h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"After we shoot something with DU, we're not supposed to go around it, due to the fact that it could cause cancer," says a sergeant in Baghdad from New York, assigned to a Bradley, who asked not to be further identified.

Iraqi local drivers pull up and snap up fresh bunches of parsley, mint leaves, dill, and onion stalks.But Ms. Hamid's stand is just four paces away from a burnt-out Iraqi tank, destroyed by - and contaminated with - controversial American depleted-uranium (DU) bullets. Local children play "throughout the day" on the tank, Hamid says, and on another one across the road

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0515/p01s02-woiq.html

The monitor has been following the DU story since 1999
It does not seem as if it's being worried about or officially investigated. The fact that the military buries anything that has been hit says they know more than they act like doesn't it? They have done nothing to clean the known sites except tell solidiers to avoid it , even when imporatant documents are in view they are not to touch them or retieve them.

The same thing happened in Serbia and Croatia, kids are playing on the tanks, its not as though they have anywhere else to go. They are now getting cancer. When I mentioned this to my mum, as an example of US stupidity, she said'serves them right, they shouldn't be playing on tanks'.



Yep, they all have parents who understand the dangers of abandoned tanks don't they? They have nowhere else to play, and many have lost their parents, why should they kow better?

She still doesn't understand why we say that that visit didn't go well, we have said we will not discuss certain subjects with her anymore, and she doesn't get it.

But still, it doesn't stop the fact there are abandoned tanks everywhere, causing illness, which the US army seems to believe it is under no obligation to clear up.

There was only one warning posted that the reporters and military man they were with knew of. Thankfully they put it in something besides English But most of the sites are not posted. It should been on their news and in their papers,anywhere people can get the information.

It is far more dangerous substance when it is burning or has burned.Unfortunately the particles will be so small and inhaled that it will not be discovered for a long time if ever. The issue of it being on food is just as bad if not worse. They have warned about that.

I climbed on shot up and burned up tanks after the last Persian GUlf War. I haven't noticed any ill effects.

That is good two-bit. I hope it stays that way for you.

As long as it was not daily there should be no problem.
How long were you there ,and how long ago?

It would take 10-20 years for an adult to notice,children would not take so long.

In Britain there have been a few documentaries recently shown comprising video footage previously censored by the US and UK armed forces during the last Gulf War. One of the things censored was the troops and civilians comments on uranium tipped shells (as well as US troops and officers beating up, shooting at and blowing up journalists, prisoners of war and civilians).

What will 'out' in future years I wonder?

Everywhere the US plants its military seed there remains poisoned and spent earth littered with unexploded ordinance.

Battles are preferably fought in rural areas, on farmland etc. After the fighting stops, if the land isn't completely destroyed, any crops which can grow are either tainted or the land itself is dangerous due to mines and carpet bombs, unspent ammunition and explosives.

Imagine Los Angeles (which like Baghdad has a high percentage of armed civilians) covered with this unexploded ordinance; with every abandoned automobile irradiated with uranium; with uranium tipped shells and shrapnel embeded in house walls or buried in gardens. Maybe this scenario would open the eyes of the US' armed forces commanders into reconsidering the use of radioactive ammunition...but I doubt it - the US armed forces have always operated on the surmise that their 'great, huge, strong' fortress of a continent is unreachable and untouchable to outside forces so what they do to the rest of the world is okay. I mean look at the great job they've done in Afghanistan - blow it up and clear out, that's their moto.

There is enough destruction without that time bomb being left behind.

I do not believe I have read ,or not in a long while...What is the benefit or reasoning behind using them,is it *to get rid of it* as a waste problem?

Yes...I am confused about the use of radioactive ammunition thing too

Hi *waves* Andrea
I will see if I can find the original reasons.
They have a way of changing


Here's and interesting news bit;

Bushs former top counter-terrorism expert, Rand Beers, has gone to work for the Kerry for President team. Beers quit his National Security Council post on the eve of the war with Iraq, reportedly unhappy about the shift in focus.
http://www.reasononline.com

Depleted Uranium is a very high density material, much denser and stronger than lead. As such, shells made from it have greater penetration power for their size than standard rounds.

The object of using a shell is to get it into and through enemy targets. From a military veiwpoint, denser ammunition is much better.

In the same sense, denser armor is better at stopping the penetration of shells. So, it is possible that some tanks have depleted uranium built in as part of their armor.

As far as the radioactivity goes, I don't know of anyone who knows and is permitted to say what the actual level of radiation is from the 'depleted' uranium.

Depleted uranium is that portion of refined uranium that remains after removing the U-235 isotope that is most useful for making bombs. The remainder is mostly U-238, which is also useful for making plutonium as part of the nuclear power cycle, but that requires further bombardment.

U-238 has a half life of more than 4 billion years. Which means that though still radioactive, it is relatively stable. This, in turn, means that it gives off relatively little radiation. The decomposition process, which ends with a stable form of lead may be more or less dangerous depending on the nature of the radiation given off and the concetration of radioactive material.

It is also important to note that U-238 reacts with water and disolves in acids. Water, of course, is ubiquitous, thought not so much so in arid countries and acids are common wherever there is water.

Also important is to understand that there is no part of the natural earth that is free from radiation.

While it is clear that using depleted uranium must increase the radiation in targets and in the surrounding area where it's particles and solutions may spread, it is not clear how much that increase is relative to our ability to withstand it without some key information that is not being supplied.

It would help if someone who served in the tank corps and who handled these rounds could explain what precautions were taken before they were fired and whether these shells were lead coated ore stored in lead lined containers.

Barton

"some tanks have depleted uranium built in as part of their armor"
Hmmm..

Very interesting and informative.
Thank you very much Barton!

Denada

Barton

There was a pretty good opinion piece in The Seattle Times recently, which suggested that the use of DU may indeed have long term consequences.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/134679445_milner21.html

Here's a (very) little of what they had to say...

"After the Gulf War in the fall of 1991, the U.S. had a total casualty count of 727 — 269 dead and 458 wounded or ill. The casualty rate now for Gulf War veterans is approximately 30 percent. Of those stationed in the theater, including after the conflict, 221,000 have been awarded disability, according to a Veterans Affairs (VA) report issued Sept. 10, 2002. Many of the U.S. casualties are a direct result of exposure to uranium munitions, according to Canadian and U.S. researchers."

0

I had no idea the stats were that high!
Thank-you
I'll read it.

"The risks associated with depleted uranium are both chemical and radiological. In 2000, the U.S. Department of Energy admitted that depleted uranium used in Kosovo was contaminated with "transuramic" (heavier than uranium) fission wastes from inside nuclear reactors. Munitions used were spiked with plutonium, neptunium and americium."
More from ~ April 2003 Seatle Times

Geesh. That article is a strong article for the banning. Not good news to the people living off the coast of the NorthWestern US either.

I can't wait to vote against George Bush.

Of course, nothing can change the fact that people blow each other up. It's gone from bad to worse to ghastly. And most Americans live very comfortably in ignorance.

I don't think voting against Dubya will help very much, but it's something!!!!

It never ceases to amaze me how some people can discuss this stuff with such calm detachment.

Like we don't have any indication of what levels are bad or whatever.

We shouldn't have to prove what levels are bad. They should have to prove what levels are okay. It's not like the earth is made of depleted uranium and we've evolved in that sort of environment. No, it took the progressiveness of American military might to mine, concentrate and then deliver this stuff to kill people, the "targets" as they euphemistically put it.

Does anybody else ever get the idea that these people are sociopaths?

Yeah, I know they claim they're just defending themselves but it's not like everybody's been attacking the United States for 200 years, quite the opposite. And who keeps coming up with more and more heinous weapons in alleged response to enemy threats that hardly ever materialize.

The United States has the largest arsenal of such weapons on earth and most of them were invented in house not copied from some alleged enemy threatening all the poor Americans.

Mark my words. This is all going to come home to roost one of these days and then people might not be so detached about it when the burnt out tanks are in their own backyards with THEIR children playing on them. Who will they blame then? History suggests it won't be themselves.

Kill for peace has always been the motto. America doesn't have a monopoly on hypocrisy but they sure seem to have the market cornered right now.

Yep ,killing for peace is as ignorant (or sociopathic) as it was in the begining.

160,000 years of humanity later.......

Based on my study of history and current events, it seems that there is an easy way to ensure peace in the world,

eliminate all forms of the phrase, "I want ..."

Of course, then I would have a lot of trouble saying, "I want peace." Hopefully, it will just happen(?).

Barton