Comments on: Depleted Uranium All That Deadly?

By: Joe Dyck

Joe Dyck — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 05:57:31 +0000

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.

By: Lauren

Lauren — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:43:21 +0000

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

By: Mark CAN.

Mark CAN. — Tue, 10 Apr 2007 16:09:06 +0000

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.

By: stephen s

stephen s — Sun, 06 Aug 2006 00:35:03 +0000

http://blip.tv/users/view/aliveinbaghdad
^ this is what many claim DU’s legacy is

By: Jim

Jim — Sat, 10 Dec 2005 05:55:55 +0000

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.

By: KC

KC — Wed, 23 Nov 2005 22:54:16 +0000

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!

By: Christopher Karel

Christopher Karel — Wed, 23 Nov 2005 15:16:29 +0000

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

By: Max

Max — Wed, 23 Nov 2005 03:28:53 +0000

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.

By: ATLDave

ATLDave — Tue, 22 Nov 2005 18:43:05 +0000

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.

By: Wembley

Wembley — Tue, 22 Nov 2005 17:10:55 +0000

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.