Key quote:

"Anyway, if your vehicle is hit by a DU penetrator then you should be so lucky as to worry about long-term illness."

Somebody told me you get sucked out the hole it makes as it leaves the vehicle.

This reminds me of the debate over irradiated food, a technique that can eliminate food spoilage without chemicals or refrigeration. As if the food's radioactive.

I want to shake these folks and ask them "Are YOU radioactive after you've had an Xray? Is your Aunt Martha radioactive after her cancer radiation therapy?"
Oops, maybe not. Then they'll start "thinking" and poor Aunt Martha won't get any more visitors.

I don't think these concerns are quite so easily disposed of. As I understand it, the big problem is that the uranium is vaporized in the impact, inhaled and then toxic in the way of any other heavy metal like mercury or lead. I suppose you would have to be on the business end of quite a few of these babies to generate serious exposure but don't forget the high volume of these projectiles fired at any target. The A-10 fires at something like 20,000 rpms. The radiation threat has been, I think, well dismissed.

It could be worse. The depleted uranium could be mixed with dihydrogen monoxide!

When I hear someone babbling about the deadly hazards of depleted uranium, it puts me on the lookout for quantities of other metal--flattened aluminum under their hats. On the bright side, I know I've found someone who can chat at length about the October Surprise conspiracy, and who has Elvis on their speed dial list.

Dave- I heard you could drown in as little as one inch of that stuff! And it's a componenet of acid rain, too.

One of the hallmarks of the intellectually-bankrupt right wing in America is their total belief and faith in official denials.

If the government says that the depleted uranium they exposed our sons and daughters to is harmless, then it must be harmless (just like the fallout they exposed our fathers to in Nevada in the 50s). If a giant petrochemical conglomerate says the sludge they've released into the groundwater is harmless, then it must be harmless. No matter how much scientific evidence surfaces, no matter how many veterans die of cancer---if an offical denial is issued, then it must be the gospel truth.

Don't y'all realize yet that the government lies to you?

BTW Mr. Eiland, the first rumblings I've heard about an October Surprise was last Sunday on 60 Minutes---an agreement between the Bush White House and their business partners in the Saudi Royal Family to lower gas prices right before the election. This was reported by a division of Viacom, a multi-national media comglomerate that was a HUUUUUGE beneficiary of new FCC ownership regulations (and a major GOP contributor). Hardly a left-wing activist collective...

Excellent reporting, Don! So, if by chance there is a study coming to *the same conclusions* that isn't government-sponsored, I should assume that they are government dupes, or is it part of the Illuminati? I always get confused about which it is.
/sarcasm

megapotamus- The best rate of fire for the 30mm gatling gun on the A-10 is around 6100 rounds per minute. Total ammo load is around 3000 rounds, I believe, and most missions are flown with a third of that, with the gun ROF set down to about 3000 rounds per minute. Some actual, you know, research into the subject might be enlightening.

Don Myers- DU has the same radioactivity level as granite, this is a commonly known fact. It has a wide range of military applications, including counterweights on transport aircraft flight control systems. Sometimes the government isn't actually out to get you, and you're really a paranoid conspiracy freak. Look into it.

The problem with DU is its toxicity, not its radioactivity.

D.U. has also been used as ballast in some really high performance racing yachts, so be sure and use a dosimeter when at your local yacht club.

I want to shake these folks and ask them "Are YOU radioactive after you've had an Xray? Is your Aunt Martha radioactive after her cancer radiation therapy?"

Actually - yes, she is.

I used to work in an industry that used radioactive materials; and if any employee had cancer radiation therapy, they were not allowed to come to work for a set number of weeks afterwards. That's because that person's bodily waste (especially urine) is radioactive enough that if the EPA had made a spot check of our company's sewage, it would have triggered the alarms and gotten the company in trouble for illegal disposal of nuclear material.

Also, read a bit about treatment of cats with hyperthyroidism. The actual radiation treatment takes less than a minute (it's a simple shot), but the cat must stay in the vet's office in isolation for several days, with all its bodily waste carefully stored until it "cools off". Even then, they recommend that for the next two weeks you dispose of its waste daily and limit contact with the cat (i.e., don't allow it to sleep in bed with you, etc.).

Jon, one of the wisest political philosophers of the 20th Century---Deep Throat---put it best when he said "follow the money."

I'm very skeptical of ANY report about ANYTHING that is published by someone with a monetary stake in the outcome. Ergo, I don't trust studies funded by tobacco companies that prove smoking isn't addictive, nor do I trust military reports that say the military isn't liable for illness caused by toxic depleted uranium.

And remember...LIABILITY is exactly what we're talking about here. The military is firing a preemptive strike against possible health care claims. They're covering their ass is all.

I don't know for a fact whether depleted uranium is toxic or not---but when you "follow the money," you know that the health and welfare of the troops is much less important to the military-industrial complex than the bottom line.

don, the important question in all of this is, "Is Elvis on your Speed dial". If so, can I get an autograph. ;)

So Don, what is your position on Dihyrogen MonoOxide (DHMO), dangerous threat or important chemical?

What what I understand, there are characteristics of the chemical:

* Death due to accidental inhalation of DHMO, even in small quantities.
* Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage.
* Excessive ingestion produces a number of unpleasant though not typically life-threatening side-effects.
* DHMO is a major component of acid rain.
* Gaseous DHMO can cause severe burns.
* Contributes to soil erosion.
* Leads to corrosion and oxidation of many metals.
* Contamination of electrical systems often causes short-circuits.
* Exposure decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes.
* Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions.
* Often associated with killer cyclones in the U.S. Midwest and elsewhere.
* Thermal variations in DHMO are a suspected contributor to the El Nino weather effect.

for more see http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

;)

I doubt that depleted uranium is dangerous. I understand where the concern comes from though, as the government refused to acknowledge the dangers of Agent Orange even as many researchers found support for some concerns.

Yeah Capt, I've seen the water joke. Pretty funny stuff, actually...

BTW, Elvis told me he doesn't sign autographs anymore, but he says "Hi" and "Thank you very much"...

Don, these aren't necessarily military studies. The one I saw was a European study in the Balkans. I doubt that the're covering up for the US Army. You also have to take into account the incompatability of the radiation scare with basic textbook science.

Don,
"No matter how much scientific evidence surfaces...."
What did you have in mind?

And spare us the idea that media corporations are right wing (because the're corporations!). I don't want to get the hiccups.

maor, you're wasting your time. Don has made it very clear he considers any statements to the effect that DU is not toxic to be a military-industrial/right-wing conspiracy.

Any citation of any sort of study will be answered with the statement: "follow the money." Just imply the other side has venal motives, add dihydrogen dioxide, and stir. Instant refutal!

What gripes me is that lead is a toxic substance as well. Hell, communities all over the country are pulling lead piping out and replacing it, we don't use lead-based paints or metals any more (so much for the toy industry, heh), and so on.

And yet, we expose our troops to high levels of possible lead poisoning every time they go into combat. It's called getting shot.

This reminds me, Don: why not ask some soldiers? I don't mean find the fringe that exists in any organization, but ask the great majority of troops if they're worried about DU or not?

Or are they lying to themselves, in an auto-erotic orgy of conspiracist self-delusion?

Casey and maor, you're both putting words in my mouth---and doing a piss poor job of it to boot.

I stated quite clearly that I don't know if DU is toxic or not---I just point out that the military has a pretty bad track record, truth-wise, and a monetary incentive to bury any findings that DU might be dangerous.

I know you think you're being clever with the "lead poisoning" thing, but you sound like you've cut-and-pasted from a MI Militia website.

Say, why don't you ask some soldiers about Agent Orange or Gulf War Syndrome?

Alex
There is more than one type of radiotherapy for cancer. I was thinking about external-beam radiation therapy when I wrote my post. It doesn't leave you, your Aunt Martha or her urine radioactive when they are done. Neither does an xray or CT scan.

Your cat was treated with radioactive iodine, a common way of completely knocking out the thyroid. That's different. That's not an external treatment of any kind, such as what is used in irradiated food. Different types of implants or IV solutions can also be used for a variety of treatments and diagnostic procedures. There again, they're not external irradiation. The source of the radiation is in the body.

The company you used to work for didn't want to make this distinction. It's a lot easier to say "If you've had radiotherapy, stay out." than it is to really look the the kind of radiotherapy. It's the same with the depleted uranium argument- people don't want to be confused with the facts. If it's uranium, it must be bad.

Mr. Bowen. I do have to apologize as I did not look into the cyclic rate of the A-10 weapon, I just remember them spitting out a hell of a lot of DU over the range at Nellis... I must be a mongoloid Democrat Frenchman... sorry. The point is while DU does seem to be getting a clean bill in labs and epidemiologic studies, that is no reason to piss on those with concerns. We need 'em but let's keep the airy dismissals to a dull roar, please, as the conventional wisdom in these matters is subject to valid revision later on.

There is more than one type of radiotherapy for cancer. I was thinking about external-beam radiation therapy when I wrote my post[...] The company you used to work for didn't want to make this distinction.

Actually, my company did make this distinction - some large percentage of the staff (including myself) had physics degrees, so they did know what they were doing. I also know plenty about external-beam therapy since I used to work at Fermilab and I visited the neutron therapy facility. It was just unclear from your post whether you knew that some forms of cancer therapy do in fact involve injection or implantation of radioisotopes. It sounded like you were saying, "radiation therapy never leaves radioactive traces," which is false - you may have been thinking about external-beam therapy, but I can't read your mind. Sorry for the confusion.

[BTW, there's an interesting potential new treatment for cancer being researched right now. It involves binding radioisotopes into certain types of antibodies that are attracted to tumor cells. When dispersed throughout the body, the radiation is low-level enough to not cause damage, but when the antibodies concentrate at a tumor, the cumulative radiation is strong enough to kill the cancerous cells. Cool stuff.]

"One of the hallmarks of the intellectually-bankrupt right wing in America is their total belief and faith in official denials."

But the people on the left who never believe it are always right though.

Mr. Sucks:

There are people on the right who believe EVERYTHING the White House says. There are people on the left who believe NOTHING the White House says.

Of course, both of them are wrong sometimes. But I've got $20 that says the guy on the right is wrong more often.

I'm sorry Alex, but I don't generally mention my qualifications for posting on one topic or another. Just remember, some percentage of posters on Dean's World may have medical degrees ;-)

Um, hate to break it to some people, but depleted uranium is used as radiation SHEILDING. It's not radioactive, hence the name DEPLETED uranium. It can be toxic, however, if ingested in large enough quantities, just like any other heavy metal.

Mercury is a greater hazard to human health than depleted uranium, in my opinion. I've also seen than many of the people who screech about depleted uranium as the next great evil are also the folks who regard the US military with great scorn. Hmmmmm, could the two be related?

"BTW Mr. Eiland, the first rumblings I've heard about an October Surprise was last Sunday on 60 Minutes---an agreement between the Bush White House and their business partners in the Saudi Royal Family to lower gas prices right before the election."

Ah yes. . .so, was it GWB or Prince Bandar who was in a coma when they told Mr. Woodward this?

I don't need to pay attention to anything the military or the media or MoveOn has to say about DU, because the basic science (and we're talking high-school stuff) says it will be a minuscule added risk for the people living in the area.
Facts trump all.

I'm not a self-proclaimed radiation expert so I did a little searching online.

I found a Feb 2004 news story about a suppressed World Health Organisation report, which indicates that depleted uranium weapons used in Iraq pose long-term health risks:

"The study by three leading radiation scientists cautioned that children and adults could contract cancer after breathing in dust containing DU, which is radioactive and chemically toxic."
http://www.sundayherald.com/40096

With a little searching I found a alledged copy of the report online:
http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/DU-Radiological-Toxicity-WHO5nov01.htm

Some quotes from the report (you can read the full report yourselves):

"4.1 Inhalation of uranium oxide dusts

Breathing uranium containing dusts is an established occupational hazard with which clear health consequences are associated. Most information relates to uranium miners"

"Overall, there seems to be a compelling case for investigating whether uranium, internally incorporated through inhalation, has a combined chemical and radiological carcinogenic potential, which can potentially lead to cancers in the lung and other parts of the body, including the lymphatic system, the bone marrow, the bone and the kidney. Therefore, the extent to which DU, present in the environment as dust and smoke from burning metal, is able to cause these consequences, though a combined radiological and chemical effect, is a matter for further research.

The implications of the bystander effect also need to be considered in this context. It has been convincingly demonstrated that changes, similar to those caused directly by irradiation, can be wrought in cells growing close to a cell that has been irradiated, ... even though the changed cells experienced no ionising event. Such changes include genomic instability, widely associated with the cancer process, and even mutations, also widely believed to be related to cancer induction ...
The bystander effect is predominant at low tissue doses, where few cells experience an alpha particle passage. At higher doses, recipient cells increasingly experience alpha passages themselves, with a high probability of cell killing and almost certainty of inducing other changes, thus reducing the relative effectiveness of the bystander effect. For this reason, uranium particles, which emit few alphas, would have a greater chance of inducing effects through the bystander mechanism than 'hotter' particles."

Winston, look up "Depleted". Uranium ores are not 'depleted' that's why we mine them.

Here's a report that contains studies of actual illness incidence in Iraq before and after the Gulf war. Sample and control groups were defined based on exposure or lack of exposure to depleted uranium ammunitions during the war. Table (7) and Table (8) at the end of the report are particularly interesting:

http://www.benjaminforiraq.org/contaminazione/INA-Depleted%20Uranium%20.htm

Winston;
Now what they need is evidence that anyone will breathe any significant amount of the dust. That niggling little particle of data has been missing from all the DU-hype reports. The stuff is heavy and simply doesn't travel very far. The conditions that would lead to inhalation of toxicologically significant amounts do not seem to be present. ("Uranium miners"...? Good lord.) The reports are all "IF they breathe the dust" and "IF they breathe enough" blah blah blah. Waste of time. A single lungful of burning insulation and other crap from a blasted tank could very well have made them dead in real time, as in "before they hit the gound."
Besides, most of these people live in poverty, in a third world country, with lousy health care. DU is the least of their problems.
As has been said before, this would be a complete non-issue if the dreaded word "radiation" was not involved.

A World Health Organization factsheet on uranium states:

* The main difference between DU and natural uranium is that the former contains at least three times less 235U than the latter.

* DU, consequently, is weakly radioactive and a radiation dose from it would be about 60% of that from purified natural uranium with the same mass.

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

QuantumThnk, if you read the report I referred to above, you'd see that it is titled "Radiological toxicity of DU". Here is the report's abstract:

"Background: The military use of depleted uranium (DU) and/or recycled uranium (RU) has given rise to public concern as to the impact on public health of exposure to environmental sources. Exposure to soluble natural uranium, through drinking water and the food chain, is ubiquitous. After military use, DU / RU are present in the environment either as metal or as oxide dusts. Due to the low specific activity of uranium, the potential effects of exposure are generally attributed to chemical toxicity. Insoluble particulates may be an exception.

Results: DU/RU dusts are a mixture of oxides of differing solubility, such that, if retained in the lung, partial dissolution occurs over the time scale of about a month. As DU has been shown to be capable of transforming human cells to a tumourigenic phenotype without the involvement of radiation, such particles present a unique radiological/chemical toxic hazard. The bystander effect may be of relevance where an alpha-particle emitter of low specific activity is distributed over the lung.

Conclusions: The health risks of exposure to DU/RU are likely to be only partially reflected by the radiation dose per received. Further work on the chemical transforming ability of DU, the potential for an interaction between its chemical and radiological toxicities and the significance of the bystander effect in this context is required to fully estimate the public health significance of exposure to DU/RU."

http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/DU-Radiological-Toxicity-WHO5nov01.htm

From a news story published April 10, 2004:

'Six Iraq war veterans charged yesterday that the Army ignored their complaints about uranium poisoning from U.S. weapons fired during combat.

