Depleted Uranium

problem_child · July 14, 2003, 09:11

I read in a quoted report by the World Health Organization, that the cancer rate in Iraq after the 1990 Gulf War had leapt up to many times the cancer rate before the war, that fifty percent of the Iraqi people had people close to them affected by cancer or leukemia.

Considering DU has also been used in Kosovo and Serbia, Afghanistan, Bosnia- and considering the last USUK campaign against Iraq was embarked on because of weapons of mass destruction, what are your thoughts on this, Worthy of discussion?

CerberusIV · July 14, 2003, 09:45

There are a lot of carcinogens around, not just DU. Burning crude oil produces quite a few nasty chemicals for a start.

Until someone produces more compelling evidence of direct links to DU then it is hard to be sure where to point the finger of blame.

connorkimbro · July 14, 2003, 09:52

you also can't say whether or not that whatever the iraqis used might have been the cause of it.

from what i remember of my training, DU doesn't hurt people under normal conditions. we ride around in tanks with DU armor, and our guys aren't affected. I think if the tank were attacked, and it was blown up and on fire, then the DU might become dangerous at that point, but HOW many tanks would have had to be blown up to affect the entire iraqi population and cause a 50% increase in cancer rates? not NEARLY as many as were blown up. (were any blown up at all? i can't remember)

again, i may be remembering a bit incorrectly, but i do know that normally, DU is not dangerous.

edit, i misquoted the statistics you stated, but can't be bothered to correct them. anyway, my point still stands i think. . .

problem_child · July 14, 2003, 09:53

Still, in the UK, DU firing ranges are all far from urban centres, (out in the Shetland Isles and so on) recently people have been making lots of paniky noises about terrorists setting off 'dirty bombs' in cities. Don't you think a shell containing a pleted uranium core can be considered a dirty bomb?

However I guess comparative figures from Kosovo and Afghanistan would be far more decisive, your point about burning oil-wells in Iraq is well taken.

Personally I'd have serious reservations about me or my children having to breath in the DU dust left lying around in the wreckage of schools, hospitals and media-stations after a few weeks of targeted boming.

connorkimbro · July 14, 2003, 09:55

i don't believe the ammunition that we use has any DU in it. . . i may be wrong, but i don't think so.

besides, almost ANY firing range is gonna be far from urban centers.

problem_child · July 14, 2003, 09:56

Ah, that's good then (I mean that) The UK still uses it.

BeBro · July 14, 2003, 09:57

I think A10 tank killers fire DU shells from their gatling guns....

Not sure about other weapons.

connorkimbro · July 14, 2003, 09:58

perhaps armor piercing round may have DU in it, but we wouldn't use armor piercing rounds against things that don't have armor, of course.

edit: yes, a tank killer may use them, as they're targeting things that have armor.

problem_child · July 14, 2003, 10:06

But like cluster-bombs, effects of such armaments can persist long after the exciting and dramatic duel between warriors is over. What happens when the war is past and people return to the fields and cities where such altercations took place? They're breathing and eating the stuff... thus my question. I understand that militaries will always want more powerful and effective weapons, but where is the line drawn? Perhaps it's a matter of who uses what, rather then what is used by whoever.

VJ · July 14, 2003, 10:25

Quote:

Personally I'd have serious reservations about me or my children having to breath in the DU dust left lying around in the wreckage of schools, hospitals and media-stations after a few weeks of targeted boming.

Depleted Uranium shells emit less radiation than the ground in here. It's called 'depleted' for a reason.

problem_child · July 14, 2003, 10:32

'the ground in here', the ground in where? Do you mean granite?

VJ · July 14, 2003, 10:40

Quote:

'the ground in here', the ground in where?

Here, as in about 60 degrees northern, almost exactly 25 degrees eastern.

Quote:

Do you mean granite?

When I say 'ground', I mean 'ground'. Including the granite in it, yes.

EDIT: "Soil" would be another good word for this instance, English is not my native language so some of my sentences may sound quite confusing, sorry about that.

KrazyHorse · July 14, 2003, 11:13

Quote:

Originally posted by connorkimbro
i don't believe the ammunition that we use has any DU in it. . . i may be wrong, but i don't think so

Tank shells do for sure. Arty shells too, probably.

It has a very high specific gravity, and is better than lead for some other reasons.

DU is uranium from which almost all the U235 originally present in uranium ore has been removed. This lowers its radioactivity to something considered acceptable. However, I'm pretty sure this calculation only includes dose from being around some DU, not ingestion of DU into a person's body (i.e. through the water supply). Given that heavy metals have been found to remain in people's bodies for ages, that it is still a low-level source of some pretty nasty forms of radiation and the fact that depleted or not it remains a chemical toxin, and you get the idea. There's no direct, firm link yet established between high levels of DU in a person's bloodstream (which was definitely present in some of the civilian population of Iraq after GW1, as well as in US military personnel involved in the war) and leukemia rates (or anything else), but I wouldn't drink the water or eat the food taken from ground in which DU shells have been used. Some people don't get that choice, unfortunately.

VJ · July 14, 2003, 11:43

Quote:

DU is uranium from which almost all the U235 originally present in uranium ore has been removed.

I thought that U-238 ore is mainly used, because it's cheaper?

Quote:

It has a very high specific gravity, and is better than lead for some other reasons.

Ya, quite dense considering the relatively low price of it, isn't it?

KrazyHorse · July 14, 2003, 15:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Tuomerehu

I thought that U-238 ore is mainly used, because it's cheaper?

There is no such thing as "U-238 ore". Uranium ore consists of a mix of U-238 and U-235. IIRC, certain mining sites have higher or lower concentrations of U-235 in their raw ore, but all still have a significant amount (which is pretty much determined by the age of the Earth). Removing (most) of the U-235 is where the word "depleted" comes from.

MichaeltheGreat · July 14, 2003, 15:55

Quote:

Originally posted by connorkimbro
i don't believe the ammunition that we use has any DU in it. . . i may be wrong, but i don't think so.

besides, almost ANY firing range is gonna be far from urban centers.

Small arms ammo doesn't have DU in it.

DU ammo in the US military is combat issue only.

Velociryx · July 14, 2003, 15:57

Depleted Geraniums are much, much more deadly (not to mention rare!)

-=Vel=-

MichaeltheGreat · July 14, 2003, 15:59

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

Tank shells do for sure. Arty shells too, probably.

AP tank shells for the 105 mm rifled and 120mm smoothbore main guns.

AP rounds for the M2/M3 Bradley 25mm.

HEDP rounds for the AH-64 (30mm) and AP rounds for the AH-1 (25mm)

Vulcan gun rounds (20mm) for the CIWS, 20mm ADA platforms, F-14, F-15, F-16, F/A-18 aircraft.

VJ · July 14, 2003, 17:02

Quote:

There is no such thing as "U-238 ore". Uranium ore consists of a mix of U-238 and U-235. IIRC, certain mining sites have higher or lower concentrations of U-235 in their raw ore, but all still have a significant amount (which is pretty much determined by the age of the Earth). Removing (most) of the U-235 is where the word "depleted" comes from.

I knew that.

TCO · July 14, 2003, 22:46

It is pretty easy to do the radcon math and caluclate the exposure rates based on assumptions or even survey data. The actual count rate that most people get is pretty low. The correlation of radiation to cancer has been very well studied, so you can get a nice calculation of expected increased cancer risk for a given exposure. Mowever, the data probably slightly overestimates the risk of cancer from low level exposure because of the way the trends are backed out from high exposure numbers.

geeslaka · July 14, 2003, 23:01

Quote:

HEDP rounds for the AH-64 (30mm) and AP rounds for the AH-1 (25mm)

I didn't know Alexander's Horse had guns named after him.

KrazyHorse · July 14, 2003, 23:47

Quote:

Originally posted by TCO
It is pretty easy to do the radcon math and caluclate the exposure rates based on assumptions or even survey data. The actual count rate that most people get is pretty low. The correlation of radiation to cancer has been very well studied, so you can get a nice calculation of expected increased cancer risk for a given exposure. Mowever, the data probably slightly overestimates the risk of cancer from low level exposure because of the way the trends are backed out from high exposure numbers.

Not accurate if you take into account the fact that people's bodies tend to latch on to heavy metals and concentrate them. Exposure at cellular level is bad, bad, bad (compared to TBI). Now add in chemical toxicity.

I agree that background radiation in Iraq is not significantly affected, but that's not my major concern.

TCO · July 14, 2003, 23:52

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

Not accurate if you take into account the fact that people's bodies tend to latch on to heavy metals and concentrate them. Exposure at cellular level is bad, bad, bad (compared to TBI). Now add in chemical toxicity.

I agree that background radiation in Iraq is not significantly affected, but that's not my major concern.

You can do the radcon math for different types of ingestion. There are biological retention data on the major nuclides. I don't know U238, but I know Cobalt 60 and Iodine and the like.

Yeah, I don't know much about the chemical toxicity of uranium, but doing the radcon math would still be the way to attack this problem. I'm not sure how good the toxicity data is, but there is probably something out there...

KrazyHorse · July 14, 2003, 23:56

Past my knowledge at that point. Would think that this all starts to get hazy when you ask how much leeches into groundwater, into food etc. Haven't yet seen a preoperly formulated study regarding use of DU weapons in theater. Seen some bullshit telling me that background dose from DU in Iraq is less than in SW US. No ****, but nothing approaching realistic risk assessment (IMO)

Sava · July 15, 2003, 00:03

DU probably isn't all that safe. As I said in an earlier thread about DU, I wouldn't want to sleep with some DU near my nuts. That should be the universal toxicity test. Would you sleep with it near your nuts?

TCO · July 15, 2003, 00:41

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Past my knowledge at that point. Would think that this all starts to get hazy when you ask how much leeches into groundwater, into food etc. Haven't yet seen a preoperly formulated study regarding use of DU weapons in theater. Seen some bullshit telling me that background dose from DU in Iraq is less than in SW US. No ****, but nothing approaching realistic risk assessment (IMO)

I've done probably tens of problems on airborne, ingested and skin contamination. There are tools for attacking these types of problems.

MichaeltheGreat · July 15, 2003, 00:43

(edit - reply to Sava)

It depends on if I was the firer or the target.

TCO · July 15, 2003, 00:45

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
(edit - reply to Sava)

It depends on if I was the firer or the target.

Yeah, that CIWS really screws up a close-aboard plane...

MichaeltheGreat · July 15, 2003, 00:49

Has anybody ever ****ed up and had one weapons free when a friendly has tried to land?

BTW, you have any idea what's up with Navy recruiting lately? I saw a sight at the border this morning that made me want to laugh and cry at the same time.

Dis · July 15, 2003, 00:55

what did you see at the border?

Navy ships also use DU rounds on their phalanx guns. Though I don't see why that is needed. They are firing at aluminum aircraft and missiles. It can't be that hard to penetrate.