Depleted Uranium

[Xiahou]

While I agree with you that the radiation probably isn't the cause of the problems (the toxity of uranium is far more likely), the poor defense in that article makes me think of the tobacco industry a few years back...

So it's the toxicity that's the problem, not the radiation? Let's see, what other metals have similar toxicity...... lead?

Further, if that's true- it has absolutely nothing to do with the cancer claims in the original article. Renal failure would be the main effect of exposure to high levels of such metals.

[Ironside]

So it's the toxicity that's the problem, not the radiation? Let's see, what other metals have similar toxicity...... lead?

Further, if that's true- it has absolutely nothing to do with the cancer claims in the original article. Renal failure would be the main effect of exposure to high levels of such metals.

Only a guess, as it usually takes time to develop diseases from radiation, unless the dosages are quite high. How much U-238 does every munition hold?

But the radiation is still an issue, as it increases with time as U-238 in balance with nature is 16 times more radioactive then pure U-238, making older uranium sources more dangerous than newer ones. And unlike Cesium-137, the radiation doesn't really go away with time due to the long half-life.

Does your goverment treat your depleted uranium waste in the same way as lead?

Can't respond on exactly how the toxity of uranium affects the body, haven't red studies about it.

[Xiahou]

This is from a link I posted earlier:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

During March-June 1999 thousands of 30 millimeter caliber rounds stuffed with depleted-uranium were fired over Kosovo, mainly by the American A-10 aircraft. The core of each round contained about 0.82 kilograms of almost pure uranium-238, from which its 14 radioactive daughters and uranium-235 were separated. This depleted uranium is much less radioactive than natural uranium normally present in the soil and rock.

Natural uranium is in equilibrium with radioactive isotopes of radium, radon, thorium, protoactine, polonium, lead and bismuth. During its decay it emits energetic alpha particles and very weak beta and gamma radiation. Alpha particles have little penetrative power in the air and in human tissues.

The total mass of depleted uranium dispersed over Kosovo was at most 25 tons. The radioactivity of one round was about 10 megabecquerels (MBq). Assuming that 30,000 rounds were fired, about 300,000 MBq of uranium-238 activity were dispersed in Kosovo's environment (10,887 square kilometers). Yet, the natural uranium-238 in a one-centimeter layer of Kosovo soil emits about 100,000,000 MBq. Thus, the surface layer of soil in Kosovo contains about 300 times more natural uranium than was dispersed there by NATO weaponry.

Local concentrations of depleted uranium may be higher than the average concentration of natural uranium in the soil at the target sites. From these patches of activity depleted uranium may be re-suspended into the air, and may also enter the food chain. This, however, should not lead to any observable medical consequences.

The weak beta and gamma radiation does not pose a serious radiation protection problem. In fact, the radiation protection standards for depleted uranium are based on its chemical toxicity, not radiotoxicity. It is similar to other heavy metals (such lead, cadmium, or mercury), and like these other metals at high doses uranium is toxic stuff.

Experimental and epidemiological studies carried out over the past 50 years suggest that the main adverse effect of uranium-238 is a chemical impairment of the renal function. Secondary protection standards for uranium-238 (for example concentration limits in air and food) are based on a limit of 3 micrograms of uranium per gram of kidney.

In epidemiological studies of more than 32,000 nuclear workers exposed to uranium between 1943 and 1986, no other health impairment other than renal problems was observed. Among these workers the general mortality was lower than in general population, and mortality due to all cancers and leukemia was also lower.

Among about 150,000 soldiers, who for various periods of time were in Kosovo between March 1999 and the end of 2000, 17 have so far died due to leukemia. This corresponds to about 11 deaths per 100,000 soldiers. The annual leukemia death rate in the United Kingdom is 11 per 100,000. Thus, the rate of soldiers dying due to leukemia seems to fit the European norm.

A few years ago "clusters" of leukemia were found in several countries, in which morbidity of leukemia was up to 10-fold higher than the general population. The first such cluster was discovered in the village of Seascale, near the Sellafield nuclear fuel reprocessing plant in the UK. The excess was reported in a television program in November 1983 and similar clusters were later found in few other places in Europe, Canada and the US. Initially, radioactive emissions from nuclear installations were suspected to be the cause of the clusters. However, it was realized quite quickly that clusters appear at other non-nuclear sites, where migration of large number of people occurred.

In an extensive review of the issue the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) concluded that a possible explanation for the cluster was the spread of infection resulting from the mixing of populations from urban and rural areas. One might expect such a phenomenon to occur among large military formations. But it seems that this in not the case in Kosovo, where incidence of leukemia rather fits the European norm.

The shortest latency time for leukemia induced by ionizing radiation is two years. As this disease started to appear among the soldiers much earlier, and there were no reports on a dramatic increase of renal problems, the cause of leukemias in Kosovo, does not seem to be radiation of depleted uranium, but rather a natural one.

[Vladimir]

I'm sorry, I stopped reading after the first sentence:

During March-June 1999 thousands of 30 millimeter caliber rounds stuffed with depleted-uranium were fired over Kosovo, mainly by the American A-10 aircraft.

Anyone with any degree of familiarity with munitions realizes that it's either millimeter or caliber, not both.

[Xiahou]

Anyone with any degree of familiarity with munitions realizes that it's either millimeter or caliber, not both.

If you want to dismiss an entire article over that I guess it's up to you....Although, caliber just means diameter.

In firearms, the caliber is the diameter of the inside of the barrel. In a rifled barrel the distance is measured between the lands.

If the measurement is in inches then the caliber (abbreviated to cal) is quoted as decimal of an inch, so a (smallbore) rifle with a diameter of 0.22 inch is a .22 cal ("twenty-two caliber").

Calibers of weapons can be referred to in metric, as in a "caliber of eighty-eight millimetres" (88 mm) or "a hundred five-millimetre caliber gun" (sometimes abbreviated as '105 mm gun').

Small arms range in bore size from approximately .17 cal. up to .50 cal. Arms used to hunt big game may be as large as .80 caliber. In the middle of the 19th century, muskets and muzzle-loading rifles were .58 cal or larger.

From Wikipedia.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Xiahou is right - the calibre of a weapon or round is measured in millimetres (or inches or whatever unit of measurement).

Sometimes people use the shorthand of 'nine millimetre pistol' or '155 calibre gun' but it is only shorthand.

calibre

/kalibr/ (US caliber)

• noun 1 quality of character or level of ability. 2 the internal diameter of a gun barrel, or the diameter of a bullet or shell.

[Vladimir]

Yes, but when you see what are usually two mutually exclusive terms strung together it doesn't inspire confidence. Quite often confusing the two can lead to injury or death, i.e. firing a 10mm bullet from a .40 cal pistol, etc.