The UN did a study of DU in Kosovo

Post #197,222 by andread 3/4/05 2:58:43 PM Reply	The UN did a study of DU in Kosovo [link\|http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/env/du/en/\|we use it wherever we go -- ionizing radiation is your friend] A Play I Some Music w/ Papa Andy Saturday 8 PM - 11 PM ET All Night Rewind 11 PM - 5 PM Reggae, African and Caribbean Music [link\|http://wxxe.org\|Tune In]
Post #197,224 by Arkadiy 3/4/05 3:12:31 PM Reply	Re: The UN did a study of DU in Kosovo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry estimates that there are typically four US tons of uranium in one square mile of soil, one foot deep (comparable to 1.4 t/km\ufffd). It has also been estimated that each year 180 US tons of uranium decay products are added to US agricultural lands due to the presence of trace amounts of uranium in fertilisers (ATSDR 1997). <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Depleted uranium is about 60% as radioactive as natural uranium. It has a low specific radiation activity (39.4 kBq/g) and is considered as only weakly radioactive (Snihs & \ufffdkerblom 2000, UNEP/UNCHS Balkans Task Force 1999). <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> KFOR has informed the mission that 112 attacks were made in the period from 6 April to 11 June 1999. The number of rounds (both depleted uranium and high explosive) per location varied from 50 to 1300. The total number of rounds fired in the Kosovo conflict was about 31 000. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< At 300 grams per round (number from earlier in the report), we get 10 tons. Versus 4 tons per square mile that are already in the ground. What the hell, here is another quote from the same report: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Absorption of depleted uranium If or when a person comes into contact with depleted uranium from a penetrator, there is no known immediate or acute risk to life. Furthermore, the radio-medicine literature provides no evidence to assume that a person having contact (either externally or internally) with depleted uranium will develop an illness. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<< -- And what are we doing when the two most powerful nations on earth -- America and Israel -- stomp on the elementary rights of human beings? -- letter to the editor from W. Ostermeier, Liechtenstein
Post #197,250 by jb4 3/4/05 6:22:46 PM Reply	Toothsome Morsel: there is no known immediate or acute risk to life There may not be, but note that this is the same rhetoric that the Duh "Administration" uses to wave off the health and well being concerns of everything from global warming to arsenic to the ozone layer mercury to.... jb4 shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub* + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf.* BULLSHIT
Post #197,252 by Arkadiy 3/4/05 6:31:08 PM Reply	And also >>>>>>>>>>> Furthermore, the radio-medicine literature provides no evidence to assume that a person having contact (either externally or internally) with depleted uranium will develop an illness. <<<<<<<<<<< So there is no known long-term risk either. What's your point? -- And what are we doing when the two most powerful nations on earth -- America and Israel -- stomp on the elementary rights of human beings? -- letter to the editor from W. Ostermeier, Liechtenstein
Post #197,255 by jb4 3/4/05 6:40:40 PM Reply	You know what my point is! But, just in case you're having a dull (or Duh) moment, I'll spell it out: Studies state just exactly what their sponsors whant them to state (or they'd never get published). Since the "Administration" doesn't want there to be any adverse effects (except, of course, to "the Enemy") of DU, then DU has no adverse evvects -- look! the literature says so! You can't possibly be that thick. Or do you not remember "duck and roll"? (Sorry, I forgot you weren't here during that episode...I withdraw that last sentence.) (As far as your latest throwaway goes, I'm very sure that the "radio-medicine literature" (!) has made several double-blind studies where willing subjects ingested and/or strapped DU to their bodies for varing periods of time so that the effects of such ingestion/aprobation could be properly studied, and that the results of such double-blind studies can be easily cross-referenced and reproduced, as would be proper before publicly stating such findings as fact. Puh-fucking-LEEEEZE, awready, Ark!) jb4 shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub* + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf.* BULLSHIT
Post #197,259 by Another Scott 3/4/05 7:55:16 PM Reply	Skepticism is good and necessary. Dogmatic skepticism isn't. Is the [link\|http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/030907178X?OpenDocument\|National Academies' Institute of Medicine] a sponsor's mouthpiece too? From September 7, 2000: Depleted Uranium During the Gulf War, some tanks and munitions containing depleted uranium caught fire or exploded. As a result, a number of military personnel inhaled or ingested depleted uranium. Flying fragments of the material injured others. In its depleted form, uranium is 40 percent less radioactive than in its natural state. The health effects of uranium have been widely investigated, mostly in occupational settings, but the committee found weaknesses in many of these studies. Based on this evidence, it said that no conclusion can be drawn about the effects of depleted uranium and the development of lymphatic or bone cancer; nonmalignant respiratory disease; diseases of the nervous system, gastrointestinal tract, and liver; and other health outcomes. Still, the committee did conclude that there is limited evidence of no association between exposure to uranium and kidney disease, nor between exposure to low levels of uranium and lung cancer. At high levels of exposure, however, the evidence about lung cancer was unclear. The committee recommended follow-up research on veterans with embedded fragments of depleted uranium, and other long-term studies. How about the [link\|http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/\|World Health Organization]? Exposure to uranium and depleted uranium * Under most circumstances, use of DU will make a negligible contribution to the overall natural background levels of uranium in the environment. Probably the greatest potential for DU exposure will follow conflict where DU munitions are used. * A recent United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) report giving field measurements taken around selected impact sites in Kosovo (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) indicates that contamination by DU in the environment was localized to a few tens of metres around impact sites. Contamination by DU dusts of local vegetation and water supplies was found to be extremely low. Thus, the probability of significant exposure to local populations was considered to be very low. * A UN expert team reported in November 2002 that they found traces of DU in three locations among 14 sites investigated in Bosnia following NATO airstrikes in 1995. A full report is expected to be published by UNEP in March 2003. * Levels of DU may exceed background levels of uranium close to DU contaminating events. Over the days and years following such an event, the contamination normally becomes dispersed into the wider natural environment by wind and rain. People living or working in affected areas may inhale contaminated dusts or consume contaminated food and drinking water. * People near an aircraft crash may be exposed to DU dusts if counterweights are exposed to prolonged intense heat. Significant exposure would be rare, as large masses of DU counterweights are unlikely to ignite and would oxidize only slowly. Exposures of clean-up and emergency workers to DU following aircraft accidents are possible, but normal occupational protection measures would prevent any significant exposure. [...] Potential health effects of exposure to depleted uranium * In the kidneys, the proximal tubules (the main filtering component of the kidney) are considered to be the main site of potential damage from chemical toxicity of uranium. There is limited information from human studies indicating that the severity of effects on kidney function and the time taken for renal function to return to normal both increase with the level of uranium exposure. * In a number of studies on uranium miners, an increased risk of lung cancer was demonstrated, but this has been attributed to exposure from radon decay products. Lung tissue damage is possible leading to a risk of lung cancer that increases with increasing radiation dose. However, because DU is only weakly radioactive, very large amounts of dust (on the order of grams) would have to be inhaled for the additional risk of lung cancer to be detectable in an exposed group. Risks for other radiation-induced cancers, including leukaemia, are considered to be very much lower than for lung cancer. * Erythema (superficial inflammation of the skin) or other effects on the skin are unlikely to occur even if DU is held against the skin for long periods (weeks). * No consistent or confirmed adverse chemical effects of uranium have been reported for the skeleton or liver. * No reproductive or developmental effects have been reported in humans. * Although uranium released from embedded fragments may accumulate in the central nervous system (CNS) tissue, and some animal and human studies are suggestive of effects on CNS function, it is difficult to draw firm conclusions from the few studies reported. More from the WHO on DU is [link\|http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/env/du/en/\|here]. Radiation and toxic materials are all around us. Remember early problems with errors in [link\|http://www.bellsystemmemorial.com/pdf/bell_labs_journals/paper02.pdf\|4k DRAMs]? It was due to alpha particles from contaminants in the plastic packaging material. Arguing that experts are always tainted by those who fund their research means that you can't ever trust any expert, other than those who are independently wealthy. Who was it that was saying that Gates' comments about high schools was [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=197237\|disingenuous]? He's not being paid by the NEA or the Redmond Board of Education, so he must be an honest broker, right? :-/ I think I've beaten this DU horse enough for now. ;-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #197,516 by jb4 3/7/05 1:32:16 PM Reply	I defer judgement until ... ... those "long erm studies" are complete. BTW, who is functing those studies, anyway? ("No one" i this context is an acceptable answer....) jb4 shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub* + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf.* BULLSHIT
Post #197,262 by Arkadiy 3/4/05 9:23:08 PM Reply	Errr. That was an UN study Are they in cahoots with our "adminstration" too? I guess the hatred between Bush and UN is just one big conspiracy. -- And what are we doing when the two most powerful nations on earth -- America and Israel -- stomp on the elementary rights of human beings? -- letter to the editor from W. Ostermeier, Liechtenstein
Post #197,253 by Another Scott 3/4/05 6:31:56 PM Reply	Flip that around. Some critics are blaming DU for just about every bad thing that happens to any person who might or might not have been exposed to it. They can't cite scientific evidence or a scientific hypothesis to explain why they believe DU is responsible, but they can throw around scary rhetoric. How is that different from claiming that Zeus/the invisible pink unicorn/Shiva/etc. is responsible? Cheers, Scott.
Post #197,257 by jb4 3/4/05 7:14:44 PM Reply	Agreed. Please read me in my posts. oooOOOooo ;-) It is not my position that DU is the next AIDS (or even the next genital herpes). it is my position that all these "studies" Ark happily referred to as "facts" have that same hollow ring to them as do all the other dismissive "studies" that, when taken together, state unequivovally that nothing is dangerous, everything is safe, go play in the freeway. For the record, the original article that lead off this thread has the same hollow ring to it as any other screed that tries to sell through fear mongering (can you say Dick Cheney campaign speeches? I knew you could...). All that said. it is my opinion that DU is dangerous; I for one do not wish to sprinkle some of it on my next sandwich for seasoning. I do not believe that it is as dangerous as weapons grade plutonium, or weapons-grade cobalt, for that matter. But I'm not going to give a ball of it to my granddaughter and let her play with it for even 15 minutes, either, thankyewverymuch. And I had to choose between the fear-mongering report that opened this thread or any of the "studies" Arkadiy happily referenced as "no worries, mate" refutation of the fear-monger, I'd probably choose the fear-monger (and jack up the BS filter appropriately). jb4 shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub* + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf.* BULLSHIT
Post #197,260 by Another Scott 3/4/05 9:09:43 PM 3/4/05 11:48:52 PM Reply	Okay. Sorry for getting a little off track. Mr. Burns writes: It is not my position that DU is the next AIDS (or even the next genital herpes). it is my position that all these "studies" Ark happily referred to as "facts" have that same hollow ring to them as do all the other dismissive "studies" that, when taken together, state unequivovally that nothing is dangerous, everything is safe, go play in the freeway. Most studies say that everything is dangerous. Good scientists are careful and don't make categorical statements like "X is safe". You're no doubt aware that there are carcinogens in [link\|http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8504483&dopt=Abstract\|beer and wine]. There are [link\|http://www.forcesduluth.com/chem.html\|carcinogens] in an awful lot of food we eat. Some would argue that no food should be sold that contains chemicals that cause cancer. Others would say: What level is in the food, and what is the risk at that level? I'm in the latter group. Some say that [link\|http://www.americanreview.us/budin.htm\|a single plutonium atom can cause lung cancer]. I'm more than a little skeptical of that claim based on what is known about [link\|http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Plutonium\|plutonium]: Precautions All isotopes and compounds of plutonium are toxic and radioactive. While plutonium is sometimes described in media reports as "the most toxic substance known to man", there is general agreement among experts in the field that this is incorrect. As of 2003, there has yet to be a single human death officially attributed to plutonium exposure. Naturally-occurring radium is about 200 times more radiotoxic than plutonium, and some organic toxins like botulism toxin are still more toxic. Botulism toxin, in particular, has a lethal dose in the hundreds of pg per kg, far less than the quantity of plutonium that poses a significant cancer risk. In addition, beta and gamma emitters (including the C-14 and K-40 in nearly all food) can cause cancer on casual contact, which alpha emitters cannot. Orally, plutonium is less toxic than several common substances, including caffeine, acetaminophen, some vitamins, pseudoephedrine, and any number of plants and fungi. It is perhaps somewhat more toxic than pure ethanol, but less so than tobacco and many illegal drugs (some such as LSD and marijuana are negligibly toxic). Considering the pure chemical toxicity it probably ranks with lead and other heavy metals. That said, there is no doubt that plutonium may be extremely dangerous when handled incorrectly. The alpha radiation it emits does not penetrate the skin, but can irradiate internal organs when plutonium is inhaled or ingested; particularly at risk are the skeleton, which it is liable to be absorbed onto the surface of, and the liver, where it will collect and become concentrated. Extremely small particles of plutonium on the order of micrograms have a (small) chance to cause lung cancer if inhaled into the lungs. Emphasis added. A microgram is a lot more than one atom. (The calculation of how many Pu atoms are in 1 ug is left as an exercise for the reader.) Depleted [link\|http://physchem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/UR/uranium.html\|uranium] is a toxic material at some levels, as are many many materials that are technologically important (like arsenic, beryllium, lead, mercury, silicon dioxide, etc., etc.) Why support arguments made by apparent lunatics? If you question the studies, then you need to read them yourself and make up your own mind rather than letting ranting partisans with an axe to grind tell you what they say. Jacking up the BS filter is appropriate, but it's much better to read the original sources, IMHO. It seems to me that Arkaidy has it exactly right on this issue. I really will quit now. ;-) [edit: D'oh! Sorry Mike, and jb4!] Cheers, Scott. Edited by Another Scott March 4, 2005, 11:48:52 PM EST Expand All History
Post #197,272 by pwhysall 3/4/05 11:22:24 PM Reply	OT: Mind your attributions. Mike didn't say anything. jb4 did :-) Peter [link\|http://www.ubuntulinux.org\|Ubuntu Linux] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Home] Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
Post #197,275 by Another Scott 3/4/05 11:49:20 PM Reply	Ack! Thanks. Fixed. Now to fix the other one...
Post #197,261 by Silverlock 3/4/05 9:13:21 PM Reply	Let's cut to the chase DU is a radioactive substance used in weapons. DU use, by definition, increases the radiation emission of the area it impacts when used as a weapon. No, not genocide. Yes, a use that should be outlawed. ----------------------------------------- "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for. As for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." -- H. L. Mencken
Post #197,263 by Arkadiy 3/4/05 9:23:42 PM Reply	Granite is a radiocative substance used in a weapon In the ballista. -- And what are we doing when the two most powerful nations on earth -- America and Israel -- stomp on the elementary rights of human beings? -- letter to the editor from W. Ostermeier, Liechtenstein
Post #197,265 by Silverlock 3/4/05 9:30:04 PM Reply	Cute How much do I need to spell out for you? ----------------------------------------- "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for. As for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." -- H. L. Mencken
Post #197,267 by Arkadiy 3/4/05 9:49:02 PM Reply	DU is used for the same reason as granite It's dense. And it's less radioactive. How much do I have to spell out for you? Never mind I am done spelling. -- And what are we doing when the two most powerful nations on earth -- America and Israel -- stomp on the elementary rights of human beings? -- letter to the editor from W. Ostermeier, Liechtenstein
Post #197,268 by Silverlock 3/4/05 10:06:16 PM Reply	Thats a good one It's just like granite.You can build houses out of it, Try again. ----------------------------------------- "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for. As for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." -- H. L. Mencken
Post #197,274 by Another Scott 3/4/05 11:46:30 PM 3/4/05 11:58:58 PM Reply	It is used for ballast and counterweights in [link\|http://www.antenna.nl/wise/uranium/dviss.html#ACW\|747 airplanes] and elsewhere. It would be ironic, wouldn't it, if jb4 had some in his John Deere snowblower? >:-) (It made a lot more sense when I thought I was replying to Mike M...) The main reasons why it's used in ammunition are: 1) It's dense - it packs a big punch in a small volume, 2) It's cheap ("practically free" is claimed in some articles I've seen), 3) It's "self sharpening" as it passes through armor. It doesn't mushroom, thus it penetrates very well. Tungsten, a similar though non-radioactive heavy metal is less toxic but expensive. We have to import it from China and Russia. It's slightly less dense so doesn't work quite as well as DU. Osmium and Iridium are the two densest elements, but they're precious metals (similar to platinum) and very expensive. I don't think that even the Lone Ranger could afford iridium bullets.... In a granite house you'd have to worry about [link\|http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/radon.htm\|radon] which has reaction products that are alpha emitters, just like uranium. Hmmm. Granite's a lot more expensive (it's not free), but the cost of getting a license to use DU and the transportation costs probably don't lean in DU's favor. ;-j Bottom line: Any real material has pluses and minuses. [edit:] Mixed up jb4 with Mike again. :-( Sorry guys. Cheers, Scott. Edited by Another Scott March 4, 2005, 11:58:58 PM EST Expand All History
