US soldiers & Iraqi civilians: "Victims of US/British DU contamination?"

I at least know my claims are scientific, the health effects of Uranium are clear: Uranium dust is a hazards, mostly because of its toxicity. Uranium metal is safe as long as it’s coated, you do not ingest it or its rusts. Look up the MSDS on it, they only show what data was acquired from statically valid scientific studies.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, looking back I see that you are not against the idea of banning combustible DU munitions even if you discredit the claims of the radiation aspects. Good for you. I look at the MSDS data you posted earlier and see they suggest taking measures to avoid exposure to the radiation both from the dust and nondust samples. I suggest one not discount the radiation component entirely on the basis of your own references, Fetus.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

they mean radiation hazards from conic exposure to skin. Only people working on uranium for years need worry, the toxic effects from near term exposure will kill you first. Also I looked deeper into the MSDS and Urainum Oxide dissolve in water, this mean Uranium dust capture in the lungs will not remain there, it will be dissolve, enter the blood stream and be clear through the kidneys (damaging liver and kidneys in the process). Do I think areas exposed to uranium dust should be closed off or cleaned, yes. Do I believe DU cause mutant children, no, there is not scientific evidence for that, just claims. Do I think tungsten though not nearly as good as a penetrate as DU should replace lead and DU, yes, tungsten is far less toxic (look up the MSDS) Teflon coated tungsten rounds are already replacing lead and lead clayed steel rounds in military small arms.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I guess you are right as far as what those MSDSs note explicitly (I think i've been hunched over the computer too long, probably should take the kids to the park or something). They both seem to be rather vague as to potential damage from radiation. The 1997 one seems less critical of the possible damage from radiation while the 2001 MSDS makes a disclaimer as to the health effects not being sufficiently studied to be known with special reference to carcinogenesis or potential to cause birth defects. It is not altogethor clear as to whether the comments concerning the known expected cancer risks are due to toxicology or radiation. I'm getting from you that radiation effects are considered different from toxicity effects?

Here is a 1984 Navy MSDS that seems more specific as to the radiation dangers. Maybe the further back in time, the more was known about the health effects of DU.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

http://traprockpeace.org/depleted_uranium_milner.html

BTW, Stokes and myself went through this before in another thread, http://sciforums.com/printthread.php?t=31911. I found the URL Stokes gave of WHO studies to be quite interesting, seemingly not in keeping with the claim that is being attributed to the WHO in general by those who (sic) claim their studies exonerates DU. The WHO reports seem to include much reference to insufficient studies to be certain as to its safety, either from a toxicity or radiological standpoint.

 

Just a repeat of my comments on another DU thread.

DU anti-armour ammuntion is needed because "chobham" and other advanced armour's are able to withstand strikes by conventional "tungsten" AP rounds.

However seeing as many potential enemies do not have the latest tanks, the solution is simple. " produce both types of ammunition". We use DU against up to date enemies and use "tungsten" against the riff raff.

The problem is of course cost, tank ammunition has a shelf life of about 7 years (yes it has a use by date) and since the introduction of DU no Tungsten AP ammuniotion has been produced and it will be expensive to go back to it.

How strange that based on my theory of using DU only when it's needed,this argument would still be in the future as DU ammo has never been actually needed by the US/UK in combat.

 

Mr. Chips,

the problem is a matter of logic when science is limited by lack or research. DU with is very long half-life (4.6Billion years) and its alpha ray emitter is not very radioactive. In a mathematical study done on theoretical DU dust grain about 2.5micrometers in the lungs it would emit 17rad (170rems) in one year to the local area (~1mm^3). Over 75rad (~750rem) across the WHOLE BODY (~.4m^3) is known to increase the risks of cancer. Also remember that the DU dust will dissolve in the lungs and that DU is not known to remain trapped in any tissues. Living in a high DU dust area you are much more likely to get cancer from chronic toxicological induce damaging of your liver, kidneys and arteries then from the radiation, in fact you will die form kidney and liver disease frist. As for DU much more radioactive prodigy they have to build up in a area (like radium and radon) from thousand of tons of uranium deep underground.

 

You are beyond the realm of rational discussion. I'm an engineer, and I've had experience with this sort of thing. From the content of your posts, I think it's fair to say that I do more science before breakfast than you did in all your years of school.

Rather than regurgitating your same tired mantra, you could instead address the points I've made. We're still waiting for your irrefutable proof that DU is the demon you and other activists claim it to be.

It's never too late to try.

 

A team of researchers at the University of Southern Maine is posting a call for further research based on the belief that DU dust causes cancer of the lungs as well as "embryotoxicity and teratogenicity, reproductive and developmental damage, genomic instability." Whether or not it is from radiation or just the toxicity appears to fit within the goal of the study but seems besides the point as Fetus has agreed that from the toxicity alone, it would not be reasonable to oppose its banning. It's interesting that this USM call for research cites WHO studies as part of the evidence that DU causes lung cancer.

http://www.usm.maine.edu/toxicology/research/uranium.php

It would be nicer to cite the original articles rather than just a secondary source. I will probably seek such out and believe I already have as well as posted references here and in that thread noted in my immediate previous post. If you start from the preposition that all who do not swallow your claims are irrational, then it's going to be quite difficult for you to recognize any contrary evidence no matter the credentials or numbers of those posting the information.

I count seven (and perhaps more) grammar and spelling errors in the first of the two posts you just made. In the second there is less but appears that there is a solecism, you seem to equate being an engineer with being a scientist. In my mind a scientist is not just one who builds or designs specific tools or processes for the profits of a corporation even if the lions share of that work is experimentation.

No comment about the obvious tergiversation you visited upon us here? Was it "regurgitation" of the "same tired mantra" to analyze and show your gaffes? I think I was being quite creative in pointing out how you twisted logic and used false specific analogy to support your general claims. I think you are quite disturbed, Stokes. My experiences with you are lessening my faith in the ultimate utility of a missile defense system, especially if the technology or components come from your company.

If what I perceive is correct, Stokes, you want your basic claims to be "regurgitated" as the last posts in this thread despite your false propositions, non-cited references and other gaffes that show your inability to be, and act, and proceed, and function, as a scientist. I do think there is some irrationality being demonstrated here and I have attempted to own up to my own. Me thinks that one characteristic of a true scientist would be to be able to admit when they are in error. Twice now, in two different threads, you have attempted to obfuscate understanding by mixing outrageous physical falsehoods with mounds of uncited information. You are twisting the evidence, even of those few references you do give, to meet your opinion rather than using one major aspect of the scientific method: formulating opinion on the basis of observation.

There is a huge barrier to your becoming rational, Stokes. You can think of it as being similar to an energy state of a particle requiring large incremental force to move to a new state. Once there, more stability and options may be found but it might be but a rare occurence. The peer pressure of your adopted livelihood makes up most of this barrier force I suppose. If you somehow become desirous of developing a new set of freedoms, frustrated or unhappy with the options of your current ascriptions, maybe then you'll seek and find an alternative.

I do think diagnosing this discomfiting malady of yours has usefullness which is one of the main reasons why I pursue posting as it can goad me into research and provide me with examples of the tenantability of current opinion and beliefs. I believe citing anomie as the cause of your disabilities is quite on the mark. I suspect it is pandemic.

 

at present the evidence is simple: uranium oxide is toxic, it radiation levels may be a hazard, further scientifically relevant evidence is needed on its mutagenicity, carcinogenicity, ect. Already a ban on lead ammunition has been called for it not unreasonable that DU should or will be called for in the future if and when evidence become more daming.

 

A ban on lead ammo? I know that some ranges do it for environmental reasons. You cant use lead shot anymore. But for the Military?? Thats questionable.

 

yes the military is transfer its lead 5.56mm to teflon-tungstan. Here one article about it off google: http://english.pravda.ru/world/2001/05/10/4997.html

 

Oops. I confused the authors of posts above. Sorry WellCooked. I see you've done some editing. Thanks for the URL on army going green. Seems they were considering banning bullets altogethor at one base. Interesting that it is a Pravda news site doing the reporting.

 

I like this quote:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yeah, the author decided to put a little kick in there. What was that oxymoron of Groucho Marx', "military intelligence?"

 

An environmental army *LOL*
Im impressed. Maybe tanks will start running on hydrogen *LOL*

 

Heck tanks could start going hybrid, using a turbine-generator to power electric motors that move the tracks would be more manuverable as well as fuel efficent.

 

Actually the military has started on fuel efficent tanks, you know it does cost $$$.

 

Back to DU

DU metal as is safe, so the bullets and penetrators are no hazard in storage or handled, but unlike lead or tungsten DU combust upon impact (which is another reason why its so wonderful at penetrating armor!) and become Uranium oxide. The Uox can be ingested and inhaled taht the bad stuff.

Again let me stress how radioactive it is, its even used for radiation SHEILDING!:
http://web.ead.anl.gov/uranium/pdf/ducretecosteffec.pdf

 

You might be surprised how close to fruition such systems are already. The turbine in the Abrams can burn anything from kerosene to gasoline, including all manner of alcohols. Humvees are going to be electrified buy, IIRC, 2010 (the newer ones) using a constant RPM diesel engine to spin a 220kw 600VDC generator. Naturally the benefits of this are many, but chief amongst them is that an electrical distribution system can survive battle damage amazingly well and simply reroute power through redundant busses. Mechanical transmissions can't do this.

The Navy's doing the same thing, as it happens.

 

Ya arn't many naval destroys turbine-electric? they use double stage turbines one spins of the burning fuel and another spinning of the steam made from the heat the first turbine generates. Real high efficiency, all this powers the electric motor driven screws and electrical for the ship and in the not to distant future rail/mass driver cannons. Tanks serial electric hybrid tanks could also in theory mount a rail/mass driver cannons, though it would need a huge bank of capacitors and its rate of fire would be crappy the rail/mass drivers could launch projectiles at much higher speeds then standard cannons, making the need for DU in tank to tank penetrates a nullified issue