Israel uses the deadly depleted Uranium to bomb Gaza strip !

[WilbyInebriated]

G'day all,

I think we have a bit of a misunderstanding here.

Mildly radioactive substances may be completely harmless when handled. Take Tritium for instance, a form of hydrogen. Tritium oxide is a radioactive form of water. You could swim in it and it would do you no harm. Breathe the vapour or drink the shit and you die, just a question of how much you ingested and how long it'll take before you are dead.

The reason, there is not enough radioactivity present to penetrate the skin.

The same I should imagine with depleted Uranium. You could get away probably with eating it, it would pass through your system before it could do any real harm. Breathing in the particles is a different proposition altogether. Any dust you breathe in is not readily eliminated from the lungs, if at all. There has to be a hazard there.

I do not trust the re-assurances of governments when it comes to questions of their treasured weaponry. They had soldiers standing with their backs to an atmospheric atomic explosion in tests at Maralinga during the 50's and told them there was nothing harmful in this. Even at that time the Australian and British government knew different.

So don't trust when they say it is harmless. Remember Agent Orange??

Hans von Lieven

thank you hans, for once we agree.  i toast a beer to that

[fuzzytomcat]

Depleted uranium is not classified as a dangerous substance radiologically, though it is a potential hazard in large quantities, beyond what could conceivably be breathed. Its emissions are very low, since the half-life of U-238 is the same as the age of the Earth (4.5 billion years). There are no reputable reports of cancer or other negative health effects from radiation exposure to ingested or inhaled natural or depleted uranium, despite much study.

However, uranium does have a chemical toxicity about the same as that of lead, so inhaled fume or ingested oxide is considered a health hazard. Most uranium actually absorbed into the body is excreted within days, the balance being laid down in bone and kidneys. Its biological effect is principally kidney damage. WHO has set a Tolerable Daily Intake level for U of 0.6 microgram/kg body weight, orally. (This is about eight times our normal background intake from natural sources.) Standards for drinking water and concentrations in air are set accordingly.

Like most radionuclides, it is not known as a carcinogen, or to cause birth defects (from effects in utero) or to cause genetic mutations. Radiation from DU munitions depends on how long since the uranium has been separated from the lighter isotopes so that its decay products start to build up. If thorium-234 (half-life 24 days), protactinium-234 (half-life 1 minute) and U-234 have built up through decay of U-238, then Th-234 and Pa-234 will give rise to some beta emissions and U-234 is an alpha emitter. On this basis, in a few months, DU is "weakly radioactive" with an activity of around 40 kBq/g quoted. (If it is fresh from the enrichment plant and hence fairly pure the activity is 15 kBq/g, compared with 25 kBq/g for pure natural uranium. Fresh DU from enriching reprocessed uranium has U-236 in it and more U-234 so is about 23 kBq/g.)

In 2001 the UN Environment Program examined the effects of nine tonnes of DU munitions having been used in Kosovo, checking the sites targeted by it. UNEP found no widespread contamination, no sign of contamination in water of the food chain and no correlation with reported ill-health in NATO peacekeepers. A two-year study by Sandia National Laboratories in USA reported in 2005 that consistent with earlier studies, reports of serious health risks from DU exposure during the 1991 Gulf War are not supported by medical statistics or by analysis.

Thus DU is clearly dangerous for people in vehicles which are military targets, but for anyone else - even in a war zone - there is little hazard. Ingestion or inhalation of uranium oxide dust resulting from the impact of DU munitions on their targets is the main possible exposure route.

Sources:
BNFL, Cogema, JNFL, SKB and ANSTO publications and papers.
Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, Nov-Dec 1999.
New Scientist 5 & 26/6/99, AFP 29/10/01.
UNEP/UNCHS, 1999, Balkans Task Force report, Appendix 4.
OECD NEA 2001, Management of Depleted Uranium.
Burchall & Clark, Depleted Uranium, NRPB Bulletin #229, March 2001.
Sandia report 2005


Potential Health Effects of Depleted Uranium in Munitions

Some military personnel involved in the 1991 Gulf War have complained of continuing stress-like symptoms for which no obvious cause has been found. These symptoms have at times been attributed to the use of depleted uranium in shells and other missiles, which are said to have caused toxic effects. Similar complaints have arisen from the more recent fighting in the Balkans, particularly the Kosovo conflict about a year ago.

Depleted uranium (DU) is natural uranium which is depleted in the rarer U-235 isotope (see below). It is a heavy metal and, in common with other heavy metals, it is chemically toxic. It is also slightly radioactive and there is therefore said to be a hypothetical possibility that it could give rise to a radiological hazard under some circumstances, e.g. if dispersed in finely divided form so that it is inhaled.

However, because of the latency period for the induction of cancer by radiation, it is not credible that any cases of radiation-induced cancer could yet be attributed to the Kosovo conflict. Furthermore, extensive studies have concluded that no radiological health hazard should be expected from exposure to depleted uranium.

The risk from external exposure is essentially zero, even when pure metal is handled. No detectable increases of cancer, leukaemia, birth defects or other negative health effects have ever been observed from radiation exposure to inhaled or ingested natural uranium concentrates, at levels far exceeding those likely in areas where DU munitions have been used. This is mainly because the low radioactivity per unit mass of uranium means that the mass needed for significant internal exposure would be virtually impossible to accumulate in the body - and DU is less than half as radioactive as natural uranium.

From National Radiation Protection Board (UK) Bulletin Editorial

[WilbyInebriated]

Depleted uranium is not classified as a dangerous substance radiologically, though it is a potential hazard in large quantities, beyond what could conceivably be breathed. Its emissions are very low, since the half-life of U-238 is the same as the age of the Earth (4.5 billion years). There are no reputable reports of cancer or other negative health effects from radiation exposure to ingested or inhaled natural or depleted uranium, despite much study.

However, uranium does have a chemical toxicity about the same as that of lead, so inhaled fume or ingested oxide is considered a health hazard. Most uranium actually absorbed into the body is excreted within days, the balance being laid down in bone and kidneys. Its biological effect is principally kidney damage. WHO has set a Tolerable Daily Intake level for U of 0.6 microgram/kg body weight, orally. (This is about eight times our normal background intake from natural sources.) Standards for drinking water and concentrations in air are set accordingly.

Like most radionuclides, it is not known as a carcinogen, or to cause birth defects (from effects in utero) or to cause genetic mutations. Radiation from DU munitions depends on how long since the uranium has been separated from the lighter isotopes so that its decay products start to build up. If thorium-234 (half-life 24 days), protactinium-234 (half-life 1 minute) and U-234 have built up through decay of U-238, then Th-234 and Pa-234 will give rise to some beta emissions and U-234 is an alpha emitter. On this basis, in a few months, DU is "weakly radioactive" with an activity of around 40 kBq/g quoted. (If it is fresh from the enrichment plant and hence fairly pure the activity is 15 kBq/g, compared with 25 kBq/g for pure natural uranium. Fresh DU from enriching reprocessed uranium has U-236 in it and more U-234 so is about 23 kBq/g.)

In 2001 the UN Environment Program examined the effects of nine tonnes of DU munitions having been used in Kosovo, checking the sites targeted by it. UNEP found no widespread contamination, no sign of contamination in water of the food chain and no correlation with reported ill-health in NATO peacekeepers. A two-year study by Sandia National Laboratories in USA reported in 2005 that consistent with earlier studies, reports of serious health risks from DU exposure during the 1991 Gulf War are not supported by medical statistics or by analysis.

Thus DU is clearly dangerous for people in vehicles which are military targets, but for anyone else - even in a war zone - there is little hazard. Ingestion or inhalation of uranium oxide dust resulting from the impact of DU munitions on their targets is the main possible exposure route.

Sources:
BNFL, Cogema, JNFL, SKB and ANSTO publications and papers.
Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, Nov-Dec 1999.
New Scientist 5 & 26/6/99, AFP 29/10/01.
UNEP/UNCHS, 1999, Balkans Task Force report, Appendix 4.
OECD NEA 2001, Management of Depleted Uranium.
Burchall & Clark, Depleted Uranium, NRPB Bulletin #229, March 2001.
Sandia report 2005


Potential Health Effects of Depleted Uranium in Munitions

Some military personnel involved in the 1991 Gulf War have complained of continuing stress-like symptoms for which no obvious cause has been found. These symptoms have at times been attributed to the use of depleted uranium in shells and other missiles, which are said to have caused toxic effects. Similar complaints have arisen from the more recent fighting in the Balkans, particularly the Kosovo conflict about a year ago.

Depleted uranium (DU) is natural uranium which is depleted in the rarer U-235 isotope (see below). It is a heavy metal and, in common with other heavy metals, it is chemically toxic. It is also slightly radioactive and there is therefore said to be a hypothetical possibility that it could give rise to a radiological hazard under some circumstances, e.g. if dispersed in finely divided form so that it is inhaled.

However, because of the latency period for the induction of cancer by radiation, it is not credible that any cases of radiation-induced cancer could yet be attributed to the Kosovo conflict. Furthermore, extensive studies have concluded that no radiological health hazard should be expected from exposure to depleted uranium.

The risk from external exposure is essentially zero, even when pure metal is handled. No detectable increases of cancer, leukaemia, birth defects or other negative health effects have ever been observed from radiation exposure to inhaled or ingested natural uranium concentrates, at levels far exceeding those likely in areas where DU munitions have been used. This is mainly because the low radioactivity per unit mass of uranium means that the mass needed for significant internal exposure would be virtually impossible to accumulate in the body - and DU is less than half as radioactive as natural uranium.

From National Radiation Protection Board (UK) Bulletin Editorial

i seem to recall you saying on a thread here that you subscribe to the 'throw everything at it and see what sticks' method. so, lets throw everything (your life, ie: you get to be the guinea pig) at it. if i get my hands on some du, i can aerosol it for you and you can breathe it. i'm thinking we should do ALOT of it since it's virtually impossible to accumulate right? you shouldn't have any problem with that if you believe what you posted right?
maybe we can get bill to swipe some for us. i'll get to work on a delivery system, you just provide me your address fuzzy.

edit: all of that poking fun and 'put your money where your mouth is' aside, and regardless of half life and daughter isotopes, my point was that weakly radioactive DOES NOT EQUAL  "Depleted uranium is not radioactive.  At all." utilitarian is talking out his arse, and anyone who argues that weakly radioactive is synonymous with 'not at all' is an idiot. PERIOD

[fuzzytomcat]

i seem to recall you saying on a thread here that you subscribe to the 'throw everything at it and see what sticks' method.

Hi WilbyInebriated,

You might read the post more carefully .... what I "subscribed" was some here at this forum such as the 9/11 threads the twin towers had bombs, aliens, jews, special forces, men in black, death rays what did I miss ... taking down two 100 story buildings 'throw everything at it and see what sticks' method. Proof where is the proof of these ...... what ever you want to call them ??

I've given you several sources of published information on the subject Depleted Uranium "NOT" taking any side in the matter only stating what facts I have found. If I'm missing any published credible facts please post them.

Other uses of Depleted Uranium are more mundane, where maximum mass must fit in minimum space, such as aircraft control surface and helicopter counterweights, yacht keels, etc, it is often well suited. Until the mid 1970s it was used in dental porcelains. In addition it is used for radiation shielding, being some five times more effective than lead in this role.

You can also "DIE" from drinking 3 gallons of fresh water in a 24 hour period two days in a row .... is water a killer ??

Sorry if I offended you, but please read my posts a little closer or ask me to clarify what I posted 

Fuzzy

[WilbyInebriated]

Hi WilbyInebriated,

You might read the post more carefully .... what I "subscribed" was some here at this forum such as the 9/11 threads the twin towers had bombs, aliens, jews, special forces, men in black, death rays what did I miss ... taking down two 100 story buildings 'throw everything at it and see what sticks' method. Proof where is the proof of these ...... what ever you want to call them ??

I've given you several sources of published information on the subject Depleted Uranium "NOT" taking any side in the matter only stating what facts I have found. If I'm missing any published credible facts please post them.

Other uses of Depleted Uranium are more mundane, where maximum mass must fit in minimum space, such as aircraft control surface and helicopter counterweights, yacht keels, etc, it is often well suited. Until the mid 1970s it was used in dental porcelains. In addition it is used for radiation shielding, being some five times more effective than lead in this role.

You can also "DIE" from drinking 3 gallons of fresh water in a 24 hour period two days in a row .... is water a killer ??

Sorry if I offended you, but please read my posts a little closer or ask me to clarify what I posted 

Fuzzy

i read it carefully. so you don't subscribe to that policy in this case?

i gave you a source, did you read it? all of it? and the sources it cited?

very small excerpt from the source i posted.
"With a few exceptions, it is only since the late 1980s that uranium's reproductive toxicity has been studied using animal models. Most of the past 15 years of published research on the topic comes from two groups, Domingo, and others working at the University of Barcelona in Spain and McClain, Benson, Miller, Pellmar and others affiliated with the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute (AFRRI) in the United States [15-17]. With at least 6 published studies on topic, Domingo et al. have demonstrated that both oral and subcutaneous administration of UO2++ to female mice engender decreased fertility, embryonic and fetal toxicity including reduced growth and malformations (cleft palate and skeletal defects) and developmental ossification variations. From their maternal animal exposure studies the members of Domingo's group concluded that it was chemical toxicity, not radiation that resulted in teratogenicity [15,18-22]. The chemical reproductive toxicity of DU could act at the molecular level (damaging DNA and RNA), at the cellular level, and/or at the organ level, affecting organs including the testes, placenta, and embryo/fetus.

Two studies of orally dosed male rats that were conducted decades earlier demonstrated substantial degeneration of testes and impact on germ cells; another more recent study provided some similar evidence [21,23,24]. Very recent research suggests that uranium mimics estrogen in mice [25].

The AFRRI studies were funded in 1994 by the military in order to investigate the toxicity of embedded DU fragments [26]. These studies, using a rat model, have demonstrated that DU pellets embedded in male rats led to elevated uranium concentrations in the testes, and that pellets embedded in females led to detectable uranium in the placenta and to "very low levels" of its accumulation in the fetus, though there was no "overt" teratology. There is preliminary evidence of delayed reproductive impact of embedded DU among female rats; the probability of decreased litter size increased in proportion to time since embedding. Several rat studies by the AFRRI group have shown that embedded DU pellets are mutagenic [16,26,27]. In their human studies, McDiarmid et al. found "subtle perturbations" in indices of reproductive health among their shrapnel-exposed human subjects [28].

A Chinese study of reproductive toxicity of enriched uranium noted damage to genetic material, dominant lethality and skeletal abnormalities in fetal rats. Chromosome aberrations in spermatogonia, DNA alterations in spermatocytes and strand breakage in sperm were specifically notified [29]. In vitro experiments documented extensive DNA damage when UO2++ was added to DNA in the presence of an electron donor. Since DNA is particularly dense in sperm-forming cells, such cells may be especially susceptible to UO2++-derived damage. In sum, aerosolized DU is a vehicle for internal delivery of a DNA-tropic substance that is both a heavy metal and an alpha particle emitter."

i'm not 'taking sides' or stating any facts either, other than 'weakly radioactive' DOES NOT EQUAL 'not at all'.  are you suggesting that it does?

i'm well aware of the other uses, however we are talking about projectiles that ARE pyrophoric...

yes it would be a killer in that case, are you suggesting it is not?

you didn't offend me, so no worries. take your own advice and read others posts a little closer including the references, etc.