"We were all healthy when we left home. Now, I suffer from headaches, fatigue, dizziness, blood in the urine, unexplained rashes," said Sgt. Jerry Ojeda, 28
...
The six soldiers ... were recently tested by an independent physician, Dr. Asaf Durakovic, a former Army doctor and nuclear medicine expert. ... He found traces of depleted uranium in their bloodstream, with four registering high levels.

After their return from Iraq, "the Army was unfortunately not cooperative when they asked for testing,"
...
Once fired, DU shells melt, vaporize and turn to dust.
...
The soldiers said the uranium apparently mixed with sand and dirt in Iraq, then entered the soldiers' bloodstream after they inhaled it.

Veterans started reporting health problems as a result of DU shells in 1991, after the first Gulf War. Since then, the debate over the use and effects of depleted uranium munitions has escalated.

Some experts believe the nuclear component used in warfare is practically harmless, while others blame DU for cancers and other illnesses.'

http://www.thejournalnews.com/newsroom/041004/b01p10uranium.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/181138p-157306c.html

Toren, if you really want to support the troops, like me you'd want the depleted uranium issue investigated properly.

How does the Bush administration justify using chemically toxic, radioactive depleted uranium weapons ... weapons that are contaminating US servicemen and servicewomen? Isn't the use of such weapons a little hypocritical given the stated reasons for invading Iraq?

"He found traces of depleted uranium in their bloodstream, with four registering high levels."

Compared to what? What is his definition of "high"...? Are these levels associated toxicologically with any of the symptoms reported? How meaningful is a sample of six, two of whom appear to have had no exposure?

"Veterans started reporting health problems as a result of DU shells in 1991, after the first Gulf War."

Please direct me to the literature solidly linking the above mentioned health problems to DU exposure alone, exclusive of all possible confounding factors. Sounds like a real scientific breakthrough.

Me, I'm rather more concerned about investigating the eliminating the risks our troops face from lead poisoning. Sounds like a more prudent use of our tax dollars to me, anyway.

I just skimmed over the scientific literature on the topic and it seems to be divided into articles saying:
a)no reason to be worried
b)DU is definitely toxic but we can't say if it's toxic ENOUGH, so more research is needed.

winston,
these reports:
a)don't prove that a risk exists, merely allow the possibility
b)are based partially on the fact that these soldiers were hanging around DU for quite a while, which is given as a reason to suspect that DU is responsible.
Iraqis have not been hanging around DU weapons. They only come into contact with DU after the DU is spread around the whole country, which means the DU concentration is basically zero. So no, it's not contradicting the stated goal of helping Iraqis. (The uranium levels in southern Iraq and Kuwait are lower than the world average by quite a bit)

I agree it's possible for DU to really hurt someone but:
a)this is most likely by having the DU fall on you (some of these articles research the toxic exposure received by people HIT by DU weaponry, and how much of an issue is that, really?)
b)there are more toxic things in wars (you think the US Army should avoid all heavy metals? rocket fuel?)
c)wars kill people without toxicity
d)people have been claiming all of Iraq is full of leukemia patients because of DU. If you look at the reports you yourself provided, that's just not one of the possibilites. Thus, while YOU might be smart, a lot of these guys are plain nuts.

Don,
"This was reported by a division of Viacom, a multi-national media comglomerate that was a HUUUUUGE beneficiary of new FCC ownership regulations (and a major GOP contributor). Hardly a left-wing activist collective."
"No matter how much scientific evidence surfaces, no matter how many veterans die of cancer---"

You said these things to which I referred so please don't accuse me of putting words into your mouth (keyboard?). I agree however that the "lead poisoning" joke is WAY overused.
BTW, the "bystander effect" which seems like the best reason to be worried by DU, was demonstrated by US Army researchers. I thought you might like that:)

In the linked CDC report I found this line unsatisfying:

"No human cancer of any type has ever been seen as a result of exposure to natural or depleted uranium."

It's such a flat, unelaborated statement. How did they determine this? How do decay products of Radon threaten me with lung cancer in my basement but uranium does not? They should be more clear. What is the statistical certainty of their conclusion? I mean, my library card has been missing for about ten days and it seems likely that it is in my room somewhere but I could truthfully say "there is no evidence that my library card is in my room" because I haven't really torn the room apart yet.

By the way, it's a blue, laminated card with a bar code on the back of it; if you see it give me a call.

Don, you really are very, very funny.

First you make smart-ass cracks about the "intellectually-bankrupt right wing" with reference to official denials.

Then you say "Don't y'all realize yet that the government lies to you?"

Ergo, the government is lying about DU.

After that you try to confuse the issue, as well as slander the US military, by conflating demonstrably dishonest claims by tobacco companies with impartial military research.

Again, your implication is that the military, or "someone" is lying.

I agree with one thing: you never mentioned "right-wing conspiracy," you just said that they're credulous idiots. So I'll take those two words out.

The rest is exactly what you said in earlier posts.

After maor and I replied, you tried to weasel out by claiming that you didn't know "for sure."

No, you just said everybody lies. By implication, the reports about the non-lethality of DU are lies.

If you don't know anything about DU, why don't you shut the fuck up until you do? You haven't "pointed out" a damn thing. All you've done is smear the military and ooze conspiracy theories, while displaying your own (obvious) bias.

Oh, Evan: Radon is radioactive. DU is not. That's why they call it "depleted." Ok?

maor: you're wasting your time here. In fact, I've just realized that I'm almost certainly wasting mine, as well.

Feh.

I think it's interesting that Don does not trust the government to tell the truth about something independently verifible, but he expects gun owners to trust the governemtn if he gets his way and replaces the 2nd amendment with undefined "reasonable gun control."

People like that don't worry me as much as terrorists do, but they definitely rank in the top ten threats to our liberty and freedom. The only difference is one uses outright hatred and violence and the other uses 'good intentions.' Both make good road paving for the road to hell.

Actually, DU IS radioactive, the "depletion" reduces the radioactivity by about half, so it's still the same ballpark. But radon is just much more so (several hundred billion times more, I think, although the amount of radon is very small). Also, you constantly pump radon into your lungs, where it can do some harm (neither DU nor radon can do much harm without getting into your body first), the whole time you're in the basement. People rarely do this with DU of course, which is why there's a lot of research into how much DU particles can conceivably get into a soldier's lungs.

Casey, reading blogs is a waste of my time, no matter how fun it is. I just can't help it.

Wow...I'm a threat to liberty and freedom? Lil' ol ME? Worse than a terrorist? Well, I better get packed for that trip to Gitmo. But who would you rather get on a bus with...me, or a guy from Hamas?

How did I become more dangerous than, say, a convicted felon buying unlimited firepower at a gun show?

Yes, DU is radioactive: and, as a heavy metal, dangerous in large concentrations.

How radioactive is it? Someone, maybe at USS Clueless, asked: if you run a Geiger Counter over a 185-pound man and a 185-pound pile of DU, which would register more radioactivity? One guess...

Heavy metal poisoning? Not a whole lot of work I've seen, except like the cat mentioned above, it is not useable by the body and tends to be excreted. Long-term re-exposure is a complication, too. More needs to be done in research.

Learn to read, Don. I said you werent as bad as a terrorist, but you are a threat to our freedoms. . .
It is against the law for a convicted felon to buy a gun anywhere, even at a gun show. As I said, the fact that in one breath you wish for the government to be the final arbiter of any American's ability to purchase self-defense, regardless of how clean their background is, and in the next breath state that we CANNOT TRUST the government in studies which are independently verified and verifiable, shows either a hidden agenda or dangerously naive inconsistency.
I'm sure you're a very nice guy, I'd much rather have you on the bus and argue politics with you for the entire ride. But the day your ideas become law, the experiment started by the Founding Fathers is over, dead, and buried.