Post #197,253
3/4/05 6:31:56 PM
|
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
3/4/05 7:14:44 PM
|
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
3/4/05 9:09:43 PM
3/4/05 11:48:52 PM
|
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.
|
Post #197,272
3/4/05 11:22:24 PM
|
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
3/4/05 11:49:20 PM
|
Ack! Thanks. Fixed. Now to fix the other one...
|
Post #197,261
3/4/05 9:13:21 PM
|
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
3/4/05 9:23:42 PM
|
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
3/4/05 9:30:04 PM
|
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
3/4/05 9:49:02 PM
|
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
3/4/05 10:06:16 PM
|
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
3/4/05 11:46:30 PM
3/4/05 11:58:58 PM
|
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.
|
Post #197,520
3/7/05 1:38:50 PM
|
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
3/7/05 2:52:09 PM
|
Perfectly. :-)
|
Post #197,712
3/8/05 5:32:27 PM
|
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
3/8/05 6:09:57 PM
|
"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
3/8/05 9:10:08 PM
|
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
3/8/05 9:56:07 PM
|
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
3/9/05 2:37:54 PM
|
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
3/9/05 3:19:35 PM
|
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
3/9/05 5:21:56 PM
|
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
3/9/05 5:24:14 PM
|
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
3/4/05 10:16:54 PM
|
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
3/5/05 4:57:10 AM
|
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
3/5/05 8:50:22 AM
|
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.
|
