The use of the "Deplete Uranium Bombs" against the Iraqi civilians in Southern Iraq during the Gulf War:
Lisa S
Bombs" against the Iraqi civilians in Southern Iraq during the Gulf War.
http://www.geocities.com/webwarp2001/iraq.htm
It will make you sick.
sdhsdafdsfghdfsgergergegdgdsfgdfggergdavf
Sunday, February 18, 2001
By DAN FAHEY
BOSTON--Despite scant coverage in the U.S. media, a controversy over
depleted-uranium ammunition used in the Gulf and Balkan wars has been raging
in Europe. Several governments that provided troops for these conflicts fear
that a rash of unexplained illnesses in veterans--including hemorrhaging,
tumors and cancers--may have been caused by ammunition fired by U.S.
warplanes.
Germany, Italy, Norway and the European Parliament have called for a
moratorium on using the ammunition, while the World Health Organization has
announced plans for a study of civilians in Kosovo and Iraq who may have
been exposed. Last week, Pekka Haavisto, the head of the United Nations'
investigation of depleted uranium, warned of the necessity to "closely
follow the state of health" of those exposed to the ammunition in the
Balkans.
Questions abound: Is there a causal link between depleted uranium and
serious illnesses? What constitutes dangerous levels of exposure? How many
soldiers and civilians have been exposed? How much plutonium is there in the
ammunition?
One thing is certain: The Pentagon has inflamed the controversy by
withholding information and stonewalling investigations. It is likely to
remain a major headache for the Bush administration, especially for Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
Depleted uranium is a chemically toxic heavy metal that emits low-level
alpha radiation. It is used in armor-piercing ammunition because it is
extremely dense and pyrophoric, which enables it to punch and burn its way
through hard targets such as tanks. But depleted uranium also contaminates
the impact area with a fine depleted-uranium dust that presents a health
hazard if inhaled in sufficient quantities. In the aftermath of the Gulf
War, research on rats conducted by the military's Armed Forces Radiobiology
Research Institute found that depleted uranium's chemical toxicity--not its
radioactivity--may cause immune system damage and central nervous system
problems and may contribute to the development of certain cancers.
Dr. David McClain, the military's top depleted-uranium researcher, told a
presidential committee investigating Gulf War illnesses in 1999 that "strong
evidence exists to support [a] detailed study of potential DU
carcinogenicity." A separate Army-funded study conducted by the Lovelace
Respiratory Research Institute in Albuquerque, N.M., found that depleted
uranium caused cancer when implanted in laboratory animals. While Fletcher
Hahn, a senior scientist at Lovelace, cautioned about applying the findings
to human beings, he also called the study "a warning flag that says we
shouldn't ignore this."
Despite the military's own research, however, in recent weeks Pentagon
spokesmen have dismissed concerns about depleted uranium as unscientific
hysteria and propaganda. For example, Army Col. Eric Daxon recently
attributed concerns about depleted uranium to "a purposeful disinformation
campaign" by the Iraqi government. Yet, the Army anticipated the current
controversy even before the war against Iraq. A July 1990 report from the
U.S. Army Armament, Munitions and Chemical Command predicted that,
"Following combat, the condition of the battlefield and the long-term health
risks to natives and combat veterans may become issues in the acceptability
of the continued use of DU [ammunition] for military applications." The
report added that depleted uranium is "linked to cancer when exposures are
internal."
Six months after the Army's prescient report, U.S. and coalition fighting
forces charged into Kuwait and Iraq, oblivious to the hazards of the 320
tons of depleted-uranium ammunition shot by U.S. tanks and aircraft. When
thousands of veterans reported myriad health problems after the war, a
series of federal investigations queried the Defense Department about its
use of depleted uranium. In each case, the Army Surgeon General's office
asserted that only 35 veterans had been exposed, a number so small that it
did not justify further research.
Through Congressional inquiry and the determined work of Gulf War veterans'
advocates, however, the Pentagon was forced to dramatically increase its
estimates of the number of veterans exposed to depleted uranium.
In January 1998, the Pentagon's Office of the Special Assistant for Gulf War
Illnesses made a long-overdue admission: "Combat troops or those carrying
out support functions generally did not know that DU contaminated equipment
such as enemy vehicles struck by DU rounds required special handling. The
failure to properly disseminate such information to troops at all levels may
have resulted in thousands of unnecessary exposures."
The Pentagon's figure of "thousands" tells us little about the effects of
depleted uranium on these veterans. Unfortunately, until 1998 the Department
of Veterans Affairs accepted the Pentagon's original number and examined
only 33 veterans exposed to depleted uranium. Some of these veterans
continued to excrete depleted uranium in their semen and urine six years
after the war. Several have mild central nervous system problems. The VA
removed a bone tumor from one veteran who was wounded by DU shrapnel.
In the absence of an epidemiological study of a larger number of exposed
veterans, however, no firm conclusions about the role of depleted uranium
can be drawn. Unfortunately, the lack of candor has continued even after
Kosovo. When the war ended, a United Nations task force asked NATO to
identify areas contaminated with depleted uranium so that peacekeepers,
civilians and relief workers might be warned about the potential hazard. The
North Atlantic Treaty Organization inexplicably refused to comply with the
request. In February 2000, eight months after the war, NATO finally
confirmed that U.S. jets had released the equivalent of 10 tons of depleted
uranium in Kosovo and Serbia. Another seven months passed before NATO
disclosed the 112 locations of contamination. But it wasn't until last
month--19 months after the bombing stopped--that NATO finally posted warning
signs at the sites.
From all accounts, peacekeepers, civilians and relief workers in Kosovo were
surprised to learn about depleted-uranium contamination in their midst.
There, as in Iraq, children had long been playing on destroyed equipment. In
addition, adults had scavenged destroyed equipment for usable parts and
scrap metal.
European outrage increased when the U.N. disclosed that some
depleted-uranium ammunition used in Kosovo contains plutonium and other
highly radioactive elements. Pentagon spokesmen asserted that the amounts of
plutonium in the ammunition are extremely low, but they have failed to
publicly disclose the levels of plutonium in ammunition shot in Kosovo,
Bosnia, Iraq and Kuwait and on training ranges in Japan, Germany, Puerto
Rico and the United States.
The Pentagon's history of withholding information about depleted uranium has
fueled suspicions among many of our allies. Rumsfeld should try a new
approach: ordering full disclosure of all information and complete
cooperation with international investigations.
Dan Fahey, Who Attends the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts
University, Is a Navy Veteran and Former Board Member of the National Gulf
War Resource Center
"Lisa S" <res1...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:O6NT9.1376$%V....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
sdhsdafdsfghdfsgergergegdgdsfgdfggergdavf
"Malev" <ma...@selamer.com> wrote in message
news:f7sv1v09dkqf27lth...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 19:51:52 +1100,
> "sdhsdafdsfghdfsgergergegdgdsfgdfggergdavf" <9...@optet.com> wrote:
>
> >Co
>
> no need to cut&paste&top-post all this crap, just post the link.
I did moron.
sdhsfdsfghdfsgergergegdgdsfgdfggergdavf
> On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 22:43:44 +1100,
> "sdhsdafdsfghdfsgergergegdgdsfgdfggergdavf" <9...@optet.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> no need to cut&paste&top-post all this crap, just post the link.
> >
> >I did moron.
> >
>
And the link was also posted fool. If you find it hard to read more then 2
lines then it's your problem not mine.
> plonk
(not plonked)
Yes, have your say and run away. Obviously, you need to grow up a bit...
Trakar
"sdhsdafdsfghdfsgergergegdgdsfgdfggergdavf" <9...@optet.com> wrote:
>Copyright 2001 Los Angeles Times
>
>Sunday, February 18, 2001
>By DAN FAHEY
>
>BOSTON--Despite scant coverage in the U.S. media, a controversy over
>depleted-uranium ammunition used in the Gulf and Balkan wars has been raging
>in Europe.
since when is an AP "bullet"or tank-fired "sabot" a "bomb"?
additionally, for how long has international convention considered
uniformed combatants in armoured vehicles to be "civilians"?
And you do realize that the radiological potential of DU is roughly
equivalent to an equal mass of topsoil, and approximates the heavy
metal toxicity of lead, don't you?
David M Baxter
link would have sufficed.
