Guess what kids, there's a war on! Depleted Uranium anyone?

[neonlyte]

High-level nuclear waste has a future being pulverized on battlefields, then? Because people in their cities and towns are no less deserving of death than Imperial troops spearheading the next assault to secure resources?

Not sure if this is aimed at me?

If I created an impression that I was happy to see low grade nuclear waste spread around the battlefields then I need to re-type the post.

I'm not even trying to play devils advocat here - the use pisses me off, the wars piss me off and above all the refusal to clean it up pisses me off.

 

[cantdog]

I was summarizing. I didn't aim it.

I think the jury is back with the verdict about the dirty old nukes in Japan.

There is a lot of elaborate apologium absolving Truman in American history books. Wisdom crowned his brow when he ordered that.

Despite that verdict by the unrepentant victor, the entire world was very determined that any use of the weapons was unconscionable. Except Curtis LeMay, of course. I suggest a quick skim of the Physicians for Social Responsibility sites. The consequences of a single modern nuke are described in detail. The public health implications alone are staggering.

Even before all this detail was known, though, when I was a kid and a teen, the Balance of terror ruled international politics. The Doomsday Clock made the paper and the magazines once in a while, as the cold war warmed and faded to a simmer. Universally, no one wanted any nukes to be deployed anwhere. That was what made them a deterrent. They were an unanswerable wall.

If this is allowed to get much more serious, we could trigger a nuclear war, people said, and so we had no full-scale worldwide conflict through the period. This was not because the use of nukes shortened wars, but because their use threatened the existence of civilized mankind as a whole.

Dirty nukes like those ones are being built into Bunker Buster missiles, now. (Brit gov't ordered some, American defense industry making them, big controversy no one gets to read about here in the land of the free press.) The idea being that the concentrated destructive power is handy, you know, shortening war. Plus dirty low-power bombs are a lot easier to decontam than the modern article.

I think the entire argument is still bogus. I think we have abdicated responsibility for the use of this sort of thing for largely nationalistic but also racist reasons, for reasons of corporate acquisitiveness, for the pursuit of power.

As with all such drives, the drive comes first, the justifying arguments second. They are poor ones, I believe, but they are the winning arguments all the same, for reasons having little to do with their merit as arguments.

 

[amicus]

Colleen Thomas....Bravo!

Now if you would consider confronting theBullet on Global Warming, I would send money....

smiles and thank you....amicus...

(love those ellipses...)

 

[TheEarl]

I really don't see that I'm treating you contemptuously, Earl. What part of my post struck you that way?

The sentence I quoted about 're-evaluating with less preconception'. It suggested that I had my conclusion and then found evidence to support it, whereas I actually had my conclusion, researched the matter and realised that (as far as I am concerned at least) the evidence pointed away from my conclusion.I t's a rare position in a debate to find yourself with an opinion derived from details provided in that debate, as opposed to providing details within the debate that are derived from my opinion .

I'm aware that you probably didn't meant to sound snippy; you are a very reasonable bloke.

On your last post: Knowing what is now known about nuclear weapons and the horrific damage they can do, I still support the decision to bomb Hiroshima. Nagasaki I believe was vindictiveness and unnecessary as Hiroshima showed the destructive power of the bomb and no other example was needed. However, that's OT.

The bomb was a horrific and inhumane tactic. Yet it saved hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides. DU is on a far, far smaller scale. It may cost dozens of lives in sickness and uranium poisoning. Yet it may save dozens to prevent long drawn out, Stalingrad fights. Its use should be regulated and agreed, no way in hell was Iraq appropriate. Yet it can save lives at the expense of taking some.

Interesting historical sidenote: Admiral Gallery, one of the major US defence planners in post WW2 had comprehensive plans for US atomic attacks against Soviet ground troops whilst they were still the only nation with the bomb. Patton, Simpson and Montgomery considered the USSR a serious threat to European stability and were prepared to continue marching through Germany to take on the Red Army, harnessing what was left of the Wehrmacht and utilising strategic nuclear attacks to wipe out the Red Army's superior numbers. It was only Eisenhower's conservative leadership that prevented what would've been quite a short and extremely irradiated WW3.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn't shock the world into peace for fear of nuclear war. It was only once the Russians acquired the bomb and had the capability to create Mutually Assured Destruction that the world started to play nice.

The Earl

 

[TheEarl]

Oh and amicus: Global warming...? No, actually I don't want to know.

The Earl

 

[Guest]

Honestly got sucked into thread because I couldn't understand what was bullshit, opinion, and fact. A summary of data from the World Health Organization's website on this subject . . .



Fact sheet N°257
Revised January 2003

DEPLETED URANIUM

URANIUM
* Metallic uranium (U) is a silver-white, lustrous, dense, weakly radioactive element. It is ubiquitous throughout the natural environment, and is found in varying but small amounts in rocks, soils, water, air, plants, animals and in all human beings. * Natural uranium consists of a mixture of three radioactive isotopes which are identified by the mass numbers 238U (99.27% by mass), 235U (0.72%) and 234U (0.0054%).
* On average, approximately 90 µg (micrograms) of uranium exists in the human body from normal intakes of water, food and air. About 66% is found in the skeleton, 16% in the liver, 8% in the kidneys and 10% in other tissues.
* Uranium is used primarily in nuclear power plants. However, most reactors require uranium in which the 235U content is enriched from 0.72% to about 1.5-3%.

DEPLETED URANIUM
* The uranium remaining after removal of the enriched fraction contains about 99.8% 238U, 0.2% 235U and 0.001% 234U by mass; this is referred to as depleted uranium or DU.
* The main difference between DU and natural uranium is that the former contains at least three times less 235U than the latter.
* DU, consequently, is weakly radioactive and a radiation dose from it would be about 60% of that from purified natural uranium with the same mass.
* The behaviour of DU in the body is identical to that of natural uranium.
* Spent uranium fuel from nuclear reactors is sometimes reprocessed in plants for natural uranium enrichment. Some reactor-created radioisotopes can consequently contaminate the reprocessing equipment and the DU. Under these conditions another uranium isotope, 236U, may be present in the DU together with very small amounts of the transuranic elements plutonium, americium and neptunium and the fission product technetium-99. However, the additional radiation dose following intake of DU into the human body from these isotopes would be less than 1%.

APPLICATIONS OF DEPLETED URANIUM
* Due to its high density, about twice that of lead, the main civilian uses of DU include counterweights in aircraft, radiation shields in medical radiation therapy machines and containers for the transport of radioactive materials. The military uses DU for defensive armour plate.
* DU is used in armour penetrating military ordnance because of its high density, and also because DU can ignite on impact if the temperature exceeds 600°C.

EXPOSURE TO URANIUM AND DEPLETED URANIUM
* Under most circumstances, use of DU will make a negligible contribution to the overall natural background levels of uranium in the environment. Probably the greatest potential for DU exposure will follow conflict where DU munitions are used.
* A recent United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) report giving field measurements taken around selected impact sites in Kosovo (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) indicates that contamination by DU in the environment was localized to a few tens of metres around impact sites. Contamination by DU dusts of local vegetation and water supplies was found to be extremely low. Thus, the probability of significant exposure to local populations was considered to be very low.
* A UN expert team reported in November 2002 that they found traces of DU in three locations among 14 sites investigated in Bosnia following NATO airstrikes in 1995. A full report is expected to be published by UNEP in March 2003.
* Levels of DU may exceed background levels of uranium close to DU contaminating events. Over the days and years following such an event, the contamination normally becomes dispersed into the wider natural environment by wind and rain. People living or working in affected areas may inhale contaminated dusts or consume contaminated food and drinking water.
* People near an aircraft crash may be exposed to DU dusts if counterweights are exposed to prolonged intense heat. Significant exposure would be rare, as large masses of DU counterweights are unlikely to ignite and would oxidize only slowly. Exposures of clean-up and emergency workers to DU following aircraft accidents are possible, but normal occupational protection measures would prevent any significant exposure.

INTAKE OF DEPLETED URANIUM
* Average annual intakes of uranium by adults are estimated to be about 0.5mg (500 μg) from ingestion of food and water and 0.6 μg from breathing air.
* Ingestion of small amounts of DU contaminated soil by small children may occur while playing.
* Contact exposure of DU through the skin is normally very low and unimportant.
* Intake from wound contamination or embedded fragments in skin tissues may allow DU to enter the systemic circulation.

ABSORPTION OF DEPLETED URANIUM
* About 98% of uranium entering the body via ingestion is not absorbed, but is eliminated via the faeces. Typical gut absorption rates for uranium in food and water are about 2% for soluble and about 0.2% for insoluble uranium compounds.
* The fraction of uranium absorbed into the blood is generally greater following inhalation than following ingestion of the same chemical form. The fraction will also depend on the particle size distribution. For some soluble forms, more than 20% of the inhaled material could be absorbed into blood.
* Of the uranium that is absorbed into the blood, approximately 70% will be filtered by the kidney and excreted in the urine within 24 hours; this amount increases to 90% within a few days.

POTENTIAL HEALTH EFFECTS OF EXPOSURE TO DEPLETED URANIUM
* In the kidneys, the proximal tubules (the main filtering component of the kidney) are considered to be the main site of potential damage from chemical toxicity of uranium. There is limited information from human studies indicating that the severity of effects on kidney function and the time taken for renal function to return to normal both increase with the level of uranium exposure.
* In a number of studies on uranium miners, an increased risk of lung cancer was demonstrated, but this has been attributed to exposure from radon decay products. Lung tissue damage is possible leading to a risk of lung cancer that increases with increasing radiation dose. However, because DU is only weakly radioactive, very large amounts of dust (on the order of grams) would have to be inhaled for the additional risk of lung cancer to be detectable in an exposed group. Risks for other radiation-induced cancers, including leukaemia, are considered to be very much lower than for lung cancer.
* Erythema (superficial inflammation of the skin) or other effects on the skin are unlikely to occur even if DU is held against the skin for long periods (weeks).
* No consistent or confirmed adverse chemical effects of uranium have been reported for the skeleton or liver.
* No reproductive or developmental effects have been reported in humans.
* Although uranium released from embedded fragments may accumulate in the central nervous system (CNS) tissue, and some animal and human studies are suggestive of effects on CNS function, it is difficult to draw firm conclusions from the few studies reported.

MAXIMUM RADIATION EXPOSURE LIMITS AND THEIR LIMITED APPLICATION TO URANIUM AND DEPLETED URANIUM
The International Basic Safety Standards, agreed by all applicable UN agencies in 1996, provide for radiation dose limits above normal background exposure levels.
* The general public should not receive a dose of more than 1 millisievert (mSv) in a year. In special circumstances, an effective dose of up to 5 mSv in a single year is permitted provided that the average dose over five consecutive years does not exceed 1 mSv per year. An equivalent dose to the skin should not exceed 50 mSv in a year.
* Occupational exposure should not exceed an effective dose of 20 mSv per year averaged over five consecutive years or an effective dose of 50 mSv in any single year. An equivalent dose to the extremities (hands and feet) or the skin should not surpass 500 mSv in a year.
* In case of uranium or DU intake, the radiation dose limits are applied to inhaled insoluble uranium-compounds only. For all other exposure pathways and the soluble uranium-compounds, chemical toxicity is the factor that limits exposure.

GUIDANCE ON EXPOSURE BASED ON CHEMICAL TOXICITY OF URANIUM
WHO has guidelines for determining the values of health-based exposure limits or tolerable intakes for chemical substances. The tolerable intakes given below are applicable to long-term exposure of the general public (as opposed to workers). For single and short-term exposures, higher exposure levels may be tolerated without adverse effects.
* The general public's intake via inhalation or ingestion of soluble DU compounds should be based on a tolerable intake value of 0.5 µg per kg of body weight per day. This leads to an air concentration of 1 µg/m3 for inhalation, and about 11 mg/y for ingestion by the average adult.
* Insoluble uranium compounds with very low absorption rate are markedly less toxic to the kidney, and a tolerable intake via ingestion of 5 µg per kg of body weight per day is applicable.
* When the solubility characteristics of the uranium compounds are not known, which is often the case in exposure to DU, it would be prudent to apply 0.5 µg per kg of body weight per day for ingestion.

MONITORING AND TREATMENT OF EXPOSED INDIVIDUALS
* For the general population, neither civilian nor military use of DU is likely to produce exposures to DU significantly above normal background levels of uranium. Therefore, individual exposure assessments for DU will normally not be required. Exposure assessments based on environmental measurements may, however, be needed for public information and reassurance.
* When an individual is suspected of being exposed to DU at a level significantly above the normal background level, an assessment of DU exposure may be required. This is best achieved by analysis of daily urine excretion. Urine analysis can provide useful information for the prognosis of kidney pathology from uranium or DU. The proportion of DU in the urine is determined from the 235U/238U ratio, obtained using sensitive mass spectrometric techniques.
* Faecal measurement can also give useful information on DU intake. However, faecal excretion of natural uranium from the diet is considerable (on average 500 μg per day, but very variable) and this needs to be taken into account.
* External radiation measurements over the chest, using radiation monitors for determining the amount of DU in the lungs, require special facilities. This technique can measure about 10 milligrams of DU in the lungs, and (except for souble compounds) can be useful soon after exposure.
* There are no specific means to decrease the absorption of uranium from the gastrointestinal tract or lungs. Following severe internal contamination, treatment in special hospitals consists of the slow intravenous transfusion of isotonic 1.4 % sodium bicarbonate to increase excretion of uranium. DU levels in the human, however, are not expected to reach a value that would justify intravenous treatment any more than dialysis.

RECOMMENDATIONS
* Following conflict, levels of DU contamination in food and drinking water might be detected in affected areas even after a few years. This should be monitored where it is considered there is a reasonable possibility of significant quantities of DU entering the ground water or food chain.
* Where justified and possible, clean-up operations in impact zones should be undertaken if there are substantial numbers of radioactive projectiles remaining and where qualified experts deem contamination levels to be unacceptable. If high concentrations of DU dust or metal fragments are present, then areas may need to be cordoned off until removal can be accomplished. Such impact sites are likely to contain a variety of hazardous materials, in particular unexploded ordnance. Due consideration needs to be given to all hazards, and the potential hazard from DU kept in perspective.
* Small children could receive greater exposure to DU when playing in or near DU impact sites. Their typical hand-to-mouth activity could lead to high DU ingestion from contaminated soil. Necessary preventative measures should be taken.
* Disposal of DU should follow appropriate national or international recommendations.

RELATED LINKS
- Depleted Uranium: http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/env/du/en/index.html
Provides a summary of the scientific literature on uranium and depleted uranium.

- WHO guidance on exposure to depleted uranium [pdf 394kb]: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2001/WHO_SDE_OEH_01.12.pdf
Provides information on medical treatment from excessive DU exposure and advice for programme administrators sending personnel to DU contaminated areas.

- Uranium: http://www.who.int/topics/uranium/en/index.html

For more information contact:

WHO Media centre
Telephone: +41 22 791 2222
E-mail: mediainquiries@who.int

 

[sun_lover_61]

I'm curious. What "common underlying beliefs" are these? I'm not sure if you mean the manner in which one debates, or the topics that one debates. Just curious.

Dear Shanglan,

I mean, core beliefs that are shared by all parties. If we were to have a debate right now there would be rafts of common, core beleifs that would be tacitly assumed. Many of these, where I come from, have been getting a right-wing makeover over the last decades. Some that have perceptibly shifted in Australia in the last 20 years are...

1) The necessity and value of social welfare.
2) The intrinsic value of education - beyond vocational training.
3) The view of education as a market "commodity", like any other market good, has grown.
4) The right of, and value of, collective organisation (union busting!)
5) The notion of global brotherhood (well and truly on the trash heap).

To give you an example (on point 1). I was chatting to a young woman a month or so back who I know to have strong political ambitions. She regards herself as "well left of centre", and "humanistic" in oulook. Yet, she launched into a defence of social welfare, with me - where she ultimately concluded that there should be at least "some" welfare provided by the state, and that it was a "necessary evil".

It broke my heart to see someone turning herself inside out to defend something I assume to be necessary and important, and not an evil at all. Eventually I asked her, rather sarcastically, "Do you really think, as a society we should look after people who can't look after themselves?! Why should we do that?" She now hates my guts.

That is the nature of the politcal victory of the right. They have shifted core, common beliefs.

SL61

 

[sun_lover_61]

For example, I found the WHO and UN reports on DU very interesting reading, and fairly persuasive. However emotionally powerful I might find the image of a man dying early from lung cancer induced by DU exposure, it behooves me to find out if such people exist or are ever likely to exist. hanglan

I promised, in an earlier post, to show some references. I haven't done it because I have been a slack arse dog out on the tiles trying to procure some scruff.

I will just mention, my data on this subject comes initially from two articles, one published in "New Scientist", and the other in "Scientific American". Both were published about 2 years ago. They both cite other studies, one of which I have read. Unless its really bad science, seems persuasive to me.

By the way, how is the brain alteration going? Hope you have come to a philosophical acceptance that you can live with.

SL61

 

[Guest]

Hey bullet.

It seems to me that you were always opposed to the war in Iraq because you didn't care enough about their problems to want the US to step in and help. Now you want to bitch about theoretical health hazzard that MAY effect those same people. Why do you suddenly care what happens to the Iraqis? It's not your problem.

I think you just need something to stand on your crate and bitch about. Otherwise no one would here you and what a shame that would be.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Sunlover, I understand your point on core values now. That's a tough one for me. There's the part of me that thinks, "All assumptions can be questioned; it's part of a good debate to unpick the opposition's assumptions and to examine them carefully." However, I am enough of a pragmatist to recognize that one can't challenge a raft of prevailing assumptions as well as dealing with the topic at hand. Generally, when I've been wrangling with reasonable people and we've found ourselves in this position, we tend to shift down to the "lowest level" topic of debate and work that, but then, that's amongst people who have respect for each other and are genuinely interested in learning about diverse points of view and what makes people believe them. If one is interested primarily in persuading someone that one is right about a specific topic, I can see that this would be a hinderance. However, I will still put in a good word for debate as a learning process despite and perhaps even because of this issue of pre-existing assumptions. When one brings them into a debate, one learns that there are in fact people who don't share those assumptions, and that rather than taking them for granted, one must actually prove them. In the process, one can learn a great deal about the depth and consistancy of one's own stance, and even at times learn that one's own assumptions don't bear quite the scrutiny one thought they did. One can also draw other people to challenge and defend their own assumptions, and help them see that they are just that: assumptions, not necessarily facts.

By the way, I found your list of assumptions very interesting. I'm old fashioned enough to have followed W. H. Auden several steps down the "Christian Marxist" path, so naturally I perceive patterns in that list intrinsic to my assumptions. It looks to me like the force of industrialized capitalism crushing everything beneath its will. Industrialization, being essentially a process focused on mechanization and efficiency, seems to me to be inherently of a Utilitarian/pragmatist bent. If it doesn't make a direct physical contribution to efficient production of material goods, it's worthless. Sadly, I would also suggest that this also has something to do with many aesthetic losses in the modern world. No one bothers to attempt to communicate beautifully any more; we only attempt to communicate quickly. Pleased with our newfound efficiency, we manage to convince ourselves that there is no loss in surrendering small daily beauties.

But I'm wandering quite far afield from the topic. If you do ever happen to turn up those articles, I would be most interested in them. It's always difficult in cases like this to know how good one's data is, especially when one is not well educatd in the field.

Shanglan

 

[thebullet]

Some person named Cowgirl wrote:
Hey bullet.
It seems to me that you were always opposed to the war in Iraq because you didn't care enough about their problems to want the US to step in and help. Now you want to bitch about theoretical health hazzard that MAY effect those same people. Why do you suddenly care what happens to the Iraqis? It's not your problem.

I think you just need something to stand on your crate and bitch about. Otherwise no one would here you and what a shame that would be

I'm not familiar with you, cowgirl, but you obviously aren't familiar with me either. You are absolutely correct, I've always been opposed to the war in Iraq, mostly because I saw through the lies being told by the administration. I certainly felt for the people of Iraq under Sadaam, but is it up to the US to be the world's policeman? Is it our job to intervene in every oppressive regime? If so, we need to increase the size of our military exponentially.

As for complaining about hearing me 'bitch about theorectical health hazaard': I didn't bitch. I didn't even offer an opinion. I merely posted an article that referenced data published in the British medical journal, Lancet.

Why are you attacking me, cowgirl? I haven't even taken a side in this issue.

But for the record, yes, I care about what is happening in Iraq. Yes, I care about the people of Iraq. Yes, I know that since the US imposed sanctions against that country, the people have suffered greatly at our hands. Since the war began we have used unconscionable weapons and policies against that beleagured people. Can you say 'cluster bomb'?

Why are we there, cowgirl? Was it the terrorists that they (Sadaam included) had nothing to do with? Was it the WMD's that they didn't have? Did we suddenly have this desire to bring democracy to them and decided the way to do it was to kill several hundred thousand Iraqi civilians?

Geez, cowgirl, it couldn't be the fact that Iraq sits on an ocean of oil and our oil companies want to grab it. I could never believe that of our great president.

 

[amicus]

Sunlover61....gave a list of so called 'core' values that 'some' assume and take for granted in conversations with others.

"1) The necessity and value of social welfare.
2) The intrinsic value of education - beyond vocational training.
3) The view of education as a market "commodity", like any other market good, has grown.
4) The right of, and value of, collective organisation (union busting!)
5) The notion of global brotherhood (well and truly on the trash heap)..."


Shanglan gently suggested these 'values' might be 'Christian Marxist' or Utilitarian/Pragmatist in origin.

I am not so kind. I suggest this 'core belief' in the right of some men to force others to support them reflects a value system that would gag a maggot.

(1) Institutionalized 'social welfare' is legalized theft and redistributing resources by the use of force. It is a common factor in dictatorships and other controlled economies and has no place in a free society.

(2) Mandatory, government administered education, is basically a contradiction in terms. By what right can anyone claim a portion of my income to educate your child, or force me to educate my child in a manner in which 'you' approve?

(3) Education is a commodity, like anything else, Health care included and will function best and most efficiently with free people making free choices about the products and services they will purchase.

(4) Labor Unions...An outgrowth, a hang-over from the age of Guilds, where-in only guild members could practice a trade, limit the number who could do so and keep prices high to control the market place. The history of labor unions is more than tawdry, it is sordid and rife with corruption. The very idea that one should have to pay money to an organization just to be able to work at a certain job is obscene.

(5) Global Brotherhood....ah, the old fellow travelers of the communist world. There is more global brotherhood now than ever before, it is called American Business. Funny thing is, English has become the language of business and the internet, the 'dollar' is the standard of value and you can get a Big Mac almost anywhere in the world. But the world does not dine on Kangaroo meat or Dingo burgers.



If there are core values that people have, intrinsic, basic concepts that each assume the other hold, they should be on the order of:

An individuals right to exist, free from force of others.
An individuals right to retain the fruit of his labor.
An individuals right to provide for himself and those dependent on him, without restriction.
An individuals right to move about freely, to work at his choice of endeavor, to bear children and to use force to defend his rights and his property.

Just a brief sketch of some of the values 'free' men hold in common in a rational society.

With those values seen as fundamental, men can communicate and cooperate for mutual advantage and do just about anything within the realm of human possibility...and we are...so get the hell out of our way.

amicus the amicable Yank...

 

[sun_lover_61]

Sunlover61....gave a list of so called 'core' values that 'some' assume and take for granted in conversations with others.

No, you misunderstand Amicus. I said they are core values/assumptions where there seems to be have been a huge shift.

Your views, as expressed, is where the western world (Australia, certainly, but elsewhere also) has shifted to. Congratulations for being "right on the money". I am caught wearing a paisley shirt and flairs.

Of course, i still passionately disagree with you on all 5 points, but i won't get into that now!!

(Just as an aside - I re-read of Das Kapital recently, just for a refresher. It seems a hopelessly flawed world view - too divisive. Its failure embedded in it from the outset).

SL61