The Express of London is reporting that researchers have found levels of radiation in Baghdad "1000 to 1900 times normal levels" in areas where depleted uranium shells were used.
Of course, the science behind this story is absolute horse shit.
If you place a Geiger counter directly next to a DU shell, you will see an increased level of radiation. However, the level of radiation decreases logirithmically with distance. If the reporter placed their Geiger counter no more than a few inches from the round, the level would not be detectable above the normal background radiation.
Furthermore, despite outlandish claims that DU shells are some kind of radiological hazard, studies have shown that the threat from DU shells have been highly overstated. A World Health Organization report finds that DU presents little health risk. Another WHO report states that "the radiological hazard [from DU] is likely to be very small".
The Express is using scare tactics and pseudoscience to try to manufacture a story. Evidence from Bosnia and Afghanistan as well as countless studies into the use of depleted uranium weapons have found that there is no risk from the use of such weapons. The story is simply misleading and factually incorrect.
“there is no risk from the use of such weapons”(DU)
I can’t believe the Army has been working and spending money on this project to come up with a riskless weapon!! Do you still call it a weapon?
It’s a shell, it exploded on a tank that must still be around, and it contains(depleted) uranium, but it’s safe as a teddy bear!
Qui sème le vent récolte la tempête / What you reap is what you sow.
How dare you all use the name “America” or “American” when referring to the ugliest, most ignorant, stupid, stinking, uneducated sissies that live in that mean, miserable, pathetic third-world “country” called the USA (for Ultra Sissy Army – Untalented Sad Analphabets – Uncouth Sick Autistics – Ugly Stinking Animals – Useless Stupid Aunties…)?
The revolting inhabitants of the USA do have a name. Just like Hispanophones call them “Estadounidenses” & the Francophones resort to “Etats-uniens” to name that crappy part of Humanity, please use “Unitedstatish”.
It’s very simple. It works like English.
The English – the Unitedstatish.
English humour – Unitedstatish cowardice.
A proud Englishman – a sissy, ass-fucked Unitedstatishman.
A beautiful Englishwoman – a hairy, stinking, ugly, obese, shit-eating, two-digit-IQed Unitedstatishwoman.
Please keep “America” and “American” for real Human beings like Amerindians (Sioux, Apaches, Iroquois…), Latin Americans (Francophone Canadians, Venezuelans, Argentines, Chileans…) & French people (French Guyana, French West Indies).
what the ???
Do you still call it a weapon?
Dude, get a clue. Bullets don’t kill you by lead poisoning. DU shells don’t kill by radiation or something. They kill because their great density allows them to hold more kinetic energy.
They’re not radioactive (not very, at least) because they’re depleted, get it? They’re not magic bullets or nuclear weapons. They’re just heavy bullets.
If you place a Geiger counter directly next to a DU shell, you will see an increased level of radiation.
How do you know that is what they did? Perhaps that was taken over some sort of an area. I would assume so, however they did not say so, so I cannot draw any conclusions. Also they fail to say what such levels of radiation can do to you. So even if they’re correct I’ll be confused and not give a shit. This report fails to say anything, likewise your post.
The EU studied depeleted uranium after Kosovo and determined that DU doesn’t remain in the bloodstream long enough to cause any serious health risks.
In order for DU to have toxic effects, you’d have to have a massive exposure to it, on the order of grams. There are a lot of other things you’d find in a battlefield that would be far more deadly than old DU shells.
correct!!
maybe we should avoid to create more battlefields then…
one of the major result of the researches conducted in kosovo was that: we cannot know the effects of DU weaponry yet because the most severe problems can occur years or decades after. Most people in the area of tchernobyl didn’t die that particular day when the reactor had a problem, but developped cancers years after.
I really don’t think that this is a good idea to spread radioactivity (depleted or else) on earth anyway, but maybe someone think the opposite?
No, the EU found the exact opposite:
"The fact that there is no evidence of an association between exposures—sometimes high and lasting since the beginning of the uranium industry—and health damages such as bone cancer, lymphatic or other forms of leukemia shows that these diseases as a consequence of an uranium exposure are either not present or very exceptional."
The World Health Organization had this to say:
"…because DU is only weakly radioactive, very large amounts of dust (on the order of grams) would have to be inhaled for the additional risk of lung cancer to be detectable in an exposed group. Risks for other radiation-induced cancers, including leukaemia, are considered to be very much lower than for lung cancer."
Another WHO report said this:
"The radiological hazard is likely to be very small. No increase of leukemia or other cancers has been established following exposure to uranium or DU."
Because 1,000 to 1,900 times the normal background radiation level over a sustained area would require a source of radiation that could be seen from orbit. The normal level of radiation for a given area ranges from somewhere between 2.0 and 8.0 millisieverts. A level of radiation that would produce a level of 2,000 to nearly 20,000 mSv over a distance would fry anyone before they could measure it.
However, as I stated, alpha radiation would produce such levels if you put a radiation detector directly next to an alpha emitter. However, alpha particles lose strength on a logarithmic scale, so that if you took the same measurement a meter from the source it would be 10,000 times less than the direct reading.
Furthermore, alpha particles do not pose a significant health risk as they are not sufficiently energetic to damage tissue.
The piece is simply uninformed.
You could eat a meal of DU and it wouldn’t hurt you. For that matter you could eat a pound of plutonium and suffer no ill effects except some indigestion.
Heavy isotopes don’t stay in the body long enough to do damage, even the really radioactive ones. Radiation damage is a measure of intensity + time of exposure.
However, alpha particles lose strength on a logarithmic scale, so that if you took the same measurement a meter from the source it would be 10,000 times less than the direct reading.
C’mon Jay, you need to be more careful. When referring to a specific quantity you should probably state could be, unless you happen to be a nuclear physicist and can directly prove me wrong.
Now to say something that might matter:
Heavy isotopes don’t stay in the body long enough to do damage, even the really radioactive ones. Radiation damage is a measure of intensity + time of exposure.
Indeed. Any word on how long DU is radioactive? (I’m assuming a very very very long time.) Also any word on what we’re doing to clean it all up? I would assume we are…
No, but I can read. DU emits alpha radiation, which decreases in radioactivity logarithmically with distance. Alpha particles ionize exceptionally fast, which is why even a sheet of paper will block alpha particles. The amount of the emitter is irrelevant, radioactive decay is radioactive decay. If you had a source of material emitting 2,000 mSv at its source, after one meter that source would not be able to be detected above the normal level of background radiation. Alpha emitters aren’t nearly as dangerous as beta or gamma emitters, which can really do damage to human tissue.
DU has a long halflife, but it doesn’t remain in the body long enough to cause damage.
The US is cleaning up areas where DU shells were used, but not specifically because of the DU. Soviet-made T-72 tanks like the ones used by the Iraqis have a lot of nasty chemicals in them including radium in equipment and asbestos linings in the crew cabins. There’s a far higher health risk from those substances than from DU munitions.
Ahh Depleted Uranium raises its ugly head once more. It’s uranium so it must be radioactive and must be insidiously nasty – right? Not so fast.
The halflife of depleted uranium is so massively large that most of it is still around. Yet the alpha tradiation it emits is easily stopped in its tracks by a sheet of paper.
If you honestly want to know about DU, the studies about it and just how overhyped it is as a threat, then read this extensive post. It is well annotated with checkable links and studies.
As for the hype surrounding DU and cancers, there has been plenty (much of it reaching crescendo before the war in Iraq). I collected a bunch of links on those and the rebuttals and have them here.
cheers
I really don’t think that this is a good idea to spread radioactivity (depleted or else) on earth anyway, but maybe someone think the opposite?
micro-grams after SmV, war after wars, we’ll live in a toxic/radioactiv dump. Enjoy.