[AWPrime]

Believe it or not, I have a serious question. Did any of the Iraqi's come down with Gulf War Syndrome?

They are dead.

 

[AWPrime]

Depleted uranium isn't radioactive, except in the same sense that concrete is radioactive. Yes, it's a heavy metal and as such it is a health hazard; however it is nowhere near the health hazard that some people make it out to be. If they were concerned about the actual (rather than imagined) health effects of depleted uranium, they would be equally opposed to the similar use of lead or wolfram.

Well it is radioactive and there are different types of radiation.

What users of DU often do is to compare DU with another 'harmless' materiaal that has the same low radiation of a specific type, while ignoring that it emits far more radiation of a different type.

Also they tend to forget that the combined radiation and toxicity has an amplifying effect for causing genetic damage. So the probable damage is greater than the sum of its properties.

 

[clarsct]

Let me be more clear about the fact, at least according to the WHO. (World Health Organization) At this site:
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/

QUOTE:
-----------------------------------------------
Due to its high density, about twice that of lead, the main civilian uses of DU include counterweights in aircraft, radiation shields in medical radiation therapy machines and containers for the transport of radioactive materials. The military uses DU for defensive armour plate.
-----------------------------------------------

They use this stuff as a RADIATION SHIELD! It is supposed to SHIELD you from radiation!!

BTW, 98% of this stuff ingested is eliminated.

So, to say this stuff emits more radiation than is healthy is simply not true. Get over the fear of the word 'uranium'. As far as I can tell, this is a scare tactic used by anti-military activists to try to garner public support(translates to MONEY) to their cause.

As P&T would say, Bull$h!t!!

 

[Leif Roar]

Well it is radioactive and there are different types of radiation.

Yes, there are three - alfa, beta and gamma. The decay of U-238 to Ld-206 involves a total of 8 alfa and 6 beta emissions. Considering the very long half-life of U-238 this is insignificant -- even if the effective radiaton dose is fourteen times larger than what it would have been if it had been a direct decay to a stable element, we're still dealing with a barely radoiactive substance.

What users of DU often do is to compare DU with another 'harmless' materiaal that has the same low radiation of a specific type, while ignoring that it emits far more radiation of a different type.

Not true. The total radiactive emmisions of DU is very, very low.

 

[AWPrime]

Sure the gamma dose is low but what about the alpha and beta dose?

And they can cause lots of damage with internal exposure.

 

[Leif Roar]

Sure the gamma dose is low but what about the alpha and beta dose?

They are also very low.

 

[aerocontrols]

So? Do/did Kuwaitis get Gulf War Syndrome?

I don't believe they did.

That was the point.

 

[AWPrime]

They are also very low.

Not, compared to other heavy metals. And maybe you want to compare it to natural uranium, but I have news for you: that isn't healthy either.

DU is light radioactive and a primary alpha-emitter.


Alpha radiation is good in damaging genetic information. The cel can repair some damage. But the cell functions can be weakened by DU's toxicity.


When not in the body, DU posses hardly any risk. However when inhaled it posses a health risk.

 

[bobdroege7]

From

http://www.idust.net/Compendium/Compendium.htm#TOC


http://www.idust.net/Compendium/Compendium.htm#Authors

enough to demonstrate that there is no consensus that DU is harmless

quote

However, animal experiments have shown that inhaled uranium dioxide aerosols, such as those produced when DU is machined or when a DU weapon explodes and/or burns have a very long retention time in the lungs and slowly distribute DU throughout the body, coming to rest in bones, liver, kidney, heart, brain, spleen, lymph nodes and testicles. Tests on Gulf War veterans have shown measurable urinary DU even 10 years after their exposure, reinforcing the conclusions from the rat experiments. DU residing in the testicles may explain the observed teratogenic effects of DU exposure in which children of Gulf War veterans have a 50% greater risk of severe birth defects. DU-exposed rats have lower fertility, give rise to low birth weight offspring with a significantly higher rate of fetal skeletal malformations.The urine and blood tests of rats with embedded DU pellets or patches or injected DU solutions show dose and time-dependent mutagenic toxicity, and neurological disorders.

McDiarmid (6), in her continuing studies at the US Veterans Administration of 1991 Gulf War veterans with embedded fragments, determined that for low concentrations of urinary uranium, spot uranium urinary analysis showed poor correlation with the more accurate 24-hour timed collection samples. Petruccelli (7) writes on the health effects of veterans’ exposure to the oil fires during that conflict. Hooper (8), also of the VA, notes that the 33 veterans being studied showed significantly higher urinary uranium both 2 years and 4 years after the conflict, but none showed renal disfunction. In 2000, McDiarmid (9), (15) reported that elevated urinary uranium in 29 of the veterans still in the embedded fragment study was observed 7 years following the conflict, still with no renal disfunction, but with definite signs of neurocognitive degeneration and “subtle perturbations in the reproductive and central nervous systems”. In 2001, McDiarmid (10) expanded the original cohort under study to 169 veterans, divided into 19 groups based on probable DU exposure levels during the Gulf War (based on answers given in questionaires) and found 12 veterans with elevated urinary uranium levels (later reduced to 9 veterans after a second round of tests). Her conclusion was that only those with embedded DU fragments showed any statistical correlation to elevated urinary uranium.

In December of 2001, McDiarmid (13) reported on a cohort of 50 embedded DU fragment veterans, all showing elevated urinary uranium and statistically correlated “perturbations in central nervous system function and a general measure of mutagen exposure” and concluded that “Observations in this group of veterans prompt speculation about the health effects of DU in other exposure scenarios.” Hodge (14), of AFRRI, proposed using ICP-MS to assay veterans’ urine samples and use isotope ratios to identify DU specifically in order to “mitigate the concerns of exposed individuals.”

 

[Bruce]

From

http://www.idust.net/Compendium/Compendium.htm#TOC

"Compendium of Uranium and Depleted Uranium Research"
Commissioned by:
International Depleted Uranium Study Team (IDUST)
International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons (ICBUW)

I stopped reading right here. If this is the title of your organization, then you've already destroyed your credibility. Let's try something similar...

"Are Atheists Truly Immoral?"
Commissioned by
The Christian Fundamentalists Council to Prove That Atheists are Definitely Immoral (CFCPTADI)

(sigh) Next.

 

[WildCat]

From

http://www.idust.net/Compendium/Compendium.htm#TOC


http://www.idust.net/Compendium/Compendium.htm#Authors

That's beautiful! To add slightly to what Bruce pointed out, that study was commissioned by IDUST and ICBW. Let's look at the mission statement of IDUST:

To disseminate information and coordinate advocacy efforts worldwide;
To bring about a total ban on weapons that contain depleted uranium.

No hint of bias there!

And ICBW: (And they really need to abbreviate their Mission Statement! This is a small part)

On October 13th, 2003, after a conference in Berlaar, Belgium, grassroots organisations and experts in several disciplines launched an international campaign for a ban on the military use of uranium [1] and other radioactive materials in weaponry

And who were these "grassroots organizations"?

List of Founding Coalition Partners

Campaign Against Depleted Uranium (CADU), United Kingdom
Campaign Against Radiation Exposure (CARE), Japan
Center for Peace and Justice, United States
For Mother Earth, Belgium
Grassroots Actions for Peace, United States
International Depleted Uranium Study Team (IDUST), United States
German Affiliate of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW)
Laka Foundation (Documentation and research centre on nuclear energy), the Netherlands
Maarten HJ van den Berg (RISQ; Independent foreign policy think tank), the Netherlands
Military Toxics Project (MTP), United States
NO DU Hiroshima Project, Japan
Our Common Future, United Kingdom
Stop USA Belgium
VD/AMOK (Documentation and research collective on the military), the Netherlands
Youth Terminating Pollution, United States

Again, no hint at all of potential bias!

 

[RandFan]

Not, compared to other heavy metals. And maybe you want to compare it to natural uranium, but I have news for you: that isn't healthy either.

DU is light radioactive and a primary alpha-emitter.

Alpha radiation is good in damaging genetic information. The cel can repair some damage. But the cell functions can be weakened by DU's toxicity.

When not in the body, DU posses hardly any risk. However when inhaled it posses a health risk.

You are making claims. Could you back these up or are we supposed to just take your word for it? Do you have ANY evidence that anyone has ever been harmed by DU beyond the intended use of DU.

 

[RandFan]

http://www.idust.net/Compendium/Compendium.htm#TOC

http://www.idust.net/Compendium/Compendium.htm#Authors

enough to demonstrate that there is no consensus that DU is harmless.

Fallacy. No one is claiming there is a consensus only that there is no evidence that DU is harmful. I should point out that there is no consensus concerning Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny and whether we went to the moon either.

 

[kalen]

You are making claims. Could you back these up or are we supposed to just take your word for it?

Sounds like something someone who knows a little about radiation safety would say. Alpha particles consist of 2 protons and 2 neutrons (a 4He nucleus). They are heavy, charged particles. They do not penetrate very far in to the body and mostly lose their energy (and therefore their ability to do cellular and genetic damage) in the outer (dead) layers of the skin. Alpha emitters inside the body are a completely different story. Someone who has ingested or breathed in DU dust will receive an extra dose of radiation above and beyond one would receive normally. There can not be an argument there. DU has an activity about 0.3 - 0.7 that of natural uranium.

Do you have ANY evidence that anyone has ever been harmed by DU beyond the intended use of DU.

What you are asking here is impossible to answer for any particular case. Increased levels of radiation in the human body have all kinds of bad effects. Studies that have shown this are statistical in nature, but are conclusive. One has to use statistics for low dose radiation studies because it is extremely difficult to say this or that guy got cancer (or whatever) from working around some radioactive material. However, when one sees a statistically significant increase in cancer rates or birth defects in the test population relative to a control population, we conclude that it was a result of the radioactive material. But surely you know how these kinds of studies work, Randfan? Are you out trolling, today?

Now the real question is: what is a typical dose of radiation received by someone working/playing/being/fighting around places where there is DU dust? Or equivalently, how much DU dust is ingested/inhaled? Then you can figure out the increased risk for things like cancer/birth defects/etc.

Sorry, I can't speak to the heavy metal/ chemical nature of uranium. Maybe someone will suggest that it cancels out the effect due to radiation? Anyone?

 

[RandFan]

Sounds like something someone who knows a little about radiation safety would say.

NO! It's something a skeptic would say.

Alpha particles consist of 2 protons and 2 neutrons (a 4He nucleus). They are heavy, charged particles. They do not penetrate very far in to the body and mostly lose their energy (and therefore their ability to do cellular and genetic damage) in the outer (dead) layers of the skin. Alpha emitters inside the body are a completely different story. Someone who has ingested or breathed in DU dust will receive an extra dose of radiation above and beyond one would receive normally. There can not be an argument there.

Cool, then you will have no problem showing evidence that DU causes any significant harm.

DU has an activity about 0.3 - 0.7 that of natural uranium.

The data thus far, AIU disputes this. Instead of simply making claims could you post proof?

What you are asking here is impossible to answer for any particular case.

Then post evidence for groups. If DU is truly dangerous then we should be able to find some evidence beyond speculation, right?

Increased levels of radiation in the human body have all kinds of bad effects.

Yes, but is DU significant in a way that other things are not? Can it be quantified? Can it be demonstrated by objective evidence?

Studies that have shown this are statistical in nature, but are conclusive. One has to use statistics for low dose radiation studies because it is extremely difficult to say this or that guy got cancer (or whatever) from working around some radioactive material. However, when one sees a statistically significant increase in cancer rates or birth defects in the test population relative to a control population, we conclude that it was a result of the radioactive material.

Only if the models demonstrate that the rates are greater than they would otherwise be by chance. Statistical events often happen in clusters. One day I might win many hand at black jack and another day I might win only a few.

But surely you know how these kinds of studies work, Randfan? Are you out trolling, today?

No, I'm out being a skeptic.

Now the real question is: what is a typical dose of radiation received by someone working/playing/being/fighting around places where there is DU dust? Or equivalently, how much DU dust is ingested/inhaled? Then you can figure out the increased risk for things like cancer/birth defects/etc.

No, wrong. The only real question is: What measurable difference is there in incidents of cancer of those exposed to DU and those not exposed to DU? The greater the rate of incidents the more likely perhaps greater the risk.

 

[Bruce]

Here are some radiation emission comparisons with DU:

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=3478

By way of comparison, DU’s radioactivity is so low, that a single piece weighing 6,615 pounds would be needed to obtain one curie of radioactivity. In contrast, one pound of Cobalt - 60 emits 518,000 curies of radioactivity. In fact, DU is classified in the lowest hazard class of all radioactive materials.

http://mahalanobis.twoday.net/stories/193318

* Unshielded 30mm DU penetrator < 0.1 mrem per hour
* Background radiation ~ 350 mrem per year
* Smoking ~ 125 mrem * number of cigarettes/day per year
* Transpolar flight ~ 10 mrem
* Chest X-ray ~ 50 mrem
* Radiation worker annual safe allowance = 5000 mrem per year
* Essentially no acute effect < 25000 mrem

 

[Bruce]

Here's another in-depth study with ACTUAL DATA, for those who prefer radiation measurments in Sieverts rather than REMs. Inhalation and ingestion hazards are addressed.

http://www.nuclearpolicy.org/docume...ch='Sievert comparisons for depleted uranium'

With the assumption of 10 kg DU spread over 1,000 m2, the top 1 mm of soil in this area contains 1 m3 of soil, weighing 1,500 kg. The DU concentration in the dust will
therefore be 6 µg DU per 1 mg dust.

Normal dust concentration in outdoor air is 50 µg/m3 and under very dusty conditions may reach 5 mg/m3, which would result in DU concentrations of 0.3 µg/m3 and 30 µg/m3 of DU respectively. From a toxicological point of view, these levels are lower than, or within, the
range of given hygiene standards for chronic exposure.

A two-hour stay in a dusty area, such as a field being ploughed, with a respiration rate of 1 m3 per hour, would lead to an intake of 60 µg of DU, corresponding to an effective dose of 7µSv. Even a continuous stay night and day for a year, and under the most dusty conditions, would
not lead to a dose of more than a few tens of mSv. Normal dust conditions would result in a dose 100 times less, i.e. of the order of 0.1 mSv per year. The heavy metal risks are, in allcases, insignificant.

The conservatism in the assumptions is that all DU is respirable and of S-type, and that all DU is distributed in the first upper 1 mm of soil. If, for instance, the measurements should indicate that the DU, if any, is distributed to a depth of 10 cm instead of 1 mm, the
consequences (radiation doses) would be 100 times less with the same area of deposition (10 kg over 1,000 m2) – i.e. a few µSv per year, which is insignificant.

 

[kalen]

NO! It's something a skeptic would say.

OK. I was referring to the comments by AWPrime.

Cool, then you will have no problem showing evidence that DU causes any significant harm.

I never claimed it did. My post in point form:

-DU is a radioactive alpha emitter.
-Alpha emitters are only really dangerous if ingested/inhaled.
-Radioactivity above normal levels causes cancers, etc.
-If DU is inhaled/ingested, a radioactive dose would be received.
-I end up by saying the quantity ingested is an important factor as it relates directly to the radioactive dose received.

DU has an activity about 0.3 - 0.7 that of natural uranium.

The data thus far, AIU disputes this. Instead of simply making claims could you post proof?

I suggest you look up "depleted uranium" and reading about it. The large variation comes about depending on how much 235U has been removed from the natural uranium. Maybe you think I should apply for the JREF million$ for making such a claim?

Originally posted by RandFan
Then post evidence for groups. If DU is truly dangerous then we should be able to find some evidence beyond speculation, right?

Yes, but is DU significant in a way that other things are not? Can it be quantified? Can it be demonstrated by objective evidence?

Yes. You said the magic words: "objective evidence." If we had any (and enough of it) then we agree a conclusion can be reached. Unless you start demanding that I prove the evidence is objective and that the extra/(or not extra) cancers are from a different source. But that's what controls in well designed studies are supposed to do. (This is the second time I had to say that to a skeptic?)

Originally posted by RandFan
Only if the models demonstrate that the rates are greater than they would otherwise be by chance. Statistical events often happen in clusters. One day I might win many hand at black jack and another day I might win only a few.

Did I forget to say the words "statisically significant?" Nope.

Originally posted by RandFan
No, I'm out being a skeptic.

Just don't give the rest of us a bad name.

Originally posted by RandFan
No, wrong. The only real question is: What measurable difference is there in incidents of cancer of those exposed to DU and those not exposed to DU? The greater the rate of incidents the more likely perhaps greater the risk.

So, you don't think the dose has anything to do with it?

Randfan, I'm not pushing an agenda here. I genuinely do want the risks to be known - for the sake of alot people who are currently being exposed to DU. Maybe it is harmless in typical exposures.

You, on the other hand, are jumping in to demand proof on the radioactive properties of uranium. Either you have an agenda or I am beginning to suspect I just fed a troll a five course meal.

 

[Ziggurat]

-Radioactivity above normal levels causes cancers, etc.

Actually, it isn't clear that this is always the case. We really don't have a good understanding of the health effects of low-level radiation. What we do have is data regarding the effects of very high level doses, where the effects are quite noticeable. These data are often extrapolated to low doses, making the assumption that risk is linear with dosage with no threshold level. But that's probably not accurate. The body has natural repair mechanisms to take care of damaged DNA and even cancerous cells. These mechanisms probably make low dosage exposure much less dangerous than you would expect based on linear extrapolation methods. Because the risks at low dosage are so small and because factors other than radiation also affect cancer rates, nobody has good statistics. In fact, it's even concievable that slightly elevated radiation levels could be good for you, similar to how living in an overly sterile environment can make people prone to allergies. After all, we've evolved to live in an environment with radiation, and we are exposed to radiation every day.