The chemical toxicity of inhaled uranium trioxide (uranyl oxide) gas vapor fumes is much worse -- about a million times worse -- than the radiation from inhalation of any of the other oxides. The armed forces sadly missed the fact that about 1/5th of uranium which burns in air produces UO3 gas vapor instead of the dusts from the other oxides which are obvious. The UO3(g) vapor does not settle out of the atmosphere; instead, it disperses as an invisible, odorless cloud, and is absorbed into the bloodstream almost immedately when it is inhaled. The details are in one of my …
All 21 comments by...
jsalsman
-
-
Roger wrote, "If I thought that another country had deliberately spread a terrible poison on my country, I would give my life to fight that other country." What would you do if your country did it and you couldn't figure out whether it was accidental or deliberate?
Posted to Radioactive Wounds of War
-
Well, Natalie, I'm sorry that others here have been rude to you, but before you make up your mind about DU, please read this article from the U.S. Armed Forces Radiobiology Institute published in the peer-reviewed medical literature: A.C. Miller, et al., "Depleted uranium-catalyzed oxidative DNA damage: absence of significant alpha particle decay," Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry, vol. 91 (2002), pp. 246–252: http://www.bovik.org/du/Miller-DNA-damage.pdf In particular, please not this statement in the abstract: "we demonstrate that DU can generate oxidative DNA damage and can also catalyze reactions that induce hydroxyl radicals in the absence of significant alpha particle decay. Experiments were conducted …
Posted to Radioactive Wounds of War
-
Vapor (of uranyl oxide gas fumes) is, contrary to Roger Helbig's claim, the most important issue. And in fact the Army has admitted as much, in their reply to my NRC 10 CFR 2.206 petition, they note the need to determine whether UO3(g) vapor disperses or forms clouds. They have not disputed the fact that the UO3(g) gas vapor is produced, and that fact is noted in about a dozen peer-reviewed scientific publications, such as those here: http://www.bovik.org/du/2bibs.html Also, the Health Physics Society is a group of radiation professionals with strong ecomonic ties to the nuclear industry -- they have no …
Posted to Radioactive Wounds of War
-
Oh, and as for the recent Sandia report -- what a piece of work that was. People should keep in mind that Sandia National Laboratories is administered by Lockheed-Martin, which makes the Apache and A-10 30 mm guns which fire DU ordnance. Here are my comments on the recent Sandia report: http://www.bovik.org/du/snl-dusand.pdf Most telling is perhaps the quote, "This assessment should not be interpreted to be a general validation of the SNL National Securities Studies Department methodology for studying the consequences of terrorist use of radiological dispersal devices." In other words, it's not good enough to correctly predict the effects of …
Posted to Radioactive Wounds of War
-
Natalie: Thank you for your questions. The Al-Sadoon, Hassan, and Yacoub paper was published in the Medical Journal of Basrah University, a peer-reviewed publication which is considered authorative in Iraq. There is no evidence of the medical journals in Iraq being censored or controlled by the government of which I am aware. In any case, the results in the Al-Sadoon, et al. paper were confirmed by the oncologist Dr. Jawad Al-Ali, who spoke in Stockholm on 24 April 2004. Presumably at that time Dr. Al-Ali had no reason to maintain government or fear the Saddam government. You can read Dr. Al-Ali's …
Posted to Radioactive Wounds of War
-
Moreover, there are apparently no chemical weapons, as far as I can tell, which are teratogenic (cause birth defects.) They might kill you and increase your chances of cancer, but none of them apparently affect the congenital malformation rates of mamals at nonlethal doses. There are a number of biological pathogens which are teratogenic, but I don't think any of them have ever been considered as biological warfare agents. The following list is taken from Table 1 on page 11 of J.B. Bishop, et al., "Genetic Toxicities of Human Teratogens," Mutation Research, vol. 396 (1997), pp. 9-43: http://www.bovik.org/du/Bishop97MutRes-GenToxTerat.pdf Cytomegalovirus (CMG) human …
Posted to Radioactive Wounds of War
-
mauk2: Tungsten is far superior, because it's not pyrophoric it only harms by shrapnel. In the February 1991 gulf war, less than 200 soldiers ended up with DU shrapnel, but hundreds of thousands were exposed to and inhaled UO3(g) vapor fumes from the 315 tons of DU ordnance used that month, including civilians. Furthermore, the rats might be an outlier. To quote from the article you cite, "tungsten coils implanted into ... rabbits rapidly degrade.... However, after four months, no signs of local or systemic toxicity were observed." (Peuster, et al., Biomaterials, vol. 24 (2003) pp. 393-399.) I'd rather put just …
Posted to Radioactive Wounds of War
-
Knappster: The uranyl ion and its complexes form ligands with protiens and DNA, when it's not catalyzing hydroxyl and other oxidative radicals. Please see: H. Huang, et al., "Uranyl-Peptide Interactions in Carbonate Solution with DAHK and Derivatives," Inorganic Chemistry, vol. 44 (2005), pp. 813-815: http://www.bovik.org/du/uranyl-peptide.pdf and for DNA: M. Yazzie, et al., Chemical Research in Toxicology, vol. 16 (2003) pp. 524-530. The radioactivity of uranium is of essentially no consequence in relation to DNA damage compared with its chemical toxicity producing oxidative stress resulting in oxidation damage to DNA. Any discussion of U radioactivity in that context is tantamount to misdirection …
Posted to Radioactive Wounds of War
-
mauk2: My replies to your messages are below. But first a word to some of the more prolific particpants here. People, would you please squelch the personal attacks? Even if they are deserved, they don't do any good, and they clutter up the thread terribly making life difficult for those of us trying to have a rational discussion. There is no question that there has been a lot of exaggeration, hyperbole, and vindictiveness on both sides of the DU debate. Few people have remained untouched by these failures in rational argument. If either side wishes to make any real progress, we …
Posted to Radioactive Wounds of War
-
(continued from previous comment) mauk2: Regarding your comment, "U238 is actually MORE radioactive than U235." Actually, the reverse is true. All the three primary uranium isotopes decay by alpha emission. Their abundance and half lives are as follows: U234 0.005% 2.5×10+5 years U235 0.72% 7.0×10+8 years U238 99.3% 4.5×10+9 years Since alpha emission is the same energy, the longer lived isotopes are the less radioactive, making U238 the least radioactive, U235 more radioactive, and U234 the most radioactive. In practive, depleted uranium is about 40% less radioactive than natural uranium. Regarding your comments, "why is the title of your article 'RADIOACTIVE …
Posted to Radioactive Wounds of War
-
Sheesh, you guys! Please stop bitching at each other. mauk2 wrote: "UO3 is, however, the least stable of the UO2, UO3, U3O8 family of compounds. As that gas cools from the 1200 kelvin temperature, it rapidly decomposes into UO2 or U3O8, depending on temperature." On the contrary, UO3 is stable and plates out (precipitates as a film) and has been detected as such by B. Salbu, et al., "Oxidation states of uranium in depleted uranium particles from Kuwait," Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, vol. 78 (2005) pp. 125–135: http://www.bovik.org/du/Salbu-uranyl-detected.pdf That was actually the first time that UO3 has been reported detected -- …
Posted to Radioactive Wounds of War
-
sacase wrote: "We do NOT use DU rounds in our personal weapons...." In the '80s, ATK systems made some DU 9 mm rounds, some land mines with DU casings, and even a DU hand grenade. They all were apparently tested, and the report with results of those tests is "sensitive" (essentially classified.) We do know that there were never any significant orders for anything but 20 mm (Phalanx), 25 mm (Bradley), 30 mm (the big category), and 105 and 120 mm tank and howitzer antitank rounds. The Phalanx system actually uses a 15 mm penetrator in a 20 mm plastic sabot. …
Posted to Radioactive Wounds of War
-
P.S. Phalanx is already converted to tungsten; the DU Phalanx system would occasionaly strike neighboring ships when it went off. The incindiary pyrophoricity was probably the biggest hazard the Navy had in mind when it phased out DU Phalanx ordnance in the late '90s.
Posted to Radioactive Wounds of War
-
Ramjet/Helbig wrote: "I see that James Salsman ... now claims to be more expert than Dr. Melissa McDairmid who does the research...." I never claimed to be more expert, just to have found something she and all her colleagues and counterparts in other countries have missed. The best researcher will tell you that a few days in the library can save a few years in the laboratory. The Gmelin Handbook states that the "taking up of oxygen by U3O8 [is] not infrequently ignored." "read the many replies from the experts on the Radsafe list. Then you will find that he spins …
Posted to Radioactive Wounds of War
-
Asking the Health Physics Society about DU is like asking the tobacco industry about smoking, before they started losing their lawsuits. For example, HPS program committee officer and author Colonel Robert N. Cherry claimed in official correspondence to the NRC that, "the army has safely developed and tested depleted uranium ... munitions for many years. We are determined to continue this record.... use in battle of depleted uranium munitions is essential...." http://www.bovik.org/du/nrc-2000-petition/army-reply.tif If you want a neutral source, how about the World Health Organization? "Until more information on the chemical form of uranium and DU in the environment is obtained, it …
Posted to Radioactive Wounds of War
-
Forgot the link for the WHO report quote. It's on page 103 here: http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/pub_meet/en/Depluranium4.pdf Another thing I wanted to respond to: To whomever said that discussing the effects of DU emboldens our enemies, that's just wrong on so many levels. Those who ignore the deleterious effects on our troops and the civilians we are charged with protecting are potentially worse in the long run than the nominal enemies. If you want to keep the loudest voices from speaking up about DU, then you are going to have to start with the states of Louisiana and Connecticut, which both passed DU monitoring …
Posted to Radioactive Wounds of War
-
Hit a nerve? I'm just me, funded by myself, via my home business at www.readsay.com. I got involved when I read the Project Censored stuff a year ago, and decided to spend a day in the Stanford Chemistry Library, where by dumb luck (I have only an incomplete minor in chemistry) I came upon the Ackermann, et al. UO3(g) vapor evidence. Since then, it's all fallen together, like shooting fish in a barrel, and it's become a few-hour-per-day hobby. I've certainly learned a lot about the NRC petition processes. When you email Ron Kathren, please include the following excerpts from his …
Posted to Radioactive Wounds of War
-
Ramjet/Roger: I said I have an "incomplete minor in chemistry." Have you decided to focus on my credentials because you are unable to address the content of my arguments?
Posted to Radioactive Wounds of War
-
Natalie: Part I of that Royal Society report only evaluates radiological hazard; Part II discusses the chemical toxicity without considering reproductive or immune system effects. The closest they get is: "There is recent evidence that uranium may directly damage genetic material and there is a possibility of damage to DNA due to the chemical effects being enhanced by the effects of the alpha-particle irradiation." The following publications document uranium's reproductive and developmental toxicity and its damage to the immune system. Who knows why the Royal Society ignored these primary sources and peer-reviewed medical publications: Voegtlin and Hodge, editors, Pharmacology and Toxicology …
Posted to Radioactive Wounds of War
-
Natalie: Perhaps the Royal Society ignored the reproductive toxicity of uranium in their report because it was written before the publication of these papers: "Overall, the risk of any malformation among pregnancies reported by men was 50% higher in [U.K.] Gulf War Veterans (GWV) compared with Non-GWVs" -- Doyle et al. Int. J. Epidemiol., vol. 33 (2004), pp. 74-86: http://ije.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/full/33/1/74 "Infants conceived postwar to male [U.S.] GWVs had significantly higher prevalence of tricuspid valve insufficicieny (relative risk [RR], 2.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-6.6; p = 0.039) and aortic valve stenosis (RR, 6.0; 95% CI, 1.2-31.0; p = 0.026) compared to …
Posted to Radioactive Wounds of War
- Joined August 27, 2005
- Last Visit September 5, 2005
Other Profiles
IN THESE TIMES COMMUNITY MEMBERS
- 1.
- 2.
- 3.
- 4.
- 5.
- 6.
- 7.
- 8.
Ignoring Outrage, Obama Set to Expand Pentagon Presence in Colombia
- 9.
- 10.
RSS Feed