Re: The DU disaster now a danger to the UK

oppenheimers ghost wrote:
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 02:32:54 -0800, Mel Rowing wrote:


...... every time I inhale. Atmospheric dust comes from soil. Where
else could it come from? Furthmore the vegetables I eat were grown in
this very same soil. The meat I eat is from animals that consumed
vegetation grown in that very same soil.

Of course these sources exist and they cause cancer too. So?

Because when it boils down we are considering risk. Risk can only be
identified when it can be measured. The risk you describe even if I
accept your scenario, which I don't, is the risk associated with the
distribution of 2000 tonnes of DU across an area that approximates at
least to the size of Europe. Such a scenario would have insignificant
effect either on background radiation or the indigenous quantities of
uranium present in European soils.

Europe is just over 4m sq. miles in area. Thus 2000 tonnes would equate
to a distribution of 500g per sq mile set against the 2.2 tonnes that
is already there. Bring other radioactive nuclides into consideration
and the significance of the added uranium is reduced further still.

There are now more and larger risks in some cases to consider. One being
DU oxide depending on your exposure to it.

Your first statement was derogatory so how may you be asking me again?
Just to inform any readers here goes, I'll discuss plutonium first.

Ok, the soil is now contaminated with plutonium which it never was prior
to atmospheric testing in the 50's.

That's because plutonium is an artificial element that didn't exist
prior to 1945.

It is in fact a fissile material used in nuclear weapons. There is no
nuclear fission involved in the explosion of a DU shell and no
plutonium is involved so why throw in red herrings?

However, this does lead us naturally to the question of fall out.

The reason why a nuclear explosion deposits fallout over thousands of
square miles is that the mushroom cloud associated with it caused by
superheated gas rising tens of thousands of feet into the atmosphere
carrying with it all the products of fusion. These are then distributed
by the winds.

In comparison the fall out from a nuclear shell is negligable. The
relevant product of a hit as opposed to a miss of target, when the
projectile would bury itself into the ground, is uranium oxide smoke.
Smoke is very fine dust. Much would be retained inside the target. Of
that which wasn't much would begin to settle and uranium is the
heaviest of the natural elements. Of those particles that were indeed
fine enough to remain suspended in air for any length of time many,
just like any other dust particles, would become the nucleii for cloud
droplests and eventually fall as rain.

Your 2000 tonnes are beginning to look a gross over estimate.

Now for uranium, just go read here:
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclides/uranium.htm

I have and it weakens your argument still further.

Not only does it show that the Uranium allegedly scattered over Europe
is of the same isotope as that which is predominently all ready there,
but that U238 is less active than U235. Has it not got a half life in
the order of a 1000 times longer?

Of course it has and this is the very reason why nuclear fuel is
enriched i.e. the proportion of U235 TO U238 is increased.

Further consider this. Before use the DU shells are held in weapons
bunkers. They are transported in cargo holds and trucks. Military
personel sit for hours with them in vehicles before they are used if
they are used. None of the people associated with them along that chain
even wear a dosage monitor let alone an aspirator.

Have you ever wondered why?

I'm not taking questions from you. I don't like your tone.

Why? Do you expect folk to accept what you say without question?

Natural uranium ore is not DU, it is worse. It contains progeny isotopes
of other radioactive elements in equilibrium with uranium. it has a
specific radioactoivity of about 25 KBq/gram.

Quite!

Well I'll go along with that since it bears no relevance whatsoever to
my question so I'll ask it again.

Are you familiar with WHO recommended safe levels of dosage with regard
to Uranium miners ?

I can read as well as you.

Then read and, more importantly reflect.

Well, erm, excuse me but don't you know there is a cancer epidemic due to
fall out? Don't you know that "nature" has a way of repairing damaged
cells and DNA? Not every damaged cell leads to cancer but unfortunately
sometimes it does.

I am aware that the incidence of certain types of an all embracing term
cancer is on the increase. I would hesitate to use the term epidemic
since this has connotations of viral/bacteriological infection.

I question the simplicity of your implication that all or any such
increases are inevitably due to increases in the amounts of radioactive
nasties circulating in the environment. Even if that were so then we
need not necessarily attribute these to the activities of the nuclear
industries and certainly not to DU.

Do you know that more radioactive material is released by the burning
of a ton of coal (or oil) than is released through the 'burning' of its
energy equivalent of uranium in a reactor?

Cancer is known to have numerous causes like:

Age - significant I would think in a world of increased longevity.

Exposure to carcinogens - significant I would think in a world
increasingly exposed to chemicals particularly those of petroleum or
phenoltic origin.

Ethnicity - significant I would think in a world of increased and
increasing mobility.

Geography - Thinking in terms of melanomas significant in a world of
increasing population movement and a culture that encourages the
exposure of bare skin to sunlight and other forms of solar similar
radiation and even to travel through tens of degrees of latitude to
enhance it.

You simply can't say cancer is increasing cancer can be caused by
radiation. We are messing about in this area more and more. Therefore
the increase in cancer is definitely caused by increases in background
radiation and/or the presence of increased numbers of radioactive
nuclides in the environment even if the latter could be proved.

Not without elimination the above and all other factors you can't.

The DU oxide problem is entirely man made as is the contamination by
plutonium.

But there is scant, questionable or indeed no evidence that it is a
problem only wild claims and supposition.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: France: Iran has secret military nuke program
    ... Nuclear power generation isn't subject NPT restrictions, ... As are uranium refineries. ... The whole notion they want nuclear power solely for civilian energy is ... As long as Iran is using their imported refined uranium for civilian nuclear ...
    (alt.religion.islam)
  • why my kidnapped minor child of three has no water and SADDAM has AUSTRALIAN WHEAT AND URANIUM
    ... AUSTRALIAN made IRAQ WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION CONNECTION ... The Olympic Dam project at Roxby Downs is the world's largest uranium ... Uranium is used as highly enriched uranium in nuclear weapons, ... Nuclear weapons have been exploded in Japan, Australia (Montebello ...
    (soc.rights.human)
  • why my minor daughter of three has no water and SADDAM has Australian Uranium
    ... N AUSTRALIAN made IRAQ WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION CONNECTION ... The Olympic Dam project at Roxby Downs is the world's largest uranium ... Uranium is used as hghly enriched uranium in nuclear weapons, ... Nuclear weapons have been exploded in Japan, Australia (Montebello ...
    (soc.culture.australian)
  • AUSTRALIAS CHINA AND SADDAM WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
    ... N AUSTRALIAN made IRAQ WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION CONNECTION ... IS THE GREAT AUSTRALAIN URANIUM SALE TO CHINA BECAUSE AUSTRALIA TOOK ... Uranium is used as highly enriched uranium in nuclear weapons, ...
    (alt.true-crime)
  • AUSTRALIAS CHINA AND SADDAM WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
    ... N AUSTRALIAN made IRAQ WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION CONNECTION ... IS THE GREAT AUSTRALAIN URANIUM SALE TO CHINA BECAUSE AUSTRALIA TOOK ... Uranium is used as highly enriched uranium in nuclear weapons, ...
    (soc.rights.human)
Loading