Depleted Uranium Tipped Weapons

[ambushed]

@Boy Scout11

Believe it or not, on other boards that I have spoken on, the things I have spoken about have been seen in the public sector after I spoke on them, such as part of dyslexia that I spoke on…

Uh, oh. How shockingly creepy!

It’s exceedingly rare that one encounters genuine delusions of power and grandeur in all their psychopathological glory so directly.

Let’s all back away slowly from the nice man…

… now, RUN!

[Jurph]

@ambushed

For what it’s worth, Jurph, your cites have long been discredited.

See, for just one example of such discrediting: The Science of the Silver Bullet, in Scientific American. I can supply additional discrediting citations if you ask.

Thanks, ambushed. Like InsidiousCorvette said, I just grabbed the first five or six websites off the top of the pile from Google, as examples of things that one could link to, if one were so inclined. That inclination would require that the person involved was actually interested in a real debate of the material facts. Ah, well… maybe someday.

My first cite in this thread – the Washington Post article – is the only one I’ve read in enough detail to confidently stand behind. I still stand behind it, by the way, if anyone is interested in debating the proposition. I still contend that DU is dangerous only as a heavy metal, and that its oxides might pose some danger in large doses.

As for you, BoyScout11, it’s that time again. I’m going to quote and refute your bullshit until you start saying something that (a) makes sense and (b) is backed up by cited facts. Stand back, kids, this could get ugly.

@BoyScout11

You prove beyond a shodow of a doubt, that you do not read and comprehend.

No, watch: I prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you neither read, nor comprehend.

No, you did not read and fully comprehend all that has been offered here, but that’s not surprising, as you have shown the propensity to twist and turn other peoples words and by the way, like many before you, I do notice that you try to make people answer things over and over again, wasting their time and energy.

No, it’s like this. I try, over and over, to make you answer the same things because you haven’t yet answered me.

This is the last I answer you.

No, for that, you would have had to answer me at least once.

It came out in the wash, (if you had been comprehending,) everything I claimed in my origional piece, except for the DU turning into shards that cut, but it has been established in this thread, that it produces glass or ceramic spheres, that do enter the blood stream.

There’s one thing missing: they’re your claims and you have not yet cited any definitive proof.

Furthermore, as this glass circulates in the bloodstream, even as small as it is, not one of you can prove that as small as some of the veins in the brain are, as well as thruout the body, that these spheres cannot lead to blockages within these veins.

The burden of proof is on you, yadda yadda, blah blah blah, prove your assertions… message repeats. The burden of proof is on you, yadda yadda, blah blah blah, prove your assertions…

I also pointed out, that nothing else in the bloodstream is a solid, except for plaque and we all know plaque can kill and that it is the only other thing that is hard within the blood. The blood has nothing hard in it, for a reason.

Actually, blood is a two-phase flow. The plasma is the liquid, but the platelets and corpuscles are both microscopic solid objects in suspension. The blood needs those solid objects in it. For a reason.

I would further point out, that I believe at one of the times in debating these issues, that one of the problems pointed out by the medical community, was that some of these patients presented blotchy skin. The blotchy skin I believe, COULD be caused by these little spheres blocking the blood flow to the cappilaries, just beneath the skin.

That’s nice. Do you have a cite? I’d like to see you link to a webpage where a doctor is quoted about “blotchy skin” being a symptom reported by returning veterans. I’d like to see you link to any webpage. I’d like to see you admit that you’re debating an issue about which you are grossly underinformed. I’d like to see you do just a little bit of background research instead of stating that you “believe” this, and “strongly believe” that. And while I’m dreaming, I’d like to see the Red Sox win the series this year.

A quick postscript and aside to ExTank: Thanks for your service.

[monsterbob]

@ambushed

Your claims are laughable, uninformed nonsense, bob. Your cite is by a nun with a political agenda who lacked nearly all of the scientific data and has long since been utterly discredited by genuine scientific research. That site, along with all the others that try to make the same points, remains active and frequently cited only because her bullshit is appealing to conspiracy nutjobs. It’s called confirmation bias – look into it.

Since you have no clue as to what you’re saying, let me elaborate a bit about Alpha radiation: It’s harmful radius of action is measured in microns! It is so pathetically weak that it can be completely and totally stopped and eliminated by a single-sheet thickness of paper!

In order to be harmful to health, the DU dust and its attendant alpha emissions must lodge itself almost impossibly within bone marrow. It’s theoretically possible, but you’d expect it to happen perhaps about one time in billions of exposures.

Furthermore, the 60 or so most highly DU-exposed U.S. soldiers have been almost monomaniacally examined for health problems for more than a decade, and nothing – repeat, NOTHING – has so far been found by any doctors or other medical experts. Your claim of “3000 to 21000 cancer deaths” is a truly absurd and utterly bogus pile of anti-scientific excrement.

http://www.airchek.com/pubs/citguide.html

http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35427#what

du_health.pdf

http://www.traprockpeace.org/tedd_weyman_15july04.html

Here are four sources, can you discredit all of these

Two of the sites have peace in the url so you can discredit them offhand if you wish, but there are US and UK soldiers pissing Uranium that can be identified as DU.

Alpha radiation can be stopped by paper it is true, but it has a quality factor of twenty and is the most dangerous type when injested in the body. Whether it can get to the bone or not is a moot point since it can do its damage in the lungs.

Google chart of the nuclides to find the link between Uranium and Radon.

Uranium miners get lung cancer as an occupational hazard.

True, the link I first posted is rubbish and is not substantiated by references but the ones posted here were by Phds and have references.

Saying DU is harmless is not valid science.

[InvidiousCourgette]

@Jurph

Like InsidiousCorvette said

Hey! I resemble that remark.

[Jurph]

@monsterbob

Alpha radiation can be stopped by paper it is true, but it has a quality factor of twenty and is the most dangerous type when injested in the body. Whether it can get to the bone or not is a moot point since it can do its damage in the lungs.

Google chart of the nuclides to find the link between Uranium and Radon.

Uranium miners get lung cancer as an occupational hazard.

monsterbob, it’s refreshing to see a Guest user citing sources and putting forth an articulate argument! Welcome to the Straight Dope. I’d like to offer for your consideration a refutation of your miners’ cancer claim. In the linked article, it states that

Since 1940, research groups have followed the health of people exposed to uranium in the workplace. Nearly a dozen studies of about 78,000 uranium mill and processing-plant workers have found no increase in illness or cancer from exposures far higher than what could occur in the Balkans.

Specifically, there’s no increase in cancer mortality overall among the uranium workers, nor in mortality from cancers of specific organs, such as lungs, the lymphatic system or bones. Uranium miners did show an increase in lung cancer, but that almost certainly arose from underground exposure to radon gas rather than uranium, researchers concluded.

(bolding mine)

Now, I’m not exactly sure what you meant about nuclides and the link between radon and uranium – perhaps I misunderstood you and this cite is off-track. Could you be a little more specific?

The main point of these studies that date back to 1940 is that inhaled uranium dust on its own doesn’t seem to pose a health hazard. The article (link above) also goes into great detail about internal exposure from shell fragments that accidentally became embedded in the skin, which generally refutes BoyScout11’s premise that donkeys eat waffles. Or whatever it was that he was arguing about jagged things.

I’m still not clear on how readily uranium dust oxidizes, or whether milled uranium dust is similar enough to uranium oxide vapor to draw any comparisons. I’m still reluctant to claim that it’s harmless, but I’m also still far from sure that it’s as bad as everyone says.

[monsterbob]

@Jurph

monsterbob, it’s refreshing to see a Guest user citing sources and putting forth an articulate argument! Welcome to the Straight Dope. I’d like to offer for your consideration a refutation of your miners’ cancer claim. In the linked article, it states that

(bolding mine)

Now, I’m not exactly sure what you meant about nuclides and the link between radon and uranium – perhaps I misunderstood you and this cite is off-track. Could you be a little more specific?

The main point of these studies that date back to 1940 is that inhaled uranium dust on its own doesn’t seem to pose a health hazard. The article (link above) also goes into great detail about internal exposure from shell fragments that accidentally became embedded in the skin, which generally refutes BoyScout11’s premise that donkeys eat waffles. Or whatever it was that he was arguing about jagged things.

I’m still not clear on how readily uranium dust oxidizes, or whether milled uranium dust is similar enough to uranium oxide vapor to draw any comparisons. I’m still reluctant to claim that it’s harmless, but I’m also still far from sure that it’s as bad as everyone says.

Thanks for the welcome Jurph.

First, I would like to articulate my position on DU weapons. I don’t believe they are the cause of any of the Gulf War Syndrome stuff. And I agree that any health effects from DU weapons have not shown up yet. I would like to err on the side of caution and it is my opinion that the munitions benefits they provide do not justify their use in this currant Iraq conflict.

Now for the claim that the uranium miners lung cancer was caused by Radon rather than Uranium is refuted by the following cite. Radon in any of its isotopes does not occur naturally, all of it is produced by the decay of Uranium. And the isotope of Radon implicated in cancer is Ra-222 which is a decay product of U-238 which is the most common Uranium isotope. The chart of the nuclides is where one could find the exact decay chain for U-238 or any other radioactive isotope.

http://tis.eh.doe.gov/ohre/roadmap/uranium/append.html

[quote]
I’m still not clear on how readily uranium dust oxidizes, or whether milled uranium dust is similar enough to uranium oxide vapor to draw any comparisons. I’m still reluctant to claim that it’s harmless, but I’m also still far from sure that it’s as bad as everyone says.

[quote]

The oxidation of the spent Uranium is what causes the self sharpening or cutting action of the DU munitions. Very rapid burning. Pyrophoric. Small particles that can lodge in the lungs. Milled uranium dust is probably the least harmful form and may be considered harmless. Probably only oxidized on the outside of the particles and not likely to become aerosols or airborne for any length of time.

In conclusion, I don’t want any U-238 in my lungs or any of our armed forces personnel. I mean if you need to climb into that Iraqi tank that was just destroyed by a DU weapon, someone should have told you that it is a good idea to where a negative pressure filtration mask.

[monsterbob]

Oh Jurph,
I forgot to add that Burros eat pancakes while reading A. E. Van Vogt

[Jurph]

@monsterbob

http://tis.eh.doe.gov/ohre/roadmap/uranium/append.html

Now that is a cite. Jeebus! So despite the fact that it’s the radon that causes the cancer, it’s really the uranium that causes the radon… so the uranium dust in the lungs has deleterious effects. That’s a pretty good starting point. The self-sharpening behavior of DU projectiles produces mostly oxides of uranium; do these also have a decay tree that includes radon? Is it possible that the micron-sized oxide particles are worse for you than straight-up U-238?

[Boy_Scout11]

@drachillix

No they are the words for “there are occasional exeptions”

You are clinging to the minutest fraction of a chance like you are defending a stay of execution. As about 5 other posters have pointed out, this stuff is about as dangerous as dishwashing liquid. Of course if many people got hit by a bottle of dishwashing liquid fired from the main gun of an M1 Abrams, we would be discussing the hazards of inhaled dishwashing liquid aerosolized by the impact.

I said generally in reference to chemistry as a whole, not to your topic. I didn’t use the word “usually” in the post you quoted

Back in my EMT days we called your apparent manner of thinking “zebra chasing”.

When you see a black horse, do you think horse, or that someone has cleverly concealed a stolen zebra by painting over the white areas.

When you say,–No they are the words for “there are occasional exeptions”-----I reply, then when I asked you before if there were possibilities that there could be mitigating circumstances, that you chose to stay silent, because you knew that in science, there is never a sure thing and you cannot cite anything, just like most of the things on this great debates board, because if just one tiny parameter is changed, the outcome may be close to the same and then again, it could be wildly different? It is also that when many, many, things are cited, they leave things out or add things in as a pollster or anyone may or may not do.

Isn’t it really, just because people want security, but that security is an illusion and most of these pathetic web sites, that claim to prove something, set up the parameters they wish to prove or disprove? Come on, if you are really a scientist, surely you are smart enough to realize that.

As to your claims that du is as harmless as dishwashing soap, can you get some of the guys that produce this stuff, to eat it, or sniff it into their lungs?

As to the rest, keep your zebra.

[Boy_Scout11]

@ambushed

The scientific evidence, such as that supplied in The Science of the Silver Bullet in Scientific American and other reputable scientific sources tell us very reliably that depleted uranium, if it’s a measurable health hazard at all, is a very tiny one and is utterly dwarfed by common natural and man-made environmental risk sources. The most comprehensive report indicates that the potential toxicity involved – either chemical or radiologic – is orders of magnitude below any extant chemical or radiological safety guidelines.

Unless you inhale DU dust in pound quantities, it poses no real health risk.

Webelo11 has been frothing himself into a frenzy over something far less dangerous than breathing in Los Angeles or Denver.

So, even after you have been shown that DU gets turned into glass spheres and runs thru your blood and lymphatic systems, you still think this stuff is harmless as soap? Depleated Uranium, does not mean devoid and by what percentage is it depleated and how, besides the glass spheres, does the DU change in a blast? You are a scientist, aren’t you?"

