Can You Say Depleted Uranium?

[babylonsister]

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2009/11/15/91532/126

Can You Say Depleted Uranium?

by Steven D
Sun Nov 15th, 2009 at 09:15:32 AM EST


Doctors are calling for an investigation into an unprecedented number of birth defects in Fallujah, Iraq.

The war-ravaged population center has seen an increase of up to 15 times as many chronic deformities in infants since pre-war levels, according to a report by the UK's Guardian. Documented statistics for birth defects in Fallujah have only emerged in recent months, but the rate of abormalities, including early-life cancers, is high enough to cause alarm at Fallujah's General Hospital.

"We are seeing a very significant increase in central nervous system anomalies," the hospital's director, Dr Ayman Qais, told the Guardian. "Before 2003 I was seeing sporadic numbers of deformities in babies. Now the frequency of deformities has increased dramatically."

"Most are in the head and spinal cord, but there are also many deficiencies in lower limbs," he said. "There is also a very marked increase in the number of cases of less than two years with brain tumors. This is now a focus area of multiple tumors."

Here's a video. Warning, its graphic and may not be suitable for younger children:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=402684&mesg_id=402684

The Raw Story reporter mentions white phosphorus bombs as a possibility also, but my money is on depleted uranium, or maybe the combination of both. But who really knows? I have my doubts that any thorough investigation will ever be carried out, and certainly not by the US government. Just as for years our government denied the effects of Agent Orange in Vietnam, and has stalled investigations into the causes of Gulf War Syndrome, the effects of toxic chemicals and compounds employed in today's military arsenal will also likely be swept under the rug.

This is one more reason war must be a last option, and not a first one. The events of 9/11 did not require a war against Iraq. Now the innocent people of that country and our service men and women will suffer from the "collateral damage" of that war of aggression for decades to come. And people wonder why we want Bush and Cheney tried as war criminals? As the International Tribunal at the Nuremberg Trials stated after the end of of the War in Europe which Nazi Germany stated:

"{T}o initiate a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, and a whole host of lesser lights in the Bush administration are war criminals. They will never be tried for their crimes in America, but they should carry that taint with them for the rest of their lives.

[izquierdista]

1. Whoever says it's white phosphorus

Gets an 'F' in chemistry.

[ddeclue]

2. Sorry but depleted Uranium is LESS dangerous (radioactivity wise) than naturally occurring uranium.

Its main dangerous property is that it is highly dense and transfers momentum twice as effectively as lead in an artillery or tank round.

[Bobbieo]

3. Uranium in any form is "bad shit". Just ask the Navajos!!!!! They

are still suffering from 20 years of uranium mining that ceased in the 1970s and still has not been cleaned up.

[babylonsister]

4. It's apparently still dangerous...

Normal functioning of the kidney, brain, liver, heart, and numerous other systems can be affected by uranium exposure, because in addition to being weakly radioactive, uranium is a toxic metal.<5> DU is less toxic than other heavy metals such as arsenic and mercury. It is weakly radioactive but remains radioactive because of its long half-life. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry states that: "to be exposed to radiation from uranium, you have to eat, drink, or breathe it, or get it on your skin."<60> However, the Institute of Nuclear Technology-Radiation Protection of Attiki, Greece, has noted that "the aerosol produced during impact and combustion of depleted uranium munitions can potentially contaminate wide areas around the impact sites or can be inhaled by civilians and military personnel."<6> In a three week period of conflict in Iraq during 2003 it was estimated over 1000 tons of depleted uranium munitions were used.<7> While any radiation exposure has risks, no conclusive data have correlated DU exposure to specific human health effects such as cancer.<61> The U.S. Department of Defense claims that no human cancer of any type has been seen as a result of exposure to either natural or depleted uranium.<61> Yet, studies using cultured cells and laboratory rodents continue to suggest the possibility of leukemogenic, genetic, reproductive, and neurological effects from chronic exposure.<62> In addition, the UK Pensions Appeal Tribunal Service in early 2004 attributed birth defect claims from a February 1991 Gulf War combat veteran to depleted uranium poisoning.<14><15> Also, a 2005 epidemiology review concluded: "In aggregate the human epidemiological evidence is consistent with increased risk of birth defects in offspring of persons exposed to DU."<16>


more...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium

Lots more info at link...

[Canuckistanian]

5. Ah, but what if it's atomized?

And spread by the wind until it's on every surface, in the water supply and coating all the food?

Can you say that about natural Uranium?

DU has a unique property in that when it impacts other objects, it shatters so thoroughly, that the fragments can be carried away by air currents.

On that level, I'd say it was FAR MORE dangerous than even the more radioactive isotopes of Uranium.

[blues90]

6. That's what i would say

It's in the form of dust that is carried through the air and sits there and as the wind picks up or people walk though plus it is ingested and breathed in.

[backscatter712]

12. And it's not just the radioactivity.

Certainly, if you ingest it, the alpha particles coming from it will go to work inside your body, but on top of that, uranium is a heavy metal, like lead. In other words, poisonous.

[blues90]

17. I know . In the same way we have done it here over decades

We let industry dump all sorts of crap that is toxic into out air and water and ground. And if this was not bad enough we bring it to other people in toxic forms. This is how we as people accept this horror when we should have learned from it.

I knew what we were doing here but I did not know about depleted uranium until this attack on Iraq.

Look what we did to Japan.

I'll never ever understand why there is not an up-rising to end this. Of course we have no news to inform us and no idea unless we study these things on our own . Then we have companies like Monsanto , it never ends.

Sometimes I do think they people who create this poison rely on the idea that if people are over whelmed by fear that people will somehow look past it that is until these people are affected. Somehow if people can't see it , it does not exist, yet we know it does. It's just one huge horror show.

[Pavulon]

22. SO there are more 4 headed babies in Falluja than in Hiroshima and Kosovo

hmm, if that is the claim a resounding cough of bullshit is in order. Don;t get pulled in by the stupid. It drowns out real issues like why are we there and what have we gained..

[blues90]

25. Tell me why we are there and what we have gained ?

I'm not sure from your replies in this topic but you seem to feel DU is fine and dandy and all is well.

[Pavulon]

26. A giant fuckup. We have NOTHING to show for our time there.

DU is an effective weapon when used to kill tanks. Not many tank in falluja. HE rounds would be used. Are we claiming WP is a carcinogen / mutagen now?
There is plenty of scientific data from the WHO and others documenting the real impact.

[Mugu]

32. Not all heavy metals are extremely toxic.

Bismuth for example is used to make Pepto-Bismol.

Bismuth is also radioactive but, because of its long half-life it presents no threat for ordinary purposes.

[Sirveri]

8. radioactivity wise you're correct. But it's still a toxic heavy metal.

And it pulverises upon impact into dust, which makes it easier to absorb into the body than traditional lead/tungsten rounds. They could probably make it dramatically safer by simply making an alloy with lead, which would soften it and prevent dust formation.

[Canuckistanian]

9. Exactly right

DU is FAR LESS radioactive than even U-238.

It's the "heavy metal" poisoning that's the most toxic element here.

[ddeclue]

14. Ok.. as a toxic heavy metal it's still not really that much different than lead or tungsten.

in terms of something you don't want to ingest.

Uranium is a naturally occurring mineral. Put a geiger counter next to a concrete sidewalk some time.

[Sirveri]

24. true, but the issue is ease of ingestion after usage.

DU rounds are way more brittle than lead, which means it pulverises more easily and thus is more easily absorbed into the body and is more difficult to clean up after the fact.

As for geiger counters, I think you're thinking of asphalt, which is estimated to give around 40 mrem/yr. I used to be a navy nuke and those were the figures they gave us.

If we simply changed the alloy mixtures of our DU rounds to reduce brittleness this would decrease pulverisation, which would in turn make it more difficult to ingest. The reduction of harm to civilian populations due to expended ordinance should be something we strive for. Especially if we're going to be engaged in low intensity police action conflicts against agressors who don't have large modern MBT's and IFV's to fight against. In the case of falluja we were fighting soft targets almost exclusivly, which is a waste of DU rounds since they're primarily designed to kill tanks.

[JVS]

13. That's not exactly a high bar you're setting for it there.

If you went around dropping regular uranium on people, it would be considered a dirty bomb.

This is not healthy stuff

[ddeclue]

15. and THAT wouldn't be dangerous EITHER (except that it would be heavy

and would cause blunt force trauma injuries..)

:eyes:

You have to ENRICH uranium before it is significantly radioactive enough to pose any kind of short term risk. Dirty bomb is just a scare tactic that relies on people's ignorance and fear. It's the BOMB part that will kill you - NOT the radiation.

:eyes:

[FBaggins]

40. Actually... that wouldn't BE a "dirty bomb"

except to the extent it made a dirty mess.

You can't make a dirty bomb with either natural or depleted uranium.

[Junkdrawer]

16. Here's an expert that disagrees...

...

I am an epidemiologist, with 30 years of experience in studying the health effect of exposure to ionizing radiation. I would like to call the attention of the UN Human Rights Tribunal to the use of depleted uranium (DU) weapons against Iraq in the Gulf War, and by NATO in Bosnia and the Kosovo-Yugoslavian war. DU is radioactive waste, and it attains special deadly properties when it is fired in battle. Because of its density and the speed of the missile or bullet (up to 5 mach) containing it, DU bursts into flame on impact. It reaches very high temperatures, and becomes a ceramic aerosol which can be dispersed 100 km from the point of impact.

Because the radiation dose to the person depends on the strength of the source of radiation, and the time duration of the exposure, this ceramic aerosol formation is important. Ceramic (glass) is highly insoluble in the normal lung fluid, and when inhaled, this ceramic particulate will remain for a long time in the lungs and body tissue before being excreted in urine. The

Rand report, which was commissioned by the US government in response to criticisms of the use of DU in weapons, failed to note this nasty form of insoluble DU which distinguishes it from the uranium dust in the mining or milling experience. This property means the uranium and its decay products will remain inside the body longer, thereby increasing the local alpha particle radiation dose to tissue.

Much of the ceramic DU aerosol is in respirable sized particles -10 micrometer and less in diameter. It stays in the lungs for upwards of two years. The uranium oxide, which was discussed in the Rand report, had a one-year half-life in lungs. Most natural uranium contamination in the human body comes via food and to a lesser extent from drinking water, not via the lungs. Ingested uranium is excreted in feces, basically never entering into the human blood and lymph system. In contrast, the DU ceramic aerosol released in war entered directly into lymph and blood through the lung-blood barrier and circulated throughout the whole body. All internal contamination is excreted through either sweat or urine.

DU is a very powerful alpha particle emitter, with each particle carrying a force of about 4.2 MeV (million electron volts). It requires only 6 to 10 eV (electron volts) to break the DNA or other large molecules in the body. This long stay of DU from weapons within the body can now be demonstrated through 24-hour urine analysis. The presence of DU eight years after the Gulf War exposure, means that the internal organs: lung, lymph glands, bone marrow, liver, kidney, and immune system have experienced significant localized radiation damage. Testing of urine for both veterans of the Gulf War and citizens of Iraq has confirmed this long-term exposure to DU.

Women (because of their radiation sensitive breast and uterine tissue) and children (because their bones are growing, thus able to pick up more DU than adults, and because they have a long expected life-span in which the cancers with long latency periods can develop) will be most at risk from the delayed DU weapon action.

The Military Toxics Project (MTP) asked me, in the Fall of 1997, to take initiative in investigating the effect of DU on the Gulf War veterans. I tried several clinical approaches in order to determine, if possible, the extent of this problem. Among the most successful approaches was that of the 24 hour urine analysis. Dr. Hari Sharma, a nuclear chemist at the University of Waterloo in Canada, was at first asked to determine the presence or absence of DU in the urine of the veterans. He took a sample from the veteran’s total 24-hour urine output, 50 to 200 ml, and calculated the amount of U238 and U235. He gave results as the amount of each isotope per litre of urine rather than per 24 hour sample, since the fact of contamination was at the time more important than the amount of contamination. The amount can still be ascertained from the original data, and will be included in a final report.

...

http://iicph.org/DU_Human_Rights_Tribunal

[Pavulon]

21. Nope, DU is a political target. The science is done by the WHO and

concludes differently. There is lots of info on this topic that is not reactionary horse shit. Studies that actually have sample populations and statistical relevance.

Under most circumstances, use of DU will make a negligible contribution to the overall natural background levels of uranium in the environment. Probably the greatest potential for DU exposure will follow conflict where DU munitions are used.
A recent United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) report giving field measurements taken around selected impact sites in Kosovo (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) indicates that contamination by DU in the environment was localized to a few tens of metres around impact sites. Contamination by DU dusts of local vegetation and water supplies was found to be extremely low. Thus, the probability of significant exposure to local populations was considered to be very low.
A UN expert team reported in November 2002 that they found traces of DU in three locations among 14 sites investigated in Bosnia following NATO airstrikes in 1995. A full report is expected to be published by UNEP in March 2003.
Levels of DU may exceed background levels of uranium close to DU contaminating events. Over the days and years following such an event, the contamination normally becomes dispersed into the wider natural environment by wind and rain. People living or working in affected areas may inhale contaminated dusts or consume contaminated food and drinking water.

[FBaggins]

37. With "experts" like that... who needs made up facts?

Remember... Rosalie Bertell is one of the "chemtrails" nuts. If she's an expert I'm the queen of England.

[G_j]

31. except that, the fine du dust gets in the lungs. nt

[madokie]

41. When it's exploded in a round it is reduced to such a fine dust

and then that dust settles everywhere and goes deep into the lunges to do damage for the rest of the breather's life and no, it is way more radioactive than naturally occurring uranium. Fallujah should be treated as a crime scene and will be in time.

[FBaggins]

44. Only partially correct

It does create a fine dust that is toxic... though lead does basically the same thing.

It is not, however, "way more radioactive than naturally occuring uranium". That's what "depleted" MEANS. They take natural uranium and seperate out most of the more radioactive U-235 (for use in reactors etc). What is left is far LESS radioactive than the natural uranium.

[abelenkpe]

7. Innocent Babies??

The cost of war is too much.
This war of choice is shameful.
:cry:

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[babylonsister]

11. Huh? Do you have no compassion for the Iraqis and what we've

done and are doing to them, especially children?

And iirc, WE started this illegal occupation, not the Iraqis.

Where's your bridge? :eyes:

[Pavulon]

20. I feel for the moon kittens, we killed them by bombing the moon.

there is no study, no sample,nothing sited but shit. In bosnia where I saw this weapon deployed the WHO has concluded a study that does not link DU to cancer. If little kiddies run around and eat lead they will be much worse off.

[NYC_SKP]

35. That poster has "left the building"...

little shit head!

:P

[HCE SuiGeneris]

28. Did an advanced search on all your posts. I see pizza in your future.

Can't wait for the delivery.

[Pavulon]

30. Check mine. This topic is bullshit. The real science done by the WHO

and oncology journals discounts this. Their information is backed up by studies with actual samples over time. Not a guys opinion. Dont fall for they hype. We used this munition in yugoslavia and studies were done.

Unless you think phosphorus is the cause, in that case you have a whole different set of stuff to read to discount that claim.

The two headed DU mutated turtle of shame questions your logic.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

18. Any metrics on how much DU was actually used there in what weapons?

[Pavulon]

19. Bullshit. Called by the WHO and Oncology journals.

DU is a penetrator round used to kill tanks. To kill dismounts HE is preferred as it has a bursting radius rather then requiring contact. So dont believe everything you read. I have posted the content many times from the WHO if you can not easily find it I will link it...again.

This is a scam, this article backed out the earlier claim of one in four children, which made it a obvious lie.

Bosnia was the source for the WHO study, where DU was used to kill hard targets.

No study, no sample, just the opinion of a doctor. I hang around with doctors and there opinion is not worth all that much. Anecdotally.

[Pavulon]

23. Picture (graphic, not really)..

DU turtle. Look what the WP and DU did. I really think that the US is responsible. I have no statistics or sample to back this up. But look, I mean I can post a two headed kitten to make my opinion more valid..

[Yuugal]

27. K&R nt

[laughingliberal]

29. Depleted Uranium was my thought yesterday when I saw the headline

regarding the increased birth defects in Fallujah.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our fourth quarter 2009 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[earth mom]

34. Tell it to Obama-it's his war now. nt

[EFerrari]

36. I remember when a friend of mine who hosted a now defunct site

predicted this. I was so naive. He sounded cynical and alarmist to me at the time.

I'm so sorry, "George". You were as right as possible.

Hell. :(

[David Zephyr]

38. Kick.

Thanks for another great thread, babylonsister

[defendandprotect]

39. k i c k

[old mark]

42. OP is total bullshit. Uranium is used in sabot anti tank ammunioion because

of its super weight/density. It physically pierces tank armor. IT IS NOT ANY MORE RADIOACTIVE THAN PLAIN STEEL.This whole idea is based on nonsense repeated over and over again, just like the Republican Party.

There enough REAL things wrong withont inventing stuff to hate.


mark

[Junkdrawer]

43. "it is not any more radioactive than plain steel" - Uh, no...

...

While DU’s radioactivity is reduced in comparison to natural or enriched uranium, it is not eliminated. Like natural uranium, DU emits alpha, beta, and weak gamma radiation . DU presents a minimal external radiation hazard, because the alpha particles emitted cannot penetrate the dead layer of skin (approx. 20 microns), the beta radiation is hazardous only if extended contact occurs, and the amount of the more penetrating gamma radiation is low (< 1% of total radiation). However, long-term exposure to internalized DU represents an uncertain hazard. Internalization, which can occur by ingestion, respiration, or shrapnel wounding, may be particularly injurious because of the chemical toxicity of uranium, its radiological toxicity, or a combination of the two.

...

http://www.motherearth.org/du/miller_NATO_2005.pdf

[FBaggins]

45. Well...no

It's most certainly more active than plain steel... but it isn't "more active" enough to make much of a difference.

[Odin2005]

46. DU is dangerous because it is a heavy metal, not because of the radioactivity.

[FBaggins]

47. DU is only dangerous

because when it hits something at high velocity... it does a great job of killing it.

THAT's why the military wants it. The purpose of making tank rounds is to kill opposing tanks... by that measure they are EXTREMELY dangerous. But not as a major health risk months/years after they have been fired.

DU is not substantially more toxic as a heavy metal than other options for tank rounds and bullets. It is marginally more likely to produce fine dust than say a lead round... but if you have to fire twice as many lead rounds to get the same effect... the lead would be more toxic.

[old mark]

48. Thank you for introducing a little more reality into this fantasy land thread.

Oh, yeah - welcome to DU...someone will surely call you a troll for this post, but hang in there.

mark

[old mark]

49. Thank you for introducing a little more reality into this fantasy land thread.

Oh, yeah - welcome to DU...someone will surely call you a troll for this post, but hang in there.

mark