Sandia Completes Depleted Uranium Study; Serious Health Risks Not Found

[Caution]

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. -- Sandia National Laboratories has completed a two-year study of the potential health effects associated with accidental exposure to depleted uranium (DU) during the 1991 Gulf War.

The study, "An Analysis of Uranium Dispersal and Health Effects Using a Gulf War Case Study," performed by Sandia scientist Al Marshall, employs analytical capabilities used by Sandia's National Security Studies Department and examines health risks associated with uranium handling.

U.S. and British forces used DU in armor-piercing penetrator bullets to disable enemy tanks during the Gulf and Balkan wars. DU is a byproduct of the process used to enrich uranium for use in nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons. During the enrichment process, the fraction of one type of uranium (uranium-235) is increased relative to the fraction found in natural uranium. As a consequence, the uranium left over after the enrichment process (mostly uranium-238) is depleted in uranium-235 and is called depleted uranium.

The high density, low cost, and other properties of DU make it an attractive choice as an anti-tank weapon. However, on impact, DU particulate is dispersed in the surrounding air both within and outside the targeted vehicle and suspended particulate may be inhaled or ingested. Concerns have been raised that exposure to uranium particulate could have serious health problems including leukemia, cancers, and neurocognitive effects, as well as birth defects in the progeny of exposed veterans and civilians.

<snip>

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/07/050724094117.htm

[donsu]

1. like I would believe anything coming out of the bushgang owned SNL

nt

[Johonny]

20. So

I guess you shouldn't read any of my papers

[SteppingRazor]

2. Well, certainly a relief...

That DU may not be the hazardous material it was feared to be. I hope future tests and experiments will confirm the result. But this begs the question, re: Gulf War Syndrome, If not DU, then what?

[Ian David]

3. I know this may be controversial, but how can Depleted Uranium be safe?

Is inhaling particles of ANY heavy metallic element safe?

Unfortunately, people I see worrying about Depleted Uranium are many of the same people I see complaining about stupid things. So, I don't know whether I should trust someone about Depleted Uranium if they also complain about "Chemtrails" and HAARP.

So, what's the consensus here:

A) Depleted Uranium is delicious and nutritious.

B) Depleted Uranium will be our next Silent Spring Disaster.

C) Too soon to tell for sure.

[sam sarrha]

8. answer to your question in post #5 link, caution graphic

[punpirate]

9. Before saying definitively...

... I'd sure like to see the results of the follow-up study to be done in Afghanistan. It's a big, wide-open, sparsely populated country, and yet the first study done showed big increases in uranium in the urine of subjects across the country. That, in itself, is not good. But, the initial results of that epidemiological study suggest that a new material is present--more akin in radiological behavior to natural uranium.

One of the things which has not been adequately studied is the effect of increased uranium in the system (the heavy metal ain't good theory), but the bigger question I have is whether or not (as a few news reports have suggested in years past) the suppliers of depleted uranium added various hotter radioactive wastes into the depleted uranium to dispose of them without detection.

There is a reason for the increased incidence of birth defects in places where depleted uranium shells have been used. But, it would be very easy to design a study which looked only at DU and ignored other factors related to DU use in order to absolve DU as the cause.

If the DU were a vehicle, wittingly or unwittingly, for other radiologicals, that might explain the results of this study. Or it could simply be a case of the government protecting its interests. Sandia Labs, as both a government lab and as an entity which was tangentially involved with some initial testing in conjunction with the nearby NM Tech explosives lab, can't be considered as either independent or disinterested in the results of such epidemiological studies.

Cheers.

[queeg]

4. tin-foil hat crowd wont care

Actual facts like this are not going to sway the tin foil hat crowd, they will just say that this is a study by a government lab, and therefore part of the coverup.

[Caution]

6. see post #1

[glitch]

11. As a member of the tin-foil hat crowd, I agree. Where we differ:

I don't think skepticism is a bad thing.

[Caution]

13. Nor do I

However,I would suggest reading the actual research and attacking it there because attacking the source is rarely indicative of critical thinking.

[glitch]

14. What makes you think I don't? Your assumptions betray you. nt

[Caution]

16. huh? I made no assumptions or accusations

I made a suggestion about how to attack scientific research. You agreed with a post stating that "this is a study by a government lab, and therefore part of the coverup." unless i misread your statement.

I suggested that if you doubt the veracity of the report that you read and debunk it in a scientific manner rather than the above.

[donsu]

17. "attack scientific research"

attack?

[Caution]

18. certainly,

one attacks the assertions and methodology of the scientist if one does not agree with the findings.

Attacking the scientist himself is normally only done when that scientist has a track record of using poor methodology.

[beam me up scottie]

12. Man, you called that one right.

:eyes:

[sam sarrha]

5. HEAVY METAL POISONING isn't addressed in the paper.. conveniently

you want to see some of the concerns about birth defects ...

here they are... :CAUTION: they are Graphic.

http://www.firethistime.org/extremedeformities.htm

this assholes can spin shit into gold.. hey they are making Money dumping 1000 tons of toxic nuclear waste in Iraq.. any idea of what it would cost them to put that in a nuclear repository..??

WHERE IT SHOULD BE !!!..the F'n murdering assholes.!!!

[longship]

7. What is Sandia Labs connection to nuke industry?

Answer that question!

[sam sarrha]

10. who owns them.. and told them to write that crap..link in Post #5

[Ian David]

15. Another issue: Biomagnification

Apparently Uranium does persist and biomagnify in the foodchain.

Results 1 - 20 of about 544 for biomagnification uranium.
http://www.google.com/search?num=20&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&c2coff=1&q=biomagnification+uranium&btnG=Search


Biological Magnification:
the process by which the concentration of toxic substances increases in each successive link in the food chain; also called biomagnification

The process by which the concentration of toxic substances increases in each successive link in the food chain; also called biological magnification

Example:
In biological magnification, pesticides or heavy metals move up the food chain, work their way into rivers or lakes, and are eaten by aquatic organisms such as fish, which in turn are eaten by large birds, animals or humans.

[Johonny]

21. Owns?

You own them it's a government lab! They are run by Lockheed Martin.

[hecate77]

19. Sandia is a weapons lab, not a power reactor lab

The power reactor labs are elsewhere, so I doubt that Sandia has too deep a connection to the nuclear power industry. Most of what it does in terms of nuclear is weapons engineering. Sandia also does many other things that are not related to nuclear stuff. For instance, when I was a freshly minted PhD, I worked there on Solar energy issues, related to flow cell batteries (until the program was killed by Ronnie). I also worked there on lightning characterization research, airborne particulate and aerosol research, and other non-nuclear related things over quite a few years. We developed a Lidar that could be used (and was used) to monitor smog levels and distribution in cities, for instance.

Not sure what your point is other than to imply that the scientists at Sandia are in the pockets of the Nuclear Power Industry. More likely, they are in the pockets of the defense contractors, if they are in anybody's pockets. I wasn't in the pockets of anyone other than the truth.

Again, I am not defending this particular scientist or group, as I know nothing at all about them, but I am addressing the broad-brushed implications of your statement.

I would put the DU problem squarely on the military, where it belongs, not on the national labs, who likely had little to do with its development. I am not sure of that, but it smells like this (DU weaponry) was developed and pushed by the military, not the DoE.

The real issue is the administration, not the individual scientists. It is the administration that sets the tone and decides what gets research attention. Another example is the issue of Environmental Impact Statements. Without going into the details of what the study was for, a collegue of mine did a study which was not favorable to the client, and although his work was backed by the lab, it was rejected and changed by the client (another branch of the gov't), who then lied about what the study had determined (that what they wanted to do was unsafe). A valid scientific study that came out of Sandia was thus made into a lie by someone else who had more clout. So, you cannot automatically assume that all scientists who work at the national labs are corrupt or bought off. People work there because a lot of research goes on there, and not all of it is politically motivated. Blame the administration if you must blame someone. They are the ones who cook the data, repress results, etc.