The US, UN & Iraq II

Depleted uranium, thought by many to be the cause of illnesses reported by Gulf and Balkan Wars veterans, is a by-product of the nuclear weapons and nuclear energy industries which require uranium which is enriched with uranium-235. The enrichment process leaves behind the depleted material which is almost entirely uranium-238 and is significantly less radioactive than the starting materials - the natural ores to which we are all exposed. Uranium derived naturally from the soil and water, is present in all human tissues. The body has efficient mechanisms for removing it mainly via faeces and urine.

Is the radioactivity associated with DU-containing ammunition likely to be the cause of the Gulf and Balkan Wars syndrome ? The answer is probably no!

The concern that DU radioactivity is causing leukaemia amongst the war veterans is certainly difficult to substantiate particularly when they are compared with uranium miners and workers in other uranium industries. The miners, for example, are exposed in many cases for decades, to uranium in relatively large quantities which is 40% more radioactive than DU. They do not appear to suffer excesses of leukaemia although the incidence of lung cancer is higher. The latter is not thought to be caused by uranium but by its more highly radioactive daughter products (eg radon) produced by radioactive decay. Other conditions in the mines such as silica dust may exacerbate the problem. In addition, it is doubtful whether sufficient time has elapsed for radiation to have induced cancer in Balkan War veterans. A number of Gulf War veterans who were injured with DU shrapnel and retained uranium fragments are under surveillance and to date none has leukaemia, bone cancer or lung cancer.

Is DU 'chemically toxic' ? Like all heavy metals, it is (cf lead - which is also abundant on a battlefield!) and indvidual isotopes and mixtures of isotopes of uranium possess the same degree of toxicity. However, as with all poisons, its efficacy will depend on many factors - the amount in the environment, the exposure time, the route of exposure (eg by ingestion or inhalation ), particle size and particle solubility.

When a DU shell hits a target such as an armoured vehicle, some 60% of the uranium is volatilized and in the intense heat in the presence of oxygen, much of this metal is converted to water insoluble particles of uranium oxides. In the short term there would be highly toxic levels of these oxides inside the vehicle and it would be dangerous to enter without suitable protective clothing. In the longer term the particles would settle or be dispersed in the atmosphere and the danger would eventually become insignificant. Individuals who come into contact with the particles could swallow them in which case they might be harmless and readily eliminated from the body in the faeces. On the other hand, these insoluble oxides could dissolve in the hydrochloric acid in the stomach. The resulting soluble uranium salt would then pass into the blood stream and like other heavy metal poisons, target and harm the kidneys. Other scenarios are possible with inhaled particles: if they are large and insoluble they would rejected by the lung - coughed up into the atmosphere or swallowed. If they were small (respirable) they would be retained and could enter the circulation. However, again, miners with many years of service and exposure to uranium appear to have no excess kidney disease.

As regards the armed services, potential dangers from DU can surely be countered by the use of protective clothing. The danger to civilians who return to battle zones after the conflict requires more careful examination to discover whether exposures are likely to be of any significance. Contamination 'hot spots' certainly need to be identified and cleared up.

Needless to say, anything that concerns radioactivity - which makes automatic and often tenuous links with atomic and nuclear bombs and Chernobyl - is immediately snapped up by the media, hyped and packaged under a biased headline. (C-P wonders when household smoke detectors containing radioactive americium-241 emitting gamma and alpha radiation will be targeted by the media despite the fact that as they hang from your ceilings, they deliver a radiation dose which is only 1/26000th of the natural radiation received annually!).

Serious reports of the possible dangers of depleted uranium abound but most are highly technical. There are many international agencies which have poured cold water on a relationship between DU and Gulf and Balkan Wars syndrome. These include the US Department of Defense, the UK Department of Health, the German Government, NATO and WHO. Readers are directed to a short article by Nigel Hawkes on DU (Times 10 January 2001, p.4) and for those with a major libary on their doorsteps a British Medical Journal Editorial (20 January 2001, p.123 ) (21 February 2001).

To Contents


http://www1.rhbnc.ac.uk/chemo-philia/#Fact

Asherman

What about the crew compartment inside the Abrams tank----how do they keep the residue out of the ventilation system?

Well, that's it, Asherman. The optimal time has passed, and getting further away all the time.