Post #197,520 by jb4 3/7/05 1:38:50 PM Reply	Hint: Mike flies airplanes. I fly in airplanes. I hope that clarifies things.... ;-) jb4 shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub* + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf.* BULLSHIT
Post #197,530 by Another Scott 3/7/05 2:52:09 PM Reply	Perfectly. :-)
Post #197,712 by andread 3/8/05 5:32:27 PM Reply	Spell p-l-u-t-o-n-i-u-m [link\|http://www.firethistime.org/plutoniumcontamination.htm"\|Plutonium is part of DU] radioactive enough for you? A Play I Some Music w/ Papa Andy Saturday 8 PM - 11 PM ET All Night Rewind 11 PM - 5 PM Reggae, African and Caribbean Music [link\|http://wxxe.org\|Tune In]
Post #197,714 by Another Scott 3/8/05 6:09:57 PM Reply	"potentially contaminated" Lots of handwaving in that article. You might want to find a better cite with some real evidence. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
Post #197,736 by jake123 3/8/05 9:10:08 PM Reply	Look, the real problem with DU munitions is that it gets turned into micro dust when it's used. This means that it gets into the body and the body has zero chance to get it out again. The stuff is very hazardous, and toxic, and remains so for a long long time. I'm not going to claim that it's going to cause mass mutations or anything (at least, not on the scale it's been used on so far), but what are you going to say if in ten years the cancer rates for Iraq war vets is many times the national average? That we didn't know any better? It's not hard to figure out that people ingesting/inhaling heavy radioactive metals is not good for them. --\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #197,738 by Another Scott 3/8/05 9:56:07 PM Reply	Some earlier links addressed that. Rather than cutting and pasting links, I'll just refer interested readers to earlier posts in this thread. Lots of soldiers from Gulf War I (1991) have lots of DU in them. They're being monitored. Uranium miners have uranium in them. They're also being [link\|http://www.eh.doe.gov/ohre/roadmap/uranium/append.html\|studied]. Uranium can be bad in the body. Heavy metals can be toxic. Alpha emitters can be hazardous when injested. All of that I agree with. A lot is known about uranium chemistry ([link\|https://chppm-www.apgea.army.mil/documents/UrineTesting.pdf\|https://chppm-www.ap.../UrineTesting.pdf] discusses how it acts on the body). (z doesn't like https links.) The problem, as I see it, is one of which side do you come down on as far as the studies are concerned. Do you trust the US military's [link\|http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/faq_17apr.htm\|FAQs] and studies or not? I generally do. It also comes down to how you view the relative risk. Radioactivity is all around us. Heavy metals are all around battlefields. There are risks in replacing DU with other materials. Soldiers facing an enemy tank are much more at risk from explosives or bullets than from DU, IMHO. Our soldiers in a tank with DU armor are much better protected than a tank with armor made from other materials. Getting rid of DU isn't going to make the problem of injesting of heavy metals by soldiers, or civilians who come across debris, go away. DU is a tool, and a very effective tool. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
Post #197,818 by andread 3/9/05 2:37:54 PM Reply	Links to go [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=197795\|How this ended up there I don't know but...] A Play I Some Music w/ Papa Andy Saturday 8 PM - 11 PM ET All Night Rewind 11 PM - 5 PM Reggae, African and Caribbean Music [link\|http://wxxe.org\|Tune In]
