Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Science

Depleted Uranium May Stop Kidneys "In Days" 71

Posted by timothy from the unintended-consequences dept.
James writes: "The New Scientist, Reuters, and the San Jose Mercury News, are all carrying stories on a U.K. Royal Society report which confirms that depleted uranium shells, used widely in the Gulf War and the Balkan conflicts, are in fact deadly to bystanders. Moreover, it seems that U.S. servicepeople have been most at risk, and civilians remain at risk years after the use of such shells. The Royal Society report is being described as portraying the situation in the most favorable light, and critics say the truth is far worse."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Depleted Uranium May Stop Kidneys "In Days" More

Depleted Uranium May Stop Kidneys "In Days"

Comments Filter:

  • On the other hand (Score:3, Funny)

    by Violet Null ( 452694 ) on Tuesday March 12, 2002 @02:56PM (#3151449)
    We need to remember that using U-238 shells gives our marines a +2 bonus on their weapons range. That's nothing to sneeze at.
    • Uranium is dangerous, but not for the reason you'd think.

      The radioactivity of depleted uranium is very low. Lower than uranium ore, oddly enough. That is due to the fact that the ore has radium, but the pure metal doesn't. Anyway, if it's less radioactive than ore, it's not to bad at all. Uranium Ore is not a radiological hazard. They make fiestaware plates out of it. And those are perfectly safe.
      Anyway, uranium is dangerous because it is a heavy metal, like lead. You wouldn't want to eat it. However, I think this article and these studies are a little sensationalistic. They said you need 1 microgram per gram of kidney. Most soldiers got .005 grams. I think people are getting a bit worked up about this.

      • Eh? .005 g (grams) = 5 mg = 5000 g, that would be enough for 5 kg of kidney.

      • Re:On the other hand (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Ian-K ( 154151 )
        (first of all, as others pointed out, that's way too much depleted uranium for your average kidney).

        (now watch me get modded down by US citizens)

        Secondly, that's a big relief to find out! :-) I live in a neighbouring country (to Kosovo) and I would like to thank the US govt so very much for making these kind donations to our environment while restoring "order" to the planet. (hint of sarcasm in case you missed it -- I hate wars)

        OK, they didn't /nuke/ the place, but still, and even though I'm a thousand kilometers or so away (Greece in case you wondered), it's not particularly reassuring to find these things out officially (not that I/we wasn't suspecting them).

        If you think I'm being paranoid/anti-american/whatever, come to my position: how would /you/ feel if somebody came and did all that to /your/ neighbourhood?

        Trian
    • Soldiers who survived a tank hit with depleted uranium ammunition would likely have kidney uranium levels of 4 micrograms per gram. They could get kidney poisoning from the bullets.

      OH MY GOD! Those poor people could be getting heavy metal poisoning from those high-explosive shells we're trying to kill them with!!!
  • Correct me if I'm wrong, aren't they rather hazardous to the "intended" recipients?
    • Correct me if I'm wrong, aren't they rather hazardous to the "intended" recipients?

      Exactly. And since we have in the past bombed Osama bin Laden's encampments and caves, and we are informed Pakistan that bin Laden has failing kidneys, and may in fact of died this winter if he was not able to get to a working dialysis machine, it may eventually be discovered that the US killed him years ago (following the Embassy bombings?) but that it just took hime years to die.

    • OK. I will correct you. Mostly, depleted (non-fissionable) Uranium is used for metalurgical reasons for things like armor-piercing shells, and the radioactivity is a bit of a "beneficial side effect."

      The problem is that while it may be slightly beneficial to us regarding the targets who are exposed to them for a short period of time, the soldiers that transport them and the civilians who live nearby are FAR more at risk for complications due to the relatively low levels of radition.

      In essence, having one of these shells land nearby is not going to kill you from the radiation, but transporting a large number of them so that they can be fired poses a much higher risk.
      • It's used because it is refractory and very dense - hence being able to stand crunching through armour plate and giving the projectiles a high ballistic coefficient.

        Elgon
  • Reuters says-
    A by-product of nuclear reactors, depleted uranium (DU) is used not for its low radioactivity but as a cheap, heavy tip that helps armor-piercing shells batter through steel plate.

    I thought that depleted uranium ( u235 )was what was left over after you took out all the radioactive kind ( u238 ) , and what you get after you put the u238 in a reactor is plutonium among other things.
    • NO. Natural uranium contains about 0.5% U235, which can be used in nuclear reactors. The remaining 99.5% is U238, which can't be used in fission. After some refining, the reactor uranium contains 3% U235. This may not seem much, but it is. But atoms of the remaining U238 isotope catch neutrons and become Plutonium Pu239. When the U235 is used up, the waste which contains U238, Pu239 and fission products is taken to La Hague or Sellafield, they filter the waste: Remaining U235 and Pu239 is taken back to the nuclear plant, U238 is used for bullets and bombshells. It may contain leftover Pu239. Remember: Both isotopes, 238 and 235 are radioactive.
      • Good explanation.

        Although, it isnot used for "Bullets and Bombshells," but rather Sabot rounds.
      • After some refining, the reactor uranium contains 3% U235.

        Isn't the "depleted uranium" used in the rounds what is left over in this refining process? Remember - even if it worked perfectly (which it doesn't), there would be 5 units of (non-radioactive) U-238 for each refined unit of 97% U-238 / 3% U-235.

        This U-238 is basically harmless waste (though it does still contain some U-235, it should by definition be far less than the fraction in the raw material), but very dense. Why not use it to make bullets more heavy?

        Kiwaiti

        • After some refining, the reactor uranium contains 3% U235.

          Isn't the "depleted uranium" used in the rounds what is left over in this refining process? Remember - even if it worked perfectly (which it doesn't), there would be 5 units of (non-radioactive) U-238 for each refined unit of 97% U-238 / 3% U-235.

          Yes.

          To clear up the confusion, U-235 is the stuff in the reactors (usually at around 3% concentration, although there's some variation) and in bombs (at near 100% concentration). As part of the separation process, you get large quantities of nearly pure U-238. It has become depleted of U-235, hence the name. This is uranium which has never seen the inside of a reactor, not reprocessed waste. Because uranium is both naturally extremely dense and pyrophoric (at elevated temperatures), it's use in weapons is something of a no-brainer.

          As a generic heavy metal, that it causes heavy-metal poisoning (e.g. liver and kidney damage) once it gets into your system in large quantities should also be a no-brainer.

          -JS

        • This U-238 is basically harmless waste ... Why not use it to make bullets more heavy?
          Depends on your definition of "harmless". Sure, it's not overly radioactive, but it's pretty toxic, even in small doses.
    • The other things depleted uranium has going for it is it is pyrophoric and self-sharpening. So as it pushes through the armor of its target the tip doesn't blunt. As it penetrates, instead, the material sort of peels back always leaving a sharp point. And when it is through the armor, the high temperature, and high preassure cause hot chips of the penetrator to fly off killing everyone unlucky enough to be in the opposing tank. Or what have you. From what I understand it would not be totally unlike throwing iron filings through a flame.

  • Oh no!!!!! The trees!!! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Picass0 ( 147474 ) on Tuesday March 12, 2002 @03:20PM (#3151615) Homepage Journal
    I wish that solders would stop and think about the environment when there is a tank coming after them. Depleted Uranium makes it hard for the daisies to grow. I know because Oprah told me so.
    • Depleted Uranium makes it hard for the daisies to grow.

      Sarcasm noted. However, the object of all this fighting is to control the land in question; strewing toxic heavy metals all over the place kind of defeats the ultimate purpose of having your people live on the land you're fighting over.

  • A little exaggerated writeup, no? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Otter ( 3800 ) on Tuesday March 12, 2002 @03:29PM (#3151716) Journal
    The report (or at least the reporting on the report) strikes me as something like this: a small number of soldiers who survive hits from a DU shell may face elevated health risks. Conceivably bystanders might be harmed although there's no evidence of this. One chemist associated with an anti-DU group says the report doesn't go far enough.

    Not the worst Slashdot writeup ever, but a pretty skewed one.

    What I don't get is this -- is this supposed to explain elevated cancer rates in Gulf War and Balkans veterans? How many friendly fire DU hits were there?

    • Oh, and I forgot to add -- if the writeup were accurate and the report claimed that anyone walking by a DU shell would suffer critical kidney failure within days, and that was an optimistic spin on reality, don't you think people would have noticed entire tank brigades spontaneously dying from renal failure?
      • To quote the SJMC link:

        The kidney is the most likely organ to suffer toxic effects from uranium. The few human studies that have been done indicate that kidney failure is likely to occur within a few days at concentrations above 50 micrograms of uranium per gram of kidney.

        Minor kidney problems are thought to be linked with concentrations of about 1 microgram per gram of kidney.

        The Royal Society estimated that most soldiers would have levels of 0.005 micrograms per gram of kidney, or less.

        Soldiers who survived a tank hit with depleted uranium ammunition would likely have kidney uranium levels of 4 micrograms per gram.

        In other words, the slashdot write-up is an example of the worst kind of anti-nuclear hysterical ignorance. This isn't the first time [slashdot.org] such technophobia has appeared on Slashdot.

        • > > Soldiers who survived a tank hit with depleted uranium ammunition would likely have kidney uranium levels of 4 micrograms per gram.
          >
          >In other words, the slashdot write-up is an example of the worst kind of anti-nuclear hysterical ignorance.

          Agreed.

          And while we're at it, if I were a soldier whose tank survived a strike from DU artillery, I'd be thankful my kidneys (along with the rest of my internal organs) were still inside my torso, and that I was still alive to worry about how my kidneys would function at some point in the future.

          In other news today, the Friends of Gaia report that infantrymen shot by lead bullets often report negative health effects. Radiant Willow Moon, head spokesbeing for the FoG, has urged the United Nations to pass a resolution banning the use of such ecologically unfriendly bullets in favor of bullets fashioned from naturally-occurring stores of driftwood or pebbles.

    • Frankly i would not care a bit if there were high kidney failure rates among people we are *shooting* at, heck shooting at em implicitly says that it wont bother us a bit if you die.

      however DU is more dangerous to our own troops who fire the rounds than this article mentions. This article [gulfwarvets.com] lists the number of U.S and Brit soldiers afected by it as pretty substantial from the Gulf War. Note it's not a article from some tabloid, the Sunday-Times UK is fairly reputable i believe.

      i could care less about studies done on the DU affects on people were trying to friggin shoot, but it would be nice to know they are trying their best to make sure thoose same rounds dont hurt our own men just by firing them
  • What are the advantages of u238 shells and rounds over lead ammunition or ammunition made out of some other material?
    • Uranium's heavier (read: more dense), so a uranium round will have a lot more kinetic energy than a lead round would have at the same speed.

      Kiwaiti

      • I'm not a military guy or someone who knows a lot about weapons, but doesn't the amount of damage a round does have a lot more to do with how it's constructed rather than how much energy it carries?

        Case in point: Say a bullet was designed with a sharp point for armor-piercing purposes or 'splintering' points for maximum internal damage. Would the fact that it was made from DU rather than lead dramatically alter how well it did its job? It seems to me that DU rounds, being more massive than similiar-sized lead rounds, would require more propellant to acheive the same velocity so it could reap any rewards that would come from higher kinetic energy. It seems like common sense that it would be cheaper and more effective to use more less expensive lead bullets to do the same job.

        Please let me know if DU rounds are just a sales gimmick on the part of arms manufacturers or if they really do provide a better $$$ to kill ratio.
        • DU rounds go through tank armor better than any previous type of armor-piercing round. I'm not sure of the physics behind it (my gut tells me that momentum, m * v, is at least as important as kinetic energy, .5 * m * v^2, in getting through armor) but empirically, the best way to build an armor-piercing round is with a very hard (e.g. tungsten carbide) penetrator tip and something very dense (e.g. depleted uranium) behind it. Being a medic, I got enough up-close-and-personal views of vehicles (and buildings, some of them quite solidly built) that had been hit with DU rounds during Desert Storm to be quite sure that DU isn't just a sales gimmick. Fortunately I haven't had any kidney or other health problems.
        • If you use an ordinary lead round, the lead is deformed by the impact, spreads the force over more area, and doesn't go through the hardened steel armor of the enemy tank. The DU round is much harder, does a much better job of keeping its shape, and thus does a much better job of going through the hardened steel armor. It is the exact same principle that causes a 8-oz Nerf ball that falls 20' to bounce harmlessly off a pane of glass, while an 8-oz lead weight dropped the same distance cracks it.

          • It is the exact same principle that causes a 8-oz Nerf ball that falls 20' to bounce harmlessly off a pane of glass, while an 8-oz lead weight dropped the same distance cracks it.



            In general I agree with the Nerf/lead weight concept, but the Nerf ball has a much slower terminal velocity then the lead weight at 1 atmosphere. But to make it more clear, in a vacuum the principal would be the same.

            ~Sean

        • As a previous poster indicated, DU rounds don't deform as much as lead rounds do. This and their higher density means when they hit they have a vastly higher force per unit area (ie, more force is applied over a smaller area). My understand is that A-10 DU rounds can penetrate up to a foot of hardened steel.

          A second item is that modern rounds have to deal with air resistance effects. Given a lead and DU round of the same weight, the lead round because of its lighter density is going to be slowed more by air resistance because it will have a greater area. I suppose a long cylindrical bullet might work, but you need to prevent tumbling.

          • "A second item is that modern rounds have to deal with air resistance effects. Given a lead and DU round of the same weight, the lead round because of its lighter density is going to be slowed more by air resistance because it will have a greater area. I suppose a long cylindrical bullet might work, but you need to prevent tumbling."

            Yep, it gives a very high ballistic coefficient - a measure of how air friction affects it in comparison to a particular standard.

            Long cylindrical bullets do indeed work - you just need to spin them faster.

            Elgon
      • I don't think it's just a kinetic energy problem.
        In the end, the bullet starting at velocity zero will gain as much kinetic energy as you give it, so heavier bullets will be slower and have the same kinetic energy than a regular one.
        Let's say you give the bullet energy E, and it becomes pure kientic energy (no loss). than for a bullet b with mass Mb=k.Ma (for bullet a), you should obtain since 1/2 Ma.Va^2=1/2 Mb.Vb^2 Vb=Va/sqrt(k) so that it is slower for a heavier bullet
        However, something conserved during an impact is the momentum, and Pb=MbVb=kMa.Va/sqrt(k)=Pa.sqrt(k) which is the one increased factor.
        I really don't know anything about weapons, but i (therefore) think it must have to do with momentum rather than with kinetic energy. Also, its greater density makes it less likely to deform under impact, so I suppose that 'more energy is transfered to the target' as there is less loss due to deformation (of the bullet, of course, target deformation must probably be wellcome in some way :))
    • Well, it's about 2/3 heavier than lead, and a whole hell of a lot harder. Tungsten also works well, but is rather expensive. Lots of uranium is/has been mined for nuclear power, but nuclear applications need enriched uranium, so there's a lot of surplus U-238 from the enrichment process (getting 3% U-235 from naturally occuring .5% U-235 means you have to get rid of about 80% of the U-238 you start with). Since the government is heavily involved with nuclear technology, the military probably gets their DU cheaper than they would on the open market, too.

    • Re:Why use Depleted Uranium in the first place? (Score:5, Informative)

      by twistedemotions ( 231376 ) on Tuesday March 12, 2002 @07:45PM (#3153639)
      As far as I can recall, uranium has this nifty property of being self-sharpening (as it go's through the air it keeps a nasty point).

      Here is some info on it:

      "To understand why DU makes a good anti-tank weapon you have to enter the Alice In Wonderland world of high-energy collisions. When metal meets metal at five times the speed of sound, hardened steel shatters like glass. Metal flows like putty, or simply vaporises. A faster shell does not necessarily go through more armour, but, like a pebble thrown into a pond, it makes a bigger splash.

      Armour penetration is increased by concentrating the force of a shell into as small an area as possible, so the projectiles tend to look like giant darts. The denser the projectile, the harder the impact for a given size. DU is almost twice as dense as lead, making it highly suitable. The other metal used for anti-tank rounds is tungsten, which is also very hard and dense. When a tungsten rod strikes armour, it deforms and mushrooms, making it progressively blunter. Uranium is "pyrophoric": at the point of impact it burns away into vapour, so the projectile stays sharp. When it breaks through, the burning DU turns the inside of a vehicle into an inferno of white-hot gas and sparks."

      Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0%2C3858%2C4019520 %2C00.html

    • > "What are the advantages of u238 shells and rounds over lead ammunition or ammunition made out of some other material?"

      DU Shells are great for tank to tank fire because they have a much higher density than the armor it is piercing. The DU (for the most part) vaporizes (from heat) as it blows a big hole in other tanks. If you've never seen a tank being hit with one, it's like a bullet hits the tank and the tank blows the FUCK UP! It's AWSOME! about 50% chance of blowing their whole turret off! Sometimes they were found 100 yards away. On the inside of tank, it's like shrapnel city. 1st after impact, a blur of BB-sized burning metal bounces around (killing just about anyone inside. very few survivors). And if the BB's don't kill um, the explosion could (from fuel or ammo). Also, the vaporized metal is not good to be breathing (your suppose to have on a gas mask anyway, but it's sometimes ignored from what I've heard). The gas will kill you quick because you can't get oxygen through your lungs. In Desert Storm they were used in the massive ground battle. Because of DU shells our tanks were able to fire at a longer range than Iraq's tanks. Obviously thats important.

      I'm not a military freak, but I can't find much of anything outside of The History Channel, TLC, and the various Discovery channels that isn't devoid of all intelligence. Hence, I know too much about junk yards, hitler (and his woman. ew. ugly), and planes that never got mass produced.

  • ... concluded that troops in a tank who survived being hit by a DU shell could double their risk of dying from lung cancer.

    If you're in a tank that just got hit with a DU round, lung cancer is FAR from the top of your list of problems.

    I can see it now...
    SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: This sabot round contains depleted uranium. Occupants of a vehicle struck by this shell may suffer health problems.

    • The problem with DU shells is the amount of dust created in a battle. The battlefields in Iraq are covered with hundrets of tons of Uranium dust.

      Err... not the battle fields. The crop fields, I ment.

      In germany we use wolfram in favor of uranium in anti tank amunition. However I'm afraid it has similar bad effects on kidneys and liever.

      But: at least it does not cause cancer and is not radioactive.

      Regards,
      angel'o'sphere
  • So how much DU do I have to eat before my kidneys are shot?

  • Its all about power- (Score:4, Informative)

    by purduephotog ( 218304 ) <hirsch AT inorbit DOT com> on Tuesday March 12, 2002 @10:12PM (#3154345) Homepage Journal
    I talked to a friend that was over there during the gulf war about the DU slugs that were being used. Unclassified speed of 1 mile per second (hint: Classified is faster :P) and able to penetrate a sand dune as if it wasn't there.

    Apparently the enemy enjoyed the ostritch approach- hide the tanks behind a dune. A DU slug fired would penetrate the dune like a hot knife thru butter. If you punch in 1600meters/sec into a mass/energy equation, you can see a loosely packed sand dune is not going to offer sufficient resistance to even slow these things down.

    Now when these things are fired they rest in a plastic, two piece mount. It comes apart (the mount) immediately after exiting the barrel. The mount is fatal to troops on either side (if the round leaves at 1mile/sec+, that mount is flying off at a 90 degree angle at pretty much the same speed - the nose is cone shaped so the air deflects it away from the round

    This plastic piece could concievably abrade the DU slug (it IS hard plastic to withstand the acceleration).

    This dust is then airborne, and could be breathed by practically anyone. Hence the problems and the health risks.

    It wasn't as if anyone was LICKING the rounds :P

  • materialschlacht and WWII ammo (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Peter H.S. ( 38077 ) on Tuesday March 12, 2002 @11:18PM (#3154573) Homepage
    A lot of people say "Oh, so DU ammo is dangerous, 'snicker'".

    When I was a kid here in Denmark, it was a fairly common event, that some 40 year old WWII "horned" mine was seen drifting into a harbour. I remember that a couple of kids that died, because that rusty old tincan they kicked, in fact was a german stick granade. (those "potatomasher" granades are higly unstable).

    Even today it is very common, that fishermen gets a stack of corroded gas granades, usually mustard gas, in their nets, since incredible amounts of WWII gas ammmo, was dumped into the baltic sea after the war.

    Some years ago, I visited a woodclearing where german small arms and AA ammo was tried destroyed. It wasn't a well done job; the entire clearing was littered with shells. The holes where the detonations had taken place, was still, after 55 years, without a trace of a single leave of vegetation. Probably caused by the phosphor from the tracer rounds.

    The danish coastline was part of the Atlantik Wall, and therefore heavely mined (more than 1.4 million mines). Roughly 1 mineclearer died, for evey ten miles of coastlines, and there are still areas not cleared to this day.

    The rest of Europe and the former USSR is littered with WWI and WWII ammo.
    The "war most be fought with all means" proponents, really lives in the "here and now", and forget the decades, and centuries that comes afterward, and the huge amount of civilians who has to live on or near the former battlegrounds.

  • They don't really go into it, but the real issue is what happens after the battle. The pellets are covered in heavy-metal dust from the initial impact which washes into the local water supply and the pellets themselves are often consumed by birds. (Many types of birds eat small pebbles to aid in digestion). Birds large enough to eat spen rounds are also large enough for people to eat. When the local population sits down for their Sunday brunch they are unknowingly consuming huge doses of heavy metal at the same time.

  • Relevant Pubmed/Medline abstracts for this (Score:5, Informative)

    by nukebuddy ( 258109 ) on Wednesday March 13, 2002 @02:12AM (#3155108) Homepage
    Firstly, uranium (any isotope) is a heavy metal and for that reason tends to be toxic to the kidneys beyond certain dosages.

    Secondly, kidney toxicity, from any cause, is radically reduced when the owner of the kidney(s) injests antioxidants that operate in the kidneys. There are many, such as alpha lipoic acid. (ALA reduces damage from metals all over the body, BTW, not just in the kidneys.)

    Thirdly, people might want to get their medical science news from the source: peer-reviewed medical journals. You can search for and read medical journal abstracts at Pubmed:
    http://www4.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed/

    All newspapers are sensationalist, contrary to the claims from some /. posters that some newspapers are "respectable." Newspapers cannot be relied upon for unbiased reviews of any hard science topic.

    Here are the latest Pubmed/Medline abstracts regarding DU and kidney health ("Renal functioning" in some of the below abstracts means "kidney functioning"):

    Environ Res 2000 Feb;82(2):168-80
    Health effects of depleted uranium on exposed Gulf War veterans.
    McDiarmid MA, Keogh JP, Hooper FJ, McPhaul K, Squibb K, Kane R, DiPino R, Kabat M, Kaup B, Anderson L, Hoover D, Brown L, Hamilton M, Jacobson-Kram D, Burrows B, Walsh M.
    Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. mmcdiarm@medicine.umaryland.edu

    A small group of Gulf War veterans possess retained fragments of depleted uranium (DU) shrapnel, the long-term health consequences of which are undetermined. We evaluated the clinical health effects of DU exposure in Gulf War veterans compared with nonexposed Gulf War veterans. History and follow-up medical examination were performed on 29 exposed veterans and 38 nonexposed veterans. Outcome measures employed were urinary uranium determinations, clinical laboratory values, and psychiatric and neurocognitive assessment. DU-exposed Gulf War veterans with retained metal shrapnel fragments are excreting elevated levels of urinary uranium 7 years after first exposure (range 0.01-30.7 microg/g creatinine vs 0.01- 0.05 microg/g creatinine in the nonexposed). The persistence of the elevated urine uranium suggests on-going mobilization from a storage depot which results in a chronic systemic exposure. Adverse effects in the kidney, a presumed target organ, are not present at this time, though other effects are observed. Neurocognitive examinations demonstrated a statistical relationship between urine uranium levels and lowered performance on computerized tests assessing performance efficiency. Elevated urinary uranium was statistically related to a high prolactin level (>1.6 ng/ml; P=0.04). More than 7 years after first exposure, DU-exposed Gulf War veterans with retained metal fragments continue to excrete elevated concentrations of urinary uranium. Effects related to this are subtle perturbations in the reproductive and central nervous systems. Copyright 2000 Academic Press.
    PMID: 10662531

    Sci Total Environ 2001 Jul 2;274(1-3):115-8
    Biological effects of embedded depleted uranium (DU): summary of armed forces radiobiology research institute research.
    McClain DE, Benson KA, Dalton TK, Ejnik J, Emond CA, Hodge SJ, Kalinich JF, Landauer MA, Miller AC, Pellmar TC, Stewart MD, Villa V, Xu J.
    Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute, Bethesda, MD 20889-5603, USA. mcclain@mx.afrri.usuhs.mil

    The Persian Gulf War resulted in injuries of US Coalition personnel by fragments of depleted uranium (DU). Fragments not immediately threatening the health of the individuals were allowed to remain in place, based on long-standing treatment protocols designed for other kinds of metal shrapnel injuries. However, questions were soon raised as to whether this approach is appropriate for a metal with the unique radiological and toxicological properties of DU. The Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute (AFRRI) is investigating health effects of embedded fragments of DU to determine whether current surgical fragment removal policies remain appropriate for this metal. These studies employ rodents implanted with DU pellets as well as cultured human cells exposed to DU compounds. Results indicate uranium from implanted DU fragments distributed to tissues far-removed from implantation sites, including bone, kidney, muscle, and liver. Despite levels of uranium in the kidney that were nephrotoxic after acute exposure, no histological or functional kidney toxicity was observed. However, results suggest the need for further studies of long-term health impact, since DU was found to be mutagenic, and it transformed human osteoblast cells to a tumorigenic phenotype. It also altered neurophysiological parameters in rat hippocampus, crossed the placental barrier, and entered fetal tissue. This report summarizes AFRRI's depleted uranium research to date.
    PMID: 11453287

    J Occup Environ Med 2001 Dec;43(12):991-1000
    Surveillance of depleted uranium exposed Gulf War veterans: health effects observed in an enlarged "friendly fire" cohort.
    McDiarmid MA, Squibb K, Engelhardt S, Oliver M, Gucer P, Wilson PD, Kane R, Kabat M, Kaup B, Anderson L, Hoover D, Brown L, Jacobson-Kram D; Depleted Uranium Follow-Up Program.
    Department of Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, 405 W. Redwood Street, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA. mmcdiarm@medicine.umaryland.edu

    To determine clinical health effects in a small group of US Gulf War veterans (n = 50) who were victims of depleted uranium (DU) "friendly fire," we performed periodic medical surveillance examinations. We obtained urine uranium determinations, clinical laboratory values, reproductive health measures, neurocognitive assessments, and genotoxicity measures. DU-exposed Gulf War veterans with retained metal shrapnel fragments were excreting elevated levels of urine uranium 8 years after their first exposure (range, 0.018 to 39.1 micrograms/g creatinine for DU-exposed Gulf War veterans with retained fragments vs 0.002 to 0.231 microgram/g creatinine in DU exposed but without fragments). The persistence of the elevated urine uranium suggests ongoing mobilization from the DU fragments and results in chronic systemic exposure. Clinical laboratory outcomes, including renal functioning, were essentially normal. Neurocognitive measures showing subtle differences between high and low uranium exposure groups, seen previously, have since diminished. Sister chromatid exchange frequency, a measure of mutation in peripheral lymphocytes, was related to urine uranium level (6.35 sister chromatid exchanges/cell in the high uranium exposure group vs 5.52 sister chromatid exchanges/cell in the low uranium exposure group; P = 0.03). Observed health effects were related to subtle but biologically plausible perturbations in central nervous system function and a general measure of mutagen exposure. The findings related to uranium's chemical rather than radiologic toxicity. Observations in this group of veterans prompt speculation about the health effects of DU in other exposure scenarios.
    PMID: 11765683

    Mil Med 2002 Feb;167(2 Suppl):117-9
    Health effects of embedded depleted uranium.
    McClain DE, Benson KA, Dalton TK, Ejnik J, Emond CA, Hodge SJ, Kalinich JF, Landauer MR, Livengood DR, Miller AC, Pellmar TC, Stewart MD, Villa V, Xu J.
    Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute, 8901 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20889-5603, USA.

    The health effects of embedded fragments of depleted uranium (DU) are being investigated to determine whether current surgical fragment-removal policies are appropriate for this metal. The authors studied rodents implanted with DU pellets as well as cultured human cells exposed to DU compounds. Results indicate that uranium from implanted DU fragments distributes to tissues distant from implantation sites, including bone, kidney, muscle, and liver. Despite levels of uranium in kidney that would be nephrotoxic after acute exposure, no histological or functional kidney toxicity was observed with embedded DU, indicating that the kidney adapts when exposed chronically. Nonetheless, further studies of the long-term health impact are needed. DU is mutagenic and transforms human osteoblastic cells into a tumorigenic phenotype. It alters neurophysiological parameters in rat hippocampus, crosses the placental barrier, and enters fetal tissue. Preliminary data also indicate decreased rodent litter size when animals are bred 6 months or longer after DU implantation.
    PMID: 11873491

    Mil Med 2002 Feb;167(2 Suppl):123-4
    Health effects and biological monitoring results of Gulf War veterans exposed to depleted uranium.
    McDiarmid MA, Hooper FJ, Squibb K, McPhaul K, Engelhardt SM, Kane R, DiPino R, Kabat M.
    Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, 10 North Greene Street, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA.

