• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Depleted Uranium

Status
Not open for further replies.

thaiboxerken

Penultimate Amazing
Joined
Sep 17, 2001
Messages
34,550
I keep reading articles on anti-war sights about the depleted uranium poisoning and the hazards of it. It seems like most of the articles have junk-science behind it.

While I think the war on Iraq was a farce, I think that making up stories about depleted uranium being toxic is wrong.

Is the depleted uranium "scare" based on junk-science, or is the USA government really hiding facts about depleted uranium?
 
The latest I heard, though I am not sure of its accuracy, is that is safe. However, there are concerns about being next to a target hit by a depleted Uranium munition or being next to an armored vehicle with depleted Uranium armor when it is hit.

The belief if that even the small amount of radiation given off by the DU is dangerous if one inhales particles.

Walt
 
I handled thousands of rounds of 20mm depleted uranium. That was 15 years ago, and I'm healthy as a horse. I imagine if you stick a round up your ass and leave it there for a long time it can probably do some harm.
 
Walter Wayne said:
The latest I heard, though I am not sure of its accuracy, is that is safe. However, there are concerns about being next to a target hit by a depleted Uranium munition or being next to an armored vehicle with depleted Uranium armor when it is hit.

The belief if that even the small amount of radiation given off by the DU is dangerous if one inhales particles.


Depleted uranium is essentially all U232 (I think it is the 232 isotope). It decays with a half life in the 10s of millions of years. In terms of radioactivity, it is there but I don't know how much it is. For example, it takes 12 tons of U232 to get the same amount of radiation as a 25 mg sample of I131, which is routinely used in thyroid diagnoses.

I'd be more concerned about the chemical toxicity of uranium than the radioactivity of it.
 
pgwenthold said:

I'd be more concerned about the chemical toxicity of uranium than the radioactivity of it.

Agreed.

Since the subject has come up yet again, I'll ask my (seemingly) eternal question yet again:

Does anyone here have any data on chemical toxicity of uranium vs. chemical toxicity of lead or tungsten, the other two main materials used as penetrators?

Also, I'm curious as the the contribution of toxicity (long term and short term) of DU or lead or tungsten near a burning tank or armored vehicle compared to the toxicity of the material of the burning vehicle itself. It's my understanding that the exotic materials people build tanks and tank munitions out of these days are pretty nasty when oxidized.

If anyone can enlighten me, I would appreciate it.

MattJ
 
pgwenthold said:
Depleted uranium is essentially all U232 (I think it is the 232 isotope). It decays with a half life in the 10s of millions of years. In terms of radioactivity, it is there but I don't know how much it is.

Depleted Uranium is Uranium 238, which is what is left over after U-235 is taken out for reactor or nuclear weapon use. The 235 part is less than 1% of the naturally-occurring uranium, and about 99% is U-238.

U-238 has a half-life of about 4.5 billion years, and emits alpha radiation. A human body is more radioactive than an equal mass of U-238, so there isn't any danger of radiation.

The only danger is from heavy metal poisoning, which is a chemical effect, but I don't know how it compares to lead and tungsten. I'll do some more digging.
 
The claims of the junk-scientists is that, when fired, depleted uranium particulate is put in the air and it's that particulate radiation that causes sickness. I highly doubt this, though, since the whole point of using depleted uranium is that it doesn't shatter these are AP rounds, after all.

Oh well.
 
thaiboxerken said:
The claims of the junk-scientists is that, when fired, depleted uranium particulate is put in the air and it's that particulate radiation that causes sickness. I highly doubt this, though, since the whole point of using depleted uranium is that it doesn't shatter these are AP rounds, after all.

Oh well.

They're right about DU vaporizing on impact. For an armor-piercing projectile, this is a feature, since this process makes the bullet self-sharpening.

MattJ
 
I stand corrected. I wonder how much vapor is created. Oh well, it seems that the DU poisoning claims are anecdotal at best.
 
the vapourisation, or I think particulates rather than vapourises causes outher problems especially if inhaled.

we all know the problem of particulates in the urban context, lest change the airborne carbon for DU. I do not know of any reasearch into this (cos I haven't looked) but I would look to say asbestosis is the best comparable case and how the lung grows around the fibres in asbestos (and most deposited particulates). Now you have a heavy metal as the centre of a tumour.

anyway, I must dig out my old environmental toxicology books as I am typing this from memory

as someone said they may have handled them complete, did you ever hang around in a battle area after lots of them went off breathing and exposing yourself to the particulates (anyone know what size they particulate down to?
 
Captain_Snort said:
the vapourisation, or I think particulates rather than vapourises causes outher problems especially if inhaled.


I believe you are right. My language was imprecise.
 
It sounds like the biggest health problem is when one of these babies hits the tank you’re in
 
aerocontrols said:


Agreed.

Since the subject has come up yet again, I'll ask my (seemingly) eternal question yet again:

Does anyone here have any data on chemical toxicity of uranium vs. chemical toxicity of lead or tungsten, the other two main materials used as penetrators?


Translated from http://www.nt.ntnu.no/users/ystenes/vitenskap/uran/ - a compilation of information compiled by Martin Ystenes (chemistry professor and crusdare against junk science) a couple of years ago. (The translation is done quickly, so it's a bit flakey.)


6. What is the chemical toxicity of uranium?

The chemical toxicity of uranium is generally considired to be more important for those who are exposed to uranium than the effect of the radiation. Most uranium oxides are very insoluble, and what uranium we ingest throug food and water will pass through our bodies without causing any damage. There has for instance been conducted animal tests where dogs have been given 100 mg uranium oxides a day where one was not able to show any effect on health.

Uranium can however be converted to ions that are soluble, so called "uranylioner" [I don't know the English translation, so I'll use the Norwegian word unchanged], and which can enter the bloodstream. The most important effect on health would be kidney damage. Studies done on UN soldiers that were hit by uranium ammunition during the Golf War (so called "friendly fire") shows that a few of them might have light kidney damage, but no other effect on health from the uranium was not observed. Follow through [examinations] of workers that have suffered acute poisoning of uranium compounds in work accidents, has not detected any lasting health effects or "latent injuries" [best translation of "senskade" I can come up with at the moment].

...

A problem with uranium-oxide dust is that it remains in the lungs, and this can cause lung diseases in the same manner as other non-decomposable dust, compare with silicosis.

One might add that it's unlikely that lead can be considered much more enviromentally friendly than uranium when going by chemical toxicity, and that even wolfram-dust has a certain chemical toxicity. ...

 
http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q746.html

Yaar! Ill just have to post this whole article. I dont think there will be any copyright issues here as its designed for public enlightenment (bite me, else) .

Q: How are bullets made by depleted uranium, and what reactions do they cause when they enter into contact with the ground and with humans?
A: Because of its very high density -- nearly twice that of lead -- and certain other properties, depleted uranium is used in certain kinds of munitions because of its ability to penetrate heavily armored vehicles such as tanks and armored personnel carriers. Depleted uranium (DU) is not used in small cartridges or bullets for rifles or machines guns but alloyed DU is used in the 25, 105, and 120 millimeter (mm) kinetic energy cartridges used primarily as antitank munitions. DU is also a component in some tank armor and sometimes used as a catalyst for land mine systems.

Since depleted uranium is weakly radioactive, the public has been concerned about the possiblility of adverse health effects from DU. DU is a heavy metal, and like all heavy metals such as mercury and lead, is toxic. However, except in certain very unusual situations, it is the chemical toxicity and not the radioactivity that is of concern. And, from a chemical toxicity standpoint, uranium is on the same order of toxicity as lead . Largely from work with animals along with a few instances in which humans inhaled very large amounts of uranium, the chemical toxicity of uranium is known to produce minor effects on the kidney, which in humans who have suffered large acute exposures have been transitory and wholly reversible. Because depleted and natural uranium are only weakly radioactive, radiological effects from ingested or inhaled uranium have not been detected in humans .

Human experience with uranium has spanned more than 200 years. In the early part of the twentieth century, uranium was used therapeutically as a treatment for diabetes, and persons so treated were administered relatively large amounts of uranium by mouth. Tens of thousands of persons have worked in the uranium industry over the past several decades, and have been followed up and studied extensively as have populations in Canada and elsewhere who have high levels of uranium in their drinking water. Results of these studies have not revealed any ill health in these populations that is attributable to the intake of uranium. This not surprising as the risk from the radiation dose from uranium is far overshadowed by its potential chemical toxicity, and intakes of uranium of sufficient magnitude to produce chemotoxic effects are unlikely in and of themselves. Any such effects from ingestion or inhalation of uranium would likely manifest themselves first in the form of minor effects associated with the kidneys.

That military personnel and others who may have had contact with depleted uranium from munitions are suffering from various illnesses is not in dispute. That their illnesses are attributable to their exposure to uranium is very, very unlikely.

Health physicists are deeply concerned with the public health and welfare, and as experts in radiation and its effects on people and the environment, are quite aware that something other than exposure to uranium is the cause of the illnesses suffered by those who have had contact with depleted uranium from munitions. A truly enormous body of scientific data shows that it is virtually impossible for uranium to be the cause of their illnesses. Despite this body of scientific data to the contrary, misguided or unknowing people continue to allege that the depleted uranium, and specifically the radioactivity associated with the depleted uranium is the cause of these illness. This is indeed unfortunate, for health physicists and other scientists and physicians already know that depleted uranium is not the cause of these illnesses and thus any investigations into the cause of these illnesses should focus on other possible causes. If we are to offer any measure of relief or solace to these suffering people, and to gain some important additional knowledge of the cause of their illness, we should not waste our valuable and limited energies, resources and time attempting to point the finger at depleted uranium as the culprit, when it is already known that uranium is almost certainly not the cause of the problem.

With respect to reactions with the soil, in time depleted uranium will likely leach into the soil and become mixed with it. It will for all practical purposes be chemically indistinguishable from the natural uranium that is already present in the soil all over the earth. One could create all kinds of scenarios, but probably the best way to think about DU in the soil is to compare it with lead. Because lead and uranium are so similar from a toxicological standpoint, the concerns are about the same.

Ronald L. Kathren, CHP
Professor Emeritus
Washington State University
 
Local Sunday newspaper carried a letter to the editor by some left-wing nut who stated that there were hundreds and thousands of cancers in GW1 because of DU. No source was given for this claim.
 
kedo1981 said:
It sounds like the biggest health problem is when one of these babies hits the tank you’re in

Yes. When you literally have to be standing next to a vaporizing round to inhale it, the least of your worries are the lasting toxic effects of the DU.
It's much more important to worry about the large, jagged chunks of metal that have become embedded in you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom