Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Depleted Uranium

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Depleted Uranium - why do we hear so little about it?
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Big_Bird

Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...

Posted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 9:02 am Post subject: Depleted Uranium - why do we hear so little about it?

Britain and America have been (illegally) using depleted uranium since the first gulf war.

So far it has destroyed thousands of lives, including those of British and American servicemen.

There are dejected young women in Iraq who have resigned themselves to a life of childlessness, because they live in areas heavily bombarded by DU in 1991, and they've seen the monstrosities borne by other women. Children with no eyes, missing part of their skulls, fused fingers and some that barely looked human. They are too afraid of what they will produce.

DU remains in the environment for 4.5 billion years, and will continue to pollute, maim and kill for generations and generations, even if we discontinue use tomorrow.

Over the years, I've occasionally read articles that touch on the subject, but considering that this is a heinious war crime, it amazes me how little it is discussed.

The Guardian occasionally runs an article about it:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uranium/0,7368,419839,00.html

Quote:

Our gift to Iraq

AL Kennedy
Thursday July 10, 2003

The Guardian

Due to the dreadfully unpatriotic behaviour of Robin Cook and the BBC, many of you are now experiencing what we might call worry.
You're mumbling anxious nonsense like, "Surely, it was obvious that Iraq's new democratically poisonous water supplies, freedom-loving house-to-house searches, its sexy, western-style press censorship and friendly, illegal interrogations might not entirely please Iraqis."

Why, I'll bet you're allowing phrases like "playing Russian roulette with other people's lives" and "blood-soaked, greedy, Westminster scum" to creep into otherwise respectable conversations. You may even worry that Tony Blair has misplaced his soul. But worries cause disease. So to keep us all happy and healthy, let's focus on the one real feelgood factor left in Iraq - depleted uranium.

That it is left all over Iraq just shows how much we care, because DU is gorgeous stuff - gorgeous uranium-238 with a dash of gorgeous uranium-235. It's cheap, if you're subsidising nuclear power to the hilt, and frankly we have whole slag heaps of it to dump. It's almost twice as heavy as lead, so it's great for armour plating, radiation shielding, ballast in missiles and aircraft counterweights.

It's splendid for shells and - better yet - it's pyrophoric. Which is to say, if you bang it into anything, it produces blasting amounts of heat.

War, naturally, involves many things banging into each other. If we're not wasting our own troops by mistake, there's always enemy action to consider, plus accidents and malfunctions - it's not all shiny flightsuits and blasphemous profiteering: combat has it's dark side, too.

A few of you have heard that DU is toxic and radioactive, and maybe you're fretting about that. With so many vehicles containing DU and so much DU ammunition rattling about and the possibilities of violence being fairly high, DU could be released into the environment and come into contact with people, even British people.

And I won't lie to you, there is a tiny chance that the tons of DU fired at and in Iraq may also have landed there. And some of it may have been slightly damaged on impact. But that's no cause for concern, because measures are in place to deal absolutely effectively with every possible scenario.

First, to prevent heavy metal poisoning from DU, we recommend that all personnel in a vehicle hit by DU, or in a vehicle made of DU and hit by something else, or in a vehicle hit by anything and contain ing DU ammunition or parts, should aim to be somewhere else during impact. If this proves impossible, DU should not be inhaled, allowed into open wounds or swallowed. Given that personnel do not always wear respiratory equipment and protective suits (because they're hot and may not work), we advise holding their breath until operations are concluded.

Personnel should avoid being wounded and, above all, should avoid being wounded near DU dust or DU shrapnel. If they are wounded by DU, they should cover wounds with duct tape, to prevent contaminating others. They should also refrain from eating shrapnel, licking dust, licking each other, or having meals without washing their hands. They should avoid going to the toilet for the duration.

Second, to prevent radiation poisoning, personnel should be informed that DU produces mainly alpha particles. These are a good type of particle because they can barely penetrate paper, never mind skin. Of course, they're the worst possible kind to have under your skin, but the recommended precautions will prevent this. If they do end up in your body, cover yourself in duct tape and fill in the form that the medic will give you at the end of his forked stick.

The best way to avoid contamination is to keep away from battlefields, sand dunes where other personnel have been decontaminated and any damaged vehicles, buildings, craters and corpses. If you suspect that an area has been hit by DU, look for tell-tale black uranium oxide dust, melted uranium, melted entry and exit holes, and radioactive shrapnel.

If you find DU to be present, hold your breath, eat nothing, shut your eyes and wash immediately in sterile water for not less than one hour. Then fill in another form.

By employing these simple procedures, British personnel can keep themselves almost healthy, at least until they get home. Iraqis exposed to DU will already be home, so that's one weight off their minds. But for those who are still troubled, here are Tony Blair's three DU safety rules:
1) Minimise exposure - get troops and innocent civilians to deal with the shit for you.
2) Maximise distance - stay far away from combat zones.
3) Use shielding - place maximum spin between you and any contamination source.

Follow these rules and you too can be happy, healthy and worry-free.

Note to Joo: The article above is 'tongue in cheek.' In simple English, that means it is intended to be somewhat humourous.

Big_Bird

Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...

Posted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 9:04 am Post subject:

Quote:

Don't be misled by the term 'depleted uranium'. Like spent fuel' from civilian reactors, depleted uranium is highly toxic and carcinogenic and has a half life of some 4.4 billion years. -- Alice Slater

NATO is trying to save Kosovars, but if they leave Kosovo filled with depleted uranium, it's not a happy situation. They [would be] poisoning them. If you are going to use depleted uranium in warfare, it's better to drop an atom bomb and kill 30,000 people instantaneously rather than killing them over 20 or 30 years. -- Hari Sharma

Desert Storm veterans along with the people of Iraq and Kuwait were victims of one of the latest military experiments on human beings. I believe that the ignorance was culpable and criminal. -- Rosalie Bertell

We came across a lot of destroyed vehicles and dead bodies as we moved up through Kuwait. Nobody ever told us to stay away from the vehicles that might have been contaminated with depleted uranium. -- Victor Suell, radio operator, US Marines

In Iraq in 1997, I discovered monstrous births of deformed babies and old men who, amid the wreckage which the Allies had blasted with our uranium shells, told me of daughters with breast and liver cancer. -- Robert Fisk

There is now overwhelming evidence that use of depleted uranium is killing peacekeepers from Allied countries now based in the Balkans. It is killing the soldiers who went into the Balkans when the Serbs withdrew, and it is killing the people there who we went to war to supposedly protect. It is also killing the ordinary people of Iraq who have to suffer the triple pressures of a despotic regime, international sanctions, and death from depleted uranium. Using depleted uranium is clearly immoral, but it is also against international law and UN conventions which prohibit the use of weapons which cause indiscriminate deaths and injury. -- Caroline Lucas MEP

Another link: http://www.heureka.clara.net/gaia/du.htm

bucheon bum

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 9:54 am Post subject:

for the same reason the world did nothing in rwanda, uganda, sudan, etc etc.

W.T.Carl

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 10:01 am Post subject:

Who says that those rounds are illegal? Usually a bunch of pin headed lefties that don't know what they are talking about.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:17 pm Post subject:

This source is biased but so are many of Big Bird's sources. Why not hear both sides?

Quote:

07 October 2002

Fact Sheet on the Health Effects of Depleted Uranium
Studies find no evidence linking DU to serious health risks

Following is a Department of State fact sheet on the health effects of depleted uranium, based on U.S., U.N. and other investigative sources:

World Health Organization and other scientific research studies indicate Depleted Uranium poses no serious health risks.

Depleted Uranium has not affected the health of Gulf War veterans.

There have been no independent studies related to Depleted Uranium inside Iraq. Since 1991, Iraq has refused to allow health inspectors assess the alleged impact of Depleted Uranium.

Depleted Uranium does not cause birth defects. Iraqi military use of chemical and nerve agents in the 1980's and 1990's is the likely cause of alleged birth defects among Iraqi children.

What is Depleted Uranium?

Depleted Uranium (DU) is what is left from natural uranium when most of the radioactive isotopes U234 and U235 have been removed. Depleted Uranium is forty percent less radioactive than the natural "background" uranium that is prevalent in the earth's air, water and soil. Depleted Uranium is hard and dense; it is almost twice as dense as lead.

What is DU used for?

Due to it density, depleted uranium is used in aprons to protect patients in hospitals and dentists' offices from excessive x-rays, and as ballast in 747 planes and in the keels of large sailboats.

Again, because of its strength and density, depleted uranium is sometimes used in defensive plating on armored vehicles and other platforms to deflect ammunition rounds that might otherwise kill or wound personnel inside the vehicle. It has been a component in munitions used against hostile tanks and other armored vehicles.

Isn't uranium highly radioactive and therefore dangerous to humans and the environment?

No. Studies conducted through March 2002 consistently indicate the health risks associate with radiation from exposures to depleted uranium are low - so low as to be statistically undetectable, with one potential exception: Radiation doses for soldiers with embedded fragments of depleted uranium.

Uranium is a naturally occurring chemical element that is mildly radioactive. Humans and animals have always ingested particles of this naturally occurring substance from the air, water and soil. Only when uranium is enriched to produce material for nuclear reactors is the radiation level hazardous, requiring very careful handling and storage. Depleted uranium is roughly 127 times less radioactive than 90% enriched uranium.

Natural and depleted uranium have not been linked to any health risks. There have been 16 epidemiological studies of some 30,000 workers in U.S. radiation industries. Some of these workers, particularly in the early days of the industry, had very significant exposures to uranium particles. According to scientists in the field, there have been no recorded cases of illness among these workers as a result of their exposure to uranium.

Can exposure to DU cause leukemia?

According to environmental health experts, it is medically impossible to contract leukemia as a result of exposure to uranium or depleted uranium.

Can exposure to DU cause cancer?

Cancer rates in almost 19,000 highly exposed uranium industry workers who worked at Oak Ridge National Laboratory projects between 1943 and 1947 have been examined, and no excess cancers were observed through 1974. Other epidemiological studies of lung cancer in uranium mill and metal processing plant workers have found either no excess cancers or attributed them to known carcinogens other than uranium, such as radon.

Can DU cause kidney damage?

Recent studies have examined possible health effect from exposure to depleted uranium from chemical heavy-metal effects, unrelated to radiation. The best understood of these potential health risks, as determined by high-dose animal experiments, is kidney damage.

These studies indicate, however, kidney damage would require an amount of uranium in the human body would have to absorb quantities well above the level present in soldiers who have survived a direct contact with vehicles struck by DU munitions.

Some media reports suggest that dust from depleted uranium munitions and armor has caused health effects among soldiers and civilians in areas where such armaments have been used.

According to a number of comprehensive studies and reviews, no health effects have been seen in U.S. soldiers who are known to have had substantial exposure to depleted uranium dust and fragments.

During the Gulf War, 15 U.S. Bradley Fighting Vehicles and nine Abrams tanks were mistakenly fired on and hit by shells containing depleted uranium. Thirty-three survivors of these incidents, roughly half of whom have retained fragments of depleted uranium in their bodies, have been studied in the Depleted Uranium Follow-Up Program (DUP) of the Baltimore Veterans' Affairs Medical Center.

To date, although these individuals have an array of health problems related to traumatic injuries resulting from their wounds, none of those studied had any clinically significant medical problems caused by the chemical or radiological toxicity of depleted uranium.

A survey of publicly available studies concludes the health risks to the general population in and near a war zone are low.

Among the U.S. and international groups whose research support the this finding are the World Health Organization; the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP); the United States Veterans Administration; the RAND Corporation; and Britain's Royal Society.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/state/1007dufactsheet.htm

Can BB find someone (or better a few people ) who is (are) somewhat sympathetic to the US (especially in Iraq) but still opposes depleted uranium?

My own guess is that DU is harmful, but I would bet it is not as bad as BigB's sources claim.

peemil

Joined: 09 Feb 2003
Location: Koowoompa

Posted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 4:20 pm Post subject:

You know Joo... That's what the US government claimed about Agent Orange... We all know how that one turned out.

The Bobster

Joined: 15 Jan 2003

Posted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 4:44 pm Post subject:

The Guardian is biased ... but The US State Department is not? Okaaaay ...

Hollywoodaction

Joined: 02 Jul 2004

Posted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 5:33 pm Post subject:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

This source is biased but so are many of Big Bird's sources. Why not hear both sides?

Quote:

It's bad stuff, no doubt about it. Even if DU is less radioactive than the naturally occuring uranium, it would still be fairly dangerous. Low level radiation is known to have harmful effects on the human body, after all. Don't forget that the people who come in contact with shell fragments, either by handling the pieces or inhaling the dust, are exposed to far greater concentrations of the stuff that you would expect to find in nature. (And quoting the results of a study carried out in 40's and early 70's is hardly convincing to me. It provides little information about how the research was conducted, let alone the names of the researchers so that we can find the article in which the results were published. Knowing what I know about scientific research, the findings would have been greatly limited by the techniques in use at that time. In scientific terms, the study might as well been done in the Stone Ages.)

With that aside, I agree with you that it's always good to look at the other side of the coin, but in this case it's the US military. "http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/state/1007dufactsheet.htm".

It's not an unbiased source, I'd say. Don't forget that these are the same people who denied that Agent Orange (loaded with dioxins, the same class of chemicals that were used to poison the Ukrainian politician) had any impact on the health of the civilian population that were sprayed or on the troups who handled it. It took them ten years to admit that the Gulf War Syndrome is a real problem, although they put the blame on Iraq nerve agents instead of the cocktail of unsafe drugs given to the troups. This leaves little doubt that they would cover up the facts about DU if it was indeed harmful. Doing otherwise would open the door to another round of lawsuits from veterans and civilians.

bucheon bum

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 7:26 pm Post subject:

Knowing my country's past with this kind of thing, I'd tend to believe it's some nasty stuff. The pentagon and DOD have no legitmacy when it comes to this type of thing.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 8:08 pm Post subject:

The Bobster wrote:

The Guardian is biased ... but The US State Department is not?

Okaaaay ...

I said they both were. But the State dept. is using the WHO as a source.

Big_Bird

Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...

Posted: Thu Dec 16, 2004 12:13 am Post subject:

W.T.Carl wrote:

Who says that those rounds are illegal? Usually a bunch of pin headed lefties that don't know what they are talking about.

The Geneva and Hague Conventions.

Check the link I gave:http://www.heureka.clara.net/gaia/du.htm

Quote:

The use of DU weapons is prohibited under the terms of the 1980 Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects. The use of DU weapons is also prohibited under Article 35 of Additional Protocol 1 of the 1977 Geneva Convention which states 'it is prohibited to employ methods or means of warfare which are intended, or may be expected, to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment.'

And here is another one: http://www.sundayherald.com/32522

Quote:

laws which are breached by the use of DU shells include: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the Charter of the United Nations; the Genocide Convention; the Convention Against Torture; the four Geneva Conventions of 1949; the Conventional Weapons Convention of 1980; and the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, which expressly forbid employing 'poison or poisoned weapons' and 'arms, projectiles or materials calculated to cause unnecessary suffering'. All of these laws are designed to spare civilians from unwarranted suffering in armed conflicts.

Big_Bird

Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...

Posted: Thu Dec 16, 2004 12:19 am Post subject:

Joo, you can to this day find scientists who (for the right fee) will claim there is no link between cigarettes and lung cancer. I'd bet the guys who compiled your lovely report would think twice about writhing naked on an old abandoned DU armoured tank in the Iraqi desert...

Big_Bird

Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...

Posted: Thu Dec 16, 2004 12:23 am Post subject:

The Bobster wrote:

The Guardian is biased ... but The US State Department is not?

Okaaaay ...

Oh Bobster come on...

Don't you know that The Guardian is completely run by holocaust deniers and 911 conspiracists in cahoots with that wicked little mutt of George Bush and funded by Fidel Castro himself ? Cool

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Thu Dec 16, 2004 1:53 am Post subject:

Big_Bird wrote:

Joo, you can to this day find scientists who (for the right fee) will claim there is no link between cigarettes and lung cancer.

I'd bet the guys who compiled your lovely report would think twice about writhing naked on an old abandoned DU armoured tank in the Iraqi desert...

Well they quote the WHO - take it up with them.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Thu Dec 16, 2004 1:53 am Post subject:

Big_Bird wrote:

W.T.Carl wrote:

Who says that those rounds are illegal? Usually a bunch of pin headed lefties that don't know what they are talking about.

The Geneva and Hague Conventions.

Check the link I gave:http://www.heureka.clara.net/gaia/du.htm

Quote:

And here is another one: http://www.sundayherald.com/32522

Quote:

Well then the guys in Geneva should classify DU shells as being that kind of thing.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Page 1 of 5

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe