Talk:Depleted uranium/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 13

Depleted Uranium: Radioactivity as cause of health problems from exposure

Nearly all of those who protest the use of DU in warfare as a result of its supposed health problems due to radioactivity cite its half-life of 4.5 billion years. These people have absolutely no knowledge of what the half-life entails. They claim that this shows that the substance remains radioactive for a very, very long time, and thus dangerous for that amount of time. This is completely false. The half-life only shows just how long it takes for half of that substance to decay through the emissions of alpha particles (He²⁺ nuclei), beta particles (electrons or positrons) or gamma rays (pure electromagnetic radiation). The given amount of radioactivity is less for a substance of a long half-life than with the same amount of another substance that has a shorter half-life. The substance with a longer half-life has more time to emit the same amount of particles or quanta of gamma rays. Decay is thus lower. A substance is also more or less hazardous at the same radioactivity levels as evidenced by the type of decay. An alpha decay is considered harmless unless the source is ingested or inhaled, because alpha particles are easily blocked by the skin. A beta decay is considered slightly more hazardous, but is still most harmful if the source is ingested or inhaled. Gamma decay is more of a concern, because it is not blocked by skin and organs. Gamma radiation is the same as X-Rays, which have different names to simply distinguish the source (decay or other nuclear processes).

I am uncertain about the levels of decay for each type of emitted particle, but I believe I can safely say that even the gamma emissions are safe enough for day-to-day handling, if we rule out the chemical toxicity of the substance itself, which is likely the leading contributor to all health problems cited as a result of exposure to DU munitions and the dust from such munitions. -- Scetoaux 02:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

"An alpha decay is considered harmless unless the source is ingested or inhaled" - yes, and the point is that DU ammunition burns leaving a fine uranium oxide dust, which is easily ingested or inhaled. Once inside the body, an alpha-emitting substance is tremendously hazardous (see EPA: Exposure Pathways). In other words: when it comes to the safety of DU ammo, "they didn't inhale" isn't much of an argument.--ActiniumBlue 06:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Legal status of weapons

From the history of the article: 16 June 2006 195.92.168.173 (→Legal status in weapons - Emphasis removed. POV. Let the words speak for themselves without promotion

Please explain why in a legal section on the military use of DU it is POV to emphasise that There is no specific treaty ban on the use of DU projectiles in a document released by an international tribunal investigating war crimes? --Philip Baird Shearer 21:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the statement however feel that the emphasis added is pushing that statement to the detriment of the issues raised regarding the controversial nature and debate going on re the legality of DU munitions use. If I were to similarly emphasise phrases such as "Included in the list was weaponry containing depleted uranium" or "He argues that the use of DU in weapons, along with the other weapons listed by the Sub‑Commission, may breach one or more of the following treaties:" that could also be construed as POV highlighting.

Surely it is for the reader to decide what is relevent and contributers should concern themselves only with submitting relevent information without emphasis on parts which their POV deems more important. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.92.168.176 (talk • contribs) on 16:17, 18 June 2006.

Which is why I did not include the words of Y.K.J. Yeung Sik Yuen when I partialy reverted your changes[1] and it is his you are talking about above, not the international tribunal investigating war crimes. You have not explained why the emphasis is an unbalanced POV when it is a pronouncement by an international tribunal investigating war crimes. All the emphasis is, is the equivelent of a sound bite, or the first paragrah of a news paper article: The international legal position in a nut shell.--Philip Baird Shearer 17:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

If that is all the emphasis is one wonders why you are so keen to have it in. I believe that it deliberately pushes a viewpoint you are trying to promote and that is why you are so keen to see it remain. IMO The removal of the emphasis takes nothing from the article whereas the inclusion of it makes the article deliberately highlights a POV. This is NOT a newspaper and NOt a place for soundbites. Keep it if you must. I am not going to engage in a revert war with you but accept that the inclusion is detrimental to the neutrality of wikipedia. 195.92.168.169 20:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I got no problem with the emphasis applied to the passage but I dont know why its emphasised when no one disputes that no treaties exist?? Treaties on DU weapons making them illegal arent actually needed when (campaigners say) existing Humanitarian Law automatically illegalising the weapons applies. That is the route that anti-DU campaigners have gone down. While that point is represented in the Yeung Sik Yuen quote I do not believe that the ways in which the campaigners say DU weapons fail to meet the standards is, nor is the section prefaced by the 2 ways by which weapons become "illegal". Without these the subsection has no structure for the reader in which to set the 2 opposing sides of argument against one another. I will try some changes. 82.29.227.171 11:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Uranium (VI) salts

Would it be better to refer to "soluble uranyl compounds" than "soluble uranium(VI) salts"? Are there any uranium(VI) compounds which are not uranyl compounds? If not, then the wikilink would be an advantage. Also, are we saying that only the soluble uranium(VI) compounds are toxic, or that they are all soluble, and toxic? If the later, then the "soluble" adjective should come after the predicate instead of before the subject. 71.132.128.168 05:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

That would be an invalid statemnet. The wording is better as-is. Give Peace A Chance 12:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

There are some uranium(VI) compounds which are not uranyl compounds, eg uranium hexafluoride. The general consensus is that that chemical toxicity is related to solubility. Physchim62 (talk) 15:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

How about "soluble uranium(VI) salts, such as uranyl compounds"? 71.132.128.168 17:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Europe contamination and bunker bombs

Sorry for my english. I suggest you to read those references and incorporate this material in the article:

UK radiation jump blamed on Iraq shells

Factfile: Bunker buster bombs

Uranium bombing in Iraq contaminates Europe

Did the use of Uranium weapons in Gulf War 2 result in contamination of Europe? Evidence from the measurements of the Atomic Weapons Establishment, Aldermaston, Berkshire, UK. Chris Busby and Saoirse Morgan

Guided Bomb Unit-28 (GBU-28) BLU-113 Penetrator --85.218.46.50 22:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

These reports all cite Chris Busby. People have looked into the work and found it less than trustworthy. The discussion is here: Talk:Uranium_trioxide/Archive_2#Busby.2C_C._and_S._Morgan Dr Zak 23:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not a discussion but a monolog. I added one comment because I desagree. Dominique

There are a number of competent chemists editing Uranium trioxide, Olin, Stone, amongst others. At least one of them would have spoken out had the assessment been dubious. Dr Zak 15:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Professor Chris Burton's curriculum is | here. He is what I call an international expert on low level radiation and its effects on health. And how can those competent chemists axplain how can different measure instruments in four different places show the same increase of uranium at the same time? Dominique

The four different instruments were in fact five and all located within a small (10km radius) area around Aldermaston. According to the first article posted. "Other experts said local environmental sources, such as a power station, were more likely at fault. The Environment Agency said detectors at other sites did not record a similar increase, which suggested a local source." Common sense dictates that if the raise in levels was due to contamination blown over from Iraq then, barring almost impossible freak weather patterns, the readings would have risen over a much larger area. BRT01 19:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Common sens dictates at, if it was some local source such as power station, this would have been recensed as an incident. No incident have been reported at that time, at least for what I know. --85.218.2.215 22:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Does it not strike you as odd that the readings only appear to have risen in a small area which has the Atomic Weapons Establishment in Aldermaston at its epicentre? Surely a prime contender for the finger of suspicion and a place where 'in the interests of national security' incidents may be kept out of the public domain. BRT01 23:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that Aldermaston has a clean bill of health regarding this event, I suspect that a power station running on U rich coal would be a more likely cause. Anyway I think that if Chris Burton's work was decent he would have gone to a good journal which is well respected by both the anti-nuclear and pro-nuclear camps. I would like to know how the journal he published in reviews the articles.Cadmium

Banning and reversion without comments from User:Physchim62

Maintaining my login as fieldlabseems to be a problem sometimes, because it occasionally reverts to an IP address. Physchim62, who seems at times controversial, has outright reverted a large number of careful comments by myself on DU oxide, based apparantly on nothing more than a suspicion that he believes I am user Nrcprm2026, apparantly also referencing a new ArbCom ban of my IP address as equivalent to Nrcprm2026, who is not me and who I know nothing about, and which was normally impossible for me to know about. As it is only an address, it cannot be arbitrated or commented normally. I can state for a fact that it was impossible for that user to use the IP address in question, so the reason given for the censorship is outright false. Physchim62 has left no comments in either this page or the Gulf War DU comments page about his or her rather extreme editing and enforcement of the letter of a rule which has not been quoted or linked to by him or her, and total censorship of comments, based really on a login technicality. Since that was the only problem cited, the comments have been dutifully re-added using my correct login. In the future I would advise Physchim62 to be judicious about censoring out of hand what are obviously careful and sincere comments, and with little useful communication. Though Physchim62 cites the rule regarding the ban, a link for ArbCom documentation was not provided.

Why on earth does User:Nrcprm2026 have several sockpupets running arround doing the same things he was banned for? User:Fieldlab and User:LossIsNotMore!--Stone 07:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Please note:

• 216.173.207.10 has very little editing overlap with Nrcprm2026
• 216.173.207.10 is a static IP in Olympia, Washington while Nrcprm2026 claimed to be in Menlo Park, California
• No checkuser was performed before this block.
• Fieldlab (talk · contribs) claims to be 216.173.207.10, and not Nrcprm2026

As for Nrcprm2026's multiple accounts, please see the link on my userpage. SeparateIssue 07:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You seem very knowledgeable on the background of this issue for such a new editor James, tell me, did you just move to Olympia, or are you just visiting? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey- why not post to my user page? I'm answering questions twice. I'm 42 years old. Been in Olympia for 8 years. Portland 8 years before, and originally from Offutt AFB in Nebraska, where guess what, I studied plenty of weapon systems and miltary history growing up. I'm really sorry about your mistake, but you made an assumption, you were wrong and you will have to deal with it. My user is new precisely because DU is controversial, and my previous edits were anonymous and minor. The history should be there for this IP or any in the .248 subnet around it. I've had those hard IP's for at least 4 years.

Perhaps I was a bit hasty before, but your edits so closely mirror James that such suspicion is warranted. I will give you the benefit of doubt for now. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

If you wish to comment on the ban (which was duely recorded on the relevant ArbCom page, and so completely open to review), please do so elsewhere. This page is for discussing the article, not for petty politicking between editors. For the record, I did not revert any edits, nor have I edited the article for several months. Physchim62 (talk) 15:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments reverted

OK- so this article does not meet some standard and is called propaganda. Where is the rationale and discussion of it? If it's inaccurate, it should at the least be paraphrased with counter-points offered. If it's ultimately without merit, move it to discussion area. The problem with censors vs. editors is precisely that they wish to stifle dialog. So what exactly is wrong with quoting this? This includes the source and author in the link.

From a published letter to The New Scientist, May 2003-

Depleted uranium emits about 40 per cent less alpha particles than natural uranium, due to the removal of most of the uranium-235 and, more importantly, the uranium-234. Immediately after its production, that is the whole story.

However, within a few weeks of production, decay of uranium-238 re-establishes equilibrium quantities of the first two isotopes in the decay chain of uranium-238: thorium-234 and palladium-234. These are both beta emitters, and once equilibrium is established, DU emits on average two beta particles for every alpha particle. The betas from palladium-234 are particularly energetic.

These complicate the radiobiology considerably, because beta particles have much longer ranges in tissue, affecting large numbers of cells to a minor (possibly carcinogenic) extent, as opposed to the small number of cells heavily affected (probably killed) by the alpha particles.

It should be noted that the first daughter nucleus of both uranium-235 and uranium-234 is relatively long-lived, so neither contributes significantly to the radioactivity of natural uranium. Thus DU is actually quite as harmful as natural uranium in terms of beta radiation.

Finally, the Pentagon claims that uranium oxide dust is so dense that it quickly settles, and therefore poses a threat only to persons in the vicinity of the target at the time of impact. Having seen television coverage of dust storms in Iraq, I find it hard to believe that fine uranium oxide dust would somehow avoid being blown about during such storms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fieldlab (talk • contribs)

Update: the point seems to be that for a given quantity of DU, Thorium-234 with a short 25 day half life will soon account for most of the emitted radiation, and the radiation is also higher energy beta particles. See decay chain. The question is, do studies based on applied radiological effects always take this into account, or is there an opportunity to present impossibly low levels of radiation for a given quantity of what is assumed to be pure U-238?--Fieldlab 14:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

James, as you well know, the above statement is taken from a letter to a magazine, and does not meet the WP:RS guidelines. Its not an article from a well know scientist; its not from a peer reviewed journal, it nothing. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

So I suppose it is just related to the form. You have stated nothing useful about the content, because you seem to be against any useful content. TDC- you seem really stuck on the idea that I'm your special friend James. You are jeopardizing your position at Wiki with that glaring mistake. I will just slowly persist in arbitration until I have proved beyond any doubt I am not who you think. Maybe I could even find your friend James and we could all have a conference call about it. Maybe you could also look at my IP address and the ones adjacent to see a long history of posts obviously from me. I don't know. Maybe you think anyone who can write effectively in english is James. Maybe you are tired of your responsibilities at Wiki and want to leave anyway. If so, do me and everyone who's time you are about to waste a favor. Do it.

Content aside, we cannot use material from letters published in a magazine from a non-noytable individual, (who is Clive Semmens Ely and what are his credentials to make him notable enough to be cited here). I am sure you know that James, and I am not going anywhere. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The rules do not specifically address that topic if the content is useful. Content is what interested me about the letter. It is well stated, and the issue has not been touched on in the DU health effects section. The source was just for information. I'm not swearing by the credibility, just that it bears consideration. So, fair enough so long as this same high standard is applied to all the other sources here. --Fieldlab 15:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thats been the debate for an entire year now. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

two forms

The two forms paragraf is stange and far from scientific. Without ony citation it does give an impreesion like two modifications or crystal structure, but this is not the case. Alloys or other modifications are the only suitable answer, but this nites a citation of literature stating this two conditions.--Stone 08:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

How is this? [2] - --Fieldlab 14:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Rand report

Stone 08:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC) Sorry had to read further!--Stone 08:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, you refer to the RAND Corporation. You can argue that they may have bias, and you can argue against their conclusions, but few people will argue their understanding of the issues they address, as they have some very brilliant folks on the payroll. Give Peace A Chance 08:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The pyrophoric characteristic of DU is the primary

Why write two times the same in one article? The same is in the ammunitionsection already written. The small particles created after the imact of ans staballoy penetrator...... --Stone 08:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

would solve problems, one can only wonder

This is the language for the talk page not for the article. Weasling around like a weasle.--Stone 08:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Umm, suggestions are welcome, thanks. Why these numerous high dollar studies never just do a lab test or postmortem exams is the burning question in this topic. If you have a better idea for wording then please just offer it. But your opinion about wording seems to be someones rationale for total deletion. Now we see the real content of the section on DU health effects is cut almost ridiculously to nothing, with huge amounts of valid content wiped out.

I'm happy to repost the original article minus the New Scientist letter until it is debated more. In fact, considering everything that is gone I feel a responsibility.

I don't know what happened as far as vandals or why so much content is gone. Though my user is new (to allow more freedom with controversial topics like DU), I've posted minor things to wiki for several years from this or adjacent IP's. Someone misidentified me earlier and my IP is still unfairly banned because of that. If any admin here has any question about my identity or my intentions on Wiki, I am glad to email you my phone number and we can talk about it. Yes, I'm serious. - --Fieldlab 14:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Prior Material

See here for a summary of all prior material on the subject. Talk:Depleted uranium/health. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I added some info to the health section - with references. I'll admit that I put a lot more effort into the health hazards than the refuting of these hazards, but did add some links to the people who refute these hazards (I don't know if they're scientists or not). I tried to find the original Department of Veterans Affairs study that mentions the 67% statistic but couldn't, so I added the secondary source as a reference instead. Is the Life photoessay a bit much? CClio333 16:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

"However, a study conducted by the Department of Veteran Affairs did find that 67% of post-Gulf War babies have serious birth defects or serious illnesses, such as missing eyes, limbs, and organs; fused digits; or organ malfunctions" ... 67% of post gulf-war babies would include every child born since the gulf war throughout the world., shouldn't it state the number and demographics of the group under study? Also, since we don't appear to have a link to the study quoted it cannot be verified that the study specifically attributes these claimed defects to DU exposure?

I fixed that statistic - what I'd meant to say was 67% of children born to Gulf War veterans, not 67% of the whole world. According to the secondary source I listed, the Dept of Veteran Affairs noted the statistic, but it was the secondary source that claims that uranium (actually non-depleted uranium) is the cause. CClio333 00:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Donna Nook

Can anyone answer my question at Talk:Donna Nook? E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 07:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Further reading

As all other links in the section are without quotes from the linked articles I removed a quote from one of the published links (Scientific reports, Hindin R, Brugge D, Panikkar B.) as I feel that the section, as its title suggests, is there to link out to further sources of information for those interested in taking their research on the topic further and the use of quotes from the linked articles is superfluous. 195.92.168.165 02:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV-Gulf War Syndrome

This section needs to be NPOV'd. For one thing, starting with the sentence "any connection between...is purely speculative" is probably wrong. State the evidence first, in a npov way by attributing sources. Then state what people say about the evidence, still attributing all opinions. The use of weasel words in this section is also pretty evident. With appropriate sourcing and careful rewording this could be better.

The section currently only contains a rebuttal of the hypothesis that DU causes GWS, without even cohrently stating the hypothesis first. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 08:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

For a while, it had both points of view. Look at the edit history for "TDC" to see who started the recent edit war with both sides deleting the others' paragraphs. Peter Cheung 02:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

115 news articles in the past day

From the Associated Press:

Sickened Iraq Vets Blame Depleted Uranium

(AP) NEW YORK It takes at least 10 minutes and a large glass of orange juice to wash down all the pills — morphine, methadone, a muscle relaxant, an antidepressant, a stool softener. Viagra for sexual dysfunction. Valium for his nerves.

Four hours later, Herbert Reed will swallow another 15 mg of morphine to cut the pain clenching every part of his body. He will do it twice more before the day is done.

Since he left a bombed-out train depot in Iraq, his gums bleed. There is more blood in his urine, and still more in his stool. Bright light hurts his eyes. A tumor has been removed from his thyroid. Rashes erupt everywhere, itching so badly they seem to live inside his skin. Migraines cleave his skull. His joints ache, grating like door hinges in need of oil.

There is something massively wrong with Herbert Reed, though no one is sure what it is. He believes he knows the cause, but he cannot convince anyone caring for him that the military's new favorite weapon has made him terrifyingly sick.

In the sprawling bureaucracy of the Department of Veterans Affairs, he has many caretakers. An internist, a neurologist, a pain-management specialist, a psychologist, an orthopedic surgeon and a dermatologist. He cannot function without his stupefying arsenal of medications, but they exact a high price.

"I'm just a zombie walking around," he says.

Reed believes depleted uranium has contaminated him and his life. He now walks point in a vitriolic war over the Pentagon's arsenal of it — thousands of shells and hundreds of tanks coated with the metal that is radioactive, chemically toxic, and nearly twice as dense as lead.

A shell coated with depleted uranium pierces a tank like a hot knife through butter, exploding on impact into a charring inferno. As tank armor, it repels artillery assaults. It also leaves behind a fine radioactive dust with a half-life of 4.5 billion years.

Depleted uranium is the garbage left from producing enriched uranium for nuclear weapons and energy plants. It is 60 percent as radioactive as natural uranium. The U.S. has an estimated 1.5 billion pounds of it, sitting in hazardous waste storage sites across the country. Meaning it is plentiful and cheap as well as highly effective.

Reed says he unknowingly breathed DU dust while living with his unit in Samawah, Iraq. He was med-evaced out in July 2003, nearly unable to walk because of lightning-strike pains from herniated discs in his spine. Then began a strange series of symptoms he'd never experienced in his previously healthy life.

At Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C, he ran into a buddy from his unit. And another, and another, and in the tedium of hospital life between doctor visits and the dispensing of meds, they began to talk.

"We all had migraines. We all felt sick," Reed says. "The doctors said, 'It's all in your head.' "

Then the medic from their unit showed up. He too, was suffering. That made eight sick soldiers from the 442nd Military Police, an Army National Guard unit made up of mostly cops and correctional officers from the New York area.

But the medic knew something the others didn't.

Dutch marines had taken over the abandoned train depot dubbed Camp Smitty, which was surrounded by tank skeletons, unexploded ordnance and shell casings. They'd brought radiation-detection devices. The readings were so hot, the Dutch set up camp in the middle of the desert rather than live in the station ruins.

"We got on the Internet," Reed said, "and we started researching depleted uranium."

Then they contacted The New York Daily News, which paid for sophisticated urine tests available only overseas.

Then they hired a lawyer.

___

Reed, Gerard Matthew, Raymond Ramos, Hector Vega, Augustin Matos, Anthony Yonnone, Jerry Ojeda and Anthony Phillip all have depleted uranium in their urine, according to tests done in December 2003, while they bounced for months between Walter Reed and New Jersey's Fort Dix medical center, seeking relief that never came.

The analyses were done in Germany, by a Frankfurt professor who developed a depleted uranium test with Randall Parrish, a professor of isotope geology at the University of Leicester in Britain.

The veterans, using their positive results as evidence, have sued the U.S. Army, claiming officials knew the hazards of depleted uranium, but concealed the risks.

The Department of Defense says depleted uranium is powerful and safe, and not that worrisome.

Four of the highest-registering samples from Frankfurt were sent to the VA. Those results were negative, Reed said. "Their test just isn't as sophisticated," he said. "And when we first asked to be tested, they told us there wasn't one. They've lied to us all along."

The VA's testing methodology is safe and accurate, the agency says. More than 2,100 soldiers from the current war have asked to be tested; only 8 had DU in their urine, the VA said.

The term depleted uranium is linguistically radioactive. Simply uttering the words can prompt a reaction akin to preaching atheism at tent revival. Heads shake, eyes roll, opinions are yelled from all sides.

"The Department of Defense takes the position that you can eat it for breakfast and it poses no threat at all," said Steve Robinson of the National Gulf War Resource Center, which helps veterans with various problems, including navigating the labyrinth of VA health care. "Then you have far-left groups that ... declare it a crime against humanity."

Several countries use it as weaponry, including Britain, which fired it during the 2003 Iraq invasion.

An estimated 286 tons of DU munitions were fired by the U.S. in Iraq and Kuwait in 1991. An estimated 130 tons were shot toppling Saddam Hussein.

Depleted uranium can enter the human body by inhalation, the most dangerous method; by ingesting contaminated food or eating with contaminated hands; by getting dust or debris in an open wound, or by being struck by shrapnel, which often is not removed because doing so would be more dangerous than leaving it.

Inhaled, it can lodge in the lungs. As with imbedded shrapnel, this is doubly dangerous — not only are the particles themselves physically destructive, they emit radiation.

A moderate voice on the divisive DU spectrum belongs to Dan Fahey, a doctoral student at the University of California at Berkeley, who has studied the issue for years and also served in the Gulf War before leaving the military as a conscientious objector.

"I've been working on this since '93 and I've just given up hope," he said. "I've spoken to successive federal committees and elected officials ... who then side with the Pentagon. Nothing changes."

At the other end are a collection of conspiracy-theorists and Internet proselytizers who say using such weapons constitutes genocide. Two of the most vocal opponents recently suggested that a depleted-uranium missile, not a hijacked jetliner, struck the Pentagon in 2001.

"The bottom line is it's more hazardous than the Pentagon admits," Fahey said, "but it's not as hazardous as the hard-line activist groups say it is. And there's a real dearth of information about how DU affects humans."

There are several studies on how it affects animals, though their results are not, of course, directly applicable to humans. Military research on mice shows that depleted uranium can enter the bloodstream and come to rest in bones, the brain, kidneys and lymph nodes. Other research in rats shows that DU can result in cancerous tumors and genetic mutations, and pass from mother to unborn child, resulting in birth defects.

Iraqi doctors reported significant increases in birth defects and childhood cancers after the 1991 invasion.

Iraqi authorities "found that uranium, which affected the blood cells, had a serious impact on health: The number of cases of leukemia had increased considerably, as had the incidence of fetal deformities," the U.N. reported.

Depleted uranium can also contaminate soil and water, and coat buildings with radioactive dust, which can by carried by wind and sandstorms.

In 2005, the U.N. Environmental Program identified 311 polluted sites in Iraq. Cleaning them will take at least $40 million and several years, the agency said. Nothing can start until the fighting stops.

___

Fifteen years after it was first used in battle, there is only one U.S. government study monitoring veterans exposed to depleted uranium.

Number of soldiers in the survey: 32. Number of soldiers in both Iraq wars: more than 900,000.

The study group's size is controversial — far too small, say experts including Fahey — and so are the findings of the voluntary, Baltimore-based study.

It has found "no clinically significant" health effects from depleted uranium exposure in the study subjects, according to its researchers.

Critics say the VA has downplayed participants' health problems, including not reporting one soldier who developed cancer, and another who developed a bone tumor.

So for now, depleted uranium falls into the quagmire of Gulf War Syndrome, from which no treatment has emerged despite the government's spending of at least $300 million.

About 30 percent of the 700,000 men and women who served in the first Gulf War still suffer a baffling array of symptoms very similar to those reported by Reed's unit.

Depleted uranium has long been suspected as a possible contributor to Gulf War Syndrome, and in the mid-90s, veterans helped push the military into tracking soldiers exposed to it.

