US to leave 1000 tons of Depleted Uranium on battlefield in Iraq

by ipsiphi a pacifist Mon Apr 14, 2003 20:37

no one demands depleted uranium.
no one stands on the street or yells down the phone "more depleted uranium please".
"hurry up with the depleted uranium we have a rush on" "dont forget to order the depleted uranium".
the capitalism of Death ignores market forces.

by Ray Tue Apr 15, 2003 10:57

Everybody has heard of the BBC. And anyone who can find indymedia can also find the BBC website. So why take up space by cutting and pasting?

by Terry Tue Apr 15, 2003 12:00

It is pure and utter lies to say depleted uranium has no side effects. It is radioactive
and after use is dispersed as a fine cloud of microscopic particles which are inhaled,
land on the soil and get irreversibly mixed up in all the dirt and grim on the streets,
in peoples homes, cars and anywhere else that dust generally settles, which is everywhere.

Uranium as mined is generally 99.3% U-238 and 0.7% U-235. U-235 is more unstable and is
stuff used for nuclear bombs. The U-238 is left over -hence depleted.

The radio-active half-lives are:
uranium-235: half life = 704 million years, 0.7% of all uranium.
uranium-238: half life = 4.5 billion years, 99.3% of all uranium.

And when uranium decays, it's daughter products are also radio-active and each of these
have different half-lives again.

Just one microscopic spec of DU dust lodged in your lung and injested still contains
billions and billions of uranium atoms and millions of these will be radioactively
decaying in your body. The energy of radio-active decay, -i.e. the energy of the emitted
particles (usually alpha particles which are helium nuclei) is huge and as a consequence
as they rip through the living cells of your body, have enough energy to break tens of
thousands of chemical bonds, resulting in the destruction of very delicate proteins, DNA
and other vital chemicals. It is a bit like firing a heavy machine gun through a tea-bone
china shop.

When these bonds break, you are suddenly left with some very reactive chemicals which will
bond with the next thing passing. While the body can repair some of the damage, and in others
case, pre-programmed cell death occurs to stave off further damage, it is only a matter of
time before cancer is triggered. There is also other damage induced to other cells such as
blood cells as these move in to clear up the damage. Thus cancer is not the only consequence
both impairement of your immune system. And of course it goes without saying, that to even
consider having kids, is exceedingly risky. Remember that it is likely that people living
in areas contaminated by DU and or crews involved in the cleanup of the tanks, will have
had their clothes, hair and bodies contaminated and very likely to have inhaled or injested
perhaps tens, hundreds, maybe even thousands of radioactively 'hot' particles.

Anyone who denies that DU has side effects is either totally and utterly scientifically illerate,
or else it is obvious they are part of the campaign of spin and coverup.

The use of DU in this war, is resulting in the slow spread of deadly DU dust throughout all
affected cities and towns in Iraqi. The effect will be dreadful and deadly. It is in effect
another mini-Chernobyl which has resulted in large parts of Belarus been made off-limits to
human habitation.

http://www.adiccp.org/
http://www.taiwanwatch.org.tw/english/chernobyl-1.htm

http://www.atral.com/U2381.html

by Terry Tue Apr 15, 2003 17:37

Related link has report about DU in Iraqi

by Josef Wed Apr 16, 2003 09:42

"Anyone who denies that DU has side effects is either totally and utterly scientifically illerate, or else it is obvious they are part of the campaign of spin and coverup."

Here's a page with links to all the arguments for and against the use uf DU.

http://www.betterworldlinks.org/book60h.htm

Personally, I think a material with a half life of 4.5 billion years is not going to be very radioactive. Still, the metal itself may have toxic effects especially in the form of dust.

by Terry Wed Apr 16, 2003 15:00

You state:
Personally, I think a material with a half life of 4.5 billion years is not going to be very radioactive ...

So outline your argument then or do we just go by what you think? What about all the evidence of dead
and very ill soldiers. Or do we just ignore that, because 'Personally, I think a material ...' ?

My justification is as follow:
U-238 emits alpha particles which don't actually travel very far, no more than a centimeter or two.

If you have a single block of U-238 as in a warhead, it will be relatively safe to stand close. Many of the
emitted particles will be absorbed in the material itself. The total surface area of the 'large' block,
eg. warhead will be at very most about 1 metre squared.

Now pulverize that warhead into billions and billions of micron sized particles. Ironically the total
surface area now soars as more and more surface area is exposed. This allows more of the radioactive
particles to 'escape' the material. [If in doubt that work it out by considering a cube 1 cm per side
and then dividing it and adding up the total area. It increases. Consider that the average human lung
as a surface area of about the size of a tennis court. It is due to all those very small alevoi/air sacs.]

Now consider that many of these particles are inhaled or injested by people. The emitted alpha particles will
not be residing right next to living cells, of the order of 1 micrometer away or less. The surrounding cells
will absorb this radiation and will be damaged. The point is that these specks of DU dust are sitting in your
body for weeks, months, years.

So while the radioctivity maybe be low relative to hot nuclear fuel rods, the fact that they are lodged in you
and there continously more than offsets the risks.

You don't need to be a Nobel Laureate to figure that out.