DU.....How Bad is It...??

[TM7]

With the use of depleted uranium weapons one might ask just how bad is it...??
Anybody know what the story is with DU weaponry...??


........................TM7

[Bear Rider]

It depends. If you're a liberal, sitting on the sidelines, it's terrible.

[nomosendero]

Oh, I started to ask what's the deal with Duck's unlimited.

[magooch]

According to a nuclear physicist that I heard speak on the subject, the biggest hazard is being hit by a projectile that is made of the stuff.

[doc_kreipke]

I would bet that Iraqi tank crew members thought that the projectiles were bad, very bad indeed.

[Swampman]

No health hazards....

"Been reading some stuff from Europe, etc."

Don't believe anything out of europe.  The place is full of liberal nuts.

[Greysky]

Well, I don't think depleted uranium is even a remote health risk when used to create what are called staballoy projectiles. This highly effective material is less than 1% radioactive, and has proven to be essential in protecting friendly forces in both offensive and defensive roles. And isn't this what really matters above all other considerations?

There is one admission in the following article that staballoy projectiles missing their intended targets bury in the ground and pose an undisclosed threat to the environment. No doubt the greenies will declare this to be an unacceptable hazard that will decimate the population of some heretofore unknown - and what normal person cares to know - species of sand flea, but even they won't be able to convince normal people that handling staballoy projectiles will make one glow in the dark.

DU=Victory

[Swampman]

Burning oil wells will do that.

[Greysky]

Burning oil wells will do that.

I suffer from severe asthma. I would last only a brief period struggling to breathe in this kind of polluted atmosphere.

[Matt]

No health hazards....

"Been reading some stuff from Europe, etc."

Don't believe anything out of europe.  The place is full of liberal nuts.

you have got to be kidding... why don’t you do a little research on a subject rather than just spout off an emotionally charged response which has little to no validity to it and offers little more than a sarcastic punch at anyone who does not think that the republicans are the only right political party... wait don’t you have the same stance on religion as well... yep... I see the pattern...

Matt

[doc_kreipke]

A couple of European reports and one from the WHO:

United Kingdom Royal Society in May 2001. "Even if the estimates of risk are one hundred times too low, it is unlikely that any excess of fatal cancer would be detected within a group of 10,000 soldiers followed over 50 years."

European Commission March, 2001 report. "Taking into account the pathways and realistic scenarios of human exposure, radiological exposure to depleted uranium could not cause a detectable effect on human health (e.g. cancer)."

World Health Organization April, 2001 report. "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."

Full texts of the reports that accompany the above quickie summaries, along with some other studies can be found at:

http://deploymentlink.osd.mil/du_library/health.shtml    (This is a Dept of Defense website)

Here’s another from the Royal Society regarding chemical toxicity:

   The risks to the kidney and other organs and tissues from the use of DU in munitions are very low for most soldiers on the battlefield and for those living in the conflict area.
   In extreme conditions and under worst-case assumptions, soldiers who receive large intakes of DU could suffer adverse effects on the kidney and lung.
   Environmental contamination will be very variable but in most cases the associated health risks due to DU will be very low. In some worst-case scenarios high local levels of uranium could occur in food or water that could have adverse effects on the kidney.

Full text at:
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/document.asp?tip=1&id=1401

[Swampman]

There is no health threat.

[fe352v8]

There wasn’t from Agent Orange either, right?

Life is no joke but funny things happen

jon

[Swampman]

'There wasn’t from Agent Orange either, right?'

That is correct.

[doc_kreipke]

FYI:

Although the DoD site has a couple of studies conducted by the DoD, the others are also links to independent studies by institutions such as RAND, Health & Human Services, World Health Organization, European Commission, and one from Sweden (although ya might have to brush up on your Swedish to read the original paper). These external studies seem to antedate the DoD website.

DU radiation is pretty low-level. Wouldn't a DU dirty bomb have to be really big to deliver a dangerous dose of radiation? Heh heh. I can see it now ... 50 terrorists trying to pack a telephone-pole sized bomb onto an airplane. ... Although they might make it through a random screen. 

[muskeg13]

If it kills the bad guys better, thereby exposing our troops to less risk, who are you to raise this question?  Which side are you on?  After 24 years in uniform, I say anything that will kill THEM dead quicker, and expose us to less risk is a good thing.  Agin I ask, whose side are you on?

[THE DOC]

On Friday I went to the funeral of a Marine pal who had been in Iraq , he died of cancer in the lung . However at the autopsy they identified particles of D.U. still in the lung tissue , try telling him that D.U. is safe and does no harm .   

[magooch]

There are a lot of substances that are relatively harmless unless you breath them, or injest them.  Even plain old lead dust will do ya in if you breath enough of it.  That said, I didn't need another reason to not go to Iraq, but I'll add depleted uranium to the list.