While the subject of how the U.S. military uses white phosphorus munitions is getting such discussion in the blogs and media (and please note this Denver press clip - thanks, Stygius), the other related issue that will get people’s hackles up is the topic of depleted uranium-tipped munitions.
Consider this publication as a small example of one extreme in this discussion. I’ve seen many people, in the same blog posting, talk about the WP munitions and the DU munitions in the same breath as evidence that the U.S. military is committing war crimes.
The Defense Department’s official position has been, and continues to be, that the extremely low level of radiation detected from these rounds and their use in combat is not detrimental to the health of U.S. troops or to the environment in general. My wife pointed out this August 2005 Science News article (subscription required) that supports the military’s point of view.
Albert Marshall, of the Sandia National Laboratories, conducted a study to calculate the battlefield health risks of exposure to DU shells (here is the SNL press release — also see this local Albuquerque Tribune article). His results indicate only small risks of leukemia or birth defects, even among those troops who breathed heavy amounts of DU-tainted dust. From the Science News article:
The average U.S. adult faces a 7 percent lifetime risk of death from lung cancer, Marshall notes. That number might climb to 8.5 percent in a person who breathed a heavy dose of uranium dust, Marshall estimates. He also calculates that a child could play inside a vehicle destroyed by a depleted-uranium munition for 300 hours and outside it for another 700 hours and face an increased risk of only one death in 1,000 people from colon and lung cancers combined.
“I thought [depleted uranium] was going to be a major player,” in causing health effects from radiation, Marshall says. These new calculations “changed my mind.” Whether they convince the critics of the military use of depleted uranium remains to be seen.
Now from the critics’ point of view, any increase in the chance of cancer is unacceptable, and it may be that they do not believe a report coming from a scientist from the Department of Energy, considering its role in the development of nuclear weapons. But from a practical point of view, considering the military utilities of using DU-tipped uranium (its awesome capability to penetrate most armors) and all the other potential hazards on a battlefield, a 1.5 percent increase in the overall chance of cancer for those few people that might have been close enough to a vehicle hit by DU rounds seems pretty negligible. It’s good to have some real science to examine in the highly emotional discussion surrounding this topic.
– Jason Sigger, crossposted at Armchair Generalist
It’s good to have some real science to examine in the highly emotional discussion surrounding this topic. what debate its not illigel and neither is white phosphorus. end debate. its just more left wing ‘lawfare’ (yawns).
I can understand the use of WP in a breaching or “flushing out” situation from a tactical point of view, but i cant seem to figure out what the perpose is of depleted uranium-tipped munitions. A bullet is a bullet and dead is dead, why the uranium??
Uranium pentrates armor much better than most other metals, due to its extreme density and hardness. If you can’t get through a tanks armor, the people inside won’t be dead, simple as that.
@Gregg, thanks for clearing that up for me.
In passing, folks, let’s try not to feed the troll.
The big problem with DU is that you can’t have a rational discussion about it. People hear “uranium” and immediately think of three-eyed fish, radiation, and nuclear hazards. The real problem with DU is its heavy-metal toxicity. Like lead or beryllium or cadmium, fine uranium dust is very harmful when inhaled, and can cause all sorts of nasty side effects — but not because of radiation.
Separating DU’s dangers from your average reader’s understanding of uranium is an uphill battle.
I have to disagree with J.R. DU is derived from uranium that has been separated into the isotopes usable for fuel and weapons and less fissionable isotopes. It still spontaneously fissions, but slowly. The hazard is actually two-fold. There is a toxicity, but there is also a radiation hazard from the alpha particles. They have very little penetrating power (ironic!) but are extremely damaging to lung cells or if ingested and incorporated into a cell.
I don’t really know about the DU round but I would bet the projectal has somekind of coating to prevent ingestion that burns off “on the way“
Yes I’m an old soldier retired after 24 yrs. Stan
We use DU because it’s the baddest stuff on the planet at penetrating armor. If we fired a tank shell made out of steel, it’ll bounce off the armor of any tank made since the middle of WW2. Tungsten works okay, but DU is better. DU has the added advantage that we’ve got tons of it laying around, while we import tungsten from China (the US doesn’t have large reserves of tungsten).
DU is the byproduct of Enriched Uranium (needed for nuclear bombs and nuclear reactors). We put uranium in a cyclotron, and once we’ve finished spinning the stuff at incredible speeds, we get both Enriched U (where most of the radioactivity is contained) and DU (which emits less radiation than the microwave in your kitchen). Standing next to large amounts of DU is less dangerous than getting an X-Ray at the dentist.
