Date: 2011-07-12 12:35 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com
Sigh.

DU does not add significantly to the normal background radiation that people encounter ever day. It is weakly radioactive. For example, DU is 3 million times less radioactive than radium still found in many old luminous watches and 10 million times less radioactive than what is used in fire detectors. The extreme density of DU, together with other physical properties, make it ideal for military use in munitions to penetrate thick tank armor and in defensive armor protection...Based on credible scientific evidence, there is no proven link between DU exposure and increases in human cancers or other significant health or environmental impacts (http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/features/du/faq_depleted_uranium.shtml).


...

Direct contact of depleted uranium metal with the skin, even for several weeks, is unlikely to produce radiation-induced erythema (superficial inflammation of the skin) or other short term effects. Follow-up studies of veterans with embedded fragments in the tissue have shown detectable levels of depleted uranium in the urine, but without apparent health consequences. The radiation dose to military personnel within an armoured vehicle is very unlikely to exceed the average annual external dose from natural background radiation from all sources...For the general population it is unlikely that the exposure to depleted uranium will significantly exceed the normal background uranium levels...For the general population, neither civilian nor military use of DU is likely to produce exposures to DU significantly above normal background levels of uranium (http://web.archive.org/web/20010803060139/http://www.who.int/environmental_information/radiation/depluraniumexecsume.htm).


...

Even in the area immediately surrounding a vehicle destroyed by depleted uranium munitions, the generated dose rate from external radiation is unlikely to exceed 0.3 mSv per year — a tenth of the natural background dose rate for the US (http://web.archive.org/web/20070327231257/http://www.defence.gov.au/DPE/DHS/infocentre/publications/journals/NoIDs/adfhealth_apr03/ADFHealth_4_1_06-11.html). US regulatory limits for public exposure to other than background sources of ionising radiation is 1 mSv per year...The United Nations Environmental Program has estimated that the inhalation and ingestion of depleted uranium contaminated dust, even under extreme conditions shortly after the impact of projectiles, would be less than 10 mSv (based on the amount of dust that can be inhaled in these conditions).12 This represents about half the annual dose limit for radiation workers. For people in open areas near destroyed tanks or near burning depleted uranium, the aerosol dose is considerably less. For people who entered the tanks or the vicinity of the former fire sites after the aerosol had settled, the internal contamination is also much smaller.


So tired of DU scaremongering.
Edited Date: 2011-07-12 12:49 am (UTC)

Date: 2011-07-12 03:02 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com
This assumes we can trust the numbers coming out before the war, as well. Correlation isn't causation.

Date: 2011-07-12 03:02 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com
Unknown at this point. Certainly not from DU, if the science is any indication.

Date: 2011-07-12 03:12 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com
It's a leap to conclude that.

Date: 2011-07-12 02:10 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] anfalicious.livejournal.com
It does seem mistaken to conclude that this is because of DU though. Interestingly, birth defects in US GW soldiers went up by 1.8 times for men and 2.8 for women, but it was only 50% for British soldiers. This conclusion is in no way scientific, but it would suggest that the starting point is looking at things the US army has, that Brits were exposed to, but not on the levels of US soldiers. One would think this would have something to do with ammunition or transport, which is why I'm guessing the DU theory materialised; it could have been a dodgy batch of vindaloo though.

It could be something that we just don't know about.

Date: 2011-07-12 02:05 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] anfalicious.livejournal.com
Interesting. (I've gone beyond your sources btw).

I really can't argue with any of it, although there is some suggestion that aerosols could be problematic and that chemical toxicity in utero may be an issue, but the studies all seem to be inconclusive or show only a small correlation. It's dangerous, but at about the "being alive" level of danger.

It's interesting, the science seems to clear DU, but there's still something out there following the US army around and leaving behind birth defects...

Date: 2011-07-19 06:58 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] madscience.livejournal.com
That's an epic straw man if I ever saw one. You covered radiation dose, toxicity of fragments, radiation dose of fragments, toxicity of skin contact, even radiation dose from inhalation... but left out toxicity from inhalation, which is the real concern of anyone in the know.

Date: 2011-07-12 02:12 am (UTC)

Profile

Political Cartoons

March 2023

S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
121314151617 18
19202122232425
262728293031 

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 31st, 2025 08:44 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios