Depleted uranium: How dangerous is it?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

CitizenKain

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2000
4,480
14
76
Originally posted by: libs0n
I haven't read much on this topic, but many of you are focusing on the radioactivity of the substance as the sole source of concern. Couldn't the chemical toxicity of DU be partially responsible, if the claims are true? Drano is not radioactive, but I'm not going to be drinking it anytime soon, and I sure as hell would not want to be inhaling DU.

Inhaling it probably wouldn't be so great. It is a heavy metal, and like most heavy metals, not something you want to breathe. The metal can get caught in the lungs where it has potential to be cancerous. Similar to lead.
However, DU dust wouldn't remain airborne for long, simply because of its weight. About the only way I could think of someone inhaling a lungfull of dust would be to stick their head into a tank that just took a DU round.

When you look at something like this, its like complaining that the exaust on a MLRS is toxic. Nevermind the actual rockets.
 

BrownTown

Diamond Member
Dec 1, 2005
5,314
1
0
Let me just be the first person to say this, EVERYTHING casues cancer, and EVERYTHING is radioactive. I mean OMG we are filled with radioactive carbon-14 etc... And pretty much everything in the right dose, or size can cause cancer. For everything I have seen on DU the negative effects are considerably smaller than many other sources of natural contamination for the body. The most dangerous thing about it is likely the word "Uranium" which for some reason people associate with evil. Personally, I've been around and touched DU before, and did not give a second thought to it.
 

TheRyuu

Diamond Member
Dec 3, 2005
5,479
14
81
Just becuase it's radioactive doesn't mean it's bad (relativly speaking...) You'll be suprised just how much radiation the body can take. (again, relativly speaking...)
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Originally posted by: Aisengard
How dangerous is misinformation?

Not dangerous, if you actually know the facts.

"most of the ingested DU (between 98% and 99.8%, depending on the solubility of the uranium compound) will be rapidly eliminated in the faeces." The vast majority of any remaining uranium will be "rapidly cleared from the blood" in a few weeks. Similarly, the majority of inhaled DU dust will also be cleared via the bloodstream and kidneys. The EU report concluded that "exposure to DU could not produce any detectable health effects under realistic assumptions of the doses that would be received."

http://www.reason.com/rb/rb032603.shtml

Face it, terrorist apologists, you lose. Give it up.

EDIT: And plus, I would very much doubt the credibility of a site who has at the bottom news stories that are captioned as such: "Was it wrong for Hezbollah to defend their country and chase Israel from Lebanese soil? Is that terrorism?"

I can't believe the lengths people go to vilify Israel.

Oh, Ok, so if Ronald Bailey of the "Competitive Enterprise Institute" says it's safe (which he does about everything), we have nothing to worry about. Let's just all eat depleted uranium for lunch.
 

jrenz

Banned
Jan 11, 2006
1,788
0
0
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Aisengard
How dangerous is misinformation?

Not dangerous, if you actually know the facts.

"most of the ingested DU (between 98% and 99.8%, depending on the solubility of the uranium compound) will be rapidly eliminated in the faeces." The vast majority of any remaining uranium will be "rapidly cleared from the blood" in a few weeks. Similarly, the majority of inhaled DU dust will also be cleared via the bloodstream and kidneys. The EU report concluded that "exposure to DU could not produce any detectable health effects under realistic assumptions of the doses that would be received."

http://www.reason.com/rb/rb032603.shtml

Face it, terrorist apologists, you lose. Give it up.

EDIT: And plus, I would very much doubt the credibility of a site who has at the bottom news stories that are captioned as such: "Was it wrong for Hezbollah to defend their country and chase Israel from Lebanese soil? Is that terrorism?"

I can't believe the lengths people go to vilify Israel.

Oh, Ok, so if Ronald Bailey of the "Competitive Enterprise Institute" says it's safe (which he does about everything), we have nothing to worry about. Let's just all eat depleted uranium for lunch.

Sounds like you've eaten enough paint chips as a child, so I doubt it'd do you much more harm.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
I heard the same kind of defense regarding the substances used to effect objectives long long ago.. as we were bathed in what was known as Agent Orange... The government still fights to maintain its position regarding that substance. AND there is plenty of proven Nexus twixt AO and a myriad of disease...
Now this kind of attitude is back again!
Depleted U is still just that. If you inhale Uranium in any amount you don't expecterate it cuz it is simply too heavy... you eventually absorb it over time.

The key phrase in the post above " under realistic assumptions " means something very important... it presumes something not articulated... Exactly how much in exactly the same configured DU as used in exactly the same manner as in Iraq has been studied? Given we don't know the long term effects of eggs yet we should opt on the side of safety for our people.. I'm not too concerned about the target at this point cuz this Iraqi war ain't about human rights anyhow.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: LunarRay
I heard the same kind of defense regarding the substances used to effect objectives long long ago.. as we were bathed in what was known as Agent Orange... The government still fights to maintain its position regarding that substance. AND there is plenty of proven Nexus twixt AO and a myriad of disease...
Now this kind of attitude is back again!
Depleted U is still just that. If you inhale Uranium in any amount you don't expecterate it cuz it is simply too heavy... you eventually absorb it over time.

The key phrase in the post above " under realistic assumptions " means something very important... it presumes something not articulated... Exactly how much in exactly the same configured DU as used in exactly the same manner as in Iraq has been studied? Given we don't know the long term effects of eggs yet we should opt on the side of safety for our people.. I'm not too concerned about the target at this point cuz this Iraqi war ain't about human rights anyhow.


Wow, thats great. Say you were "bathed" in a harmful substance that wasn't nearly as researched as DU, and then draw a final conclusion saying that nobody cares.

The funny thing about people like you is that you fail to realize the differences in exposure. I am pretty sure that somebody who was around a tank hit by DU would be just as exposed as if they had gotten a few x-rays during a broken leg diagnosis.

I have a nuke engineer friend in the navy. The amount of exposure that he is limited to is less than what normal people are exposed to in the basement of their houses.


 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: LunarRay
I heard the same kind of defense regarding the substances used to effect objectives long long ago.. as we were bathed in what was known as Agent Orange... The government still fights to maintain its position regarding that substance. AND there is plenty of proven Nexus twixt AO and a myriad of disease...
Now this kind of attitude is back again!
Depleted U is still just that. If you inhale Uranium in any amount you don't expecterate it cuz it is simply too heavy... you eventually absorb it over time.

The key phrase in the post above " under realistic assumptions " means something very important... it presumes something not articulated... Exactly how much in exactly the same configured DU as used in exactly the same manner as in Iraq has been studied? Given we don't know the long term effects of eggs yet we should opt on the side of safety for our people.. I'm not too concerned about the target at this point cuz this Iraqi war ain't about human rights anyhow.


Wow, thats great. Say you were "bathed" in a harmful substance that wasn't nearly as researched as DU, and then draw a final conclusion saying that nobody cares.

The funny thing about people like you is that you fail to realize the differences in exposure. I am pretty sure that somebody who was around a tank hit by DU would be just as exposed as if they had gotten a few x-rays during a broken leg diagnosis.

I have a nuke engineer friend in the navy. The amount of exposure that he is limited to is less than what normal people are exposed to in the basement of their houses.

The Rad exposure level in a contained environment is not the issue. What is, however, is the attitude of Military Leaders and Arms Suppliers and it is consistent. IF there exists any data that supports the alledged nexus between depleted U and any disease the appropriate action is to stop using the depleted U until independent studies can eliminate the potential for OUR people to be adversely affected by its use.
Since the first Iraqi invasion Congressional hearings and the medical community have uncovered cause and effect that folks still deny exists. Blowing up chemical arms bunkers and denying they existed or that if they did the resulting contamination did not or that injections to thwart the contamination were appropriate when at least some in the medical communtity advised against it at the time they were being administered and subsequent findings supported the original contention that the injections are at least in part the cause of some adverse medical conditions...
Learn to accept some level of protection against not only the enemy objective but the leaders of our military and the money hungry suppliers who would use any substance and or means available to not only make better weapons but enrich themselves and answer questions with plausable denial later.


EDIT: Agent Orange was researched... it is basically DDT... but, the greater point is that even then they knew AO was harmfull and they tried to deny medical care to many for many years.
Many substances created for a myriad of purposes are harmful to human life but still in use today with all the appropriate warnings... OK.. we can still use DU if that is the best killing bullets we can make but make the truth or suspected truth known and take the appropriate precautions... Is that so hard for some to accept or enact?


 

jrenz

Banned
Jan 11, 2006
1,788
0
0
Since the first Iraqi invasion Congressional hearings and the medical community have uncovered cause and effect that folks still deny exists.

Uh... perhaps you missed (ignored) all the studies by the WHO and the EU which show that there ISN'T any negative health effects. Unless the WHO and EU are working for the US now...
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: jrenz
Since the first Iraqi invasion Congressional hearings and the medical community have uncovered cause and effect that folks still deny exists.

Uh... perhaps you missed (ignored) all the studies by the WHO and the EU which show that there ISN'T any negative health effects. Unless the WHO and EU are working for the US now...

Right .. the myth of Gulf War Syndrome is a fabrication and no one who has that really has it :disgust:

The chemical shells with US markings on them - photos and first hand testimony - which were blown up and poisoned folks never occured :frown:

Right... I understand now.. it is imagined what the folks who have these disease have.. not real..
:Q
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: jrenz
Since the first Iraqi invasion Congressional hearings and the medical community have uncovered cause and effect that folks still deny exists.

Uh... perhaps you missed (ignored) all the studies by the WHO and the EU which show that there ISN'T any negative health effects. Unless the WHO and EU are working for the US now...

Right .. the myth of Gulf War Syndrome is a fabrication and no one who has that really has it :disgust:

The chemical shells with US markings on them - photos and first hand testimony - which were blown up and poisoned folks never occured :frown:

Right... I understand now.. it is imagined what the folks who have these disease have.. not real..
:Q

I don't think anybody said GWS is a fabrication. I think, at least in this thread, there is strong evidence showing that DU didn't cause GWS.

 

jrenz

Banned
Jan 11, 2006
1,788
0
0
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: jrenz
Since the first Iraqi invasion Congressional hearings and the medical community have uncovered cause and effect that folks still deny exists.

Uh... perhaps you missed (ignored) all the studies by the WHO and the EU which show that there ISN'T any negative health effects. Unless the WHO and EU are working for the US now...

Right .. the myth of Gulf War Syndrome is a fabrication and no one who has that really has it :disgust:

The chemical shells with US markings on them - photos and first hand testimony - which were blown up and poisoned folks never occured :frown:

Right... I understand now.. it is imagined what the folks who have these disease have.. not real..
:Q

Let's try to recreate the logic behind this thought...

1) People come back from the Gulf with a mysterious illness.
2) We used DU in the Gulf.
3) DU is determined by multiple, independent, world organizations to have no negative health effects which could possibly cause the symptoms related to GWS.
4) ...
5) DU is the obvious cause.

Maybe I'm just missing something. Maybe the rest of the world is just missing something too.

How about this though? Seems far more probable.

During Operation Desert Storm, 41% of U.S. combat soldiers and 57-75% of UK combat soldiers were vaccinated against anthrax. [7] (page 73.)

The early 1990s version of the anthrax vaccine was a source of several serious side effects including GWI symptoms. The vaccine was particularly painful when administered, and often caused a severe local skin reaction that lasted for weeks or months. [8] While Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved, it never went through large scale clinical trials, in comparison to almost all other vaccines in the United States. [9]

Data linking squalene in the vaccine to Gulf War Syndrome was "presented in the peer-reviewed February 2000 and August 2002 articles. The published findings (1) strongly suggest that the GWI-like illness being reported by all of the various patient groups is the same illness, (2) strongly suggest that the contaminated vaccine caused the illness in the AVIP group, and (3) further suggest that squalene contamination of one or more 1990-1991-era vaccines accounts for the GWI cases from that era." [10] The sickest veterans tended to have the highest levels of squalene antibodies in their bloodstream. [11]

Even after the war, troops that had never been deployed overseas, after receiving the anthrax vaccine, developed symptoms similar to those of Gulf War Syndrome. The Pentagon failed to report to Congress 20,000 cases where soldiers were hospitalized after receiving the vaccine between 1998 and 2000. [12]

252 Members of a U.S. Air Force Squadron who received the vaccine were surveyed, and 139 of these returned their questionaires. Of these, 58% reported reactions, often consistent with some features of a Gulf War Syndrome type illness, including: joint and muscle pain (41%), decreased energy and tiredness (29%), reduced concentration (28%), short-term memory loss (24%), and sleep problems (17%). [13]

Taken from Wiki

I suppose though because uranium is not involved, this possibility never crossed your mind.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: jrenz
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: jrenz
Since the first Iraqi invasion Congressional hearings and the medical community have uncovered cause and effect that folks still deny exists.

Uh... perhaps you missed (ignored) all the studies by the WHO and the EU which show that there ISN'T any negative health effects. Unless the WHO and EU are working for the US now...

Right .. the myth of Gulf War Syndrome is a fabrication and no one who has that really has it :disgust:

The chemical shells with US markings on them - photos and first hand testimony - which were blown up and poisoned folks never occured :frown:

Right... I understand now.. it is imagined what the folks who have these disease have.. not real..
:Q

Let's try to recreate the logic behind this thought...

1) People come back from the Gulf with a mysterious illness.
2) We used DU in the Gulf.
3) DU is determined by multiple, independent, world organizations to have no negative health effects which could possibly cause the symptoms related to GWS.
4) ...
5) DU is the obvious cause.

Maybe I'm just missing something. Maybe the rest of the world is just missing something too.

How about this though? Seems far more probable.

During Operation Desert Storm, 41% of U.S. combat soldiers and 57-75% of UK combat soldiers were vaccinated against anthrax. [7] (page 73.)

The early 1990s version of the anthrax vaccine was a source of several serious side effects including GWI symptoms. The vaccine was particularly painful when administered, and often caused a severe local skin reaction that lasted for weeks or months. [8] While Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved, it never went through large scale clinical trials, in comparison to almost all other vaccines in the United States. [9]

Data linking squalene in the vaccine to Gulf War Syndrome was "presented in the peer-reviewed February 2000 and August 2002 articles. The published findings (1) strongly suggest that the GWI-like illness being reported by all of the various patient groups is the same illness, (2) strongly suggest that the contaminated vaccine caused the illness in the AVIP group, and (3) further suggest that squalene contamination of one or more 1990-1991-era vaccines accounts for the GWI cases from that era." [10] The sickest veterans tended to have the highest levels of squalene antibodies in their bloodstream. [11]

Even after the war, troops that had never been deployed overseas, after receiving the anthrax vaccine, developed symptoms similar to those of Gulf War Syndrome. The Pentagon failed to report to Congress 20,000 cases where soldiers were hospitalized after receiving the vaccine between 1998 and 2000. [12]

252 Members of a U.S. Air Force Squadron who received the vaccine were surveyed, and 139 of these returned their questionaires. Of these, 58% reported reactions, often consistent with some features of a Gulf War Syndrome type illness, including: joint and muscle pain (41%), decreased energy and tiredness (29%), reduced concentration (28%), short-term memory loss (24%), and sleep problems (17%). [13]

Taken from Wiki

I suppose though because uranium is not involved, this possibility never crossed your mind.

No.. hhehhehehe I have not a clue if DU can cause anything. But, I know that someone has opined reasonably that DU can and may be the cause and or of other malady. I also know that historically the normal defense against substances used in war are always the same and sometimes it is proven to be linked to disease(s).
I said that we should take precautions assuming it does or can or will. I said I'm not too concerned about the target but about the GI's who I see often milling about the VA hospital or Naval Hospital and they are real with real issues.. linked to DU .. maybe..

Not all that many Vets having GWS also had Antrax injections in some studies reported to Congress or in the hearings I listened to but the fact that Squalene may be the cause is another indication of failure to protect the GI before taking actions.. IMO...

 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Another theory is that it was caused by the artificial sweetners in coke drinks breaking down into harmful substances from the prolonged heat and sunlight exposure of the desert. Poisoning from these substances are similar to GWS.

Cancer happens. Statistically anybody can get it for any number of reasons. My wife, who is 26, was diagnosed to have thyroid cancer a year ago. Who the hell knows why she had it, but she had to have her whole tyroid removed as a result. NO family history, NO above normal radiation exposure, nothing.
 

Cerb

Elite Member
Aug 26, 2000
17,484
33
86
No information will be allowed to get mainstream credibility that shows DU not being safe until we stop using DU. AO is a good analogy, here. Is it causing all these problems? I'm leaning towards the tin foil beanie hat guys on this one. However, no organization like the WHO, no large EU organization, etc., will say it's anything but safe. I also bet many researchers who might be able to do actaul unbiased studies probably don't want to touch the issue with a 10' pole.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: Cerb
No information will be allowed to get mainstream credibility that shows DU not being safe until we stop using DU. AO is a good analogy, here. Is it causing all these problems? I'm leaning towards the tin foil beanie hat guys on this one. However, no organization like the WHO, no large EU organization, etc., will say it's anything but safe. I also bet many researchers who might be able to do actaul unbiased studies probably don't want to touch the issue with a 10' pole.

Yeah, because everybody including WHO studied AO and then kept it hidden...

 

BrownTown

Diamond Member
Dec 1, 2005
5,314
1
0
Its somewhat skewed logic to say that just because Agen Orange was bad and the governemtn said it was OK that everything the government says is OK is also bad. IT is possible DU is bad, but based on current sources, nto likely. Also, if there is a problem it would have to be due to the chemical properties, the radiation is just too low do be dangerous.

Also, jsut out of interest, I was under the impression that Agent Orange wasn't bad for people, it was comtaminates introduced in the production that were the problem.
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
1
76

Facts and Fictions


There are a number of fictions about DU. UMRC would like to respond to a few.

Fiction: Uranium is ubiquitous in nature and therefore is no cause for concern.
Fiction: DU is not harmful; it is depleted in U235.
Fiction: Alpha particles can't penetrate clothes and skin.
Fiction: Governments and the World Health Organization (WHO) have tested for DU.
Fiction: Uranium usage levels is too low to be a concern or merit investigation.
Fiction: There are no serious effects from low-level exposure to Uranium.
Fiction: DU weapons dust soon dissipates and does not travel far from the explosion site.



Fiction: Uranium is ubiquitous in nature and we are exposed daily. There is no cause for concern.

Fact: Uranium is present in nature in trace amounts, about 3 parts per million (ppm) by weight. It takes about 5 tonnes of dry soil or rock to produce 1 teaspoon of what is called ?natural uranium?. It is ?natural? in that is has the isotopic proportions that exist in nature. However, what is ?unnatural? is when uranium is presented in concentrated quantities. In these concentrations of radioactivity its effect on human health and the environment become dangerous.

When uranium is exposed to the natural chemical action of the environment it can become solublized and can then migrate into the water supply. Uncontained uranium waste is a problem when left in the open as it oxidizes. This is the case all over the world in nuclear waste repositories.

Uranium is most dangerous when it burns and is aerosolized as happens when it is used in weapons.



Fiction: DU is ?depleted? in the amount of U235 and is therefore less radioactive than the uranium in our natural environment.

Fact: The term ?depleted uranium" is a misnomer. DU is ?depleted? only in the isotopes U234 and U235 which constitute less that 1% of the total uranium. The fact is that both ?depleted? uranium and ?natural? Uranium are over 99% composed of uranium-238. Depleted uranium is almost as highly concentrated as pure uranium and may contain plutonium in trace amounts.



Fiction: Alpha particles can't penetrate clothes and skin.

Fact: This statement ignores the most prevalent and dangerous pathway for uranium to get into the human body. Inhaled uranium can remain in the lungs and bones for years where it continues to emit alpha, beta and gamma radiation. Each alpha particle can traverse up to several hundred cells causing somatic and genetic alterations. Multiply this by billions of such particles and a huge amount of cellular damage becomes possible. The majority (50-70%) of the airborne DU particles sampled during the testing of 105 mm DU projectiles were in the respirable range and capable of reaching the non-ciliated bronchial tree. Studies also indicate that the half-time in the lungs is up to 5 years.

Soluble DU compounds have rapid access to the bloodstream with consequent toxic effects on the target organs and the bone where it is incorporated. Mass spectrometry results of deceased Canadian veteran, Captain Terry Riordon, confirmed that depleted uranium was present in his bone. From there it can compromise the immune system and affect the stem cells that travel throughout the body thereby affecting many other organs. Soldiers inside a tank or armoured vehicle can inhale tens of milligrams of DU after the shell goes through the tank. Compare this to the maximum allowable yearly dose in the U.S. for inhaled uranium is 1.2 milligrams per year.



Fiction: Governments in Canada, the US, the UK, and the World Health Organisation have carried out DU testing on individuals exposed to inhalational DU.

Fact: Although tests have been conducted, they did not employ the proper methodology and equipment to quantify inhalational exposure to DU. They tested individuals for total uranium.

DU is always mixed with a natural uranium background so you have to measure the DU in the presence of natural uranium. That requires an isotopic analysis of U235, U238 at least and preferably also of U236 which does not exist in natural uranium. The U238/U235 ratio of 137.9 indicates natural uranium; ratios above 140 provide unequivocal evidence of the presence of depleted uranium. It is essential to determine whether the uranium is depleted, enriched, or natural uranium in order to determine how long it has been in the body. If DU or enriched uranium is found in the body, we can postulate that it has been internally irradiating the victims since their exposure.

The total uranium measurement by itself is not important, most people have uranium which they take in and eliminate on a daily basis though water or food. The US DU testing program tested shrapnel victims; they have not tested for inhalational exposures.

The WHO study did not test human samples. The Canadian and Belgian studies used equipment that could not measure U235.




Fiction: Uranium usage and levels are too low to be a concern or merit investigation.

Fact: It is estimated that 300 - 800 metric tons of DU were deposited in the battlefield in Iraq and Kuwait in 1991. Dr. Doug Rokke (DU expert and former US army physicist) estimated that 120 to 480 million grams of DU would be aerosolized if 40% of the DU were burnt up.

Compare these numbers to the allowable limits for radiation releases in the US. The National Lead Industry Plant in Colonie, NY was closed down for violating a New York state court order which limited the amount of radiation released to 387 gram of DU metal per month. The plant closed down in February of 1980 for exceeding this limit and closed permanently in 1983. The area has been decontaminated. The engineering report states that the soil from 53 of the 56 nearby properties was beyond the radiation limits and had to be removed to a low-level radiation storage site. The cost was over 100 million USD. The cleanup cost was 1000 USD per cubic meter.

DU in the US must be processed in a facility that is licensed to handle radioactive material. The military has rules to handle radioactive emissions when they store or handle radioactive rounds. However, there are no controls whatsoever and no rules for cleaning up after a cannon round is fired and the danger is far greater when the Uranium becomes aerosolized.

More than 100,000 DU shells were fired during the Gulf War. More than 30,000 rounds were fired by NATO forces during the 1999 Kosovo conflict, most of them by US tank-busting A10 ground support crafts. Around 10,000 rounds were fired in operations around Sarajevo, in the latter stages of allied operations in Bosnia.



Fiction: There are no serious effects from low-level exposure to Uranium

Fact: The effects of internal contamination with Uranium have been well documented. For a review of 200 years of scientific literature on the medical effects of internal contamination with Uranium see Dr. Durakovic's review paper "Medical Effects of Internal Contamination with Uranium" CMJ 1999, Vol 40, No 1.

Serious long-term effects include: Compromised immune system, metabolic, respiratory and renal diseases, tumours, leukemia, and cancer.

A 1998 study conducted by Dr. Livengood showed that DU contamination transforms normal bone cells into tumorous ones.



Fiction: DU weapons dust soon dissipates and does not travel far from the explosion site

Fact: The smaller the particles of DU, the greater the danger. Particles less than 5 microns can be inhaled and deposited in the lungs where they can remain for years. A study found DU particles 42 km away from the source. However, there is reason to suspect that DU particles can travel many times that distance (see L. Dietz: "Contamination of Persian Gulf War Veterans and others by Depleted Uranium").

'''''''''''''

I still cannot see how some of you can claim that DU is perfectly safe. Looks like wishful thinking to me.

 

jrenz

Banned
Jan 11, 2006
1,788
0
0
Fiction: DU is ?depleted? in the amount of U235 and is therefore less radioactive than the uranium in our natural environment.

Fact: The term ?depleted uranium" is a misnomer. DU is ?depleted? only in the isotopes U234 and U235 which constitute less that 1% of the total uranium. The fact is that both ?depleted? uranium and ?natural? Uranium are over 99% composed of uranium-238. Depleted uranium is almost as highly concentrated as pure uranium and may contain plutonium in trace amounts.

They completely sidestep the actual question of radioactivity and instead focus on the composition. The fact is that U-235 is the main source of Uranium's radioactivity, and though it exists in small amounts, it is much more radioactive than U-238 by mass. Removing this isotope from natural uranium produces depleted uranium (NOT a misnomer), which has far less radioactivity. Tests of depleted uranium measure almost less radiation than we are exposed to from other sources daily.

DU is always mixed with a natural uranium background so you have to measure the DU in the presence of natural uranium. That requires an isotopic analysis of U235, U238 at least and preferably also of U236 which does not exist in natural uranium. The U238/U235 ratio of 137.9 indicates natural uranium; ratios above 140 provide unequivocal evidence of the presence of depleted uranium. It is essential to determine whether the uranium is depleted, enriched, or natural uranium in order to determine how long it has been in the body. If DU or enriched uranium is found in the body, we can postulate that it has been internally irradiating the victims since their exposure.

