DU - Health Risk?

yes, correct, 5 had uranium found in urine, 14 with a higher leave, but how did they get that? and what will be the long term effect for them?

and do you have an information reguading the 200 tonnes of DU long-term effect on the enviroment to be harmless? this 200 tonnes will be moved around in the enviroment with time, who knows where it will end up?

and if you infact take the among from both war in Iraq you get more then 300 tonnes of DU and still no one know what the long term effect can be, Im not saying that it can be a big problem, I just point out the lack of knowless on the area, something that need to be researched

we have get deal of knowless when it come to lead and its effect on the enviroment and humans on the long run, but DU have only been used in ammo since beginning of 1990s, and the differents between lead and DU is that DU is radioactive

 

14 troops out of what, over 700? That works out at less than 2% doesn't it (Going by mental arithmatic)? Not exactly a huge problem and this doesn't mention that there are any health problems associated with this, just that it was above average. So if we accept that this is a representative cross section and if the people directly dealing with the substance in its use have less than a 2% chance of even having a higher than normal amount in their bodies, what is likely to be the risk to the populace as a whole?

And if it was a bunker surely firing ammunition that is capable of penetrating through thick protection is a good idea? If it isn't a bunker, which we don't know in any case, then equally firing ammunition that can pentrate through and damage or destroy stock or start fires is surely a good idea. The armouries I have visited, even those in normal buildings, tend to be reinforced like bank vaults anyway, you wouldn't be likely to get normal ammunition through that anywhere near as well as specialised penetrators.

As Ricky said, this is spread throughout a large area, the longterm effect on the environment is probably far greater from a tank being hit and brewing up than the DU fired at it.

 

probably..that little word mean that you and no-one else know and that is a problem

the knowless on this area is to small to turn the blind eye to it and say that nothing happens, nobody knows about the long-term effect for these 14 soldiers that were found with higher leavel of uranium in their body, nobody know anything about the long-term effect of the 300 tonnes DU used in both Iraq wars have on the enviroment there, remember it dont just stay at the site where the tank(s) or other targets where hit, it move around (with the wind and rain etc), do you know for sure where it will end up?

 

and as it moves it gets gradually dispersed.

Probably does not mean that I know there's a problem at all, it means that I do not think in all liklihood it is a problem. For instance, I can say that in all honesty the chances of little green men from Mars invading Earth are probably slim to zero, doesn't mean I know it's going to happen and am ignoring it, just means that the probability of it happening isn't worth worrying about.

You're right, I don't and you don't. So without that knowledge you can't claim it as any kind of grounds for proving that DU is hazardous. It is still a small percentage of those most likely to be directly effected. By the time it's been washed away, blown around, filtered through soil and sand, absorbed and lost in the ecosystem as a whole (Which has an impressive ability to absorb substances) the amount that remains to find its way into local civilians in any appreciable quantity is going to be beyond tiny. And still the point remains that just because it does, doesn't necessarily mean that it's going to have any deterimental effect to their health.

 

and you cant claim that its not hazardous with the same knowledge, I would rather be careful and try to find out more about these issues then take the chance and risk getting sick

http://cseserv.engr.scu.edu/StudentWebP ... hPaper.htm

 

One can link to all kinds of anti-DU websites as I indicated earlier. Most of them have no footnotes or sources for the claims they make and no scientific data to support those claims.

You are aware that that link is to a college student's personal website?

Here are some official sources:

http://www.wise-uranium.org/pdf/lamiq04.pdf


http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du_ii/du_ii_refs/n52en215/9354_019_0000001.htm


http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du_ii/du_ii_refs/n52en215/9354_019_0000001.htm

As I stated earlier. No DU used in cruisemissiles or bombs.

The finding of DU in the urine of a few soldiers is not particularly alarming since at the barely detectable levels we are discussing there is no evidence of significant health effects. In any case compared to the number of US military deaths in Iraq ( >3000) it is a comparatively small sacrifice.

 

I just realised something. I might be wrong about it but hey...

This states that the US population as a whole (and so presumably most humans?) already has a fair level of uranium in their bodies. These soldiers just happened to have slightly more. Surely this rather ruins the idea that a few Uranium atoms will destroy your cells?



Jens, as Simon said it is true that overall we do not know the long-term effect of DU... but what we do know is that the amounts are small and the dispersion widespread. Any impact will therefore be minimal.

 

The sourse about DU in tomahawks do not say anything about missiles used in Kosovo

you self are now dis-missing other sourse of information that say otherwise, just because they seem to be against DU

the damage that the uranium is doing in your body depence on how they got there, as stated before, if you inhail them into your lungs, they will stay longer there before the lungs absorb them poorly, if the level of uranium in your body is higher then normal you risk that your kidney get damaged from it because its your kidney that clean the uranium out of your body, if you have a higher level of uranium in your body there is a higher risk that the uranium enter your cells and into the DNA and thereby damage it

and there is a reason for they call it a upper level, its not normal to have level higher then that

 

I realized afterward that I double posted one of the links.
Here is the other link:

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du_ii/du_ii_refs/n52en216/9354_020_0000001.htm

Note in this link

and in this one:

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du_ii/du_ii_refs/n52en215/9354_019_0000001.htm

It could hardly be any clearer or more authoritative.
Straight from the horses mouth, as it were.

 

Neigh, it couldn't be any clearer!

Sorry, I'll stop the puns...

 

ok, you seem to be set on to use DU in ammo, despite the risk (no matter how small it is) just dont use it where I and my love ones live

and if the long-term effects show that people get sick from this, then dont run away from your responsablity and dont come and say you were not warned about it

 

Correct.

BTW don't come running to us for help when Swedish tanks roll into Copenhagen

 

no danger of swedish tanks in Copenhagen, they never seem to want to use them for anything

last time we had a war in scandinavia (beside ww2) was around 1814/15 where Sweden and Norway fought each other, last time we were close to a war between scandiavian countries were in 1905 where Norway declered independens from Sweden (Norway lost the 1814/15 war)

 

I stepped away for a few days and fell way behind. It seems like nothing has changed.

You are right Jen. Danish Army will probably never need to use DU or any materials used in service ammunition. There will always be someone else in harms way to ensure Denmark will not have to fight. So the assumption that DU will never be used by Danes it accurate. Just like most Europeans, Danes can save their money and profit from the security blanket provided by others.

Those of use that know we will be forced to engage threats have choosen materials that do that job in the most cost effective manner we can afford. That doesn't always mean the best stuff but it is a balance. DU is one of those materials that fits the bill. Think of it in this manner. If we are using DU and the Danes are not, who do you think has the best information on the subject?

 

let me remind you that the danish army is highly active in southen afghanistan, we have troops in Iraq and Kosovo and we used tanks in Bosnia as the first country duing a UN mission, the tanks in Bosnia did see action, so dont come and say the danish army is not in any harms way and that others have to do our job for us.

 

Just one question.Why US dewelop B61-11,nuclear bunker buster,when is forbiden to dewelop further any nuclear weapons? That weapon is not "retaliation weapon" as any otthernukes r,it is purpose maded bunker buster.

"It is not risk for helth"?

 

Forbidden? By whom is it forbidden? It has been official government policy not to develop new low yield nuclear weapons but it isn't forbidden by any treaty AFAIK. The B-61-11 was a modification fo an existing "physics package" thus not a develepment of a new weapon.
In any case the policy was US policy thus nobody elses business, the way I see it.

 

I've served/trained with Danes and have no complaints. However, none of the examples you presented were armor fights requiring main gun engagements much less armor peircing ammo. Bad examples. May I remind you of the 60 years of American prevention of the red horde. In addition, the U.S. has spent billions more on development of arms than Denmark.

 

maybe you should take a map and see where Denmark is located in campairsion with Russia and Poland, who do you think would be the first to meet the massive armor attack for Russia and Poland duing the cold war? not USA nor England, but Germany and Denmark, so dont come and say that we have not prepaird our self, you basicly know nothing about danish military straticgy and what kind of toughts the danish army high command have done when it come to its armor weapon and prepairing for armor warfare.
we had more then 230 leopard 1A5 tanks ready for combat, thats alot when you think of the size of our country, we had a army when mobilised that counted around 100.000 men which is large for a small country like ours, so dont you think that we prepair our self for armor warfare?

there is whole lot of difference when you meet danish soldiers on international missions, then they are focused on the type of mission they are doing and not armor warfare if there is no enemy armor present

and of cause US have used more money on weapons then Denmark, how large is US compaired to Denmark?, we are 5 millions people here, you are 300 millions, dont you think the US stat budget is just a little large then the danish budget?

and dont you think that since we are NATO alliered that we share information with other NATO alliered when it come to research in armor warfare, I can tell that the NATO countries work close together in these matters, the danish army have made many ballistic tests with different kind of ammo, including tanks ammo, and are sharing these information with other NATO countries

 

Five states are permitted by the NPT to own nuclear weapons: France (signed 1992), the People's Republic of China (1992), the Soviet Union (1968; obligations and rights now assumed by Russia), the United Kingdom (1968), and the United States (1968). The U.S., U.K., and Soviet Union were the only states openly possessing such weapons at the time the treaty was opened to signature, and these five nations are also the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. These 5 Nuclear Weapons States (NWS) agree not to transfer "nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices" technology to other states, and non-NWS parties agree not to seek or develop nuclear weapons.

And alot otthers things,nuclear country cannot use nuclear weapon against non-nuclear country,and bunker buster can be used mainly against 3-rd world countrys.

And one otther thing....ur post is same like US administration,"it is not develop,it is modification",do u think by urself sometime?