The problem with DU is that when it hits a hard target, microscopic pieces flake off in the form of dust (this is actually wonderful for penetrating armor, because the sabot actually “self-sharpens” when it hits, by having the edges flake away). This dust still emits very low amounts of radiation. So if you go eating DU dust (which will be all over the destroyed tank you just shot), you’ll get dust in your system that is giving off alpha particles–and since alpha particles can’t even penetrate a piece of paper, that means they’re sticking around in your lungs or stomach. Still, the danger is minimal. Anyone whose tank is shot by a DU penetrator has more to worry about than breathing dust that will increase their risk of cancer in 15 years, and DU gives our troops such a huge advantage on the battlefield, most are willing to risk the minimal cancer risk (safety tip: do not lick destroyed enemy tanks) in exchange for virtually 100% guaranteed success in a firefight. The US has taken to burying destroyed enemy tanks to prevent kids from playing in them in times of peace. But honestly, the kids run a higher risk of death from old refrigerators than they do from DU dust.
Brian: The anti-armour performance of DU is undisputed, and I imagine it’s an incredibly useful weapon on the battlefield.
However I do take issue with your assessment of the danger of DU dust. I agree that the radiological hazard is low, but as JR posted above, uranium is a toxic heavy metal.
Take lead for instance. Radioactive? No. Would you be happy if your kids were ingesting lead dust? I’d hope the answer would be no.
One of the problems with defense reports is that Defense department often releases a report that says that x is not true only to a few days later release another report taht x is true.
Any truthful reports get buried by the others.
War kills and pollutes and that is a fact. The degree of danger left behind by DU is open to dispute.
Take this quote “The average U.S. adult faces a 7 percent lifetime risk of death from lung cancer, Marshall notes. That number might climb to 8.5 percent in a person who breathed a heavy dose of uranium dust, Marshall estimates.“
The risk of lung cancer to a non smoker is almost zero. If these stats are correct, and I cannot confirm them with a quick google, they can only apply to smokers. So the quote appears to be misleading. Taking the risk to a civilian from war debris from zero to 7% is significant.
It is sorta like saying that because war is less dangerous than driving, it is a good thing as opposed to driving.
The need for DU is highly disputed. When you look at the huge overmatch between current DU APFSDS rounds and the armor in use in Iraq, you really have to wonder why tungsten wasn’t used instead. No toxic waste, no arguments about radiation.
Now, if we were up against late-model Russian tanks it might be another matter, but using DU to shoot up T-62s and buildings is questionable.
While I personally continue to think that DU rounds are probably worth the risk, the use of statistics cited in the article is misleading, at best. Claiming a 7% lung cancer rate for the US population is not really honest. Almost all of that 7% comes from smokers and those with other extraordinary exposure to carcinogens. A normal, non-smoking person has almost no chance of developing lung cancer. So, for a non-smoking solider (if there are any), the risk goes from <1% to 8.5%. That’s not trivial.
Both sides of this discussion have an obligation to be honest with each other, and distortions like this serve neither side well.
well if you’re saying that nonsmokers have a 7+ percent chance and that is what raises the populations’ average, then DU is not going to take the average person from <1% to 8.5 percent. it’s going to take them from <1% to about 2% AFAIK.
I’d think it stacks on top of the average, instead of instantly bringing everyone up to the new average regardless of other issues, magically.
iirc, depleted uranium has a half life of some 3.5 billion years. that means that nearly half the uranium 238 that was present at the beginning of the earth is still around. the threat from radioactivity from it is practically nonexistant, but like other people said, it causes heavy metal poisining.
of course, so does lead, and we throw that around by the ton, and have done so for centuries, so I wouldn’t be that concerned about the long term effects. we should be more concerned on preventing unnecessary casualties, which can be done by winning quickly, and decisivly.
KC,
There are plenty of (military) studies with regards to the effects of Depleted Uranium. At least those effects on our soldiers. There were a decent number of our troops exposed to burning DU during the first gulf war. (Usually via friendly fire: One of our DU penetrators destroying a DU armored tank.) Amongst those tank crews, and emergency responders, there didn’t seem to be any serious health issues. (Link: http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du_ii/) And due to DU’s Pyrophoric nature, they were likely inhaling a non-trivial amount of burning DU particles. There are also plenty of soldiers with embedded DU fragments. (shrapnel from our penetrators or armor) Again, no significant health effects.
