Depleted Uranium (DU)

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Depleted uranium = depleted of radioactivity (to a large degree.)

Its not radiation that does damage, its that its one of the heavy, toxic metals (like mercury or lead - they are just bad for you, especially when inhaled.)

*EDIT*

Before anyone takes a hissy fit, I'm not saying you are wrong MLF, the radiation in the nearby area probably does increase. But DU is not significantly radioactive, its that it is a heavy metal that does damage.

People who live on granite/ in granite houses get more radiation than that by a long way.

[T.S.C.Plage 0]

The particels are defnitly highly chemo- and radiotoxic and can lead to genetic/heirs-disease and many other illnesses if the particels get into the body. It's not only a "heavy metal pollution" that's caused by DU.

Greetz

Plage

[Kuja- 0]

He was right about the coal vs nuclear power plants thing

[FireflyPL 0]

@ FireflyPL:

You didn't understand what I wrote! You're maybe right that DU as itself is relativly harmless and is used in medical-equipment for example but what we're talking about is Uraniumoxid aka Uranium-dust that is produced during the chemical reaction at an impact of a DU-projectile.

As I wrote above particels are produced that can be inhaled and absorbed by the human-body and will defnitly cause cancer and other physical and psychological problems!

The man I mentioned in my post above (Prof. Dr. A. Schott) is as stated the head of the WODUC and was Professor at the Free University of Berlin and did research for German governmental institutions. He and a team of other scientists visited Iraq and took samples in the near of tank-wrecks that were destroyed by DU-ammo.

During this shorttime of three weeks he already absorbed so much radioactiv and toxic material that he and some of his team already got irreparable disease...think about the people that (have to) live there for years!!!

For example there's a village in Bosnia which name I don't remember. Serbian tanks were in position close to that village and NATO-aircrafts attacked and destroyed these tanks with DU-bombs. A couple of years later 1.500 of the 3.500 villagers died from cancer. And you think there's no relation!?!

Please read and visit:

Submitted Evidence

Attachment 1

Attachment 2

Attachment 3

Resolution

Toxicologie of Uranium - Research for the German Scientific Institution of Agriculture

Generally http://www.woduc.de ...check the "Links" page for other usefull infos.

I'm really not "green", a pacifist or whatever but this is a really alarming thing and I think it's important to know about what's going on. It's defnitly not harmless!!!

Greetz

Plage

T.S.C.Plage I m not going to argue with you as long as you are not going to read WHO reports on DU. For me some unknown profesor (publishing on unknown website and mostly in german) has no authority, but WHO has and If WHO says that DU can't cause harm then they are probably right. This files on unknown site that you show as evidence is just pure propaganda. How 1500 people can die of cancer if much much bigger Chernobyl meltdown caused health problem only in 15000 people?? DU is less radioactive than pure Uranium then how so low quantities like in shells can cause bigger death rate than huge Chernobyl meltdown? It can't thats why the site you are refering to is propaganda. Read what WHO says about DU.

Go on read these WHO reports

World Health Organisation report on DU

http://www.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA54/ea5419a1.pdf

"Depleted uranium has several peaceful applications: as counterweights or ballast in aircraft,

radiation shields in medical equipment used for radiation therapy and containers for the transport of

radioactive materials."

"For the general population, it is unlikely that the exposure to depleted uranium will significantly exceed the normal background uranium levels."

"CONCLUSIONS: RESEARCH

Gaps in knowledge exist and further research is recommended in key areas that would allow

better health-risk assessments to be made. In particular, studies are needed to clarify our understanding

of the extent, reversibility and possible existence of thresholds for kidney damage in people exposed to

depleted uranium. Important information could come from studies of populations exposed to naturally

elevated concentrations of uranium in drinking-water."

So still there are no scientific proof that DU can do more harm than natural existing Uranium.

Oh and there is something about Balkans too

http://www.who.int/inf-pr-2001/en/pr2001-22.html

"Measurements of environmental DU at selected sites in Kosovo (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) indicate localized contamination (within a few tens of meters of impact sites) at the ground surface. This suggests that the likelihood of health consequences to the local population is very low unless people are active at the impact sites or the DU progresses in significant quantities to the food chain or ground water."

[Acecombat 0]

I made a similiar topic on this sometime ago , you could dig that up for info , it had plenty as well .

[theavonlady 2]

I made a similiar topic on this sometime ago , you could dig that up for info , it had plenty as well   .

Dug!

[Acecombat 0]

Thanks , i was using the search function last night and couldnt track the bugger down , i think the search function is not working here   .

What words did you type ? I typed DU rounds and made a search in the OT forum but all it gave me were these recent topics with nothing to do with it.

P.S: last time aroundwe spammed the RHS thread as well .

[theavonlady 2]

Searched for "depleted AND uranium" in OFFTOPIC posts since the beginning.

[T.S.C.Plage 0]

@ FireflyPL:

In this report there's no oxid or dust mentioned...they tell the truth but left the main-part away.

Don't you get the point that I'm not talking about a peace of DU as it is. How often I've to tell you that the substances produced during the reaction at an impact are the dangerous things?

And this here must be a joke...

Quote[/b] ]This suggests that the likelihood of health consequences to the local population is very low unless people are active at the impact sites or the DU progresses in significant quantities to the food chain or ground water.

Some of the tanks etc. were destroyed close to roads, in villages and so on and not "in the woods". How should the people stay away from such wrecks when they're in their direct surrounding? I'm sure the author of the statement never saw kids playing on such wrecks!

Not to mention that the author did forget that his WHO-friends already stated that DU can make it's way to the atmosphere and is not an areal problem.

/edit: And concerning your Chernobyl theory...how can only 15.000 people get harmed if more then 150.000 soldiers were directly involved in the clean-up after the accident and a city with about 50.000 people was so close to it?

Anyways there's no direct connection between both things, so please stay on topic. If you want to discuss about Chernobyl please open a new thread.

Greetz

Plage

[Daddl 10]

Before anyone takes a hissy fit, I'm not saying you are wrong MLF, the radiation in the nearby area probably does increase. But DU is not significantly radioactive, its that it is a heavy metal that does damage.

People who live on granite/ in granite houses get more radiation than that by a long way.

While that certainly contains some truth it's not as simple as the dammage received from radioactive materials depends on the distance to the emitter and where the radiation is absorbed:

First: The radiation decreases with the inverse square (i.e. if you double the distance the radiation falls to a quarter).

Second: Alpha & Beta rays don't penetrate the skin (whose outer part is dead tissue anyways). So everything outside your body isn't nearly as dangerous as somthing inside your body (in your lungs, intestine or blood stream) where it can cause much more damage.

So living in a granite building isn't particularly dangerous as you are usually not in direct contact with the rock (i.e. at some distance, even if it's just a few meters or centimeters). Also it's not usual that people actually inhale or eat the rocks their house is made of/build on.

Inhaling granite dust on the other hand can be quite dangerous, too.

The problem with DU ammunition (as has been mentioned many times) is not only the toxity (already bad enough) but also the fact that the dust may penetrate the body by being inhaled or eaten (contaminated food or water). If that happens the comparably low radioactivity can easily cause cancer - especially when you consider that heavy metals tend to accumulate inside the body where they can continue to cause dammage over years and decades.

I don't think thungsten or other heavy metal penetrators are much better in regard of toxity and they may even cause cancer, too - radioactivity isn't the only way for something to cause cancer. Therefore, whether DU or other penetrators are used: I hope we can come up with a replacement technology that doesn't create toxic and cancerous dust. At the moment we don't have it, and so we are forced to use DU and/or other heavy metal penetrators, as bad as they might be.

Quote[/b] ]This suggests that the likelihood of health consequences to the local population is very low unless people are active at the impact sites or the DU progresses in significant quantities to the food chain or ground water.

As for people staying away from the wrecks: Even if they aren't in populated areas there's enough natural vectors that make the dust end up inside peoples bodies.

Wind: it carries the dust to your home, you inhale it on the street, etc. Remember that Central Europe receives tons of dust every year from the sahara - so the dust might be carried very far indeed!

Water: Rain sweeps it away into fields, pasture land, rivers and lakes. From there it enters the food chain in many ways: covering grass eaten by animals, being drunken by man or animals, or just being used for irrigation of crops or vegetables.

It doesn't just stay where it is or go away, never to be seen again. This doesn't make the above quote wrong, but maybe puts it into perspective.

Also: WHO is a UN organization, not a US organization... ;)

[FireflyPL 0]

@ FireflyPL:

In this report there's no oxid or dust mentioned...they tell the truth but left the main-part away.

You still havn't read these reports.

Don't you get the point that I'm not talking about a peace of DU as it is. How often I've to tell you that the substances produced during the reaction at an impact are the dangerous things?

So, say, you have already make up your mind huh? Not much scientific attitude.

And this here must be a joke...

Quote[/b] ]This suggests that the likelihood of health consequences to the local population is very low unless people are active at the impact sites or the DU progresses in significant quantities to the food chain or ground water.

Some of the tanks etc. were destroyed close to roads, in villages and so on and not "in the woods". How should the people stay away from such wrecks when they're in their direct surrounding? I'm sure the author of the statement never saw kids playing on such wrecks!

Not to mention that the author did forget that his WHO-friends already stated that DU can make it's way to the atmosphere and is not an areal problem.

Greetz

Plage

I see so you basicly say that US agency WHO is lying and only you have knowledge of the ultimate truth? Sorry, but you make me laugh. All my quotes are from WHO reports and if you think that WHO is lying then maybe you should publish your truth to WHO. Who knows maybe you will convince them. Until then I'll stick to the opinions of WHO not some unknown profesor ok?

[T.S.C.Plage 0]

@ FireflyPL:

It's not my problem that you're so ignorant and don't see the facts. The report you refere to is from 2001 and during this time new studies have been made. There're many other studies besides the WODUC and WHO ones and most of them come to very dangerous conclusions. I simply don't close my eyes and trust anything an institution under US-custody is telling and repeat their propaganda like a parrot.

Ask all the victims how they care about the WHO-reports!

The US government has enough reasons to keep this "case closed" because they will get in serious trouble from many sides if they would acknowledge what DU-dust really does. If you want I go that far and tell you it's a conspiracy of the government, military and the economy.

I'm laughing at you if you're so indoctrinated that you believe anything the government and official institutions which only exist because they get payed by the government will tell you. But I can understnad that...they took the cover of your cage away just a short-time ago so you maybe didn't got enough time to get the "feeling" how bs or the truth smells even if it hits you in the face!

Greetz

Plage

[MontyVCB 0]

tbh there is no real firm proof that DU rounds are the single reason for poisoning soldiers during the first GW, most soldiers know the risks they are taking when jumping on to a burnt out wreck of a tank. and if DU rounds do poison people, i don't think armies care if they poison enemy soldiers....

[Daddl 10]

para-trooper: the problem aren't enemy soldiers but the civilian population that has to live there even after the war has finished.

[MontyVCB 0]

yea, but the raditation is minimal, give it 2 days and you be hard pressed to find any real dangerous raditation levels in the wreck.

[EiZei 0]

yea, but the raditation is minimal, give it 2 days and you be hard pressed to find any real dangerous raditation levels in the wreck.

Tell it to the iraqis.

(insert a picture of a deformed fetus here)

[ag_smith 0]

Heh, from what I gather, there's as much REAL scientific evidence to serious contamination caused by DU as there's regarding cellular phones causing the cancer!

[Daddl 10]

yea, but the raditation is minimal, give it 2 days and you be hard pressed to find any real dangerous raditation levels in the wreck.

Just read my post on the last page on why that's still dangerous.

[walker 0]

Hi All

There is already an existing DU thread.

To save time people participating in the new thread may wish to read what has allready been said on the forum about the subject.

The moddies may or may not wish to merge the threads.

Kind Regards Walker

[MontyVCB 0]

yea, but the raditation is minimal, give it 2 days and you be hard pressed to find any real dangerous raditation levels in the wreck.

Tell it to the iraqis.

(insert a picture of a deformed fetus here)

Quote[/b] ]Didn't use of DU in the 1990-91 Gulf Conflict lead to cancers and birth defects in Iraq?

Media reports of DU-induced cancers and birth defects in Iraq have not been substantiated with credible scientific evidence. Many other factors need to be considered as possible causes, for example, some scientists have blamed the former Iraqi Government's use of chemical weapons on its own citizens.

The Royal Society's report on "The Health Hazards of Depleted Uranium Munitions" Part II states that "Modelling of the amounts of DU resuspended from soil in the years following a conflict indicates that the estimated inhalation intakes will not lead to any increase in the incidence of lung cancer or any other cancers among children or adults. Nor are they likely to lead to any significant effects on kidney function."

With regard to reports of foetal deaths and malformations in children born after conflicts, the Royal Society's aforementioned reports conclude that "These reports are of obvious concern but are very difficult to interpret as reliable data on the rates of foetal death and malformation prior to and following these conflicts are not available." Also, "the WHO has initiated studies to ascertain whether reproductive health in Iraq has declined since the Gulf War. If there have been increased rates of foetal death and malformation it will again be difficult to know whether this is due to DU as the population of Iraq has been subjected to multiple toxic exposures". Furthermore, "It should also be remembered that malnutrition can increase the incidence of malformations (eg the link between neural tube defects and folic acid deficiency is firmly established)."

[FireflyPL 0]

@ FireflyPL:

It's not my problem that you're so ignorant and don't see the facts. The report you refere to is from 2001 and during this time new studies have been made. There're many other studies besides the WODUC and WHO ones and most of them come to very dangerous conclusions. I simply don't close my eyes and trust anything an institution under US-custody is telling and repeat their propaganda like a parrot.

Ask all the victims how they care about the WHO-reports!

The US government has enough reasons to keep this "case closed" because they will get in serious trouble from many sides if they would acknowledge what DU-dust really does. If you want I go that far and tell you it's a conspiracy of the government, military and the economy.

So, just as I thought you are nothing more than propagandist.

I'm laughing at you if you're so indoctrinated that you believe anything the government and official institutions which only exist because they get payed by the government will tell you. But I can understnad that...they took the cover of your cage away just a short-time ago so you maybe didn't got enough time to get the "feeling" how bs or the truth smells even if it hits you in the face!

Greetz

Plage

Well, which government controls UN? US government? Please don't stultify yourself with this conspiracy theories. All I m saying is that there are no evidence of health problem according to WHO. If you had at least a little criticism you would search WHO web site and read more about it. Instead you are refering to some web site which supports your theory of DU. That's pure propaganda and I wouldn't be surprised if you had belonged to some green, antiglobalistic, anarchistic or any other new leftist group wich has its own theories and visions even opposit to facts presented by United Nations. But tell me then what is the purpose of this topic? Is it to discuss the subject or to scrach your back and convince others to your theories? If its the latter then there is no reason to participate in this topic.

[Akira 0]

Wow...a topic about DU going hostile?

That almost never happens....

[T.S.C.Plage 0]

@ FireflyPl:

I'm bored of you but...

You always are referering to the "unknown" professor and that he's no authority in this area but it simply sounds like you doesn't believe him because he's German. However I picked his studies and reports because I knew about him from a TV-documentation (http://www.wdr.de/tv/diestory/archiv/2004/04/26.html...guess what, German only!) and this simply was the last important and alarming source I could remember.

As mentioned you can search the web for DU and you'll find about 80% of pages that tell you DU (and especially it's dust) is dangerous and only about 20% which tell you it's "not such a" danger and these 20% are mainly military or "US-related" institutions (which I also count the WHO to, as you already noticed).

And just to mention it again. The last revised version of the report is from over two years ago. Is the WHO unable to do some more research and disprove all these newer theories, studies and focus a bit more on the dust then DU itself?

And just to show you I read half of the WHO-page...

Quote[/b] ]Recommendations

* Following conflict, levels of DU contamination in food and drinking water might be detected in affected areas even after a few years. This should be monitored where it is considered there is a reasonable possibility of significant quantities of DU entering the ground water or food chain.

* Where justified and possible, clean-up operations in impact zones should be undertaken if there are substantial numbers of radioactive projectiles remaining and where qualified experts deem contamination levels to be unacceptable. If high concentrations of DU dust or metal fragments are present, then areas may need to be cordoned off until removal can be accomplished. Such impact sites are likely to contain a variety of hazardous materials, in particular unexploded ordnance. Due consideration needs to be given to all hazards, and the potential hazard from DU kept in perspective.

* Small children could receive greater exposure to DU when playing in or near DU impact sites. Their typical hand-to-mouth activity could lead to high DU ingestion from contaminated soil. Necessary preventative measures should be taken.

* Disposal of DU should follow appropriate national or international recommendations.

From here...http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/.

Strange recommandations for a such harmless thing don't you think!?!

I could give you many other links but you simply would say this is "green, antiglobalistic, anarchistic propaganda" so I simply leave you with a link to Wikipedia...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium (check "Health concerns").

I slightly overread your other stuff so don't expect me to answer to it!

Greetz

Plage

[MontyVCB 0]

ok, so if its so dangerous what do we replace it with? some one has already said that tungsten is not much better, and is still poisonous if breathed in or swallowed   , DU rounds will be around for a while yet, the advantages from a military point of view outweigh the risks

[Gedis 0]

Depleted uranium = depleted of radioactivity (to a large degree.)

Its not radiation that does damage, its that its one of the heavy, toxic metals (like mercury or lead - they are just bad for you, especially when inhaled.)

it's what i said before, that it is toxic...

it can be replaced with less toxic rounds, like wolframe heads... but it woun't, because US uses DU rounds from 1991 desert storm war, it passed Balkans War, Afganistan and again Operation Iraq Freedom...

these cheaters (US government) that want to use DU rounds on abrams tanks, did biggest trick in the world, why do you think russian tanks can't avoid being destroyed from one shell?