• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Depleted uranium

Dihydrogen monoxide is a decent shield and many power reactors use it as such as well as a coolant. Spreading Dihydrogen monoxide over the entire earth would lower the radiation levels emitted by the ground. Flooding of about 24" will provide decent results. I would not advocate doing this though.
 
Mycroft said:
Okaym kidding aside. I have been reading up on the topic. It seems to me the radiological dangers have been greatly exagerated.

It can be handeld safely. But in specific situations (like many materials) it is 'not save'.

The specific situation with DU is inhalation of microsized uranium-oxide.

So decontamination of equipment and soil, and airfilters for personal should be sufficiant.


ps. Please slow down on the retoric (@ Randfan and The Fool)
 
Health Physics Society

Since depleted uranium is weakly radioactive, the public has been concerned about the possiblility of adverse health effects from DU. DU is a heavy metal, and like all heavy metals such as mercury and lead, is toxic. However, except in certain very unusual situations, it is the chemical toxicity and not the radioactivity that is of concern. And, from a chemical toxicity standpoint, uranium is on the same order of toxicity as lead.
My point is and has been from the beginning that the concern for radiation is exaggerated while the real adverse health effects are ignored.

Radiation poisoning is a hot button issue. Heavy metal poisoning is not.

If DU were made from cinder block this thread would not exist.

The point of skeptics is to question exactly these types of assumptions. Why do people become so animated about radiation but their eyes glaze over when it comes to the seemingly more mundane dangers we face in every day life.

I'm no proponent for DU. I think the concerns about DU are silly and overblown. I can understand the concerns from an uninformed populace. I don't understand it from people who have been shown the evidence and refuse to look at that evidence of even consider it. Further it amazes me that an individual could repeatedly make spurious and specious argument in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary because "we don't know everything". This is just living in the dark ages. Step into the light folks.

Health physicists are deeply concerned with the public health and welfare, and as experts in radiation and its effects on people and the environment, are quite aware that something other than exposure to uranium is the cause of the illnesses suffered by those who have had contact with depleted uranium from munitions. A truly enormous body of scientific data shows that it is virtually impossible for uranium to be the cause of their illnesses. Despite this body of scientific data to the contrary, misguided or unknowing people continue to allege that the depleted uranium, and specifically the radioactivity associated with the depleted uranium is the cause of these illness. This is indeed unfortunate, for health physicists and other scientists and physicians already know that depleted uranium is not the cause of these illnesses and thus any investigations into the cause of these illnesses should focus on other possible causes. If we are to offer any measure of relief or solace to these suffering people, and to gain some important additional knowledge of the cause of their illness, we should not waste our valuable and limited energies, resources and time attempting to point the finger at depleted uranium as the culprit, when it is already known that uranium is almost certainly not the cause of the problem.
Emphasis mine.

The amazing aspect of all this is that there will still be some who will not read the data or having read and become informed will continue to argue contrary to the experts in the field. :(
 
AWPrime said:
It can be handeld safely. But in specific situations (like many materials) it is 'not save'.

The specific situation with DU is inhalation of microsized uranium-oxide.

...in which case the danger is still as a heavy metal, not radiological. DU comes from the refining process that produces nuclear fuel for reactors or bombs where the useful, radioactive and dangerous U235 is extracted from the less-useful, almost non-radioactive and not-so-dangerous U238. The resulting by-product might as well be granite for all the danger it poses from radiation.

I wouldn't want to breath the stuff, but my reluctance would be for the same reason I wouldn't want to breathe mercury or tungsten vapor, to limit the exposure of my body to heavy metals. At the same time, if I did get a brief whiff of these metals, I wouldn’t worry about it too much.
 
Mycroft said:
...in which case the danger is still as a heavy metal,

The term "heavy metal" is misleading. Metals that are heavy are not toxic because they are "heavy". Gold, for example, is a heavy metal, but you can snack on it all day without getting sick, and light metals such as lithium can kill you just as quickly as lead.

Toxic metals are toxic because they have similar chemistry to other metals that the body uses. The body can't distinguish the toxic metal from the beneficial one and attempts to use it. Metals that do not resemble any chemistry in the body are discarded. I don't have time at the moment to provide specific examples. I'll check later.

I don't know if uranium has similar chemical properties to other metals in the body or not. Ask a biochemist.
 
Originally posted by Bruce
The term "heavy metal" is misleading. Metals that are heavy are not toxic because they are "heavy". Gold, for example, is a heavy metal, but you can snack on it all day without getting sick, and light metals such as lithium can kill you just as quickly as lead.

I didn't know that. I guess I assumed that if it's called "heavy metal poisoning" that there is something inherent to dense metals such as lead or mercury that makes them harmful.

Originally posted by Bruce
I don't know if uranium has similar chemical properties to other metals in the body or not. Ask a biochemist.

Since some of hte websites I've been reading say the danger of DU is from heavy metal toxicity, I have to assume it is. Then the question, as far as this topic is concerned, is how bad that toxicity is compared to contamination from alternative munitions.
 
Bruce said:
The term "heavy metal" is misleading. Metals that are heavy are not toxic because they are "heavy". Gold, for example, is a heavy metal, but you can snack on it all day without getting sick, and light metals such as lithium can kill you just as quickly as lead.

Toxic metals are toxic because they have similar chemistry to other metals that the body uses. The body can't distinguish the toxic metal from the beneficial one and attempts to use it. Metals that do not resemble any chemistry in the body are discarded. I don't have time at the moment to provide specific examples. I'll check later.

Gold is non-toxic not because it doesn't resemble any other metals in the body, but because it is very non-reactive. It essentially has no reactions with the body - it prefers to remain in solid elemental form.

Lithium, on the other hand, is VERY reactive. It is naturally present within the body in small amounts, and is even used for treating bipolar disorders. Because it is so reactive (elemental lithium will burn in contact with water), too much lithium can quickly become toxic. But this is still very different from something like lead, where you basically want to minimize exposure under all circumstances.

The use of the term "heavy metal toxicity" refers, I think, to the fact that most of the lighter elements are present in the body naturally to begin with, while the heavy metals are, for the most part, not part of our biology (iodine is the only element heavier than zinc that gets incorporated in our biology in significant quantities). If these heavy metals are reactive under biological conditions (gold is not, but mercury, one element to the side, is), then they're going to do bad things to the body. We did not evolve with significant exposure to heavy metals, and our bodies do not cope with their presence well. So I don't think the term is really that misleading, as a rule of thumb it's pretty good.
 
Ziggurat said:
So I don't think the term is really that misleading, as a rule of thumb it's pretty good.

It's a good rule of thumb amongst scientist who understand what it means, but it's misleading for non-scientists who don't know what it means.

For example, I've been asked by people who were seriously concerned about whether or not they should continue wearing their gold and platinum jewlry. When I asked them why, the said they heard that cadmium was a heavy metal and noticed that on the periodic table, gold a silver are heavier than cadmium.

I would prefer the general public to not associate "heavy" with "toxic" when it comes to metals. I get very irritated by mis-information, as evident by my involvment in this thread.
 
Mycroft said:
...in which case the danger is still as a heavy metal, not radiological. DU comes from the refining process that produces nuclear fuel for reactors or bombs where the useful, radioactive and dangerous U235 is extracted from the less-useful, almost non-radioactive and not-so-dangerous U238. The resulting by-product might as well be granite for all the danger it poses from radiation.

You did read my link on the beta and alpha radiation cascade of the decay? And of the localized radiation dose of inhaled uranium oxide?
 
AWPrime said:
You did read my link on the beta and alpha radiation cascade of the decay? And of the localized radiation dose of inhaled uranium oxide?

Yes I did. The cascade decay is so slow as to be insignificant.
 
*bump* because of this discussion on board.