[Jurph]

@Boy Scout11

When you say,–No they are the words for “there are occasional exeptions”-----I reply, then when I asked you before if there were possibilities that there could be mitigating circumstances, that you chose to stay silent, because you knew that in science, there is never a sure thing and you cannot cite anything,

Well, you could cite – if you felt like citing anything – what usually happens. That wouldn’t be as rigorous as a mathematical proof, but on a scale of 0-10, where zero is “I strongly believe donkeys eat waffles,” and ten is “These are notarized Polaroids, videos, and aerial photographs of the secret donkey waffle houses in Bolivia; this is an autopsy of a donkey with waffles in his tummy and syrup on his beard,” then what you have offered us so far is about a… zero. And what everyone else has been offering is probably up there around a six. More or less.

…just like most of the things on this great debates board, because if just one tiny parameter is changed, the outcome may be close to the same and then again, it could be wildly different?

Yeah, it could be. But it usually isn’t.

It is also that when many, many, things are cited, they leave things out or add things in as a pollster or anyone may or may not do.

And that’s why you cite multiple sources while paying attention to whether they are likely to be biased.

Isn’t it really, just because people want security, but that security is an illusion and most of these pathetic web sites, that claim to prove something, set up the parameters they wish to prove or disprove? Come on, if you are really a scientist, surely you are smart enough to realize that.

That’s why we have to settle for cites that are “pretty good” or “good enough.” But until you bring a cite to the table, and produce some evidence to back up you own claims, you are wasting your time. You will be – and have been – dismissed outright, all because you don’t have any proof, not even something that explains that your theory might be plausible. We’re not here to have an epistimelogical argument about what constitutes proof; in Great Debates, you’ll know when you’ve proven your point, because those who are reading with an open mind will say, “Aha - he may have a point!” and those who are only there for a wank will resort to arguments similar to yours.

It’s puerile and disingenuous at best.

So let’s get back to debating your original premise. If you’re not going to play by the rules, then stand aside while monsterbob shows you what a guest user can do to prove a point.

As to your claims that DU is as harmless as dishwashing soap, can you get some of the guys that produce this stuff, to eat it, or sniff it into their lungs?

I think drachilix was engaging in a little hyperbole – or is just as far out as you are.

As to the rest, keep your zebra.

It’s not a zebra. It’s an Arabian horse. Who eats waffles.

[Boy_Scout11]

:
Originally Posted by ambushed
The scientific evidence, such as that supplied in The Science of the Silver Bullet in Scientific American and other reputable scientific sources tell us very reliably that depleted uranium, if it’s a measurable health hazard at all, is a very tiny one and is utterly dwarfed by common natural and man-made environmental risk sources. The most comprehensive report indicates that the potential toxicity involved – either chemical or radiologic – is orders of magnitude below any extant chemical or radiological safety guidelines.

Unless you inhale DU dust in pound quantities, it poses no real health risk.

Webelo11 has been frothing himself into a frenzy over something far less dangerous than breathing in Los Angeles or Denver.

So, even after you have been shown that DU gets turned into glass spheres and runs thru your blood and lymphatic systems, you still think this stuff is harmless as soap? Depleated Uranium, does not mean devoid and by what percentage is it depleated and how, besides the glass spheres, does the DU change in a blast? You are a scientist, aren’t you?"

SCIENTISTS make me laugh. They know all these web sites out here that claim, to have knowledge that is proven, has been manipulated to fit what each site wants. Scientists don’t bother telling people this, but what’s funny, is that they really get into this stuff, when they know for a fact, that a very high percentage of what is cited, is junk.

[BMalion]

Boy Scout11, you do realize that when some words appear in the body of the message, and those words are underlined and colored blue, when you move your mouse over to that word, then left click, you are taken to a different place, and can read words that may or may not back up your… position?

here is an example:

TEST LINK

I don’t quite think you’ve spent enough time lurking.

[Jurph]

@Boy Scout11

So, even after you have been shown that DU gets turned into glass spheres and runs thru your blood and lymphatic systems, you still think this stuff is harmless as soap?

That was drachilix’s claim, not ambushed.

Depleated Uranium, does not mean devoid and by what percentage is it depleated (?)

Well, since natural uranium is 99.2745% U-238, and we extract the U-234 and U-235 before it can be called “depleted,” I think in this case depleted basically does mean devoid. A doctor here cites the danger from depleted uranium as “small fractions of the public’s routine exposure to natural uranium.”

[quote]
…and how, besides the glass spheres, does the DU change in a blast?

The World Health Organization’s Report on DU use in Kosovo goes over this. We’ve already covered this, but for those of you who weren’t following along, DU becomes UO[sub]2[/sub] and U[sub]3[/sub]O[sub]8[/sub]. They estimate that 50 to 90 percent of those aerosol products could enter the respiratory tract and not be expelled. However, this volume, even under the most extreme circumstances, “would be less than about 10 millisieverts (mSv). This represents about half the
annual dose limit for radiation workers.” The rest of the WHO report is similarly dismissive of your claims.

You are a scientist, aren’t you?

It doesn’t take a scientist to discredit you. I’ll thank you for this much, though: when I came into this thread, I honestly thought DU posed a health risk. The more hard science I read, however, the more I think that your hypothesis is pretty much based on fear and superstition.

Aside to BMalion: I’ve been down that road with him, and he’s already shown his distaste for the nassssty linksses. They must burnsssss him or somethings.

[Jurph]

Damn. :smack: I even previewed. But you quote and unquote enough raving boy scouts enough times, and I guess I was bound to slip up eventually. The following portions of the above post are actually my own:

@Jurph

The World Health Organization’s Report on DU use in Kosovo goes over this. We’ve already covered this, but for those of you who weren’t following along, DU becomes UO[sub]2[/sub] and U[sub]3[/sub]O[sub]8[/sub]. They estimate that 50 to 90 percent of those aerosol products could enter the respiratory tract and not be expelled. However, this volume, even under the most extreme circumstances, “would be less than about 10 millisieverts (mSv). This represents about half the
annual dose limit for radiation workers.” The rest of the WHO report is similarly dismissive of your claims.

[Rufus_Xavier]

@BMalion

here is an example:

TEST LINK

You do know, that the Government controls that and it can, say basically what they want it also what about the spheres of glass we have established in the blood that are hard in your brain they are not discussed? And that is not a good way to find out real things, but people can think for themselves not link to websites that are contained and it has been established, on this board and that guests and members may post their thoughts and I truly believe, as long as they do not violate the posting rules too often they are free to type what ever they want to so why are you tring to find your information on websites isn’t that what we are doing on this boards.

[Boy_Scout11]

@BMalion

Boy Scout11, you do realize that when some words appear in the body of the message, and those words are underlined and colored blue, when you move your mouse over to that word, then left click, you are taken to a different place, and can read words that may or may not back up your… position?

here is an example:

TEST LINK

I don’t quite think you’ve spent enough time lurking.

LOL, I do, but maybe you can answer something. How many cites out in the world claim DU is harmful in the many ways and how many cites say they are not?

I would then ask, since it has been proven that the DU turns into tiny glass spheres and enters the body, into the lungs, blood and lymphatic systems and none of those are supposed to have anything hard in them, why do no cites point that out?

I would further ask why none of them point out blotchy skin and that these hard little glass spheres blocking the cappilaries could be the cause?

I would also ask, why none of these cites point out that in the lymphatic system, how do these spheres find their way out, or do they remain locked in that system and can the corridors of the lymphatic system be very small and can these glass spheres become lodged in not only the smallest parts of the system, but could they become lodged in the lymph nodes themselves and wreak havoc?

Since neither the lungs, the blood or lymph systems have anything hard in them and them this hard stuff is introduced to them, why is it so difficult to understand that this is very possibly a reason for blockages that can cause so many other problems for the entire body?

[Ethilrist]

@Boy Scout11

LOL, I do, but maybe you can answer something. How many cites out in the world claim DU is harmful in the many ways…?

According to the cites you’ve provided to support your claim, none. Please prove me wrong.

[Boy_Scout11]

@Rufus Xavier

You do know, that the Government controls that and it can, say basically what they want it also what about the spheres of glass we have established in the blood that are hard in your brain they are not discussed? And that is not a good way to find out real things, but people can think for themselves not link to websites that are contained and it has been established, on this board and that guests and members may post their thoughts and I truly believe, as long as they do not violate the posting rules too often they are free to type what ever they want to so why are you tring to find your information on websites isn’t that what we are doing on this boards.

I see we are in agreement on these points.

[Jurph]

Rufus Xavier, you’re my effing hero. Can I buy you a drink, or are you already over the limit?