Topic awaiting preservation: Depleted Uranium (Page 1 of 1)

http://www.sundayherald.com/32522

quote:

---

The Pentagon has admitted that 320 metric tons of DU were left on the battlefield after the first Gulf war, although Russian military experts say 1000 metric tons is a more accurate figure.

---

quote:

---

'Cancer appears to have increased between seven and 10 times and deformities between four and six times,' according to the UN subcommission.

---

quote:

---

A study of Gulf war veterans showed that 67% had children with severe illnesses, missing eyes, blood infections, respiratory problems and fused fingers.

---

quote:

---

According to a August 2002 report by the UN subcommission, laws which are breached by the use of DU shells include: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the Charter of the United Nations; the Genocide Convention; the Convention Against Torture; the four Geneva Conventions of 1949; the Conventional Weapons Convention of 1980; and the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, which expressly forbid employing 'poison or poisoned weapons' and 'arms, projectiles or materials calculated to cause unnecessary suffering'.

---

quote:

---

Professor Doug Rokke, ex-director of the Pentagon's depleted uranium project [...] said use of DU was a 'war crime'.

Rokke said: 'There is a moral point to be made here. This war was about Iraq possessing illegal weapons of mass destruction -- yet we are using weapons of mass destruction ourselves.' He added: 'Such double-standards are repellent.'

---

To add to this, the United States of Genocide has used Napalm in Iraq, according to Internation Mainstream Media including CNN. Just case you're American/stupid, Napalm was formally banned in 1980 and is considered a chemical weapon of mass destruction.

[This message has been edited by snype (edited 03-31-2003).]

stupid?

The US also has a very large collection of plenty of other kinds of WMD. Are you suggesting it is wrong for nations like the US, France, and Britain to have such weapons? Or are you unable to distinguish between a government like Saddam Hussein's with that of say Canada? Forgive me if these questions are beneath you because after all I'm from AsMtEuRpIiCdA.

Hmmm...this

quote:

---

United States of Genocide

---

only applies to my people...America has come far, since those times...

And, strickly speaking, that is not Napalm in Iraq...it's an aerosol bomb (which is not covered under the Napalm mandate). You can thank the Australians, for developing it.

And depleted uranium is not a WMD, strickly speaking, either...


WebShaman

Werid how humanity can classify weapons, who's to say a gut shot with a m16 or ak-47 is any worse then some nerve agent that takes seconds. Then again there are cigaratte, suicide, and AIDs all which lead to far more deaths and suffering each year.


No one said life was fair, war least so.

J. Stuart J.

"Or are you unable to distinguish between a government like Saddam Hussein's with that of say Canada?"
Ha, you'd be surprised how difficult it can be...
The Prime Minister of South Ontario is no more *my* leader than Saddam is.
(and I'm in favour of removing Saddam with force)


[Edit] ^^oh yeah, thats a joke.. - before one of you feels the need to flame over the ignorance displayed


[This message has been edited by Dan (edited 03-31-2003).]

On the question of being able to distinguish between different governments, well I´d rather live in the US than in Iraq.
But I am not shure if the Iraqi parents of a deformed child have any more love for your great democratic leaders, than those whose familiy members were tortured to death by Saddam´s henchmen have for him. And I´m not even shure which of these groups is larger and faster growing.

Sometimes medals actually have two sides.

Should democratic countries have WMD? No. New question:
Is it morally acceptable to contaminate whole countries with Dioxine or Uranium (both able to cause massive amounts of cancer and birth defects for millennia to come, just in case somebody didn´t know or care), just because the guy in charge of the operation was democratically elected? Give me a break!

snype, you are an ass.

I don't really have anything to add to this discussion. I just wanted to let snype know that people will not take what he has to say seriously with that attitude.

We never really know how dangerous things can be. I recently read reports of the use of DHMO(dihydrogenmonoxide).

quote:

---

dihydrogenmonoxide is colorless, odorless, tasteless, and kills uncounted thousands of people every year.
...(DHMO) has been found in excised tumors of cancer patients

...(DHMO)can cause severe burns...

---

quote:

---

DHMO has been used commonly in America and abroad:

* as an industrial solvent and coolant.
* in nuclear power plants.
* in the production of styrofoam.
* as a fire retardant.
* in many forms of cruel animal research.
* in the distribution of pesticides. Even after washing, produce remains contaminated by this chemical.

---

quote:

---

Quantities of dihydrogen monoxide have been found in almost every stream, lake, and reservoir in America today.

---

How can we expect to cope with WMD if we can't even deal with dangers in our backyard?


It's only after we've lost everything...
That we're free to do anything...

Well, I don't see the connection.

Are you suggesting that we have been unaware of the dangers of the chemical weapons we have used?

That we didn't realize they would have harmful effects? If so, then why did we use them? As air fresheners??

There are bound to be literally thousands of chemicals we are exposed to on a daily basis which will prove dangerous sometimes in the future - That´s hard to avoid (although I sometimes get the feeling there is not even much trying to avoid it).

But the fact that lots of very small particles are created when hard objects collide with more than speed of sound,
the fact that such small particles easily get into the human body,
the fact that in case of a radioactive substance this is going to cause severe health problems and DNA damage
plus the fact that Uranium has a half-life of 4.5 billion years
are part of the knowledge of average college students for decades now.

Basically every DU bullet is a little "dirty bomb".

Kinda, sorta, quasi-on-topic...

quote:

---

How can we expect to cope with WMD if we can't even deal with dangers in our backyard?

---

Such as... (all of these are each year)
430,700 tobacco-related deaths
110,640 alcohol-related deaths
41,821 people killed in car accidents
32,000 deaths related to adverse reactions to prescription drugs
30,575 suicides
18,272 homicides
16,926 deaths related to all licit and illicit drugs
16,767 aids-related deaths
16,653 people killed in car crashes involving alcohol
7,600 deaths related to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (such as Aspirin)
100 people die a year from choking on ballpoint pens
13 people are killed by vending machines falling on them

And these are just in the US...

Why arrest 1.6 million people each year for drugs?
Does jailing drug users make more sense than jailing over weight people and smokers?

10 thing more likely to kill you than terrorism

There are an endless number of rants I could go into here, but I won't...
So to conclude, I am all for the forced removal of Saddam, even though I do not feel my well-being is threatened by his existence.

Maybe we should start dropping ball point pens.

J. Stuart J.

quote:

---

Are you suggesting that we have been unaware of the dangers of the chemical weapons we have used?

That we didn't realize they would have harmful effects? If so, then why did we use them? As air fresheners??

---

I just saw on the news yesterday that Seoul has the most polluted air of any city in the world (with Rome and Mexico City coming in second and third). So everything is relative. When I first came to Korea the police used to regularly use tear gas as an air freshener. I'm not sure about chemical weapons, but it couldn't be all that worse than what we're breathing right now.

I gotta get out of this city...

dang suho, i thought houston held that title. i know we have been the unhealthiest city in america for several years running, at least there's something...

chris


KAIROSinteractive

I'm curious how many people picked up on the fact that Dihydrogenmonoxide is H2O aka pure water.

My point is that it's easy to get overloaded by things that you read when you only hear bits and pieces. Like in this case... where did the original uranium come from? Mars? No... it was dug out of the ground at SOME point... so this stuff in it's FULLY active state exists in nature. Highly radioactive metals were used in dishes in america for a while... it's that common to find in soil. Anyone remember "fiesta-ware orange plates"? Yup, still radioactive to this day. heh

This happened in the state where I grew up. They were irradiating vegetables post harvest to kill parasites and microbes. This is a safe, cost effective practice. Everyone heard the word "radiation" and freaked out. Freaked so much that they managed to get the practice banned by simple boycot tactics. Right after they stopped irradiating, the price of vegetables went up... the quality went down and we started back in with the pesticides ... which ARE residually harmful. Not to mention the ecoli breakout that occured.

It's too easy to be reactionary when we hear things... especially if they sound convincing or have some scientific backing to them. You simply have to learn to critically think about all the sides of the issue, find other information, and most importantly... build some perspective. I'm not attacking anyone here... simply speaking to the generality. LF pointed it out exactly... tobacco kills more people every year than most out and out wars do. It's all about risk management and prioritizing your life.

As of now, I'm not going to trade in my depleted uranium slugs... but I certainly will stop using ball point pens!!


It's only after we've lost everything...
That we're free to do anything...

Did it ever occur to anyone that when DU bullets impact an object, then, and only then, is it giving off particles that emit radiation. Evidently not?
Based on what I have just read, as the bullet impacts something (lets say steel tank armor), it burns, giving off particles (well duh! Thats just basic science), but that the majority of the particles just disperce into the atmosphere, and that if one were to get inhaled, you would have to accumulate somewhere near 16-million (? I don't know if the source was credible or not) to become subject to a minute amount of radiation poisinging.

I mean, think about it, I have an army base near my house that regulary shoots thousands of rounds a day into targets. The bullets are DU bullets, and don't you think that after living in Vancouver for nearly 7 years now, that I'd of at least sprouted a new dick?, or at least a second thumb? if these DU bullets were all that dangerous?



[This message has been edited by counterfeitbacon (edited 04-01-2003).]

And Suho, again, what were you watching? I just found this:

quote:

---

The study, funded by the World Health Organization, the US EPA and other groups, also listed the world's 10 most air-polluted cities. Nine are in China, led by the industrial city of Lanzhou; the other is in India.

---

I just looked up some pictures of Rome, didn't seem to polluted, although appearances can be deceiving, but LA has much worse air, by appearance, than rome.

Of course, the source that I used could be wrong too, but it backs up what I've always been told. Dunno. (?)

cfb: It was the Korean news... actually, I think it may have been "most polluted from automobile emissions" or something to that effect, now that I think about it. They were showing some shots from high up... you couldn't see much more than a few hundred meters through the smog.

Fig: I thought I heard something about Houston being the most overweight city in America, or maybe that was somewhere else... wouldn't want to spread any rumors...

quote:

---

Did it ever occur to anyone that when DU bullets impact an object, then, and only then, is it giving off particles that emit radiation. Evidently not?
Based on what I have just read, as the bullet impacts something (lets say steel tank armor), it burns, giving off particles (well duh! Thats just basic science),

---

Which is what I stated in my last post.

quote:

---

but that the majority of the particles just disperce into the atmosphere, and that if one were to get inhaled, you would have to accumulate somewhere near 16-million (? I don't know if the source was credible or not) to become subject to a minute amount of radiation poisinging.

---

Seems that the source is trying to cover up the real dangers of DU in a clever way. Because what you wrote here is AFAIK true. But there is a big difference between "radiation poisoning", which is caused by exposure to high levels of radiation for a short time, and the DNA damage caused by radiation, which is cumulative, and is much more likely to happen when radioactive substances get into your body, since the type of radiation that is most dangerous for the DNA (alpha radiation) is, unlike beta and gamma radiation not able to penetrate materials (e.g. skin) very well.

And the fact that the particles "just" disperse into the athmosphere is exactly what makes them so dangerous. Because that means they are small enough to be absorbed into the human body by the respiratory organs, or with the water and food.
This is also one of the reasons why the intact ammunition is not very dangerous to handle - A large part of the radiation is absorbed in the bullet itself before even reaching the outside, the small part which gets out is absorbed by the air after a few centimeters, and the rest millimeters (or less) after it reaches the body.

quote:

---

I mean, think about it, I have an army base near my house that regulary shoots thousands of rounds a day into targets. The bullets are DU bullets, and don't you think that after living in Vancouver for nearly 7 years now, that I'd of at least sprouted a new dick?, or at least a second thumb? if these DU bullets were all that dangerous?

---

Are you sure they are actually using DU bullets for target practise? DU bullets are used because they are extremely hard so they can penetrate any kinds of vehicle armor. That´s why DU is to my knowledge not used for rifle or pistol rounds (they don´t help against Kevlar vests) but only for tank shells used against other tanks. Even if they are shooting around with tanks all day, it wouldn´t make much sense to fire expensive DU shells at plywood targets.

Sorry bout that. I've always heard DU rounds (which are standard), being refered to as DU bullets, and since DU rounds are standard, I assumed that DU bullets were standard. My mistake.

But, consider this: Whenever I microwave something, I'm letting off radiation. The sun lets off radiation. My computer monitor lets off radiation. Should all those be destroyed/banned too?

--
~cfb!

Yes cfb, but I think MW explained the reason well enough...it is those particles of radioactivity within your system, that do the damage...though get enough radioactive raying, and you'll start glowing no matter what the source...hehe...

And those particles of DU are pretty fine...they can enter your respiratory system rather easily, as well as through eating...and since the soldiers are the ones sleeping and eating outdoors, on the battle field where the munition is mostly used, they are more at risk.

But...I wouldn't label DU as a WMD...because the side-effects are not plannable...so it is not really a weapon at all, in that sense. It is indescriminate, which makes for a very poor weapon, and was not planned...an unforseen side-effect, really...or one that was 'played down', to be more accurate. The munitions are not specifically made from DU because it is radioactive...but because of the density of the material, and hardness...which makes for a superior munition.

quote:

---

The sun lets off radiation. My computer monitor lets off radiation. Should all those be destroyed/banned too?

---

I don't know about the sun, but I'll second destroying your monitor.

CFB - that's an awfully weak comparison. Kinda like saying that since a broadsword cuts things, and a butter knife also cuts things, anyone carrying a butter knife must a knight. =)

*puts down butter knife and sneaks away*

:::krets.net:::

If there is so much particle spray from DU impact why is the US using DU on... one of their tanks as armor? It's the M1A1 Abrams that I'm thinking of. It designed to take tank shelling without damage since DU is roughly 3 times as dense as steel (from what I heard). So if it's that dangerous why is it standard on the Abrams tanks and used for munitions everywhere? Do they have crew rotations on the Abrams tank battalions or something? I remember thinking about that when I saw that information roll around. Does anyone know?

GrythusDraconis
"I'm sick of hearing that beauty is only skin-deep. That's deep enough. Who wants an adorable pancreas?" - Unknown

If the DU only lets off radioactive particles on impact, then I'd assume that there wouldn't be any damage to a person inside a tank unless something impacted it, right?

--

Just how much DU is required to actually damamge you, in terms of particles, and how many particles are let off on a bullet impact?

DU shells target of Iraqi propaganda

Depleted Uranium Risks very small but with caveat of more study needed.

Nuclear Genocide? Piercing the Depleted Uranium Myth

New fears of Depleted Uranium my favorite quote from this one sounds familiar

quote:

---

The danger is that when these weapons hit their targets, microscopic particles are liberated, and people inhale these particles,? Keur says. ?Many soldiers who fought in the last Gulf War are reported to have fallen ill from depleted uranium, but these reports have not been fully investigated.?

---

quote:

---

Keur acknowledges that fears from depleted uranium have ?not been backed by a full empirical study.?

---

Everything I've found states that we do not have emipircal data either way relating to the effects of DU, and MW I also noted that while you have 4 quotes in your openeing statement, not one of them says that these effects are results of the use of depleted uranium. I'm not saying it's safe, but from what I've found while there is much outcry against it, no one has yet come forward with anything scientific regarding the effects of depleted uranium on soldiers and civilians in war zones. All the science I've seen so far is how DU could be causing these outbreaks.

That being said it is a viable suspect but I want something more concrete.



.:[ Never resist a perfect moment ]:.


[This message has been edited by bitdamaged (edited 04-02-2003).]

CFB - *blink* *blink* My point exactly, CFB. Tanks get shot. So why would they put something on the vehicle that would save them from the shelling but kill them in the long run?

GrythusDraconis
"I'm sick of hearing that beauty is only skin-deep. That's deep enough. Who wants an adorable pancreas?" - Unknown

[This message has been edited by GrythusDraconis (edited 04-02-2003).]

GD, I think you just answered your own question...because the risk of dying immediately, drastically overwieghs the risk of maybe dying sometime in the far future...from a military aspect, troops that can still fight, are good...dead and/or wounded troops, on the other hand...esp. wounded, are detrimental to combat ability...

And until there are concrete findings about the risks of DU radiation...it will continue to be used, for just that reason.

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 04-03-2003).]

It´s radioactivity. Nothing more, nothing less. I thought there were lots of concrete findings on what radioactivity does to biological organisms.

Yes, MW...but those findings are done by known doses...and under laboratory circumstances. What we are talking about are a ton of unkowns...how much exposure, time-scale, amount of exposure, etc. Very difficult to draw an accurate conclusion.

All one can say, with any reasonable accuracy, is that there is a risk...of how high, and of what kind, is not known, at this point.

For example, a shell impacts against the DU armor...how much radioactive dust is generated, and what level of radiation does each dust-node have? Second, assuming the tank then stops, and the crew disembarks, how much do they breath in? You see, these are the type of factors that are hard to measure. Or, ground soldiers moving through an area where the tank was...how much DU dust is still in the air? How much gets 'kicked up' by the foot soldiers? How much gets breathed in?

I agree there are lots of unknowns in this equation.

It´s just that, in the absence of exact scientific research, I´ll assume that nuclear waste (that´s all DU was before the idea came up to use it for ammunition) in dust-form is dangerous, rather than assuming it is nothing to worry about. Radioactive waste is normally buried in old salt-mines to prevent the stuff leaking out into the ground water or coming back to the surface for some millions of years; maybe there´s a reason for that.

The dangers for a troop of soldiers marching through an area contaminated with this stuff may very well be limited. But what about the people that are going to live there again, after the war is over? Growing their food on the ground on which the dust fell, having their animals graze there, their children play in the sand, rainwater being slowly filtered through the contaminated earth before becoming ground water they drink from their wells...

But that leads back to the battlefield question - from a purely tactical and strategic angle - you want the best possible firepower and protection for your troops. And at the moment, DU provides just that.

I'm sure, that as soon as something better comes along, DU will disappear into the past...as every other 'advanced' weapon and armor system has...

It's really a question of our troops vs risk to others later...and from a military perspective, there can be no doubt of which one should have precedence.