not obsolete. I'll go more with the postulates of the [link|http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/1999/nd99/nd99vonhippel.html| Bulletin AS] and discount the simpler overviews of the DOD. (I read that as: we think we know enough already)

Since George Wald first campaigned (early '60-s) for reassessment of the max-dosages and the idea of there being a 'threshold' below which there need be no concern: I have noted the stand-off between DOD / Pantex and other Corps vs many unanswered questions. Wald was excoriated for even raising the issue of our ignorance and.. our unwillingness to spend $ to investigate. (I've known some very competent health physicists.)

I note that neither of the groups pays much attention to the migration of chemical compounds - even in BAS scenario. There is never enough $$ for significant long term studies, certainly not sponsored by DOD - who might afford such. My info comes from a radiological class from long before we were planning to spread around [In '91 - 300 tons?] U-metal. Attention was more on industrial - UF₆ and related. There were effects measured of the Uranyl compounds used in ceramic glazes, leaching into foods - but again, little follow-up studies beyond the demonstration of the effect. No studies of an entire population exposed, nor the intentional! spalling of metal particles. Now that we have an entire population.. Will we study?

I'll see what I can find re any non-DOD studies, of any length. It's clear that '91 marks an unprecedented release and that while 90 patients can lead to the assumptions in the DOD links: there are other organs than the kidneys and the time-frame for most heavy-metal effects is lengthy, for small dosages. Combine chemical + ionization long-term: they are guessing.

This won't be a Chernobyl, but we won't know what happens to the dust / major pieces in Iraq until someone spends some money, maps U-distribition - in addition to following medical reports over many years, if the map suggests such. (Most MDs here are pig-ignorant of the scenarios, so unless one knows one needs a specialist.. in Iraq ??)

I think it would take considerable pressure to launch a real study in Iraq. Look what was required before US even began to investigate actual symptoms in the vets. Military are supposed to take risks and are surrounded by haz-materials. I don't deem DOD apt for deciding about migration possibilities of these 300 TONS + whatever we recently added, but the 90 intense exposures are a start for longer-term study. How odd that nobody thought an immediate urinalysis important, knowing the circumstances. Is this DOD 'science'?

Besides, we know what land mines do - know that, after an operation there is rarely any effort to (anytime) later send in people with original maps to remove. DU can't compete with that issue, also unresolved. US Military is adamant about not altering their usage or accounting.

I don't expect much re DU, either.


Ashton

Remember - it's the dross from various isotope separation processes. U-chem is different from other elements so.. sure there's likely to be tiny traces of a whole bunch of stuff. (Besides - alpha emitters are the worst for ingestion; no range but locally: a Hell of a lot of ionization == cell mutation yada. An alpha emitter buried within a heavy metal / ergo a Super-Shielding: is ~as effective as a Bush or Bally speech on Honesty)

On another level - if *they* had them and we didn't -? Screw 'truth' -
Your point is made ;-)


Ashton