Jeremy Olson
It's sad, but there isn't any proof beyond Iraqi accusations that those
deformities are from the use of depleted Uranium. More likely they are
from chemical and biological agents that were dispersed when the US bombed
WMD facilities in the Gulf War. That said your accusation that DU bombs
were used against civilians is completely baseless. Furthermore, your
statement that DU bombs were tiny Atomic Bombs shows your complete ignorance
about DU. DU is a byproduct of enriching Uranium, and is LESS
radioactive than naturally occuring Uranium. In short, the dirt around a
nuclear plant would be ten times as radioactive as DU. DU is used,
frankly, because it's harder than shit, and will punch holes through
anything it hits. Not to mention some of our own tank armor is made
from DU.
Jeremy Olson
sdhsfdsfghdfsgergergegdgdsfgdfggergdavf
"David M Baxter" <davidm...@nospam.btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:avpnso$aa$1...@venus.btinternet.com...
assurancetourix
And how do you explain the surge of leukemias(4 times more than the
usual rate among children) near Bassorah ?
David Lo
I think many who read this newsgroup would appreciate a source for
your two assertions. I think many would because I have seen little on
the subject in here or in the media even though I am personally very
concerned about the environmental and health hazards caused by uranium
ammunition.
When I use the term uranium ammunition, I have in mind not just DU.
The reader can see below an excerpt of a related article written by
Dave Garland. The article provides in detail an independent research
finding by a Dr. Asaf Durakovic, professor of nuclear medicine and
radiology, a former science adviser to the US military.
Dr. Durakovic and his team found that a variety of types of uranium
ammunition have been used in Kabul and Jalalabad in the latest Afghan
war with startling levels of toxicity. And they concluded that there
is an indication of an escalated deployment of uranium ammunition in
today's maximum force approach to wars, when they compared their
results with previous findings performed at other locations: Iraq from
the first Persian Gulf war (1990-1), Bosnia (1995), Kosova (1999).
Specifically, I would welcome a source for the stated equivalence
between DU and top soil of equal mass regarding its ``radiological
potential''. Actually, I don't know what radiological means in this
situation; usually people talk about radioactivity of elements in
the actinide series in the periodic table.
(Note that even if your assertion is true, we can see from the excerpt
by Dave Garland below that it is not just DU any more which is being
used in Afghanistan.)
Second, I would especially welcome a source for the assertion that the
``radiological potential'' of DU approximates the heavy metal toxicity
of lead. The statement sounds suspicious because if we look at the
periodic table, we can see how different a beast uranium is, being
part of the actinide series which is located far far away in an island
from the family lead and carbon belong to. As chemical reactivity
goes (which often explains the cause of toxicity), different elements
behave differently in proportion to the distance of their positions in
the table. At least that is the common wisdom. If an anomaly occurs,
an explanation is warranted. Whatever the toxicity of lead is, it
should, at first glance, be quite different from that of the uranium
variety, both in effects and size of effects. (Toxicity is not a
one-dimensional quantity.)
Dave Garland:
`` . . . A startling new report based on research in Afghanistan
indicates that our worst fears have been realized. The study,
produced by the Uranium Medical Research Centre (UMRC), points to
the likelihood of large numbers of the population being exposed to
uranium dust and debris.
Dr. Asaf Durakovic, a professor of nuclear medicine and radiology and
a former science adviser to the US military, who set-up the independent
UMRC, has been testing US, British, and Canadian troops and civilians
for DU and uranium poisoning over the past few years. His findings
confirm significant amounts in the subjects' urine as much as
nine years after exposure. Two scientific study teams were sent to
Afghanistan in the aftermath of the conflict in 2001-02. The first
arrived in June 2002, concentrating on the Jalalabad region. The
second arrived four months later, broadening the study to include the
capital Kabul, which has a population of nearly 3.5 million people.
The city itself contains the highest recorded number of fixed targets
during Operation Enduring Freedom. For the study's purposes, the
vicinity of three major bomb sites were examined.
It was predicted that signatures of depleted or enriched uranium would
be found in the urine and soil samples taken during the research. The
team was unprepared for the shock of its findings, which indicated in
both Jalalabad and Kabul, DU was possibly causing the high levels of
illness but also high concentrations of non-depleted uranium. Tests
taken from a number of Jalalabad subjects showed concentrations 400%
to 2000% above that for normal populations, amounts which have not
been recorded in civilian studies before.
Those in Kabul who were directly exposed to US-British precision
bombing showed extreme signs of contamination, consistent with uranium
exposure and with some types of chemical or biological weaponry. These
included pains in joints, back/kidney pain, muscle weakness, memory
problems and confusion and disorientation. Many of these symptoms are
found in Gulf War and Balkans veterans and civilians. Those exposed
to the bombing report symptoms of flu-type illnesses, bleeding, runny
noses and blood-stained mucous.
The study team itself complained of similar symptoms during their stay.
Most of these symptoms last for days or months. The team also conducted
a preliminary sample examination of new-born infants, discovering that
at least 25% may be suffering from congenital and post-natal health
problems that could be associated with uranium contamination. These
include undeveloped muscles, large head in comparison to body size,
skin rashes and infant lethargy. Considering that the children had
access to sufficient levels of nutrition, the symptoms could not be due
to malnourishment. Durakovic and his team have searched for possible
alternative causes, such as geological or industrial sources, or the
likelihood of Al Qaeda having uranium reserves. But the uranium found
is not consistent with the "dirty bomb" scenario proposed by the US (in
which stores of radioactive materials might explain the findings), nor
is it connected to DU, or an enriched uranium-type dust that has been
found in Iraq and Kosova.
The only conclusion is that the allied forces are now possibly using
milled uranium ore in their warheads to maximize the effectiveness and
strength of their weapons, as well as to mask the uranium, hoping that
it may be discounted as part of any local natural deposits.
However, marked differences between natural uranium and the uranium
used in the metal fragments found in Afghanistan was uncovered with
the use of an electron microscope, which revealed the presence of
small ceramic particles produced by the high temperatures created on
impact. . . .''
The full article can be found in ``The Nuclear Nightmare Starts'' in
IRAQ-NEWS - January 07, 2003 2/2, a regular contribution to this news
group from George Lange.
Also of valuable interest is Dr. Helen Caldicott's article ``Medical
Consequences of Attacking Iraq'', Thursday, October 10, 2002 published
in the San Francisco Chronicle. To quote Helen Caldicott:
``. . . During the 1991 Gulf War, the United States deployed hundreds
of tons of weapons, many of them anti-tank shells made of
depleted uranium 238. This material is 1.7 times more dense than
lead, and hence when incorporated into an anti-tank shell and
fired, it achieves great momentum, cutting through tank armor
like a hot knife through butter.
What other properties does uranium 238 possess? First, it is
pyrophoric: When it hits a tank at high speed it bursts into flames,
producing tiny aerosolized particles less than 5 microns in diameter
that are easily inhalable into the terminal air passages of the lung.
Second, it is a potent radioactive carcinogen, emitting a relatively
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
heavy alpha particle composed of 2 protons and 2 neutrons. Once inside
the body -- either in the lung if it has been inhaled, or in a wound
if it penetrates flesh, or ingested since it concentrates in the food
chain and contaminates water -- it can produce cancer in the lungs,
bones, blood, or kidneys. Third, it has a half-life of 4.5 billion
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
years, meaning the areas in which this ammunition was used in Iraq and
^^^^^
Kuwait during Gulf War will remain effectively radioactive for the
rest of time.
Children are 10 to 20 times more sensitive to the effects of radiation
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
than adults. My fellow pediatricians in the Iraqi town of Basra, for
^^^^^^^^^^^
example, are reporting an increase of 6 to 12 times in the incidence
of childhood leukemia and cancer. Yet . . .''
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Since we know so little about this matter, I think the original poster
who provided a link and the second poster who posted the article at
the link did many of us a great service. They are like Jeremiah and
other prophets in the history of Israel who were spat upon and stoned
for telling what they saw as danger signs to the King of Judah and his
people.
I believe no one who advocates this kind of war would be so brave as
to live in the land of devastation afterwards if he knew the true
extent of the health hazard. This is so even if one would be made
governor of the land. In addition to the enormous inhumanity to the
people who have inhabited that land for thousands of years, it's the
greatest disservice to our soldiers who are being sent there for
purposes which would benefit only a minority who live faraway in
luxury.
For the contemplated war on Iraq, many soldiers who will be on the
ground will be subject to the same health hazards. Unfortunately,
they are mostly from the economic underclass among us. They chose to
join because of economic incentives. But coming home with illnesses
will not help them realize their lives' potentials even though their
college education was paid for by their commitment to military
services. And their valiance will ring hollow because Iraq has not
threatened America and is not about to be able to threaten us. Their
heroism is being used and abused by some in the position to influence
power and exercise power for their own gain.
The Detroit Free Press is right in calling for the return of the
draft. The return of such a policy would not only help equalize the
burden of a war on our society but also help discourage the minority
who constantly agitates for wars from doing so since they would have
to choose between their sons and daughters and their other worldly
concerns, even as they don't care about the lives of other people and
the land the people have no choice but to live in.
Peace to all,
lo yeeOn
David M Baxter
"sdhsfdsfghdfsgergergegdgdsfgdfggergdavf" <9...@otet.com> wrote in message
news:3e20b94e$0$7812$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> Who cares what you think...
Oh pardon me, I thought this was a discussion group for all people to post
their opinions. I didn't know it was conditional that people cared.
Trakar
(assurancetourix) wrote:
First, I would have to see conclusive proof of this other than your
mere statements that it exists. In all, however, increased cancer
rates, as well as numerous other illnesses and diseases, should be
expected in any war zone, especially when said war zone happens to
coincide with one of the major petrochemical industrial zones on the
planet, and in a nation with non-existant environmental and pollution
standards, regulations, and controls.
The CO
> Specifically, I would welcome a source for the stated equivalence
> between DU and top soil of equal mass regarding its ``radiological
> potential''. Actually, I don't know what radiological means in this
> situation; usually people talk about radioactivity of elements in
> the actinide series in the periodic table.
Ok, how about this then.
DU is composed of 99.8% U238, .02% U235 and .002% U234.
In that basis, it has approximately 60% of the radioactivity of naturally
occuring Uranium. It is almost entirely an alpha emitter, which means
that the very low levels or radiation are unlikely to penetrate the skin.
DU is used in the following:-
Anti-armour ammunition. The armour penetrating Sabot used by tanks.
The solid rounds, notably used by the A-10 for it's avenger cannon,
also an anti armour weapon.
Armour itself, some US MBT have DU armour.
That's about it.
> (Note that even if your assertion is true, we can see from the excerpt
> by Dave Garland below that it is not just DU any more which is being
> used in Afghanistan.)
>
> Second, I would especially welcome a source for the assertion that the
> ``radiological potential'' of DU approximates the heavy metal toxicity
> of lead. The statement sounds suspicious because if we look at the
> periodic table, we can see how different a beast uranium is, being
> part of the actinide series which is located far far away in an island
> from the family lead and carbon belong to. As chemical reactivity
> goes (which often explains the cause of toxicity), different elements
> behave differently in proportion to the distance of their positions in
> the table. At least that is the common wisdom. If an anomaly occurs,
> an explanation is warranted. Whatever the toxicity of lead is, it
> should, at first glance, be quite different from that of the uranium
> variety, both in effects and size of effects. (Toxicity is not a
> one-dimensional quantity.)
Ah now we are talking about heavy metal toxicity.
There is no doubt that it is toxic (in the chemical sense) if ingested.
> `` . . . A startling new report based on research in Afghanistan
> indicates that our worst fears have been realized. The study,
> produced by the Uranium Medical Research Centre (UMRC), points to
> the likelihood of large numbers of the population being exposed to
> uranium dust and debris.
From?
> Dr. Asaf Durakovic, a professor of nuclear medicine and radiology and
> a former science adviser to the US military, who set-up the
independent
> UMRC,
Ok, for a start this sounds like someone with a vested interest/axe to
grind.
Hmmm, Durakovic, eh, a Serb perhaps? Of course he wouldn't be biased
against the USA because they bombed Serbia now would he.
> has been testing US, British, and Canadian troops and civilians
> for DU and uranium poisoning over the past few years. His findings
> confirm significant amounts in the subjects' urine as much as
> nine years after exposure.
> Two scientific study teams were sent to
> Afghanistan in the aftermath of the conflict in 2001-02.
From where? Who were they? What are their credentials?
> The first
> arrived in June 2002, concentrating on the Jalalabad region. The
> second arrived four months later, broadening the study to include the
> capital Kabul, which has a population of nearly 3.5 million people.
> The city itself contains the highest recorded number of fixed targets
> during Operation Enduring Freedom.
Ahem, fixed targets for anti armour ammunition?? Please indicate when and
where
the US used anti tank rounds on Kabul. Last time I looked, HE didn't
contain DU.
> For the study's purposes, the
> vicinity of three major bomb sites were examined.
No screening for exposure to other pathogens? Case histories? Pre-existing
conditions?
> It was predicted that signatures of depleted or enriched uranium would
> be found in the urine and soil samples taken during the research. The
> team was unprepared for the shock of its findings, which indicated in
> both Jalalabad and Kabul, DU was possibly causing the high levels of
> illness
On what basis? Wishful thinking?
> but also high concentrations of non-depleted uranium. Tests
> taken from a number of Jalalabad subjects showed concentrations 400%
> to 2000% above that for normal populations, amounts which have not
> been recorded in civilian studies before.
Begs the question about where they had been and what they had been doing,
since it
seems obvious they didn't get that level of DU in their system in Jalalabad.
The Bullshit meter is twitching.
> Those in Kabul who were directly exposed to US-British precision
> bombing showed extreme signs of contamination, consistent with uranium
> exposure and with some types of chemical or biological weaponry.
Oh, so now the US either bombed them with DU, chem weapons or bio weapons.
Rrright.
Bullshit meter is gyrating wildly now.
> These included pains in joints, back/kidney pain, muscle weakness,
memory
> problems and confusion and disorientation.
Which can all be caused by numerous things besides DU or other heavy metal
ingestion.
Particularly in a shithole like Afghanistan with lousy everything.
What was the age of the sampled population?
> Many of these symptoms are
> found in Gulf War and Balkans veterans and civilians. Those exposed
> to the bombing report symptoms of flu-type illnesses, bleeding, runny
> noses and blood-stained mucous.
People getting sick in a shit hole like Kabul, with lousy sanitation,
probably
contaminated water etc etc. Gee, fancy that.
> The study team itself complained of similar symptoms during their
stay.
Heallthy Americans/Europeans visit a shit hole 3rd world pigsty like Kabul
and
get sick. Gee what a surprise.
> Most of these symptoms last for days or months. The team also
conducted
> a preliminary sample examination of new-born infants, discovering that
> at least 25% may be suffering from congenital and post-natal health
> problems that could be associated with uranium contamination.
Or about 2,000 other things.
> These include undeveloped muscles, large head in comparison to body
size,
> skin rashes and infant lethargy.
Malnutrition, pre and post natal. Plus any number of other diseases,
genetic problems
due to inbreeding (the tribal Afghans are seriously inbred since they don't
usually marry
outside their own ethnic groups.)
> Considering that the children had access to sufficient levels of
nutrition,
In Afghanistan? How do they know this? I wouldn't guarantee anything
there.
> the symptoms could not be due to malnourishment.
Pre natal malnutrition of the mother is always a possibility, it's not like
they have a great
diet or pre natal health care now is it?
> Durakovic and his team have searched for possible
> alternative causes, such as geological or industrial sources, or the
> likelihood of Al Qaeda having uranium reserves. But the uranium found
> is not consistent with the "dirty bomb" scenario proposed by the US
(in
> which stores of radioactive materials might explain the findings), nor
> is it connected to DU, or an enriched uranium-type dust that has been
> found in Iraq and Kosova.
Ok, so we seem to think it's not DU after all this.
> The only conclusion
Only?
> is that the allied forces are now possibly
Possibly?
> using milled uranium ore in their warheads to maximize the
effectiveness and
> strength of their weapons, as well as to mask the uranium, hoping that
> it may be discounted as part of any local natural deposits.
ROFLMAO. Codswallop.
Bullshit meter pegged. Kook alarm.
> However, marked differences between natural uranium and the uranium
> used in the metal fragments found in Afghanistan was uncovered with
> the use of an electron microscope, which revealed the presence of
> small ceramic particles produced by the high temperatures created on
> impact. . . .''
Rest of this kooky bullshit deleted.
Blatant psuedo scientific 'research' trying to prove that the US
systematically poisoned Afghanistan
with vast amounts of metallic Uranium 'posssibly' used to 'maximise the
effectiveness and strength of their weapons'
Maximise how? By making it weigh more?
What a load.of BS. There is so much BS in this article it threatens to
outweigh the amount of DU in the
known world.
The CO
Trakar
>I think many who read this newsgroup would appreciate a source for
>your two assertions. I think many would because I have seen little on
>the subject in here or in the media even though I am personally very
>concerned about the environmental and health hazards caused by uranium
>ammunition.
