Her friend sent her an email linking to a site about Iraq and depleted Uranium; here’s a quote from the site:
Four of my aunts and uncles are doctors in the main Hospitals in both Baghdad and Mosul. From contact with them, I can only imagine what it does to a doctor’s heart to try to heal, knowingly in vain, a people who now may have become the first victims of irreparable, long-term geno-contamination in human history. Already at the Conference on Nuclear Arms in Hamburg, October 2003, Dr. Katsuma Yagasaki, Prof. of Science at the University of Ryukyus, Okinawa, reported the US had dropped on Iraq the equivalent of 250,000 times the radioactive nuclear waste dropped on Nagasaki. Different from Nagasaki, however, the contamination in Iraq is widespread, dispersed over entire regions of the country, bullets, strewn casings, armor, fragments, shrapnel … all containing radioactive waste.
I replied with this email:
Back to him…here’s a pretty good roundup, including a fair number of papers pointing out that there have been no known epidemiological effects from the use of DU; that the most likely mechanism for health effects is heavy-metal toxicity, for which lead would be worse. To my knowledge (and I’ve glanced) there aren’t any peer-reviewed studies since then that show anything different. (I blogged it back in 03)
He replied to TG with this:
Dear [TG]:
Given the overwhelming known evidence of the effects of depleted uranium on US troops who fought during the first Gulf War, and given the Fox News-like tendency in the literature cited by your husband to condemn as “leftist” anyone who is concerned about this problem, perhaps we should just lay aside this dialogue while we’re ahead.
And I replied with this:
XXXX, [TG] passed on to me your comment that “it’s better that we don’t discuss this” because the page I sent over was “Fox News-ish”.
I’m sorry to have triggered that reaction in you; I was lazy and sent a summary page from a blog rather than the individual links.
If you’ll look at them, you’ll note that the research cited is from the WHO, National Defense Research Institute at RAND, European Commission (of the EU), Science magazine, Nature magazine, the Royal Society, the U.S. Institute of Medicine, and the Federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. It’s not some clowns sitting around in surplus fatigues in front of their computers. As I noted, there has never … to my knowledge … been a peer-reviewed article that suggested that there are meaningful health impacts from DU (as opposed to the real health impacts from living in a place where DU exists because there has been combat).
I’m a Peter Bienert Democrat who primarily listens to KPCC, but I’m also someone who is worried that junk science badly damages our ability to make smart policy decisions and worse, damages the credibility of the environmental movement. We live in an era when we have to assume that our facts will be checked, and where we need to make our arguments both from facts that tell us what the world is and from our beliefs in what kind of word we want it to be.
And I’m really saddened to hear that you … as someone who makes a living in journalism … would filter what you read by your distaste for the “wrapper” it was presented in. As a consumer of media, let me as gently as possible suggest that until that attitude changes, the credibility and effectiveness of your profession will continue to be under strong attack, and you won’t be able to do the job that is so badly needed – of bringing the truth to the people.
Marc
Saddened, but not surprised.
–
My guess is that the reporter stopped reading at “antiwar leftists.”
How in hell do you get “geno-contamination”, which I assume means genetic damage, from a substance that’s effectively nonradioactive? I swear, forebrains are wasted on some people.
(And no, that kind of remark won’t win anyone over, I realize…. But it’s so senseless on its face that I think someone spouting this line seems about as likely to be won over as someone spouting the blood libel; my reflex reaction is to cross the street to avoid them.)
One of the ‘Green religionists’. No amount of proof will help. You cant argue someone out of a position they werent argued into in the first place. The Uranium in your basement is more dangerous than DU and any credible chemist will tell you that.
Definitely interesting read.
I do wonder why we’d drop something on the Iraqi populace which would not only harm them in a dreadful way, but also incapacitate our own troops. That simply doesn’t make any sense. I’m not saying depleted uranium is something I’m going to invite people to bury in my backyard any time soon, or to embed in me via shotgun shells aimed at my person. But, looking at what the evidence so far seems to say (and corporations such as Rand are paid the big bucks to find out whether or not a particular substance can cause particular nasty effects BEFORE a scandal brews, and BEFORE veterans end up with such conditions such as end stage renal disease or various cancers that will increase hospitalizations and other medical costs to the VA later down the road. I recall being stationed in a building where asbestos was being removed. It was interesting that, at the same time, there was a guy there who was getting out of the Navy due to health problems due to asbestos exposure. Somehow, I really do not think the government wants another “problem” like the one they had with asbestos, which, to my knowledge, they are STILL paying for today.
So, the arguements so many people are making, that this depleted uranium stuff is SOOO dangerous, etc., simply doesn’t make any sense. Too much homework has been done already. These rebels are going to have to look elsewhere for a cause.
You got an NPR news-ish response.
Now you can see why it became Public Television instead of educational TV.
It is my opinion that people are a lot more concerned about what someone’s political inclinations are these days than they are about the facts of a case. I think the “left” is as guilty of this as the “right”. This is why I find most of the media, and the majority of blogspots/blogsites/whatever you want to call them, over-simplistic in how they present their viewpoints.
Marc presents his facts quite well, supplying this NPR reporter with a number of varied sources. The reporter responds by assaulting the assumed political stance of Marc, and his sources. I believe this is known in logic circles as an “ad hominem” attack, though I don’t quite remember.
Unless that journalist can offer proof of bias in any of the research, the person simply has no leg to stand on. From what I could read of how the research was done, it did not appear to be biased, or faultily conducted to me. However, I am not an expert in research on munitions or weapons.
#2 jaed wrote:
bq. How in hell do you get “geno-contamination”, which I assume means genetic damage, from a substance that’s effectively nonradioactive?
Many nonradioactive substances can cause genetic damage, and genetic damage is only one of many possible health consequences of exposure to substance X.
The important question is the one A.L. gets at, to the best of our knowledge, what are the health effects of exposure to relevant doses of DU? “To the best of our knowledge” means:
bq. * solid basic cell/molecular biology on potential and actual mechanisms,
* solid toxicology with lab-animal exposures, and
* solid epidemiology on human populations (the most important).
I repeat “solid” to distinguish such studies from agenda-driven science. Unlike A.L., I think it’s likely that junk-science studies implicating DU do exist. If reports such as the ones he cites in the body of this post are good, they will explain why some studies are better than others and should be given more weight. “Better” refers to methods, not to results.
In a number of applications depleted uranium is used specifically to _shield_ people _from_ radiation.
Ordinary drywall dust is more radioactive than DU. Window glass is more radioactive. Many phosphate fertilisers used on crops are more radioactive.
Ignorant, silly, agenda-driven ninnies, none of whom has a clue that ‘lamda’ signifies anything other than a homosexual advocacy group.
Depleted uranium could be scattered all over my farm and I would nevertheless be at greater risk from mould spores growing on the depleted *ger*_aniums_ in my greenhouses.
I took “geno-contamination” to be a derivative of “genocide”: large-scale, pan-population contamination.
That’s a collateral point, though, given that the principal point is that DU isn’t terribly dangerous except when moving at high speeds.
I wonder why people are so worked up about DU rather than, say, the unexploded ordinace problem. Given that French farmers are still occasionally killed by shells from 1917 or bombms from 1944, I’d imagine there’s some political hay to be made.
Umm, make that ordnance. Apparently I have the City Council on my mind.
A.L.,
I had a similar discussion with a friend recently. You left out the “IAEA.”:http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Features/DU/faq_depleted_uranium.shtml
Among their conclusions:
“Based on credible scientific evidence, there is no proven link between DU exposure and increases in human cancers or other significant health or environmental impacts.”
“Uranium is not effectively transported in the food chain so transfer of DU from contaminated soil to drinking water or locally produced food is unlikely to harm people living or visiting the area.”
“The most detailed ongoing study on the health effects of DU exposure is of 33 friendly fire veterans of the Gulf War, most of whom have embedded DU shrapnel in their bodies that cannot be removed. To date none has developed any abnormalities due to uranium chemical toxicity or radio toxicity, despite showing greatly increased levels of uranium in their urine.”
“United Nation’s Environment Programme (UNEP) studies in 2001 (Kosovo), 2002 (Serbia and Montenegro) and 2003 (Bosnia and Herzegovina) – to which IAEA experts contributed – found it was highly unlikely that a reported increase in the risk of cancer in the Balkan regions could be associated with the residues of DU munitions used there during the war in the mid-1990s. It found the probability of significant exposure to local population was very low.”
The “ICRC”:http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList136/3105566F330BC2ECC1256B66005F8843 has weighed in as well.
“In May 2000 the ICRC invited personnel working for the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement in western Kosovo to provide urine samples which were subsequently analysed to determine the concentration of uranium. Since uranium is naturally present in the environment, a small amount of uranium is expected to be found in urine. Results of the 32 personnel who agreed to provide urine specimens revealed normal levels of uranium, and thus do not give any evidence of increased uranium exposure among this group.
Currently available scientific information provides evidence that the increase in levels of uranium is marginal in areas where depleted uranium munitions have been used, except at the points of impact of depleted uranium penetrators.”
I think the bulk of scholarly research pretty much rules out health threats from DU unless it arrives at around 4000 FPS or so.
Quartz has an affinity for uranium.
Iraq is filled with sand.
Do the math.
But, but, but…
Fully half of that DU is going to undergo radioactive decay in the next 4.5 billion years!
(It’s amazing the number of people who think long half life means more dangerous now.)
The site talks about “the equivalent of 250,000 times the radioactive nuclear waste dropped on Nagasaki.” Hmmm…I was unaware we dropped any nuclear waste on Nagasaki — I thought it was highly purified plutonium.
Letting that issue slide, there still seems to be complete confusion at the site between the highly radioactive (i.e. short half-life) byproducts of fission in a bomb or reactor, and the barely radioactive stuff (i.e. the depleted uranium) left over when the fissile uranium is taken out.
Here’s a question: How sure are we that the depleted uranium is 100% depleted? Might there still be enough of a trace amount of any highly toxic radioactive kind to cause ill-effects? Particularly if it were somehow inhaled perhaps while a DU shell explodes?
Correct me if I’m mistaken but isn’t depleted uranium the waste product of a nuclear enrichment process? Wouldn’t the enrichment process end, not when 100% of the fissile uranium is extracted, but enough that there’s no longer any point in expending any more energy to extract what trace amounts that may be left?
It is physically impossible to have 100% separation of any mixed source. The question becomes: to how many “9”s can you isolate DU?
90%, 99%, 99.999999%?
And will there still be enough radioactive uranium to cause problems if DU dust is inhaled?
Depleted uranium just has an image problem. It’s the “U” word.
If it were called “hard lead” or something similar maybe we could move on and worry about more important things. Like truth in media. Or why so much government money goes to support “Public” radio and television. I’m still waiting for my local “public” radio affiliate to play some music that I like.
Art — You are correct that depleted uranium is not completely depleted of the more radioactive U-235 needed for nuclear reactors and weapons, but the difference is irrelevant for present-day health effects. Here’s why:
U-235 is only slightly more radioactive than the U-238 that forms the overwhelming part of natural and depleted uranium. It has a half-life of 700 million years, as opposed to 4.5 billion years. This means that half of it still will not have decayed 700 million years from now, and in any given year, only one in a billion of the “highly toxic radioactive kind” of uranium atoms will undergo decay.
U-235 forms 0.72% (i.e. less than 1%) of naturally occurring uranium. Its concentration in depleted uranium varies, but is usually about 1/3 of this, or about 0.25% (1/4 of 1%).
U-235 is special not because of its slightly higher natural radioactivity, but because of its susceptibility to fission (i.e. nucleus splitting). Concentrate enough U-235 closely together under the proper conditions, and you can get the natural decay of one to split more than one other nucleus, and so on, creating the fabled “chain reaction”. Many of the results of this fission are highly radioactive (i.e. with short half lives), and are legitimately considered dangerous radioactive waste. DU is more appropriately considered a by-product of enrichment.
Even ingested/inhaled/embedded, uranium is not a significant health risk from radiological effects, because the rate of decay is so low. This has been borne out by every epidemiological study that I’ve ever seen. There is the potential issue of chemical toxicity because uranium is a heavy metal, but then again, so is lead, and much more lead would have to be used because it makes a less effective projectile. Epidemiological studies have not turned up any chemical ill effects in the concentrations that people get into their systems (including chunks of shrapnel) in battlegrounds where DU was used.
Curt: It’s amazing the number of people who think long half life means more dangerous now.
That’s why you can’t argue science with the anti-everything people. Years of argument about nuclear energy accomplished nothing except blackouts in California.
We might as well just adopt a politically correct periodic table. Take off Arsenic and all elements with a higher atomic number than Ytterbium. Replace them with “Chocolate” and “Non-dairy Cheese Substitute”, etc.
Curt: Thanks for the info.
I actually jumped before I looked. I was trying to recall a factoid I remembered somewhere. Turns out I was thinking of plutonium which is inapplicable here.
(It’s allegedly so toxic that inhaling a single grain, however small or large THAT may be, will cause lung cancer. The only reason I mentioned inhalation is that either the plutonium grain or atom is allegedly so large that it won’t enter the body through the stomach or intestines and will be excreted. Inhalation will deposit it within the lungs where it will remain.)
(I was right about DU being the byproduct of enrichment though.)
Aside from being denser than lead (hence its use for armor-piercing shells) does it have any other non-radiological physical difference? Would an exploding DU shell cast off more dust than a lead shell? (I guess that this might be an issue of brittleness?)
Arghh!
There aren’t exploding DU shells. DU is used for tank penetrator rounds. Tungsten carbide used to be used for the same thing. DU rounds don’t have any explosive within them.
Let’s add to the mix that 238-U is an _alpha_- emitter. An alpha particle is a helium atom without the electrons–fat, dumb, and happy. Nearly all alpha radiation is stopped by a piece of paper, or even a shirt.
Depleted uranium does a great job of stopping alpha radiation, so the only effective radiation from a chunk of DU is at the very surface. Calculations of the total weight of DU in Iraq or anywhere else are completely irrelevant.
Chemically, uranium is toxic in the same ways and to the same degree that lead is. Both are highly toxic at high velocity, but sitting in the soil neither is absorbed by plants if the pH is above about 7.
The 238-U daughter is 234-Thorium, a beta-emitter. Beta particles are electrons with essentially no mass, and even the highly energetic betas (234-Th betas are _not_ energetic) are stopped within a few millimetres of flesh. Or, frankly, about two metres of air. After a second beta-decay it becomes 234-U, another long half-life isotope.
Long-story-short … a little bit of dust on the DU slug and virtually no radiation gets out. The radium on the old watches in that part of the world is vastly more dangerous (if the face on that watch gets broken).
Where’s the Compound *W*? There are too many worry warts running around.
From the truthout.org link: “But the truth is, Fallujah’s damage is far worse than meets the eye. The entire city could very well be a permanently uninhabitable radioactive zone, yet we hear about the noble efforts of the US to move the 250-300,000 inhabitants back in to live in the now poisoned homes, water, earth, and air.”
Of course the permanently unhabitable radioactive zone is in between Stephen Said’s ears, but this is the level of hysterical nonsense that we’re dealing with.
This are the people who tried to stop the Cassini spacecraft, claiming that if it accidentally reentered during its 1999 fly-by the plutonium fuel could break up and poison five billion people. Better yet, wipe out all life on earth.
OK. There aren’t any explosives in DU shells or rounds or however you’re to correctly state these as being. I don’t claim to know how these things are put together.
Let me restate my question: When a DU round hits whatever it is that you’re shooting at, is it more apt to throw some of itself off as dust than a lead round will? Or a tungsten-carbide round?
The Rand study that has been linked to indicates that around 10 to 35 percent of a DU round will aerosolize with a theoretical maximum of 70%.
I was wrong to hypothesize about brittleness. If anything, this would have to compromise armor-piercing ability. I didn’t know that Uranium is pyrophoric. You learn new things every day.
I’ve only been wondering about this because I recall speculation that DU dust may have been a cause of Gulf War Syndrome among GIs returning from the first Gulf war. Other hypotheses include parasites or (natural, not bio-weaponized) bacterial infections.
Not to disagree with anything that’s been said above but I think you might be interested in seeing a post from an Iraqi blogger on the subject of depleted uranium in ordnance used in Iraq. This is an intelligent, educated woman with a technical background. Now imagine what a guy with no education believes.
Art: The Rand study that has been linked to indicates that around 10 to 35 percent of a DU round will aerosolize with a theoretical maximum of 70%.
DU tends to penetrate typical tank armor and partially vaporize inside the vehicle. The trace dust left is a harmful substance, no doubt, but the crew suffers no adverse health effects other than being killed instantly by the shrapnel and flaming vapor from the impact. Which is the point of shooting at people in the first place.
The alternative to DU is Wolfram Carbide, a tungsten steel. Tungsten steel rounds also leave toxic traces that you don’t want to breathe into your lungs. That makes them effectively as dangerous as DU, since it’s the toxic quality of DU that is most harmful, not its low level radiation.
A good way to limit the use of DU rounds, BTW, is to avoid equipping militant Third World regimes with T-72 tanks. I wonder who was responsible for doing that?
_Particularly if it were somehow inhaled perhaps while a DU shell explodes_
If a DU shell exploded close enough for you to inhale the dust, you’d have a lot more serious problems than worrying about radioactive contamination in the few limbs you might have remaining afterwards.
As someone who has written crankily about DU for years, I have no issue with your point, Marc, but merely suggest re: “I’m a Peter Bienert Democrat….”
Beinart.
As someone who has written crankily about DU for years, I take no issue with your point, Marc, but merely note re: “I’m a Peter Bienert Democrat….”
Beinart.
It isn’t sad, AL, its infuriating that these ignorant loons have access to the media outlets that misinform the public. We’ve been fighting this junk science for years now. Keep up the good fight.
but I’m also someone who is worried that junk science badly damages our ability to make smart policy decisions and worse, damages the credibility of the environmental movement.
That is impossible to do. You cannot damage what doesn’t exist. The environmental movement has nothing to do with science. It has become a religion. And like all religions its beliefs cannot be challenged by facts.
I don’t suppose it has occurred to any of these professional whiners that, if in fact Iraq does have an abnormally high rate of cancer, it just MIGHT be linked to the fact that Iran and Iraq went at each other hammer and tongs with chemical weps for years? I’m sure I wouldn’t want to breathe DU for fun (though given the nature of the fighting in Falujah, I doubt too much was used anyway – HEAT rounds are more appropriate for punching out buildings – really only M1A1 APFSDSLRP rounds and A-10 GAU-8 rounds use DU anyway), but what about all the left-over organophosgenes from the Iran-Iraq War and the Anfal program? These are like hyper-concentrated industrial pesticides – and remmeber, most of the water in Iraq from from north to south (Kurd to Sunni to Shia).
Folks,
Other than my point about sand and uranium there has been zero mention of the fact that uranium is a naturally occuring contaminant of nearly all rocks and soil. Every where.