Depleted uranium

__TOC__

Depleted uranium (DU) is uranium which contains a reduced proportion of the nuclear fission isotope Uranium-235 and (usually) the highly radioactive but rare isotope U-234, compared to natural uranium. During the Manhattan Project depleted uranium had the codename ''tuballoy'', a term that is still occasionally used. Natural uranium contains nominally 0.7110% U-235 (+/- 0.1% variation) and 99.28305% Uranium-238 (and 0.0054% U-234), while depleted uranium contains only 0.2 to 0.4 weight-percent U-235. The U-235 is concentrated into enriched uranium through the process of isotope separation for use in nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons: *Nuclear weapons usually use uranium containing 90% or more of U-235 (a lower grade is possible but makes the weapon less efficient). *Commercial light water nuclear reactor fuel is usually enriched up to a maximum of 5% (the 5% limit is set by the currently licensed transport containers - in the future the 5% limit may be increased up to 7% for improved fuel economy). * Research reactor fuel is today limited to maximum 20% (most older research reactors have been/are getting converted down to this lower enrichment level). The enrichment process does not create U-235, the isotopes of uranium are merely separated. Therefore the process leaves large amounts of depleted uranium as a waste product. For example producing 1kg of 5% enriched uranium requires 11.8kg of natural uranium, leaving about 10.8 kg of depleted uranium with 0.3% U-235. The United States Department of Energy currently has an inventory of 704,000 tonnes of depleted uranium hexafluoride (stored in 58,000 metal cylinders), corresponding to 476,000 tonnes of uranium [http://web.ead.anl.gov/uranium/]. It encourages the use of DU as a means of disposing of the stock, and plans to eventually convert the remaining inventory to a less toxic form, probably either uranium metal or oxide. As a product otherwise requiring long term storage as low level radioactive waste, depleted uranium can be obtained cheaply. It is useful for its extremely high density, which is only slightly less than that of tungsten. As well as a lower initial cost, depleted uranium is easier to roll, machine and cast than tungsten. However, it has extremely poor corrosion properties (tending to spall on exposure to air) and since it is heavy metals and radioactive the facilities for processing it need to monitor and filter dust and airborne particles. One disadvantage of DU is that it needs to be correctly handled when an object containing it is scrapped. The uranium is normally leased from the manufacturer and subsequently returned at the end of the object's life. ==Nuclear applications== Depleted uranium is not usable as nuclear fuel, but can be a source material for Plutonium. Theoretically, breeder reactors could carry out a process of transmutation to convert "fertile" isotopes such as Uranium-238 into fissile material, although no reactors are currently used for this purpose. DU is also used as a radiation shield — its alpha radiation is easily stopped by the non-radioactive casing of the shielding and the uranium's high atomic weight is effective in absorbing gamma radiation. ==Military applications== ===Projectile weapons=== A use of DU is for kinetic energy penetrators for the anti-tank role. Kinetic energy penetrator rounds consist of a long, relatively thin flechette surrounded by a discarding sabot. Two materials lend themselves to flechette construction: tungsten and depleted uranium, the latter as a designated alloys known as staballoys. Depleted uranium is favoured for flechette construction due to two particular properties: being self-sharpening and pyrophoric. On impact with a hard target, such as an armoured vehicle, the nose of the flechette rod fractures in a way that leaves it sharp again. Further, the impact and heat energy released on impact causes it to disintegrate to dust and combust when it reaches air (compare to ferrocerium). Against an armoured vehicle this is devastating, piercing the hull to create an extremely hot ball of dust and gas in the interior, killing or injuring the crew and igniting fuel and ammunition. Depleted uranium also has the advantage of being easy to melt and cast into shape; a difficult and costly process for tungsten. Depleted uranium is also very dense: at 19050 kg/m�, it is 70% denser than lead. Thus a given weight of it has a smaller diameter than an equivalent lead projectile, with less external ballistics and better terminal ballistics due to a higher pressure at point of impact. The United States Army uses the DU in an alloy with around 3.5% titanium. It is used by the United States Army in 120mm or 105mm calibre by the M1 Abrams and M60A3 tanks and in 25mm calibre by the M242 mounted on the M2 Bradley and the LAV-AT. The US Navy used it in its 20mm Phalanx CIWS guns (though it has now switched to tungsten for this application, as they are not required to pierce armour). The USAF uses the 30mm PGU-14/B amour-piercing round in the GAU-8 Avenger cannon of the A-10 Thunderbolt II. The United States Marine Corps uses DU in the 25mm PGU-20 round fired by the GAU-12 Equalizer cannon of the AV-8 Harrier II, and also in the 20mm M197 gun mounted on AH-1 Cobra. The Russian military has used DU munitions in tank main gun ammunition since the late 1970s, mostly for the 115mm guns in the T-62 tank and the 125mm guns in the T-64, T-72, T-80, and T-90 tanks. DU munitions (in the form of tank and naval artillery rounds) are also deployed by the armed forces of the United Kingdom, Israel, France, Japan, China, Russia, Pakistan, and many more. DU rounds are manufactured in 18 countries. ===Armour plate=== Because of its high density, depleted uranium can also be used in tank armour, sandwiched between sheets of steel armor plate. For instance, some late-production M1 Abrams tanks built after 1998 have DU reinforcement as part of its armour plating in the front of the hull and the front of the turret and there is a program to upgrade the rest. ===Nuclear weapons=== Nuclear weapons can utilize depleted uranium as a "tamper" material (see Nuclear weapon design). A tamper which surrounds a fissile core works to reflect neutrons and add inertia to the compression of the core. As such, it increases the efficiency of the weapon and reduces the amount of critical mass required. This was the arrangement used in the weapon dropped on Nagasaki, Japan during World War II, called "Fat Man." It is thought that this design is common in other weapons as well. In a fission only weapon, the DU tamper does not undergo any significant nuclear reactions. ===Thermonuclear weapons=== Nuclear fusion Nuclear weapon often have a layer of DU surrounding the main charge of fusion fuel. Initially, this serves as a reaction mass to allow more forceful compression (see inertial confinement fusion) during detonation and allow more complete fusion to occur. The extremely high flux of neutrons from the resulting fusion reaction causes some amount of transmutation and fission of the resulting Plutonium, which can add fission energy to the yield of the weapon. Such weapons are referred to as ''fission-fusion-fission'' weapons after the three consecutive stages of the explosion. A surprising portion of the total explosive yield can come from a final fission stage fueled by DU, producing enormous amounts of radioactive fission products. For example, 77% of the 10.4 megaton yield of the Ivy Mike thermonuclear test in 1952 came from fast fission of the DU tamper. Because DU has no critical mass, it can be added to thermonuclear bombs in almost unlimited quantity. The 1961 Soviet test of Tsar Bomba produced "only" 50 megatons, over 90% from fusion, because the DU final stage was replaced with lead. Had DU been used, the yield would have been 100 megatons, and far more fallout would have been generated. ==Civilian applications== Depleted uranium is also used in a number of civilian applications, generally where a high density weight is needed. Such applications include sailboat keels, as counterweights and sinker bars in oil drills, gyroscope rotors, and in other places where there is a need to place a weight that occupies as little space as possible. Tungsten could be used instead, but it is much more expensive. Aircraft may also contain depleted uranium counterweights (a Boeing 747 may contain 400�1,500kg). However there is some controversy about its use in this application because of concern about the uranium entering the environment should the aircraft crash, since the metal can oxidise to a fine powder in a fire. This was highlighted by the collision of Tenerife disaster in 1977 when the resulting fire consumed 3000kg of the material. (Another well-known crash with DU release was the Bijlmermeer disaster in 1992 in Amsterdam.) Consequently its use has been phased out in many newer aircraft, for example both Boeing and McDonnell-Douglas discontinued using DU counterweights in the 1980s. An unexpected application is in Formula 1 racing cars. The rules state a minimum weight of 600kg but builders strive to get the weight as low as possible and then bring it up to the 600kg mark by placing depleted uranium where needed to achieve a better balance. ==Health concerns== The health effects of depleted uranium have been postulated to be one of the possible causes of Gulf war syndrome (see below). Most scientific studies have found no link between depleted uranium and negative health effects such as cancer, liver damage, and birth defects, but many people point to other evidence that suggests a link. Environmental groups have raised concerns about the use of this material, particularly in munitions because it is radioactive, effectively lasts forever in the environment, and also it is toxicity in the same manner as lead and other heavy metals. Such issues are of concern to those attacked with DU weapons, those firing DU weapons, those protected by DU armour-plating, civilians and troops operating in a theatre where DU is used, and to people who will live at any time after in such areas or breathing air or drinking water from these areas. Studies showing detrimental health effects have claimed the following: * DU can disperse into the air and water, as mentioned in a United Nations Environment Programme study [http://www.unep.org/pdf/iraq_ds_lowres.pdf]: : "The most important concern is the potential for future radioactive contamination by corroding penetrators (ammunition tips made out of DU). The munition tips recovered by the UNEP team had already decreased in mass by 10-15% in this way. This spalling speed underlines the importance of monitoring the water quality at the DU sites on an annual basis." * Military DU studies mainly evaluated external exposure, but other studies take inhalation risk into consideration. These studies indicate that DU passes into humans more easily than previously thought after battlefield use. (Radioactive particles absorbed into the body are far more harmful than a similar background radiation level outside the body, due to their immediate proximity to delicate structures such as DNA, bone marrow and the like)http://www.triumf.ca/safety/rpt/rpt_2/node22.html A 1997 report by the European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR) suggested that DU posed serious health risks. By contrast, other studies have shown that DU ammunition has no measurable detrimental health effects, either in the short or long term. The International Atomic Energy Agency reports, "based on credible scientific evidence, there is no proven link between DU exposure and increases in human cancers or other significant health or environmental impacts," although "Like other heavy metals, DU is potentially poisonous. In sufficient amounts, if DU is ingested or inhaled it can be harmful because of its chemical toxicity. High concentration could cause kidney damage." [http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Features/DU/faq_depleted_uranium.shtml] The US military watchdog group Federation of American Scientists has come to similar conclusions. Critics of these latter studies point to the fact that they come primarily from either "Green" groups who are opposed to nuclear power and uses of its radioactive byproducts, or are 'linked' to the United States and United Kingdom governments -- both users of weaponary which utilise DU with strong incentive to minimize negative conclusions. The U.S. Army acknowledges the potential hazards of DU in a training manual, in which it requires that anyone who comes within 25 meters of any DU-contaminated equipment or terrain wear respiratory and skin protection, and states that "contamination will make food and water unsafe for consumption." ===Depleted uranium and Gulf War Syndrome=== ''See also:'' Gulf war syndrome Although most experts believe there is no connection, some disputes exist about the role, if any, played by depleted uranium in Gulf War Syndrome. Those who claim there are no effects point to the absence of confirmed medical evidence supporting the link and the large body of pathological studies showing no statistically significant effect. Those who believe there are effects point to medical statistics and investigations which they claim have been swept under the carpet. Critics have attempted to attribute an alleged increase in the rate of birth defects in the children of Gulf War veterans and in Iraqis to depleted uranium. A report written by an Irish petrochemical engineer stated that in Iraq, death rates per 1000 Iraqi children under 5 years of age increased from 2.3 in 1989 to 16.6 in 1993 and cases of leukaemia have more than quadrupled in areas where DU was present. Dr Richard Guthrie, an expert in chemical warfare at Sussex University, argues that due to the fact that no pathological evidence exists linking depleted uranium to birth defects, a more likely cause for this increase in birth defects was the Iraqi Army�s use of mustard gas during its war with Iran. Sulphur mustard is also known to cause cancers, leukaemias and birth defects, even for relatively low exposures levels. The children of the residents of Halabja as well as those of Iranian veterans of the Iran Iraq war have developed cancers and birth defects. Neither groups had been exposed to depleted uranium, but both groups had been exposed to sulfur mustard agents. Further studies by the New England Journal of Medicine analyzing 34,000 babies of Gulf War veterans [http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/336/23/1650], as well as by the Department of Veterans Affairs [http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/990503-du.htm] found no evidence of an increase in the risk of birth defects among the children of Gulf War veterans. The Uranium Medical Research Centre in Canada and the United States published a study of 27 Gulf War veterans [http://www.umrc.net/pdf/quantitative_analysis.pdf] displaying typical symptoms of Gulf War Syndrome. Of the 27, only those who had DU fragments lodged in their bodies showed any sign of DU in their urine. The Department of Veterans Affairs study had found that in a sample of veterans who did have DU fragments in their body, all showed normal reproductive health and kidney function. ==Legal status of military use== In 1996 and 1997, the United Nations Human Rights Commission in Geneva, passed a resolution to ban the use of depleted uranium weapons. The Subcommission adopted resolutions which include depleted uranium weaponry amongst "weapons of mass and indiscriminate destruction, ... incompatible with international humanitarian or human rights law." (Secretary General's Report, 24 June 1997, E/CN. 4/Sub.2/1997/27) A UN report of 2002 states that DU weapons also potentially breach each of the following laws: 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. All of these laws are designed to spare civilians from unwarranted suffering in or after armed conflicts. According to the UN, the resolutions in 1996-97 were passed because DU breaches several international laws concerning inhumane weapons: it is not limited in time or space to the legal field of battle, or to military targets; it continues to act after the war; it is "inhumane" by virtue of its ability to cause prolonged or long term death by cancer and other serious health issues, it causes harm to future civilians and passers by (including unborn children and those breathing the air or drinking water); and it has an "unduly negative" and long term effect on the natural environment and food chain. In detail: # Weapons may only be used in the legal field of battle, defined as legal military targets of the enemy in war. Weapons may not have an adverse effect off the legal field of battle. DU shells burn into fine particles which remain in the air or the environment. So they infect others over a wide range, and future passers-by, with uranium poisoning. # Weapons can only be used for the duration of an armed conflict. A weapon that is used or continues to act after the war is over violates this criterion. # Weapons may not be unduly inhumane. Weapons that cause cancer and illness long after the war are widely considered to be legally "inhumane". Health issues to unborn children and civilians may also be crime against humanity under international law. # Weapons may not have an "unduly negative" effect on the natural environment. The dust from DU impact becomes widespread in the environment, and (as with other heavy metals) becomes highly concentrated within living beings and the food chain. ==External links== ===United Nations=== * [http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/E/SUBCOM/resolutions/E-CN_4-SUB_2-RES-1996-16.doc Sub-Commission resolution 1996/16]
(resolves and states DU to be "incompatible" with human rights and international law; lists DU as "particularly" one "weapon of mass destruction or indiscriminate effect") * [http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/7afeec7003489bb7802567550045e27a?Opendocument UN High Commission for Human Rights, 1998]
(statement that DU is prohibited and contravenes prior UN resolutions) * [http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/(Symbol)/E.CN.4.Sub.2.2002.38.En?Opendocument "Human rights and weapons of mass destruction, or with indiscriminate effect, or of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering"]
(The UN 2002 report) * [http://www.unep.org/pdf/iraq_ds_lowres.pdf Post Conflict Assessment Iraq] by the UNEP. ===Scientific bodies=== * [http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/du/intro.htm Depleted Uranium] article from the Royal Society. * [http://www.ead.anl.gov/pub/doc/Depleted-Uranium.pdf Depleted Uranium Human Health Fact Sheet] from [http://www.ead.anl.gov/pub/doc/Cover-Intro-Linked.pdf Summary Fact Sheets for Selected Environmental Contaminants to Support Health Risk Analyses] by Argonne National Laboratory Environmental Assessment Division. * [http://www.ead.anl.gov/pub/doc/Uranium.pdf Uranium Human Health Fact Sheet], also from Argonne. ===Other=== * [http://www.betterworldlinks.org/du.htm Better World Links on Depleted Uranium Weapons] 500+ links * [http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/04/05/1356248&mode=thread&tid=25 U.S. Soldiers Contaminated With Depleted Uranium Speak Out] - ''Democracy Now!'', April 5, 2004 * [http://web.ead.anl.gov/uranium/ Depleted UF6 Management Information Network], Online repository of information about the U.S. Department of Energy's inventory of depleted uranium hexafluoride. * [http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=nd99fetter "After the Dust Settles"] (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists report from 1999) * [http://www.mod.uk/issues/depleted_uranium/du_research.htm Proposal for Research on Depleted Uranium] ( U.K. Ministry of Defence ) * [http://www.uraniumweaponsconference.de/ World Uranium Weapons Conference 2003] * [http://www.guardian.co.uk/uranium/0,7368,419839,00.html Guardian Unlimited's Special report on Depleted Uranium] * [http://www.cadu.org.uk/ Campaign Against Depleted Uranium] * [http://www.bandepleteduranium.org International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons] Armor Ammunition

Depleted uranium

''See also:'' /Archive 1 == "Allies" is not a neutral term == This article is currently littered with "Allied" this and "Allied" that. As our article on Allies notes, ''When spelt with a capital A, Allies usually denotes the countries that fought together against the Central Powers in World War I and against the Axis powers in World War II. The term is generally used in the generic sense of "all who opposed the enemy". In addition, it is usually used in a strict dichotomy of them vs. us, reflecting wartime propaganda, with no account taken of nuances of countries that were occupied as neutral country, changed sides or participated in concurrent wars.'' There are obviously terms we can use that are far more neutral than this. �User:Christiaan 22:39, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC) == Who exactly fired 944,000 DU rounds? == At the moment this article says, ''"In 1991, the Allies fired 944,000 DU rounds or some 2700 tons of DU tipped bombs."'' But who exactly fired these rounds? Were there any countries besides the U.S.? �User:Christiaan 22:39, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC) :yeah, it was an international (UN-backed) coalition i believe. User:Bonus Onus 03:03, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC) ::No, that is not who "exactly" fired the rounds. As far as I know it was just U.S. and British troops, although it may only have been U.S. troops. It's worth noting the importance of accuracy here considering the potential for war crimes prosecutions. �User:Christiaan 10:10, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::: Hmmm, I can't see why French troops would not have used these sort of ammunition too. As far as I know, the AMX-30, which was used then, is capable of using this device, and I don't see why they would have refrained from using it. User:Rama 10:34, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::::No neither do I, so how do we go about finding this sort of thing out? The U.S. also fired 10,800 rounds against Serb forces in Bosnia in 1999, with 31,000 rounds fired during the Kosovo conflict. [http://www.paristempo.com/uranium3.html] �User:Christiaan 10:39, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::::: Though it would seen that modern French forces use Tungsten rounds, not Uranium; I don't know how it was in 1991. User:Rama 11:08, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::::::Tungsten rounds have their own health effects. ''"Shrapnel wounds caused by weapons grade tungsten alloy triggers aggressive tumors in rats, according to military researchers."'' SOURCE: Environmental Heath Perspectives, February 2005[http://www.reutershealth.com/archive/2005/03/04/eline/links/20050304elin022.html].--User:Silverback 12:50, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC) :::::::Both tungsten rounds and depleted uranium rounds are capable of killing people. This seems like a bit of a silly discussion to me. War crimes? It is doubtful, especially when the UN sponsors the military action. User:Bonus Onus 23:18, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC) ::::::: User:Silverback, why on Earth did you post this here ? User:Rama 23:51, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::::::::Because User:Rama, you posted that the French use Tungsten rounds and Christiaan is posting information about depleted Uraniums health effects. A lot of the what is has been alleged about DU toxicity is based on excess incidences of certain conditions or birth defects. You were right to point out there were other toxic substances in the area and I just substantiated your claim a little further with some recent evidence on Tungsten toxicity I had run across in my everyday reading. Of course in the same area with the DU, there was also all of Saddam's environmental attrocities, the burning of the oil fields, etc. There are lots of other chemicals put into the air when DU shells hit a target, and there is also evidence of some chemical WMD that was put into the air when it was hit during the US attack and also when attempts were made to destroy it.--User:Silverback 00:47, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::::::::: I mentionned tungsten only to nuance my previous affirmation about the French army using Uranium rounds, about which I am not so sure anymore. This page deals about Depleted Uranium, that is, Uranium consisting mainly of U238. Depleted Uranium is used in naval industry, aeronautic industry, construction, armours and also, yes, anti-tank rounds. It is very sad that most of this article should deal with this very particular and sordid aspect of the matter, but for Heaven's sake, try to stay on topic! "Saddam's environmental attrocities", Tungsten toxicity and oil fields have very little to do with the topic. User:Rama 00:56, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::::::::::What do apparently grossly inflated disability figures, unrelated even to Gulf war syndrome have to do with this article? If questionable attribution of health effects of DU are to be used, there alternative possible attributions of those health effects should also be included.--User:Silverback 17:41, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC) Um, can we keep this discussion on topic please. The question was who exactly fired 944,000 DU rounds? �User:Christiaan 11:51, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC) Easy way to check? Research the specific types of rounds. The major (almost exclusive) users of DU are the US and the UK. Russia's sole (and not most effective) 125mm DU tank round is the BM32. Everybody else but the US and UK uses Tungsten in their penetrators. I think you'll find that this extends beyond tanks as well, though Russia has produced DU in other calibres, to my knowledge, they've never fielded it in combat (their explanation of why is very interesting). This article's introduction explains rather well (and I have no intention of presenting this as anything more than an economic incentive, frankly, but any attempt I've personally made to place combat-effectiveness over cost-effectiveness has simply not been borne out by the facts) why the US and UK prefer to develop DU rounds over Tungsten (it's almost free, and processing is much cheaper). The current German tungsten rounds are arguably the best penetrators in the world (though the Ukranian extended 125mm is up there too, and there's a new Russian HEAT round that'll penetrate roughly 800mm RHA; for perspective, this could frontally pierce a 1991 M1A1 under the right conditions), so DU is itself (as far as I can tell) only the preferred material because it's used (and almost exclusively developed over tungsten) by the world's chief arms provider. My research suggests that it can be conclusively stated that >90% of the GW1 DU was fired by US tanks, Bradleys and aircraft. The UK simply didn't fire enough to even put a dent in the number, and AFAIK, no-one else was even using it. �User:Sigma-6 ==Clean-up== An awful lot of irrelevant, unsubstantiated/unreferenced, PoV material had crept into this article. I researched thoroughly and cleaned up accordingly. User:Dan100 15:21, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC) :The vast majority of this article seems to be based on [http://www.sundayherald.com/32522 this] article. I am not familiar with the paper, as I am not from the UK, but I have a feeling it isn't exactly NPOV. Anyone want to check it out? User:Bonus Onus 02:01, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC) ::The vast majority? What on earth are you talking about?�User:Christiaan 11:49, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::OK, maybe not the vast majority, but quite a bit of the GWS/health sections seem to be built using the content of that article as a foundation. I'm just wondering if we should be using a more NPOV source. User:Bonus Onus 21:55, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC) :::Is any of it cited? �User:Christiaan 23:23, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::I dont think so, but from reading the article, i immediately recognized many of the points on this page. User:Bonus Onus 01:09, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC) == Disability rates == I moved this from the article: :''This represents an increase over 1999 figures, when 16.1% of Gulf War era veterans were on disability, with ''"the number one service-connected condition claimed is impairment of the knee, followed by skeletal system disability, lumbosacral strain, arthritis due to trauma, scars, hearing loss, hypertension, intervertebral disc syndrome, tinnitus, and osteoarthritis."'' according to the testimony of Joseph Thompson Under Secretary for Benefits Department of Veterans Affairs, October 26, 1999[http://www.va.gov/oca/testimony/hvac/benefits/26OC9920.html].'' This didn't seem to make any sense tagged on where it was. What was the point you were trying to make Silverback? �User:Christiaan 21:50, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC) :It was meant to call into raise eyebrows about the figures stated just previous to it for the year 2000, from an authoritative source. I couldn't find official year 2000 figures, but I thought the 1999 figures might be close enough. Also, with the previous source attributing quite a bit of disability to depleted uranium, it is strange that bum knees are at the top of the list, since there doesn't appear to be an obvious depleted uranium mechanism for this injury, unless they were carrying around these heavy shells.--User:Silverback 22:07, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::Can I suggest being a little more explicit? It doesn't read at all well as it stands. -User:Christiaan 08:47, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC) Silverback, please stop removing comments by Arthur N. Bernklau. You have still not demontrated any reason to remove them. �User:Christiaan 11:37, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC) : The Bernklau quote, "Out of the 580,400 soldiers who served in GW1 (the first Gulf War), of them, 11,000 are now dead! By the year 2000, there were 325,000 on Permanent Medical Disability..." bears no relevance to the topic of Depleted Uranium, except for the fact that it cites Moret's paper. Without even an attempt to prove that these disabilities and deaths are related to DU, this quote has no place here, (and IMHO has no place in a medical journal either). User:Bonus Onus 22:25, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC) ::I removed the paragraph. User:Bonus Onus 21:49, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC) :::He's making comment about the extrordinarily high casualty rates for this war. I think the best thing to do to settle this is to get hold of Moret's paper, which I've found near impossible to track down. I happy with quote can staying out for the moment until we can track it down. �User:Christiaan 23:04, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::OK, thanks. I'd be interested to read Moret's paper as well. User:Bonus Onus 01:16, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC) :::::I think this is the document you are after: [http://www.sfbayview.com/081804/Depleteduranium081804.shtml] User:Depleted 22:39, 15 May 2005 (UTC) == Length of health concerns section == IMHO, the section about the link to gulf war syndrome is ''much'' too long, especially since the evidence seems pretty inconclusive. It should definately be mentioned that some people have suggested a link, but what's here is overkill. User:Bonus Onus :I disagree. Apart from it not being a section on "Gulf War Syndrome" (of which sickness from depleted uranium is just one apsect of) I think it needs to be expanded and far more comprehensive. I think it's pretty woeful what we have at the moment considering all the material out there, the controversial nature of the topic, and the implications.�User:Christiaan 10:07, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::As for the first study (UNEP), I read the section on depleted uranium, and though it does say that it has gotten into the environment (air, groundwater), it makes no specific claims of health effects, only cites "potential health risks". Therefore, I don't think this is an acceptable source for information on ''health'' effects. The study does mention that the WHO was going to address DU health effects, so perhaps we should cite that study instead. User:Bonus Onus 23:37, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC) ==MAPW== Christiaan, the reason I removed your edit was: The MAPW is an organization with clear political motives. It says it in their name: "the prevention of war". It is obvious from their website that they are a leftist organization with anti-nuclear motives, and their advice is somewhat lacking in legitimacy. It doesnt really seem that relevant that some fringe group of doctors in australia told the australian government that they should not send soldiers to iraq. Had this been an actual study, I would have left it. But it isn't. It is a fact about the opinion of a certain group on the issue, and a very minor group at that. User:Bonus Onus 03:15, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC) :The use of depleted uranium is a political issue. None of your comments seem to bare any relation to the encyclopedic value of the passage. �User:Christiaan 20:43, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::So should we include every single thing every single group says about depleted uranium, no matter how illegitimate their claims are? If a company that makes DU says it is completely safe, should we mention that without any qualifications? --User:Bonus Onus 02:46, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC) I find it rather interesting that you've argued to remove public comments by the MAPW but you're now wanting to include some superfluous unattributable remark by an unknown journalist. Readers will already be well aware there is no conclusive evidence in regard to sickness from depleted uranium. �User:Christiaan 11:26, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC) :And what remark would that be? User:Bonus Onus 21:57, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC) ::http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Depleted_uranium&diff=11787223&oldid=11784530 �User:Christiaan 23:19, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::Well I am in favor of the inclusion of that last sentence because i think it puts the MAPW's announcement in better context. However, I'd still rather have this paragraph removed altogether. It doesn't add anything to the topic, and offers no original information about the health effects of DU. User:Bonus Onus 01:19, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC) ==Circumstantial evidence== This paragraph: "The use of DU has also been associated (but no causal link established) with an increase in the rate of birth defects in the children of Gulf War veterans and has been suggested to be the cause of the 'worrying number of anophthalmos cases -- babies born without eyes' in Iraq. Only one in 50 million births should be anophthalmic, yet one Baghdad hospital had eight cases in just two years. Seven of the fathers had been exposed to American DU anti-tank rounds in 1991." Is entirely circumstantial evidence, and really should have no place in an article reporting scientific facts. Let's have more definite laboratory trials and less of this inconclusive stuff. I propose removing it. Anyone disagree? --User:Bonus Onus 02:26, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC) :Yes I certainly disagree, Wikipedia is not a court room. Where is it Wikipedia policy to exclude the reporting of circmstantial evidence? �User:Christiaan 