That being said…the US uses a –LOT– of DU. The first Gulf war looks like ~300 tons of DU. 50 of which were tank penetrators that will basically burn when hitting armor, due to the pyrophoric/self sharpening nature of DU. (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2003/03/mil-030314-dod01.htm) The second gulf war probably used several hundred tons as well. (Per http://www.defensetech.org/archives/000518.html, we burned through 75 tons via A-10 fire alone) I’m unaware of what sort of studies are involved with the effects this might have on the native population. Introducing several hundred tons of heavy metal into the environment could possibly be a problem. Especially those rounds that burned upon impact. Relatively short contact with DU really isn’t a problem — our own troop studies show that with confidence. But havng DU particles contaminating the air, food, and water supplies might be. (In a chemical sense, likely not a radiological one)
It’s understandable that we don’t know too much about this. We probably don’t have worthwhile baselines for countries that we invade. Furthermore, it may take quite some time for the health affects to make themselves known. (10 years isn’t a terribly long time for some conditions to be readily apparant) Furthermore, it’s hard to pin a problem solely on DU, when there are so many other health risks on the modern battlefield: Any number of ugly materials are burning, leaking, or exploding. Drinking groundwater contaminated with regular old tank fuel might not *sound* as scary as DU, but I’d bet it’s just as big risk, if not moreso.
–Chris Karel
CK thanks for the link. plenty to chew on… good to see that the reasearch is being done, even if the public health studies will take longer, and will be harder to nail. Meanwhile I know I’m glad that DU round haven’t been fired off in my neighborhood!
I always think its hilarious how protracted the argument surrounding the dangers of depleted uranium are. Anyone here have formal physics education? Anyone know about the nuclear fuel cycle and and what “depleted uranium” is? It’s metal left over from reactors that contains U236 and U237 isotopes and is very dangerous. How dangerous? The thing is you can’t know that for sure because the amount of various materials varies. You want you hard science? It’s sitting right under your nose.
It’s because of this smattering of isotopes that the Uranium has a pyrophoric nature. Also it smashes into particles that evade gas masks and although the US Dept or Energy hasn’t rated it as a health hazard, they probably should when it comes to military use. The thing is when it’s solid it’s not too dangerous and ironically can be used for radiation shielding.
Is it dangerous? Hell yes! Are you gonna die standing next to it? No. Does pollution from it’s use as a weapon create great radiological risk when it’s delivered in the form of micro-particles? Undoubtedly. However in my opinion once the particles have been dispersed into the environment they should pose decreased risk compared to what many opponents say, because our bodies and those of other life forms are already suited to disposing of trace amounts of uranium anyway. But should the U.S. use such a material when it will be obselete in a few years compared to nano-diamondoid materials? I think that the entire idea was foolhardy, and I kind of understand why you conservative Americans stick your heads in the sand instead of actually reading up; it’s a scary subject. Permanent damage has a way of taking all the fun out of war (awwwww.). But seriously, I’m glad DU will become obselete soon as I would never want to live on the same continent as a DU littered battle ground.
http://blip.tv/users/view/aliveinbaghdad
^ this is what many claim DU’s legacy is
There is a reason why there is a call for the ban of DU weapons through out the world. Birth defects and cancer rates in Iraq have been skyrocketing since 1991, do a little research. The DU is in the soil, water and in the people involved in the Iraq wars. THat contamination is there for centuries and the bottom line is if you were raising your family in that country I don’t think you would be likely to support the use od DU. Setting aside the fact that you would be in the country that is being occupied.
If anyone could send me som information of DU for my science research for my gcses it would be graetly appreciated!
LAURENxo@hotmail.co.uk
Yes, DU is harmful. Despite the
swift and decisive victory achieved in Operation Desert Storm, at least one fourth of the nearly 700,000
U.S. military personnel who served in the war have experienced a complex of difficult and persistent
health problems since their return home. Illness profiles typically include some combination of chronic
headaches, cognitive difficulties, widespread pain, unexplained fatigue, chronic diarrhea, skin rashes,
respiratory problems, and other abnormalities. (This is quoted from the Executive Summary check the VA website for the Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ Illness report http://www1.va.gov/RAC-GWVI/) many have similar symptoms to the Iraqi population. Many of their children also have birth defects. The situation is similar in Afghanistan. Most veterans whose children were born without limbs, etc. are still in the military so they can get good, affordable medical assistance for their children, and are unlikely to speak out against the war or DU.