This basically doesn't say anything related to the fact that they are trying to disprove...

The WHO study did not test human samples.
A 1998 study conducted by Dr. Livengood showed that DU contamination transforms normal bone cells into tumorous ones.

Somehow I doubt that this test was done on humans.

Soldiers inside a tank or armoured vehicle can inhale tens of milligrams of DU after the shell goes through the tank.

I doubt they mind, as they've been incinerated anyway.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: BrownTown
Its somewhat skewed logic to say that just because Agen Orange was bad and the governemtn said it was OK that everything the government says is OK is also bad. IT is possible DU is bad, but based on current sources, nto likely. Also, if there is a problem it would have to be due to the chemical properties, the radiation is just too low do be dangerous.

Also, jsut out of interest, I was under the impression that Agent Orange wasn't bad for people, it was comtaminates introduced in the production that were the problem.

well.. AO is DDT plus other interesting components. It is a defoilant, I suppose among other things... My point was that we not only had it dropped on us some were constantly in touch with it in various ways. The laundry folks who cleaned the clothes to the folks who ingested it are all, if alive still, suffering the consequences..

 

CitizenKain

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2000
4,480
14
76
Originally posted by: GrGr


Soldiers inside a tank or armoured vehicle can inhale tens of milligrams of DU after the shell goes through the tank. Compare this to the maximum allowable yearly dose in the U.S. for inhaled uranium is 1.2 milligrams per year.

Considering what happens to a tank hit by a DU round, that is the least of the worries of the crew. Mainly they are worried about the shards of extremely hot metal flying around the inside of the tank and upcoming explosion.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: jrenz
Fiction: DU is ?depleted? in the amount of U235 and is therefore less radioactive than the uranium in our natural environment.

Fact: The term ?depleted uranium" is a misnomer. DU is ?depleted? only in the isotopes U234 and U235 which constitute less that 1% of the total uranium. The fact is that both ?depleted? uranium and ?natural? Uranium are over 99% composed of uranium-238. Depleted uranium is almost as highly concentrated as pure uranium and may contain plutonium in trace amounts.

They completely sidestep the actual question of radioactivity and instead focus on the composition. The fact is that U-235 is the main source of Uranium's radioactivity, and though it exists in small amounts, it is much more radioactive than U-238 by mass. Removing this isotope from natural uranium produces depleted uranium (NOT a misnomer), which has far less radioactivity. Tests of depleted uranium measure almost less radiation than we are exposed to from other sources daily.

DU is always mixed with a natural uranium background so you have to measure the DU in the presence of natural uranium. That requires an isotopic analysis of U235, U238 at least and preferably also of U236 which does not exist in natural uranium. The U238/U235 ratio of 137.9 indicates natural uranium; ratios above 140 provide unequivocal evidence of the presence of depleted uranium. It is essential to determine whether the uranium is depleted, enriched, or natural uranium in order to determine how long it has been in the body. If DU or enriched uranium is found in the body, we can postulate that it has been internally irradiating the victims since their exposure.

This basically doesn't say anything related to the fact that they are trying to disprove...

The WHO study did not test human samples.
A 1998 study conducted by Dr. Livengood showed that DU contamination transforms normal bone cells into tumorous ones.

Somehow I doubt that this test was done on humans.

Soldiers inside a tank or armoured vehicle can inhale tens of milligrams of DU after the shell goes through the tank.

I doubt they mind, as they've been incinerated anyway.

I find lots of folks thinking as you do and I understand it. It is ok if you really really feel that way but the saddest thing I can imagine I see weekly at the VA hospital where these Veterans loose their lives or suffer constant pain from chronic illness because we try to fight with improved weapons.... OK.. we need to kill the enemy in war.. fine but, don't try to feed me coal and tell me it is sausage... I was born.. but not yesterday.

Edit: ... My concern is that folks want proof positive one way or another and I am saying defer on the side of caution... if there is reasonable opinion on the matter then advise the GI or at least provide the essential safeguards to obviate ingesting the stuff..
 

irwincur

Golden Member
Jul 8, 2002
1,899
0
0
If you are really afraid of the level of radioactivity - I expect you to stay out of the sun.