11:32, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::To some extent you are correct, and there may be a place for this type of evidence on certain wikipedia articles. however, when this evidence is presented as scientific fact, it can be misleading, and should not be placed in the same category as legitimate scientific studies. So perhaps we can leave it in, but with severe qualifications, such as explaining that it is not a scientific study. If possible, though, it should be replaced with more credible evidence. User:Bonus Onus 21:43, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC) ::: To state the obvious, nobody is ever going to do a proper scientific experiment to investigate the health effects of DU. Unless they do, all the evidence would have to be epidemiological and hence to some extent 'circumstantial'. But the 'circumstantial' evidence would be assisted if there was some use of control groups. The basic problem with arguing from the Iraqi experience is that there were all sorts of other things going on at the same time. Most of them were not conducive to the health safety and welfare of those present,and it is not easy to work out what caused what. Two obvious questions arise: :::what causal link/pathway can be postulated to link the observed effects to the alleged cause? :::what is known of the effect of uranium (depleted or otherwise) away from Iraq; either as munitions (eg in the Balkans)or involved in fires (eg the Teneriffe collision)or discharged from fertiliser plants or re suspended from uranium mining tailings ? :::Agent Orange is a roughly analogous case of novel war-waging technology applied by the US military and getting a bad press, but there considering the equivalent questions could rapidly dispel any suspicion that views on the ends for which the technology was used were colouring the verdict on its effects . Perhaps further work will show that the same is true here, but for the moment it is hard to see the case as proven. ::: Up here on the Solway Firth, we have the Windscale piles which had a major uranium fire nearly 50 years ago; we had until recently at Whitehaven a phosphoric acid plant which used to discharge every year ton quantities of uranium to the Irish Sea and a number of firing ranges which (as this (http://www.sundayherald.com/32522) article points out) have test-fired DU munitions. As far as I know there are no signs of problems similar to those being reported from Iraq. Given that we also have a controversial nuclear reprocessing plant at Sellafield discharging to the Solway I strongly suspect that if there were any such problems someone would have found them by now and ascribed it to Sellafield discharges. Therefore (it seems to me) either there is some complicating factor associated with uranium in Iraq but not in these parts, or uranium is not a major factor in the health problems of Iraq and Gulf War veterans User:rjccumbria May 12 2005 ==Is the entire Gulf War Section about a personal vendeta?== Christiaan, is this entire section about your little friend Ken? Most of the evidence cited is horseshit, and cannot be backed up. Even a cursory look at this so called evidence reveals it is full of holes (mustard agents, and GWI vets mortality). How much of this garbage are we going to allow in the article over a personal misplaced grudge? User:TDC 19:43, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC) :Who is Ken? User:Bonus Onus 21:45, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC) ::TDC has psycological problems I wouldn't get too cuddly with him. �User:Christiaan 21:46, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::Nah, he doesn't seem too crazy. He's just a heavy-duty republican, lol. Still don't understand the Ken thing though. User:Bonus Onus 01:19, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC) ::::Hehe, yeah, like I said, he has psycological problems. Ken O'Keefe a good friend of mine. �User:Christiaan 01:30, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC) It seems to me as if what we have here is section of an article grossly oversized considering the marginal nature of its �evidence� and �experts�. Your simple dismissal of my statement leads me to believe that there is more to my allegation that you will admit to. Let me guess, did your Iraqi �minders� take you and lil Ken on a tour of Iraqi hospitals to tug on your heart strings, right before you went to guard the AA sites? This section is going to get a severe trimming. User:TDC 16:27, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC) : Would you all mind stopping provoking each other like five years old ? It is really unnecessary for the discussion of the article. User:Rama 17:16, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC) :: Sorry but I feel that personal motivations matter a great deal. User:TDC 17:20, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

See other meanings of words starting from letter:

D

DA | DB | DC | DE | DF | DG | DH | DI | DJ | DK | DL | DM | DN | DO | DP | DR | DS | DT | DU | DW | DX | DY | DZ |

Words begining with Depleted_uranium:

Depleted_uranium
Depleted_uranium
Depleted_uranium/Archive_1
Depleted_uranium_ammunition