Re: [OT] DU

From: Eternal Vigilance (wotan_at_oneeye.com)
Date: 11/17/03 

Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 07:27:34 GMT

Alan Balmer wrote:

> On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 03:21:38 +1300, Corey Murtagh
> <emonk@slingshot.co.nz.no.uce> wrote:
>
> >Thom Kevin Gillespie wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> >> PBS reported a few months back that the estimate exposure levels to
> >> radiation were running a 1,000 times over normal in downtown Bagdhad due
> >> to the use of DU explosives as bunker busters. They had another Nova show
> >> which stated that 7 times normal increased cancers exponentially.
> >
> >It'll be interesting to see what sort of health effects result from it.
> > There were a whole lot of predictions about increased mutation rate
> >etc. after the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were dropped, and they
> >failed to happen. Certainly increased cancer rates (for certain types
> >of cancer) is likely... I wonder what else?
>
> Start here:
> http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/env/du/en/
>
> It links to a study made in Kosovo, which references information about
> studies done after the first Gulf War. Seems that the effects are not
> drastic, even among soldiers who still have DU embedded in their
> bodies. They seem to think that cancer risk is not a problem, but are
> monitoring the effect on kidney function.
>
> I think it's plain that the claimed report from PBS just doesn't make
> sense. DU is only weakly radioactive, and the amounts used (as
> measured over a city) are going to disappear into the normal
> background radiation. An interesting factoid from the Kosovo report -
> putting a chunk of DU in your pocket and carrying it around for
> several weeks would not exceed the skin exposure limit for radiation
> workers.
>

Thats probably because U-238 is like Lead in blocking radiation and the few
fractional
percentages of U-235 (not sure whow high this even is .001% ???) is imbedded
(alloy)
spread within it equally. The non-radioactive U238 blocking alpha and beta
particals for
the most part and some of the gamma.

I guess its when its blasted into dust or burns into gas (which uranium does
after its put under
extreme pressure and then released - like when striking armor) , then the
individual U-235
particals can be ingested or respirated and cause cancer.

>
> Does anyone have an actual reference to the PBS report?
>
> --
> Al Balmer
> Balmer Consulting
> removebalmerconsultingthis@att.net

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT--But sort of related - at least you werent pulled over for radiation
    ... True or Propaganda, Radiation Detectors ... I was travelling this weekend and listening to the local radio news ... It sounded funny at the very end of the report when the woman was ... I'm sure radioactivity detectors have come a long way since the Geiger ...
    (alt.guitar.amps)
  • Re: ambiguous groups in regional part of SYNOP?
    ... E.g. in this SYNOP from yesterday: ... is "69907" precipitation or short-wave radiation? ... 54g0sndT to report temperature change data in period covered by ... 55SSS to report the daily hours of sunshine; ...
    (uk.sci.weather)
  • likely no safe level of exposure to radiation
    ... There is likely no such thing as a safe level of exposure to radiation, ... although cancer is rarely induced by low doses, ... The panel's report addresses amounts of radiation from medical ...
    (sci.med)
  • Re: the deadly toll from the filth of fossil fuels....and yet idiots fear nuclear power!
    ... The latest study follows a report last month from the Royal Commission ... radiation exposures experienced by the most exposed group ... albums and text, the site says there is a "Chernobyl 2007" album that I have ... web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: OT - 76 year old Man found Alive
    ... I'm delighted to report that he's ... >when they released him and he was grinning from ear to ear. ... Balmer Consulting ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)