DU - Health Risk?

Your statement was:

Electromagnetic radiation is radiation and can be hazardous at high levels.
Nobody specified nulear radiation.

 

sinissa:
'Point I was trying make was that while we may--or may not--import tungsten from China, we've more than enough on-hand to allow even lowly midwestern Yankee duck-hunters an ample supply to shoot at ducks and geese.
It doesn't appear to be in short supply.
That's all.

Now back to the action...
Fire away boys.

Tim

 

It might be supposition, but why run the risk to hurt the civilian population unnessary, dont they suffer enough duing a war?
and if you hurt a civilian population to much you will creat more enemies, you just creat more hate against you if people get sick/hurt from left over of your ammo.
And you say that is only a small among of uranium in DU ammo, yes but when you use the among of ammo that you do in war, then suddenly there is plenty of uranium around, you dont just fire one shoot in a war.

And btw. the radioactive dust dont just dissapire by it self, that is physical impossible, it have to go somewhere and like everything else, it goes with the water when its raining and it dont dissapire in the water it stays as small particles and remember you only need a few into your body before its hazardous, my evidence is that it happen to everything else that is poluting the nature, then why should not also happen with the dust from DU ammo, when it happens when the farmers use to much pesticides on their fields it get washed out into waterways, and all the particles the cars are letting out from their exhaust gasses, there are plenty of evidence for that, what is so unique for dust particles from DU ammo since it should not behave like everything else that is poluting on this earth? its smiple physic, try it you self at home, take some dust and pure some water over it then you see the dust get carried away with the water.
And for the toxic substance in nature, well people dont eat/drink something they know is toxic or maybe you do?

and btw. Im not some kind of green enviomentlist that run around and huge trees, no way, I have served my time in the danish army and now I study to become a labotorian technician

 

On the note of depleted uranium. Depleted or not it is still a radioactive element, similer to plutonium (although I think uranium occurs naturally unlike the plutonium used in nuke reactors)

The GAU-8 30mm cannon in the nose of the A-10 fired depleted uranium rounds. The armourers of A-10 squadrons (who load, unload and other wise handle the ammo belts for the gun) have a higher rate of cacer development then those of other squadrons. Spent rounds also contaminated the water in some areas after the Gulf War.

Don't ask, bad day at school.

 

Do you have a reliable source for the idea that the ordinance men of A-10 squadrons have a higher rate of cancer than the general public? Nothing like that has been scientifically established AFAIK. I would provide a source except it is very difficult to prove a negative whereas if what you say is true there must be a peer reviewed scientific study to support it.

 

The diesel exhausts from some MBTs also contain carcinogens and pollutants. I would venture to say that they contribute more to the pollution of the environment than does dust from fired DU rounds. The radioactivity of depleted uranium is so slight as to pose no significant health hazard. That is a simple fact.

 

Sometimes I think the environmental impact of war is a bit shrouded in mist.

 

Lead is more malleable than tungsten carbide. It will break off and leave lead in the meat. This in turn will be digested and has a small potential of poisining people. Tungsten will not break up as easily in flesh and therefore considered safer. When tungsten carbide hits a solid object, like the turret of a MBT, it will have particles to break off and become "dust" similar to DU. This dust has the same potential of causing cancer as DU if injested. If enough tungsten carbide is injested from the meat, it too can cause problems. The difference is lead will break down more quickly in the blood stream than other metals.

Comparing the radioactivity of a refined urainium isotope, yes it occurs naturally and not that radioactive, to tungsten is the common disinformation campaign that confuses people. Take look at the actual DEPLETED material used in manufacturing ammo.

The point is; there are similar problems/concerns of using alternative materials to DU. DU is just cheaper.

The cancer rate quote of airmen around the A-10 is a complete lie. I work with an ex crew chief on A-10s. In addition, 98% of A-10 missions are training. We do NOT use DU ammo in training so the amount of time any airman has been near DU is extremely limited. We have tank crews, myself included, that have spent months eating, sleeping, and fring DU ammo without the cancer rate you discribed. An airman loading the 30mm on an A-10 would only be near the stuff a couple of hours at best with a cuple of days between exposures. Get your facts straight and apply some common sense and the truth will emerge.

 

yes, diesel pollution from MBT and other cars can also be a problem, but its NOT radioactive, no matter what you say: uranium is radioactive, DU ammo is made of U-238, U-238 is radioactive, its not only a quetion of how radioactive, but if you get it into your body it stay there as an radioactive heavy metal which mean you will suffer long term exposion of radioactivity, only a very few particles will be a health hazard because of the radioactivity.
so not only are you getting a heavy metal poision, but you are also suffering from the effects from long term radioactivity.

Uranium is an unstabil metal, not matter what isotope you have it in, its radioactive, there is no such thing as none-radioactive uranium.

a few particles from tungsten will not cause the biggest health issues, we all have small amongs of heavy metals in our bodies, they would be a problem if they are radioactive

 

Ok guys,

Read the official, unbiased reports...

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/

The problem with radioactive radiation ( alpha, beta or gamma radiation) is, you can not taste, smell or feel (in low quantities that is) it.

Only measurements will tell the potential danger and even then it is the human itself that is susceptible in different ways.

Kris

 

But you are focusing exclusively on radioactivity as a threat while ignoring other threats such as carcinogens. You are constantly exposed to low levels of radioactivity in your life just walking about and going to work and home. At low levels it poses less of a health threat than do pollutants and carcinogens. Statistically breathing the air in or near any major city poses more of a health threat than the extremely low levels of radioactivity from depleted uranium.

 

One cannot taste, smell or feel a carcinogen compared to a benign substance either.

from the WHO report:

This is consistent with what I have been saying all along.

 

You base your arguementation on exposure to back-ground radiation, it way much dangerous to get it into your body, you dont in your everyday life walk around and eat uranium, I know I dont.
Against back-ground radiation our skin offer some sort of protection otherwise we could not exist.
But long term exposure of radioactive substance inside your body will lead to damage of your DNA and your cells, result will be cell-death -> your death

The risk is when you have used DU ammo in an area that it will be washed into waterways and watersupplies and then the people that drink the water risk to get uranium particles into their bodies which is much more dangerous then everyday back-ground exposure of radiation.
People drink water because they need it to survive, they dont walk around and eat toxic plants and other toxic substance there is in nature if they know its toxic (or maybe you do, I dont know, but I know I dont do it) so you cant use your arguementation on that is many other things in nature that is toxic, ofcause there is, but people tend not to eat/drink toxic substance if they know its toxic

People drink water, why risk pollution with uranium in watersupplies?
and dont use the arguementation that they can just clean it before drinking, that is not an option when you have a war going on around your ears

 

Did you read the WHO report where they address that very issue? they don't think it's a big risk so where is your data that suggests that it is a significant risk?

 

I am studying to become a labotorian technician, one of the things we learn is the risk of exposure of toxic substance, not only in the lab, but also in everyday life, before that I studied biochemisty at the university of Copenhagen and before that I served my time in the danish army, I think I know a thing or two about exposure and the health risk there is around these things and if there is something I dont know I look it up in some of those very thick biochemistry books I have or talk with some of the smart heads there is walking around on my school

the uranium from DU ammo cant not dissapire out in the blue, it HAVE to go some where and like with everything else it get carried away with the rain and where does the rain goes???? rivers, watersupplies etc.
atoms can not just dissapire

I have read the rapport from WHO, many of their figurs are ESTIMATED, so the risk are still there, their rapport is inconclusive there are possible effects they say that we dont know enough about, and I ask again what give you the right to exposure the civilian population of the risk of getting infected with uranium?
you just asume that it dont happen, but I say the risk is there and so does WHO, then why exposure the civilians to the risk when you can use other types of ammo that dont contain DU?

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/

the last quote is inconclusive, which mean they neither can comfire it or not

 

You keep referring to the risk yet you seem unable to put the level of risk in to any kind of realistic perspective. Yes, there is a slight risk however it isn't substantially greater than the normal background radiation.

 

you keep referring to back-ground radiation, yes there is back-ground radiation and so what, it does not help that you place more radioactive material in the area, then you got both back-ground + the other stuff you just placed there, some radiation plus some more radiation dont give less radiation, it give more

you dont eat/drink the radiation you find in everyday life, do you eat your TV or telephone? do you eat the x-ray machine at the doctor? no, I know I dont

its not the problem with the radiation that surround us as long its kept at a harmless leave, but if you get it into your body you risk long term exposure to radiation

you ask for a leave of risk, is it not enough that the risk is there? is it not enough, as WHO them self stat in the rapport that you your self referred to, that there is a risk for children playing in the area where DU ammo have been used?
Or shall I take it that you rather want to play with the life and health of civilian, especially children, just so you can use DU ammo?
What if one child get sick from it? is that child's life not worth anything?
I say it just need one child (or another civilian) to get sick or die from exposure to the dust of DU ammo before it not worth using DU ammo

 

The levels of background radiation vary from place to place. In many places you could have the background radiation plus the DU and still be lower than the background radiation alone in other places.



Is one person getting sick from diesel fumes enough to stop using diesel engines? If one child dies in an automobile accident is that enough to ban automobiles? Shouldn't all guns be banned since accidents (and crimes) do sometime happen? Alcohol kills many people as do recreational drugs..how far do you want to go with this..if one child (or person) is harmed prohibition?

 

One thing about nuclear radiation,it has acumulative acting,so it acumulate in body,dont disapear after some time,so whole idea "whell,u got radiation,what is few more hundreads DU in ur back yard" just dont hold wather.It is radioactive,heawy element,extremly hazadrus for helth,what is gulf war sindrom?

 

we are working on other kind of fuel, bioethanol and other green fuels.
but you have an alternative to DU ammo now, tungsten-carbide that is not that dangerous as DU because its not radioactive, then why not use it?

we dont have an alternative to diesel, gas etc. at the moment, but we are working on it

Denmark is planing that in 2025 (think it was around that year(will have to look it up)) that 30% of its energi shall come from green sourse (windmills among others), we are also starting to use bioethanol in fuel to cars, so dont come and say we dont look for alternative to reduce pollution which effect people health and the envioment.

there is a reason why guns is illegal in Denmark, there is a reason why its illigal to sell alcohol/tobaco to children in Denmark and there is a reason why children is not allowed to drive in Denmark and there is a reason why some drugs may not be sold to children, but yes accidents still happens, thats why there is also laws for how to drive (speed limits etc) goverments are trying to prevent accidents in everyday life and reduce the risk of people getting hurt.

but if you can remove the couse for one accident by a simple replacment then why not do it? we do it all the time in the chemical world, if we have a less dangerous alternativ to a drug or substance then we use it.

but it would be nice to get rid of all weapons on this planet, then people would have a hard time to make wars against each other and terrorist would have to use their fists to hurt people