Talk:Depleted uranium/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08

Contents

Use

I added a section stating: DU munitions (in the form of tank and naval artillery rounds) are also deployed by the armed forces of the UK. Evidence for this is found in [1] on p56, which quotes a Lewis Moonie, a UK defence minister : Two types of DU-based munitions are available to British Forces, a 120 mm anti-tank round and 20 mm round used by some Royal Navy ships. I didn't add this to the main page's references, as I figure the issue is minor and uncontentious, and the quoted document as a whole isn't suitable source material. -- Finlay McWalter 22:55, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I cannot find any reference to France exporting depleted uranium weapons and rather references to France not being too hot on these. I'll remove this paragraph until somebody finds a reference.

France also export depleted uranium munitions, including some made to be used in the 100mm guns used on older Soviet T54 and T55 and Chinese Type 1959 and Type 1969 tanks, old Soviet SU100 tank destroyers, and old Soviet 100mm antitank guns (these old tanks and antitank guns are very common around the world, due mainly to Soviet military aid during the Cold War).David.Monniaux 00:44, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Toxicity

concern about chemical toxicity of depleted uranium munitions: is this about the remains of used munition or also about handling munition? - Patrick 08:05 Dec 27, 2002 (UTC)

Estimating harm of small amounts of radiation

Recent studies of scientific bodies outside the USA and the UK

Which studies? Where can one find them?

Small amounts of radiation may even be more harmful to the body as bigger doses may be. While bigger doses kill cells, smaller doses only damage them. While dead cells are replaced by the body, these damaged cells are a possible source of cancer.

As far as I know, that is nonsense. What kind of study said that? The more radiation you get (the integral), the worse it is. It is false that "big doses kill cells" while "smaller doses only damage them", both big and small doses kill and damage a certain amount of cells, but of course big do more of both, killing (some cellules) and damaging (many others).

I suggest this be removed, and the source for any other claims be verified. -- jbc May 27 10:14 UTC 2003

This isn't nonsense, it's the basis for chemotherapy. That's why radiation is used to treat cancer - or maybe it's not used anymore, I'm not up on this. Strong doses of radiation will kill weak (e.g. cancerous) cells and leave healthy cells still alive, hopefully. I don't find this passage that ridiculous. Graft
I think you mean 'radiotherapy', not 'chemotherapy'. A higher intensity of (normally local) radiation can be better than low intensity, and of course different kinds of radiation affect in different ways, but in the article it is said dose, which is just the total amount integrated. And for the same kind of radiation, the higher the dose the worse it is (you may still want a high dose to treat a cancer, but that's a very particular case, it's because it is more effective against cancer, not better for the rest of the body). By the way, I didn't say it was ridiculous! Change "nonsense" for "wrong" if you prefer a less loaded word, that's what I should have said anyway. - jbc May 28 08:37 UTC 2003


Article about the damage by radiation: http://www.heise.de/tp/deutsch/inhalt/lis/14534/1.html And something in English as well: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/99/19/12220 . The German article above seems to refer to the English article mentioned right after it. As far as I know, that is pretty good proof, especially when remembering my VERY conditional style when adding these things to the article, so suit yourself.


--Korpo


http://www.heise.de/tp/deutsch/special/irak/14636/1.html German article about possible harm about DU ammunition, http://www.physik.uni-oldenburg.de/Docs/puma/radio/Uran_Munition.html#_3.4_Uranverbindungen about DU aerosols, http://www.heise.de/tp/deutsch/inhalt/co/12222/1.html refers to a UN study about DU ammunition. --Korpo

Uhm, I didn't mean any personal attack or anything, sorry if it looked like that. Thanks for adding the links, I think that the article has improved much with them. About the effects of radiation, please see my reply to Graft a few lines above. And just in case you were wondering, I am as much against the use of DU as one can be. - jbc May 28 08:37 UTC 2003

I think the bullet point stating Small amounts of radiation may even be more harmful to the body than bigger doses may be should be removed. This assertion is extremely speculative, and it does seem like nonsense on the face of it. I skimmed the studies, none of which made any firm conclusions, and nowhere did I see this assertion made. The studies themselves dealt with the repair of individual chromosomes and did not make any claims on the effects of lower vs. higher doses of radiation on "the body" of a real creature, or even on an individual cell! The bullet point consists of speculation atop speculation, and damages the credibility of the rest of the article. Tempshill 23:23, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)


Guess now I have the facts I need to supply for my claims added into the link section. --Korpo

Got carried away ;). Well, a little sting to pride may pretty well produce results and is one of the best cures for laziness (as I was too lazy to add my sources). So no bad feelings there ;) --Korpo

  • Nonsense, what kind of study said that? You may want to look into Petkau effect. Kwantus 17:09, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
Which studied a single effect in a single cell in isolation. In a total-system view, the linear dose/response curve holds true. Dan100 21:47, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV ?

IAEA papers

I think the article comes off too much on the side of opponents of DU usage, and downplays the evidence against its danger by falsely implying that such evidence comes only from the US and UK. I'd consider the International Atomic Energy Agency one of the more reliable sources of such information, and they claim that DU has little if any health risks. They're also hardly known as a US ally, being of the principal critics of the US's handling of the Iraq thing. Their information page about DU can be found here: [2]. In particular, see their answer to the question "Is DU a health hazard", here: [3] (the conclusion is "no"). --Delirium 22:49 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Edited to add this information (while not removing the other information). --Delirium 22:54 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Hrmm, having only glanced at it, that report seems to deal specifically with Kuwait and the 1991 Gulf war, not other wars where the DU exposure may be higher... Evercat 22:55 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Oops sorry I hadn't seen the second page. OK. Fair enough. Evercat 22:56 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Link 3 above no longer works; the IAEA site apparently has been reorganized. --Alan Nicoll 19:58, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Other reasons for critizism, use of Uranium in history, non-fissibility, etc.

Moved this here because it's style is non-NPOV. Besides interesting information it contains blatant lies.

“Some of us believe that this issue is a red herring, and US military use of depleted uranium is condemned for exactly the same reasons as napalm, cluster bombs, and antipersonnel flechette munitions were decades ago: a not-inconsiderable number of European intellectuals hate America and will seize upon anything whatsoever that they can imagine a way to criticize in order to create a controversy where none existed before.”

This is highly speculative. Also, wikipedia should not express "our" opinion.

“Note that uranium has long been known to be less toxic than lead; uranium compounds were used commonly in glazes for pottery in Europe for more than one hundred years (if you collect antique earthenware or pottery, you may have some in your collection--look for pottery with a deep red, orange, or burnt umber glaze, dating from before 1940), because it was known to be less toxic than lead. Uranium salts were also once added to decorative glassware to give the glass an iridescent gold or green appearance; this glassware is called Annagruen or Annagelb glass in Germany, or "vaseline glass" in the US.”

Information about the toxiciy is welcome, though i think the historic use of uranium salts in glasses should fits better on the page about.

“To the extent that uranium demonstrates toxicity, it acts as a heavy metal toxin similar to lead or mercury, differing principally in that it tends to accumulate in the kidneys first and begin causing damage there rather than in the central nervous system (and it is quite capable of killing you, just as mercury or lead is). Depleted uranium is not especially radioactive (it is what's left after the fissile isotopes are removed for use in nuclear power or nuclear weapons) and does not seem to present any significant radiological hazard. As a heavy metal toxin, tungsten is considerably more poisonous than uranium.”

DU has about 40% the radioactivity natural Uranium. Nobody every claimed that there was a danger of nuclear fissions with DU.

Wikipedia should not try to make one side look silly by showing false or silly arguments for that side. — Hokanomono 09:31, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

amount of U235 still present

The artical states there is about 0.2% U235 left in the "depleted uranium". I have other sources that state 0.3% so how sure are we of this number.

Natural uranium is about 0.71% U235 so this leaves us with 0.2/0.71 = 28% approximately. 0.3% U235 yeilds 42%

The artical states 60% of the natural radioactivity is still present. Is this in fact the case?

From http://web.ead.anl.gov/uranium/guide/depletedu/index.cfm, "Most of the Department of Energy's (DOE) depleted uranium inventory contains between 0.2 to 0.4 weight-percent uranium-235". I don't have a source handy, but I recall that DU has about half the radioactivity of natural uranium. Most of the reduced radioactivity is from the removal of U-234. Even pure U-238 is radioactive, but my understanding is that the chemical toxicity is more important than its radioactivity. pstudier 05:20, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)


Mods to section on ISOTOPES. This needs review!

Broken link to "Uranium Proliferation Nice Joke"

Clarification of the term "depleted"

Is "depleted uranium" depleted in the DICTIONARY definition of depletion?

There is anywhere from 28 to 42% of the original U235 still present and the radioactivity is "quoted" as being anywhere from 60% of refined uranium to 28% depending on the isotope concentration and the relative contributions of each isotope.

I am a late comer to this artical and I made some minor changes. I'm not here to take sides.

I think this artical should be edited to break out three (3) sections headed "natural uranium" "enriched uranium" and "depleted uranium". Then the section on "isotopes" should be moved up and placed right behind the main discussion and BEFORE any mention is made of "natural" "enriched" or "depleted". As it stands now it wanders a bit and there are contradictions.

The term "depleted" will be interpreted by a layman as "safe" or "nor containing radioactivity". A more spophisticated layman might think "not useful in a reactor". None of these concepts are correct. IMHO the term "depleted" is spin doctoring at its best. Depleted has to be treated with as much respect as natural uranium.

Can we contrast the radioactivity of the three (3) categories of uranium against other radioactive isotopes? We have a section on RADIOACTIVITY but there are no numbers. We also have a section on RADIOACTIVE CONTAMINATION and again no numbers.

By half life we should get something like this:

Representative half life and radioactivity relative to U238:

Isotope half life half life relative

                           percentage      radioactivity

Pu239 24,300 0.00054 183,868 Pu242 373,000 0.00835 11,979 Pu244 80,800,000 1.80842 55 U232 68.9 0.0000015 64,847,605 U233 159,200 0.00356 28,065 U234 245,500 0.00549 18,200 U235 703,800,000 15.75201 6 U236 23,420,000 0.52405 191 U238 4,468,000,000 1.00000 1

From this we can see U235 is about 6 times as radioactive as U238.

If the above analysis is correct then all forms of uranium whether enriched to a low percentage as in 3-7% or depleted are about the same overall when it comes to radioactivity. This also is noteworthy because when we look at this - U232 is so highly radioactive that we don't have much to speak about.. its practically non-existant.

Eg pure 100.0% U238 = 1.000 Natural 99.3% U238+0.7% U235 = 0.993x1 + 0.007x6 = 1.035 3.5% more Enriched 99.7% U238+0,2% U235 = 0.997x1 + 0.003x6 = 1.015 1.5% more


So the quoted estimates from 28% to 60% are all incorrect if this analyis is correct. Which is it?

Clarification of the term "depleted"

Note: THis is a repeat of the former post which si all screwed up thanks to reflowing the text.

Is "depleted uranium" depleted in the DICTIONARY definition of depletion?

There is anywhere from 28 to 42% of the original U235 still present and the radioactivity is "quoted" as being anywhere from 60% of refined uranium to 28% depending on the isotope concentration and the relative contributions of each isotope.

I am a late comer to this artical and I made some minor changes. I'm not here to take sides.

I think this artical should be edited to break out three (3) sections headed "natural uranium" "enriched uranium" and "depleted uranium". Then the section on "isotopes" should be moved up and placed right behind the main discussion and BEFORE any mention is made of "natural" "enriched" or "depleted". As it stands now it wanders a bit and there are contradictions.

The term "depleted" will be interpreted by a layman as "safe" or "nor containing radioactivity". A more spophisticated layman might think "not useful in a reactor". None of these concepts are correct. IMHO the term "depleted" is spin doctoring at its best. Depleted has to be treated with as much respect as natural uranium.

Can we contrast the radioactivity of the three (3) categories of uranium against other radioactive isotopes? We have a section on RADIOACTIVITY but there are no numbers. We also have a section on RADIOACTIVE CONTAMINATION and again no numbers.

By half life we should get something like this:

Representative half life and radioactivity relative to U238:

Isotope half life half life relative
percentage radioactivity
Pu239 24,300 0.00054 183,868
Pu242 373,000 0.00835 11,979
Pu244 80,800,000 1.80842 55
U232 68.9 0.0000015 64,847,605
U233 159,200 0.00356 28,065
U234 245,500 0.00549 18,200
U235 703,800,000 15.75201 6
U236 23,420,000 0.52405 191
U238 4,468,000,000 1.00000 1

From this we can see U235 is about 6 times as radioactive as U238.

If the above analysis is correct then all forms of uranium whether enriched to a low percentage as in 3-7% or depleted are about the same overall when it comes to radioactivity. This also is noteworthy because when we look at this - U232 is so highly radioactive that we don't have much to speak about.. its practically non-existant.

Eg

pure 100.0% U238 = 1.000

Natural 99.3% U238+0.7% U235 = 0.993x1 + 0.007x6 = 1.035 3.5% more

Enriched 99.7% U238+0,2% U235 = 0.997x1 + 0.003x6 = 1.015 1.5% more

So the quoted estimates from 28% to 60% are all incorrect if this analyis is correct. Which is it?

I believe it depends on the refinement process used, although I have never heard of a separation process (in the West at any rate) that has contamination of 20%-60%. TDC 19:35, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

In this context, depleted means that all the U-235 which can be economically separated from the uranium has been, and thus the depleted uranium left is waste. The term was never intended to imply that there is no radioactivity left. Typically depleted uranium is about half as radioactive as natural uranium, because it is also depleted in U-234. pstudier 02:38, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)

Major Re write Needed

After casually observing this article for a few weeks, I think I can safely say that it needs some serious revision work. All major peer reviewed studies performed on the health impacts of DU and their use in combat have all come back and said the same thing, there is no noticeable risk. This includes studies from lab settings, Kosovo, and Kuwait. After reading this article one would most certainly not get that impression.

I will rewrite sometime within the next week, and put it up for comment.

TDC 19:35, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

It seems that traces of U236 have been found in depleted uranium used by US forces in Yugoslavia (we'd need to find the source). U236 is formed by neutron capture by a U235 atom, which can only happen in nuclear reactors. It would thus seem that, at least for some time, the USA have used nuclear waste to build these ammunitions. Nuclear waste can also contain traces of Plutonium, which is extremelly toxic (chemically, that is). This alone qualifies depleted Uranium ammunition as a dangerous and harmful thing. Rama 11:27, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I don't have the reference handy, but I recall that nuclear fuel used to be reprocessed in the US, and the extracted uranium re-enriched, leaving DU with traces of U236 and Plutonium. These traces do not add significantly to the radioactivity of DU. pstudier 21:02, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)
They probably do not, but traces of plutonium can be enough to chemically comtaminate rivers, for instance. The chemical nuisance of plutonium is such that it makes its radioactivity a joke danger in comparison... Rama 21:45, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

NPOV tag?

I have just removed the NPOV tag. It was put there a few days ago by an anonymous user without it being clear why on this page. Perhaps it was related to the section on Health concerns. Did the user feel it is too biased towards supporting the adverse health concerns camp or too biased against the opposite camp. Perhaps it is for some completely different reason. Who knows.

I have therefore assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that this was just trolling. Apologies in advance if it was genuinely meant, but if you put it back then please make the reason clear here. Then at least we will know what to discuss to address it. --Jll 20:58, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Deleted link

I deleted the link

because it is blatant propaganda. Can anyone substantiate these pictures? pstudier 05:38, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)

It was quite off topic anyway. What do you mean by "substantiate these pictures" ? Rama 06:24, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The video implies that DU caused these babies to be grotesquely deformed, which I doubt. pstudier 08:06, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)
Scientifically, I would not rule this out, since Plutonium, besides being fissile and radio-active, is highly chemicaly toxic; quasi-undetectable traces could lead to this kind of effects, if they contaminate tap water and such (I will try to better document the issue of Plutonium traces in depleted Uranium originating from nuclear waste).
However, as far as this very link is concerned, I think the deletion what quite adequate; this site harldy qualifies for scientifically serious, its layout is poor and real information is hidden in a sea of rants; shocking and sensational picture do no good to a rigourous appreciation of reality, and to finish, I must say I am not quite keen to lining to films. A serious text from the ICRC or the UN Nuclear Agency, for instance, would be better by orders of magnitude. Rama 09:29, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be interesting to address most questions which can be asked. As far as I've observerd, most uninformed people (legitimately) associate Uranium with fission and radioactivity. They should be told that the most current isotope of Uranium is stable. Levels of radioactivity are indeed very low, certainly lower than what people would recieve form the natural background in the Swiss Alps or in Britany. The idea that the military make shells with these leads to the impression that there is a nuclear explostion of some kind (there is a pyrophroic explosion but it is purely chemical, of course).

However, Uranium still is a heavy metal, and as such, while not being a chemically violent poison, still is not healthy (now, is going to war a healthy thing to so ? ...). And depleted Uranium is not 100% pure; if it comes from nuclear waste, it will contain traces of Plutonium, which is a chemical poison (though not the most deadly which one can find). Usually, press releases from the military adress the issue in terms which minimise the risks of the "heavy metal" nature (quite legitimately), but also make no mention whatsoever of the potentially toxic impureties in depleted Uranium (see [4] for instance).

However, it can be proved that some of the Uranium used for military ammunition comes from nuclear waste (notably the presence of U236 isotope makes it quite clear), and traces of Plutonium have indeed been found :

To conclude I would say that:

  • Plutonium is probably not as toxic as often populary believed
  • When evaluating toxicity of Pu, cases of death or cancer are studied, but long-term genetical impacts are (obviously) not. These are often quite subtil and could lead to surprises. The highest effects seem to manifest themselves at the third generation.
  • The UN itself, will not frentic, still does sugest caution; quote (from one of the reports above) :
Regarding contamination points, if a child were to ingest small amounts of soil, the corresponding radiological risk would be insignificant, but from a biochemical point of view, the possible intake might be somewhat higher than the applicable health standard. "There are still considerable scientific uncertainties, especially related to the safety of groundwater", said Pekka Haavisto, Chairman of UNEP's Depleted Uranium Assessment Team. "Additional work has to be done to reduce these uncertainties and to monitor the quality of water."
  • Eventually, nature has a priority on theory. If we should find an unnaturally elevated rate of genetical problems in populations subject to contact with depleted Uranium ammunition, we'd have to reconsider the theory. (this sounds obvious, but reciting the basis can do no harm).

Sorry for the lengthy rant and thanks for your patience ! Rama 10:11, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)


According to the UN

FT2, please provide the source from the UN, (I assume you mean the IAEA) that supports your latest addition. TDC 20:27, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

Will do, out of town today, will do when I get back. If I forget nudge me on my talk page.
Later: OK, here they are. They are sourced off the official UN website:


(1) 1996 sub-committee resolution deeming DU a "weapon of mass or indiscriminate destruction" and "incompatible" with international human rights and law: [5]


Sub-Commission resolution 1996/16 
The Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities

Guided by the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenants on Human Rights and
the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and the Additional Protocols thereto, 

Recalling General Assembly resolutions 42/99 of 7 December 1987 and 43/111 of
8 December 1988 ... 

Concerned at the alleged use of weapons of mass or indiscriminate destruction both
against members of the armed forces and against civilian populations, resulting
in death, misery and disability ... Concerned also at repeated reports on the
long-term consequences of the use of such weapons upon human life and health and
upon the environment ... Concerned further that the physical effects on the
environment, the debris from the use of such weapons, either alone or in
combination, and abandoned contaminated equipment constitute a serious danger to
life ... Convinced that the production, sale and use of such weapons are
incompatible with international human rights and humanitarian law ... Believing
that continued efforts must be undertaken to sensitize public opinion to the
inhuman and indiscriminate effects of such weapons ... Convinced that the
production, sale and use of such weapons are incompatible with the promotion and
maintenance of international peace and security.

1. Urges all States to be guided in their national policies by the need to curb
the production and the spread of weapons of mass destruction or with indiscriminate
effect, in particular ... weaponry containing depleted uranium;
34th meeting, 29 August 1996, adopted by 15 votes to 1, with 8 abstentions

Notes:

  1. Concern is raised of the alleged use of weapons. But no qualifier is used as to their status, they are resolved "incompatible with international human rights and humanitarian law".
  2. Depeleted uranium is singled out as one of very few of these potentially in active use, along with nuclear weapons napalm and biological weapons.


(2) Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, uncontested statement that DU is prohibited and contravenes a UN resolution [6]

"the American and British, had used depleted uranium-based munitions, which were
prohibited throughout the world, and contravened the United Nations Convention
on Prohibition or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which
May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects..."

"It had been found that uranium, which affected the blood cells, had a serious
impact on health: the number of cases of leukaemia had increased considerably,
as had the incidence of foetal deformities. Paragraph 23 of the report submitted
by the Secretary-General to the Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination
and Protection of Minorities regarding peace and international security
(E/CN.4/Sub.2/1997/27) indicated, inter alia, that weapons containing depleted
uranium had destructive effects which could not be measured, which lasted long
after the end of a war, which caused needless suffering, and which damaged the
environment. The soil, water and atmosphere remained unusable for generations."
Committee on the rights of the child, 19th session, 482nd meeting, Sept 23 1998.


(3) A further report was issued on August 2002 by the U.N. Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights based upon their study of the dangers of DU, which the panel had already labeled a weapon of mass destruction. The report is cited on many reputable sites, but unfortunately google doesnt index the UN's own archives, so I haven't found a link yet:

Update, found link: [7] under "Documents of charter based bodies by body, 54th session, other" E/CN.4/Sub.2/2002/38 Human rights and weapons of mass destruction, or with indiscriminate effect, or of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering
"The August 2002 report by the UN Human Rights Commission-Sub 2 stated that the use
of DU shells and bombs by US-UK in four countries (Iraq, Bosnia, FRY, and
Afghanistan) violated the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, the Geneva Protocol
of 1925, the Nuremberg principles of 1945, the Charter of the United Nations,
the Anti-Genocide Convention of 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
of 1948, the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and its Additional Protocol I and II
1977, the Convention Against Torture, the Conventional Weapons Convention of 1980,
and the UN Human Rights Commission resolution of 1996."

Kinetic energy

"it is 70% denser than lead thus each round is heavier, and therefore carries more kinetic energy"

If you fire a lead round and then a depleted uranium round from the same weapon, the same amount energy is conveyed to each round, ie they carry the same amount of kinetic energy. I assume this means that they have the same impact energy. So, the only reason to use depleted uranium rounds (apart from the fact that they incinerate tank crews) is that their higher density allows a smaller, more aerodynamic shape. Is my reasoning correct? --Commander Keane 11:31, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

that, and the reduced friction in the air, and the fact that uranium powder spontaneously burns in the air... Rama 11:46, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It's also important to think of the volume of armor that needs to be moved out of the way before a slug can strike something vital. While there's often a significant mass of air to move out of the way as well, denser projectiles will apply more pressure to the armor, apply their momentum to a smaller cross-section of the target, and penetrate more effectively. I recommend rewording the quoted passage, but I'm not quite sure how. (edit) From the Sabot page: For reasons why a smaller diameter projectile is desirable, see external ballistics and terminal ballistics.--Polyparadigm 21:54, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Clean-up

An awful lot of irrelevant, unsubstantiated/unreferenced, PoV material had crept into this article. I researched thoroughly and cleaned up accordingly. Dan100 15:21, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

The vast majority of this article seems to be based on this article. I am not familiar with the paper, as I am not from the UK, but I have a feeling it isn't exactly NPOV. Anyone want to check it out? Bonus Onus 02:01, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
The vast majority? What on earth are you talking about?—Christiaan 11:49, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
OK, maybe not the vast majority, but quite a bit of the GWS/health sections seem to be built using the content of that article as a foundation. I'm just wondering if we should be using a more NPOV source. Bonus Onus 21:55, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
Is any of it cited? —Christiaan 23:23, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I dont think so, but from reading the article, i immediately recognized many of the points on this page. Bonus Onus 01:09, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Length of health concerns section

IMHO, the section about the link to gulf war syndrome is much too long, especially since the evidence seems pretty inconclusive. It should definately be mentioned that some people have suggested a link, but what's here is overkill. Bonus Onus

I disagree. Apart from it not being a section on "Gulf War Syndrome" (of which sickness from depleted uranium is just one apsect of) I think it needs to be expanded and far more comprehensive. I think it's pretty woeful what we have at the moment considering all the material out there, the controversial nature of the topic, and the implications.—Christiaan 10:07, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
As for the first study (UNEP), I read the section on depleted uranium, and though it does say that it has gotten into the environment (air, groundwater), it makes no specific claims of health effects, only cites "potential health risks". Therefore, I don't think this is an acceptable source for information on health effects. The study does mention that the WHO was going to address DU health effects, so perhaps we should cite that study instead. Bonus Onus 23:37, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

MAPW

Christiaan, the reason I removed your edit was: The MAPW is an organization with clear political motives. It says it in their name: "the prevention of war". It is obvious from their website that they are a leftist organization with anti-nuclear motives, and their advice is somewhat lacking in legitimacy. It doesnt really seem that relevant that some fringe group of doctors in australia told the australian government that they should not send soldiers to iraq. Had this been an actual study, I would have left it. But it isn't. It is a fact about the opinion of a certain group on the issue, and a very minor group at that. Bonus Onus 03:15, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

The use of depleted uranium is a political issue. None of your comments seem to bare any relation to the encyclopedic value of the passage. —Christiaan 20:43, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
So should we include every single thing every single group says about depleted uranium, no matter how illegitimate their claims are? If a company that makes DU says it is completely safe, should we mention that without any qualifications? --Bonus Onus 02:46, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

I find it rather interesting that you've argued to remove public comments by the MAPW but you're now wanting to include some superfluous unattributable remark by an unknown journalist. Readers will already be well aware there is no conclusive evidence in regard to sickness from depleted uranium. —Christiaan 11:26, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And what remark would that be? Bonus Onus 21:57, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Depleted_uranium&diff=11787223&oldid=11784530 —Christiaan 23:19, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well I am in favor of the inclusion of that last sentence because i think it puts the MAPW's announcement in better context. However, I'd still rather have this paragraph removed altogether. It doesn't add anything to the topic, and offers no original information about the health effects of DU. Bonus Onus 01:19, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Is the entire Gulf War Section about a personal vendeta?

Christiaan, is this entire section about your little friend Ken? Most of the evidence cited is horseshit, and cannot be backed up. Even a cursory look at this so called evidence reveals it is full of holes (mustard agents, and GWI vets mortality). How much of this garbage are we going to allow in the article over a personal misplaced grudge? TDC 19:43, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Who is Ken? Bonus Onus 21:45, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
TDC has psycological problems I wouldn't get too cuddly with him. —Christiaan 21:46, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Nah, he doesn't seem too crazy. He's just a heavy-duty republican, lol. Still don't understand the Ken thing though. Bonus Onus 01:19, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Hehe, yeah, like I said, he has psycological problems. Ken's a good friend of mine. —Christiaan 01:30, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me as if what we have here is section of an article grossly oversized considering the marginal nature of its “evidence” and “experts”. Your simple dismissal of my statement leads me to believe that there is more to my allegation that you will admit to. Let me guess, did your Iraqi “minders” take you and lil Ken on a tour of Iraqi hospitals to tug on your heart strings, right before you went to guard the AA sites?

This section is going to get a severe trimming. TDC 16:27, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Would you all mind stopping provoking each other like five years old ? It is really unnecessary for the discussion of the article. Rama 17:16, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Sorry but I feel that personal motivations matter a great deal. TDC 17:20, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Has anyone bothered to figure out who this mysterious naysayer is - Dr Richard Guthrie? Also, I noted when I googled some of the words some the Gulf War Syndrome section that someone has been posting that section of the wikipedia Depleted Uranium on a number of "lefty" bulletin boards with words to the effect of "see, here's the truth about DU!" I think TDC should question the motivations of adding it, as well as weigh the possiblity that the article currently gives more emphasis to the theories of one naysayer than the clinical findings of entire health organizations.

According to the Royal Society report that he is quoted in the article from:

The Royal Society concluded that exposure to DU on the battlefield may cause a doubling of the usual risk of death from lung cancer among a small group of soldiers in extreme circumstances, for example, if they inhale large amounts after their vehicle has been struck by a DU penetrator or if they have been working for long periods of time inside and around contaminated vehicles. [[8]]

And with regards to the Threat to Civilians, the report said the following: What threat does DU pose to civilians? "The Royal Society concluded that the soil around the impact sites of depleted uranium penetrators may be heavily contaminated, and could be harmful if swallowed by children for example. In addition, large numbers of corroding depleted uranium penetrators embedded in the ground might pose a long-term threat if the uranium leaches into water supplies. Localised areas of DU contamination provide a risk, particularly to young children who may for example put soil in their mouths, and areas should be cleared of visible penetrators and DU contamination should be removed from areas around known penetrator impact sites." [[9]]

Shouldn't we change the bias of the presentation of the Royal Society's report on DU? Right now it skews it to sound like there is NO recorded link between DU and Cancer. That is simply false and an eggregious misreference of the widely known and widely distributed report. Please correct this.

Quotes from the Royal Society Report

Due to the lack of experimental data, the approach taken was to estimate the typical levels of exposure on the battlefield over a wide range of scenarios, and the worst-case exposures that individuals are unlikely to exceed. These estimated values have then been used to assess the potential health risks from radiation. The report also considers epidemiological studies of occupational exposures to uranium in other situations as an independent source of information on the risks of inhaling DU particles, although it recognises that the parallels may not be precise.

Except in extreme circumstances any extra risks of developing fatal cancers as a result of radiation from internal exposure to DU arising from battlefield conditions are likely to be so small that they would not be detectable above the general risk of dying from cancer over a normal lifetime.

The greatest exposures will apply only to a very small fraction of the soldiers in a theatre of war, for example those who survive in a vehicle struck by a DU penetrator. In such circumstances, and assuming the most unfavourable conditions, the lifetime risk of death from lung cancer is unlikely to exceed twice that in the general population.

Any extra risks of death from leukaemia, or other cancers, as a result of exposure to DU are estimated to be substantially lower than the risks of death from lung cancer. Under all likely exposure scenarios the extra lifetime risks of fatal leukaemia are predicted to be too small to be observable.

Many soldiers on a battlefield may be exposed to small amounts of DU and the risks of cancer from such exposures are predicted to be very low. Even if the estimates of risk for these conditions are one hundred times too low, it is unlikely that any excess of fatal cancer would be detected within a cohort of 10,000 soldiers followed over 50 years.

This report was referenced to support this edit:

The mainstream media, however, has consistently shed light on stories of DU related illnesses and birth defects from the children of soldiers recently returning from conflicts involving Depleted Uranium. As early as September 3, 2000, CNN reported that Dr. Asaf Durakovic was treating cases of soldiers contaminated with Depleted Uranium in the First Gulf War of 1991. [10] Time Magazine has featured several articles about the growing concern over the dangers of Depleted Uranium, one about NATO soldiers on January 9th, 2001 [11] More recently, The New York Daily News' Juan Gonzalez reported in a front page article about the war's littlest victim, referring to the newborn daughter of a soldier suffering from Gulf War Syndrome who was born with three fingers missing. The soldier in question tested positive for Depleted Uranium. [12] - Moreover, a comprehensive study by The Royal Society, a fellowship of over 1400 distinguished scientists, researchers and professors, found that Depleted Uranium poses serious health risks for civilians as well as soldiers. [13]

DV8 2XL 23:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


More data

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1383/1740/1600/New%20Image.jpg

The poster presentation attached was displayed in Calicut, Kerala, at the recent 37th Annual Conference of the Society of Nuclear Medicine, India. http://www.snmindia.org/snmi2005.htm

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/e/p/Talk%7EDepleted_uranium_Archive_1_2d2a.html"