12-07-05, 10:22 AM #21Originally Posted by Baron Max
Now, back to the topic at hand... As Light said, look it up...
The Official View
Q. What is depleted uranium?
A. Depleted uranium is what is left over when most of the highly radioactive types (isotopes) of uranium are removed for use as nuclear fuel or nuclear weapons. The depleted uranium used in armor-piercing munitions and in enhanced armor protection for some Abrams tanks is also used in civilian industry, primarily for stabilizers in airplanes and boats.
Q. What makes depleted uranium a potential hazard?
A. Depleted uranium is a heavy metal that is also slightly radioactive. Heavy metals (uranium, lead, tungsten, etc.) have chemical toxicity properties that, in high doses, can cause adverse health effects. Depleted uranium that remains outside the body can not harm you.
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.
Some "other" links on the topic...
World Health Organization Fact Sheet Depleted Uranium
US forces' use of depleted uranium weapons is 'illegal'
BRITISH and American coalition forces are using depleted uranium (DU) shells in the war against Iraq and deliberately flouting a United Nations resolution which classifies the munitions as illegal weapons of mass destruction.
DU contaminates land, causes ill-health and cancers among the soldiers using the weapons, the armies they target and civilians, leading to birth defects in children.
Professor Doug Rokke, ex-director of the Pentagon's depleted uranium project -- a former professor of environmental science at Jacksonville University and onetime US army colonel who was tasked by the US department of defence with the post-first Gulf war depleted uranium desert clean-up -- said use of DU was a 'war crime'.
Rokke said: 'There is a moral point to be made here. This war was about Iraq possessing illegal weapons of mass destruction -- yet we are using weapons of mass destruction ourselves.' He added: 'Such double-standards are repellent.'
During the Gulf War in 1991, US and UK forces used a new weapon against Iraq. This new weapon, the depleted uranium (DU) projectile, is radioactive. Unlike atomic or hydrogen bombs, it involves no nuclear fusion or fission, but nine years after the end of the war, adverse health effects from DU exposure continue to manifest among military personnel and civilians in Iraq where the fighting took place, and among US and British veterans and their families. As I traveled through the US, UK, and Iraq to cover this story, I was confronted at every turn by the sad and frightening spectre of "discounted casualties,"- people exposed to depleted uranium and other toxic substances, and now tormented by leukemia and a whole array of chronic disorders.
Some scientific studies have found no link between depleted uranium and negative health effects such as cancer, liver damage, and birth defects, but other studies have found such links.
Environmental groups have raised concerns about the use of this material, particularly in munitions because it is radioactive, effectively lasts forever in the environment (its half-life is approximately 4.5 billion years, approximately the age of the Earth), and also it is toxic in the same manner as lead and other heavy metals.
Such issues are of concern to those attacked with DU weapons, those firing DU weapons, those protected by DU armour-plating, civilians and troops operating in a theatre where DU is used, and to people who will live at any time after in such areas or breathing air or drinking water from these areas.
Studies showing detrimental health effects have claimed the following:
DU can disperse into the air and water, as mentioned in a United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) study :
"The most important concern is the potential for future groundwater contamination by corroding penetrators (ammunition tips made out of DU). The munition tips recovered by the UNEP team had already decreased in mass by 10-15% in this way. This rapid corrosion speed underlines the importance of monitoring the water quality at the DU sites on an annual basis."
Military DU studies mainly evaluated external exposure, but other studies take inhalation risk into consideration. These studies indicate that DU passes into humans more easily than previously thought after battlefield use. (Radioactive particles absorbed into the body are far more harmful than a similar background radiation level outside the body, due to their immediate proximity to delicate structures such as DNA, bone marrow and the like.) 
Legal status of military use
In 1996 and 1997, the United Nations Human Rights Commission in Geneva, passed a resolution to ban the use of depleted uranium weapons. The Subcommission adopted resolutions which include depleted uranium weaponry amongst "weapons of mass and indiscriminate destruction, ... incompatible with international humanitarian or human rights law." (Secretary General's Report, 24 June 1997, E/CN. 4/Sub.2/1997/27)
A UN report of 2002 states that DU weapons also potentially breach each of the following laws: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the Charter of the United Nations; the Genocide Convention; the Convention Against Torture; the four Geneva Conventions of 1949; the Conventional Weapons Convention of 1980; and the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. All of these laws are designed to spare civilians from unwarranted suffering in or after armed conflicts.
According to the UN, the resolutions in 1996-97 were passed because DU breaches several international laws concerning inhumane weapons: it is not limited in time or space to the legal field of battle, or to military targets; it continues to act after the war; it is "inhumane" by virtue of its ability to cause prolonged or long term death by cancer and other serious health issues, it causes harm to future civilians and passers by (including unborn children and those breathing the air or drinking water); and it has an "unduly negative" and long term effect on the natural environment and food chain. In detail:
Weapons may only be used in the legal field of battle, defined as legal military targets of the enemy in war. Weapons may not have an adverse effect off the legal field of battle. DU shells burn into fine particles which remain in the air or the environment. So they affect others over a wide range, and future passers-by, with uranium poisoning.
Weapons can only be used for the duration of an armed conflict. A weapon that is used or continues to act after the war is over violates this criterion.
Weapons may not be unduly inhumane. Weapons that cause cancer and illness long after the war are widely considered to be legally "inhumane". Health issues to unborn children and civilians may also be crimes against humanity under international law.
Weapons may not have an "unduly negative" effect on the natural environment. The dust from DU impact becomes widespread in the environment, and (as with other heavy metals) becomes highly concentrated within living beings and the food chain.
Last edited by dkb218; 12-07-05 at 11:07 AM.
12-07-05, 10:47 AM #22
Originally Posted by Light
you seem to auggest i have conjured up this isue abot DU on my ownsome...? would u be as 'bold'--(6 sentence -no evidence errr bold)--with Dr Chris Busby, a radiation expert, and UK representative on European Committe on Radiation Risks mentioned in my introduction to this thread...., who is "horrified" about DU??
you HAVE read the link , i take it?
12-07-05, 11:10 AM #23Originally Posted by Baron Max
curiously, it is ten times more valid than anything you have said on this forum or with your mouth in the last ten years.
DU is extremely dangerous, AND illegal to use in the way it has been. i am proud to be an american, but the presidents of the last 70 years should all be tried for war crimes due to deception and evil acts such as the debacle we have seen the last 4 years.
WAKE UP, PEOPLE!!! THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT IS DECIEVING YOU!!
but, to get back on the subject...baron, you ARE exactly as described above.
12-07-05, 11:48 AM #24
12-07-05, 12:17 PM #25
Originally Posted by duendy
If you ever decided to get a real education and read some true information from unbiased sources - instead of your conspiracy-theorists websites - you'd actually improve yourself by light years in terms of understanding.
12-07-05, 12:28 PM #26
Originally Posted by The Devil Inside
12-07-05, 01:12 PM #27
It is contained, but when it hits something, it turns into fine airborne particles.
12-07-05, 06:21 PM #28
Originally Posted by spidergoat
Just how much radiation is spread by the ammo? Instead of debating from ignorance and suspicion, hasn't it been accurately measured? If so, what's the results?
12-07-05, 06:34 PM #29
That means you can breathe it.
12-07-05, 07:20 PM #30
So what are the answers to the rest of my questions?
12-07-05, 07:39 PM #31Originally Posted by Baron Max
Originally Posted by duendy
Originally Posted by phlogistician
12-07-05, 10:50 PM #32
While the use of DU in large, uncontrolled quantities seems questionable, and clean up of heavily contaminated areas should be a priority, DU hardly presents a "crime against nature", nor does it seem likely that "It's going to destroy the lives of thousands of children all over the world..."
Dr. Busby "the British radiation expert" *cough, cough*, BTW is an alarmist and political activist. His "Second Event" theory has been harshly criticized. His political motives quite clear in his book "Wings of Death", described as "a powerfully written attack on the rigidity of scientific culture... more specifically it attacks the culture of the transnational radiation protection community and the conventional model of radiation biology." Hardly the authority I would choose.
Edwards and Cox further argue that the second-event hypothesis, if true, would require a very high dose and dose-rate effectiveness reduction factor for gamma rays. This would imply that current estimates of low dose, low LET risks of cancer are far too high.
I wish to respond to the comment from Dr Chris Busby which implies that criticism of his Second Event Theory has been withdrawn. This is not so. His original formulation of the theory was judged by Professor Dudley Goodhead of the UK Medical Research Council to exaggerate the claimed risk from 90Sr by around 10 000 fold.
More recently Dr Busby seems to have accepted the original geometrical errors in his theory which now appears in a modified form on the web site he cites in his letter. Risk enhancement as a consequence of double hits is substantially reduced but, in my view, problems remain with the physical parameter values used.
While still reflecting obvious bias this was the fairest cautionary treatment I found regarding DU:
A quick PubMed search and review of over a dozen articles seems to indicate some increased risk but it seems to be largely limited to internal exposure either from embedded shrapnel or inhalation. Laboratory tests showing dramatic results seemed to be at exposure levels far above field levels.
While any environmental contamination is a concern, these levels seem to generally be well below levels considered "safe". Again it seems to me that limited use and cleanup would be an appropriate policy.
Conclusions of the RAND report on DU
From the scientific literature, the review reaches the following insights and conclusions:
Although any increase in radiation to the human body can be calculated to be harmful from extrapolation from higher levels, there are no peer-reviewed published reports of detectable increases of cancer or other negative health effects from radiation exposure to inhaled or ingested natural uranium at levels far exceeding those likely in the Gulf. This is mainly because the body is very effective at eliminating ingested and inhaled natural uranium and because the low radioactivity per unit mass of natural and depleted uranium means that the mass of uranium needed for significant internal exposure is virtually impossible to obtain.
External radiation takes the primary form of alpha radiation, but amounts of beta and gamma radiation also exist. Alpha radiation is not capable of penetrating cloth or skin and would therefore have no negative health effect. Beta and gamma radiation, which can have negative health effects, have been measured at levels below those expected to be of concern.
Large variations in exposure to natural uranium in the normal environment have not been associated with negative health effects.
Radiation-related effects from embedded fragments will depend on the size of the fragment and its proximity to vital organs.
Exposure to uranium and other heavy metals in large doses can cause changes in renal function and at very high levels result in renal failure.
In spite of these findings, no increased morbidity or frequency of end-stage renal disease has been observed in relatively large occupational populations chronically exposed to natural uranium at concentrations above normal ambient ones.
The cohort of individuals, about half of whom have embedded fragments, who are being followed at the Baltimore VA Medical Center as part of the DU Follow-Up Program, represents a group of Gulf War veterans who received the highest levels of exposure to DU during the Gulf War. Although many of these veterans have health problems related to their injuries in the Gulf War and those with embedded fragments have elevated urine uranium levels, researchers to date report neither adverse renal effects attributable to chemical toxicity of DU nor any adverse health effects they relate to DU radiation (McDiarmid, 1998b). They do, however, note several biochemical perturbations in neuroendocrine parameters related to urinary uranium concentrations and in some subtle neuropsychological test findings; the clinical significance of these is unclear.
Finally, the report encourages continued research because the use of DU is likely to expand in the future.
The U.S. Army's own analysis:
The Army has used three principal centers for test firing DU penetrators:
Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland
Jefferson Proving Ground, Indiana
Yuma Proving Ground, Arizona
Firing sites at these three centers have been surveyed to evaluate transport mechanisms under a variety of environmental conditions. Because the radiological signature of DU is unique, it was possible to distinguish DU contamination from naturally occurring uranium sources. Environmental monitoring studies at these firing sites did not find DU migration out of the impact areas, although the studies did find some evidence of limited migration within the impact areas. It should be recognized, however, that the data from these sites cannot be broadly generalized for other sites.
Groundwater at Aberdeen Proving Ground and Jefferson Proving Ground was analyzed; no DU was detected. Groundwater at Yuma has not been analyzed because the semiarid climate and the soil chemistry at Yuma make it unlikely that DU could ever reach the first aquifer at the 700 foot level. At Aberdeen, localized soil contamination was discovered at depths of 20 centimeters (7.9 inches) below a penetrator corroding on the soil surface. This suggested that DU can become soluble and migrate to a limited degree even through soil in a wetland environment. At Yuma, where a high evaporation rate results in little vertical infiltration, soil contamination near a corroding penetrator decreased to back ground levels at a depth of eight centimeters (3.2 inches). Sediment samples in an adjacent drainage channel, however, contained DU, presumably from storm runoff.
Other studies at the firing areas revealed that DU contamination occurs (1) at shallow depths immediately downrange from the gun tube; (2) where penetrators first pass through the soil ("skip" areas); and (3) in the final landing area. The low level of contamination immediately downrange from the gun tube occurs due to fragments from malfunctioning rounds and very low levels of DU emitted during normal firing operations. In the skip areas, soil contamination results from abrasion fragments of the penetrator, and in the final landing area, from corrosion.
Investigations of DU migration at U.S. test sites have not identified significant migration in the environment. It is fortunate that the environmental conditions, particularly the water and soil conditions, at the three major test locations tend to prevent soluble DU containing compounds from forming and thus limit environmental migration. However, because future uses of DU, particularly in combat, will not be restricted to these ranges, the Army is developing risk models to ascertain ways to predict the environmental mobility of DU under any soil condition.
And regarding DUs continued use:
Issues Concerning DU Environmental Management on the Battlefield.
To give the U.S. soldier the best battlefield advantage, the United States must continue fielding superior weapon systems.
Using DU on the battlefield poses potential environmental consequences. The question is how to protect the environment and thereby reduce the risks to the soldiers and the indigenous population. Efforts are underway to develop a fundamental understanding of the fate and effect of DU in the environment. But even a unilateral decision by the United States to eliminate DU weapons would not remove DU from the battlefield: the United Kingdom, Russia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Thailand, Israel, France and others have developed or are developing DU-containing weapon systems for their inventories. Additionally, DU munitions are sold in the world arms market.
12-08-05, 06:44 AM #33
Thank you, Raithere, for an intelligent viewpoint on DU bullets! The general "Gloom n' Doom" panic is, like most such issues, based on a lack of knowledge and applicable research and statistics. Really, the sky is not falling ....no matter what Chicken Little keeps shoutiing.
12-08-05, 06:56 AM #34
We used to be allowed to flush our waste isotopes down the drain (35S)(=radioacivity). That wasn't in Iraq. We were allowed to do that because we had to meet industry standards. We were way below that. Imagine what kind of shit our precious industry flushes down the drain.
12-08-05, 07:17 AM #35
raithere...we'vemet before a while back. then i could see your utlra mechnaistic views colliding with my insights, and your inevitable view about DU taken from your chosen empire buildin lackies is no surprise. no offence mate, but i woyldn't trust you and your advisors as far as i couod throw ya.......
you --of couuurse, slander Dr Chris Busby...ie: Dr Busby "THE Bristish radiation expert" "cough cough BTW is an alarmist, and political activist...His political motives quite clear in his book Wings of death', described as a powerfully written attack on the rigidity of scientific culture...." OHHH, lets run and HIDE!.....i mean, please, obviously a polical activist is foreign to your worldview?? not mine.....we need em big time! peple who have guts to speak out against the ovewrwhelming politcal corruption you seem totally blind to. ....and you also --as confessed--see no 'rigidity of scientific culture...."??...oh, you simply must come and join us in te deabate about science going on mate. i dont wat to derail this thrad too much for it's about Depleted Uranium. but i VERY much ting its s fukin rigid it is cracked....so
you say "DU hardly presents a crime against humanity" well ...what the...do you NEED?? tell me what you WOULDconsider crime against nature? if you saw the horrendous effects on a child due to DU caused genetic damage, would THAT constitute a crime against nature to you..? anyway we are exploring all about tis. do you think iwant to win. lick my lips i am right?? iwould love for tis shit not to fukin be!!
see..Is The Pentagon Giving Our Solders Cancer? http://www.feedthefish.org/blog/materials/johnson.html
"In tthe annals ofwarfare, there has been nothing like DU...In both Iraq wars, and in Afghanistan, the U.S. military used depleted uranium to inflict enormous harm on the enemy whilae incurring almost none itself...[In] th second war on Iraq...DU projectiles exploded not only in uninhabited deserts but in urban centers such as Baghdad--a city the size of Detroit. Stabalized in steelcasings called "sabots", the shells were fired from airships, gunships, Abram tanks and Bradly
troop carriers, striking targets 115 miles away in a fraction of a second. The weapons contained traces of plutonium and americium, which are far more radiocative than depleted uranium."
12-08-05, 07:26 AM #36
continued: "The Pentagon insists that te weapons pose no threat to U.S. soldiers or to non-combatants. "DU is not more dangerous than dirt" declares Naughton...recently retired..director of Army Munitions. But broad consortium of scientists. environmentalists, and human rights activists--as well as thousands of soldiers who served in the Gulf in 1991--cite mounting evidence that depleted uranium will cause death and suffering among civilians and soldiers alike long after the war's end..."
to all, sorry about broken link in my intro to this thread. it was...a atypo. however i tried the actual address and got a seemingly unaccessable page. so here is anoter link which provides an interview with Dr Chris Busby, and related links to do with Depleted Uranium, and related issues:
12-08-05, 07:26 AM #37
Originally Posted by duendy
12-08-05, 11:10 AM #38Originally Posted by duendy
peple who have guts to speak out against the ovewrwhelming politcal corruption
you also --as confessed--see no 'rigidity of scientific culture...."?
People who decry this rigidity, this scientific conservatism, typically have a pet hypothesis that is being soundly refuted and rejected. The complaint, of course, is that the hypothesis is sound but the establishment is corrupt. Which is a comforting thought, I'm sure, when the alternative is that you might simply be wrong, but which would require evidence itself. Of course, the corruption almost always involves some vast, politically motivated, conspiracy which would require even further evidence.
What I see is you basing your opinion of a scientific matter upon your ideological stance. Fine by me, it's a pretty house of cards you're building, but you won't swing my opinion about a scientific matter with hyper-inflated claims lacking causative evidence by excusing the lack of evidence with further unfounded claims.
you say "DU hardly presents a crime against humanity" well ...what the...do you NEED?? tell me what you WOULDconsider crime against nature? if you saw the horrendous effects on a child due to DU caused genetic damage, would THAT constitute a crime against nature to you..?
Any battlefield is contaminated with a vast array of hazardous chemicals and materials. Standard lead bullets alone pose a contamination hazard that can raise birth-defect and cancer rates. To simply presume DU alone carries any and all responsibility is unwarranted without confirming evidence.
That's not to say that caution and further study isn't warranted. It's a serious and potentially hazardous situation. What evidence we have so far seems to indicate that there may be more concern due battlefield exposure than previously thought. But this alarmist position, particularly of global-scale environmental contamination, is based upon wildly exaggerated claims.
12-08-05, 11:13 AM #39
When DU starts causing half as much destruction as sheep and goats have managed to, then we can talk.
12-08-05, 11:13 AM #40
If DU were so safe, why is the army seeking non-toxic alternatives? I worked for a company that was developing a tungsten-based penetrator to replace the DU.
They were also developing a dental filling material without mercury. The trouble was, the ADA wouldn't fund their grant proposal, because that would have meant admitting mercury was bad. Interestingly, the navy had no such reservations, they wanted mercury-free fillings for submarine personel, as they are trying to remove all mercury from submarines. I suspect a similar thing is happening with the DU.
Last edited by spidergoat; 12-08-05 at 11:54 AM.