I feel everyone should watch this video, but I warn you it is VERY intense.

http://www.bushflash.com/pl_lo.html

Here is more information on the topic

http://www.cadu.org.uk/

And more

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/europe/2001/depleted_uranium/default.stm

and

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uranium/

I have family that have had serious medical problems due after the gulf war and some doctors have suggested that it is very likely the result of exposure to Depleted Uranium. He drove an M1 over there. But please, read and watch for yourselves.

Last time I checked, depleted meant that it was not radioactive anymore, that video suggested that it was radioactive.

Read the articles if you want to know the full info - Depleted uranium (DU) is what is left over after natural uranium has been enriched, either for weapons-making or for reactor fuel.

It is mildly radioactive in its solid form, and poses little if any cause for concern.

But it is a very heavy substance, 1.7 times denser than lead, and it is highly valued by armies for its ability to punch through armoured vehicles.

When a weapon made with a DU tip or core strikes a solid object, like the side of a tank, it goes straight through it and then erupts in a burning cloud of vapour.

The vapour settles as dust, which is chemically poisonous and also radioactive.

Is it any more dangerous than other heavy metals, such as lead, tungsten etc etc. Those are all just as harmful if consumed or inhaled.

Like I said, read the links, they can answer your questions.

From your link to the bbc:

Preliminary studies have shown no links between the use of DU shells and cancer or birth defects.

And from the guardian link you provide:

Longer-term damage to both people and the environment has been the subject of several studies in the past few years.

For soldiers working with, or attacked by, depleted uranium weapons, a long-term risk is simply the toxicity of the metal - rather than its radioactivity.

But a study conducted by the Royal Society last year concluded that the majority of soldiers and civilians in the last Gulf war were not exposed to levels of depleted uranium likely to cause what is known as heavy-metal poisoning....

At present, the evidence suggests that there is little to worry about unless the metal is actually inside a person. However, the absolute risks are unknown and it may take decades of monitoring before we know how bad the problems are.

As it stands, smoking cigarettes will kill you far more quickly than being exposed to depleted uranium.



I really don't know much about it.

Let me be honest - I clicked on your first two sites and then quickly closed them. The first is a music video and the title of the second link made me sceptical. So, I looked a bit at the next two links - the bbc and the guardian - which I have more faith in.

From what I would consider your two most trustworthy links it appears that the danger is as yet undetermined (which is a far cry from the first 30 seconds of the music video).

It won't surprise me if down the road it turns out to be a significant concern, and it may be now, but as of yet I think you overstate the evidence.

There is another and ugly consideration: does DU save lives? The articles mention vehicles made of DU - presumably as armor. So, if the DU armor saves lives what is the calculus for measuring it against possible and unproven health concerns. Is it acceptable to use a dangerous substance that may result in the death of an additional person in a few decades if it will save a crew of 10 now?

Best regards to your family member.

Edit - as an aside I work some with toxicologists (as witnesses) and they're usually not willing to go far out on a limb and suggest a causal connection between cause and disease when their opinion will be scrutinized BUT they and other doctors are many times more likely to guess at a cause if they think it won't be scrutinized and will provide some comfort to a patient. I'm not saying that is what happened in your family member's case - but I do think it is not an uncommon occurrence.

Its not for armor, Cobham (sp?) is the armor our M1 Tanks use, which is some sort of ceramic based armor. The shells used depleted uranium to penetrate armor

Its not for armor, Cobham (sp?) is the armor our M1 Tanks use, which is some sort of ceramic based armor. The shells used depleted uranium to penetrate armor From your link to the bbc:

Defensive use

DU's density and physical properties make it ideal for use as armour plate

This kind of armour is a big advance. During the 1991 Desert Storm campaign, for example, the armour on US M1A1 Abrams tanks received a number of direct hits from Iraqi shells which did not penetrate.

The combination of DU armour and DU munitions was a key element in improving survivability and giving the US-led coalition the edge.

The high density of DU also makes it useful as a counter-balance for large commercial aircraft, including the Boeing 747, and in yacht keels.

DU is a by-product of the enrichment of natural uranium, either for weapons-making or for reactor fuel.

According to your link it is used as armor as well and helps to save lives. Part of that ugly calculus I mentioned. An even more disturbing part of that calculus is that if the DU weapons help kill more quickly and safely they in turn may save lives as well.

Ugly. But perhaps worth considering.

Sorry, this is why I was confused.

The core armor is a variation on the British Chobham armor -- an arrangement of metal plates, ceramic blocks and open space. HEAT and Sabot rounds may make it through the outer layer of the armor, but they won't make it all the way into the crew compartment. The ceramic material can absorb a lot of heat, as well as heavy physical blows. The rest of the hot gases or metal pieces spread out in the empty air pockets.

Updated M1 tanks have extra layers of steel and depleted uranium that supplement the Chobham-style armor. This combination will hold up to any tank round and most missiles (the powerful Hellfire missile is a notable exception.

Didn't know they had updated the armor.

Since 1988 the Abrams tank has had versions with DU reinforced armor for both the M1A1 and M1A2.

The problem with uranium oxyde, the result of a DU bullet hit, is that it is an alpha-ray emitter. A sheet of paper can deflect alpha rays, they don't penetrate deeply. But inhaled the effect can be devastating as the radiation directly effects the body from inside.

Official studies haven't yet shown a connection between DU and the Gulf War syndrom. However, it also took the US a while to recognise the connection between the use of agent orange and cancer and deformations it caused in Vietnam. Not a thought about reparations for that though (iirc the drop of the vietnamese claims was condition for the 'normalisation' of diplomatic relations). Despite the DU hysteria, the percentual increase in cancer and deformation cases after use of DU ammo do hint on a connection.

Iirc the US haven't conducted studies in the groups of people who have been exposed to DU long term: The population in the countries at the receiving end. They would hardly say that there is a connection and that they are responsible. It is unrewarding, as it would result in a really bad press and, unavoidably, a billion dollar lawsuit.

Thinking about when and for what it was developed I'm glad the cold war never went hot. DU was, with the neutron bomb and chemical weapons for area denial (that's what this stuff is made for), seen as the solution for the massed armored assaults NATO expected from the Warsaw Pact.

I vividly remember the security precautions of operation Lindwurm, when the US withdrew all its chemical weapons from Germany in a giant convoy to Wilhelmshafen harbor from where it was shipped to Johnston Island iirc.
Maybe the 1980s peacemovement in Germany was right that a communist germany would have been better than a still democratic one depopulated by the use of tactical nukes and chemical weapons, and the survivors poisoned by the war wastes. The US aid against the russians in a cold war would have probably saved us to death.

During my hiatus from SP, I worked for a company who had actually investigated the Gulf War illness project. We were an outside contractor told to do one thing: Find out the truth.

We discovered that Gulf War illness had exactly nothing to do with depleted uranium. In fact, the rate and type of complaints among Gulf War vets was the same as it is among the general population.

If you're interested, the study is available from the Dept. of Defense, but darned if I know how to find it. They have an ongoing Deployment Health project because every time we send troops overseas there's some sort of stir like this.

As said above, depleted uranium is used to harden shells, making them able to penetrate more armor. Before I went to Kosovo, we were warned against this. During the Nato-bombardments in 99 a lot of this ammunition was used. It does contain some low level of radiation, but if the metal gets into the system, it takes a long time to get out again. (Can't memember the exact numbers.)

I think the reason we were warned is not because it is extremely dangerous, but more because soldiers have an extremely careless way with things, which means that we might do silly things with leftovers from these shells.

On a sidenote, this kind of reminds me of one time were my squad leader accidently took us through a bomblets area. Funny!