Post #197,822 by Another Scott 3/9/05 3:19:35 PM Reply	What concentration? These press reports never say what concentration the Pu is supposed to be in the DU. I wonder why that is? (Not really...) [link\|http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/pub_meet/en/Report_WHO_depleted_uranium_Eng.pdf\|WHO Report] (.pdf) on DU in Kosovo, p.7: In addition to U235, U234 and U238, the mission was confronted with questions on the presence of plutonium or other radioactive chemicals in the munitions. KFOR informed the mission that it did not exclude the possibility that traces of plutonium could be present in depleted uranium. This is because the enrichment of some natural uranium, from which depleted uranium is a waste by-product, occurred at a production facility that had been used previously for the processing of spent fuel rods from nuclear reactors. The production facility had not been completely cleaned and cross-contamination could have been possible. According to NATO (referring to a statement placed on the Internet on 18 January 2001) it "has long been established that there may be trace elements of U236 and plutonium in depleted uranium." The presence of plutonium was addressed in a report of the US Department of Defense (2000), which also contains comments on the possible presence of trace elements of other materials in depleted uranium. The report concludes that depleted uranium \ufffdmay contain trace levels (a few parts per billion) of transuranics (neptunium, plutonium and americium). Tests on samples of DU showed that transuranic contamination added 0.8% to the radiation dose from DU." With regard to the presence of U236 in Kosovo, UNEP has mentioned (UNEP press release,16 January 2001) that "along with the more commonly expected isotopes, one of the laboratories has reported finding 0.0028% of U236." The UNEP press release says the \ufffdcontent of U236 in depleted uranium is so small that the radio-toxicity is not changed compared to DU without U236." Consequently, it has been concluded that detection of U236 indicates part of the depleted uranium originates from reprocessed uranium. It would appear that the presence of the U236 isotope led to the scientific deduction that plutonium may also be present. At a meeting immediately prior to the commencement of the WHO mission in Kosovo, UNEP informed the team that the laboratory had not reported detecting any plutonium in their samples. After the mission returned from Kosovo, UNEP announced (press release, 16 February 2001) that traces of Pu239 and Pu240 were found in four penetrators. UNEP advised that the content of the plutonium found is very low and does not have any significant impact on overall radioactivity. Oh, and there was plutonium in the soil, worldwide, before DU started being used. E.g. [link\|http://www.davistownmuseum.org/cbm/RadxPlutonium.html\|this] article from Nature from 1973. I don't think Pu in DU is a significant (i.e. measurable) risk. YMMV. Cheers, Scott.
Post #197,832 by andread 3/9/05 5:21:56 PM Reply	It Can't be Good (or even average) Play I Some Music w/ Papa Andy Saturday 8 PM - 11 PM ET All Night Rewind 11 PM - 5 PM Reggae, African and Caribbean Music [link\|http://wxxe.org\|Tune In]
Post #197,833 by Arkadiy 3/9/05 5:24:14 PM Reply	Correct. It's below average. -- And what are we doing when the two most powerful nations on earth -- America and Israel -- stomp on the elementary rights of human beings? -- letter to the editor from W. Ostermeier, Liechtenstein
Post #197,270 by Another Scott 3/4/05 10:16:54 PM Reply	Careful what you wish for. [link\|http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:0XcvbwWcGFsJ:www.capecodonline.com/cctimes/reenzxmunitions23.htm&hl=en\|Google Cache] of Cape Cod Times article: A tungsten alloy used in "environmentally friendly" munitions caused rapidly growing tumors in laboratory rats, according to a recently published study. The results raise concerns about the danger from nontoxic alternatives to depleted uranium and lead, including the 5.56 mm tungsten-nylon bullet used at Camp Edwards. The "green" bullet was introduced on the base in 1999, two years after the Environmental Protection Agency banned the use of lead ammunition. The EPA had ordered a massive cleanup of underground pollutants on the base and believed chemicals from spent rounds could seep into the groundwater. The tungsten-nylon bullet - which cost $12 million to develop, and about 800,000 rounds of which have been used at the firing ranges - was hailed as a solution to community concerns. It was thought to be insoluble, or incapable of disintegrating and making its way into Cape groundwater. But now researchers have linked the alloy to cancer clusters in rats. And a study last year in the Journal of Environmental Forensics showed the metal dissolves in water faster than lead, raising fresh groundwater concerns. [...] :-/ Cheers, Scott.
Post #197,285 by Ashton 3/5/05 4:57:10 AM Reply	Nice sleuthing, A.S. I'm not particularly paranoid about overtly 'tainted' researchers, nor even the (sometimes evident) misrepresentation of their findings -- more often, the imputing of 'safety' as cannot follow from either the nature of the samples or, omission of tests re very many other bodily functions - not examined. Expensive, such tests or even 'tests'. But look at the material just on DU, here. I admit to slothfulness in not finding the source for "estimated number of new substances introduced into the environment" each year. It's a humongous number. To me, it's not even simplistic reductio to observe what may well be the whimper part of, ..going out with a whimper or a bang? The Nature of capitalist theology is (of course) Make a Buck by any means possible, until.. enough data accumulates for your particular rushed-into-production device to be Legally Banned. {Dalkon Shield\ufffd, the Thalidomide fuckup [later complexificated by discovery of another area in which there may be redemption for this clever chemical!], the discarded six-pack plastic rings which killed lots of birds, other animals ... ... and so on, from those pathetic Radium-dial brush-licking girls and on to MTBE, a gasoline additive APPROVED though it was KNOWN that it was water soluble!! etc.} Such is the perspicuity of the 'watchers' taming the entrepreneurs. It takes Time and lots of dead bodies before even the more egregious situations grind through the process. But there is a common denominator to them all -- and thus, to the very basis of modrin techno- capitalisto- civilization: n! (I suspect this simple symbol shall become the stark mathematical footnote in the autopsy of this civilization; it will, natch - take-up far less word-space than descriptions of the religio- politico- pathologies, which will no doubt exponentially magnify the merely log-expanding ticking of this "n-factorial clock of Ignorance?"). The autopsy will not be Televised. Fact is - we are unwilling to spend (probably incapable of imagining a need to spend) the $/time to 'properly' evaluate the compounded effects of most new substances, especially chemical -- which come into being #1, in order to generate profits, SAP. (The other 'reasons' - more comfort or leisure or ability to eat crap food with fewer ill effects, etc. - obv are always listed first, but #1 remains 100% the raison d'\ufffdtre for every single large production.) Just extrapolate the time you spent collecting these refs (of varying substance) on One item, DU - a few million times.. ie Have a nice century y'all :-) What me worry? -- Alfred E. Neumann
Post #197,294 by Another Scott 3/5/05 8:50:22 AM Reply	MTBE was used for good reasons. [link\|http://environment.about.com/cs/waterissues/a/MTBE.htm\|MTBE] at about.com: MTBE has been used as an octane enhancer (helps prevent the engine from "knocking") in gasoline since 1979, after the US phased out lead additives. Since 1992, MTBE has been used at higher concentrations in some gasoline to fulfill the oxygenate requirements set by Congress in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. Oxygen helps gasoline burn more completely, reducing harmful tailpipe emissions from motor vehicles. In one respect, the oxygen dilutes or displaces gasoline components such as aromatics (e.g., benzene) and sulfur. In another, oxygen optimizes the oxidation during combustion. Most refiners have chosen to use MTBE over other oxygenates primarily for its blending characteristics and for economic reasons, although they may choose to use other oxygenates, such as ethanol. Oxygenates (primarily MTBE and ethanol) reduce carbon monoxide emissions and volatile organic chemical emissions. At certain levels, MTBE reduces benzene emissions (a known carcinogen.) Removing tetraethyl lead from gasoline was a good thing. Something had to replace it and MTBE was a reasonable choice at the time. Since MTBE's been banned as a gasoline additive by many states it should become less of a problem over time (though it does take a long time to degrade). Almost every choice has consequences, some of which might not be seen in advance no matter how obvious they seem in retrospect. As for ethanol, it has significant costs too: The federal government subsidizes agricultural ethanol by [link\|http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:0hvv90Rxu38J:www.ncenergy.appstate.edu/plan/ch5.pdf&hl=en\|54 cents/gallon] (which can be, and is, argued for based on reduced foreign oil demand and less pollution), helping to drive up the deficit and enriching ADM. It also means more farmland is needed, more petrochemical-based fertilizers, more land erosion and water pollution, etc., etc. TANSTAAFL. :-) Cheers, Scott.

Welcome to IWETHEY!