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.
salty, i don't know much about DU munitions, but I'd imagine that they're not originally in an inhalable powder form.
Irony? 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 Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
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 --> you need to scroll down to "What we don't know about this war. What have they wrought?"by Jon Rappoport
The British are coming! The British are coming! Er ... to the rescue? UK to aid Iraq DU removal (BBC) 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 Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Salty: "Its so deadly yet people stay with depleted uranium in side thier tank all day" You should understand that the hazards of Depleted Uranium 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 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.)
Reiteration 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 Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Gasoline is toxic but you don't see anybody outraged when you spill some. Just don't eat DU. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
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.
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/dm[sub]3[/sub]) Steel: 7.85 Lead: 11.3 Uranium: 19.1 Iridium: 22.5 (but a BIT pricey) - Rex Kahili
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'.