But for all their efforts, what they got in the end was a questionnaire dispensed to homeward-bound soldiers asking about mental health, nightmares, losing control, exposure to dangerous and radioactive chemicals.

But, the veterans persisted, how would soldiers know they'd been exposed? Radiation is invisible, tasteless, and has no smell. And what exhausted, homesick, war-addled soldier would check a box that would only send him or her to a military medical center to be poked and prodded and questioned and tested?

It will take years to determine how depleted uranium affected soldiers from this war. After Vietnam, veterans, in numbers that grew with the passage of time, complained of joint aches, night sweats, bloody feces, migraine headaches, unexplained rashes and violent behavior; some developed cancers.

It took more than 25 years for the Pentagon to acknowledge that Agent Orange — a corrosive defoliant used to melt the jungles of Vietnam and flush out the enemy — was linked to those sufferings.

It took 40 years for the military to compensate sick World War II vets exposed to massive blasts of radiation during tests of the atomic bomb.

In 2002, Congress voted to not let that happen again.

It established the Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses — comprised of scientists, physicians and veterans advocates. It reports to the secretary of Veterans Affairs.

Its mandate is to judge all research and all efforts to treat Gulf War Syndrome patients against a single standard: Have sick soldiers been made better?

The answer, according to the committee, is no.

"Regrettably, after four years of operation neither the Committee nor (the) VA can report progress toward this goal," stated its December 2005 report. "Research has not produced effective treatments for these conditions nor shown that existing treatments are significantly effective."

And so time marches on, as do soldiers going to, and returning from, the deserts of Iraq.

___

Herbert Reed is an imposing man, broad shouldered and tall. He strides into the VA Medical Center in the Bronx with the presence of a cop or a soldier. Since the Vietnam War, he has been both.

His hair is perfect, his shirt spotless, his jeans sharply creased. But there is something wrong, a niggling imperfection made more noticeable by a bearing so disciplined. It is a limp — more like a hitch in his get-along.

It is the only sign, albeit a tiny one, that he is extremely sick.

Even sleep offers no release. He dreams of gunfire and bombs and soldiers who scream for help. No matter how hard he tries, he never gets there in time.

At 54, he is a veteran of two wars and a 20-year veteran of the New York Police Department, where he last served as an assistant warden at the Riker's Island prison.

He was in perfect health, he says, before being deployed to Iraq.

According to military guidelines, he should have heard the words depleted uranium long before he ended up at Walter Reed. He should have been trained about its dangers, and how to avoid prolonged exposure to its toxicity and radioactivity. He says he didn't get anything of the kind. Neither did other reservists and National Guard soldiers called up for the current war, according to veterans' groups.

Reed and the seven brothers from his unit hate what has happened to them, and they speak of it at public seminars and in politicians' offices. It is something no VA doctor can explain; something that leaves them feeling like so many spent shell rounds, kicked to the side of battle.

But for every outspoken soldier like them, there are silent veterans like Raphael Naboa, an Army artillery scout who served 11 months in the northern Sunni Triangle, only to come home and fall apart.

Some days he feels fine. "Some days I can't get out of bed," he said from his home in Colorado.

Now 29, he's had growths removed from his brain. He has suffered a small stroke — one morning he was shaving, having put down the razor to rinse his face. In that moment, he blacked out and pitched over.

"Just as quickly as I lost consciousness, I regained it," he said. "Except I couldn't move the right side of my body."

After about 15 minutes, the paralysis ebbed.

He has mentioned depleted uranium to his VA doctors, who say he suffers from a series of "non-related conditions." He knows he was exposed to DU.

"A lot of guys went trophy-hunting, grabbing bayonets, helmets, stuff that was in the vehicles that were destroyed by depleted uranium. My guys were rooting around in it. I was trying to get them out of the vehicles."

No one in the military talked to him about depleted uranium, he said. His knowledge, like Reed's, is self-taught from the Internet.

Unlike Reed, he has not gone to war over it. He doesn't feel up to the fight. There is no known cure for what ails him, and so no possible victory in battle.

He'd really just like to feel normal again. And he knows of others who feel the same.

"I was an artillery scout, these are folks who are in pretty good shape. Your Rangers, your Special Forces guys, they're in as good as shape as a professional athlete.

"Then we come back and we're all sick."

They feel like men who once were warriors and now are old before their time, with no hope for relief from a multitude of miseries that has no name.

GVWilson 18:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Stop edit warring!

The recent edits by TDC, GVWilson, and Give Peace A Chance are all equally BAD and POV!

If you don't agree with something, put in the other side, but DO NOT DELETE THE PART THAT YOU DON'T LIKE.

This article needs to be protected, or at least carefully watched by a neutral party. Peter Cheung 02:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Horse shit. Neutral party? You? Who started an account today? I'm laughing my ass off. Give Peace A Chance 02:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Questions about my identity can be answered by WHOIS on any of my home office's static IP addresses, such as this one. 69.228.65.174 04:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC) = Peter Cheung

I see DU victims in my practice every few months. How many people have been falsely accused of being James Salsman in this article since his undeserved sanctions just to get people to shut up? WHOIS me, CHECKUSER me, call me on the phone. Just don't use someone else's arbitration sanctions to skew the article. 69.228.65.174 05:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I could give two shits what your "real" identity is. You still think you can create an account today, and then dictate how other editors should contribute? What a joke. Give Peace A Chance 05:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:CIV, please. I think you can discuss your opinions about PC's contributions to the talk page without calling them "horse shit." Icewolf34 20:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

He called me out by name, and said my contributions were BAD in all caps. I equated his contributions to equine feculence in lower case. Seems even to me. Give Peace A Chance 01:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I wonder what the real Dr Peter Cheung from Texas thinks about being impersonated on Wikipedia? Lets email him and find out. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Should the Health concerns section contain one side's selected text, or both pro and con arguments?

• Both. Peter Cheung 02:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It's nice of you to show up and PRETEND to be the honest broker. Except nobody is buying it. Give Peace A Chance 02:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hooray! Now James has lots of sockpuppets in the fray! These issues had been brought up numerous times before. The vast majority of the material being introduced is either OR or a gross distortion of the source material. Provide the information here and it can be evaluated. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hah. I've filed an RFCU to clear Peter and I from these accusations. --James Salsman, LossIsNotMore 17:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

James, I don’t know if you recruited these guys or what, but the fact that this is the first article either of them have edited, and the fact that they are attempting to add the same discredited garbage that you were, the fact that Peter Cheung's second edit was to explain that he was not James Salsman, the fact that he found the survey tool so quickly coupled with the fact that you still cannot drop this debate leads me to suspect otherwise. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You suspect everyone who edits this article in a way you don't like of being me. Maybe Peter and the other newbies read the AP story. It got prominent placement in my local Sunday paper. LossIsNotMore 18:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Both, of course, but this sounds like a loaded question. Do we have something specific in mind? 192.75.48.150 14:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely both!! just so long as all of them are cited to reliable and notworthy sources. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Look at how the Health consideration (formerly Health concerns) section has changed over the past 50 edits, and you'll get the picture. GVWilson 22:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Watermellon loaded polls like these do not produce valuable results. JBKramer 19:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• <sarcasm>Only one side, of course. Depleted uranium is wonderful stuff! I brought some home and I no longer need a night light - my house glows. Really interesting things have started growing on my skin, too.</sarcasm> Seriously, I'm not fond of push polling. Set out the issues in a serious manner and you may get serious responses. Durova 00:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Why this source is BS

About 30 percent of the 700,000 men and women who served in the first Gulf War still suffer a baffling array of serious health impairing symptoms (Associated Press, August 12, 2006, free archived copy at: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0812-06.htm most recently visited August 14, 2005).

Far from being "baffling" the vast majority, in fact over 95% of service related disabilities from GW1 vets is for more mundane reasons like partial hearing loss, arthritis, knee and other orthopedic issues and hypertension. [3] Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Torturous, the AP source fully backs up what I wrote. (1) Are you saying you think the AP is BS? It's one of the most relied on news sources in the US (surpassing the Reader's Digest, if that makes any difference to you). Do you read major U.S. newspapers? If so, you come across many articles based on AP reports. (2) Please cite a page number for the 150+ page VA doc you cite that allegedly supports your assertion. (3) Your assertion, if true, about 95% of disabilities does not necessarlily contradict the 30% figure: 95% of "service related" disabilities could comprise the ones you cite, while at the same time 30% of vets could have the "baffling" ones cited in the AP article. In other words, some vets can suffer from both types of injuries, and more than 30% of all vets may be injured. According to WP rules, you cannot remove a sourced contribution unless you have countersource that proves it wrong. --NYCJosh 18:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

1. I am saying that this AP report is ridiculous on its face.
2. Pg 31

The article is absolute fluff and repeats the same unfounded information that is rampant on the web. The AP story does not back any of its claims up, it cites one activist and no one else. To date, there have been no epidemiological studies that have confirmed what the article is pushing. There have been many many studies, cited in the main article, which have concluded the exact opposite. Nearly every study has concluded two things, the level of radioactivity is not high enough to produce significant health effects, and as heavy metals go uranium is not as toxic as lead. The AP piece does not address any of these studies (it actualty claimed that there were no studies) except for one, and in that case it severely distorted the study. I am referring to the study involving the 32 veterans (it was actually 29 and the AP did not even get that correct [4]). The AP piece claims that this study was to small, but fails to mention that this study was the only one to track vets who actually had DU fragments lodged in them, and in this case there were only 29 individuals who had fragments lodged in them. Given the choice, we should rely on the cited studies rather than an AP piece. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

If you want rigorous studies, why did you delete these PMIDs:

• DU was shown to have cytotoxic, genotoxic and carcinogenic effects in animal studies (PMID 7694141, PMID 16283518)
• Epidemiological evidence suggests that uranium causes reproductive effects in humans. (PMID 16124873)
• It has been shown in rodents and frogs that water soluble forms of uranium are teratogenic (PMID 16124873, PMID 11738513, PMID 12539863)

??? LossIsNotMore 20:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that Wikipedia is not about truth but 'verifiability. As far as I see it, the source IS verifiable. You may disagree with the POV expressed in the article but that does not make it right to remove it for the sake of it (it does not give that position an unfair weight either). Regards, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 20:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Even if information in the article is wrong, and that it can shown to be wrong beyond a shadow of doubt? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, yes, I think. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader must be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source," from WP:V. Whatever you think of that article, it's hard to argue that AP isn't a "reliable source" in general. Icewolf34 20:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Even if some of the most basic information in it is found to be incorrect? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It could be wrong (or not) but as long as the source is verifiable and the view expressed is somehow hold by a considerable number of people (i.e. not a "flat earth" theory), it is not up to wikipedia to decide. You could quote another verifiable source with an opposing view but simply saying -on your own right- that it is wrong, could be seem as "Original Research", which is not allowed. Thanks, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 20:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, truth is not the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia. The best way to balance it is to find a source which presents the opposing view, or somehow categorizes the "wrong" view as a minority one. (Which should be very easy to do, given the studies you allude to.) Icewolf34 20:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

That piece by Deborah Hastings is so emotivelly written it could well have been researched on here.

"Gentlemen" May I ask how old you are ?? Judging from what I have read here you are either VERY young or VERY old!! It is clear as crystal that some of you have personal agendas in this matter . Is there anything to hide in the GWS matter??

The link contained in FN 14 does not appear to work. Torturous, did you include it by any chance?--NYCJosh 22:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The gulf war syndrome section was terrible, so I replaced it with a link to the article. -Alex- 07:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

News article excerpts from HW Wilson

My public library has an HW Wilson full text database, so I collected the following excerpts on subjects which don't seem to be represented in the article. Those who have more than my passing familiarity with this stuff, please consider adding some of this information to the article. I've been using wikis for years, but I'm mostly new to wikipedia and haven't really gotten my feet wet yet. I've only started reading about the subject of DU this month, and while it's fascinating, there's no hope of me being able to catch up with all of the archives of this discussion page. My plan for the time being is to get excerpts from reputable sources on subjects which the article doesn't seem to address. Maybe I will add some of this info later after I've actually read and understood some more of the archives.

Note that these aren't all the complete news articles. I omitted most things which were already mentioned in the article, unless it seemed necessary for context or continuity to understand the news item. -Alex- 08:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

"Depleted uranium" from The Ecologist

TITLE:    Depleted uranium
SOURCE:   The Ecologist 33 no2 24-5 Mr 2003

As both the US and British governments fix their sights on a new war with Iraq there is increasing concern that the unresolved tragedies of the 1991 Gulf War will be repeated on an even larger scale.

The US has made much of its new 'bunker-busting' bombs, but has refused to reveal the composition of the bombs' dense metal. It is more than likely that the metal is a uranium alloy. The only other suitably dense candidate would be tungsten, which would not have the incendiary capability of depleted uranium (DU).

It has also emerged that arms manufacturer Lockheed Martin has submitted US patent applications on a 'shrouded aerial bomb', which clearly refer to the penetrating body being 'formed of depleted uranium'. If uranium is used in large, explosive 'hard-target' warheads (up to 1,500 kilograms) there would be levels of radioactive contamination 100 times higher and more widespread than the DU anti-tank 'penetrators' used in 1991.

In the UK the Ministry of Defence (MoD) has announced: 'DU will remain part of our arsenal for the foreseeable future because we have a duty to provide our troops with the best available equipment with which to protect themselves and succeed in conflict.' The MoD also claimed that 'there is no scientific or medical evidence to link DU with ill health'.

WHAT THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW

• The MoD labels the risk from DU 'insignificant', but this is because the present exposure levels for all kinds of radiation are derived from considerations of the total-body external dose only -- figures originally derived from studies on Hiroshima survivors.
• The primary risk from DU lies in dust inhalation and, therefore, chemical toxicity and internal radiation -- particularly alpha radiation, which is recognised as by far the most damaging form of radioactive poisoning.
• In Bosnia-Kosovo, all 22 people (from a 1-year-old baby to a 67-year-old man) sampled for DU for a BBC Scotland report were found to be contaminated. Even a cameraman with the reporting team was excreting DU.
• A number of Gulf War veterans have reported a condition known as 'burning semen syndrome', in which they and their female partners experienced burning, pain and swelling in and around their genitals immediately after exposure to the veteran's semen.
• Traces of highly radioactive uranium 236 and plutonium 239/240 were found in anti-tank penetrators analysed in Kosovo by the UN Environment Programme.
• The biological half-life of these particles is not known with any accuracy but it is known that some Gulf veterans are excreting generally low levels of DU in their urine nearly 12 years after the war.

DU NUMBERS

       70    Percentage of a DU penetrator rod that burns and oxidises into
             extremely small, easily inhaled particles during impact
900-3,400    Grams of uranium oxide particles created by the impact of one
             120-millimetre DU penetrator fired from a US Abrams tank
       67    Percentage of children in a Gulf War veterans community in Mississippi
             born either without eyes, ears or brain, or with thyroid or other organ
             malformations
  700,000    Gulf War veterans estimated to be suffering from illnesses related to
             the conflict
        0    £/$ paid to veterans in compensation
       10    Factor by which cancer cases have increased in Iraq since the Gulf War
        0    Days the US and UK military spent decontaminating the war zone in the
             aftermath of the Gulf War

MILITARY WELL AWARE OF THE DANGERS

The quotes below are taken from an unpublished document by MoD medical experts dated March 1997.

1 - 'Inhalation of insoluble uranium dioxide dust will lead to accumulation in the lungs with very slow clearance -- if any.'

2 - 'Although chemical toxicity affecting kidneys is low, there may be localised radiation damage of the lung leading to cancer, and chemical genotoxic affects with consequenses including the induction of birth defects and immune system compromise.'

3 - 'First and foremost, the risk of occupational exposure by inhalation must be reduced.'

4 - 'All personnel... should be aware that uranium dust inhalation carries a long-term risk... [The dust] has been shown to increase the risks of developing lung, lymph and brain cancers.'

HUMAN RIGHTS

A sub-commission of the UN Human Rights Commission resolved in 1996 that DU is a weapon of mass destruction that should be banned.

Four reasons why using DU rounds violates the UN Convention on Human Rights

1 Rule: The effects of using a weapon must be limited in territory to the actual field of combat.

Using a DU round generates minute particles that can migrate beyond the battleground to cause harm in neighbouring areas or even in non-combatant countries.

2 Rule: Weapons must not continue to harm or kill after the war has ended.

The health damage that results from DU continues for some years after the war has ended and can even affect coming generations through congenital defects, etc.

3 Rule: Weapons must not be unduly inhumane.

Many non-combatants in the southern part of Iraq, especially innocent children, are suffering from leukaemia and other illnesses. Radiation and toxic chemicals are affecting the next generation as well.

4 Rule: Weapons must not cause long-lasting, widespread environmental damage.

The use of DU rounds contaminates the ground, the atmosphere and water, as well as negatively impacting the ecology of plants, etc.

"Depleted uranium casts a shadow over peace in Iraq" from New Scientist

AUTHOR:   DUNCAN GRAHAM-ROWE
TITLE:    Depleted uranium casts a shadow over peace in Iraq
SOURCE:   New Scientist 178 4-6 Ap 19 2003

WRECKED tanks and vehicles litter the Iraqi countryside. Ruined buildings dominate towns and cities. Many were blown to pieces by shells tipped with depleted uranium, a material that the US and Britain say poses no long-term health or environmental risks. But many Iraqis, and a growing band of scientists, are not so sure.

Last week, the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) announced it wanted to send a scientific team into Iraq as soon as possible to examine the effects of depleted uranium (DU). People's fears that DU leaves a deadly legacy must be addressed, says UNEP. Some scientists go further. Evidence is emerging that DU affects our bodies in ways we do not fully understand, they say, and the legacy could be real.

DU is both radioactive and toxic. Past studies of DU in the environment have concluded that neither of these effects poses a significant risks. But some researchers are beginning to suspect that in combination, the two effects could do significant harm. Nobody has taken a hard look at the combined effect of both, says Alexandra Miller, a radiobiologist with the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute in Bethesda, Maryland. "The bottom line is it might contribute to the risk."

She is not alone. The idea that chemical and radiological damage are reinforcing each other is very plausible and gaining momentum, says Carmel Mothersill, head of the Radiation and Environmental Science Centre at the Dublin Institute of Technology in Ireland. "The regulators don't know how to handle it. So they sweep it under the carpet."

A by-product of the uranium enrichment process, DU is chemically identical to natural uranium. But most of the 235 isotope has been extracted leaving mainly the non-fissionable 238 isotope. It is used to make the tips of armour-piercing shells because it is extremely dense: 1.7 times as dense as lead. Also, unlike other heavy metals that tend to flatten, or mushroom, upon impact, DU has the ability to "self-sharpen" as material spread out by the impact ignites and burns off as the munition pierces its target.

During the Gulf war in 1991, the US and Britain fired an estimated 350 tonnes of DU at Iraqi tanks, a figure likely to be matched in the course of the current conflict. In the years since then, doctors in southern Iraq have reported a marked increase in cancers and birth defects, and suspicion has grown that they were caused by DU contamination from tank battles on farmland west of Basra.

As the Pentagon and the Ministry of Defence point out, this claim has not been substantiated. Iraq did not allow the World Health Organization to carry out an independent assessment. Given its low radioactivity and our current understanding of radiobiology, DU cannot trigger such health effects, the British and American governments maintain.

But what if they are wrong? Though DU is 40 per cent less radioactive than natural uranium, Miller believes that its radiological and toxic effects might combine in subtle, unforeseen ways, making it more carcinogenic than thought. It's a controversial theory, but one for which Miller has increasing evidence.

Uranium is "genotoxic". It chemically alters DNA, switching on genes that would otherwise not be expressed. The fear is that the resulting abnormally high activity in cells could be a precursor to tumour growth.

But while the chemical toxicity of DU is reasonably well established, Mothersill points out that the radiological effects of DU are less clear. To gauge the risk from low-dose radiation, researchers extrapolate from tests using higher doses. But the relationship between dose and effect is not linear: at low doses radiation kills relatively fewer cells. And though that sounds like good news, it could mean that low radiation is having subtle effects that to unnoticed because cells are not dying, says Mothersill.

Miller has found one way this may happen. She has discovered the first direct evidence that radiation from DU damages chromosomes within cultured cells. The chromosomes break, and the fragments reform in a way that results in abnormal joins (Military Medicine, vol 167, p 120). Both the breaks and the joins are commonly found in tumour cells.

More crucially, she has recently found that DU radiation increases gene activity in cultured cells at doses of DU not known to cause chemical toxicity (Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry, in press). The possible consequences are made all the more uncertain because no one knows if genes switched on by DU radiation enhance the damage caused by genes switched on by DU's toxic effects, or vice versa. "I think that we assumed that we knew everything that we needed to know about uranium," says Miller. "This is something we have to consider now when we think about risk estimates."

Britain's Royal Society briefly referred to these synergistic effects in its report last year on the health effects of DU munitions. "There is a possibility of damage to DNA due to the chemical effects being enhanced by the effects of the alpha-particle irradiation." But it makes no recommendations for future research to evaluate the risks.

THE BYSTANDER EFFECT

Miller points to another reason to be concerned about DU: the so-called "bystander effect". There is a growing consensus among scientists that radiation damages more than just the cells it directly hits. In tests using equipment that allows single cells to be irradiated by individual alpha particles, gene expression increases both in irradiated cells, and in neighbouring cells that have not been exposed. "At high doses, 'bystander' is not an issue because you are killing so many cells. But at low doses that's not really true," says Miller. There is a danger that experiments not specifically looking for this effect could miss an important source of damage.

A body of research has also emerged over the past decade showing that the effects of radiation may not appear immediately. Damage to genes may be amplified as cells divide, so the full consequences may only appear many generations after the event that caused it.

And while the chemical toxicity of DU itself is more clear-cut, the possibility remains that there may still be some unforeseen synergistic effects at a genetic level. Other heavy metals, such as tungsten, nickel and cobalt are similarly genotoxic. When Miller and her team exposed human cells to a mixture of these metals, significantly more genes became activated than when the cells were exposed to the equivalent amount of each metal separately (Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry, in press).

Miller and Mothersill say that recommended safe radiation limits are often based on the idea that only irradiated cells will be affected, and ignore both the bystander effect and the possible amplification over the generations. "Nothing should be written in stone when it comes to risk assessment," agrees Michael Clark at Britain's National Radiological Protection Board. But even if there were a case for re-evaluating the dosimetry for low-dose radiation, he says we should be cautious of the significance of Miller's lab-based research. "An in vitro effect is not a health effect."

Also, says Clark, everyone has traces of natural uranium in their bodies. "If there was some sort of subtle low-dose effect I think we would have seen it," he says. Because none has shown up in epidemiological studies, it seems unlikely there are any health effects associated with DU, which is less radioactive. But Miller is not convinced. While most people have small amounts of uranium in their bodies, she says no studies have been done to see whether this contributes to cases of cancer in society at large.

The military tends to dismiss such hazards as being of only theoretical significance, at least when it comes to civilians. According to the Pentagon, the only risk of exposure is during combat, when DU shells hit hard targets and the metal ignites. This creates clouds of uranium oxide dust that can be breathed in. But heavy oxide particles quickly settle, it says, limiting the risk of exposure. "A small dust particle is still very heavy," says Michael Kilpatrick of the US Deployment Health Support Directorate. "It stays on the ground."

That sounds reassuring until you read UNEP's latest report on DU left over from conflicts in former Yugoslavia in the mid-1990s. Last month, a team of experts collaborating with the International Atomic Energy Agency, WHO and NATO concluded that DU poses little risk in Bosnia although it can still be detected at many sites. Just 11 tonnes was fired in that conflict.

But evidence that DU may be moving through the ground and could contaminate local water supplies should be investigated further, UNEP says. And on rare occasions, wind or human activity may raise DU-laden dust that local people could inhale. The Royal Society admits that localised areas of DU contamination pose a risk, particularly to young children, and should be cleared up as a priority. They also recommend the environmental sampling of affected areas (see "Royal Society Reports on DU, 2002", below).

Such evidence is partly why UNEP is keen to study DU fired during the present conflict in Iraq. Assessments in former Yugoslavia were made up to seven years after DU weapons were used, UNEP admits, and a more immediate study in Iraq would give us a much better understanding of how DU behaves in the environment. Any hazards such a study identifies could be dealt with immediately, says UNEP. And even now, an investigation in Iraq could reveal risks remaining from DU fired during the Gulf war in 1991.

VETERANS SHOW ILL EFFECTS

Cracks are also appearing in the argument that DU munitions have not proven harmful even to troops. In the 1991 war, more than 100 coalition troops were exposed to DU after being accidentally fired on by their own forces. The majority inhaled uranium oxide, while the rest suffered shrapnel injuries. Some still have DU in their bodies. Britain and America point out that none has developed cancers or kidney problems, as might have been expected if DU posed a long-term danger.

But researchers at the Bremen Institute for Prevention Research, Social Medicine and Epidemiology in Germany have found that all is not well with the veterans. Last month they published results from tests in which they took blood samples from 16 of the soldiers, and counted the number of chromosomes in which broken strands of DNA had been incorrectly repaired. In veterans, these abnormalities occurred at five times the rate as in a control group of 40 healthy volunteers (Radiation Protection Dosimetry, vol 103, p 211). "Increased chromosomal aberrations are associated with an increased incidence of cancers," says team member Heike Schröder. The damage occurred, they say, because the soldiers inhaled DU particles in battle.

The NRPB is unconvinced. "It is possible that exposure to significant amounts of DU could cause excess chromosome aberrations, but this study has technical flaws," says Clark. "There are no proper controls to compare results with soldiers who were not exposed to DU. And some of the reported excess aberrations are well known to be linked to chemicals rather than radiation."

TOUGH DECISION TO MAKE

Deciding whether DU is to blame will be tough. Independent research may confirm that rates of cancer have increased in the Iraqi population. But the Iraqi government has used chemical weapons on its own people that can produce the same outcome, and it is impossible to know for sure who may have been exposed. Soldiers may similarly have been exposed to chemicals in 1991. The only way to resolve the issue is more research, says Dudley Goodhead, director of Britain's Medical Research Council's Radiation and Genome Stability Unit at Harwell, near Oxford. "It's something important that needs to be explained."

Miller admits it is entirely possible that DU contamination is safe. But many of the scientific investigations into DU have only just begun, and their results will be long coming. "None of this has been looked at or even thought about it until the last few years," she says. As the dust begins to settle in Iraq, it remains to be seen when the ravages of war will end.

"Heavy weapons" from E: the Environmental Magazine

TITLE:   Heavy weapons
SOURCE:  E: the Environmental Magazine 14 no3 14-16 My/Je 2003

In the past decade DU has been implicated in health problems suffered by thousands of U.S. soldiers and blamed for a five-fold increase in the cancer rate among civilians in Southern Iraq. Since the U.S. military's widespread use of DU in the Gulf became known in 1991, the Pentagon has struggled to suppress mounting evidence that DU munitions are simply too toxic to use. It has cashiered or attempted to discredit its own experts, ignored their advice, impeded scientific research into DU's health effects and assembled a disinformation campaign to confuse the issue.

"The cover-up started with the infamous Los Alamos memorandum sent to our team in Saudi Arabia during March 1991," claims Doug Rokke, a retired health physicist who the Army tasked with the clean up of the nine U.S. tanks and 15 Bradley Fighting Vehicles that had been destroyed by "friendly fire" from DU shells. The memo suggested to Rokke that he downplay any environmental dangers or health hazards he might find. "There has been and continues to be concern regarding the impact of DU on the environment," the memo says. "Therefore, if no one makes a case for the effectiveness of DU on the battlefield, DU rounds may become politically unacceptable and thus, be deleted from the arsenal."

Rokke, the Army's lead expert on DU in the 1990s, directed the cleanup effort and then developed a rigorous, 12-hour training program in DU safety and handling for U.S. soldiers. But the military never implemented the program. Between 1991 and 1996 Rokke also urged the military brass to test veterans for exposure to DU, and treat and monitor those who had been exposed. He says the Pentagon ignored him, along with many other military medical experts and a 1993 congressional order. He was fired from his post. Rokke blames his own persistent respiratory problems and a cataract on DU exposure.

Rokke wants DU banned, as do many Gulf War vets, peace and environmental activists around the globe. In 1996 a United Nations subcommittee passed a resolution urging that its use be banned, along with other weapons of mass destruction. The measure was adopted by a vote of 15 to one, with the U.S. the sole dissenter.

In 1999, the European Parliament voted to urge NATO to suspend the use of DU munitions. The request was ignored. In March, 6,000 activists rallied in Hiroshima, Japan, calling on the U.S. not to attack Iraq again and to stop using and selling depleted uranium weapons. Protestors used their bodies to spell out the words "NO DU."

The U.S. has had DU ammunition since the 1970s, but never used it on the battlefield until the Gulf War. The U.S. and allied British fired 340 tons of DU in anti-tank shells in that conflict, by their own accounting. Tons more were used in the Balkans and Afghanistan.

The 1990s saw a tremendous proliferation of DU munitions around the world. In 1991 only the U.S., Great Britain and (probably) Israel had DU; by 1999, it was in the arsenals of a dozen countries. Both the U.S. and Russia sell depleted uranium weapons on the world arms market, providing a lucrative outlet for what had been expensive-to-dispose-of nuclear waste.

The reason DU is so dangerous to soldiers and civilians after the battle is that the uranium ignites on impact. When DU burns through a target, between 40 and 70 percent of every penetrator turns into fragments, smoke and uranium oxide dust. The dust, with particles as small as one micron, settles out on the ground and, studies show, can be carried by the wind as far as 25 miles away. These tiny particles can stick to hair and skin, and get swallowed or inhaled, where they lodge permanently in the lungs. Recent research suggests that DU's chemical toxicity damages the brain. It also emits alpha and beta radiation, which can damage lungs, kidneys and other soft tissues, especially the digestive tract.

The Pentagon admits that it should have given soldiers better training on how to avoid or deal with DU contamination, but claims the effects were unknown before the war, and at any rate are known to be mild today. "There just isn't any scientific foundation to draw a connection between exposure and incidence of cancer or birth defects," says Michael Kilpatrick, deputy director of deployment health support at the Pentagon. But a military-funded report released just months before the Gulf War warned of DU's potential health effects. For years, the Iraqis have claimed that allied DU rained on Iraqi forces has caused elevated rates of cancer and horrific birth defects. The Bush administration has dismissed these stories as propaganda. A request by the World Health Organization to study the problem was rebuffed by Saddam Hussein.

Retired Army colonel Dr. Andras Korenyi-Both says he "unintentionally opened a Pandora Box" by researching the causes of Gulf War Syndrome. Although nearly 28 percent of all returning Gulf War veterans--more than 200,000 of them--have filed claims that they are sick, he says all of the medical research has garnered "not a single positive result."

Rokke says the Army ignored his work on the health effects of DU "because this sucker is awesome at killing." Korenyi-Both is more measured. "I do not believe [it is a] government conspiracy. I do believe it is government insensitivity and cowardice," he says. "My youngest boy is a first lieutenant serving his country in the same sandbox. He gets the same protections we got. That concerns me."

"'Safe' alternative to uranium shells" from New Scientist

AUTHOR:   David Hambling
TITLE:    'Safe' alternative to uranium shells
SOURCE:   New Scientist 179 6 Ag 2 2003

CONTROVERSIAL anti-tank shells tipped with depleted uranium may be phased out if an alternative material proves its worth. The US Army is expected to award a contract this week for the manufacture of prototype ammunition incorporating a "liquid metal" alloy. The new rounds could be in service within two years.

Campaigners have complained for years about the potential health effects of DU -- it has been linked to everything from Gulf War syndrome to birth defects. But the health connection is disputed and the military defends its use of DU. All the same, the US Army's Tank-automotive and Armaments Command is looking for alternatives in case political pressures force it to abandon DU.

DU has been the material of choice for anti-tank ammunition since the 1970s because it has twice the density of lead. And it has two key advantages over pure tungsten, which has a similar density. Tungsten shells flatten on impact, forming a mushroom shape. But DU rounds self-sharpen as they deform because material breaks away in a way that preserves the shell's shape, a phenomenon known as "adiabatic shear banding". DU rounds are also pyrophoric -- the fragments ignite in air, torching the interior of the target vehicle.

Now Liquidmetal Technologies, an R&D company based in Tampa, Florida, says it can get comparable performance from penetrators made of an exotic alloy of tungsten.

Normally, solid metals are a lattice of tiny crystals. The size of the crystals affects the properties of the material which tends to fracture along the boundaries between them. Instead of such a metal, the company wants to use an amorphous alloy that has a random arrangement of atoms, as in a glass or liquid.

Amorphous tungsten alloy has many of the properties that make DU such an effective penetrator: it is self-sharpening and it should also be pyrophoric, says Steve Collier, president of Liquidmetal's defence arm.

The new contract is for a test batch of 30-millimetre ammunition of the type used by American A-10 "tank buster" aircraft, which fired some 75 tonnes of DU during the recent Iraq conflict.

While many will welcome an alternative to DU, questions remain over the safety of tungsten. Fragments of tungsten embedded in flesh have been shown to cause tumours by Alexandra Miller and her colleagues at the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute in Bethesda, Maryland. However, the toxicity of tungsten when inhaled is believed on be much lower than that of uranium or lead.

"Dumping on History" from E: the Environmental Magazine

TITLE:    Dumping on History
SOURCE:   E: the Environmental Magazine 15 no1 21-3 Ja/F 2004

A Radioactive Nightmare in Concord, Massachusetts

The waitress at the ice cream shop in Concord, Massachusetts was surprised. "A Superfund site?" she asked, incredulous, "on Main Street?" Not just a Superfund site--a Superfund site that a cleanup contractor has dubbed "near the tip of the peak in terms of [cleanup] difficulty." A radioactive Superfund site.

Concord, the crucible of the American Revolution, where the "shot heard 'round the world" rang out on April 19, 1775, is a Boston suburb filled with professionals and stately homes. Tourists still come to see the war sites, and to visit the bucolic Walden Pond that Thoreau celebrated.

Few know about the nuclear waste dump at 2229 Main Street. But this shady burg of 15,000 residents quietly struggles with its legacy as the maker of depleted uranium slugs for the U.S. military's latest wars. The soil more than a mile from the nuclear dump is radioactive. A 1993 epidemiological study found the town's residents suffered higher rates of cancer than the state average.

Today, atop and buried beneath a low hill above a cranberry bog, more than 3,800 barrels of radioactive and toxic waste lie, subject to a government-paid cleanup estimated to take 10 years and cost at least $50 million.

The company responsible for most of the waste, Starmet, declared bankruptcy in 2002. Massachusetts has sued Starmet and several related companies to enforce state laws against radioactive dumping, but so far has had little success on the legal front. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hastily concluded that Starmet was broke and has made no move to charge it for the pending cleanup.

"All of the people who benefited and made millions from the process are not being tagged at all with the cleanup process, says Mark Roberts, an environmental lawyer and member of Citizens Research and Environmental Watch (CREW), a citizens group that has fought to get the site cleaned up for more than 20 years.

Since 1958, Starmet (formerly known as Nuclear Metals) processed depleted uranium into tank shells and armor for the U.S. Army, using caustic acids, beryllium and other dangerous substances. From the early 1970s until 1985, the company dumped depleted uranium into an unlined lagoon on the property, sending a toxic plume of radiation, heavy metals and solvents migrating into the groundwater, fouling at least two wells. The company resisted pressure to clean up the lagoon until 1997, when the pond was finally dug up and the soils shipped to a low-level nuclear waste dump in Utah. That project was costly, though, and the remediation company sued Starmet for unpaid bills. Just about this time, military orders for depleted uranium munitions stopped too. Starmet began to lose money.

In May 2001, Starmet officials illegally shipped 1,700 barrels of depleted uranium "greensalt" from a company facility in Barnwell, South Carolina to Concord. The cash-strapped company was cleaning the South Carolina facility in preparation for sale, EPA documents say.

When Massachusetts' health and environmental officials protested, Starmet's president, Robert Quinn, threatened to abandon the Concord site and stick the state with the cost of cleanup. In 2002, after the state forced bankrupt Starmet into receivership, according to EPA records, the company did abandon the site for several weeks.

Nowadays Quinn--who angrily blames the U.S. Army for Starmet's bankruptcy--sits at a lonely desk in a low building on the site while a few security guards watch over the mess. And what a fine mess it is. Conservatively speaking, there is at least 20 times more depleted uranium on and under Starmet's 46 acres on Main Street, Concord than the 340 tons that were fired in all of Iraq during the first Gulf War. There are tons of beryllium--a probable carcinogen--in the soil and leaking from buried drums. And in a recently discovered area known as the "old dump" there are unknown substances, possibly including high-level radioactive waste and exotic explosives.

Much of the work during the next four to five years will consist of determining what's in the barrels buried in the old dump, according to Bruce Thompson of De Maximis, Inc., the engineering group chosen by EPA to head the cleanup process. He says some preliminary research indicates that exotic radioactive and heavy metals may have been buried there by MIT scientists during the Manhattan Project. He is also concerned about the potential presence of an explosive, zirconium azide. "That's something I don't want to hit with a backhoe," Thompson told a town subcommittee meeting in September.

That Thompson and the EPA arrived in Concord at all is Credit to the efforts of a small group of committed activists. CREW is led by Rick Oleson, a Princeton and Harvard-educated radiation biologist and toxicologist whose late father was a nuclear physicist. Oleson spent part of his childhood in a house near the factory. State records show the most contaminated area on the site is adjacent to "Camp Thoreau," a summer camp for children ages three and up.

"It's one industrial setting in a very residential area," says Oleson. "People later could put a house or well there, or grow vegetables." Oleson and CREW are focusing their efforts to make sure the EPA demands that the dump is cleaned up to a "residential level," rather than the looser standards allowable for an "industrial" site.

Jeffrey McNabola was a member of Concerned Citizens of Concord, CREW's predecessor, in the 1970s and early 1980s. He notes that the group was warning people about the dangers of depleted uranium and other activities at Nuclear Metals for decades before anyone in officialdom gave them any credence. "There was a cavalier attitude about depleted uranium," he says. "They said that it's safe as chocolate milk."

Even Oleson took years to conclude that Nuclear Metals' activities were unacceptable. "I used to cross-country ski and run back there," he says of the woods bordering the dumpsite. "It was a very pretty place...and there was this big pond. It was full of psychedelic colors."

Oleson and CREW are hunkering down for a long battle, keeping a wary eye on the EPA and its contractors. Loath to link deaths from cancer or rare diseases to the factory, Oleson (who works for Monsanto) and others in CREW strive to hue a strict scientific line--lest they appear as "radicals."

The strategy seems to be working. "The real story behind the story I tell people," Oleson says, "is that a few people volunteered their time to do something that needed doing. And for years they were dismissed and made fun of. And they totally turned the town around."

Uranium trioxide gas update

I have placed the current summary of evidence that uranium trioxide gas is produced when uranium burns here. I hope that those of you editing this article will please consider the changes suggested at the end. LossIsNotMore 12:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

See also the extensive discussion on the Talk:Uranium trioxide page, in a critical evaluation of that evidence. Olin 21:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Questions

1. How much DU (tons) was used in the first gulf war? A lot of different sources say about 320 tons, for example http://www.gulfwarvets.com/du9.htm

2. How much has been used in the 2000's in Iraq? The numbers from google searches are all over the map. For example:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/2003/1201polluting.htm -- 75 tons in 2003

http://www.wise-uranium.org/dissgw.html#MITKILP -- 143 tons in 2003

I would have thought those numbers would make it in to this article.

Steve Entman 21:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

And what about how much depleted uranium was used during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan? What about Russian usage in Chechnya and other locations? How about French usage in various theaters? British? A lot of DU out there, why is this a US only issue? Maybe the US is more open and allows information about DU usage to be released. Why don't the other countries release their information? I would have thought those numbers would make it in to this article. Dual Freq 22:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

DU Uptake by Opium Crops

In regards to the record opium crop being harvested in Afghanistan, we seem to forget that most of the land in Afghanistan has been left radioactive thanks to depleted uranium munitions used by the coalition of the willing. These DU munitions leave radioactive aerosols that are a nanometre in size each. This means that if you line up a million of these particles end to end, they will fit inside a millimetre. These radioactive aerosol particles are that small that they can be taken up by plants, and considering the fact that lots of opium is being grown in Afghanistan, I would say that these plants would take up radioactive aerosols as well. When this opium is turned into heroin and morphine for export around the world to be used by drug users or in a medical setting, it is injected into people’s bodies, and the DU particles will be injected as well. If people start showing up with strange diseases relating to depleted uranium ingestion without a history of direct contact with DU, we will know why.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Madewann (talk • contribs) September 20, 2006 (UTC)

Falsehood in text

However, this exceedingly long half-life removes almost all concern for cancer and/or birth defects caused by the radioactive and not the chemical toxicity effect of depleted uranium. This is because the radioactivity of a substance (by radioactive decay) is inversely proportional to its half-life.

That's not true -- even low-activity alpha emitters like U-238 are very dangerous if incorporated, e.g. inhaled and absorbed, but not ingested in most cases, and shrapnel isn't nearly as bad as the same quantity of inhaled and absorbed U-238 because only the alphas from the surface reach tissue. The radiological hazard is equivalent to several times that of incorporated beta or gamma sources with the same radiant power.

People, if you're going to be armchair health physicists, please spend some time in a good biochemistry library.

As User:Nrcprm2026 a/k/a James Salsman, I am restricted from correcting this mistake. I would delete the italicized passage if I were allowed to. LossIsNotMore 10:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

This text is extremly midleading. It actually covers up the war crimes of the United States and Britian. You want to see the full extent. Do some personal research and look up side effects of deplted uranium on the internet plus the picture of all the deformed kids in Iraq and other parts of the world. Not to mention cancer rates have gone up. Look this up for yourself. DU has a half -life of 4.5 billion years...

69.196.164.190