Depleted uranium is not a weapon of mass destruction, at least if you consider "mass destruction" to mean more than the kill radius of a grenade [edit: I should say damage radius]. Depleted uranium is a heavy metal and dangerous. It isn't Three Mile Island.
BTW, I've seen CNN and NY Times articles about the use of depleted uranium shells in the past, especially when mentioning Gulf War Syndrome.
LUXEMBOURG -- The use of depleted uranium (DU) ammunition in the Bosnia and Kosovo wars of the 1990s did not pose any health risks, the European Union has concluded.
In a statement, EU foreign ministers said neither NATO soldiers handling the weapons nor the general population had been at risk.
However, citing "apparent health and environmental problems in the region", they said they would remain alert to any scientific evidence suggesting that the use of the armour-piercing ammunition had negative effects on human health.
I would suggest that the European Union Foreign Ministers be directly subjected to doses of Depleted Uranium themselves, to support their case. Until that happens, I think they're full of sh*t, and can't prove it either way. Hey, if it's not dangerous, why not?
<strong>In a statement, EU foreign ministers said neither NATO soldiers handling the weapons nor the general population had been at risk.
</strong>
The ammount of radiation from handling Depleted uranium (DU) munitions is relatively insignificant. My understanding is that when DU munitions impact they don't break into pieces, they turn to dust. The particals released into the air are inhaled and collect in the kidneys. With a half life of 4 billion years, you can't afford to inhale too much over your life time. In the arid climate of the mideast those particals can travel for miles and be breathed in by many hundreds of people.
Oh and for whomever asked earlier, yes the UN list of WoMD that Iraq has lists DU weapons.
With a half life of 4 billion years, you can't afford to inhale too much over your life time. ...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Here I'll give you a chance to say something intelligent. In a life span of 100 years how much of 1 gram of d.u. will decay with a half life of 4 billion years. Assume the person get it at birth.
Compare that to the dose you that you get from radon or cosmic rays in a life time.
Don't forget that the "depleted" means it's been depleted of the radioactive isotope. The vast majority of what you'd be inhaling is the stable, non-radioactive U238. Non-radioactive. One more time: Non-radioactive. According to the US Army, DU is less than 0.2% w/v U235 (the radioactive stuff).
Not that inhaling any heavy metal dust is good for you, but it's not like you're swallowing chernobyl. As for birth defects, yes, those photos are gruesome and moving, but Iraq is a nation of 22million people; I'm sure you could find a few gruesome defomities each year. I'd postpone judgement until you saw a solid epidemiological study that linked specific exposures with specific increases in birth defects. And somehow isolated DU exposure from all the gazllion bad things that happen to you when your government doesn't care a whit about your welfare.
Here I'll give you a chance to say something intelligent. In a life span of 100 years how much of 1 gram of d.u. will decay with a half life of 4 billion years. Assume the person get it at birth.
Compare that to the dose you that you get from radon or cosmic rays in a life time.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well I guess I stand corrected. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
It isn't the radiation, it is the fact that it stays in your kidneys for your life time and doesn't breakdown. A lot of things collect in the body (e.g. mercury and arsenic ) and are never broken down. It is the prolonged exposure to them that can be dangerous.
<strong>[qb]With a half life of 4 billion years, you can't afford to inhale too much over your life time. </strong><hr></blockquote>
So you're saying that the probability of decay is very low. I'd be more concerned about things like dry chemical fire extinguishers, which have higher energy, short lived, naturally occurring radioisotopes.
It is highly unlikely that the effects described in this thread are due to exposure to ionizing radiation. We're not talking about levels detectable above normal background variations.
<strong>This is just pure bullshit propaganda on the part of the anti-American left. It?s very disappointing that so many people in this thread fell for it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Comments
BTW, I've seen CNN and NY Times articles about the use of depleted uranium shells in the past, especially when mentioning Gulf War Syndrome.
<a href="http://search.cnn.com/cnn/search?source=cnn&invocationType=search/top&site s=cnn&query=%22depleted+uranium%22" target="_blank">Quick search of CNN</a>
[ 01-30-2003: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]
[ 01-30-2003: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</p>
LUXEMBOURG -- The use of depleted uranium (DU) ammunition in the Bosnia and Kosovo wars of the 1990s did not pose any health risks, the European Union has concluded.
In a statement, EU foreign ministers said neither NATO soldiers handling the weapons nor the general population had been at risk.
However, citing "apparent health and environmental problems in the region", they said they would remain alert to any scientific evidence suggesting that the use of the armour-piercing ammunition had negative effects on human health.
I would suggest that the European Union Foreign Ministers be directly subjected to doses of Depleted Uranium themselves, to support their case. Until that happens, I think they're full of sh*t, and can't prove it either way. Hey, if it's not dangerous, why not?
</strong>
The ammount of radiation from handling Depleted uranium (DU) munitions is relatively insignificant. My understanding is that when DU munitions impact they don't break into pieces, they turn to dust. The particals released into the air are inhaled and collect in the kidneys. With a half life of 4 billion years, you can't afford to inhale too much over your life time. In the arid climate of the mideast those particals can travel for miles and be breathed in by many hundreds of people.
Oh and for whomever asked earlier, yes the UN list of WoMD that Iraq has lists DU weapons.
[ 01-30-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<strong>[qb]....
With a half life of 4 billion years, you can't afford to inhale too much over your life time. ...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Here I'll give you a chance to say something intelligent. In a life span of 100 years how much of 1 gram of d.u. will decay with a half life of 4 billion years. Assume the person get it at birth.
Compare that to the dose you that you get from radon or cosmic rays in a life time.
This thread might prove to be a good health physics class. Everyone pull their copy of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0071054618/qid=1043983120/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-1134683-4784841?v=glance&s=books"; target="_blank">Cember</a> off the book self. You all do have Cember right? I'll go find mine now.
<strong>And more whatever america does is ok nonsense from Scott. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'll be nice. And I'm 100% serious. Please estimate how much dose someone in Iraq got from d.u. and relate that to known health risks.
Don't forget that the "depleted" means it's been depleted of the radioactive isotope. The vast majority of what you'd be inhaling is the stable, non-radioactive U238. Non-radioactive. One more time: Non-radioactive. According to the US Army, DU is less than 0.2% w/v U235 (the radioactive stuff).
Not that inhaling any heavy metal dust is good for you, but it's not like you're swallowing chernobyl. As for birth defects, yes, those photos are gruesome and moving, but Iraq is a nation of 22million people; I'm sure you could find a few gruesome defomities each year. I'd postpone judgement until you saw a solid epidemiological study that linked specific exposures with specific increases in birth defects. And somehow isolated DU exposure from all the gazllion bad things that happen to you when your government doesn't care a whit about your welfare.
AAAAAAAAAAHHH!
<strong>
Here I'll give you a chance to say something intelligent. In a life span of 100 years how much of 1 gram of d.u. will decay with a half life of 4 billion years. Assume the person get it at birth.
Compare that to the dose you that you get from radon or cosmic rays in a life time.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well I guess I stand corrected. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
It isn't the radiation, it is the fact that it stays in your kidneys for your life time and doesn't breakdown. A lot of things collect in the body (e.g. mercury and arsenic ) and are never broken down. It is the prolonged exposure to them that can be dangerous.
[ 02-02-2003: Message edited by: alcimedes ]</p>
<strong>[qb]With a half life of 4 billion years, you can't afford to inhale too much over your life time. </strong><hr></blockquote>
So you're saying that the probability of decay is very low. I'd be more concerned about things like dry chemical fire extinguishers, which have higher energy, short lived, naturally occurring radioisotopes.
It is highly unlikely that the effects described in this thread are due to exposure to ionizing radiation. We're not talking about levels detectable above normal background variations.
<strong>It isn't the radiation, it is the fact that it stays in your kidneys for your life time and doesn't breakdown.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Uranium is already the most plentiful element in the earth's crust.
Do we still use lead in bullets? I'd be more concerned with that.
<strong>This is just pure bullshit propaganda on the part of the anti-American left. It?s very disappointing that so many people in this thread fell for it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
maybe <a href="http://www.howstuffworks.com/nuclear1.htm"; target="_blank">this</a> will help some people out. if people can stop complaining long enough to bother.
reading is HARD!
[ 01-30-2003: Message edited by: alcimedes ]</p>
<strong>funny, i always thought of myself as the pro-american left and the right as anti-american.....g</strong><hr></blockquote>
Funny, I always thought that the act of dividing people into left and right was anti-american.
<a href="http://www.howstuffworks.com/framed.htm?parent=nuclear.htm&url=http://tis.eh.doe.gov/ohre/"; target="_blank">web page</a>
got some nice pdf documents there...g
<strong>It's just so disappointing. The gleeful display of utter ignorance. All because it said something bad about the US.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's just so disappointing. The gleeful display of utter ignorance. All because it said something bad about the US.