I personally am concerned about the environmental and health hazards
caused by any ammunition. I draw upon many sources for this
information, rather than a few, rather suspect, studies/researchers.
"Handbook of the Toxicology of Metals", Friberg et al.(1990),
"Uranium, Plutonium, Transplutonium Elements", Hodge et al. (1973),
"A five-year inhalation study with natural uranium dioxide", HEALTH
PHYS 25, 230-258 (1973),
"Depleted Uranium In The Gulf": http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du_ii/
I do have a large volume of references concerning this and related
topics. The above are probably the best introductory sources and are
requisite to any clear understanding of the chemical and physiological
effects
>When I use the term uranium ammunition, I have in mind not just DU.
Then this is your mistake, and irrelevant to this discussion
>The reader can see below an excerpt of a related article written by
>Dave Garland. The article provides in detail an independent research
>finding by a Dr. Asaf Durakovic, professor of nuclear medicine and
>radiology, a former science adviser to the US military.
Dr Asaf's work is a best very questionable in both methodology and
finding, and has not been corroborated by prior, cocedent or
subsequent much more detailed and comprehensive investigations.
>Dr. Durakovic and his team found that a variety of types of uranium
>ammunition have been used in Kabul and Jalalabad in the latest Afghan
>war with startling levels of toxicity. And they concluded that there
>is an indication of an escalated deployment of uranium ammunition in
>today's maximum force approach to wars, when they compared their
>results with previous findings performed at other locations: Iraq from
>the first Persian Gulf war (1990-1), Bosnia (1995), Kosova (1999).
>
>Specifically, I would welcome a source for the stated equivalence
>between DU and top soil of equal mass regarding its ``radiological
>potential''. Actually, I don't know what radiological means in this
>situation; usually people talk about radioactivity of elements in
>the actinide series in the periodic table.
U-238, or depleted uranium has been under study for at least 50 years
including life span studies in small animals. Depleted uranium is only
very weakly radioactive, and virtually all of the observed or expected
effects are from nephrotoxicity associated with deposition in the
kidney tubules and glomeruli damage at high doses. The radiation doses
from depleted uranium (specific activity only 15 Bq/mg)(U-238 has a
4.5 billion year half life) are very small compared to potential toxic
effects from uranium ions in the body (primarily damage to kidney
tubules). The main route of potentially hazardous exposure is
inhalation since gastrointestinal uptake is very small (<1/10,000).
Consider, for example the deposition of a respirable particle of
depleted uranium dioxide in the human lung. If that particle is
approximately spherical and has a diameter of 1 micrometer
(aerodynamic diameter about 3 micrometer), it will emit an average of
only one alpha particle every 100 days. Meanwhile the cells of the
lung are being irradiated in a milieu of even more energetic alpha
particles from natural radon and its decay products that are present
in all the air on the surface of the earth. The total radiation dose
to the lung from even relatively high exposures to airborne depleted
uranium particles is not remarkable. The TLV is 0.2 mg/cubic-meter
based on chemical toxicity.
After inhalation, uranium will be slowly mobilized and enter the
systemic circulation. The uranyl ion is the form of mobile uranium
within the body. It deposits at bone surfaces and remains in the bone
matrix with a half time of up to one year. It is slowly cleared to the
blood and excreted via the kidneys. While in the bone, alpha radiation
is emitted, but with very low intensity since depleted uranium is not
very radioactive. The range of alpha radiation in the bone is about 30
micrometer and the radiation is very diffuse, so the bone marrow is
not effectively irradiated by uranium in the bone. Radiation induction
of leukemia requires effective high dose-rate irradiation of the bone
marrow. There is no known or expected leukemia risk associated with
small amounts of U-238 in the bone because the marrow is not
efficiently irradiated. [The same is true for much more highly
radioactive radium-226 and plutonium-239.]
>(Note that even if your assertion is true, we can see from the excerpt
>by Dave Garland below that it is not just DU any more which is being
>used in Afghanistan.)
Your quote of Mr Garland's quote of Dr Dukorvic's opinion does not
correspond to the vast repository of established and verified
information on this subject.
>Second, I would especially welcome a source for the assertion that the
>``radiological potential'' of DU approximates the heavy metal toxicity
>of lead. The statement sounds suspicious because if we look at the
>periodic table, we can see how different a beast uranium is, being
>part of the actinide series which is located far far away in an island
>from the family lead and carbon belong to. As chemical reactivity
>goes (which often explains the cause of toxicity), different elements
>behave differently in proportion to the distance of their positions in
>the table. At least that is the common wisdom. If an anomaly occurs,
>an explanation is warranted. Whatever the toxicity of lead is, it
>should, at first glance, be quite different from that of the uranium
>variety, both in effects and size of effects. (Toxicity is not a
>one-dimensional quantity.)
I do not claim that DU's radiological potential approximates the heavy
metal toxicity of lead. I state that the heavy metal toxicity of DU is
roughly equivalent to lead. However, metallic lead has considerably
higher toxicity than metallic uranium. Compounds of lead are much more
hazardous than compounds of uranium since uranium tends to form
relatively insoluble compounds which are not readily absorbed into the
body. Also, lead within the body affects the nervous system and
several biochemical processes, while the uranyl ion does not readily
interfere with any major biochemical process except for depositing in
the tubules of kidney where damage occurs if excess deposition occurs.
Glomeruli damage has been reported at high doses as well. The kidney
damage is dosage dependent and somewhat reversible. Lead bullets are
more dangerous than uranium bullets.
I listed some of the primary sources for this information at the
beginning of this post, if you would like additional information I
would be happy to supply you with as many web and non-web sources as
you desire to substantiate and verify this information.
The CO
> On 11 Jan 2003 21:27:07 -0500, acou...@panix.com (David Lo) wrote:
<snip>
> >The reader can see below an excerpt of a related article written by
> >Dave Garland. The article provides in detail an independent research
> >finding by a Dr. Asaf Durakovic, professor of nuclear medicine and
> >radiology, a former science adviser to the US military.
>
> Dr Asaf's work is a best very questionable in both methodology and
> finding, and has not been corroborated by prior, cocedent or
> subsequent much more detailed and comprehensive investigations.
<much clear concise and scientiific fact deleted for brevity>
The overall thrust of the 'study' seemed to allege huge amounts of
Uranium (not DU) and suggested that the 'only' explanation was the
use of uranium in bombs to 'maximise their effectiveness.'
Even based on the excerpt provided, it appeared to me to be an attempt
to arrive at a preconceived conclusion by pseudo scientific 'research'
presumably
in an attempt to discredit the US.
You provide a very generous statement that it is 'at best questionable',
based on what I
have read, I would suggest it was an attempt at propaganda.
Thank you for your clear and concise explanation, and your solid references.
The CO
Trakar
wrote:
>The overall thrust of the 'study' seemed to allege huge amounts of
>Uranium (not DU) and suggested that the 'only' explanation was the
>use of uranium in bombs to 'maximise their effectiveness.'
His sampling rate of "victims" appears to be awfully small for the
over-broad medical conclusions he is stating. And the test results he
is using as a basis (though he doesn't seem to ever present the actual
assays, merely his derivatives), do not correspond to a large body
sound medical testing data collected over the last half century or
more on this matter.
The only quality that Uranium could offer to any non-nuclear weapon,
is density, and except for certain specific roles (AP in particular),
I can't think of any reason you'd want to make these weapons heavier.
-
>
> "sdhsfdsfghdfsgergergegdgdsfgdfggergdavf" <9...@otet.com> wrote in message
> news:3e20b94e$0$7812$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> > Who cares what you think...
>
> Oh pardon me, I thought this was a discussion group for all people to post
> their opinions.
It is and you received my opinion...
David Lo
Trakar <Tra...@attbi.com> wrote:
>On 11 Jan 2003 21:27:07 -0500, acou...@panix.com (David Lo) wrote:
>
>>I think many who read this newsgroup would appreciate a source for
>>your two assertions. I think many would because I have seen little on
>>the subject in here or in the media even though I am personally very
>>concerned about the environmental and health hazards caused by uranium
>>ammunition.
>
>I personally am concerned about the environmental and health hazards
>caused by any ammunition. I draw upon many sources for this
>information, rather than a few, rather suspect, studies/researchers.
>
>"Handbook of the Toxicology of Metals", Friberg et al.(1990),
>
>"Uranium, Plutonium, Transplutonium Elements", Hodge et al. (1973),
>
>"A five-year inhalation study with natural uranium dioxide", HEALTH
>PHYS 25, 230-258 (1973),
>
>"Depleted Uranium In The Gulf": http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du_ii/
>
>I do have a large volume of references concerning this and related
>topics. The above are probably the best introductory sources and are
>requisite to any clear understanding of the chemical and physiological
>effects
>
Thanks for the references; it will certainly take me or anyone else a
while to check them out against Drs. Caldicott and Durakovic's
findings which I am not ready to dismiss so easily, for a number of
reasons.
One, I believe I should err on caution when I see danger, instead of
shrugging off the danger signs easily. And it should be the motto for
anyone who holds a deep reverence for life.
Two, an entity (a purified isotope of uranium, which itself is
extremely rare) which sprung from the middle of the last century as a
result of the Manhattan Project for nuclear armament research, an
artificial creation by us humans, obviously differs from everything
else that has existed on this planet for ages or eons. By and large,
living organisms have had a chance to evolve to deal with the latter
group. Like fire we humans learn to avoid touching directly, tribes
who accidentally congregated at lead-poisoned sites would get sick and
die a whole bunch at a time and then the survivors got a clue and
learned to avoid it for eternity, long before modern chemistry arrived
to tell us more of the story.
Three, the printed references (the ones relating to uranium from 1973,
the metal toxicology from 1990) came before the systematic deployment
of uranium ammunition in warfare: 1991 of GWI, 1995 (Bosnia), 1999
(Kosova), and 2001-2 (Afghanistan).
Four, the Caldicott and Durakovic findings are ``in vivo'' since they
observe the effects directly in humans. While laboratory studies tend
to emphasize control, they also suffer in many cases from the
inadvertent stripping off of many realities. Sometimes those
who perform laboratory stories also have their own biases as well.
Five, by design or by situation forced upon by the various stages of
the manufacturing process, the actual weapons produced could be quite
different from the theoretical entities being studied in laboratories
as far as the actual effects on humans are concerned, even if the
physical difference is miniscule; that is so because of the nature of
radioactivity and chemistry in general. What goes into DUO is the
result of some manufacturing process which introduces its own
signature into the product.
Six, those who casually dismiss the ``in vivo'' findingss of Caldicott
and Durakovic ignore the fact that the actual poisons come from the
burning of the DU or DU+ products in unprecedentedly intense heat
(i.e., oxides and other compounds, involving many reactants from the
explosion and its environment, are involved). I simply do not think
that any laboratory simulation of the battleground action of DU or DU+
exists yet. Consider a BLU82, with 12600 pounds of explosive energy,
or 25*10^9 joules. (Consider the DU or DU+ in the bombs in the
clusters.) The total energy released in a second's time is 25 million
times as intense as a 1000 watt device or 250 million times as intense
as a 100 watt light bulb. On the other hand, the energy released by
applying a horsepower for 1 second is only about 7.5 times more
powerful than burning a 100 watt light bulb for 1 second. So a BLU82
which explodes in a second is more than 30 million times more powerful
that something that can provide a horsepower in the same 1 second
duration. Try put your hand on a 100 watt lightbulb for just one
second, and then imagine the amount of heat that goes into burning the
metals and everything in the bomb's way. What substances arise from
this sorcerer's crucible? Well, I would not so easily dismiss what
these two Drs are telling me. I would certainly not base my decision
on whether Durakovic is a Serb (as another poster suggested). There
is just too much at stake for humanity.
>>When I use the term uranium ammunition, I have in mind not just DU.
>
>Then this is your mistake, and irrelevant to this discussion
>
Since the original article addressing the health and environmental
hazards of modern warfare, I do not feel bringing in DU+ studies is
irrelevant when DU+ stuff is more hazardous than DU. Nobody who cares
about survival should dismiss the use of DU, much less the use of DU+
and that's why the governments which deploy this kind of stuff keep
quiet about their deployments. To amplify this point, I will quote,
after the next paragraph, another part of the Garland article which
introduces the Durakovic study.
I think an honest way to weigh the gravity of war is to ask whether we
could put ourselves in the shoes of the Iraqis and live a land
contaminated with this DU+ stuff and to ask the soldiers who will be
on the grounds in Iraq whether they would want to be there knowing
what Drs. Caldicott and Durakovic have found. Clearly, facts or
studies like those of these scientists are hard to come by for obvious
reasons, one being that they come from an event which occurred so
recently (2001-2002) and another being that they are so much frowned
on by our establishment.
From Davey Garland's `` Afghanistan: The Nuclear Nightmare Starts''
(in IRAQ-NEWS - January 07, 2003 2/2, a regular contribution to
soc.culture.iraq from George Lange)
``When questions were asked in the British parliament a year ago about
whether depleted uranium (DU) weapons had been used in the military
strikes on Afghanistan, "It is not being used at present" was defense
minister Geoff Hoon's reply.
A few days earlier, Hoon had been similarly vague on the issue,
assuring us that: "No British forces currently engaged in operations
around Afghanistan are armed with depleted uranium ammunition.
However, we do not rule out the use of depleted uranium ammunition
in Afghanistan, should its penetrative capability be judged necessary
in the future."
The defense minister played his cards close to his chest, no doubt
having been informed that DU or other uranium weapons were being used
by the United States (and no doubt British) forces to penetrate the
caverns of Tora Bora and other targets (including civilian ones),
especially in the vicinity of Kabul.
The refusal of the Ministry of Defense to fully admit that dangerous
uranium weapons may have been used in Afghanistan and the conflicts
in the Balkans (Bosnia and Kosova), when evidence shows the contrary,
illustrates just how sensitive the government is to the possibility
that its use, or its collusion in the use, of weapons of mass
destruction may be discovered.
This is not just because thousands of innocent civilians will suffer
due to radiological (and heavy metal) poisoning, but also because
the government is prepared to send British troops and aid workers,
possibly for a long occupation of the war zones, ill-equipped and
vulnerable to contamination. When the Afghan crisis began, many of
us believed that a great amount of DU/dirty uranium would be used to
achieve the US-British campaign objectives, both to penetrate the
opposition's hideouts in rocky terrain and to test new weapons
systems (dirty uranium or dirty DU contains radioactive
contaminants, such as plutonium isotopes, derived from spent fuel
from power reactors). The amount used in Afghanistan might have
exceeded the several hundred ton's of DU/dirty uranium used in the
1990-91 Gulf War and the Balkans conflicts. . . .''
It's good that you give an explanation. This is how we can productively
discuss matters.
However, see the above response concerning the effect of DU or DU+
stirring the sorcerer's crucible in unprecedentedly intense heat. In
other words, we hardly know all the substances the explosion of DU or
DU+ products generate.
>>(Note that even if your assertion is true, we can see from the excerpt
>>by Dave Garland below that it is not just DU any more which is being
>>used in Afghanistan.)
>
>Your quote of Mr Garland's quote of Dr Dukorvic's opinion does not
>correspond to the vast repository of established and verified
>information on this subject.
>
Well, new context sprouts new understanding and that's how science
advances in general. The temple must be torn down before it can be
rebuilt. And it will be rebuilt on a firmer foundation. Again,
please read my response above for clarification on this point: the
possibility of datedness of the ``established and verified
information''.
Toxicity has many faces and all are deadly with potency each according
to its own confounding design. There is no reason for us mortals to
ignore any of them.
Peace,
lo yeeOn
The CO
> On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 23:07:03 +1030, "The CO" <the...@yahoo.com.au>
> wrote:
>
> >The overall thrust of the 'study' seemed to allege huge amounts of
> >Uranium (not DU) and suggested that the 'only' explanation was the
> >use of uranium in bombs to 'maximise their effectiveness.'
>
> His sampling rate of "victims" appears to be awfully small for the
> over-broad medical conclusions he is stating.
That was my understanding also, as if the 'victims' had been hand picked.
> And the test results he is using as a basis (though he doesn't seem to
ever present the actual
> assays, merely his derivatives), do not correspond to a large body
> sound medical testing data collected over the last half century or
> more on this matter.
Doesn't inspire confidence.
> The only quality that Uranium could offer to any non-nuclear weapon,
> is density, and except for certain specific roles (AP in particular),
> I can't think of any reason you'd want to make these weapons heavier.
Concur. It's actually counterproductive, as it limits the number of
warheads the carrier aircraft has.
Whilst it's perhaps possible that a specialist penetrating bomb, some sort
of bunker buster perhaps,
might be used, there are several other, very effective methods of doing so
that do not require uranium
tipped noses. I've never heard of DU (or Uranium) being used in anything
except the 20mm AP slug,
Sabot round or armour.
The CO
assurancetourix
Again, the fact that some tank armors are maden of du is irrelevant
because only vaporized du (at 400 degrees or so) is the problem. When
a 5 or 10 kg du shell hit a tank - or even worst when a 250 kg bomb
and its uranium is vaporised. The average annual intakes of uranium by
adults are estimated to be 460 micro-grams from ingestion and 0.59
micro-grams from inhalation. Lungs are thus absorbing 0.000059 kg of
uranium in 365 days; this can be a cause of cancer (altough not a very
frequent one as lung cancer and industrial pollution are the main
causes). The intensity of radiation decrease according to a square law
(the equation of a sphere surface) and the problem is thus not
occuring if you have a shell 2 meters away but a DU atom near the DNA
of your lung cells (or bones, kidney, whatever). Radioactivity is not
always leading to a cancer, it is a question of probability linked to
exposure.
Now, imagine 5 kg of Du - or even worst 250 kg of DU in a bomb - that
vaporise in the air. We are not taking about 0.000059 kg in one year,
and people who are in the vicinity are likely to get problems if they
breath the dust. As for water that people may drink later. It depends
where the DU bomb/shell fall; in the desert or far from any ground
water used by people, one can bet on gradual dilution. Otherwise...
assurancetourix
I wrote:
altough not a very frequent one as lung cancer and industrial
pollution are the main causes
I meant tobacco and industrial pollution...
Trakar
<as...@somewhere.in.oz.au> wrote:
> I've never heard of DU (or Uranium) being used in anything
>except the 20mm AP slug,
>Sabot round or armour.
and the odd boat keel or aircraft counter-weight (rare-but it has
happened)----but I seriously doubt that these would be major
contributors to a combat zone. Provided we're not talking purely about
fantasy or drastically flawed methodology. the contamination
measurements of "natural" uranium (mixed isotope in approximate normal
ratios) lead me to suspect that he may have actually been reading
normal environmental uranium traces. Determining this is difficult as
he seems to have eschewed the sound scientific principle of control
studies and background checks. natural uranium is present in the
topsoil as a trace element at a content ratio of about 400 parts per
million (a mg or so per Kg). This varies considerably globally, and is
just an average, without local and regional soil assays, it remains a
mere speculation, but, one any competent researcher should have
investigated.
Trakar
(assurancetourix) wrote:
> Again, the fact that some tank armors are maden of du is irrelevant
>because only vaporized du (at 400 degrees or so) is the problem. When
>a 5 or 10 kg du shell hit a tank - or even worst when a 250 kg bomb
>and its uranium is vaporised.
Please identify any 250kg munition that contains DU (much less U). and
no DU munition contains an bursting explosive charge (propellant, yes,
but they are not explosive rounds--that would defeat the purpose of
using DU in them in the first place).
>The average annual intakes of uranium by
>adults are estimated to be 460 micro-grams from ingestion and 0.59
>micro-grams from inhalation. Lungs are thus absorbing 0.000059 kg of
>uranium in 365 days;
"micro-grams"! There is approximately a milligram of U in an average
Kg of topsoil. This means that they could achieve the same
"contamination" level by consuming approximately 4.6 grams of topsoil
a year! That's less than a hundredth of a gram a day of dirt consumed,
roughly equivalent to not washing your hands before you eat! I'd be
highly surprised if you could find a human alive that did not consume
at least equivalent amounts from normal trace amounts present in food
and the environment! You're not helping your cause here, but, rather
demonstrating a woeful lack of knowledge concerning natural
concentrations and exposure levels.
>this can be a cause of cancer (altough not a very
>frequent one as lung cancer and industrial pollution are the main
>causes).
Actually, a lower cause than cosmic ray exposure, cooking on a
kerosene stove, and certainly much less than results from average
consumption levels of any number of natural foodstuff carcinogens.
>The intensity of radiation decrease according to a square law
>(the equation of a sphere surface) and the problem is thus not
>occuring if you have a shell 2 meters away but a DU atom near the DNA
>of your lung cells (or bones, kidney, whatever).
U is an alpha decay element. The amounts of U you are talking about
would be lucky to produce a handful of alpha particles a year, not
nearly enough to induce carcinoma of subsequence in humans, and easily
overwhelmed by any number of other normal environmental factors.
there are many factors that come into play when considering carcinomas
induced by ionizing radiation. A few of the basics, necessary to
understanding this process, include energy of the particular radiation
of interest, and the mechanisms involved whereby this induce cancers.
The alpha emitted through normal decay of U-238 (and for that matter
most other U isotopes and Pu) are relatively low energy particles.
This means that they have very limited penetrating power (I covered
this somewhat in my previous post, it is covered much better in the
references I listed therein, if you'd prefer a few web links, however,
those at the end of this post should start to provide a clearer
understanding of what I am talking about.)
> Radioactivity is not
>always leading to a cancer, it is a question of probability linked to
>exposure.
>Now, imagine 5 kg of Du - or even worst 250 kg of DU in a bomb -
Again, please reference this claim.
>that
>vaporise in the air. We are not taking about 0.000059 kg in one year,
>and people who are in the vicinity are likely to get problems if they
>breath the dust. As for water that people may drink later. It depends
>where the DU bomb/shell fall; in the desert or far from any ground
>water used by people, one can bet on gradual dilution. Otherwise...
These are rather simplistic understanding sites, but, should help you
with some of the basics. If you wish to discuss this information in
more depth after you have acquired these basics, I will be happy to do
so, and also provide you with the next level of links to help guide
you to more complete understandings.
http://scifun.chem.wisc.edu/CHEMWEEK/radiation/radiation.html
Jeremy Olson
"assurancetourix" <assurance...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:a43e0ef7.03011...@posting.google.com...
Otherwise nothing. Studies that have been done conclude that you can
drink quite a large amount of DU without any significant health problems.
Of course DU isn't harmless. When it vaporizes it can cause cancer.
But nobody has been able to link DU to birth defects in Iraqi children.
That was the point. Also, the fact that he called them mini-atomic
bombs was deliberately misleading to say the least.
Jeremy Olson
Jeremy Olson
> On 12 Jan 2003 19:42:41 -0800, assurance...@yahoo.ca
> (assurancetourix) wrote:
>
> > Again, the fact that some tank armors are maden of du is irrelevant
> >because only vaporized du (at 400 degrees or so) is the problem. When
> >a 5 or 10 kg du shell hit a tank - or even worst when a 250 kg bomb
> >and its uranium is vaporised.
>
> Please identify any 250kg munition that contains DU (much less U). and
> no DU munition contains an bursting explosive charge (propellant, yes,
> but they are not explosive rounds--that would defeat the purpose of
> using DU in them in the first place).
I believe I read that DU naturally explodes, and turns into vapor.
It isn't a HE shell, but it does burst into flames I believe.
I believe the "poison" that is cause by DU is thought to be heavy metal
poisoning, and has nothing to do with radioactivity at all.
Jeremy Olson
Jeremy Olson
"assurancetourix" <assurance...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:a43e0ef7.03011...@posting.google.com...
If I had to guess it would be a mixture of chem, and bio agents that
were dispersed when WMD sites were bombed in the Gulf War.
Jeremy Olson
Trakar
<lor...@halcyon.com> wrote:
> I believe I read that DU naturally explodes, and turns into vapor.
>It isn't a HE shell, but it does burst into flames I believe.
"pyrophoric" is the term, and yes, finely divided, it will
spontaneously combust with normal concentrations of atmospheric
oxygen. You will get some of this, for example, as an AP round
composed of DU penetrates armor, from the fragments splintered from
the main round. Larger lumps are fairly inert,...generally.
> I believe the "poison" that is cause by DU is thought to be heavy metal
>poisoning, and has nothing to do with radioactivity at all.
Yes, I discussed this earlier. The heavy metal toxicity is somewhat
less than lead and in practice much less due to the body's
"reluctance" to uptake and biochemically interact with the uranyl
ions.
The CO
"assurancetourix" <assurance...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:a43e0ef7.03011...@posting.google.com...
<SNIP>
> Again, the fact that some tank armors are maden of du is irrelevant
> because only vaporized du (at 400 degrees or so) is the problem. When
> a 5 or 10 kg du shell hit a tank
Slug son, slug. Not shells. They are not explosive. Solid shots. A 20mm
slug doesn't weigh
anywhere near 5kg. Not sure about a Sabot, but that might be close. It
doesn't matter because they
aren't explosive, they just punch holes in armour.
- or even worst when a 250 kg bomb
> and its uranium is vaporised.
Here we go again. There are no '250Kg bombs that contain Uranium. Jeez.
> The average annual intakes of uranium by
> adults are estimated to be 460 micro-grams from ingestion and 0.59
> micro-grams from inhalation. Lungs are thus absorbing 0.000059 kg of
> uranium in 365 days; this can be a cause of cancer (altough not a very
> frequent one as lung cancer and industrial pollution are the main
> causes). The intensity of radiation decrease according to a square law
> (the equation of a sphere surface) and the problem is thus not
> occuring if you have a shell 2 meters away but a DU atom near the DNA
> of your lung cells (or bones, kidney, whatever). Radioactivity is not
> always leading to a cancer, it is a question of probability linked to
> exposure.
You neglected to mention that DU is an alpha emitter, in which case you
could sleep in
in a DU bedframe and the alpha particles will not penetrate the skin.
> Now, imagine 5 kg of Du - or even worst 250 kg of DU in a bomb - that
> vaporise in the air.
Except that it doesn't happen. Because there are no 250Kg bombs containing
DU.
In fact, there are NO bombs that contain Uranium (except nukes).
Speculating on the effect on non existent weaponry is pointless.
> We are not taking about 0.000059 kg in one year,
> and people who are in the vicinity are likely to get problems if they
> breath the dust.
Except that there are no huge 'DU bombs' to conveniently vapourise.
>As for water that people may drink later. It depends
> where the DU bomb/shell fall;
There are no DU bombs or shells. Only solid rounds that penetrate armour.
This is a recording....
> in the desert or far from any ground
> water used by people, one can bet on gradual dilution. Otherwise...
Otherwise nothing.
The CO
Trakar
wrote:
>> We are not taking about 0.000059 kg in one year,
>> and people who are in the vicinity are likely to get problems if they
>> breath the dust.
>
>Except that there are no huge 'DU bombs' to conveniently vapourise.
Though I don't think I mentioned it before, U enters the area of
concern when consumption rates approach 50 milligrams (note, if this
is spread out over a period of time equal to or greater than the
body's ability to pass the element, even this would have little
effect).
assurancetourix
> "assurancetourix" <assurance...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> news:a43e0ef7.03011...@posting.google.com...
>
> <SNIP>
>
> > Again, the fact that some tank armors are maden of du is irrelevant
> > because only vaporized du (at 400 degrees or so) is the problem. When
> > a 5 or 10 kg du shell hit a tank
>
> Slug son, slug. Not shells. They are not explosive. Solid shots. A 20mm
> slug doesn't weigh
> anywhere near 5kg. Not sure about a Sabot, but that might be close. It
> doesn't matter because they
> aren't explosive, they just punch holes in armour.
Shells, those kind or arrows with a DU core. It might be 20 kg of DU
instead, I don't remember the weight of those arrows. Agreed that they
don't explose.
>
> - or even worst when a 250 kg bomb
> > and its uranium is vaporised.
>
> Here we go again. There are no '250Kg bombs that contain Uranium. Jeez.
From this url:
http://www.jca.apc.org/DUCJ/seimei9-11e.html
"Depleted Uranium bombs are the US Forces' standard weaponry, and
often used for attacking tanks and underground facilities. In the Gulf
War, they were used by ground troops to attack Iraqi tanks. The bombs
were effective weapons to protect the allied forces from attacks,
because they were able to destroy tanks before the bullets from the
tanks reached them. In Kosobo they were mainly used for air strikes.
Many were used as highly efficient weapons, as seen in a 30 mm machine
gun bullet that destroyed a tank. In both cases, a destroyed tank
flamed up immediately, and with the inside heat culminated in 3000
degrees centigrade it was burnt up completely"
In other words, DU is not use only with arrows (or what you call
sabots) but bombs also. And it is doubtful that a bomb contain just 10
or 20 kg of DU as a sabot.
>
> > The average annual intakes of uranium by
> > adults are estimated to be 460 micro-grams from ingestion and 0.59
> > micro-grams from inhalation. Lungs are thus absorbing 0.000059 kg of
> > uranium in 365 days; this can be a cause of cancer (altough not a very
> > frequent one as lung cancer and industrial pollution are the main
> > causes). The intensity of radiation decrease according to a square law
> > (the equation of a sphere surface) and the problem is thus not
> > occuring if you have a shell 2 meters away but a DU atom near the DNA
> > of your lung cells (or bones, kidney, whatever). Radioactivity is not
> > always leading to a cancer, it is a question of probability linked to
> > exposure.
>
> You neglected to mention that DU is an alpha emitter, in which case you
> could sleep in
> in a DU bedframe and the alpha particles will not penetrate the skin.
>
Your bad faith could lift mountains. We talk about dust that find
its way winthin the lungs, as I said. Alpha, beta or gamma, the
uranium atoms are near lung ceils, and this is enough to ionise.
http://eces.org/articles/static/9796248005262.shtml
>
> There are no DU bombs or shells. Only solid rounds that penetrate armour.
> This is a recording....
Except that our "expert" has it wrong; there is bombs with DU (see
above).
assurancetourix
Leukemias are hardly associated with chemical poisons in general -
but radioactivity (like in Hiroshima) often....
I'll try to find back this story about a soldier who died from the WG
syndrome and whose bones were tested anormaly radioactives.
assurancetourix
碰 found this story concerning a Canadian soldier whose bones were
tested radioactives:
http://www.nuclearfiles.org/docs/2000/000206-du.html
I'm not saying that every disease in Bassorah or among veterans is
due to du, I'm saying that thare is serious indications that DU is not
so harmless.
Also some more accurate (and very interesting) statistics on leukemias
and cancers in Bassorah:
http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/du_iraq.htm
If you look at the tables in the same page, you'll see that
radioactivity is much higher near tanks, ammunitions, etc... So
radioactive dust played some role in 1991, as well as chemical toxines
generated by bombardments, but since children were often playing
within tanks or with du ammunitions it is not impossible that
something else was involved if the exposure was long.
In all the cases I would find totally irresposible to use DU shells or
DU bombs (see http://mondediplo.com/2002/03/03uranium ) in areas
densely populated like cities.
PS: For the other guy, DU ammunitions were not 20mm but 30mm and
bigger sabot also
The CO
"assurancetourix" <assurance...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:a43e0ef7.03011...@posting.google.com...
news:<avto2q$fr$1...@brokaw.wa.com>...
>
> 碰 found this story concerning a Canadian soldier whose bones were
> tested radioactives:
>
> http://www.nuclearfiles.org/docs/2000/000206-du.html
Durakovic again. You notice he doesn't mention WHAT isotopes he supposedly
found.
His 'research' is bogus, and it's likely that anything he is associated with
is equally so.
> I'm not saying that every disease in Bassorah or among veterans is
> due to du,
We agree on something.
> I'm saying that thare is serious indications that DU is not
> so harmless.
I have seen nothing that indicates this is so. Just a lot of baseless
accusations
and made up pseudo science to convince people that want something to hate
the USA about.
BTW, just to make it clear, I'm not American.
If you ingest enough of anything it can have physiological effects. This is
so for DU as for many other heavy metals,
such as lead. The toxicity of uranium is lower than lead, and uranium is
much harder to uptake or retain in the body.
> Also some more accurate (and very interesting) statistics on leukemias
> and cancers in Bassorah:
>
> http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/du_iraq.htm
Oh please.
2 things.
The article and research are being done by Iraqis.
They would be pleased to do anything to make the US look bad, if that means
making up
stuff that's fine. Propaganda.
The area around Basra is polluted and contaminated as hell, they got that
right.
But it's industrial and chemical pollution by a dictatorship run by a
lunatic that has
no environmental or occupational health regulations. They pollute as much as
they
like and the hell with the consequences.
> If you look at the tables in the same page, you'll see that
> radioactivity is much higher near tanks, ammunitions, etc... So
> radioactive dust played some role in 1991,
I find the figures to be unlikely. This comes from Saddams propaganda shop.
For some peculiar reason you WANT DU to be the cause of everything from
the common cold to smokers cough, because it's American in origin.
No other reason. Pulverising a low level alpha emitter like DU will not
make
anything glow in the dark. You seem to have this ancient alchemistic idea
that
DU will suddenly become dreadfully radioactive when it's burned up or
pulverised.
It ain't so.
> as well as chemical toxines
> generated by bombardments,
WHAT 'chemical toxins'? More unwarranted assumptions/wishful thinking.
> but since children were often playing
> within tanks or with du ammunitions it is not impossible that
> something else was involved if the exposure was long.
And what DU munitions were these? The ones that exploded or the ones that
are pyroclastic (ignite spontaneously when heated suddenly by the impact).
And what tanks are they playing in? I'd suggest that any hit with a DU
round,
be it from an A-10 or a sabot from a tank are pretty much scrap metal.
> In all the cases I would find totally irresposible to use DU shells or
> DU bombs (see http://mondediplo.com/2002/03/03uranium ) in areas
> densely populated like cities.
3 things.
No. 1. This is a kook site. Written by kooks for other kooks to read. It
contains a lot of wild guesses
and outright fabrications. As long as it makes the USA look bad, anything
goes.
No. 2. Read this one word at a time, since you seem to have trouble
comprehending it.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A DU 'BOMB'. Doesn't exist. But for some stupid
reason
you keep quoting the same stupid website with the same bullshit written on
it.
The DU 'warhead' they SPECULATE about doesn't exist. It's possible that a
'bunker penetrator' such
as they describe might be built, but the warhead is not made of DU, because
it's not explosive. They MIGHT
be able to use a conventional explosive warhead with a DU nose cap to
penetrate a hardened structure. I don't know of
anything in the US inventory that does use this however. The yanks seem to
get by just fine using more or less conventional
bombs simply by dropping several in the same hole, which tends to get deeper
and deeper.
No. 3. Unless they've started tank warfare in the cities , they don't.
Because that's the only thing DU
rounds are used for. Anti-armour. Period. There is no 'bombardment' of
any urban area with DU munitions.
> PS: For the other guy, DU ammunitions were not 20mm but 30mm
Apologies, the calibre of the Avenger cannon in the A-10 is indeed 30mm.
> and bigger sabot also
Bigger than what?
The CO
Trakar
wrote:
>> and bigger sabot also
>
>Bigger than what?
Sabot envy.
;)
The CO
> "The CO" <the...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:<avuhsd$j03dt$1...@ID-146682.news.dfncis.de>...
> > "assurancetourix" <assurance...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> > news:a43e0ef7.03011...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > <SNIP>
> >
> > > Again, the fact that some tank armors are maden of du is irrelevant
> > > because only vaporized du (at 400 degrees or so) is the problem. When
> > > a 5 or 10 kg du shell hit a tank
> >
> > Slug son, slug. Not shells. They are not explosive. Solid shots. A
> > 20mm slug doesn't weigh anywhere near 5kg. Not sure about a Sabot, but
that might be close. It
> > doesn't matter because they aren't explosive, they just punch holes in
armour.
>
> Shells, those kind or arrows with a DU core. It might be 20 kg of DU
> instead, I don't remember the weight of those arrows. Agreed that they
> don't explose.
A breakthrough.
> >
> > - or even worst when a 250 kg bomb
> > > and its uranium is vaporised.
> >
> > Here we go again. There are no '250Kg bombs that contain Uranium.
Jeez.
>
>
> From this url:
>
> http://www.jca.apc.org/DUCJ/seimei9-11e.html
>
> "Depleted Uranium bombs are the US Forces' standard weaponry, and
> often used for attacking tanks and underground facilities.
> In the Gulf War, they were used by ground troops to attack Iraqi tanks.
Again, a quote that indicates the individual has no idea what a DU AP round
is.
BOMB=EXPLODE. They are NOT BOMBS.
>The bombs were effective weapons to protect the allied forces from attacks,
Whatever.
> because they were able to destroy tanks before the bullets from the
> tanks reached them.
??? I have no idea what this means.
> In Kosobo they were mainly used for air strikes.
Considering there were no ground forces in Kosovo I'd say any DU projectiles
were
entirely delivered by air.
> Many were used as highly efficient weapons, as seen in a 30 mm machine
> gun bullet that destroyed a tank.
Can opener.
> In both cases, a destroyed tank
> flamed up immediately, and with the inside heat culminated in 3000
> degrees centigrade it was burnt up completely"
Yes, because the DU in the round is travelling at very high velocity, and
when you get DU hot enough
in oxygen it will combust. The term for this is pyroclastic. This doesn't
alter it's atomic structure at all, so
it doesn't suddenly become an all powerful emitter of radiation. It just
burns up into Uranium Oxide.
> In other words, DU is not use only with arrows (or what you call
> sabots) but bombs also.
No it isn't. The moron who wrote the article doesn't get it.
Anti tank rounds are either
1) Sabot
2) AP slugs (as used from the air by the A-10 in it's Avenger cannon.)
> And it is doubtful that a bomb contain just 10
> or 20 kg of DU as a sabot.
Doesn't contain even that much, do you understand how a sabot round works?
> > > The average annual intakes of uranium by
> > > adults are estimated to be 460 micro-grams from ingestion and 0.59
> > > micro-grams from inhalation. Lungs are thus absorbing 0.000059 kg of
> > > uranium in 365 days; this can be a cause of cancer (altough not a very
> > > frequent one as lung cancer and industrial pollution are the main
> > > causes). The intensity of radiation decrease according to a square law
> > > (the equation of a sphere surface) and the problem is thus not
> > > occuring if you have a shell 2 meters away but a DU atom near the DNA
> > > of your lung cells (or bones, kidney, whatever). Radioactivity is not
> > > always leading to a cancer, it is a question of probability linked to
> > > exposure.
> >
> > You neglected to mention that DU is an alpha emitter, in which case you
> > could sleep in a DU bedframe and the alpha particles will not penetrate
the skin.
> Your bad faith could lift mountains.
Faith?? No room for faith here.
You ignorance could lift mountain ranges, but I digress.
> We talk about dust that find its way winthin the lungs, as I said. Alpha,
> beta or gamma, the uranium atoms are near lung ceils, and this is enough
to ionise.
You need to read more, if you did, you would understand that the decay rate
of U238 (99.8% of DU) is very very very slow. That's why it has such a long
half life.
So the decay products are produced very slowly, in the miniscule
amounts we are talking about being inhaled, only a minute number of
individual atoms will decay in any reasonable time frame.
This produces alpha particles at a level significantly lower than we get
every day from walking around outside.
I understand your concern, but it is clearly something you have no idea of
the mechanics of, but it sounds bad (because it's Uranium and therefore
radioactive and 'dangerous') so you want it banned. The fact that this
would
aid the enemies of the US by having them withdraw a very useful munition
would
is apparently the ultimate intent of this.
> http://eces.org/articles/static/9796248005262.shtml
>
> >
> > There are no DU bombs or shells. Only solid rounds that penetrate
> > armour.This is a recording....
>
> Except that our "expert" has it wrong; there is bombs with DU (see
> above).
Try again. The blurb at the start of a news article is hardly a definitive
reference.
The nearest you would get to a DU 'bomb' (and AFAIK, there are none yet)
would be a hardened
DU nosecap on a conventional warhead, for penetrating a bunker or other
hardened target.
Even if that were the case, the DU doesn't explode, and we would be talking
about a fairly small amount.
It's also by it's nature a fairly specialised useage, for general bombing of
surface installations, it would not
be used, so you are still not going to get massive amounts of it in the
environment.
I tell you three times, there are no 'DU Bombs' it's just something that the
anti DU crowd invented because it
sounds bad.
The CO
Trakar
<as...@somewhere.in.oz.au> wrote:
> The term for this is pyroclastic.
Sorry, couldn't let it set like this any longer.
pyroclastic is a description of the mixture of fragments and
superheated gas and dust produced in a volcanic explosion.
The term you are looking for is Pyrophoric.
;-)
Trakar
>Sorry, couldn't let it set like this any longer.
>pyroclastic is a description of the mixture of fragments and
>superheated gas and dust produced in a volcanic explosion.
>The term you are looking for is Pyrophoric.
>;-)
Perhaps a bit more pedantic sounding than I intended, pyroclastic is
probably a fairly accurate visual descriptive, whereas pyrophoric is
more of a process or mechanism descriptive. I must be tired, now I'm
correcting myself!
LAMS
;-)
The CO
Don't let it bother you. I proof read that twice and read straight past the
stupid mistake. Argh!
The official description of DU describes the substance as pyrophoric. It's
perhaps reasonable to
state that its action post impact is to form a mini pyroclastic cloud within
the vehicle. But that's not
what I intended in the post, it was just a misfiring synapse....:^)
Must have been a hangover from watching a rerun of some exploding mountain
movie a few weeks back,
complete with pyroclastic cloud. (Can't even think of the name of the darn
thing now)
The CO