The Doctor, the Depleted Uranium, and the Dying Children

"An award winning documentary film produced for German television by Frieder Wagner and Valentin Thurn. The film exposes the use and impact of radioactive weapons during the current war against Iraq. The story is told by citizens of many nations. It opens with comments by two British veterans, Kenny Duncan and Jenny Moore, describing their exposure to radioactive, so-called depleted uranium (DU), weapons and the congenital abnormalities of their children. Dr. Siegwart-Horst Günther, a former colleague of Albert Schweitzer, and Tedd Weyman of the Uranium Medical Research Center (UMRC) traveled to Iraq, from Germany and Canada respectively, to assess uranium contamination in Iraq."

Google Video This video is not hosted by the ISF, the ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
 
.... It opens with comments by two British veterans, Kenny Duncan and Jenny Moore, describing their exposure to radioactive, so-called depleted uranium (DU), weapons and the congenital abnormalities of their children. Dr. Siegwart-Horst Günther, a former colleague of Albert Schweitzer, and Tedd Weyman of the Uranium Medical Research Center (UMRC) traveled to Iraq, from Germany and Canada respectively, to assess uranium contamination in Iraq."


There is a great deal of controversy over the congenital abnormalities; so far, none have yet been tied to DU beyond doubt.

There is more substantial material on the "Gulf War Veterans' Syndrome"; there is much more reason there to blame DU. But as for the congenital abnormalities bit, that is very doubtful at this stage.
 
There is something wrong with that graphic. It implies that all the daughters from U238 decay have the same activity. They don't.

Activity/g is just downright confusing. A gram of what?

However it was meant to be presented, it's not correct in any case.

It's confusing, but it is actually correct. The activity is per gram of U238 that you start with. Keep that in mind: even when measuring the activity from other elements, it's still per gram of U238 that produced those other elements. The daughter products are indeed much more active on a per-atom basis, but they are produced very slowly, and only ever present at low concentrations. Daughter products are being produced at some rate proportional to the amount of U238 you have (which is close to constant for the first billion plus years), and decaying at a rate equal to their own concentration. The concentration of daughter products will increase until those two rates balance out, and they will balance out when the total activity of the U238 is equal to the activity of each daughter product.

So it's true that if you start with pure U238, the total activity will go up over time (peaking at around a million years) as daughter products accumulate and reach a relatively steady state, but even this increased activity level is still quite low.
 
The Doctor, the Depleted Uranium, and the Dying Children

Strange that when the guy walks through the tank scrap yard and says his Geiger counter is three times higher than when they got in they never actually show the Geiger counter.

Now I'm not saying they're lying, I just find it an odd editing choice to leave that out. If i had been the director I would have shown the Geiger's numbers on the screen right then.
 
Last edited:
*bump* because of this discussion on board.

The Doctor, the Depleted Uranium, and the Dying Children

I am on that thread, CE, and one of the people explaining that DU munitions don't belong there. The two studies I have read fully are these:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1242351
http://www.euro.who.int/document/e71919.pdf

The first one concludes: "Good science indicates that depleted uranium weapons should not be manufactured or exploded." Perhaps surprisingly that doesn't include its civilian applications. I would be a lot more comfortable if they had included studies of civilians who work with DU in their daily work.

I doubt I have much to add here except that I would not be opposed to a moratorium on its use in any and all applications until the research was complete and conclusive.

I have worked with mercuric chloride and lead fluoborate and both of them are considerably more lethal than depleted uranium is.
 
Just incase anybody wants to know about the civilian use of DU: http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=fe35b5474490847c925e41edf817f58b

It has info about worker exposure. But you have to cough up dough to view it.

Just a quick run down of uses:
Glassware and ceramics
Dentistry
Chemical catalyst
Radiation shielding
Counterbalance weights and ballast

You forgot:

a very, very effective tank killer.
a somewhat effective doorstop/paperweight (depending on form)
 
Strange that when the guy walks through the tank scrap yard and says his Geiger counter is three times higher than when they got in they never actually show the Geiger counter.

Now I'm not saying they're lying, I just find it an odd editing choice to leave that out. If i had been the director I would have shown the Geiger's numbers on the screen right then.

And given that 3 times background radiation is not a serious health hazard, even if you believe him, his facts are meaningless.
 

Back
Top Bottom