Martin Howard on thu 11 jan 01
This thread has been discussed on Quaker-B and may be of interest to Clayart
members who use uranium in any form.
Martin Howard
Webb's Cottage Pottery
Woolpits Road, Great Saling
BRAINTREE, Essex CM7 5DZ
England
martin@webbscottage.co.uk
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Wilson"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 11:28 PM
Subject: Depleted Uranium
> I just thought that Friends might value some background information on
> depleted Uranium.
>
> Natural Uranium is more than 99% composed of the isotope U-238, which
> happens to be of little use for bombs. Only about 0.7% is U-235, and
> after that has been removed for use in bombs and reactors the material
> is called depleted. But for most practical purposes depleted uranium is
> identical to uranium after ordinary mining and refining. It's a very
> heavy metal that you can handle without stringent precautions.
>
> It decays slowly (half life about 4 thousand million years), releasing
> alpha particles. These can't penetrate the skin because they are
> strongly absorbed by tissue (but see below). The loss of the alpha
> particle changes the Uranium into daughter products such as Thorium.
> When you see people crawling over wrecked tanks with Geiger counters,
> they are looking for the beta decay particles emitted by these
> daughters, which have a very short half life (a few days) and are much
> easier to detect than the alphas. After the uranium is refined there are
> no daughter elements present, but they 'grow in' to an equilibrium
> concentration over time.
>
> Alpha emitters like Uranium present almost no radiation hazard while
> they are outside the body. However, if a small particle is ingested or
> inhaled and becomes fixed within the body, it will deliver an intense
> dose to the cells that it is touching because they will absorb almost
> all the alpha energy that escapes from the particle. The danger is that
> a cancer may start from one of these cells.
>
> When a DU shell hits a target the uranium is melted, splashed around and
> burned, processes which are almost optimal for the production of very
> fine oxide particles. These can be ingested or inhaled. Once this has
> happened, they may well lodge within the body. Besides its radiological
> effect, Uranium is quite toxic chemically.
>
> What all this means is:
>
> 1. The military must have been aware of these facts when these munitions
> were first thought of. It's all in text books from the early 1960's.
>
> 2. Anyone who comes into contact with this dust (which remains active
> almost indefinitely) will stand an enhanced chance of developing
> cancers, particularly lung cancers. These will take years to develop,
> perhaps decades, but there is little that can be done once the particle
> has been taken into the body.
>
> 3. Any effects that have been reported up to now are more likely to be
> due to other, faster-acting, causes. The military use many things that
> are dangerous, and from what I know I would be surprised if the reported
> excess leukaemia cases (for instance) were due to DU. It's probably too
> soon.
>
> 4. The use of these weapons in areas which are to be occupied
> subsequently by civilians (especially areas with a dry climate suitable
> for spreading dust) could be expected to give rise to illness and death
> for many, many years after the war. These munitions are probably
> comparable with mines in this respect. However, the slow and diffuse
> nature of the effects is much less startling than a mine explosion and
> will not produce harrowing photographs of limbless children.
>
> 5. It is reasonable to infer that the military understood that long-term
> civilian deaths are likely to result from use of these munitions, but
> were persuaded by their evident military utility into the hope that no
> one would notice that fact. I hope that assessment will prove to be
> incorrect.
>
> 6. I don't think anyone who is aware of these facts could feel
> comfortable with the reported lack of any attempt to keep children away
> from wrecked vehicles and other known impact points in Kosovo. I would
> not like to see my children or grandchildren within a kilometre of these
> places. Ever.
>
> --
> In Peace,
> Roger Wilson - - - - - - - - - - trsw@satterth.co.uk
> Liverpool Preparative Meeting,
> Religious Society of Friends (Quakers)
> Hardshaw West Monthly Meeting, England - Sum quod sum
>
Vivi Escolar on fri 12 jan 01
There are soldiers in europe reportedly falling sick with cancers which are
reportedly due to exposure to depleted uranium during peace keeping missions
in Bosnia and Kosovo, known as The Balkan's Syndrome. Right now there are
debates and a lot of hooha-hooha going on at OTAN about depleted uranium
usage. personally I'd stay away from the stuff. I do not believe the
military when it says there's no real proof of the link between cancers and
depleted uranium, they just postpone admitting the truth until it's too
late. It will be interesting how all this developes. Vivi
Mike Gordon on sat 13 jan 01
clayarters,
Not believing what you hear from the Military or the Pentagon
spokspeople concerning depleated uranium is sound advice - mind you they
still claim the Dioxins in "agent orange" sprayed over Viet Nam wasn't
responsible for the many ailments produced in our troops on the ground
or the handlers of such. Not to mention the Viet Namese people, Mike
Gordon
| |
|