Timberlandko, I do not know what coverage in media got the American manoeuvres with usage of real nukes when the information was declassified, but professional pacifists in Russia made a great fuss in early '90s. Some of the headlines were as follows:"The USSR Has Undergone a Nuclear Attack Launched by The Soviet Army" (I cannot provide any link, since I read such things 10 years ago in the printed press in Russian)... And all the set of standard anti-nuclear bullsh*t was present in these publications; their authors did not even refer to the fact that in case if the war started, the Army would have to operate under conditions being simulated in course of the exercise, and there was no other way to prepare to the possible war (in '50s prospects of major nuclear war seemed quite probable).

Asherman wrote:

I still think we should have launched the attack on 02-03MAR when everything appeared optimal. Oh well, no one listens to old duffers anyway.

Asherman

Could your dilemma have something to do with Schopenhaur's great quote about "Truth"

First it is ridiculed

Second it is violently opposed

Third it is accepted as being "self evident"

perception, I don't know if you noticed, but this ongong crisis has never been "self evident." Even the so-called experts are baffled. Keep pushing the date of attack further and further in summer...... Maybe, just maybe, it'll get canceled. c.i.

Ul,

Thank you for the additional information re. depleted uranium used in munitions and armor. This is not my strong suit.

Perception,

I don't know what, if anything is done to reduce residues inside the Abrams tank. The conscensus seems to be that these munitions are not a danger to anyone but the target. Like I said above, this topic isn't something I know very much about.

C.I.

Could it be that we are in the first two stages?

First it is ridiculed

Second it is violently opposed

C.I., have you ever taken part in ground offensive in the very hot weather having chemical protection garments on (it is impossible to exclude that Saddam may attempt usage of chemical warfare agaist the U.S. and British troops)? The earlier the assault starts, it will be easier for the American soldiers to do their uneasy work.

I'm really afraid it will become "self-evident" at some time in the not too distant future, c.i. Did I not believe that, I would never have been supportive of disarming Mr. Hussein by force.

You settled it steissd, cancel it all together as a dumb idea to begin with!

I have not, steissd, but have worn it in exercises. I can confirm that it is really difficult to operate with sweat running into your eyes, and sweat and fog obscuring your vision. Breathing is more difficult as well, especially under heavy exertion.

perception, We've already reached the third stage; everybody seems to agree war is inevitable. How many times has it been pushed back? Three - four? Maybe, five and six will come too! c.i.

So, you understand, why the operation should not be started in summer in such a hot country as Iraq? The best timing was lost (January-February), but I hope, it will not be too much hot in mid-March either.

ci

I was hoping it could be delayed until it was too hot. And then delayed again because it interfered with Bush's reelection timetable. But its not going to be delayed. The war will be on by the time we meet in London next week.

Not next week Steve, probably April 1st - latest.

Well, the U.S. military commanders (including the Commander-in-Chief) also knew of possible influence of heat on ability of soldiers to fulfil their tasks, therefore no more procrastination is supposed.

And well documented!

Well, 1966 and Nato:
"In 1966, France announces that it will no longer assign its forces to NATO and that it will withdraw from the integrated military structure with the consequence that Allied forces and military headquarters must leave the country. This should be completed by 1 April 1967."
This meant that French troops weren't allowed under Nato command anymore as well.

As an aside: in 1970 I took part in one of the biggest naval exercises in Europe since WWII, Noto troops and French as well along the Frech coast and on French beaches - without any problem at all (disregarding the different pronounciations of the US forces and French military).

Asherman, my Dad participated in "Live" nuke exersizes in the early Fifties ... 53, I think, but I'm not sure of the exact date.

Perception ... sorry about not addressing this earlier, I had other things on my mind:

I don't see MOAB as applicatoion-Specific for dealing with emplaced artillery, even though it has precision guidance capability. More efective weapons systems exist specifically to counter emplaced artillery, and they will be employed. MOAB and its cousins are better suited to above-ground or near-subterranian, relatively "soft" targets, such as troops. The psychologic effect is chief among its attributes.

As to Depleted Uranium: it is DEPLETED ... there is very little residual radioactivity, though admittedly the residual activity is higher than "Normal Background". The health risks are comparable to those posed by any other heavy metal, such as lead. Given its density, a greater deal of weight can be encompassed within a relatively small volume, so I can see that it would be of value as a damping or ballasting agent. I hadn't even considereds that, but further research discloses that indeed it is common in such applications. Expensive, yes, but in certain situations, its density and relative compactness lends it distinct advantage over other materials.



timber