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: 
1099 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study was a desk study; parts of which have been superseded by a UN report: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 (...) (23 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, (...) (24 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
    

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