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: 2499
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 # 58.

#8. To: tom007 (#0)

My best guess is that the DU dust is physically toxic metal, similar to inhaling cyanide dust. It's not that much to do with the radiation.


SKYDRIFTER  posted on  2005-04-28   1:53:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: SKYDRIFTER (#8)

The basic gist of this is...

Lead used as a projectile is JUST as big a deal as DU being used as a projectile.

The only reason that DU is such a big deal, is because it has Uranium in the name, and they can create a huge public problem with it.

It is just as dangerous as lead is, BUT, that is it....

SO, if you are going to freak out about DU, then you had better freak out about lead as well, otherwise, forget about it.....

Aric2000  posted on  2005-04-28   2:17:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: Aric2000, Zipporah (#10)

According to Dr. Rokke, DU is not purely DU, but is chocked full of other byproducts from nuclear fission, including highly radioactive elements.

It's basically low grade radioactive waste. Nothing to worry about, I'm sure. < /sarcasm >

Arator  posted on  2005-04-28   9:13:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: Arator, Aric2000, Zipporah, SKYDRIFTER (#13)

According to Dr. Rokke, DU is not purely DU, but is chocked full of other byproducts from nuclear fission, including highly radioactive elements.

It's basically low grade radioactive waste.

Whoever this Dr. Rokke is, their wrong. Aric2000 has it right, but actually overstated the problem. Lead is more chemically toxic than DU and DU is far less than 1/2 as radioactive as natural (3% U235) uranium. The half life of U238 is in the billions of years, so its decay rate is extremely low.

The radioactive waste remark is ludicrously off base. Even if the DU were made from radioactive waste (which it isn't; it's made from natural uranium ores as a byproduct of enrichment), other radioative isotopes could not be present because of the process used.

Uranium is reacted with fluorine to produce uranium hexafluoride gas. At this point, most other radioactive elements are exclude because they don't react with fluorine under the same conditions.

Then the gas is centrifuged over and over and over to separate the U238 and the U235 based on the slight difference in density. Any other gaseous radioactive compounds that MIGHT be present would have densities so low that they would all be separated out with the U235. This is purely theoretical because, in practice, they don't exist.

The gas is converted back into nearly pure U238. The only contaminate possible is residual U235, but the level is monitored closely.

Because DU comes from natural uranium and because of the production process and the monitoring of U235 levels, the resultant DU poses less of a radioactive risk than other natural and man-made sources.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   10:08:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: Kyle (#16)

the resultant DU poses less of a radioactive risk than other natural and man-made sources.

me-thinks you are in denial Mr. Kyle. I've read and heard from several experts who were paid by the US government to look into this, and they concluded that DU is deadly. There's also people paid by the UN to study this and they've concluded the same.

My goodness, a VA sponsored scientist concluded that DU killed 11,000 US soldiers from Gulf War 1 and you are still in denial over this.

I guess you can't handle the truth.

Red Jones  posted on  2005-04-28   10:16:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: Red Jones, christine, Zipporah, Arator, Kyle, Aric 2000 (#17)

Hey you guys--why would two people who regularly drink the poisoned Kool-aid of the repukelican propaganda machine be worried about the poisonousness of DU?

Any points you make with these shills, no matter how rational the points, will not be absorbed. They just aren't programmed to think independently. They are only programmed to regurgitate what their masters tell them to spew.

h-a-l-f-w-i-t-t  posted on  2005-04-28   10:30:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: h-a-l-f-w-i-t-t, Red Jones, christine, Zipporah, Arator, Aric 2000 (#19)

h-a-l-f-w-i-t-t: Hey you guys--why would two people who regularly drink the poisoned Kool-aid of the repukelican propaganda machine be worried about the poisonousness of DU?

Red Jones: me-thinks you are in denial Mr. Kyle. I've read and heard from several experts who were paid by the US government to look into this, and they concluded that DU is deadly. There's also people paid by the UN to study this and they've concluded the same.

My goodness, a VA sponsored scientist concluded that DU killed 11,000 US soldiers from Gulf War 1 and you are still in denial over this.

1) I've never read anything from the administration on this subject. My information is based purely on my knowledge of the subject matter from independent sources.

2) I've yet to see anything purporting to 'prove' that DU is deadly, or that it has killed any significant number of people (except in the intended manner), that didn't have all the earmarks of crackpottery.

Do you deny any of the facts that I posted? That the half-life of U238 is in the order of billions of years and therefore has very, very low radioactivity? That DU contains virtually nothing except U238 and trace amounts of U235 and cannot contain other radioactive isotopes by virtue of the manufacturing process? That the chemical toxicity of U238 is much lower than that of the the principle alternative, lead?

Name calling and charges of brainwashing aren't an argument. I gave you facts.

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   11:41:52 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: Kyle (#33)

Do you deny any of the facts that I posted? That the half-life of U238 is in the order of billions of years and therefore has very, very low radioactivity? That DU contains virtually nothing except U238 and trace amounts of U235 and cannot contain other radioactive isotopes by virtue of the manufacturing process? That the chemical toxicity of U238 is much lower than that of the the principle alternative, lead?

Name calling and charges of brainwashing aren't an argument. I gave you facts.

Reading the thread, I think what you are giving these people is your half baked unsupported opinion. Like the other times you have argued on this forum, you present NOTHING to back up the shit that spews from your mouth.

No facts.

No figures.

No supporting documents,

No logic.

Just spew from the mind of a 14 year old.

You stated above that lead is much more poisonous than DU. Why should anyone believe you? You are not qualified to make this statement. You have no facts to defend it. Lead has been in the environment for centuries. It's very common. A great deal is known about the toxic properties. DU on the other hand is not common, studies have only just begun and the sample group is still small.

Can you give us a basis for your childish opinion that doesn't come from Newsmax or some other equally silly piece of propaganda?

crack monkey  posted on  2005-04-28   12:42:16 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: crack monkey, h-a-l-f-w-i-t-t, Red Jones, christine, Zipporah, Arator, Aric 2000 (#34)

Can you give us a basis for your childish opinion that doesn't come from Newsmax or some other equally silly piece of propaganda?

Suck on this:

http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jdw/dutoxic010112_1_n.shtml

A short review of depleted uranium toxicity

By Prof Otto G Raabe PhD, CHP Institute of Toxicology & Environmental Health University of California

There are several reports in the news about the implied toxicity of depleted uranium used for projectiles and shielding material in modern warfare. It has been suggested to be a potent carcinogen and leukemia inducer.

The toxicity of 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.]

As to its "heavy metal" toxicity, the closest analogy is 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 probably more dangerous than uranium bullets.

References: "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/

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   12:54:50 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#42. To: Kyle (#37)

http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jdw/dutoxic010112_1_n.shtml

A short review of depleted uranium toxicity

I asked if you could give us a basis for your childish, over the top opinion that wasn't based on some propaganda journal like Newsmax or Janes or somebody else who works hand in glove with the international weapons cartel.

In response, you cite Janes, the journal of the international weapons cartel.

YOU ARE FULL OF BULLSHIT.

Give us a source.

Try again.

crack monkey  posted on  2005-04-28   13:02:20 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#58. To: crack monkey (#42)

YOU ARE FULL OF BULLSHIT.

Give us a source.

Try again.

Are you saying that the "Handbook of the Toxicology of Metals", is part of the CONSPIRACY, too?

How abou these?:

http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q611.html

Health Physics Society

Specialists in Radiation Safety

Answer to Question #611 Submitted to "Ask the Experts"

Category: Radiation Effects — Effects by Radionuclides

The following question was answered by an expert in the appropriate field:

Q: I'm an environmental reporter in Portugal and I'm writing an article on the possible health effects both from radiation and chemical toxicity of depleted uranium. Which one is the most problematic danger? Why?

A: Recently, there has been much concern expressed in the media and among the general public with respect to the hazardous nature of depleted uranium, including allegations of leukemias, cancers, and other deaths caused by this material. While it is in fact true that depleted uranium is weakly radioactive, it is also a heavy metal and, except in certain very unusual situations, it is the chemical toxicity and not the radioactivity that is of concern. And, from a chemical toxicity standpoint, uranium is on the same order of toxicity as lead. Largely from work with animals, along with a few instances in which humans inhaled very large amounts of uranium, the chemical toxicity of uranium is known to produce minor effects on the kidney, which in humans who have suffered large acute exposures have been transitory and wholly reversible. Because depleted and natural uranium are only weakly radioactive, radiological effects from ingested or inhaled uranium have not been detected.

Human experience with uranium has spanned more than 200 years. In the early part of the 20th century, uranium was used therapeutically as a treatment for diabetes, and persons so treated were administered relatively large amounts of uranium by mouth. Tens of thousands of persons have worked in the uranium industry over the past several decades and have been followed up and studied extensively, as have populations in Canada and elsewhere who have high levels of uranium in their drinking water. The types of illness apparently suffered by those exposed to depleted uranium from weapons have never been observed in these groups. This is not surprising as the radiation dose from uranium is far overshadowed by its potential chemical toxicity, and intakes of uranium of sufficient magnitude to produce chemotoxic effects are unlikely in and of themselves. That notwithstanding, any such effects from ingestion or inhalation of uranium would likely manifest themselves first in the form of minor effects associated with the kidneys. That military personnel and others who may have had contact with depleted uranium from munitions are suffering from various illnesses is not in dispute. That their illnesses are attributable to their exposure to uranium is very, very unlikely. A truly enormous body of scientific data shows that it is virtually impossible for uranium to be the cause of their illnesses.

Health physicists are deeply concerned with the public health and welfare and, as experts in radiation and its effects on people and the environment, are quite aware that something other than exposure to uranium is the cause of the illnesses suffered by those who have had contact with depleted uranium from munitions. If we are to offer any measure of relief or solace to suffering people, and to gain some important additional knowledge in the process, we should not squander our valuable and limited energies, resources and time, traveling down a road that has already been well traveled and which has already shown us that uranium, either by itself or in combination with other materials, is almost certainly not the culprit. Rather we should put politics and political correctness, personal agendas, media coverage, and posturing aside and instead focus on scientifically determining what is in fact the cause of these illnesses. This would provide a true benefit to mankind; pointing accusing fingers at depleted uranium in the face of scientific evidence to the contrary is clearly wrong and counterproductive.

Ronald L. Kathren Professor Emeritus Washington State University Past President, Health Physics Society Past President, American Academy of Health Physics

There are several articles at:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3912/is_200403/ai_n9397845

Another:

http://www.pdhealth.mil/downloads/Chem-Rad-DU.pdf

Conclusions

Despite nearly 50 years of accrued information on the health effects of natural uranium, concern still exists regarding its potential hazard as a radiotoxicant.13.26 Reports linking DU to the Gulf War syndrome and leukemia in Balkans peacekeeping forces have been widely disseminated in the lay press. Although in vitro and rodent data suggest the potential for uraniuminduced carcinogenesis, cohort studies assessing the health effects of natural and DU have failed to validate these findings in humans.20,24.30.33-36 Recent reports have explicitly stated the lack of an association between DU and malignancy.8-11 Even the Royal Society report, which suggested a small link between DU, stated that "except in extreme circumstances any extra risks of developing fatal cancers as a result of radiation from internal exposure to DU arising from battlefield conditions are likely to be so small that they would not be detectable above the general risk of dying from cancer over a normal lifetime."12 Whereas much of the fear surrounding DU has focused upon its radiation properties, its principal toxicological effects stem from its properties as a heavy metal.8.11 Studies with natural uranium have demonstrated dose-dependent nephrotoxicity.29 However, both animal studies and a continuing cohort study performed by the U.S. Army Department of Veterans Affairs has documented normal renal function despite markedly elevated urinary uranium excretion.24.30.33 Environmental sampling of the Balkans, where more than 10 tons of DU was employed during the military conflict, has demonstrated no evidence of residual contamination in soil. water, or milk.18.54 As such, although continued surveillance of exposed cohorts and environments (particularly water sources) is recommended, current data would support the position of the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute that "DU is neither a radiological nor chemical threat."6

From the Australasian Radiation Protection Society:

http://www.arps.org.au/DU.htm

From:

http://www.cpeo.org/lists/military/2001/msg00029.html

From: Susan Gawarecki Date: 11 Jan 2001 18:39:21 -0000 Reply: cpeo-military Subject: [CPEO-MEF] Known properties and health impacts of DU

There have been a number of postings to the CPEO list regarding depleted uranium ammuntion and the potential environmental and health side effects. Below are two messages regarding known properties and health impacts of DU. These were posted on January 10 to the RadSafe list, which is a forum for radiation safety professionals. References and contacts of the authors are given.

--Susan Gawarecki

Message 1:

There are several reports in the news about the implied toxicity of depleted uranium used for projectiles and shielding material in modern warfare. It has been suggested to be a potent carcinogen and leukemia inducer.

The toxicity of 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.]

As to its "heavy Metal" toxicity, the closest analogy is 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 probably more dangerous than uranium bullets.

References: "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

********************************************** Prof. Otto G. Raabe, Ph.D., CHP Institute of Toxicology & Environmental Health (Street Address: Bldg. 3792, Old Davis Road) University of California, Davis, CA 95616 E-Mail: ograabe@ucdavis.edu Phone: (530) 752-7754 FAX: (530) 758-6140 *********************************************** END Message 1

-----

Message 2:

A hot question now in Europe is depleted uranium in Kosowo. I prepared a text on this subject for the Polish government. ... _____________ Zbigniew Jaworowski Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection ul. Konwaliowa 7, 03-194 Warszawa, Poland voice: (48-22)717-6250; fax: 717-5324; e-mail: jaworo@clor.waw.pl [Dr. Jaworowski is the retired Head of the Central Lab, and member and former chairman of UNSCEAR.] -------------------------------------

MEDICAL EFFECTS OF DEPLETED URANIUM IN KOSOVO Zbigniew Jaworowski Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland

Between March and June 1999 about 3000 to 30 000 35 mm - caliber rounds, fitted with depleted-uranium, were fired over Kosovo and to a lesser extent over Serbia, mainly by American A-10 assault aircraft. The core of each round contained about 0.80 kg of almost pure uranium-238, from which its 14 radioactive daughters and uranium-235 were separated. This depleted uranium is much less radioactive than natural uranium normally present in the soil and rock, where it has since time immemorial been in equilibrium with radioactive isotopes of radium, radon, thorium, protoactine, polonium, lead and bismuth. During its decay it emits energetic alpha particles (4.26 MeV) and very weak beta (0.01 MeV) and gamma (0.001 MeV) radiation. However, its immediate short lived daughters emit a more energetic beta (2.29 MeV) and gamma (1.00 MeV) radiation. Alpha particles penetrate to a rather short distance in the air and in human tissues.

The total mass of depleted uranium dispersed over Kosovo ranged between 2.5 and 25 tons. The radioactivity of one round was about 10 megabecquerels (MBq). Assuming that 30 000 rounds were fired, one can easily calculate that a total activity of about 300 000 MBq of uranium-238 activity was dispersed over the environment of Kosovo. In a 1 cm thick layer of soil in Kosovo (area: 10 887 km2) the radioactivity of natural uranium-238 in equilibrium with its daughters amounts to about 100 000 000 MBq. Thus, a 1-cm thick layer of soil in Kosovo contains about 300 times more natural uranium than that dispersed there by American forces. However, at the target sites, the local concentrations of depleted uranium may be higher than the average concentration of natural uranium in the soil. From these patches of activity depleted uranium may be resuspended into the air, and also enter the food chain. This, however, should not lead to any observable medical consequences.

The weak beta and gamma radiation does not pose any serious radiation protection problems. For example, radiotoxicity of inhaled uranium-238 (in terms of Sv per Bq) is over 1000 times lower than radiotoxicity of cesium-137. Because of these features of depleted uranium, its radiation protection standards are based not on its radioactivity but on its chemical toxicity. Like other heavy metals (lead, cadmium, or mercury) uranium is a toxic agent. Experimental and epidemiological studies, carried out over half a century, suggest that the main adverse effect of uranium-238 is chemical impairment of the renal function. Secondary protection standards for uranium-238 (for example concentration limits in air and food) are based on a limit of 3 micrograms of uranium per gram of kidney.

In epidemiological studies of over 32 000 workers, exposed to uranium between 1943 and 1986 in nuclear installations in the USA and UK, except for renal problems, no other health impairment was observed, which could be related to this metal. Among this worker cohort mortality due to all diseases was lower than in the general population, and mortality due to all cancers and leukemia was also lower.

Among about 150 000 soldiers, who for various periods of time were stationed in Kosowo between March 1999 and the end of 2000, up to now 17 died due to leukemia. This corresponds to about 11 deaths per 100 000 soldiers. The annual leukemia death rate in the United Kingdom is 11 per 100 000. Thus, the rate of soldiers dying due to leukemia appears to agree with European norms.

Some years ago "clusters" of leukemia were found in several countries, in which the morbidity of leukemia was higher (up to ten times) than that in the general population. The first of such clusters was discovered in the village of Seascale, near Sellafield, which is the site of the main nuclear fuel reprocessing plant in the United Kingdom. The excess was reported in a television program in November 1983, and later similar clusters were found in other places in the UK and later in Germany, France, Canada and the USA. At first it was suspected that the cause of clusters are radioactive emissions from nuclear installations. However, it was soon realized that they also appear at other non-nuclear sites where migration of large number of people occurred. In an extensive review of these findings in its 1994 report UNSCEAR concluded that a possible explanation is that these excesses are due to a spread of infection resulting from the mixing of populations from urban and rural areas. One might expect that this phenomenon could also occur among large military formations. But this may not be the case in Kosovo, where the incidence of leukemia fits the European norm rather well. The shortest latency time for leukemia induced by ionizing radiation is two years. As this disease began to appear among the soldiers much earlier, and since no reports on a dramatic increase of renal problems were filed, the cause of leukemia in Kosovo, does not seem to be radiation from depleted uranium, but rather a natural one. This is supported also by the fact that no increase in diseases of kidneys, which are a critical organ for uranium, occurred among the soldiers in Kosovo.

Professor T. Domanski from Poland before few years served as a head of a study group of the Ministry of Health of Kuwait responsible for estimation of health effects depleted-uranium munition in this desert country. He recently reported that according to estimate of this group about 100 000 rounds with depleted uranium were fired over Kuwait during the Gulf War, what corresponds to about 300 tons of uranium dispersed in the environment. Unexploded munition, splinters and military equipment destroyed with uranium munition are stored at depots in the desert. Uranium contamination of the ground, up to a level 10 to 20 times higher than average natural level, was found only to a distance of up to 100 meters from the depots, and no contamination of local vegetation was observed. Professor Domanski reported that until 1998 no increase of leukemia and other cancers was observed in Kuwait, that might be related to depleted uranium.

So, is this just much ado about nothing, or is it merely an expression of a negative feeling towards a new type of ammunition or towards Americans?

From:

http://arc.cs.odu.edu:8080/dp9/getrecord/oai_dc/alsos.wlu.edu/oai:alsos.wlu.edu: 1763

Dublin Core Metadata

Title Toxicity of Depleted Uranium

Creator Priest, N. D.

Subject Chemistry

Subject Medical/Biological Effects of Radiation

Description This article examines the chemical and radiological effects of depleted uranium (DU) on human health. N. D. Priest asserts that depleted uranium, U-235, poses a negligible health risk to those exposed to it and that only in situations in which individuals receive large inhaled or ingested doses of it do chances exist for health complications. He cites medical studies that indicate that the risks posed by DU, under realistic estimations of exposure levels, are insignificant. Priest also points to supporting evidence provided by 22 American Gulf War veterans who have DU shrapnel present in their bodies and have shown no ill effects. He dismisses the claims by servicemen who were exposed to DU in the former Yugoslavia that they are suffering from medical complications caused by DU radiation exposure; he argues that DU radiation levels are so low that complications would not arise for several decades in those veterans. The issue of the health hazards associated with depleted uranium is highly controversial; this article represents one side of the controversy.

Publisher The Lancet

Date 27 January 2001

Kyle  posted on  2005-04-28   14:09:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 58.

        There are no replies to Comment # 58.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 58.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest