http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2946715.stm

Their justification? That there's no proof that its harmful.
The truth: There may not be totally irrefutable proof as of yet that DU hurts anyone but the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming, and there are numerous studies linking it to cancer and birth defects among other things.
After the first gulf war(where DU was used) horrendous birth defects began showing up in Iraq.

It seems to me that the only reason they don't want to clean it up is that it would be expensive.

The U.N. wants in? Fine, give them this task.

Its so deadly yet people stay with depleted uranium in side thier tank all day.

salty,
i don't know much about DU munitions, but I'd imagine that they're not originally in an inhalable powder form.

Does nobody find it ironic that, in the opinion of the US government, marijuana is apparently more dangerous than depleted-uranium waste?

Stick that up George's "pipe" and smoke it.

Seriously: Bush did cocaine, but he doesn't deserve to be punished for it. He drove drunk, but doesn't deserve to be punished for it. I'm actually fine with that, because I think what he ought to do is send a couple of teams to clean up as much of the DU as possible, and, if he wins re-election, he ought to decorate his bedroom and the Oval Office with it.

(In 1991 or so, after an E. coli scare hit a Jack in the Box in Federal Way, Washington, Mayor Debbie Ertel took her entire staff to breakfast at the same restaurant the day it reopened in order to quell public fears about E. coli. Is Bush willing to do, analogously, the same?)

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

April 7. Yesterday, in an attempt to find out more about the death of NBC reporter, David Bloom, I spoke with the former head of the Pentagon Depleted Uranium Investigation Team, Dr. Doug Rokke.

Rokke was the man who went to Iraq a decade ago on a mission to report on depleted uranium (DU). What he found was so horrifying the Pentagon scuttled his work and tried to make him an invisible man...

read on (http://www.nomorefakenews.com/) --> you need to scroll down to "What we don't know about this war. What have they wrought?"by Jon Rappoport

UK to aid Iraq DU removal (BBC) (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2970503.stm) The UK Government says it will help to clean up depleted uranium (DU) ammunition in Iraq.

The US has said it has no plans to remove DU debris, despite international recommendations for its retrieval.

There is widespread controversy over the use of DU, which some veterans believe has made them ill.

One UK adviser on DU welcomed the British announcement as evidence of a fresh approach.

A spokeswoman for the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) told BBC News Online: "Legally, we have no obligation to clean up the remains of the DU we used. It's the responsibility of the new regime in Baghdad.

"But morally we do recognise an obligation, as we have in the past. We helped in the removal of DU from Kosovo.

"We'll be helping in any way we can, specifically by providing money for the clean-up, and by making available records of where the ammunition was fired. I just remembered why it's so important to have the British along. In the future, the US will be able to say, "But remember, The Coalition cleaned up its DU waste ...."

Thank you, Mr. Blair. Politics aside, its nice to see someone trying to maintain some semblance of dignity and humanity amid this fucking mess.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Salty: "Its so deadly yet people stay with depleted uranium in side thier tank all day"

You should understand that the hazards (http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/du.htm) of Depleted Uranium (http://www.ecoglobe.org.nz/nuclear/dulinks.htm) change drastically when you pulverize relatively safe, sealed packages in hypersonic impacts.

Tiassa: "Thank you, Mr. Blair. Politics aside..."

We should also thank the Brits for understanding that they are not the only ones eager to assist in a DU "Return to Sender" program: Expended DU is of course handy material for dirty bombs. Through either ignorance or outrageous malevolence, present US leadership is providing both the motives and materials for a horrifying reprisal that would bring unimagineable consequences.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"U.S. officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, announced Dec. 22 that anti-Taliban fighters had found depleted uranium in storage near the Kandahar airport in Afghanistan.

The unnamed U.S. agents and Kandahar’s secret service chief claimed that, "al-Qaida intended to use the Uranium-238 found in the complex to make ‘dirty bombs,’ which use conventional explosives to spread radioactive material over a wide area. In addition to killing people in the bomb blast and poisoning others with radiation, the officials said, such a bomb could render large area unusable and require lengthy and expensive clean-up efforts."

- Nukewatch (http://www.nukewatch.com/spring02/sp025.html)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How difficult is it to figure out if it is toxic? I'm fairly certain we'd have standard methods for testing things like this. Reading through some of the links I saw that a munition retrieved in Iraq was treated as a radioactive hazard in Berlin. I don't know much about this stuff, but isn't any material that emits above a certain amount of radiation considered 'dangerous'? The rest of the reports seem to be focused around a rise in birth defects, which I'd consider circumstantial due to various possible causes. Hasn't anyone tested the biological effects of this stuff?

Of course. The US government has had a massive testing program underway for more than 12 years, primarily in Iraq. Results are only gradually becoming apparent, in spite or US government misinformation. Do some digging and decide for yourself.

Some stuff I found about DU:

About 3000 to 30 000 35 mm - caliber rounds, fitted with depleted-uranium, were fired over Kosovo... The core of each round contained about 0.80 kg of almost pure uranium-238, from which its 14 radioactive daughters were separated. This depleted uranium is much less radioactive than natural uranium normally present in the soil and rock.
During its decay it emits energetic alpha particles (4.26 MeV) and very weak beta (0.01 MeV) and gamma (0.001 MeV) radiation.

The total mass of depleted uranium dispersed over Kosovo ranged between 2.5 and 25 tons. The radioactivity of one round was about 10 megabecquerels (MBq).

Thus, a 1-cm thick layer of soil in Kosovo contains about 300 times more natural uranium than that dispersed there by American forces.

However, at the target sites, the local concentrations of depleted uranium may be higher than the average concentration of natural uranium in the soil. From these patches of activity depleted uranium may be resuspended into the air, and also enter the food chain. This, however, should not lead to any observable medical consequences.

The weak beta and gamma radiation does not pose any serious radiation protection problems... Because of these features of depleted uranium, its radiation protection standards are based not on its radioactivity but on its chemical toxicity. Like other heavy metals (lead, cadmium, or mercury) uranium is a toxic agent. Experimental and epidemiological studies, carried out over half a century, suggest that the main adverse effect of uranium-238 is chemical impairment of the renal function. Secondary protection standards for uranium-238 (for example concentration limits in air and food) are based on a limit of 3 micrograms of uranium per gram of kidney.

Among about 150 000 soldiers,... up to now 17 died due to leukemia. This corresponds to about 11 deaths per 100 000 soldiers. The annual leukemia death rate in the United Kingdom is 11 per 100 000. Thus, the rate of soldiers dying due to leukemia appears to agree with European norms.

The shortest latency time for leukemia induced by ionizing radiation is two years. As this disease began to appear among the soldiers much earlier, and since no reports on a dramatic increase of renal problems were filed, the cause of leukemia in Kosovo, does not seem to be radiation from depleted uranium, but rather a natural one. This is supported also by the fact that no increase in diseases of kidneys, which are a critical organ for uranium, occurred among the soldiers in Kosovo.

Kuwait
Uranium contamination of the ground, up to a level 10 to 20 times higher than average natural level, was found only to a distance of up to 100 meters from the depots, and no contamination of local vegetation was observed. Professor Domanski reported that until 1998 no increase of leukemia and other cancers was observed in Kuwait, that might be related to depleted uranium.

This is all from:
http://bizarrescience.blogspot.com/2003_03_09_bizarrescience_archive.html
Any comments?

Here are some quotes from the respected English physicist Paul Birch on depleted Uranium:

"Everything's naturally radioactive. And depleted uranium is less radioactive than natural uranium - and that's so weakly radioactive, with a half life of 4.5 billion years, that it's as close to being nonradioactive as you can get. Harmless."


"Uranium is a heavy metal and thus chemically toxic - though considerably less so than the standard alternative, lead. As a radioactive source, however, it is harmless; there is no way one could get enough of it into the human body to increase the body's natural radioactivity significantly without killing the victim first."


"The level of radioactivity is on a par with that naturally occurring in the environment, and in the human body itself. There were probably several kilograms of "depleted" uranium in the back garden where you played as a child (200m2x 1m x 2000 kg/m3x 5ppm). And four or five times as much thorium. Over your lifetime you will inhale into your lungs far far more than a "five-billionth of a gram". "Depleted", by the way, just means that it's natural uranium with the more radioactive U-235 taken out(not in orderto reduce the radioactivity, which is already exceedingly slight, but to make use of the U-235 for other purposes, such as in nuclear reactors).


Moderate levels of radiation, up to perhaps 20 rem/yr (which is many orders of magnitude greater than any possible dose from uranium ingestion), are on balance beneficial, not harmful, increasing resistance to disease and improving life expectancies by exercising the body's natural repair mechanisms. This effect has been demonstrated across a wide range of animal species, and in the survival rates following the Hiroshima and Nagasaki fission bombs."


Considering the fact that he is also an anarchist, I doubt he is spouting state sponsored propaganda.

- Rex Kahili

Ok, so it appears that if the metal was processed properly, radioactivity isn't a problem. What are the chances that some of the munition was still radioactive? Also, what about the toxicity? (Saying it is less toxic then lead isn't reassuring.)

I reiterate: I think what (Bush) ought to do is send a couple of teams to clean up as much of the DU as possible, and, if he wins re-election, he ought to decorate his bedroom and the Oval Office with it.

It's not harmful, right?

Why does my government sound like the tobacco companies we so reviled during the Clinton years?

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Gasoline is toxic but you don't see anybody outraged when you spill some. Just don't eat DU. :rolleyes:

http://www.tv.cbc.ca/national/pgminfo/du/gif/losalamos.gif

Metal of Dishonor (http://www.konscious.com/site/live/films/clip5/clip5.html)

Hype,
That isn't saying anything except that it is easier politically not to use DU if it isn't needed. This is standard politics... it is sometimes easier to not do something then to argue if it is good. My problem here is that there is scientific evidence that DU doesn't cause anything from radioactivity. The other side has said that DU is dangerous, but I can't find any non-circumstantial evidence of this.

Originally posted by hypewaders
http://www.tv.cbc.ca/national/pgminfo/du/gif/losalamos.gif

Metal of Dishonor (http://www.konscious.com/site/live/films/clip5/clip5.html)

That makes it sound as if Depleted Uranium rounds are no different than normal ammunition. It must be fake. Depleted Uranium rounds are extremely effective on the battlefield. Depleted Uranium is much denser than steel, and lead:

Density (kg/dm3)
Steel: 7.85
Lead: 11.3
Uranium: 19.1
Iridium: 22.5 (but a BIT pricey)

- Rex Kahili

Originally posted by Persol
The other side has said that DU is dangerous, but I can't find any non-circumstantial evidence of this.

Depleted Uranium is harmless.

- Rex Kahili

Originally posted by foadi
That makes it sound as if Depleted Uranium rounds are no different than normal ammunition. It must be fake. I don't think it is fake. It very clearly says that they think "dU penetrators were very effective", but that full assessments haven't been made. It seemed to be trying to make the point that positive effect should be made known so that continued use is 'acceptable'.

Hi all!
Just got back from a PSU failure and I goota have my say!
Can't be bothered finding a link for this but I'm sure ones out there somewhere.:)
Anyone remember that 'friendly' fire thing?
The one where the A-10 shot up a British armoured convoy (those tanks with the Union Jack painted on the roof). Well the reports I read stated that one dead driver had to be removed the following day because the clean up crew needed to obtain NBC suits. The reason given was the use of DU in the cannon rounds.
Do you think the army might know something we don't?

Glad to be back.
Dee Cee

your theAZcowboy right?

Salty: not hardly:D. Welcome back, DC. Yep "It's harmless": The western folks in hazmat suits working around knocked-out tanks, they're just hypochondriacs who wear that stuff everywhere, not acting on orders at all.

I suggest that the Commander-In-Chief must settle this debate once and for all by snorting a nice line of DU, followed by a nice DU-sprinkled pretzel. Lochaim! It's harmless!:rolleyes:

your theAZcowboy right?

How I wish I was Salty ;)
Have you ever seen the cowboy post short?
Can you see the word "Zionist" anywhere here?

No. Me neither.

Dee Cee (honest!)
:D :D

Would you snort lead?

Why, I'm snertting sum rit nnowwwwwwwwwwwwwww

Would it make me High?

:D :D :D
This thread deserves better!
Dee Cee

"Would it make me High?"
No, but a good chance you'll vote to re-select Bush in 2004.

DC: you're right- I'm just out of material. There is so much conflicting data on this I think we are going to have to wait more for the truth to come out.

DC: you're right- I'm just out of material. There is so much conflicting data on this I think we are going to have to wait more for the truth to come out.

What sort of attitude is that for a regular sci-forums poster?:D
Mods! Ban this man right now!:D

:D

"Immediate health risks associated with exposure to depleted uranium include kidney and respiratory problems, with conditions such as kidney stones, chronic cough and severe dermatitis. Long-term risks include lung and bone cancer. Several published reports implicated exposure to depleted uranium in kidney damage, mutagenicity, cancer, inhibition of bone, neurological deficits, significant decrease in the pregnancy rate in mice and adverse effects on the reproductive and central nervous systems. Acute poisoning with depleted uranium elicited renal failure that could lead to death. The environmental consequences of its residue will be felt for thousands of years. It is inhaled and passed through the skin and eyes, transferred through the placenta into the fetus, distributed into tissues and eliminated in urine." Source: Journal of applied toxicology : JAT [J Appl Toxicol] 2002 May-Jun; 22 (3), pp. 149-52.
http://www.sciforums.com/archive/37/2002/12/2/14046

yep. totally harmless.

Yes! I suggest that Free Iraqis do exactly that: Render unto Caesar.:D

DU ammunition was created because of the success of modern armour's such as 'chobam' which were almost invunerable to existing anti armour weapons.

maybe it's time to have two stockpiles of munitions,

DU when facing an opponent with modern up to date equipment and good old fashioned tungsten carbite when dealing with the riff raff.

just a thought

Originally posted by jps
"Immediate health risks associated with exposure to depleted uranium include kidney and respiratory problems, with conditions such as kidney stones, chronic cough and severe dermatitis. Long-term risks include lung and bone cancer. Several published reports implicated exposure to depleted uranium in kidney damage, mutagenicity, cancer, inhibition of bone, neurological deficits, significant decrease in the pregnancy rate in mice and adverse effects on the reproductive and central nervous systems. Acute poisoning with depleted uranium elicited renal failure that could lead to death. The environmental consequences of its residue will be felt for thousands of years. It is inhaled and passed through the skin and eyes, transferred through the placenta into the fetus, distributed into tissues and eliminated in urine." Source: Journal of applied toxicology : JAT [J Appl Toxicol] 2002 May-Jun; 22 (3), pp. 149-52.
http://www.sciforums.com/archive/37/2002/12/2/14046

yep. totally harmless.

OMG I JUST READ THE World Health Organization website about DU and it says the exact opposite, LOL, lemme go find it...ok here:

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/

from the above site:

"In the kidneys, the proximal tubules (the main filtering component of the kidney) are considered to be the main site of potential damage from chemical toxicity of uranium. There is limited information from human studies indicating that the severity of effects on kidney function and the time taken for renal function to return to normal both increase with the level of uranium exposure.
In a number of studies on uranium miners, an increased risk of lung cancer was demonstrated, but this has been attributed to exposure from radon decay products. Lung tissue damage is possible leading to a risk of lung cancer that increases with increasing radiation dose. However, because DU is only weakly radioactive, very large amounts of dust (on the order of grams) would have to be inhaled for the additional risk of lung cancer to be detectable in an exposed group. Risks for other radiation-induced cancers, including leukaemia, are considered to be very much lower than for lung cancer.
Erythema (superficial inflammation of the skin) or other effects on the skin are unlikely to occur even if DU is held against the skin for long periods (weeks).
No consistent or confirmed adverse chemical effects of uranium have been reported for the skeleton or liver"

Thats hardly the exact opposite, it just says it takes a lot to cause cancer. the other dangers mentioned by the journal of applied toxicology(like mutagenicity) are not addressed.

Starting from the top:

- "There is no proof that D.U. is harmful."

I believe I've made the point by invoking marijuana. Why does my government sound like a tobacco company?

- The hazards of DU, provided by Hypewaders (http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/du.htm)

Something about a tobacco company? I'd really rather err on the side of caution. Asbestos, cigarettes, marijuana ... in each history there is a "There is no proof" argument that endured in the face of growing evidence. In fact, marijuana still gets to claim it is non-carcinogenic. But given the worry the government gives to marijuana's carcinogenic "potential", I find their casual attitude about DU somewhat disingenuous.

- "Half-life of 4.4 billion years"

Buried in a list of links, again provided by Hypewaders ... see "Depleted Uranium" (http://www.heureka.clara.net/gaia/du.htm). Which link provides something of an answer for Salty:

- "Its so deadly yet people stay with depleted uranium in side thier tank all day. "

Indeed. As the above-noted site indicates:Hunkered down in their tanks, crews are exposed to low level background radiation from the DU armour and the payload of DU shells. In an M1A1 tank a tank driver receives a radiation dose of 0.13 mrem/hr to his head from overhead DU armour. After just 32 continuous days, or 64 twelve-hour days, the amount of radiation a tank driver receives to his head will exceed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's annual standard for public whole-body exposure to man-made sources of radiation. - "Everything's naturally radioactive. And depleted uranium is less radioactive than natural uranium - and that's so weakly radioactive, with a half life of 4.5 billion years, that it's as close to being nonradioactive as you can get. Harmless." (Paul Birch, provided by foadi)

And yet we see the suggestion that 768 hours in a tank--perhaps a single short war?--at the levels of harmless radioactivity exceeds the annual dose.

We can move away from the "Harmless" assertion and get into the reality of Depleted Uranium.

- "What are the chances that some of the munition was still radioactive? Also, what about the toxicity?" (Persol)

I think this is an excellent issue which points straight at the American people. Fine, it's not radioactive enough to make Americans in general care. But put some asbestos in our schools or some lead in our paint ....

Environmental Scientists in the Wild West, by Nick Kim (http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/media/nearingzero/Pb.gif) ....

- "I think what (Bush) ought to do is send a couple of teams to clean up as much of the DU as possible, and, if he wins re-election, he ought to decorate his bedroom and the Oval Office with it." (Tiassa)

Therein lies the simplest definitive test. Come on, George: I'll smoke dope to prove it's not a problem. I'm not even asking you to smoke the DU. Just decorate your bedroom with it .....

- "Gasoline is toxic but you don't see anybody outraged when you spill some. Just don't eat DU."

I'm just curious ... has litigation regarding the Exxon Valdez spill finished yet?

As to the other, we could say the same things about lead and asbestos, yet for a period, each was all around Americans, making it difficult to not consume lead and asbestos. Just don't consume arsenic ... seems like good advice, right? Except that it is in the drinking water in many industrialized cities.

It's not like crack, where you have to choose to use it. Some of dU's alleged victims committed the horrible crime of being born.

- ".... concern regarding the impact of dU on the environment ... dU rounds may become politically unacceptable ...." (http://www.tv.cbc.ca/national/pgminfo/du/gif/losalamos.gif) (Los Alamos National Laboratory, provided by Hypewaders)

It's old, from Desert Storm, but the key there is the idea that unless DoD specifically pushes the case for these rounds, hazardous issues would render dU politically unacceptable as a tool of warfare.

- "The one where the A-10 shot up a British armoured convoy (those tanks with the Union Jack painted on the roof). Well the reports I read stated that one dead driver had to be removed the following day because the clean up crew needed to obtain NBC suits. The reason given was the use of DU in the cannon rounds." (DeeCee)

Maybe they were prepared for the off-chance that the British vehicles happened to be hit while exactly on top of a buried WMD site, and wanted to make sure none of Hussein's oceans of nerve and biological agents could harm them ... er ...

Why does my government sound like a tobacco company?!

- "Immediate health risks associated with exposure to depleted uranium include kidney and respiratory problems, with conditions such as kidney stones, chronic cough and severe dermatitis. Long-term risks include lung and bone cancer." (JAT, provided by JPS)

Something about tobacco companies? Yet ....

- ".... World Health Organization website about DU and it says the exact opposite ...." (Carnuth)

Various groups have made the same defenses of cigarettes and asbestos. But the counterpoints between JPS and Carnuth point to an interesting difficulty of science: how many of us really want to dig through the hard data and figure out the exact context of each report? To wit: Marijuana studies speaking of carcinogens don't often take the issue of pot smokers who also smoke cigarettes into account. There is always an additional condition not being reported.

To me, if it wasn't radioactive, it would not be called Uranium, but this could be a simple shortcoming of my knowledge: If Uranium decays into Lead, and the depleted Uranium is not radioactive, then why is dU not Pb?

And that's part of the central question. The world is radioactive, but that's no reason to go adding to it.

Why does my government sound like the tobacco industry?

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

P.S. - So a couple of points are out of order. Sorry if I missed your point and you thought it was important; my editorial policy is in shambles right now, but I'm just trying to build a basic roadmap of the topic.

I looked at your link and I see that it does pretty much contradict the JAT. I guess the experts are divided. I'm more inclined to believe the JAT given that in places where DU munitions were used the problems the JAT suggested were likely did in fact jump in frequency.

What's disappointing about missing this point in the last review I posted is that this point was what moved me to post the review in the first place. It would have provided a beautifully ironic and cyclical ... never mind, you had to be there. It could have been a petty artistic triumph ....

At any rate, the point in question, from Hypewaders: Expended DU is of course handy material for dirty bombs. Through either ignorance or outrageous malevolence, present US leadership is providing both the motives and materials for a horrifying reprisal that would bring unimagineable consequences.

I wonder why US officials would care, then, if Al Qaeda tried to make a dirty bomb from dU ...?

See ... if I had managed to work it properly into the rhythm ... oh, hell.

Anyway, putting a disparate 2 and 2 together and wondering why I get 5.

One of the 2's probably isn't.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

allotta good info here.. :)

The DOD claims that DU is harmless.. they have to if they didnt they would be open to major warcrimes allegations.. which are there but they must deny most vehemently.. the use of DU is an impeachable offence by Bush I, Clinton and now Bush Jr.

ok, so.. in defense of the department of defense.. DU in rod form or unfired form is not very harmful.. YES its DU, but the strongest emissions are Alpha radiation which as you may know will not penetrate the skin.. but thats the only form that is not very harmful..

After a DU round is fired and impacts a target at least 40% of the DU has been vaporized resulting in 2 micron size du dust that has many long term harmful effects(gulf war syndrome). Not only are the folks that live there harmed but our soldiers are harmed.. the effects are passed on to thier wives and to thier children.. the vets that are experiencing deformed babies cannot speak out or they will lose thier health insurance and veteran status.. checkout some vids of Douge Rokke at
www.snowshoefilms.com/depleteduranium.html (http://www.snowshoefilms.com/depleteduranium.html)

A lot of info on DU can be found at the National Instiute of Health web site. Here are two links out of 139

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11873494&dopt=Abstract


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11453287&dopt=Abstract

click on "related articles" in the upper right hand corner to find more.

It appears the military is having second thoughts about the toxisity of DU. hmm is toxisity a word?? anyway it sounds good.