Depleted uranium: How dangerous is it?

Aisengard

Golden Member
Feb 25, 2005
1,558
0
76
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.
 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,711
8
81
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.

I think that web site is "faeces" lol
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
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.

1) What does Israel have to do with this thread?
2) How does that paragraph dispel anything about the dangers of DU? Consider this: Radioactive material is hanging around inside the body, traveling through the lungs, blood, digestive tract, etc. for a few days to a few weeks. Do you honestly think no ill effects will result from that exposure?!? Talk about apologist stances!!
 

Aisengard

Golden Member
Feb 25, 2005
1,558
0
76
Originally posted by: conjur
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.

1) What does Israel have to do with this thread?
2) How does that paragraph dispel anything about the dangers of DU? Consider this: Radioactive material is hanging around inside the body, traveling through the lungs, blood, digestive tract, etc. for a few days to a few weeks. Do you honestly think no ill effects will result from that exposure?!? Talk about apologist stances!!

I was just expressing my surprise at that news headline. It was an edit, not the topic of my post.

The paragraph dispells myths, because "exposure to DU could not produce any detectable health effects under realistic assumptions of the doses that would be received."

That was a scientific study. Because a person who fought in the Gulf War developed cancer does not prove DU is significantly dangerous than anything else we put there. Military ordnance is plenty of times more dangerous than 3 mildly radioactive dust particles. You should tell these people to stop wasting time and instead focus on those unexploded artillery shells and those mines that remain in the land, instead of myths about a mildly dangerous proven nonfactor.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
One other problem with that reason.com link, it's discussing a report about DU used in the Kosovo conflict, not Iraq in 1991 and certainly not in the current Iraq conflict.

Also, the report cited even states latency is considered to be 8 years between exposure and signs of cancer. Studies should be performed now and over the next few years of people who were exposed to see if they have developed cancer. We'd also need to do studies of US soldiers after this decade is over. But, we can't get the GOP to pass legislation to even begin the process.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
DU is fine. A certain % of people are going to come down with Luekemia at some point. Heck, my wife is 26 and she was diagnosed with thyroid cancer, despite no family history or exposure to radiation.

Correlation does not always infer causation.

As I mentioned in a previous thread, the chemicals in artificial sweeteners are more likely to cause the same health issues as supposed DU linked Gulf War Syndrome.

However, some people would rather fight against DU, rather irrationally, and further distance themselves from reality and further alienate those who would believe them, had they not been so irrational.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
World health organization couldnt find anything wrong with DU unless you were either hit with a round or in the immediate vicinity of a round vaporizing on contact, then inhaling the dust.

DU laying in the open field wasnt deemed harmful and they couldnt find anything to substantiate claims it is.


Edit: Their study was based in Southern Iraq and Kuwait to measure the effects of the first gulf war. They couldnt find anything.
 

Lizardman

Golden Member
Jul 23, 2001
1,990
0
0
Tests done at government proving grounds determined that DU was less radioactive than the surrounding environment, my source is a person who worked on the test ranges at ARL over the last 30 years.
 

CitizenKain

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

1) What does Israel have to do with this thread?
2) How does that paragraph dispel anything about the dangers of DU? Consider this: Radioactive material is hanging around inside the body, traveling through the lungs, blood, digestive tract, etc. for a few days to a few weeks. Do you honestly think no ill effects will result from that exposure?!? Talk about apologist stances!!

I guess the whole concept of what "depleted" means escapes you.
 

libs0n

Member
May 16, 2005
197
0
76
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.
 

jrenz

Banned
Jan 11, 2006
1,788
0
0
Holy crap... you just can't stop, can you?

This is the third thread in which you've spouted this fear-mongering crap, and the third thread in which I need to educate your naive ass.

From the other threads



Originally posted by: jrenz

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

It is called "depleted" because most of the lighter uranium isotopes, U-234 and U-235, are removed from natural uranium, leaving behind uranium consisting of 99.8 percent of U-238. The result is 40 percent less radioactive than natural uranium.


Highlighted the key word so it's a little easier for you.

"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."


According to a European Union study released in 2001, "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."


The World Health Organization agrees that DU is not a great health risk. Its 2003 fact sheet on the topic declares that "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." Another WHO report found, "The radiological hazard is likely to be very small. No increase of leukemia or other cancers has been established following exposure to uranium or DU."


http://www.fumento.com/military/depleteduranium.html

Let's not stop at the kidneys and cancer, though. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry finds no radiological health hazard from long-term inhalation, dermal or oral exposure to even natural uranium, much less short-term exposure to the depleted variety. A 1999 Rand Corporation report concluded, "Negative effects from the exposure to the ionizing radiation from depleted or natural uranium have not been observed in humans."


http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,Defensewatch_041204_DU,00.html

From actual measurements, if a tank crewman were to stay continuously inside a "heavy armor" tank that uses DU armor panels, fully loaded with only DU ammunition, with the gun pointed to the rear to maximize any exposure - 24 hours a day, 365 days a year - he would receive only about 25 percent of the permitted annual dose. Since nobody sits inside such a tank 24/7 for an entire year, exposure levels from realistic times, such as 900 hours per training year, are about the same dosage you might receive from cosmic radiation on a round-trip between New York and Los Angeles.

These are proven facts. They result from actual measurements that anyone can reproduce. They are not open to discussion, argument, or conjecture. They are what they are, and nobody can change them.



It is also used for counterweights in airplanes to help keep them level, and as radiation shielding to protect health care workers from exposure to medical X-rays.


How many more threads are you going to make to continue spreading your doomsday fantasies?
 

pinion9

Banned
May 5, 2005
1,201
0
0
DU is used in false teeth, gyroscopse and sailboat keels. I seriously doubt it is very dangerous if a doctor allows you to put it in your mouth. Source: wikipedia, biatch!
 

jrenz

Banned
Jan 11, 2006
1,788
0
0
Originally posted by: pinion9
DU is used in false teeth, gyroscopse and sailboat keels. I seriously doubt it is very dangerous if a doctor allows you to put it in your mouth. Source: wikipedia, biatch!

"The only real danger from depleted uranium is that when some people hear that, their brains turn to mush"
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: jrenz
Originally posted by: pinion9
DU is used in false teeth, gyroscopse and sailboat keels. I seriously doubt it is very dangerous if a doctor allows you to put it in your mouth. Source: wikipedia, biatch!

"The only real danger from depleted uranium is that when some people hear that, their brains turn to mush"

Another source of fear for people to scare the masses. All people hear is "uranium" and immediately shat themselves.

 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
1
76

"The U.S. Military and its supporters regularly quote a Rand Corp. Study which uses the natural uranium inhaled by miners.

Particles smaller than 10 microns can access the innermost recesses of lung tissue where they become permanently lodged. Furthermore, if the substance is relatively insoluble, such as the ceramic DU-oxide dust produced from burning DU, it will remain in place for decades, dissolving very slowly into the bloodstream and lymphatic fluids through the course of time. Studies have identified DU in the urine of Gulf War veterans nine years after that conflict, testifying to the permanence of ceramic DU-oxide in the lungs. Thus the effects are far different from natural uranium dust, whose coarse particles are almost entirely excreted by the body within 24 hours.

The military is aware of DU's harmful effects on the human genetic code. A 2001 study of DU's effect on DNA done by Dr. Alexandra C. Miller for the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute in Bethesda, Md., indicates that DU's chemical instability causes 1 million times more genetic damage than would be expected from its radiation effect alone.

Studies have shown that inhaled nano-particles are far more toxic than micro-sized particles of the same basic chemical composition. British toxicopathologist Vyvyan Howard has reported that the increased toxicity of the nano-particle is due to its size.

For example, when mice were exposed to virus-size particles of Teflon (0.13 microns) in a University of Rochester study, there were no ill effects. But when mice were exposed to nano-particles of Teflon for 15 minutes, nearly all the mice died within 4 hours.


"Exposure pathways for depleted uranium can be through the skin, by inhalation, and ingestion," writes Lauren Moret, another DU researcher. "Nano-particles have high mobility and can easily enter the body. Inhalation of nano-particles of depleted uranium is the most hazardous exposure, because the particles pass through the lung-blood barrier directly into the blood.

"When inhaled through the nose, nano-particles can cross the olfactory bulb directly into the brain through the blood brain barrier, where they migrate all through the brain," she wrote. "Many Gulf era soldiers exposed to depleted uranium have been diagnosed with brain tumors, brain damage and impaired thought processes. Uranium can interfere with the mitochondria, which provide energy for the nerve processes, and transmittal of the nerve signal across synapses in the brain.

Based on dissolution and excretion rate data, it is possible to approximate the amount of DU initially inhaled by these veterans. For the handful of veterans studied, this amount averaged 0.34 milligrams. Knowing the specific activity (radiation rate) for DU allows one to determine that the total radiation (alpha, beta and gamma) occurring from DU and its radioactive decay products within their bodies comes to about 26 radiation events every second, or 800 million events each year. At .34 milligrams per dose, there are over 10 trillion doses floating around Iraq and Afghanistan.

How many additional deaths are we talking about? In the aftermath of the first Gulf War, the UK Atomic Energy Authority came up with estimates for the potential effects of the DU contamination left by the conflict. It calculated that "this could cause "500,000 potential deaths". This was "a theoretical figure", it stressed, that indicated "a significant problem".

The AEA's calculation was made in a confidential memo to the privatized munitions company, Royal Ordnance, dated 30 April 1991. The high number of potential deaths was dismissed as "very far from realistic" by a British defense minister, Lord Gilbert. "Since the rounds were fired in the desert, many miles from the nearest village, it is highly unlikely that the local population would have been exposed to any significant amount of respirable oxide," he said. These remarks were made prior to the more recent invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq, where DU munitions were used on a larger scale in and near many of the most populated areas. If the amount of DU ordinance used in the first Gulf War was sufficient to cause 500,000 potential deaths, (had it been used near the populated areas), then what of the nearly six times that amount used in operation Iraqi Freedom, which was used in and near the major towns and cities? Extrapolating the U.K. AEA estimate with this amount gives a figure of potentially 3 million extra deaths from inhaling DU dust in Iraq alone, not including Afghanistan. This is about 11% of Iraq's total population of 27 million. Dan Bishop, Ph.d chemist for IDUST feels that this estimate may be low, if the long life of DU dust is considered. In Afghanistan, the concentration in some areas is greater than Iraq.

What can an otherwise healthy person expect when inhaling the deadly dust? Captain Terry Riordon was a member of the Canadian Armed Forces serving in Gulf War I. He passed away in April 1999 at age 45. Terry left Canada a very fit man who did cross-country skiing and ran in marathons. On his return only two months later he could barely walk.

He returned to Canada in February 1991 with documented loss of motor control, chronic fatigue, respiratory difficulties, chest pain, difficulty breathing, sleep problems, short-term memory loss, testicle pain, body pains, aching bones, diarrhea, and depression. After his death, depleted uranium contamination was discovered in his lungs and bones. For eight years he suffered his innumerable ailments and struggled with the military bureaucracy and the system to get proper diagnosis and treatment. He had arranged, upon his death, to bequeath his body to the UMRC. Through his gift, the UMRC was able to obtain conclusive evidence that inhaling fine particles of depleted uranium dust completely destroyed his heath. How many Terry Riordans are out there among the troops being exposed, not to mention Iraqi and Afghan civilians?

Link

*****************

I think any report coming from Rand corp. and Military.com should be taken with a grain of salt. From you guys it sounds as if depleted uranium is just the stuff to sprinkle on your cereals.

 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
The world health organization did studies in Kuwait and southern Iraq and couldnt find anything to support DU being harmful to the population.

 

jrenz

Banned
Jan 11, 2006
1,788
0
0
Originally posted by: GrGr
Link

*****************

I think any report coming from Rand corp. and Military.com should be taken with a grain of salt. From you guys it sounds as if depleted uranium is just the stuff to sprinkle on your cereals.

I think the World Health Organization and the EU have a little more credibility than GlobalResearch.ca.
 

brandonbull

Diamond Member
May 3, 2005
6,365
1,223
126
DU is not harmless. Just ask all those Iraqi that were in tanks. DU was very harmful to their health.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,486
0
0
So I guess since lockings of 9/11 conspiracy threads is now an unwritten rule, we're going to the second tier. Among them, USS Liberty, DU babies, etc. What's next - Jonestown/CIA? Perhaps it's time to revisit moon landings and Kennedy killings? What else from 40 years ago are we missing that we can talk about endlessly to no resolution?

Seriously - can't we have some rules around vetting sources? Informationclearinghouse.com, traprockpeace.org, globalresearch.ca, prisonplanet.net, tighttinfoil.net? how about a "conspiracy" forum where the children can go play? It's the same people everytime trotting the same crap out every time. They never discuss anything in any thread unless it involves their psychotic world of the illuminati and the new world order.

Motion for lock (and ban).
 

Aegeon

Golden Member
Nov 2, 2004
1,809
125
106
Originally posted by: morkinva
I hope you guys who think this stuff is harmles are ready for your DU enema!
Well plenty of people did use it for false teeth and oddly enough I've not read about any lawsuits regarding the issue.

Answer to Question #2215 Submitted to "Ask the Experts"

Category: Consumer Products ? Watches, Clocks, and other Glow-in-the-Dark

The following question was answered by an expert in the appropriate field:
Q:

The answer to your Ask the Expert Question #1234 under uranium suggests that depleted uranium is used in dental porcelain and in false teeth. Is that true? If this was done in the past, when did they stop using this material? How much uranium do they add?
A: Uranium was used in porcelain dentures to give them a fluorescence similar to that of natural teeth. It was added as a mix of cerium oxide and uranium oxide or as sodium uranate. The uranium composed from 0.008 to 0.1% by weight uranium with an average of about 0.02%. The practice appears to have stopped in the late 1980s.


Paul Frame, CHP, PhD
http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q2215.html

Its worth noting this occured from the late 1980s and earlier, so there has been plenty of time for cancer cases to have shown up if some of the claims about depleted uranium made in this thread were accurate.