• 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.

Depleted Uranium Again

Status
Not open for further replies.
a_unique_person said:


The article does not claim he is getting sick from radiation, and points out that DU is low on radiation. What it is saying is that once it is used and vapourises, it is extremely toxic, even for a period of time later.

It doesn't really matter why it is toxic, I suppose, just that it is extremely toxic. It is kind of like the cluster bomb problem. The weapons guys want the best weapons, with no consideration for the after effects of their use.

Did you read the article I linked to? The one where people who work with the stuff on a daily basis haven't shown any ill effects?

Maybe they did consider the after effects and came up with a logical conlcusion, rather than a the hysterical conclusion that you would seem to prefer.
 
If anyone has access to the Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, volume 64, issues 2-3, which came out at the beginning of this year, is devoted entirely to the effects of Depleted Uranium. Some of the articles which might be of interest include:

Properties, use and health effects of depleted uranium (DU): a general overview, Pages 93-112
A. Bleise, P. R. Danesi and W. Burkart

Characterisation of projectiles composed of depleted uranium, Pages 133-142
R. Pöllänen, T. K. Ikäheimonen, S. Klemola, V. -P. Vartti, K. Vesterbacka, S. Ristonmaa, T. Honkamaa, P. Sipilä, I. Jokelainen, A. Kosunen et al.

The biokinetics of uranium migrating from embedded DU fragments, Pages 205-225
R. W. Leggett and T. C. Pellmar

Military use of depleted uranium: assessment of prolonged population exposure, Pages 227-236
Cristina Giannardi and Daniele Dominici

Depleted uranium residual radiological risk assessment for Kosovo sites, Pages 237-245
Marco Durante and Mariagabriella Pugliese
 
Broadly, what did the articles conclude? Especially as concerns the effects on health and population risk assessments (I'm assuming that you have a copy of the magazine yourself ;) )
 
richardm said:
(I'm assuming that you have a copy of the magazine yourself ;) )

Yes, but I've only just found it after a literature search, so I've only scanned the abstracts. I shall give the full articles a read and get back to you all.

The reason I did the literature search in the first place was because, by coincidence, the latest email alert from Medialens (UK mediawatch types like FAIR) appeared in my inbox this morning. Devoted to an article about Iraq by John Sweeney in the Spectator, in which he criticises John Pilger's claims of the increase in the rate of cancer in Iraq since 1991, they spend some time on the subject of DU.

Rokke is the first name mentioned and is quoted at length - which sets alarm bells ringing. However they also quote the following:

Michio Kaku, a professor of physics at City University of New York, has said:

"Ultimately, when the final chapter is written, DU will have a large portion of
the blame [for health problems in Iraq]." (Scott Peterson, 'DU's fallout in Iraq
and Kuwait: a rise in illness?' The Christian Science Monitor, April 29, 1999)

Siegwart-Horst Gunther, a German epidemiologist and president of Yellow Cross
International, set up to protect children's health, said his studies in Iraq
since 1991 had led him to believe that contact with DU weapon debris was linked
to "sharp increases in infectious diseases and immune deficiencies, Aids-like
syndromes, kidney disorders and congenital deformities". (Richard Norton-Taylor,
'Uranium shells warning for Kosovo alternative maybe: MoD accused of hiding
truth', the Guardian, July 31, 1999)

I did a search to see if I could find any peer-reviewed literature by either Gunther or Kaku, but was unsuccessful (but did find the J. Environ. Radioactiv. stuff) - anyone know anything about their claims?

Medialens call this "serious scientific evidence" - if Kaku and Gunther haven't published (and Rokke definitely hasn't), then my definition of scientific evidence differs from theirs substantially and I have half a mind to email them about it (I'm sure they're trembling at the prospect).

The article is not yet available at their website, I can post a link when it is, if anyone's interested - although I suspect it more properly belongs in the P&CE&H forum.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom