Freedom4um

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Health
See other Health Articles

Title: Depleted U - An impromptu interview w/ a Career Tank Specialist
Source: me
URL Source: http://none.com
Published: Apr 27, 2005
Author: Tom007
Post Date: 2005-04-27 22:07:28 by tom007
Keywords: Specialist, impromptu, interview
Views: 2011
Comments: 488

Had an intesting conversation with a man I have known for about 5 months. He delivers to my store, handles alot of cash and is a "straight up" kind of guy. I like him, and I am sure his employer does as well. A steady Eddie man, the kind that makes the country run.

We somehow got talking about the ME, and he mentioned he had been to Egypt, and really did not care for any of it. I asked him how it was that he found himself in the ME and he said he was in the service of the military.

Naturally I wanted to know in what type of service he was in. Well, he was drafted into 'Nam, and did twentyfour years, and tanks were his thing. He started out in a tank designation I did not know of. I know a little about M1A1' and wanted to know some things about them, and the man was very evidently the real deal, no swagger, no he man stories etc. He is who he claims.

After some talk of tactics, guns, how to disable an M1A1, exploding armor, all of which he had the knolwedge of a solider who had spent many years with this type of equipment. He was pretty high up in the system.

Then I asked him about DU. Well turns out he was one of the men on the ground testing it at Aburdeen Proving grounds, shooting various things, like mounds of earth, then digging into it to estimate the ballistics, etc.

Did this many time, and my friend related that one time a DU projectile fragmented into the mound of earth. They were to go dig all the pieces of the remenents out. As he tells me, there was a hole that one of the fragments had made, and as they were poking around, a field mouse was scared up and scampered into that hole made by a fragment.

He just sat back and waited for it to come out-; it didn't. After a few minutes, he saw that it was dead.

He went and got the General of the testing operation, and showed him what he had discovered. The General and his men looked at the situation and told all the testers to go away. For three weeks the site was closed, except to the investigators.

Three weeks later, the investigation was complete. The report said the mouse died of "starvation". My friend looked at me, eye to eye, and laughed. "That mouse damn sure didn't die of starvation", he said emphatically.

He said when the DU rounds hit a tank, he could "see a mushroom cloud", formed (Note, alot of high intensity heat will form a mushroom cloud event).

He said "if you take a giger counter into one of the tanks with DU munitions it will beep like crazy". He said that the explosiom of a DU round into steel was" basically a miniature explosion of a nuclear bomb".

He said they would put goats in the test tanks, and around them. He stated that " for twentyfive meters around the tank, hit by a DU round, all the goats would be dead, ten meters, mangled, turned inside out".

He believed DU dust to be alot more dangerous than the military was allowing.

This man is much more creadible, to me, much more, than the talking hairdoo's reading spin points from the Pentagon.

Draw your own conclusions, this is what I heard today, from a man with incontrovertable creadibility with me. He was there.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 479.

#262. To: tom007, ALL (#0)

Explaining How Depleted Uranium
Is Killing Civilians, Soldiers, Land

Nano-particles pinpointed

By Christopher Bollyn
January 7, 2004, American Free Press

Depleted uranium weapons, and the untold misery they wreak on mankind, are taboo subjects in the mainstream media. This exclusive report should break the media embargo imposed on the American people.

Despite being a grossly under-reported subject in the mainstream, there is intense public interest in depleted uranium (DU) and the damage it inflicts on humankind and the environment.

While American Free Press is actively investigating DU weapons and how they contribute to Gulf War Syndrome, the corporate-controlled press ignores the illegal use of DU and its long-lasting effects on the health of veterans and the public.

In August 2004 American Free Press published a ground-breaking four- part series on DU weapons and the long-term health risks they pose to soldiers and civilians alike. Information provided to AFP by experts and scientists, some of it published for the first time in this paper, has increased public awareness of how exposure to small particles of DU can severely affect human health.

Leuren Moret, a Berkeley-based geo-scientist with expertise in atmospheric dust, corresponds with AFP on DU issues. Recently Moret provided a copy of her letters to a British radiation biologist, Dr. Chris Busby, about how nanometer size particles — less than one-tenth of a micron and smaller — of DU once inhaled or absorbed into the body, can cause long-term damage to one’s health.

Busby is one of the founders of Green Audit, a British organization that monitors companies “whose activities might threaten the environment and health of citizens.”

Moret’s writings were meant to assist Busby in a legal case being heard in the High Court in London where a former defense worker, Richard David, 49, is suing Normal Air Garrett, Ltd., an aircraft parts company now owned by Honeywell Aerospace, claiming exposure to DU on the job has made his life a “living hell.”

David worked as a component fitter on fighter planes and bombers but had to quit due to health problems. He says he developed a cough within weeks of starting work.

Today, David suffers from a variety of symptoms like those known as Gulf War Syndrome, including respiratory and kidney problems, bowel conditions and painful joints. Medical tests reveal mutations to his DNA and damage to his chromosomes, which, he says, could only have been caused by ionizing radiation. He has also been diagnosed with a terminal lung condition.

Honeywell denies DU was ever used at the plant in Yeovil, Somerset, where David worked for 10 years until 1995. David claims that DU’s existence at the plant was denied because it is an official secret.

David has asked the High Court for more time to gather evidence. The hearing is due to resume in April. “I don’t have any legal representation,” David said, “so I am representing myself. It is a real David versus Goliath case.

“I am confident I will win. I hope to set a precedent for other cases of people who have suffered from the effects of depleted uranium,” he said.

Moret’s letters on the particle effect of DU is based on research done by Marion Fulk, a nuclear physical chemist and former scientist with the Manhattan Project and the National Laboratory at Livermore, Calif. Fulk, who has developed a “particle theory” about how DU nano-particles affect human DNA, donates his time and expertise to help bring information about DU to the public.

Asked about Fulk’s particle theory, Busby said it is “quite sound.”

“DU is much more dangerous than they say,” Busby added. “I’ve always said that it contributes significantly to Gulf War Syndrome.”

When Moret’s correspondence to Dr. Busby was posted on the Internet over the New Year’s holiday under the title “How Depleted Uranium Weapons Are Killing Our Troops,” some 6,000 people read the letter in the first two days. The following Monday, a producer from BBC’s Panorama program contacted Moret to arrange an interview.

If the BBC follows up with an investigation on the health effects of DU, it may be hard for the U.S. media to maintain their cover-up. More than 500,000 “Gulf War Era” vets currently receive disability compensation, many of them for a variety of symptoms generally referred to as Gulf War Syndrome. Experts blame DU for many of these symptoms.

“The numbers are overwhelming, but the potential horrors only get worse,” Robert C. Koehler of the Chicago-based Tribune Media Services wrote in an article about DU weapons entitled “Silent Genocide.”

“DU dust does more than wreak havoc on the immune systems of those who breathe it or touch it; the substance also alters one’s genetic code,” Koehler wrote. “The Pentagon’s response to such charges is denial, denial, denial. And the American media is its moral co-conspirator.”

U.S. GOVERNMENT KNOWS

The U.S. government has known for at least 20 years that DU weapons produce clouds of poison gas on impact. These clouds of aerosolized DU are laden with billions of toxic sub-micron sized particles. A 1984 Department of Energy conference on nuclear airborne waste reported that tests of DU anti-tank missiles showed that at least 31 percent of the mass of a DU penetrator is converted to nano-particles on impact. In larger bombs the percentage of aerosolized DU increases to nearly 100 percent, Fulk told AFP.

DU is harmful in three ways, according to Fulk: “Chemical toxicity, radiological toxicity and particle toxicity.”

Particles in the nano-meter (one billionth of a meter) range are a “new breed of cat,” Moret wrote. Because the size of the nano-particles allows them to pass freely throughout the organism and into the nucleus of its cells, exposure to nano-particles causes different symptoms than exposure to larger particles of the same substance.

Internalized DU particles, Fulk said, act as “a non-specific catalyst” in both “nuclear and non-nuclear” ways. This means that the uranium particle can affect human DNA and RNA because of both its chemical and radiological properties. This is why internalized DU particles cause “many, many diseases,” Fulk said.

Asked if this is how DU causes severe birth defects, Fulk said, “Yes.”

MILITARY AWARE

The military is aware of DU’s harmful effects on the human genetic code. A 2001 study of DU’s effect on DNA done by Dr. Alexandra C. Miller for the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute in Bethesda, Md., indicates that DU’s chemical instability causes 1 million times more genetic damage than would be expected from its radiation effect alone, Moret wrote.

Dr. Miller requested that questions be sent in writing and copied to a military spokesman. She did tell AFP that it should be noted that her studies showing that DU is “neoplastically transforming and genotoxic” are based on in vitro cellular research.

Studies have shown that inhaled nano-particles are far more toxic than micro- sized particles of the same basic chemical composition. British toxicopathologist Vyvyan Howard has reported that the increased toxicity of the nano-particle is due to its size.

For example, when mice were exposed to virus-size particles of Teflon (0.13 microns) in a University of Rochester study, there were no ill effects. But when mice were exposed to nano-particles of Teflon for 15 minutes, nearly all the mice died within 4 hours.

“Exposure pathways for depleted uranium can be through the skin, by inhalation, and ingestion,” Moret wrote. “Nano-particles have high mobility and can easily enter the body. Inhalation of nano-particles of depleted uranium is the most hazardous exposure, because the particles pass through the lung-blood barrier directly into the blood.

“When inhaled through the nose, nano-particles can cross the olfactory bulb directly into the brain through the blood brain barrier, where they migrate all through the brain,” she wrote. “Many Gulf era soldiers exposed to depleted uranium have been diagnosed with brain tumors, brain damage and impaired thought processes. Uranium can interfere with the mitochondria, which provide energy for the nerve processes, and transmittal of the nerve signal across synapses in the brain.

“Damage to the mitochondria, which provide all energy to the cells and nerves, can cause chronic fatigue syndrome, Lou Gehrig’s disease, Parkinson’s disease and Hodgkin’s disease.”

Eternal Vigilance

BTP Holdings  posted on  2005-04-28   23:46:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#314. To: BTP Holdings, Jhoffa_, Mr Nuke Buzzcut, Aric2000, robin, crack monkey, Axenolith, christine, tom007, SKYDRIFTER, Dude Lebowski, h-a-l-f-w-i-t-t, Zipporah (#262)

Your 'experts' are not so expert and very obviously biased. They are radical Left wing types 'working' outside of their fields. A quick web search will reveal that you have a geo-scientist and two physicists making medical claims. They are also espousing all sorts of extreme Left stuff unrelated to DU and make their claims sound valid by creating groups with impressive names and websites that are primarily just them.

They also spout obvious lies. The 500,000 disabled US Gulf War I vets claim is absurd. That would be nearly all of them. It would be statistically impossible for that to be true and yet none of the several vets that I know have any medical issues at all. Hell, according to the VA, the VA has only treated less than half that number for ANY condition whatsoever!

The claims about birth defects are unsubstantiated. In some places, these people have claimed that 2/3 of the vets children concieved after the war have birth defects. That DESTROYS any credibility that they may have had; The New England Journal of Medicine:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/336/23/1650

ABSTRACT

Background There has been suspicion that service in the Persian Gulf War affected the health of veterans adversely, and there have been claims of an increased rate of birth defects among the children of those veterans.

Methods We evaluated the routinely collected data on all live births at 135 military hospitals in 1991, 1992, and 1993. The data base included up to eight diagnoses from the International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) for each birth hospitalization, plus information on the demographic characteristics and service history of the parents. The records of over 75,000 newborns were evaluated for any birth defect (ICD-9-CM codes 740 to 759, plus neoplasms and hereditary diseases) and for birth defects defined as severe on the basis of the specific diagnoses and the criteria of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Results During the study period, 33,998 infants were born to Gulf War veterans and 41,463 to nondeployed veterans at military hospitals. The overall risk of any birth defect was 7.45 percent, and the risk of severe birth defects was 1.85 percent. These rates are similar to those reported in civilian populations. In the multivariate analysis, there was no significant association for either men or women between service in the Gulf War and the risk of any birth defect or of severe birth defects in their children.

Conclusions This analysis found no evidence of an increase in the risk of birth defects among the children of Gulf War veterans.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-29   15:06:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#317. To: Kyle (#314)

Putz. Your study is dated June, 1997. It's coming on 8 years old. The material you've chosen to ignore is current. Here's a dollar. Buy a clue.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2005-04-29   15:11:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#321. To: Jethro Tull (#317)

Putz. Your study is dated June, 1997. It's coming on 8 years old. The material you've chosen to ignore is current. Here's a dollar. Buy a clue.

So what are you saying, Jethro? Do you mean to imply that large numbers of children had RETROACTIVE birth defects in the last few years? Idiot.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-29   15:19:41 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#323. To: Kyle (#321)

So what are you saying, Jethro?

I'm saying that your 8 year old material is refuted by current data. Take the time to read what folks posted to you.

BTW, can you say Bahhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaa?

Jethro Tull  posted on  2005-04-29   15:49:03 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#325. To: Jethro Tull (#323)

I'm saying that your 8 year old material is refuted by current data. Take the time to read what folks posted to you.

Children can't retroactively have birth defects. What are you saying? Is the NEJM lying? Is whatever looney you're refering to more credible than the NEJM?

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-29   15:59:25 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#330. To: Kyle (#325)

Children can't retroactively have birth defects

Duh...

Current material on this thread connects DU and birth defects.

Spin dreidel spin.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2005-04-29   16:09:26 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#333. To: Jethro Tull (#330)

Current material on this thread connects DU and birth defects.

Give me a link to something verifable. Anything referencing back to Moret, Busby, etc. does not qualify. Peer reviewed scientific or medical journals prefered.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-29   16:46:54 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#352. To: Kyle (#333)

Give me a link to something .

Here's something verifiable. We're getting our asses kicked and it's well deserved. There was a time I actually wanted these guys home, but now I say to those who continue to fight for Bush, stay where you are, your day is coming. The Iraqis have us tied down and the all volunteer military is showing signs of severe strain. I recently read where a 55 year old grandmother is being returned to active duty. This is good. I pray we continue to lose these young and old warmongers. If they want to be in Iraq, they’re brain dead anyway. Good riddance.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2005-04-29   17:58:52 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#364. To: Jethro Tull (#352)

We're getting our asses kicked and it's well deserved. There was a time I actually wanted these guys home, but now I say to those who continue to fight for Bush, stay where you are, your day is coming. The Iraqis have us tied down and the all volunteer military is showing signs of severe strain. I recently read where a 55 year old grandmother is being returned to active duty. This is good. I pray we continue to lose these young and old warmongers. If they want to be in Iraq, they’re brain dead anyway. Good riddance.

You are a sick fuck.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-29   23:15:09 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#372. To: Kyle (#364)

You are a sick fuck.

Naw. The sick fucks are the ones cheerleading the war. That would be you.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-04-29   23:36:50 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#380. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#372)

Naw. The sick fucks are the ones cheerleading the war. That would be you.

So you like seeing our troops killed too. Mind if I bring some parents of soldiers to this thread, scum?

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-30   0:03:59 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#385. To: Kyle (#380)

Mind if I bring some parents of soldiers to this thread, scum?

Ahhh...I consider our troops akin to bungee jumpers. They both know the dangers they face, but do it anyway. Sure, bring the parents here. Let me tell them that Bush killed their kid by lying to the nation. They deserve the truth.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2005-04-30   0:10:05 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#391. To: Jethro Tull, FormerLurker, sfvgto, tom007, duckhunter, BrerRabbit, swarthguy, xUSMC0311, Bill D Berger, honway, Aric2000, BeAChooser (#385)

Sure, bring the parents here. Let me tell them that Bush killed their kid by lying to the nation.

That's a furious backpedal you're doing. Now, you want to commiserate w/ them over what Bush is doing to their kids. A few minutes ago, you were reveling in their death:

"...but now I say to those who continue to fight for Bush, stay where you are, your day is coming."

"I pray we continue to lose these young and old warmongers. If they want to be in Iraq, they’re brain dead anyway. Good riddance."

Apparently you don't have the balls to stick w/ your initial position or the balls to change it. So you weasel. What a pathetic punk you are.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-30   0:21:10 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#395. To: Kyle (#391)

Kyle, I have a question for you. If you've already answered it I apologize, since I have not read all 400 postings in this thread. My question has to do with the pictures I've seen of horribly deformed babies in Iraq. The claim that has been made is that

1) these births are extremely abnormal and out of the range of statictical normalcy, i.e. there are way more babies being born defective than could ever be explained by natural causes, and that

2) The cause of these birth defects is depleted uranium.

I'd like to know what you think of the birth defects that have been reported, and the reputed cause of these defects. The reason I'm asking is because the pictures I've seen are extremely horrifying, these defects seem to be well outside the realm of anything that could happen naturally in anything more than 1 in 100,000 births, and apparently the rate of these hideously deformed children is much, much higher than that.

Elliott Jackalope  posted on  2005-04-30   0:29:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#398. To: Elliott Jackalope (#395)

these defects seem to be well outside the realm of anything that could happen naturally in anything more than 1 in 100,000 births, and apparently the rate of these hideously deformed children is much, much higher than that.

Actually 'Lope, the norm is a LOT higher than that. Additionally, a lot of that stuff was being purported to be caused by the "sanctions" in the intervening years. I'm willing to believe that any number over the "norm" for Iraq is generally due to malnutrition (lack of stuff like folic acid), which was rampant in areas of Iraq pre war and probably continues to this day.

The test of this will be when, if a semblance of normalcy comes around, these defects taper off rapidly (from the increasing dietary stability), or linger further into the future (which would indicate a persistent environmental factor.

Axenolith  posted on  2005-04-30   0:49:16 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#403. To: Axenolith (#398)

Actually 'Lope, the norm is a LOT higher than that. Additionally, a lot of that stuff was being purported to be caused by the "sanctions" in the intervening years. I'm willing to believe that any number over the "norm" for Iraq is generally due to malnutrition (lack of stuff like folic acid), which was rampant in areas of Iraq pre war and probably continues to this day.

Malnutrition could be part of the cause.. due to the sanctions as well as malnutrition since the invasion which has worsened.. but would it cause 3 Xs the number of deformaties since the Gulf War as prior?

Zipporah  posted on  2005-04-30   1:04:00 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#411. To: Zipporah (#403)

but would it cause 3 Xs the number of deformaties since the Gulf War as prior?

That would be dependant on a number of factors that need to be determined. The before and after rate, the general pollutant load over X time in an area that appears to be suffering from an increase, even the amount of stress that expectant mothers are exposed to.

It's entirely possible that something like DU could add, say, a case or two to a tally in the hundreds, but there are to many nasty things floating around industrial civilization (especially when you blow them up, burn them, or stir a lot of people up and they end up poking around in it where they normally wouldn't be) that would really create birth mayhem if you exposed a lot of people to them.

Generally, there are three chromosomal or cellular effects of chemicals; Mutagenic (causes genetic damage to egg and sperm that manifests itself in subsequent generations), Teratogenic (causes damage-defects in the foetus during the developement) and Carcinogenic (causes cellular damage resulting in tumors-cancer).

If I had to rank DU in terms of it's greatest potential threat out of those 3, I'd pick cancer.

Something did just come to mind with respect to mutations and defects, If any of those people lived around an area destroyed which had any type of biological research facility, the shit they use to chop DNA could have been released in small quantities and it would probably present defects and physical manifestations in mature people. My wife used to work at Cetus (pre-Chiron) and she said they had outrageous chemicals for PCR and gene sequencing, shit that, if ou got it on you, you WERE going to get cancer or tumors, no ifs-ands or buts about it...

Axenolith  posted on  2005-04-30   3:04:02 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#416. To: Axenolith (#411)

Generally, there are three chromosomal or cellular effects of chemicals; Mutagenic (causes genetic damage to egg and sperm that manifests itself in subsequent generations), Teratogenic (causes damage-defects in the foetus during the developement) and Carcinogenic (causes cellular damage resulting in tumors-cancer).

If I had to rank DU in terms of it's greatest potential threat out of those 3, I'd pick cancer.

Something did just come to mind with respect to mutations and defects, If any of those people lived around an area destroyed which had any type of biological research facility, the shit they use to chop DNA could have been released in small quantities and it would probably present defects and physical manifestations in mature people. My wife used to work at Cetus (pre-Chiron) and she said they had outrageous chemicals for PCR and gene sequencing, shit that, if ou got it on you, you WERE going to get cancer or tumors, no ifs-ands or buts about it...

Thanks..for the explanation, particularly from someone who is a scientist and is not in the industry and doesn't have some self serving interest.

Now according to this study re Desert Storm "350 metric tons of DU were used in Operation Desert Storm as armor-penetrating ammunition with an estimated amount of 3-6 million grams of DU released into the atmosphere".. Mutagenic properties of DU is what Dr. Rokke and others have addressed regarding both Iraqis and soldiers w/Gulf War syndome and Balkan syndrome, that being said you had mentioned malnutrition i.e. folic acid causing birth defects which typically are defects such as cleft palate and spina bifida but seems the Iraqi children being born with deformaties are much more severe.. and secondly, the children of soldiers returning from the war are showing similar deformaties.. which would discount the malnutrition factor. Also.. in regard to the sanctions being a part of the problem re malnutrition:

"According to Dr Nawar Ali, at the University of Baghdad, who works in the newborn babies research department, a significant number of cases of deformed babies had been reported since 2003.

“There have been 650 cases in total since August 2003 reported in government hospitals - that is a 20 percent increase from the previous regime. Private hospitals were not included in the study, so the number could be higher,” Ali warned."

So.. taking this into consideration, would this not point to mutagenic properties of DU or is my conclusion incorrect?

Zipporah  posted on  2005-04-30   11:14:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#470. To: Zipporah (#416)

Thanks..for the explanation, particularly from someone who is a scientist and is not in the industry and doesn't have some self serving interest.

What's kind of ironic is that I started out in the environmental industry somewhat on the "save the earth" camp. After a while I came to realize that, in the US in particular, the regulatory environment has evolved to the point where even without further rule making or "tweaking", the improvements will continue merely due to the fact that obsolescence and efficiency are doing the heavy lifting. Most new rules or regulations are, IMHO, solely to ass rape anybody who isn't either bureaucratically connected or able to afford in house legal revue.

Now according to this study re Desert Storm "350 metric tons of DU were used in Operation Desert Storm as armor-penetrating ammunition with an estimated amount of 3-6 million grams of DU released into the atmosphere"..

Stepping aside from the DU debate itself for a minute, the way this is worded automatically started the numeric shenanigans meter. Why use the 3-6 million grams released to air as a figure when they already started with metric tons? (1 metric ton = ~1.10 short tons, a "short" ton being the 2000 pound kind). Generally it would be because 3-6 million grams carries far more dramatic weight than saying 3-6 metric tons released to air. When I see that number, and I look at it versus the releases of other common atmospheric pollutants (metals included), I'm starting to get the "Ho Hum" because when you start extrapolating that amount over any significant surface area, you quickly start to see that the resultant concentrations are going to go asymptotically small.

We'll take the largest figure in any instance, to give the benefit of the doubt. We'll keep figures to metric (that's how I always get lab results, but if you want conversions I'll put a neat converter utility on my web space for a while that people can DL).

Assumptions:
1) The soil in the area in question is predominantly sand and fine silty sands. We'll assign an unconsolidated weight for this soil of 70lbs per cubic foot (on the conservative side) or 1121kg per cubic meter.
2) For the sake of exercise, we'll assume our aerosolized DU was released along stretches of the "Highway of Death" road (So I can gander shots of the road and get lane widths and the general look of the surrounding area).
3) I'm going to limit the dispersal to 45.72 meters (150 feet) of soil surface with the inferred pavement area (impermiable) taken out, both sides of road (half each side) for 1 kilometer (1000 meters).

Given the maximum airborne release, distributed within the top 15.24 cm (6 inches) of soil in our area (1000m x 45.72 meters), we would get 769 parts per million (ppm) DU in soil (6 million grams over nearly 8 billion grams of soil).

Now, there's a lot of stuff that starts raising flags at 100's of ppm, but for perspective, Lead is considered hazardous at 1000 ppm total lead and 5 ppm soluble. The thing is though, we've seriously narrowed our possible contamination area. If we head towards more realistic areas of dispersal and length of highway, we quickly are into quantities of mass and area that make contamination by 6 metric tons of material essentially meaningless.

If we go to a 1 square kilometer area, we drop to 35ppm, 10 square kilometers, 0.35ppm (or 350 parts per billion (ppb)).

Now, the TWA (Time Weighted Average, 8 hour) for exposure to Uranium metal (the NIOSH gives it as such, but if it's for un-depleted, then it's worse anyway) is 0.2 mg/m3 (This means that it's safe to work in levels of the substance in air up to this value for 8 hour periods and that's the California limit which is stricter than Federal). To achieve this quantity in air starting from soil with 769ppm in it you would need to mobilize 0.26g/m3, and while that's small looking number wise, you're talking approaching "can't see hand in front of face" dust levels for that and we're at the highest, most conservative, smallest area, of our calculation.

In any instance where I was unsure here I fudged toward giving DU the advantage in mass, concentration, and area. After having actually worked through this and seeing what comes out, there has to be some other cause, or combination of causes for the effects mentioned. Even if we assume an order of magnitude greater release of airborne (60 metric tons as opposed to 6) contaminant, in order to maintain an even remotely reasonable exposure level, the material has to be limited to an approximately 10 square kilometer area, and every person who is claimed to be affected by it has to have spent a LONG period of time in that particular area AND it had to be insanely dusty during their entire exposure time.

I realize that at the conclusion of running through this, the arguement for DU as a significant cause of war related maladies is effectively destroyed by the quantities given within the paper. There may be specific instances where succeptible people have been severely affected by heavy exposure to inordinantly high concentrations caused by being around direct hit areas, or burning vehicles but the numbers cited as sickened in claims are just not physically possible at the release level and area.

That said, if there are really large numbers of Veterans and or Iraqi's who are exhibiting large numbers and types of severe maladies outside of the statistical norm then I would highly suspect that this debate (in general, not amongst the folks here) is a red herring to throw people off the trail of something a LOT worse than DU.

Axenolith  posted on  2005-05-01   22:08:10 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#471. To: All (#470)

P.S. The handy unit converter is

HERE

Hollar if it's not DLing right, I'll leave it up for a few days...

Axenolith  posted on  2005-05-01   22:11:08 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#477. To: Axenolith (#471)

P.S. The handy unit converter

Hmmmm.... any chance of adding a furlongs per fortnight conversion to the Speed tab? I find I'm frequently needing to express the acceleration of disk drive stepper motors in furlongs/fortnight2 :-/

Starwind  posted on  2005-05-02   1:41:27 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#478. To: Starwind (#477)

Square root of negitive two, usually works on these sorts of problems.

tom007  posted on  2005-05-02   1:42:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#479. To: tom007 (#478)

Square root of negitive two, usually works on these sorts of problems.

Or so you imagine.

Starwind  posted on  2005-05-02   1:45:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 479.

#480. To: Starwind (#479)

Yep, usually works, as you can imagine.

tom007  posted on  2005-05-02 01:55:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 479.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest