Depleted Uranium (DU)

[joltan 0]

There is a terrain in the middleeast/iraq/saudi arabia known as desert where wind storms blow .... they can carry such 'dust' for miles and deposit them someplace else.These things have a LIFE of Billions of years .. they will not deminish in to thin AIR they will REMAIN to contaminate the future genrations of THIS REGION.

Just to give this point some weight: we sometimes get dust from the Sahara here in southern Germany... it gets carried across the Atlas, the Mediterranean, the whole of southern Europe and finally across the Alps. That's two high mountain ranges, the sea, and several thousand kilometers. Fine particles can be carried a very long way by air currents.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Just a small point - the longer the half life, the less danger something poses.... there is only so much radiation can come out of a small object - the larger the half-life, the longer period of time the ejection of radiation lasts for, with less per small time period.

So, for equivalent weights, something with a short half life is more dangerous for you to hold in your hand than something with a long half life.

Obviously, varies with type of radiation

(half-life is the time taken for the amount of radiation given out to halve)

*edit 3*

Although things with very very short half lives will have almost no radiation as well very soon after they are created.

[Acecombat 0]

Just a small point - the longer the half life, the less danger something poses.... there is only so much radiation can come out of a small object - the larger the half-life, the longer period of time the ejection of radiation lasts for, with less per small time period.

So, for equivalent weights, something with a short half life is more dangerous for you to hold in your hand than something with a long half life.

(half-life is the time taken for the amount of radiation given out to halve)

No it also depends on the type of radiation the substance emits.

DU emits alpha most but Gamma too and in large quantities IT IS HARMFUL.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

10 seconds later and my post would have said that too.. I hit the reply button before I was finished.

Radioative substances are harmful in large quantities? No shit sherlock.

Did you know that a city near me, Aberdeen, is made largely of granite. Granite gives off a radioactive gas. Natives of Aberdeen have a larger dose of radiation every year than most of the rest of us get in two. Yet it's 'natural' so noone mentions it

[walker 0]

Hi all

Intresting thought.

If Al Queda were to build a bomb with DU dsigned to aerosolise the DU and explode it over a US City high enough up so that only the dust reached the ground. Would it be a dirty bomb?

According to the US DOD they could explode such bombs over the US till the cows come home. They wouldnt mind US Homeland Security would say go ahead no problem. There is lots of it round the world and you can get it cheap from the US DOD.

Just a thought.

Oh and I live in the UK, if they exploded it over us, our government would be expected by me to bomb the s**t out of any country they came from because I know its a dirty bomb.

Kind Regards Walker

[-TU--33ker 0]

I remember some Apache armed with DU rounds crashing in a German village during an american exercise in the mid 80ies. Many people died from cancer and leukaemia afterwards and children with deformations were born almost ten years later IIRC...:(

I voted NO.

[walker 0]

10 seconds later and my post would have said that too.. I hit the reply button before I was finished.

Radioative substances are harmful in large quantities? No shit sherlock.

Did you know that a city near me, Aberdeen, is made largely of granite.  Granite gives off a radioactive gas.  Natives of Aberdeen have a larger dose of radiation every year than most of the rest of us get in two.  Yet it's 'natural' so noone mentions it

Err actualy they do.

Your told to have well ventalated houses; particularly if you live in a local stone built house. For schools there are laws about it.

It is a requrement to regularly Degaus computer monitors in areas of high radon gas. Why? I hear you say.

The Radon gas being radiactive is charged and collects in an area around the monitor. The exposure levels in school computer rooms near the monitor were found to be higher than for workers in a nuclear power station.

Kind Regards Walker

[Bordoy 0]

10 seconds later and my post would have said that too.. I hit the reply button before I was finished.

Radioative substances are harmful in large quantities? No shit sherlock.

Did you know that a city near me, Aberdeen, is made largely of granite.  Granite gives off a radioactive gas.  Natives of Aberdeen have a larger dose of radiation every year than most of the rest of us get in two.  Yet it's 'natural' so noone mentions it

Err actualy they do.

Your told to have well ventalated houses; particularly if you live in a local stone built house. For schools there are laws about it.

It is a requrement to regularly Degaus computer monitors in areas of high radon gas. Why? I hear you say.

The Radon gas being radiactive is charged and collects in an area around the monitor. The exposure levels in school computer rooms near the monitor were found to be higher than for workers in a nuclear power station.

Kind Regards Walker

whoa, if anything happens i know who to sue now.

[joltan 0]

whoa, if anything happens i know who to sue now.

Mother nature?

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Slightly radioactive? well within safe limits???  

Oh please after all those reports of US army's paranoai over the issue back in this thread and youre saying this? DU has a Halflife of about 4.5 Billion years bro couple it with nearly 300 tons (thats the most smallest estimate) lying out in the open what do you expect?

Yes. There's a difference between it being toxic and it being radioactive. If it were radioactive to a dangerous degree, then half of the US's tactical airfields wouldn't be certified to store or maintain DU munitions, A-10 ground crews would load the GAU with hazmat suits on, and incidence of leukemia in M1A cannon-loaders would be topping 70%.

With that being said, there is a very good possibility that DU is toxic, and that means that ingestion of small particles of DU will make for health problems later on. But these are two distinct and completely divergent possibilities.

Quote[/b] ]Not a WMD? 600,000 dead and counting ... thats genocide ... a hidden one at that ... nothing better then Saddam wiping his population with VX deliberatley , while the US army simply uses it as legit weapon by throwing the dirt of ill-conceived scientific facts around. This weapon is a slow killer and IF WE continue to USE it ... it will bring nothing more then DEATHS .. and if it isnt stopped now , it will cause only more deaths worldwide whereever it is USED.

Like I said before- judge, jury, executioner. All the evidence you've provided so far is circumstantial- very convincing at skin-depth, but completely unscientific. Just provide some scientific evidence that DU A) actually caused all these deaths, and B) that they are attributable to DU's radioactive properties, rather than being such a condescending jerk about it. I appreciate that you've got yourself worked into a nice self-righteous fit of anger, but all the holier-than-thou attitude does is make you look like an asshole.

Quote[/b] ]As i said 'you' wouldnt care ... most americans wouldnt , because they arent the ones suffering from it , if only they were we'd have a 'world disaster' at our hands wouldnt we? A US voter mustnt die of it thats all that matters ... rest can go burn in nuclear hell for all we care.

You asked why the US still uses it, and I told you. If you feel like my answering your question is justification to label me as selfish and uncaring, well then...

Quote[/b] ]As i said before its a hypocritical and selfish world outthere and beaurucrats from the US are probably the cream of it.

Thank you for continuing your streak of ill-informed sweeping generalizations.

[walker 0]

Hi all

So Tex I take it that you like the US DOD see no problem with Al Queda using a DU Dust bomb over your home town?

Kind Regards walker

[Sigma-6 29]

Quote[/b] ]Like I said before- judge, jury, executioner. All the evidence you've provided so far is circumstantial- very convincing at skin-depth, but completely unscientific. Just provide some scientific evidence that DU A) actually caused all these deaths, and B) that they are attributable to DU's radioactive properties, rather than being such a condescending jerk about it. I appreciate that you've got yourself worked into a nice self-righteous fit of anger, but all the holier-than-thou attitude does is make you look like an asshole.

What about my data? I know at least Baron didn't read any of it, because he totally missed all of the data about natural Uranium and Radon:

Quote[/b] ]Did you know that a city near me, Aberdeen, is made largely of granite.  Granite gives off a radioactive gas.  Natives of Aberdeen have a larger dose of radiation every year than most of the rest of us get in two.  Yet it's 'natural' so noone mentions it

Which was:

Quote[/b] ]read here (though it takes a certain amount of physics and chemistry knowledge) and then extrapolate what 320 tons of introduced uranium, the bulk of which has been ignited at over 900 degrees and scattered as aerosols (airborne particles under 10 microns, which is precisely the problem associated with natural Uranium) is likely to do to an area.

If you've heard of radon accumulation from natural Uranium, (many have) you'll understand this as another vector.

radon levels in Cyprus studied

Here's an example of the effect (albeit a more controlled effect, as the vectors are different) on Uranium miners.

Quote[/b] ]2. IMPACTS FOR URANIUM MINERS

During the early "wild" years of uranium mining, protective measures for the miners were very poor. Miners in these early years thus took the highest risk of contracting lung cancer. In the year 1955, radon concentrations in Wismut's mines typically were approximately 100,000 Bq/m3, with peaks of 1.5 million Bq/m3 [Jacobi1992]. Detailed information about the early years of Wismut mining can be found in [beleites1992], [Paul1991], or [Karlsch1993], for example.

From the end of the fifties, the ore was kept wet during drilling to avoid generation of dust, and the mines were intensively ventilated to lower the radon concentrations. The doses received from radon decay products thus decreased from 150 WLM to 4 WLM per year (WLM = Working Level Month is a unit for the dose from radon decay products, which are causative for cancer development).

According to [Jacobi1992], the doses received in Wismut's mines in the early years should not be estimated at 150 WLM, but at 200 WLM per year. The true value can hardly be determined, since Wismut never performed direct individual monitoring of the doses received by the miners. Before 1955, no monitoring was performed at all - only estimates can be made for this early period. Later, radon decay product concentrations were sampled at representative locations within the mines for short periods of time. The doses received by the miners were calculated from these sampling results. While this method allows a certain overview on the doses received, its results cannot be compared with those of continuous individual monitoring.

Between 1946 and 1990, 7163 uranium miners who had been employed with Wismut died from lung cancer. For 5237 of them, the occupational exposure was recognized as the cause of the disease. At present, still approx. 200 lung cancers of former Wismut miners per year are recognized as occupationally caused [AKURA2000]. Until mid-1990, the limit for recognition was 450 WLM; then it was lowered to 200 WLM. One year of work in the uranium mines during the early years is therefore already sufficient to attribute an observed lung cancer to the occupational exposure.

An assessment of international studies on lung cancer incidences with uranium miners showed that with reference to age at exposure and age at cancer incidence, even a total exposure of only 40 WLM can be sufficient to be regarded causative. Such a dose could also be obtained by work exclusively during the mine's later years, while the recognition was so far granted only for work during the mine's early years. At exposures of 150 WLM and higher, an observed lung cancer can be attributed to the work in the uranium mines, practically independent of the exposure history. [Jacobi1992]

Further studies showed that also the risk of contracting cancers other than lung cancer is elevated for uranium miners, in particular for cancer of the mouth region, pharynx, and larynx, bone cancer, leukemia, and liver cancer [Jacobi1995] [Jacobi1997] (view details, see also Uranium Miner Health Risk Calculator). The employers' liability insurance association (Berufsgenossenschaft), however, does not recognize these studies as sufficient to prove that exposure in the mines may have been causative for any such non-lung cancer contracted [AKURA2000].

What's been said here is supported quite roundly by scientific data, and people tend to get angry about hundreds thousands of people dying around them with no help offered. I for one, think that's perfectly reasonable.

Here's what I'll do. I'll buy a nice stick of DU (which I won't be able to do, since in actual fact, I'd get arrested for releasing ionizing radiation if I had it in my posession), and you can put it in your mouth, because it's not dangerous. (which is why we bury it in sealed containers under the desert when we're not shooting it at our enemies).

To the rest here, it helps to read the *whole* thread before you join it, and if in-depth data is posted, even if you think it might be tough to understand; READ IT. You may be going right back on a previous point. Like this one, from page 3:

Quote[/b] ]

The science (which, it seems to me, most DU boosters fail to accept, or understand only peripherally) is pretty clear about the fact that the primary DU risk is not toxicological (as with any heavy metal) but radiological (although the toxicological effects certainly cannot be discounted, as they're pretty insidious in themselves.) Also, the science is clear on the fact that the relative level of radioactivity (which in DU is still quite high, even if it's relatively low) is not a suitable argument in this case, and is basically a buffer argument for people who don't understand radioactivity. statement: "The level of radioactivity is low (I don't know what that means, but it sounds harmless)". Response "Oh. (I don't know what that means, but it sounds harmless) well then what are they complaining about?"

and this:

Quote[/b] ]What that means is that the radioactive capacity of DU would be equally utilized to the same extennt whether I shoot it out of a gun or throw a handful of DU dust at you. Not exactly a weapon of mass destruction.

Is patently untrue. You need to do some research, and study a little physics, my friend, if you're willing to say that in public and expect people to believe it.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Hi all

So Tex I take it that you like the US DOD see no problem with Al Queda using a DU Dust bomb over your home town?

Kind Regards walker

That's completely unfair. I stated a fact, with no value judgement involved. He asked "why is this happening?", not "why do you agree with it?". I merely stated what is, not what I or anyone else thinks should be.

Quote[/b] ]What about my data? I know at least Baron didn't read any of it, because he totally missed all of the data about natural Uranium and Radon:

Let me cut this short by saying that I wasn't referring to you at all, Sigma. I was talking solely about what Ace has offered up thus far. Your data, on the other hand, does make a much more compelling argument, to a degree. Still, you don't know me, so maybe you could refrain from treating me like a simpleton just yet- a courtesy I do my best to extend to others (at least at first). Here's what i do know about DU:

DU emits only low-energy gamma radiation, and external exposure to it is generally not a concern due to the fact that the alpha-particles emitted by U-235's isotopes travel only a few centimeters or can be stopped by a sheet of paper. However, when small particles are ingested or inhaled, it does pose an increased risk of health-damaging radiation to the subject, particularly to kidneys and lungs.

That's a far cry from a weapon of mass destruction, however.

Quote[/b] ]Here's what I'll do. I'll buy a nice stick of DU (which I won't be able to do, since in actual fact, I'd get arrested for releasing ionizing radiation if I had it in my posession), and you can put it in your mouth, because it's not dangerous. (which is why we bury it in sealed containers under the desert when we're not shooting it at our enemies).

Come on now, let's not get trite. It's quite obvious that DU isn't exactly fortified with your essential vitamins and minerals, and is actually quite toxic when ingested. However, DU's toxicity is a completely seperate issue from it's radioactivity. Remember, they call it depleted uranium for a reason.

Quote[/b] ]Is patently untrue. You need to do some research, and study a little physics, my friend, if you're willing to say that in public and expect people to believe it.

All signs point to us not being friends...

For the sake of my obvious ignorance, maybe you could explain why depleted uranium is a weapon of mass destruction, in the nuclear sense of the term.

[Major Fubar 0]

Ah, but Tex, nuclear WMD aren't the only type of WMD...using a munition that spreads incredibly toxic dust around the battleground isn't a far cry from using chemical munitions.

I'll be the first to admit I understand incredibly little about the toxicology and dispersal statistics of DU, but I would imagine it hangs around an area for a significant length of time, posing a threat to innocent civvies after a battle.

I mean, you could probably increase the lethality of smallarms munitions by impregnating the lead with arsenic, ubt I'm sure people wouldn't be too chuffed if any army started doing that...

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Quote[/b] ]Ah, but Tex, nuclear WMD aren't the only type of WMD...using a munition that spreads incredibly toxic dust around the battleground isn't a far cry from using chemical munitions.

If it indeed can be considered a WMD, it is without a doubt the least useful WMD ever. Chances are that when a commander is looking for a way to cause some real mayhem on the battlefield, he doesn't reach for the one that is going to give his allies' grandkids Down Syndrome...

But anyways, there are an incredible number of things that humans use that are altering our biochemistry in ways that would scare the beejesus out of us were we to see all the data. Think Silent Spring under the influence of human growth hormone and a few slugs of tequila.

[walker 0]

Dear Tex

Its like this.

Radiation

'Ionizing Radiation' is used as a general term for two types of radiation emitted by radioactive objects.

The first is particle ionizing radiation and consists of 'bits' of the atom that are thrown out in order to gain stability. These 'bits' are listed below.

Alpha particle : Consists of 2 neutrons and 2 protons stuck together. As an alpha particle is quite large and heavy by atomic standards they are also quite feeble and consequently cannot even penetrate a piece of paper or the skin of a human being.

It is for this reason that radioactive substances which emit only alpha radiation are only considered dangerous if you ingest them by eating them, breathing them in, or getting them into cuts or via injection as shrapnel.

Beta Particle : Consists of a high energy electron. These particles fly out of a decaying atom with quite a bit of energy but can be stopped by a sheet of aluminum or perspex. Beta particle emitting substances are a lot more hazardous than Alpha emitting ones becaus they penetrate futher.

Next you have electromagnetic ionizing radiation.

Gamma Radiation  :  Consists of waves similar to light but with much greater energy (200,000 times more approx). Gamma radiation is emitted from decaying radioactive substances in order to stabilize the atom

X Rays are another type of electromagnetic ionizing radiation.

The Problem

For now ignore its heavy metal poisoning effects they are not the issue I am dealing with here.

DU is safe(ish) if its in a big lump

DU is not safe if it becomes aerosolised.

It becomes aerosolised when it hits a tank.

Because it is a fine oxidised dust it gets blown on the wind.

This means it gets spread a long distance from the initial site, it looks like dust.

This means if kids play in the dust, which all kids do, even you did, they get it on their hands under their finger nails and they breath it in. They go eat food, pick their snotty little noses, poke their ears, rub their eyes and scratch their s**ty little backsides.

It gets onto and into plants you eat

It gets into animals that eat the plants. You then eat the meat, it gets in you.

If you have a cut; say your fixing the engine of your car and the spanner slips, grease and oil in your engine have been contaminated with the dust, it gets into the cut.

The dust blows into your eyes.

You track it into the kitchen or the latrine (toilet paper)

Each of the above are methods of ingestion.

Ingested DU emits BIG alpha particles straight into your living cells, cause it is inside you, there is no skin or clothes to protect you.

According to the US Institute for Molecular Medicine: "If even one particle of uranium oxide, of less than five micrometers(microns), is trapped in the pulmonary system, the lungs and surrounding tissues can be exposed over a year up to 272 times the annual radiation dosage permitted radiation workers by US regulations."

One "hot particle" in the lungs is equivalent, for the nearest cells, to exposure to an X-ray every hour of every day for the rest of the victim’s life.

Five micrometers(microns) is a spec of dust. Upon impact, the DU core partially vaporizes producing uranium oxide in particulates of between 0.5 and 5 microns(micrometers) in size.

Consider a particle in between your teeth.

Or lodged in your sinuses via eyes or nose or ears.

And yes as you said in your kidneys

Or loads of them metabolised from food flowing in your blood through your bone marrow.

Or in that cut.

The reason I personalised it is because you need to think of it in your own back yard to empathise with those GW vets and Iraqi citizens who may be affected by it.

Why else would National Lead Industries in New York be shut down during the 1980’s because it accidentally released into the environment only 375 grams of DU, the same amount that is contained in only one of the munitions rounds fired by the U.S. and NATO in Kosovo and Yugoslavia or the Gulf, than if it was dangerous.

Kind Regards Walker

[Sigma-6 29]

Quote[/b] ]

Let me cut this short by saying that I wasn't referring to you at all, Sigma. I was talking solely about what Ace has offered up thus far. Your data, on the other hand, does make a much more compelling argument, to a degree. Still, you don't know me, so maybe you could refrain from treating me like a simpleton just yet- a courtesy I do my best to extend to others (at least at first). Here's what i do know about DU:

DU emits only low-energy gamma radiation, and external exposure to it is generally not a concern due to the fact that the alpha-particles emitted by U-235's isotopes travel only a few centimeters or can be stopped by a sheet of paper. However, when small particles are ingested or inhaled, it does pose an increased risk of health-damaging radiation to the subject, particularly to kidneys and lungs.

it's a question of application here (and also one of having a broader understanding of exactly what those things mean, and how they operate). Firstly, DU is not just a gamma emitter. Uranium (and let's establish that Uranium 238 and 235 are functionally identical when it comes to their capacity to cause illness (either as a result of their radiological *or* toxicological effects) 235 has simply had its fissionable component removed) is a very complex, and inherently unstable element which occurs naturally in various types of rocks and soil around the world. It emits three main types of ionizing radiation as part of its process of decay. Alpha, which is a term for a particle containing two neutrons and two protons (a helium nucleus, essentially), which has the least penetrative force (though it has a relatively great amount of kinetic energy as it leaves the nucleus, though it's transferred over a very short distance). This, in the case of Uranium, is the most harmful, because it's the most common, even if it's not the most penetrating.

Beta is an electron or positron emitted in the process of nuclear decay. it travels further, but isn't quite so much of a threat here because DU doesn't emit quite so much of it.

Gamma is high energy photons emitted from the nucleus. These are basically light waves (radio, light, x-ray. . . it's all the same thing; photons at different frequencies) at 10^17 Hz and up. They're the most penetrating, most commonly used in medical applications, and they're (obviously) more dangerous in higher doses. They're not, however, the greatest threat in this case.

Incidentally, you say 'low energy gamma radiation'. There is no such thing. All gamma radiation (and all other types) is by definition high-energy. Doesn't matter 'how radioactive' the element is.  This is a common misconception, hence the nature of the DoD reports.

Alphas (the prime perp in DU illnesses) have the potential to screw with your DNA by knocking out parts of the sequence: hence, cancer [birth defects are caused by Uranium present in the Urine causing sperm to pass on nonsense genetic data in their DNA, for example] which can be caused in any part of the body which is in contact with the Uranium [Leukemia is in the bones, for example] and Uranium can be carried to any part of the body in the bloodstream, but it doesn't cross the placental barrier.

The PRIMARY misconception about Ionizing radiation, and one [i'm sorry if it sounds condescending, that's what peer review is all about] that you share with many people, including the DoD, is that there is such thing as a 'safe level'. Since there is no such thing as a 'safe level' because any level can (and probably will, eventually) give you cancer, what we have is a 'recommended level' which is used if you *haven't any other choice* (IE, you live in an area with a high concentration of Natural Uranium, or you work in a Uranium mine, or you work in a Nuclear Facility. . . an M1 tank, etc. . .). Any exposure to radioactive compounds/elements can, and will give you cancer if you're exposed long enough and to enough of it.

Here's the key point though which seems to contradict that (but it doesn't. Recommended levels are a TRADEOFF): *in the case of Uranium, or any other radioactive element, all that is required is that you ingest it. It doesn't matter how much, or whether it's fissionable material.* The question of how much just allows you to determine varying levels of risk, and of course, different people are affected differently.

The above is so because if:

a: you're standing next to a pile of DU that is static, you're exposed to radiation for as long as you're there, and once you leave you're no longer being irradiated.

b: you ingest a particle of Uranium however it happens (or a whiff of Radon gas (a deadly byproduct of the *presence* of Uranium) and it remains embedded in your soft tissue, you're going to be irradiated by that particle for as long as it is in your system. If it remains in your system for your whole life (as a generous percentage do) you're being irradiated for your whole life.

Now: It may take 50 years for you to develop symptoms. Some people may never develop symptoms (some people smoke for 60 years and never get lung cancer. . . doesn't mean smoking is safe). If we put <10 micron particles of Uranium in everyone's lung tissue or mucous membranes, we'd be asking for trouble, and we'd better be working on a cure for cancer.

Quote[/b] ]Come on now, let's not get trite. It's quite obvious that DU isn't exactly fortified with your essential vitamins and minerals, and is actually quite toxic when ingested. However, DU's toxicity is a completely seperate issue from it's radioactivity. Remember, they call it depleted uranium for a reason.

I don't think it's trite. I think it's precisely the issue. And it's not separate from its radioactivity. DU is referred to as 'depleted' because it no longer contains its fissionable component and can't be used as nuclear fuel, not because it's not radioactive, and especially not because it isn't dangerous. The Radon gas produced by 235 is the same gas as is produced by 238, and in either case, you're still going to get cancer.

Quote[/b] ]All signs point to us not being friends...

For the sake of my obvious ignorance, maybe you could explain why depleted uranium is a weapon of mass destruction, in the nuclear sense of the term.

Don't get offended by me. I'm only here to ensure that people have as much information as possible, without either side getting clouded by their emotional reactions to the subject matter. If you're wrong I'm going to tell you so; it's up to you to get offended by that.

And personally, I think that it's pretty clear, understanding the processes and vectors, why most countries (sans the US and UK, obviously) would like to study it for a potential ban. It fits quite snugly into the Geneva conventions in at least four major places (and plenty more minor ones).

If you'd like me to get specific I can comb the text for the references if you'd like and footnote it with examples from DU use, but I'm sure I can spare you that.

[Sigma-6 29]

lol. . .

we must have been typing those at the same time. . .

hehe

[Acecombat 0]

Quote[/b] ]If it were radioactive to a dangerous degree, then half of the US's tactical airfields wouldn't be certified to store or maintain DU munitions, A-10 ground crews would load the GAU with hazmat suits on, and incidence of leukemia in M1A cannon-loaders would be topping 70%.

Are they loading bombed out material?

Is it exploded munition?

Quote[/b] ]Just provide some scientific evidence that DU A) actually caused all these deaths, and B) that they are attributable to DU's radioactive properties, rather than being such a condescending jerk about it. I appreciate that you've got yourself worked into a nice self-righteous fit of anger, but all the holier-than-thou attitude does is make you look like an asshole.

I have given many links here which should make you understand that very reason , remind me to put up one link from the GCSE websites chemistry dept .

I have not worked myself in to a fit of anger on this , and my holier-then-thou attitude is only trying to prove to your piss-off-we'll-do-what-we-like ... one something which is a fact. Abusing me wont get you anywhere in the argument except maybe a PR.

Now you are probably thinking whats with this 'prick' just coming along making a dumb post raving continuously about a thing which should probably be in theleast of his third world mind ? Right?

Well let me tell you then my mother had contracted Leukameia

back in 96-97 how and why? No one knows and she died in 2000 after 4 years of pain and suffering from a disease which shouldnt be here in the first place without a specific cause especially considering here fine health and a clean medical past/record .... so i ask myself why'd it happened? Dont know ... Now on to present , my small brother whos already showed signs of extreme anemia in him with his red blood cell ratio dropping to his white ones is slowly following suit in to the initial part of this accursed disease , what will happen to him no one knows , how he got it even the doctors dont know ...?

Now i ask myself how are perfectly healthy people in my country and the surrounding ones are dying from? I have been to hospitals here and can tell you personally that the rate of Cancer here is rising as sharp as anything , i dont need no crappy Internet Link to tell me about that. And i simply shudder at the thought of how big this disease is in IRAQ which is the most infected by it.

Dont you find it a bit ODD to say the least as to how everyone started getting all forms of diseases which were unheard of HERE! Woyuldnt you wanna know how or why or whats making it happen?

And just for that very questionable argument i will be called upon as an 'asshole' fine. Go ahead make fun or pass sarcastic remarks if you will over my post again.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Wow, so much to reply to, so little time. This is going to take a while, so I'll probably end up missing something. And anyhow, let me preface this with: all I ask for is information. My initial reaction to anything that has become so loaded down with political baggage as the DU thing has become is skepticism, so you'll excuse me for that, I hope. I have very little doubt that DU is a factor in the rises of leukemia and cancer in several conflict areas, but I'd just like to know why it should be fingered as the number 1 bugaboo.

Quote[/b] ]This means if kids play in the dust, which all kids do, even you did, they get it on their hands under their finger nails and they breath it in. They go eat food, pick their snotty little noses, poke their ears, rub their eyes and scratch their s**ty little backsides.

Especially me

Quote[/b] ]The reason I personalised it is because you need to think of it in your own back yard to empathise with those GW vets and Iraqi citizens who may be affected by it.

I have the ability to empathize with other human beings- to make the assumption that I can only understand suffering when it directly affects me is a bit rash (at least let me demonstrate how big a jerk I am before you reach that conclusion ). Besides, I all ready explained why my response was a bit callous: it was a reflection of what is, not what ought to be. I'd sound like a real ninny if I ran around spouting platitudes all the time, now wouldn't I?

There's too much to go into detail over, but thank you for the informative post, walker. That's all I was after, even if you supplied a few more double-spacings than I'm normally used to; I'm an ignoramus in the physical sciences, not English, remember?

Okay, on to Sigma.

Quote[/b] ]it's a question of application here (and also one of having a broader understanding of exactly what those things mean, and how they operate). Firstly, DU is not just a gamma emitter. Uranium (and let's establish that Uranium 238 and 235 are functionally identical when it comes to their capacity to cause illness (either as a result of their radiological *or* toxicological effects) 235 has simply had its fissionable component removed) is a very complex, and inherently unstable element which occurs naturally in various types of rocks and soil around the world. It emits three main types of ionizing radiation as part of its process of decay. Alpha, which is a term for a particle containing two neutrons and two protons (a helium nucleus, essentially), which has the least penetrative force (though it has a relatively great amount of kinetic energy as it leaves the nucleus, though it's transferred over a very short distance). This, in the case of Uranium, is the most harmful, because it's the most common, even if it's not the most penetrating.

Beta is an electron or positron emitted in the process of nuclear decay. it travels further, but isn't quite so much of a threat here because DU doesn't emit quite so much of it.

Gamma is high energy photons emitted from the nucleus. These are basically light waves (radio, light, x-ray. . . it's all the same thing; photons at different frequencies) at 10^17 Hz and up. They're the most penetrating, most commonly used in medical applications, and they're (obviously) more dangerous in higher doses. They're not, however, the greatest threat in this case.

Incidentally, you say 'low energy gamma radiation'. There is no such thing. All gamma radiation (and all other types) is by definition high-energy. Doesn't matter 'how radioactive' the element is. This is a common misconception, hence the nature of the DoD reports.

<snip>

Now: It may take 50 years for you to develop symptoms. Some people may never develop symptoms (some people smoke for 60 years and never get lung cancer. . . doesn't mean smoking is safe). If we put <10 micron particles of Uranium in everyone's lung tissue or mucous membranes, we'd be asking for trouble, and we'd better be working on a cure for cancer.

Very informative, I appreciate it. Now that the issue has been framed in terms of scientific realities rather than circumstancial evidence, I'm much more receptive. Once again, all I ask for is information.

Quote[/b] ]Don't get offended by me. I'm only here to ensure that people have as much information as possible, without either side getting clouded by their emotional reactions to the subject matter. If you're wrong I'm going to tell you so; it's up to you to get offended by that.

And personally, I think that it's pretty clear, understanding the processes and vectors, why most countries (sans the US and UK, obviously) would like to study it for a potential ban. It fits quite snugly into the Geneva conventions in at least four major places (and plenty more minor ones).

If you'd like me to get specific I can comb the text for the references if you'd like and footnote it with examples from DU use, but I'm sure I can spare you that.

Look, I'm not offended by you (it takes a lot more than words on paper to offend me), I just wish people wouldn't lead with condescension in forum arguments- that's much better suited for after you've been banging your head against the proverbial wall for a few pages.

I wish you would have answered my question, however.

Thanks for giving me a quick and dirty background on the scientific aspect of the subject- I find it much more useful than pages and pages of circumstance that might as well be coincidence.

Anyhow, on to Ace.

Quote[/b] ]Are they loading bombed out material?

Is it exploded munition?

See what happens when you make sweeping generalizations?

Quote[/b] ]I have not worked myself in to a fit of anger on this , and my holier-then-thou attitude is only trying to prove to your piss-off-we'll-do-what-we-like ... one something which is a fact. Abusing me wont get you anywhere in the argument except maybe a PR.

*bangs head against aforementioned proverbial wall*

I answered your question in the manner it was phrased; I'm sorry if you didn't like the answer you received, but I assure you it is not far from the mark. DU is nearly free in terms of acquisition and weaponization, and you will be hard-pressed to find a better penetrator. That is why the US doesn't want to get rid of DU munitions. If you want to construe that as my actual attitude, then prepare for more 'abuse' headed downrange.

Quote[/b] ]Now you are probably thinking whats with this 'prick' just coming along making a dumb post raving continuously about a thing which should probably be in theleast of his third world mind ? Right?

Well let me tell you then my mother had contracted Leukameia

<snip>

Now i ask myself how are perfectly healthy people in my country and the surrounding ones are dying from? I have been to hospitals here and can tell you personally that the rate of Cancer here is rising as sharp as anything , i dont need no crappy Internet Link to tell me about that. And i simply shudder at the thought of how big this disease is in IRAQ which is the most infected by it.

My condolences. My family has been hit hard by cancer as well; I've lost two close relatives in the last 8 years, with another whose cancer has gone into remission, thankfully. The fact is that cancer rates are rising everywhere, and the MidEast is not exempt.

Quote[/b] ]Dont you find it a bit ODD to say the least as to how everyone started getting all forms of diseases which were unheard of HERE! Woyuldnt you wanna know how or why or whats making it happen?

Yes, it's incredibly odd. However, a whole laundry list of things have happened in the Persian Gulf within the past few decades that were unheard of there previously- that doesn't make them all carcinogens.

Quote[/b] ]And just for that very questionable argument i will be called upon as an 'asshole' fine. Go ahead make fun or pass sarcastic remarks if you will over my post again.

If there's one thing I dislike it's being accused of making sarcastic remarks without having the pleasure of actually being sarcastic. And for the record, I said that your condescending tone and sweeping generalizations made you sound like an asshole, not that you were an asshole. I'd say there's a subtle but significant distinction.

[Major Fubar 0]

Asbestos is a cheap and effective insulating material...DDT is quite an effective pesticide...remind me again why we don't use them any more?

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Asbestos is a cheap and effective insulating material...DDT is quite an effective pesticide...remind me again why we don't use them any more?

I think I should make my new mantra: "What is; what ought to be. What is; what ought to be. What is..."

[Sigma-6 29]

What is:

Uranium fired at targets  with 300mm to 400mm RHA armour in inhabited areas as part of penetrators that achieve >700mm RHA penetration from 120mm smoothbore guns that will fire the German DM-53, a tungsten penetrator which will penetrate >810mm RHA.

What ought to be:

Heaven knows, but it isn't leukemia, and I'm not the type to accept what is and ignore what ought to be because it isn't what is.

[Sigma-6 29]

Quote[/b] ]I wish you would have answered my question, however.

Quote[/b] ]•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.

•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 may not have an unduly negative effect on the natural

environment.

Quote[/b] ]The definition in the U.S. Code, Title 5, "War and National Defense," includes radiological weapons. It defines WMD as "any weapon or device that is intended, or has the capability, to cause death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of people through the release, dissemination, or impact of - (A) toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors; (B) a disease organism; or © radiation or radioactivity."

further info

[Kuja- 0]

Anybody have any statistics on civilian casualties (sickness, death) that result from DU?  I haven't heard of any.  To be fair, this could just be some scientist trying to scare people for whatever reason.  Sure radiation is bad, but will inhaling minute amounts of DU dust hurt anybody?

ps- DU isn't classified as NBC because it's not a nuclear, biological, or chemical weapon.  It's a bullet.

The statistics can be used either way.  I read a report produced by some division of the Australian Defence Forces who concluded that there was absolutely no risk posed by DU, and they evidenced it with a multitude of sources and other medical studies.  The opponents of DU apparently have a similar body of evidence to support them.

I don't think there is any way that we can authoritatively make a judgement, because there would appear to be as much evidence for either side of the debate.

For your perusal:

http://www.defence.gov.au/dpe....11.html

http://www.defence.gov.au/dpe....57.html

The Australian Defence Forces and their medical arms seem decisively on the side of the argument that proposes DU presents no medical risk.

Even assuming that DU rounds do in fact cause harm to the environment and other life in the vicinity of combat usage, I don't think the term NBC could really be stretched to include DU rounds.  As others have said, the lead core of a bullet could be considered an NBC under such classification guidelines.  I imagine that a fair amount of lead would be deposited on the insides of enemy soldiers when the current rounds employed in the M16-A2 fragment - is the M-855 a chemical weapon? In addition, DU rounds are not employed with the intention of causing harm through NBC means, they're used as a kinetic penetrator against armour...so...