Merged Depleted uranium

[Leif Roar]

So you are telling me they have a solid case and there is no need to look into the DU issue any further. Great attitude.

Personally, I'd be more convinced if these statements read:

Really? If someone had spent a day searching a haystack for a needle when one wasn't there, which statement would you say was the most trustworthy of "I did not find a needle in the hay" or "I found there is no needle in the hay"? It should be obvious that an intellectually honest man would only ever give the first response.

 

[AWPrime]

Radiation of DU
http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/faq_17apr.htm


Alpha radiation damage:
http://www1.umn.edu/eoh/hazards/hazardssite/radon/radonmolaction.html


Composition of DU
http://www.antenna.nl/wise/uranium/rup.html#UF6DEP

 

[AWPrime]

If it is harmless why does the?:

The U.S. Army acknowledges the potential hazards of DU in a training manual, in which it requires that anyone who comes within 25 meters of any DU-contaminated equipment or terrain wear respiratory and skin protection, and states that "contamination will make food and water unsafe for consumption."

 

[thaiboxerken]

Radiation of DU
http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/faq_17apr.htm

From this FAQ : A common misconception is that radiation is depleted uranium's primary hazard. This is not the case under most battlefield exposure scenarios. Depleted uranium is approximately 40 percent less radioactive than natural uranium. Depleted uranium emits alpha and beta particles, and gamma rays. Alpha particles, the primary radiation type produced by depleted uranium, are blocked by skin, while beta particles are blocked by the boots and battle dress utility uniform (BDUs) typically worn by service members. While gamma rays are a form of highly-penetrating energy , the amount of gamma radiation emitted by depleted uranium is very low. Thus, depleted uranium does not significantly add to the background radiation that we encounter every day.

When fired, or after "cooking off" in fires or explosions, the exposed depleted uranium rod poses an extremely low radiological threat as long as it remains outside the body. Taken into the body via metal fragments or dust-like particles, depleted uranium may pose a long-term health hazard to personnel if the amount is large. However, the amount which remains in the body depends on a number of factors, including the amount inhaled or ingested, the particle size and the ability of the particles to dissolve in body fluids.

Alpha radiation damage:
http://www1.umn.edu/eoh/hazards/hazardssite/radon/radonmolaction.html

No one denies that radiation can be damaging. Look at the above paragraph agian.

Composition of DU
http://www.antenna.nl/wise/uranium/rup.html#UF6DEP [/B]

DU becomes more radioactive with time.. What's the half-life of DU again?

 

[thaiboxerken]

If it is harmless why does the?:

The U.S. Army acknowledges the potential hazards of DU in a training manual, in which it requires that anyone who comes within 25 meters of any DU-contaminated equipment or terrain wear respiratory and skin protection, and states that "contamination will make food and water unsafe for consumption."

It could be for the same reasons that they have such requirements for working with lead.

 

[AWPrime]

Thus, depleted uranium does not significantly add to the background radiation that we encounter every day.

apples and oranges.


Also I have said that touching solid DU is mostly harmless, inhaling DU dust however isn't so harmless.

 

[Bruce]

apples and oranges.

 

[jj]

Let's see...according to the WHO,

Radiation shields? RADIATION SHIELDS!!!???? OMG!?

Yep. It's dense.

And all of the radiation hysteria about radon in the USA amounts to how many standard cross-continental plane trips?

 

[RandFan]

Yep. It's dense.

And all of the radiation hysteria about radon in the USA amounts to how many standard cross-continental plane trips?

Hey jj,

What you been doing I hear your car's broke down... Never mind.

Woosh... right over my head. I'm taking a pot shot at me btw. What?

 

[AWPrime]

Yes the difference between internal and external exposure.

 

[thaiboxerken]

apples and oranges.


Also I have said that touching solid DU is mostly harmless, inhaling DU dust however isn't so harmless.

You are correct. However, is there evidence that people are inhaling significant amounts of DU dust? Are they grinding it up and getting high from snorting it?

 

[Bruce]

Yes the difference between internal and external exposure.

I laugh because I've alread addressed this. Here it is again:

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.

Apples to apples.

If the radiation emmission is insignificant outside the body, it's insignificant inside the body. Alpha particle emissions can occur from atoms of uranium found in regular dust. It's the quantity of alpha emmitting particles that makes alpha emmissions significantly deadly, not the fact that they exist within the material, but I have yet to see hard evidence from DU banning activists that there are a significantly high number of alpha-emmitting uranium atoms in DU.

Does anybody here understand that DU is simply uranium ore in which the significant portion of radioactive material hase been extracted?? It's a centrifugal process. You need to centrifuge a very large quantity of uranium ore several times before you can extract the highly radioactive isotope. The rest, DU, is pretty much dirt. In fact, it's less radioactive than dirt because all the highly radioactive stuff has been extracted.

This study shows that the emmissions in a supposedly contaminated battlefield are no higher than background radiation, and indeed would not even be theoretically higher than background radiation if a plausible amount of DU were scattered throughout the battlefield.

Why is all this so hard to understand?

 

[AWPrime]

If the radiation emmission is insignificant outside the body, it's insignificant inside the body.

Not when the dead upper layer of the skin stops Alpha radiation and that this protection isn't available inside the body.

It's the quantity of alpha emmitting particles that makes alpha emmissions significantly deadly, not the fact that they exist within the material, but I have yet to see hard evidence from DU banning activists that there are a significantly high number of alpha-emmitting uranium atoms in DU.

DU is primary U238, yes?

Than you should know that it emits alpha radiation as a part of its decay process.

Does anybody here understand that DU is simply uranium ore in which the significant portion of radioactive material hase been extracted?? It's a centrifugal process. You need to centrifuge a very large quantity of uranium ore several times before you can extract the highly radioactive isotope. The rest, DU, is pretty much dirt. In fact, it's less radioactive than dirt because all the highly radioactive stuff has been extracted.

Wow the 'gamma-radiation is the only type of radiation' BS hits again.

And lets not forget 'natural uranium, is natural thus harmless' BS.

 

[AWPrime]

When a DU projectile hits a target, up to 70% of the DU combusts, bursting into dense black clouds of uranium-oxide particles - effectively creating a ceramic DU aerosol. Most of the particles are of respirable size (less than 10 microns), ie. they're small enough to be ingested via inhalation (as well as via open wounds of course, and they're even small enough to penetrate some gas masks), and can be carried long distances (25 miles or more) by the wind, before settling. They can then be resuspended again by wind or movement, and dispersed yet further again. They can also migrate long distances via the ground water table.

This ceramic formulation is significant, because it is highly insoluble in lung fluids, unlike the traditional uranium dust encountered by miners, which is rapidly excreted from the body. Once deposited in the lungs, kidneys or bone, DU particles generally remain in the body for many years. Indeed, veterans of the 1991 Gulf War are still passing DU in their urine to this day.

 

[AWPrime]

Localised Internal Radiation
DU's alpha and beta particle radiation has limited ranges of penetration and hence is not expected to cause serious damage to living tissue via external exposure, ie. it does not penetrate human skin. However, it is internal tissue exposure that makes ingested DU particles such a hazardous radioactive source, and its alpha particles in particular cause significant internal ionisation, resulting in cell death and genetic mutations.

The significance of the term "localised" radiation refers to the fact that the nuclear industry's standard model (as propounded by the ICRP) for estimating radioactive exposure, is based on the averaged whole-body exposure produced by an instantaneous external source of radioactive emissions, and does not take into account the concentrated localised effects of continuous irradiation by an immobilised internal source of radiation (eg. a DU particle lodged in the lungs or bone marrow, which subjects the immediately adjacent tissues to non-stop radiation for years on end).

 

[AWPrime]

The NRPB risk factors and those of the other international risk agencies like the International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP), the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) and the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) sub-committee of the US National Academy of Science all publish broadly similar analyses of leukemia and cancer risk from radiation. These risk models are almost exclusively based on external acute radiation exposure and have based their risk factors on the study of the cancer and leukemia yield in the survivors of the Hiroshima bomb. This model cannot address risk from internal exposure to ingested and incorporated radionuclides since both the study group and the controls were similarly contaminated.

http://www.llrc.org/wobblyscience/subtopic/infleuk.htm

 

[Bruce]

Wow the 'gamma-radiation is the only type of radiation' BS hits again.

And lets not forget 'natural uranium, is natural thus harmless' BS.

So, facts and data from the Nuclear Policy Research Institute (NPRI) is a bunch of BS, huh? That's pretty amazing, considering their mission statement:

The Nuclear Policy Research Institute (NPRI) was established to educate the American public through the mass media about the greatest single threat to our country's -- and indeed the world's -- public health, namely the profound medical, environmental, political and moral consequences of perpetuating nuclear weapons, power and waste.

Who said anything about gamma radiation? Who said anything about natural uranium being harmless? I post science and you post more bunk.

Like talking to a brick wall.

 

[Bruce]

The NRPB risk factors and those of the other international risk agencies like the International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP), the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) and the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) sub-committee of the US National Academy of Science all publish broadly similar analyses of leukemia and cancer risk from radiation. These risk models are almost exclusively based on external acute radiation exposure and have based their risk factors on the study of the cancer and leukemia yield in the survivors of the Hiroshima bomb. This model cannot address risk from internal exposure to ingested and incorporated radionuclides since both the study group and the controls were similarly contaminated.

http://www.llrc.org/wobblyscience/subtopic/infleuk.htm

Yes, yes. Very credible.

http://www.llrc.org/

Now on sale!
the material
UK Government
lawyers
tried to gag.

Special prices for students and campaigners

 

[AWPrime]

Like talking to a brick wall.

I feel the same way.

Care to post some real counterarguments or science?

 

[AWPrime]

So, facts and data from the Nuclear Policy Research Institute (NPRI) is a bunch of BS, huh?

It doesn't mean that they are immune to flaws.

Who said anything about gamma radiation?

see next quote:

If the radiation emmission is insignificant outside the body, it's insignificant inside the body.

Only when dealing with gamma radiation.

You try to use the statements of gamma radiation reduction of DU to suggest that DU in all cases is harmless and that all radiation types are reduced.

But the radiation types are depended upon the decay process not on wishfull thinking.