To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 20154
20153  |  20155
Subject: 
DU is/is not a problem?
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Fri, 4 Apr 2003 08:53:04 GMT
Viewed: 
200 times
  
*what* persistent health concerns?

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/templates/statements/statementDetails.cfm?StatementID=143




This [HM Government funded] report's author was on Radio 4 the other night. His
study was a desk study; parts of which have been superseded by a UN report:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2884761.stm

He also conceded that the model he had used was unreliable, that he was not
always happy with the way HM's Government [and others] cited his report and
that  more research is needed [presumably undertaken by him].

The USA undertook a study of a few servicemen [~60?] that were in tanks that
were hit during Desert Storm [friendly fire]. This included guys who had
fragments in their bodies; some of who subsequently had kids. It demonstrated
that there was no real risk [irc].

Personally, I'm not convinced that:
a) DU is/is not a problem.
b) Tungsten is not a viable alternative [it is not pyrophoric].
c) Erring on the safe side is not the best thing to do.

Soldiers are far more likely to die of lead poisoning(1) than they are of
uranium poisoning.

Two points on that quip:
1. Soldiers are not the only concern; we also have to consider the civilian
population and the environment.
2. Lead is not the alternative... tungsten is.

Scott A



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: DU is/is not a problem?
 
(...) ==+== Professor Brian Spratt, chairman of the Royal Society working group on depleted uranium, said that a recent study by the society had found that the majority of soldiers were unlikely to be exposed to dangerous levels of depleted uranium (...) (22 years ago, 17-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  Not necessarily biased, but not particularly brilliant, either
 
From: (URL) looming controversy: U.S. and allied use of depleted uranium in bunker-busting bombs and artillery rounds. Depleted uranium is a byproduct of the uranium that fuels nuclear reactors. It turns to fine dust when shells made from the hard, (...) (22 years ago, 4-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

3 Messages in This Thread:

Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR