War's unintended effects: Use of depleted uranium weapons

[Barrett808]

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- The ideal legacy of the war in Iraq is a free and democratic society, but a sinister legacy of another kind is possible as well -- cancers and birth defects.

Depleted uranium weapons used by the U.S.-led forces in the war have left battle sites throughout Iraq contaminated with abnormally high levels of radiation.

...

There are some studies under way that could shed more light on the effects of depleted uranium, a highly complex and poorly understood subject. Critics say DU shouldn't be used until the studies have been completed, while supporters, primarily the military, say it is critical to success on the battlefield.

Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., has introduced legislation requiring the U.S. government to conduct studies of DU's effects on health and the environment, and cleanup of DU contamination in the United States. The bill, co-sponsored by 23 other Democrats, remains in committee.

He said DU may well be associated with increased birth defects.

"We continue to get these sporadic reports of various places where a lot of people are getting sick, and nobody is willing to connect the dots yet," he said. "I'm afraid we're going to have a lot of people get sick before they finally admit that depleted uranium really causes a problem for us (U.S. veterans and their families) as well as for the Iraqis."

(more)

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/133581_du04.html

[bif]

1. Isn't the use of DU illegal?

I thought I read somewhere that it was against the Geneva Convention. So why are we still using it and when is someone going to call us on this?

[qb]

4. I think the GC refers to doing harm to civilians

or civilian infrastructure, but I'm no expert. Bombarding an entire country with tons of radioactive material fits this definition.
IMO, Bush is violating the GC on many fronts, but they're obviously "above the law."

[NickB79]

49. The US never signed the GC

We usually abide by the GC when it suits us, but the US is under no internation law to follow it. Sucks, huh?

[DeathvadeR]

60. More like....

Sickens me. The US Military is a threat to Human existance.

[JoFerret]

2. Furthermore...we have no plans for clearing it up

and are even claiming it has no lasting effects.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2946715.stm

[sam sarrha]

45. 70% of the projectile is 'atomized' into dust...,the journalist Alex

Kerby said after a year in Saudi Arabia, never going into Iraq, he tested over 100 times the annual safe exposure for DU. i get nauseated when i think about our troops sleeping in the dirt there... :argh:

[treepig]

3. this article is just silly

is putting it politely.

it should behoove DU activists to give their heads a shake and seriously consider if they wish to have their 15 minutes of fame on a soapbox, or do they care about finding out what's really causing the mysterious illnesses in the mid-east?

on edit, to clarify, the DU mentioned above was refering to depleted uranium, not necessarily to the democratic underground

[qb]

5. Nice try, but I think we'll carry on.

Anyone who doesn't like this thread is welcome to try another.

[Barrett808]

6. Are you saying it's silly to consider DU a health hazard?

Because this is a real issue, not "pseudo-science."

[treepig]

7. in the past over on DU1

with DU1 being the original reincarnation of democratic underground, i posted an analysis of the health and cellular effects of DU (depleted uranium). here is this read-only link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/duforum/DCForumID29/2542.html


and to anyone who believes that contamination of the enviroment with DU is a health hazard, a much more imminent threat is the massive contamination of the USA with (even more dangerous undepleted) natural uranium that is released upon buring of coal. this topic is discussed in this extant thread:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=169&mesg_id=169

[Barrett808]

9. Check out Dr. Rokke's work

http://traprockpeace.org/depleteduranium.html

and elsewhere

[treepig]

12. i'm familiar with major rokke

he seems to be well-intentioned, but is essentially a nut-case.

in the order of health hazards encountered by troops (or iraqi's) in iraq, DU would have to be way, way, down the list.

[sam sarrha]

62. apparently they are saying it isn' a problem because of radioactivity, but

the really bad problem is heavy metal toxicity. I used to do corporate science research.. they set up the tests to get the results they want. like JLP was concerned with heavy metal toxicity and the testers said it was within gov levels... so was PVC..see "Blue Vinyl" movie... early lead acceptable levels, arsenic. they set the level to allow profits...been there done that..sorry. when i found out what i was doing, I quit.

[DeathvadeR]

61. Your fooling yourself if you think DU is not harming humans.

Yes there are other sources that are creating illness in the MidEast but anyone with a brain can come to the conclusion that DU is not Safe.

And if you believe it is, why don't you put a big chunk of it in your living room for a while and see what it does to you? I'd love to see the study on that.

[treepig]

64. are people who fly on 747's afflicted by mysterious illnesses?

3.2 Aircraft Counterweights

Control surfaces on wide body aircraft require heavy counterweights, yet have insufficient surface clearance for lighter materials. Tungsten (with density 19.3 g/cm3) or DU are ideal materials for this application where volume constraints prohibit the use of less dense metals. An airplane such as Boeing 747 needs 1,500 kg of counterweights <9>. DU counterweights for Boeing are made by the Starmet Corp. (formerly Nuclear Metals), a Massachusetts based company, in their Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) approved facility.


what about the occupants of (unexploded) abrams tanks?

3.5 Heavy Tank Armor
Depleted uranium is also used to reinforce the armor protection of M1 series tanks. US Army publicly revealed the use of DU armor in March 1987. As of 1993, the US Army acquired about 1,500 Abrams M1A1 tanks fitted with DU armor, with plans for 3,000 more <24>.

( information from http://members.tripod.com/vzajic/3rdchapter.html )

so yeah, i'll put a big chunk in my living room (as other people, including myself, who may or may not have brains, have pointed out repeatedly, it's the microscopic dust that's dangerous!)

[sam sarrha]

63. tests were done in Kuwait, not much fighting there... plants pick it

up and it gets in the water, Toxicity is the problem, heavy metal poisoning, breathing in the dust, getting it in the food chain...or trying to get it out of the food chain.. the industry would make any campaign contribution to keep producing more or to keep from cleaning up the stockpile or the environment it polluted. with a half life of 4.6 BILLION years, some of it will be toxic until the sun turns into a giant red dwarf and expands beyond the orbit of Jupiter..just before it super novas

[JoFerret]

8. Here's another story. CSMonitor

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0515/p01s02-woiq.html
Don't think i would like depleted uranium detritus in my backyard thanks pseudo science allegation or not.

[treepig]

10. you don't sound like a prime candidate for DU dentures!

well, they haven't been available for 20 some years . . .

"Up to the early 1980s, natural and depleted uranium has been widely used for dental porcelains to obtain a natural color and fluorescence of dentures and the superficial parts of crowns."

http://www.antenna.nl/wise/uranium/ruxt.html

but nevertheless, DU can't be THAT hazardous if it was widely used in dentistry and you've never heard about it (if it was a huge hazard, no doubt senator edwards, trial lawyer and champion of the down-trodden, no doubt would have won several large verdicts.

ironically, DU is actually a provides good shielding against radiation:


"MSC has the only depleted uranium rolling mill licensed for commercial use in the United States. MSC can also cast depleted uranium into various shapes and then machine the part to tight tolerances. Depending on the depleted uranium application, MSC can also clad the uranium in stainless steel or coat the depleted uranium in a safe material for human handling.

Depleted uranium products manufactured by MSC include components for scientific instruments to containers for spent fuel shipping casks. Depleted uranium is an excellent shield against nuclear radiation, and therefore is used as a lining for radwaste containers that are being shipped for processing or disposal. The depleted uranium can be rolled into sheets and then formed in MSC’s drum making equipment into a cylinder that can then be seam welded and used as a sleeve shield for a radwaste container.

In the medical field, depleted uranium has been used for biomedical isotope shields, calorimeters, and radiographic cameras. Depleted uranium can be melted and molded into shapes that use the shielding and density characteristics of the metal to absorb radiation or to direct it in a particular direction depending on its medical application.

Another excellent application for depleted uranium is as a counterweight. Currently, depleted uranium is used as a counterweight in both commercial and military aircraft. Because of its density, 18.95 gm/cc, depleted uranium can supply a significant mass in a small area. Counterweights can be moved to compensate for fuel consumption or shifting cargo loads."

from http://www.mfgsci.com/metprod.html

[arcane1]

11. I thought DU had to be exploded into dust, and mixed in the water

etc...

I might point out, mercury is considered poisonous too, but I have fillings in my teeth that contain mercury, so your analogy means little

why don't they make DU dentures anymore? :shrug:

[treepig]

14. let's quantitatively consider DU that has been converted to dust

and dissolved in water.

first, let's consider how much uranium is ALLOWED to be in water:

"EPA promulgates final rule for Radionuclides in Drinking Water, including uranium standard of 30 micrograms per litre"

(more at http://www.antenna.nl/wise/uranium/uregusa.html#EPADWRADFI )

now, let's consider how much water is drunk, to simplify let's only count bottled water:

"In 1990, 2.2 billion gallons of bottled water were sold in the United States, nearly all of it produced domestically. By 2005, sales are projected to top 7.2 billion gallons."

(from http://espn.go.com/outdoors/conservation/s/c_fea_water_bottle_backlash.html)


ok, 7.2 billion gallons is equivalent to 27.2 billion liters, and if each of these liters contained the allowed 30 micrograms of uranium, that means that americans willingly ingest up to 816 tonnes of uranium each year (or at least are projected to by 2005).

note that this information is for naturaluranium which, if anything, is more of a hazard than DU might be

now let's compare bottled water levels with exposure due to military use:

the total amount of DU expended in the first gulf war was around 320 tonnes or less than half of what americans can safely drink each year - and by all reports the gulf war DU is widely dispersed into the environment - very little has been intaken by people.

does it make any sense that minute amounts of DU in iraq can cause all kinds of mysterious ailments while much, much higher levels back home have failed to raise any outcry?

[Barrett808]

15. As I understand it, DU isn't "depleted"

But is, in fact, quite pure (upward of 98%) uranium.

[treepig]

18. indeed, DU is upward of 98% uranium

in fact, it's 100% uranium (ideally).

the 'depleted' refers to the fact that is it depleted of the the U-235 isotope. natural uranium is over 99% U-238 and ~ 0.7% U-235. the U-235 isotope is what is commercially useful for power plant use, therefore it is separated from the bulk of the material. it is very difficult to separate it all, however, and usually the final products consist of a small amount of pure ~100% U-235 and a large amount of depleted uranium - 'depleted' in the sense that it now contains only ~0.3% U-235 - the bulk of the material is still over 99% U-238.

for all practical purposes depleted and natural uranium are very similar - it's the small amount of the purified U-235 isotope that poses a danger (but it's NOT used for conventional weapons).

[oneighty]

21. Seems we have been here before.

I was an Explosive Ordnance Disposal Technician in the Navy a good many years ago, Before DU was used in ordnance. I have done some poking around on the internet. It seems today's EODs are supplied with full exposure suits AND breathing equipment for working around DU ordnance both unexploded and exploded. In my EOD experience we were not supplied with special equipment and materials unless there was a pressing need for it. Good enough for me: DU is not good for you.

180

[treepig]

26. depleted uranium – natural abundance vs weapon use

in some situations (see the bottom of this post) it probably makes sense to use protection against DU, in general, simple number crunching (and just a tiny little bit of common sense) shows that the use of DU in weapons is not a health hazard because we are ubiquitously exposed to the more dangerous form of natural uranium.

consider that there were 320 tons (290,560 kg) of depleted uranium used in the first gulf war. let’s assume that all of it was aerosolized and deposited into the environment. now let’s analyze the environmental effects compared to how much uranium was already there.

from http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/natural.htm we learn that a typical square mile of land area contains 2,200 kg of uranium in the uppermost 1 foot of soil (where it is most likely to be disturbed by a passing tank, for example, and have the opportunity to interact with a human). considering that iraq covers 168,000 sq. mi., if the depleted uranium used in weapons was even dispersed, there would be an additional 1.73 kg added to the natural burden of uranium (per square mile). of course, the battles were not fought over all the country, if we assume that the depleted uranium was localized to 10% of the country, that means an additional 17.3 kg/sq.mi., or if the fighting was extremely localized to only 1% of the country (and the depleted uranium dust was somehow similarly localized), that means there’d be an additional 173 kg/sq.mi.

converting to ppm data, we see:

natural levels of uranium: 1.764 ppm
w/weapons DU spread over all of iraq: 1.766 ppm
w/weapons DU localized to 10% of iraq: 1.778 ppm
w/weapons DU localized to 1% of iraq: 1.903 ppm

ok, we see that the use of DU weapons incurs a measurable increase in uranium levels in the environment. but the key question is, is the increase large enough to cause health problems?

from this map:



we see that the environmental levels of naturally-occurring uranium in the united states varies much more than happened upon use of all those depleted uranium weapons. in fact, the use of DU-containing weapons releases so little uranium as to be hard pressed to cause a color gradiation shift in the above map – note that certain parts of the country have 10 times more environmental uranium (such as in the southwest) than others (such as central florida) but cancer rates show no correlation.

here’s a research paper in a reputable scientific journal that discusses the environmental and health effects of DU:

J Environ Radioact 2003;64(2-3):93-112

Title: Properties, use and health effects of depleted uranium (DU): a general overview.
Authors: Bleise A, Danesi PR, Burkart W.

Depleted uranium (DU), a waste product of uranium enrichment, has several civilian and military applications. It was used as armor-piercing ammunition in international military conflicts and was claimed to contribute to health problems, known as the Gulf War Syndrome and recently as the Balkan Syndrome. This led to renewed efforts to assess the environmental consequences and the health impact of the use of DU. The radiological and chemical properties of DU can be compared to those of natural uranium, which is ubiquitously present in soil at a typical concentration of 3 mg/kg. Natural uranium has the same chemotoxicity, but its radiotoxicity is 60% higher. Due to the low specific radioactivity and the dominance of alpha-radiation no acute risk is attributed to external exposure to DU. The major risk is DU dust, generated when DU ammunition hits hard targets. Depending on aerosol speciation, inhalation may lead to a protracted exposure of the lung and other organs. After deposition on the ground, resuspension can take place if the DU containing particle size is sufficiently small. However, transfer to drinking water or locally produced food has little potential to lead to significant exposures to DU. Since poor solubility of uranium compounds and lack of information on speciation precludes the use of radioecological models for exposure assessment, biomonitoring has to be used for assessing exposed persons. Urine, feces, hair and nails record recent exposures to DU. With the exception of crews of military vehicles having been hit by DU penetrators, no body burdens above the range of values for natural uranium have been found. Therefore, observable health effects are not expected and residual cancer risk estimates have to be based on theoretical considerations. They appear to be very minor for all post-conflict situations, i.e. a fraction of those expected from natural radiation.

back to my commentary – ok, so if you’ve been in a vehicle hit by DU penetrators, you could be in trouble wrt to having excess uranium in your body (but wouldn’t being dead from the explosion be more of an immediate concern in these (presumably friendly-fire) cases?). i’d imagine if you were cleaning up exploded munitions areas, it’d also be common sense to wear protective equipment (which, according to major rokke was completely ineffective, btw). i guess a key question here is how many of the troops were in direct contact with exploded munitions within a few hours of use? from what i’ve been able to ascertain, the number is far less than the number who are suffering from gulf war syndrome symptoms.

[arcane1]

17. hmmm... "if" there's that much in each litre, first of all

not to mention the US population is considerably larger than both the population of Iraq, and the number of US soldiers who fought there...

correct me if I'm wrong, but most people who drink bottled water do so due to the chemicals, etc, found in drinking water. And besides, just because the gov't allows it in the water doesn't mean it is safe! Last time I checked the polluters are usually more favored than the consumers in matters such as this. George Bush thinks arsenic is good for you too, but I bet he doesn't drink from the tap!

lol, not sure what "widely dispersed into the environment" means but it sounds an awful lot like air & water to me!

you have yet to offer any alternative to GWS and the disproportion of cancers in Iraqi children

some very interesting stats and some nice measurement conversions, but what is the connection?

[treepig]

19. a couple of points and then i give up

you say lol, not sure what "widely dispersed into the environment" means but it sounds an awful lot like air & water to me!

that's exactly my point - it's out there in the air and water, it's not inside of a person as happens when you drink it!

(as a point of clarification, it probably is not in the air, the uranium is very dense and rapidly settles - it may be stirred up in dust storms i suppose and then breathed in, i suppose - nevertheless the point remains that the vast majority is out there in the environment, not inside a person's body).


if you bother to read the information i presented in the other forum, you would see that i leave open the possibility that DU may be partially responsible for birth defects seen iraqi children but not due to its radiation effects!! evidence that DU is responsible for cancer in anybody is, and i suspect will remain, totally unfounded speculation away from political advocacy web-sites such as those run by major rokke.

so what is causing the health problems?

the obvious answer is infectious agents - unicef conservatively estimates 500,000 iraqi children died thusly from clinton's sanctions.
adults might have been less affected because of their more advanced immune systems - however when american troops go over there immune systems are not accustomed to the local pathogens and therefore they're likely to be more susceptible, similar to the iraqi children.

the second obvious factor is the incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons, whether from burning oil wells or munitions. from the black clouds of smoke you see, you just know that combustion is far from complete, leaving being a highly toxic mix of chemicals that have been proven to be carcinogenic and teratogenic.

finally, heat exhaustion and dehydration probably are much larger factors than DU.

on edit - if anyone has scientific evidence not gleaned from major rokke's or similar political advocacy sites (such as http://www.umrc.net ) that implicates DU as a health hazard, i'd be most receptive to hearing it.

for now, common sense indicates if you take a look at how much uranium, depleted or natural (as i mention above, they're essentially the same thing), that one is exposed to in everyday life and compare it with exposure levels in the gulf war areas, there isn't a statistical difference, and DU cannot be the cause of all the health effects seen. it is a tragic waste of time and effort to pay so much attention to DU instead of devoting effort to find the real cause.

ok, final edit (i really mean it this time) - the one case where uranium IS a health hazard is when one of it's decay products, radon, seeps into your basement and becomes trapped there because of it's high density. but once again note that this is only a problem because there's so much of the raw material, uranium, already in your backyard!!

[NYC]

20. What do you mean WILLINGLY?

I totally disagree with you that our consumption of undesirable water additives is WILLING. Lobbyists get lax laws, then American citizens ingest contaminants. That doesn't make us WILLING.

"...7.2 billion gallons is equivalent to 27.2 billion liters, and if each of these liters contained the allowed 30 micrograms of uranium, that means that americans willingly ingest up to 816 tonnes of uranium each year...

[treepig]

25. the originally considered standards were 80 micrograms/liter

or 2 and 2/3 higher than the standard that was ultimately adopted!

[sam sarrha]

46. well they say this century 1 in 3 people will get cancer, and the research

for cancer is not to prevent, nor cure, but to maintain it with drugs, the drug companies want to charge us rent on our disease with the consequences of late payment being death. and that is why the repukes don't want public health care, it will cost too much.

[TrogL]

29. they are poisonous

and may be contributing to autism/aspergers or ADD/ADHD

[sam sarrha]

75. apples and oranges...next time ask your denist for Uranium fillings..

:tinfoilhat:

[burrowowl]

23. It is

dangerous when pulverized (which occurs when it is fired into something)and absorded into the body. Any heavy metal, of which uranium is one, will do damge without being radioactive.

[w4rma]

13. It is my understanding that "depleted" uranium is not always depleted

Depleted uranium: war hazard?

BALTIMORE (December 28, 2002) —
Dr. Doug Rokke has a disturbing habit of laughing when he should probably be crying.

He laughs when he talks about battlefields contaminated with radioactive waste. He can't stop laughing when he talks about what he claims is a massive government cover-up. And he keeps laughing when he talks about his health problems, which he attributes to deliberate Army negligence, and which will likely kill him.
...
http://www.disasternews.net/news/news.php?articleid=1687

The Science of the Silver Bullet
Depleted uranium has been hailed as the military’s new silver bullet and condemned as Kosovo’s Agent Orange
...
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0003C801-90E4-1C75-9B81809EC588EF21

In Depth | Depleted Uranium
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/europe/2001/depleted_uranium/default.stm

[mjb4]

16. Don't ever Date an Service man

diseas, birth defects, mental problems. I used to think military men were honorable. Now, I know they come home to spread disease and dull out domestic violence and murder..no different than your newly released prisoner.

[Upfront]

22. Dumb Question

Could this have anything to do with our troops being hit with mystery pneumonia?

[JoFerret]

24. Sources

for those looking for information on troop exposure, the Royal Society report (UK), British soldiers being tested for levels etc. try this interesting organisation's website: http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/

[treepig]

27. there's currently a thread going around reporting that benzene

a proven carcinogen, was used (is being used?) in iraq.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=52161&mesg_id=52161

but why be concerned about that when we can scapegoat everything on DU?

[nomatrix]

28. recycled uranium

http://www.antenna.nl/wise/uranium/rup.html#REF

"Depleted uranium thus has the unusual property that it becomes more hazardous with time - an effect that has to be taken into account for its long-term management as a waste."

"If the UF6 contained uranium recycled from spent fuel, then the depleted uranium may be contaminated with the artificial uranium isotopes U-236 and U-237, and with transuranics such as neptunium-237 and plutonium-239."

"In addition to the radiological and chemical hazards, (depleted) uranium metal presents a hazard from spontaneous ignition of finely divided particles (pyrophoricity)."

"Additional hazards exist, if the uranium hexafluoride contains uranium recovered from reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. In this case, the uranium hexafluoride is contaminated with fission products"

[treepig]

30. ok, let's once again consider natural-occurring uranium and DU

as described in your link, uranium (of which both naturally-occurring and DU forms are comprised of over 99% of the U-238 isotope) has a 'decay chain' of subsequent decay products that accumulate over time as shown as the colored areas in this diagram:



from the link you provide, here's what happens when uranium is mined:

"Uranium mill tailings are the residual waste from the process of uranium extraction from the uranium ore. Since only uranium is extracted, all other members of the uranium decay chains remain in the tailings at their original activities."

ok, what happens when DU is purified is that you go from the hundreds of millions of years stage (or billions of years, depending on how old you believe the earth is) when the whole range of decay products have accumulated back to time = zero when they've been all removed by the mining and extraction process. consequently, DU is actually much safer than the naturally occurring (predominantly U-238, yellow area on graph) uranium found in your back yard:



after many thousands of years, the DU will accumulate all of its decay products and once again be indistinguishable from the naturally occurring uranium (except that it will remain depleted of the commercially valuable U-235, a fact that has little bearing on the above analysis).

[nomatrix]

31. Spent fuel is used for weapons

The Government uses spent fuel products for production of weapons.


"In March 2001, the DOE released A Preliminary Review of the Flow and Characteristics of Recycled Uranium Throughout the DOE Complex 1952 – 1999. This landmark public report examines the uranium inventory and evaluates the impact of recycled uranium and reactor, spent-fuel products circulated throughout the DOE’s and its private sector contractors’ uranium processing, nuclear fuel, and weapons development, feed stockpiles. The contents of recycled uranium are exponentially more radioactive than pure, Virgin Uranium and pure Depleted Uranium. This mix of materials contains “transuranic elements, fission products, spent fuel products and nuclear activation products” of plutonium 239, 241, 242, uranium-236, and neptunium (and a host of other elements and toxins not listed in the report). The problem shown by this study is that none of the Depleted Uranium metal inventories used to produce DU ordnance are pure."

"In a surprising admission, DOD shows that the entire stockpile of uranium is adulterated by 50 years of recycling and blending transuranics into the feedstock of the uranium enrichment process (DU constitutes 4/5ths of the output of this cycle as a by-product of uranium enrichment). A section in the report addresses DU and attempts to downplay the radiological consequences of the adulteration of the metals and alloys used to make non-fissionable weapons and tank armour. Both independent and government radiological analyses DU penetrators collected from DU battlefields have detected trace amounts of transuranics, including plutonium-239 in the metal. Independent studies have detected traces of uranium-236 in veterans’ urine; adding a new dimension to the inhalational exposure risks to veterans from recycled uranium elements."

"DOE’s Ohio Field Office Recycled Uranium Project Report, May 15, 2000, indicates DU kinetic energy penetrators and other DU alloyed weapons were made from transuranic-adulterated feed stock and metals which have been in production since 1974."


http://www.umrc.net/12yearsTooLate.asp

[nomatrix]

32. GW Vets appreciate your study, treepig

http://www.umrc.net/factsAndFictions.asp

"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."

[treepig]

35. the umrc website/people are NOT a scientific organization

they're a political advocacy organization.

have you looked at the papers (abstracts, etc) that they cite to back up their claims - almost every single one of them is authored by this Dr. Durakovic. A fundamental tenet of science is that it proceeds by consensus and independent verification of findings.

consequently, information of much higher objectivity and reliability can be found in the reputable, peer-reviewed scientific literature, which can be accessed free-of-charge through the national institute of health's search engine:

http://www.ncbi.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed

or through the 'web of science' site (but you may need a subscription):

http://isi5.isiknowledge.com/portal.cgi?DestApp=WOS&Func=Frame

[treepig]

33. sorry, it wasn't clear from your previous post,

or the link therein, that you were implying that spent fission (fuel) by-products were being used in weapons.

if so, it seems reasonable that they may be a health hazard - however as a point of clarity, the mixture of isotopes you describe in your post is not depleted uranium - so why are people calling it that when it's not?

[nomatrix]

36. Times up! Figure it out yet? liability

What Government Documents Admit

"If DU enters the body, it has the potential to generate significant medical consequences. The risks associated with DU in the body are both chemical and radiological."
"Personnel inside or near vehicles struck by DU penetrators could receive significant internal exposures."

From the Army Environmental Policy Institute (AEPI), Health and Environmental Consequences of Depleted Uranium Use in the U.S. Army, June 1995

"Short-term effects of high doses can result in death, while long-term effects of low doses have been implicated in cancer."
"Aerosol DU exposures to soldiers on the battlefield could be significant with potential radiological and toxicological effects."

From the Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) report, included as Appendix D of AMMCOM's Kinetic Energy Penetrator Long Term Strategy Study, Danesi, July 1990.

This report was completed six months before Desert Storm.

"Inhaled insoluble oxides stay in the lungs longer and pose a potential cancer risk due to radiation. Ingested DU dust can also pose both a radioactive and a toxicity risk."

Operation Desert Storm: Army Not Adequately Prepared to Deal With Depleted Uranium Contamination, United States General Accounting Office (GAO/NSIAD-93-90), January 1993, pp. 17-18.

What the Government Is Telling Us

"The Committee concludes that it is unlikely that health effects reports by Gulf War Veterans today are the result of exposure to depleted uranium during the Gulf war."

From the Final Report: Presidential Advisory Committee of Gulf War Veterans Illnesses, December 1996.
All on One Page at
http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/dugov.htm

Whole site link on Gulf War
United States General Accounting Office
http://www.gao.gov/

[nomatrix]

37. Gov't Denial for Nuclear Testing

This happened fifteen years after the study had been requested.

Fallout From Nuclear Testing


Estimated Exposures and Thyroid Doses Received by the American People from I-131 in Fallout Following Nevada Atmospheric Nuclear Bomb Tests

In 1982, the U.S. Congress asked the National Cancer Institute (NCI) to assess to what extent the American population had been exposed to radioactive Iodine 131 from atmospheric nuclear weapons testing conducted in the 1950s and 1960s. As a result of public pressure the NCI issued a first report.


National Cancer Institute
Study Estimating Thyroid Doses of I-131

http://rex.nci.nih.gov/massmedia/exesum.html

[nomatrix]

38. "THE DAY WE BOMBED UTAH" BY JOHN G. FULLER 1984

"Press releases from the Atomic Energy Commission, stated plainly that fallout did not constitute a serious hazard outside the test area."

"tells how the government and its hired scientists altered or totally suppressed all evidence of guilt in continuing bomb tests and subsequent court trials and investigations until the facts at lasts were slowly brought to light by those who refused to let the case die with the victims."

"tells of government representatives who assured a highly conservative, staunchly patriotic local population that there was no danger at all from the fallout even when newborn lambs emerged deformed and sheep began to die in the thousands"

"a stinging indictment of government callousness and willingness to sacrifice the safety and lives of American citizens in the supposed interest of national security"

Once read, you will never trust the gov't again for any reliable information that involves consequences to their actions.

[nomatrix]

40. And for the Liability

"When the Atomic Energy Commission described the country north of the Nevada Test Site as virtually uninhabited desert terrain, my family members were some of the "virtual uninhabitants." . . . On May 10, 1984, Judge Bruce S. Jenkins handed down his opinion. Ten of the plaintiffs were awarded damages. It was the first time a federal court had determined that nuclear tests had been the cause of cancers. For the remaining 14 test cases, the proof of causation was not sufficient. In spite of the split decision, it was considered a landmark ruling. It was not to remain so."

"In April 1987, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Judge Jenkins' ruling on the basis that the United States was protected from suit by the legal doctrine of sovereign immunity, the centuries-old idea from England in the days of absolute monarchs. In January 1988, the Supreme Court refused to review the appeals court decision. To our court system, it does not matter whether the United States government was irresponsible, whether it lied to its citizens, or even that citizens died from the fallout of nuclear testing. What matters is that our government is immune: "The King can do no wrong." . ."


"Refuge: An Unnatural History of Family and Place," written by Terry Tempest Williams
http://ratical.com/radiation/inetSeries/TTW_C1-BW.txt

[treepig]

41. personally, if i was suffering from gulf war syndrome

i would not want the government agencies and political advocacy groups you continue to cite to be trying to figure out the cause, or be working on a cure. disease does not adhere to political agendas. hiv should have made this point abundantly clear to everyone by now.

instead, i would want the best biomedical scientists available to be helping me out. you seem to not trust the national institutes of health, but i personally take their view of anything scientific over presidential advisory committees and the GAO any day of the week (those clowns for all practical purposes banned stem cell research for heaven's sake!).

so i consulted the nih search engine and found some actual peer-reviewed scientific research regarding the origins of the isotopes you mentioned earlier and whether they constitute a health hazard.

here's information from the Journal of Environmental Radioactivity.

Volume 64, Issues 2-3 , 2003, Pages 121-131
Title: Isotopic composition and origin of uranium and plutonium in selected soil samples collected in Kosovo

They confirm that reprocessed fuel was used in weapons as evidenced by the presence of the Uj-236 isotope:

quote "2. The ICP–MS spectra indicate the presence of 236U in several samples, a result that was confirmed by AMS measurements. It can then be concluded that the 236U detected comes from a batch of uranium that had been irradiated in a reactor and then reprocessed. This is in agreement with the information reported in the United States Department of Energy News of 29 September 1999."

However, the concentration of 236U was always very low, reaching a maximum value of about 0.1 ppm .

how convenient that your biased sources don't mention that the amount of U-236 is essentially negligible.

furthermore, your sources imply that plutonium is found in DU, once again, not true:

"The 239+240Pu concentration values and the 238Pu/239+240Pu ratios in samples #11 and 12 (Table 2) were about the same as in the IAEA reference material Soil 6, namely about 1 Bq/kg (239+240Pu concentration) and equal or less than 0.02 (238Pu/239+240Pu ratio). These values are typical for environmental plutonium originating from nuclear weapons fallout during the 1960s in non-disturbed soil, which are known to range from 0.015 to 0.05 (Hardy; UNSCEAR; Yamamoto and Yamamoto). The much lower 239+240Pu concentrations in samples #1, 2 and 3 (disturbed soil) were not surprising since Pu adsorbs mainly on the soil surface (Agapkina et al., 1995), migrating downward only very slowly with time. On the other hand, the 238Pu/239+240Pu ratio in soils contaminated by the Chernobyl accident are known to fall in the range 0.3 to 0.7 (Pavlotskaya; Yamamoto and Irweck). This was confirmed by the results obtained on samples #24 and 25.

The plutonium concentrations in all samples can be always considered as negligible from the radiation hazard point of view. They are about ten times lower than the value (10 Bq/kg) for which withdrawal and substitution is required for foodstuff destined for general consumption by the FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius (Codex Alimentarius Commission, 1992). They are also about nine times lower than values occasionally found in some Austrian mountain soil (cf. sample #20)."

another study says:

The properties of the penetrators were analysed using different methods. The penetrators were composed of DU (235U/238U mass ratio about 0.002) with small amounts of Ti and impurities. The presence of 236U reflects the use of reprocessed nuclear fuel in the enrichment process. Neither Pu nor other transuranium elements were detected.

Characterisation of projectiles composed of depleted uranium, Pages 133-142 (ibid)

[treepig]

42. sorry for the disjointed information,

but at first i didn't realize that an entire issue of the Journal of Environmental Radiation was devoted to DU, and apparently available free-of-charge to anyone, go to

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/0265931X and select volumre 64, issue 2/3. it might be noted that most papers are authored by europeans (so why they're covering for the u.s. military is anyone's guess).

there are several independent studies that assess the isotope concentrations of battle-field uranium. most agree with the findings presented above. one study, however, does implicate DU as the source of plutonium:

Title: Actinide analysis of a depleted uranium penetrator from a 1999 target site in southern Serbia (p 155-165).

fact #1. plutonium isotopes are present:

quote "The activity concentrations of 239+240Pu and 238Pu in the DU penetrator analysed are given in Table 3, together with 239+240Pu activity concentrations reported by other researchers for DU penetrators fired in the Balkans. The activity concentration of 239+240Pu in the DU penetrator analysed (at 45.4±0.7 Bq kg–1) is, to our knowledge, the highest reported to date for any penetrator recovered from the Balkans. This activity concentration, however, is more than five orders of magnitude lower than the activity concentration of 238U in the same material, at 12.4 MBq kg–1."

the article goes on to describe how it contaminated the DU:

quote "The presence of 236U and plutonium isotopes in depleted uranium ammunition can only be either due to the use of uranium recycled from spent fuel or to the handling of natural uranium with equipment previously contaminated in the course of recycling operations in the enrichment plants. The amounts of recycled uranium used in US enrichment plants were disclosed by the US Department of Energy in 1999 (DOE, 1999). It has been reported that approximately 90,000 metric tons of recycled uranium were processed at the Paducah uranium enrichment plant, containing an estimated 328 g of plutonium. Measurements carried out on samples of DU originating from this plant showed 236U concentrations of up to 0.0045% (by weight), with typical values in the range 0.002–0.003% for material containing 0.2% 235U (Smith, 1984). As the data in Table 2 show, this is identical to the values measured in the penetrator analysed. The amount of 236U in recycled material from Paducah is about two orders of magnitude lower than would be expected if the Paducah feed had been obtained from commercial reactors (Diehl, 2001). This has been explained by the fact that most of the reprocessed material came from military reactors at Hanford and Savannah River, and that the reprocessed material constituted only about 13% of the Paducah feed ( Diehl, 2001). Our measured 238Pu/239+240Pu activity ratio, at 0.036±0.002, is typical of low burn-up plutonium and would confirm that recycled uranium had been used for the production of weapons-grade plutonium.

According to DOE (1999), the greater proportion of plutonium and other transuranics contained in the recycled fuel should have been separated out during the initial chemical conversion to uranium hexafluoride. It is estimated that of the 328 g of plutonium present in the 9000 metric tons of recycled uranium, only about 0.1 g were introduced in the Paducah cascade. If all of this plutonium was transferred to the final DU product, a plutonium concentration of 0.0013 ppb could be expected to be present in the DU ( Diehl, 2001). Sporadic measurements of plutonium concentrations in DU produced at the Paducah enrichment plant since 1973 indicate that this estimation is well founded, with concentrations being below the limits of detection of the equipment used (0.01 ppb). Based on our measurements, a plutonium mass concentration of 0.019 ppb is derived, which is a factor of 10 above the estimated value for Paducah."


and then concludes:

quote "This concentration (of plutonium) is comparable to that of the plutonium expected to be present naturally in uranium ores as a result of neutron and alpha-neutron reactions.

From a radiological perspective, the amount of plutonium in the DU, at 0.019 ppb, is so low as to cause only a very small increase (<1%) in the dose received by persons exposed to this material."

[LeftHander]

34. Two words - Dirty Bomb

That is what depleted uranium munitions are....

Dirty fucking bombs...

[Karenina]

39. People can argue whatever "studies"

float their boats. Fact #1 Accumulation of radioactive materials is NOT healthy for humans. Fact #2 The "powers that be" do NOT give a rat's ass if you, your family, your community suffer ill effects because of them. Au contraire, my dear patriots. They are delighted that these "agents" are KILLING YOU. That means fewer people to confront. WAKE UP AND SMELL THE POISON.

[Greyskye]

43. Treepig -

OK, please compare and contrast domestic uranium problems with this:
http://www.web-light.nl/VISIE/extremedeformities.html

*** WARNING: LINK CONTAINS EXTREMELY GRAPHIC PHOTO'S! ***
4th photo from bottom is the child of a US Gulf War Veteran...

(edited for typo)

[treepig]

47. information on birth defects is in the other (now locked) thread

mentioned in post number 7 of this thread.

edited to include link for this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/duforum/DCForumID29/2542.html


basically, i think it's reasonable the DU may contribute to birth defects, but probably in combination with other teratogens that iraqi's or us troops were exposed to.

furthermore, any such effects are entirely due to the chemical toxicity of uranium and can in no way be attributed to its very low levels of radioactivity.

in addition, if DU turns out to indeed be a health problem in the gulf war victims, then it is almost certain that the level of uranium present in the environment in the usa is also a health hazard that needs urgent attention. after all, there are many unexplained cancers here, and probably some number of birth defects as well that have no clear medical cause.

[oneighty]

48. Check out this site

deploymentlink.osd.mil/du_library.

I mentioned to you before I Was EOD in the Navy. When the EOD engineers, scientists and technical support groups develop programs for dealing with hazardous materials, unexpolded ordnance etc. they are very serious about it. They say DU is no good for you and they have developed protective suits and breathing equipment for that purpose, to protect the EOD people from DU.

180

Edit. now I cannot make that link work. Google : depleted uranium EOD, you will see it.

180

[treepig]

53. erring on the side of safety is always wise

if you read all my comments here (and that's a form of torture i suppose no one should be subjected to), you'll see that i leave open the possibility that DU is a contributing agent to health problems (but due to chemical toxicity, not radiation - and only in combination with other factors).

also, according to the Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, enviromental levels in highly localized locations (an exploded tank would be one such location, i suppose) were found to be about 1000 fold higher than backgrounds levels. exposure to these limits push safety margins (although the hegative health effects remain unproven).

tangentially, about the military requiring special protective suits for personel, didn't you find it a bit curious that in the early days of this war, troops were shown bedecked in their full WMD-protective gear (well chem & bio at least, there's not too much to protect against nuclear weapons) but then when they approached baghdad, where mr. rumsfeld 'knew' the WMD's were, there were pictures of the troops without their protective gear (there were threads on this odd turn of event on the old DU that i've lost track of now). perhaps you can offer an explanation? otherwise my confidence in the military's judgement in these matters is beginning to wane . . .

over on the napalm thread (once again no link, sorry, but it should still be on one of the lbn pages) i posted information on the composition of napalm that i obtained from an official navy website. another poster presented information that showed the navy's formulation was incorrect (quite significantly incorrect, btw). such incidences also reduce my trust of information found on military websites such as the one you list (although it appears to be mostly on the up and up by emphasizing chemical toxicity issues, rather than radiation).

finally, on the topic of finding scientific information from google searches - think i adequately covered that topic in post #51.

[oneighty]

58. Sorry.

I was sort of, kind of, speaking of personal experience in the EOD field.

But, yes I sure understand that personal experience is not to be trusted

in the face of your true science.

180

[treepig]

59. here's the conundrum of relying on personal accounts

i have read through the DU links provided in this thread and looked up others independently through google on my own.

they seem to boil down to two types of personal accounts:

(1) the military provided absolutely no protection against DU for the troops during the first gulf war.

(2) the military provided inadequate protection - this viewpoint is the one held by major rokke, btw. he claims the respiratory filtering apparatus he was given could not remove particles under 10 microns in diameter, and since aerosolized DU dust is on average 2.5 microns in size, the protection gear was useless to prevent the respiratory intake of DU dust.

now you come along and say EOD engineers, scientists and technical support groups are very serious about developing programs for dealing with hazardous materials, unexpolded ordnance etc. now i would be more inclined to believe you, a fellow member of du over (even more) anonymous google-derived persons.

however, if your information is correct that the EOD folks are 'very serious' about dealing with munitions hazards, then major rokke is obviously incorrect in his claim that his respiratory apparatus could not filter out DU dust - because obviously the 'very serious' engineers you speak of would not have allowed such an obvious oversight to occur. but now we have shot major rokke's credibility to hell (a development that the anti-DU advocates are unlikely to appreciate).


i'm not sure if you were mocking 'true science' or not, but if you were, that's ok - i can handle it. but personally, i think it just makes sense to stick with information that has been vetted by experts in the relevant field instead of relying on personal accounts, no matter how well meaning they may be (go ahead and google 'unreliability of eyewitnesses' for fun).

[oneighty]

65. Not filters!

Self contained breathing apparatus. Compressed air in cylinders carried on the back just like SCUBA.

We had similar breathing systems for rocket fuels as well, like red fuming nitric acid for instance.

I am very curious about all this. There are passionate debates on both sides of the issue. I have

a feeling that the manufacturers of DU munitions have more than a passing interest. It is like

so many other things in EOD work, things are not always what they seem to be,

and often one must sneak in by the back door, so to speak.

By the way. If you would like a VERY GOOD PAYING job in EOD I have an address for you.

If I were younger I would go for it. Want the address?

180

[treepig]

68. thanks but no thanks on the EOD job

i went and looked up exactly what major rokke said about inhalation of DU, quoting him:

ROKKE: Absolutely. My exposure was due to inhalation, and that was faulty gas masks which are faulty today and the Department of the Army has acknowledged it, the Department of Defense of has acknowledged it, the US General Accounting Office has verified that the gas masks are defective. The filters are inadequate to take out the primary less than .1 - .3 micron uranium particles that go right in the lung.

read the whole interview here http://www.ecotecture.com/library_eco/interviews/rokke_du_1b.html if you wish, but i believe the above quote stands well on its own (i.e., is not taken out of context).

from what you're saying, the 'scuba' system you're familiar with sounds vastly superior to the 'gas masks' mr. rokke claims to have used? from what you said in the posts above (i.e., that the military regarded DU as a health hazard) why weren't mr. rokke's clean-up crews given the very best protective gear/apparatus available?

when looking for the quote quoted above, i also came upon a longer address by mr. rokke ( http://sftimes.editthispage.com/stories/storyReader$61 )

where he details other seemingly unhealthy conditions his unit encounter in the gulf war, these include:

anthrax and botulinum vaccinations (of which some batches were contaminated with squalene)

ingestion of PB tablets (an nerve gas antidote)

contaminated food (possibly due to sabotage with biological agents)

water sanitation issues that prevented bathing

exposure to incomplete combustion of inorganic and organic compounds from oil well fires

physical injuries

quite frankly, it's not at all clear to me how these factors shouldn't be given some?/equal?/greater? consideration compared to depleted uranium in trying to determine the cause of the gulf war syndrome.

[Barrett808]

69. Indeed, I recall testimony about PB at the Rockefeller hearings years ago

PB (Pyridostigmine Bromide) sounds like some pretty bad stuff. Since I had predicted widespread experimentation on US forces in the run-up to Gulf War I, at the time PB sounded like the most plausible explanation for GWS. Now, I suspect some sort of synergistic effect from the cocktail of unhealthy conditions on the battlefield.

[oneighty]

73. His clean up crews

were likely not EOD. EOD (Explosive Ordnance Disposal) deals with unexploded ordnance
such as one might find in DU destructed tanks.

Sign Up for EOD. It is great fun! With your interesting information you would be an asset!

180

[NickB79]

76. Excellent point about chemical toxicity

People scream about the danger of radiation from DU, when they don't even realize the constant levels of radiation we are exposed to daily from natural sources is far higher. However, it is much more apparent and documented that DU is a chemical toxin when it enters the system. This is how it could possibly cause various illnesses we have seen in GW vets for the last decade. But if you mention this, people immediately jump all over you and scream "radiation, radiation, radiation!" as if that changes anything.

[goforit]

44. Rummy and Cheney and W don't even seem to bat an eyelash

over this issue. They knew about bombs after-effects, But didn't give a damn. And these soldiers are fighting for them????

Wake up military!!!

[MHS Chips]

50. Treepig, well done. Best science I've seen on

these forums. Was in the Balkans when the scientific panel commissioned by the European Parliament released their finding that DU use in Kosova had not resulted in an adverse impact on the local civilian population or on the miltary serving there.

However, with some people on this forum its kind of like the Scopes Monkey trial--their faith & ideology will not allow them to acknowledge any science that does not conform to their personal beliefs.

[treepig]

51. i suppose they're well intentioned

and are just trying to do the best for the persons suffering from the mysterious diseases, however, i see several real dangers in taking the stand that DU, by itself, is causing the health problems.

danger #1: diverting efforts away from finding the 'real killer' (and in this case, unlike OJ who popularized the phrase, there actually is an unknown real killer out there).

i doubt if this concern is a significant problem because the health professionals are unlikely to fall for the DU hype. however, if the DU advocates make enough noise, political pressure may come to bear on the process, and a debacle of the type in south africa where hiv is not believed (by politicians) to cause aids will be underway.

danger #2: providing an 'out' for the powers that be - in this case if DU is set up to be the end all in the gulf war illnesses, and then proven not to be the cause, the right-wingers in power can say "look, DU isn't responsible, case closed." i've already seen this strategy used on fox/msnbc (surprise, surprise) where the talking head says (correctly enough) "the bulk of scientific evidence shows that DU is not a radiation hazard to human health." the way the argument is framed in the original post in this thread, that's pretty much the end of the discussion - but people are still dying from the 'mysterious illnesses.' therefore at a very minimum the argument should be broadened to focus on the chemical toxicity of DU, or better yet the advocates should focus on 'let's find the cause and a cure for gulf war syndrome!' and leave the rest to experts who have a clue what they're doing.

finally, here's a rant directed at those who say "gee, there's a lot of conflicting studies, therefore it's best that i just bury my head in the sand and go on believing whatever i want."

well, from what i've seen, most of the mis-information comes from pseudo-scientists who have formed political advocacy groups and therefore have to hype the alarmist aspects of DU to garner donations to stay in business. to do so they must selectively cull bits and pieces of data from the scientific literature that fits their agenda in much the same way that mr. bush selectively culled the intelligence data to justify a phony war against iraq. by contrast, scientists who publish in the primary literature must ensure that their published papers are completely accurate - sure, subsequent findings may render their results incorrect, but at the time of publication their reports must be spot-on. if not, they will gain a reputation for incompetence at best or dishonesty at worst, and will never be able to obtain funding for their research again from the regular funding agencies. the bottom line here is not to trust scientific information obtained from google searches.

to illustrate the danger of relying on google searches for scientific information, i came across chemical called DHMO on google. according to the website i found:

"Each year, DHMO is a known causative component in many thousands of deaths and is a major contributor to millions upon millions of dollars in damage to property and the environment. Some of the known perils of DMMO are:
Death due to accidental inhalation of DHMO, even in small quantities.
Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage.
Excessive ingestion produces a number of unpleasant though not typically life-threatening side-effects.
DHMO is a major component of acid rain.
Gaseous DHMO can cause severe burns.
Contributes to soil erosion.
Leads to corrosion and oxidation of many metals.
Contamination of electrical systems often causes short-circuits.
Exposure decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes.
Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions."

based on this information 86-90% of survey respondents were willing to sign a petition to ban DHMO.

getting back to the gulf war syndrome, i happen to be acquainted with several people who were in the first gulf war - they confirmed that they (and everyone single person they were aware of) were exposed to significant quantities of DHMO on a daily basis during their stint over there. the military does not deny this fact but has so far admitted no culpability nor has it provide any compensation. should i start setting up websites demanding that they do? well, i haven't, if any reader of this thread is interested in helping out here, they can start by learning more at this site:

http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

[Greyskye]

52. hah hah

Sure, there's one born every minute, but don't you think that this is really a specious arguement? Using a joke web site?

[BushNixon04]

54. sigh....lots of "DU apologists" here....

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/95178_du12.shtml

DU shell holes in the vehicles along the Highway of Death are 1,000 times more radioactive than background radiation, according to Geiger counter readings done for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer by Dr. Khajak Vartaanian, a nuclear medicine expert from the Iraq Department of Radiation Protection in Basra, and Col. Amal Kassim of the Iraqi navy.

The desert around the vehicles was 100 times more radioactive than background radiation; Basra, a city of 1 million people, some 125 miles away, registered only slightly above background radiation level.

But the radioactivity is only one concern about DU munitions.

A second, potentially more serious hazard is created when a DU round hits its target. As much as 70 percent of the projectile can burn up on impact, creating a firestorm of ceramic DU oxide particles. The residue of this firestorm is an extremely fine ceramic uranium dust that can be spread by the wind, inhaled and absorbed into the human body and absorbed by plants and animals, becoming part of the food chain.

Once lodged in the soil, the munitions can pollute the environment and create up to a hundredfold increase in uranium levels in ground water, according to the U.N. Environmental Program.

Studies show it can remain in human organs for years.

The U.S. Army acknowledges the hazards in a training manual, in which it requires that anyone who comes within 25 meters of any DU-contaminated equipment or terrain wear respiratory and skin protection, and states that "contamination will make food and water unsafe for consumption."

Just six months before the Gulf War, the Army released a report on DU predicting that large amounts of DU dust could be inhaled by soldiers and civilians during and after combat.
----------
Dr. Asaf Durakovic, director of the private, non-profit Uranium Medical Research Centre in Canada and the United States, and center research associates Patricia Horan and Leonard Dietz, published a unique study in the August issue of Military Medicine medical journal.

The study is believed to be the first to look at inhaled DU among Gulf War veterans, using the ultrasensitive technique of thermal ionization mass spectrometry, which enabled them to easily distinguish between natural uranium and DU.

The study, which examined British, Canadian and U.S. veterans, all suffering typical Gulf War Syndrome ailments, found that, nine years after the war, 14 of 27 veterans studied had DU in their urine. DU also was found in the lung and bone of a deceased Gulf War veteran.
-----------
The photos represent the surge in birth defects -- in 1989 there were 11 per 100,000 births; in 2001 there were 116 per 100,000 births -- that even before they heard about DU, had doctors in southern Iraq making comparisons to the birth defects that followed the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in WWII.

There were photos of infants born without brains, with their internal organs outside their bodies, without sexual organs, without spines, and the list of deformities went on and on. There also were photos of cancer patients.

Cancer has increased dramatically in southern Iraq. In 1988, 34 people died of cancer; in 1998, 450 died of cancer; in 2001 there were 603 cancer deaths.
-------

Much more, long article....

[goforit]

56. Then why are you here.........go whine to your own groupies!!!

Bush is digging a deep hole, just go on and jump in right after him.

ROFLMAO!!!

Ahhh....Fascist zombies are all alike!!!

But isn't it fun to hit home with them?

Do they ever squirm and crawl!!!

LOL!!!

[Greyskye]

57. Eh?

Excuse me goforit? Are you replying to me? Because I'm pretty clueless how I earned your vitriol... :shrug:

[DeathvadeR]

66. I got to give it to you........

You have a very substational amount of data that seems very convincing. I would agree that blindly blaming DU would hamper finding the real problem But isn't most of these scientific studies performed by the very same people that are using DU? And go ahead and try and obtain a geigercounter???? I found one place online they want 350 bucks for it? And this site is new, I looked about 3 months ago and found 1 hippie commune that was making them. Why is it that we don't have a market flooded with cheap monitors? Hmmm?

Besides alot of us here do not need the data because we have common sense that the stuff is not good for the environment period, even if the amounts are small. No amount should be used, even if it gives us a superior advantage over the enemy. Isn't our technological might enough?

We need to work towards eradicating all harmful elements such as DU and Benezene among many others, not increasing them!!!!

Look at cancers rate across the board, Huge increases in many different types everywhere. Today....Its damn near not if your going to have a growth but when? All caused by DU? of course not.. but I'd bet money some are. We are only hurting ourselves but hurting others.

I think that most of us are just trying to say Stop using it, It's not worth the risk. The US military and Army core of engineers continue to gamble away our existance.

[nomatrix]

70. Most discoveries are by accident

In December 1984 Stanley Watrus, an engineer at the Pennsylvania Limerick nuclear power plant, set off the alarms as he passed through the radiation detection gates on the way home. This would not have been terribly unusual except for the fact that the nuclear materials had not yet arrived at the newly constructed plant. The search for this radioactive contamination led to the Watras home, in Boyertown, where radiation levels caused by environmental radon were found to be 700 times greater than that considered safe for human exposure. Residing indoors at the Watras home posed the same health risk as smoking 280 packs of cigarettes each day.
Radon is probably the most dangerous pollutant on Earth. Silent, odorless, deadly.
(This is what originally led me to the book "The Day We Bombed Utah")

If he worked anywhere else (even on the plant) he never would have been near the detection gates to set them off. It took over year (if I recall correctly) to fix his house, and thousands of dollars. The Watrus family spent most of that time in a hotel.

1976 at Millstone Power Plant in Ct-Radioactive mist that escaped from the Millstone plants in Waterford activated nuclear alarms in nuclear submarines docked at Groton.

I know both of these from 1st hand experience.

http://prop1.org/2000/accident/facts4.htm

[oneighty]

74. Strontium 90

In a related story. Friend of mine, an avid hunter AND consumer

of his kills, deer , wild hogs, turkey etc. Worked on Nuclear Submarines

in a navy ship yard. As such he was required to have frequent check ups

to monitor possible over exposure to nuclear materials. The test results showed

over exposure to Strontium 90., common in the food chain.

180

[treepig]

71. it's basic common sense that you don't go

putting significant amounts of potentially harmful compounds like DU into the enviromnent.

but since it has happened, and is happening now in the usa (the coal thread . . . http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=169&mesg_id=169 ) i'm just trying to interject some rational discourse into the, imho, overblown hysteria about DU.

about the people doing the scientific studies i alluded to above - no they're not the same people who use or manufacture DU, here's a list of their affiliations:

department of soil and water sciences, agricultural university of norway

department of chemistry, university of antwerp (belgium)

seibersdorf laboratories, vienna (austria)

technical university mining academy, freiberg (germany)

department of physics, university of ioannina (greece)

universita di firenze (italy)

department of experimental physics, university college of dublin (ireland)

institute of nuclear sciences, belgrade (yugoslavia)

institute for transuranium elements, karlsruhe germany

national institutes of health, bethesda (usa)

department of physics, university federico II, napoli (italy)

national cancer institute, bethesda (usa)

note that most of these researchers are europeans and report on the use of american munitions in kosovo

[nomatrix]

67. So it's a pseudo-scientist conspiracy?

Treepig says -"well, from what i've seen, most of the mis-information comes from pseudo-scientists who have formed political advocacy groups and therefore have to hype the alarmist aspects of DU to garner donations to stay in business. to do so they must selectively cull bits and pieces of data from the scientific literature that fits their agenda"

Then you post some bogus web site to prove what?

You keep relating this data to radiation sickness which is NOT the arguement.

your post-
"the bulk of scientific evidence shows that DU is not a radiation hazard to human health."

Who said it was?

[treepig]

72. You ask "Who said it was?"

if you go back and review the original post you find this statement

"Depleted uranium weapons used by the U.S.-led forces in the war have left battle sites throughout Iraq contaminated with abnormally high levels of radiation."

there is no reference to any other mode of toxicity in the posted information.

i have mentioned in at least four posts the possibility of chemical toxicity - but that did not seem to be the issue that needed debunking here, so i did not focus on it.

here are a list of specific posts where the radiation issue is raised:

post #4
post #28
post #31
post #37
post #38
post #40
post #34
post #39
post #54

as you can see, it surfaces persistently despite my best efforts. which should probably be telling me i'm completely ineffective and should give it a rest. bye all!

[goforit]

55. Hmmmm.......This is getting on your nerves, LOL!!!.....Love it!!!

And your name calling shows your colors as always for
a freeper!!!

Welcome aboard .....We're ready!!