Depleted Uranium Again

[a_unique_person]

Article

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/06/23/1056220529825.html

Web Page

http://traprockpeace.org/depleteduranium.html

Our troops suffer uranium sickness
June 23 2003

Uranium expert Dr Doug Rokke.

Australian servicemen and women who served in the recent Iraq war were reporting symptoms of uranium sickness, a United States nuclear weapons expert said today.

Dr Douglas Rokke is a former US Army nuclear health physicist and was formerly the Pentagon's expert on the health effects of depleted uranium ammunition.

Speaking in Melbourne today, Dr Rokke said Iraqi women and children and American and Iraqi military personnel had reported respiratory illnesses and rashes after the recent conflict, and he had also been told of Australian servicemen and women with similar symptoms.

"That's the reports I received from the US Army medical department. That's something that needs to be verified and looked into," he said.

"When American soldiers are sick and the Iraqis are sick there's nothing that says an Australian soldier is going to be isolated when he goes through those areas and he is not going to become ill.

During operation Desert Storm in 1991 Dr Rokke led a team assigned to clean up uranium contamination caused by friendly fire.

"What we saw can be described in only three words - Oh my God! The wounds were horrible, the contamination was extensive," he said.

"Although myself and my team members wore respiratory and skin protection, that protection we know today does not provide any adequate protection against the inhalation, the ingestion, the absorption of uranium compounds."

He said he now suffered rashes, respiratory problems, kidney problems and cataracts related to his exposure to uranium.

Dr Rokke is in Australia to speak against the use of depleted uranium weapons, which he describes as a crime against humanity, creating a toxicological nightmare.

 

[CurtC]

Yeah, Rokke is the guy who says that DU is responsible for GWS. He claims that the people who were in his unit cleaning up these locations, are either all dead or all sick. I think he goes off to Australia because he has no credibility here.

 

[Segnosaur]

Although not specifically about depleted Uranium, Fumento does a complete debunking of the whole idea of gulf war syndrome (of which depleted uranium is a factor).

And while it is too early to say whether depleted uranium will lead to problems after the LATEST war, the experience from the first war (where depleted uranium was also used) is that the returning soldiers had no greater health defects than those who were not sent to Iraq. See: http://www.fumento.com/sugulf.html

Now, in reading the article, the doctor suggests banning depleted uranium weapons because they are a "crime against humanity". Even if they did cause a small health risk (again, its not supported by the evidence, but lets just pretend), the increased risk must be weighed against the alternatives: Other types of weapons will also have negative environmental impacts, and the removal of weapons which are extremely effective could extend the length of any conflict and cause more deaths as a result.

(Edited to add link.)

 

[John Harrison]

Dr. Rokke writes:

The subcommittee went on further to state that "Beta emitting products could get into the gastrointestinal tract from polluted water, or food, or air. From the air, they would get on the mucus of the nose, throat, bronchi, etc. and be swallowed. The effects would be local irritation just as in the bronchi and exposures of the same amount would be required. The stomach, caecum and rectum, where contents remain for longer periods than elsewhere would be most likely affected. It is conceivable that ulcers and perforations of the gut followed by death could be produced, even without an general effects from radiation".

This is all very interesting, but irrelevant to the issue since depleted uranium (U-238) is an alpha emitter, not a beta emitter. Dr. Rokke himself is more radioactive than an equal mass of depleted uranium. (All humans are radioactive because of small amounts of potassium-40 and carbon-14, both of which as beta sources are far more dangerous than U-238 is.)

 

[neutrino_cannon]

Off topic:


Is there a way to keep an armoured vehicle from being destroyed by DU weaponry? If not then I can't see why anyone would fight US tanks, seeing how effective their weapons are, and how ineffective other weapons are against them.

How would you stop a depleted uranium shell anyway? Are DU sabots any faster then a conventional shell? would reactive armour of some sort help?


Anyway, not to derail the thread or anything, but I would like to know.

 

[Larspeart]

All DU shells are is denser and heavier. there is NO nuclear ability in them, no radiation (hence the DEPLETED part of the name). The military in the US uses them because they are much better at punching through armor because of the strength at which they hit, and the fact that they don't fall about/shatter as easily as other rounds. They work very well against tanks, bunkers, bases, airfields, armored vehicles, etc. They are no more effective against troops and other 'soft' targets then conventional ammo.

 

[aerocontrols]

Is there a way to keep an armoured vehicle from being destroyed by DU weaponry? If not then I can't see why anyone would fight US tanks, seeing how effective their weapons are, and how ineffective other weapons are against them.

How would you stop a depleted uranium shell anyway? Are DU sabots any faster then a conventional shell? would reactive armour of some sort help?

You can stop a DU shell with thicker, heavier armor. More layers of steel are weight-prohibitive, however. The way to keep an armored vehicle from being destroyed by DU weaponry is to not get hit. It seems that the Iraqi army caught on to this fact after the previous war. This time, those who fought seemed to do so largely from ambush, and used small, light trucks rather than tanks for the most part.

If armor does little more than make you a slower target, it's no longer useful.

Here is a previous thread on the subject.

This one is good too.

MattJ

 

[aerocontrols]

All DU shells are is denser and heavier. there is NO nuclear ability in them, no radiation (hence the DEPLETED part of the name). The military in the US uses them because they are much better at punching through armor because of the strength at which they hit, and the fact that they don't fall about/shatter as easily as other rounds. They work very well against tanks, bunkers, bases, airfields, armored vehicles, etc. They are no more effective against troops and other 'soft' targets then conventional ammo.

They also combust upon impact, which results in a 'self-sharpening' projectile as it cuts through armor.

 

[aerocontrols]

New questions that may interest:

A shell hits a tank, penetrates its armor, and kills everyone inside. The tank's ammunition (shells and rockets and smoke launchers, other exotic technology etc...) burns, its interior burns, some of its advanced armor burns, much bad voodoo, up in smoke, and lingering around the crash.

[*]How toxic is the area around the tank?
[*]How toxic will the area around the tank be in 2 years?
[*]How much does this toxicity change if the tank is destroyed with DU rounds rather than lead or tungsten rounds?
[*]How much is changed about the toxicity of the area around the tank after 2 years if a lead or tungsten shell is used?

MattJ

 

[Larspeart]

Aero, good point about armor being useless once it to too heavy to use.

The best example of this is the fact that full suits of plate armor went out of use as soon as guns became strong enough to make the suits have to be too thick and heavy to be worth wearing.

Armor was indeed made well into the 15th century that could still stop rifled rounds (the best at that time, though rare). The problem was, the armor weighed over 200 pounds, making the wearing totally immobile in battle. It became totally impractical to wear it, and people started to realize that since you weren't gonna stop those bullets, mobility and ease of movement (ie: run and hide) woudl make far more sense.

Within 40-50 years, Europe went from being incased in full plate to NO armor whatsoever. And the British started wearing Bulls-Eyes for uniforms, lol!

Course, when the Spanish came to the maerica's armor proved useful again, because their enemy had no guns, and only very simple bows, arrows, spears, and clubs. A helmet and breastplate work VERY well against that kind of stuff.

 

[John Harrison]

Re: New questions that may interest:

[*]How toxic is the area around the tank?
[*]How toxic will the area around the tank be in 2 years?
[*]How much does this toxicity change if the tank is destroyed with DU rounds rather than lead or tungsten rounds?
[*]How much is changed about the toxicity of the area around the tank after 2 years if a lead or tungsten shell is used?
MattJ

From the various things I've read, the chemical toxicity is similar to lead, and the major organ that could be damaged is the kidneys (again, like lead poisoning). DU has a half life of 4.5 billion years, so it would basically be in the area forever depending on the soil/weather conditions and whatnot. The good thing about its long half life is that the decay is so slow that compared to a human lifetime it's indistinguishable from "stop", so the radiation danger is very low.

Some believe that inhaled DU dust can cause lung cancer, but there doesn't seem to be any hard evidence of that yet.

 

[CurtC]

I've seen a fair amount of anti-DU propaganda which states the half-life of 4.5 BYears with lots of exclamation points, as if a longer half-life is more dangerous. You see sites like that, and it's immediately apparent how the writer is not at all qualified to judge anything about radioactivity.

 

[neutrino_cannon]

So, correct me if I'm wrong but a lot of the worry comes from the dead t-62 that just got turned into modern art by a 120 mm sabot (how can the handlers get very poisoned if the DU is in sabots anyway?) right? and the concern is mostly over chemical toxcicity, as there is probably some dust floating around in the air after the DU round tore itself apart after penetration.

Doesn't sound a whole lot worse than conventional shells, since it sounds that the U-238 is only modestly radioactive.

 

[aerocontrols]

So, correct me if I'm wrong but a lot of the worry comes from the dead t-62 that just got turned into modern art by a 120 mm sabot (how can the handlers get very poisoned if the DU is in sabots anyway?) right? and the concern is mostly over chemical toxcicity, as there is probably some dust floating around in the air after the DU round tore itself apart after penetration.

Doesn't sound a whole lot worse than conventional shells, since it sounds that the U-238 is only modestly radioactive.

That is the threat.

It doesn't sound worse to me at all, which is what I was trying to get at with those 4 questions up there.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Without knowing anything about the toxity or other risks from DU, I want to point out that exposure comes not primarily from the few shells that happend to hit a tank, but from the large majority that did not. The gun in an A10 fires several thousand rounds per minute. Large areas are likely to be literally peppered with DU shells (and other kinds of ammo, obviously). War isn't exactly environment friendly......

Hans

 

[Jon_in_london]

Explosive reactive armour may be enough to deflect a DU APDS round.

Western tanks like the Abrahms and Challenger use Chobham armour wich is top notch but not invincible- it can probably be penetrated by a T-72's gun at an intermidate range. The trick is not to get hit. And western fire-control systmes, coupled with DU rounds mean that the western tanks can knock the stuffing out of soviet-type tanks before they are able to reply effectively.

 

[Leif Roar]

So, correct me if I'm wrong but a lot of the worry comes from the dead t-62 that just got turned into modern art by a 120 mm sabot (how can the handlers get very poisoned if the DU is in sabots anyway?)

The sabot is discarded shortly after the round leaves the barrel - it's only an aid as the round is actually fired.

 

[CurtC]

MRC_Hans wrote:
I want to point out that exposure comes not primarily from the few shells that happend to hit a tank, but from the large majority that did not.

You sure about that? Everything that I've read said that DU is only dangerous immediately after it hits a tank, because the uranium is vaporized, or at least atomized, and you don't want to breathe the toxic dust. I haven't seen anything indicating that DU is dangerous if it hasn't hit something really really hard.

 

[Jon_in_london]

Heres the MoD's take on it all.

http://www.mod.uk/issues/depleted_uranium/

 

[MRC_Hans]

You sure about that? Everything that I've read said that DU is only dangerous immediately after it hits a tank, because the uranium is vaporized, or at least atomized, and you don't want to breathe the toxic dust. I haven't seen anything indicating that DU is dangerous if it hasn't hit something really really hard.

Believe me, at the muzzle-speed of these weapons, the ground IS really really hard.

Hans