    A small group of Gulf War veterans have retained fragments of depleted uranium (DU) shrapnel, the long-term health consequences of which are undetermined. We evaluated the clinical health effects of DU exposure in Gulf War veterans compared with nonexposed Gulf War veterans. History and follow-up medical examinations were performed on 29 exposed veterans and 38 nonexposed veterans. Outcome measures used were urinary uranium determinations, clinical laboratory values, and psychiatric and neurocognitive assessment. Gulf War veterans with retained DU metal shrapnel fragments were found to be still excreting elevated levels of urinary uranium 7 years after first exposure to DU (range for exposed individuals is 0.01-30.7 micrograms/g creatinine vs. 0.01-0.05 microgram/g creatinine in the nonexposed). The persistence of the elevated urine uranium suggests ongoing mobilization of uranium from a storage depot, resulting in chronic systemic exposure. Adverse effects in the kidney, a presumed target organ, were not seen at the time of the study; however, other subtle effects were observed in the reproductive and central nervous systems of the DU-exposed veterans.
    PMID: 11873493

    -Nukebuddy
    • This is certainly one of the more interesting contributions to this topic.

      One note however: there is an ongoing debate in the scientific community about the quality of the peer-review process of journals, and not all people are happy with it. Peer reviewers are not alway as careful as they should be, authors have a tendency to simply submit an article for another journal, if the first journal they tried has rejected it, and especially medical publications are often sponsored by interested parties that have a lot of money to win or loose. Note that the qouted abstracts represent four papers on apparently only two different studies, and one of these studies is sponsored by the military.

      Which means: reading an abstract often doesn't tell you the real story. You need to read the full article to understand what hidden assumptions have been made, how the selection of participants in the study helped to influence the outcome, and how significant the results really are. Unfortunately, access to the original publication may be rather expensive.

  • Oh well, at least its American soldiers that get their turn to suffer, I guess there is justice after all.
    How much does the U.S. military spend on supporting apartheid in Israel and the killing of Palestinians again?
    I think America is in for a shock once the sympathy wears off, and people start to look at the world through other than American media channels.
    • Actually, it's the rest of the world that's in for a shock. At some point, America is going to fully realize that we're in an us or them situation and open up a barrel of whupass on y'all. Just remember, the last time America was attacked by a non-white people, we invented nuclear weapons. And used them. Twice.

      Hope you're not too fond of Mecca. It might not be around much longer.
  • Gee, if you are in an enemy tank, which you worry about more...the white hot fireball of an exploding DU shell bursting through your armor? Or, OMG, insideous kidney failure?! If you are lucky enough to survive being struck by a DU round...since most of your skin would be burned off I think there might be other concerns than 4 micrograms of depleted uranium.

    And if you are an American serviceman and are worried about this, what are you doing...licking the shells? And even if that is the case, the DoD could solve that problem by putting a nice thin layer of enamel on the shell.

    The people that should worry about this are the people that work in the manufacturing of DU munitions. And even then, this is no where as dangerous as some of the chemicals that are/have been used in producing munitions.

    This is just yet more radioactive hysterics.
  • This story [nando.net]is about the possibility of Bin Laden dying from the same thing.

    More medical news...

    We've all heard the stories concerning Nazi's and their use of medical experiments in the death camps. One of the major beneficiaries to this was the Bayer Company, a German owned, medicinal guru. Being a student of Nietzsche I understand that there is nothing stronger than the tenacity of the German people, but its been over 50 years and this story [cnn.com] provides proof that they are still as bitter as their medicine about getting a can of whup-arse opened up on them.

  • I think if you were hit by one of these shells your kidneys would fail in a matter of microseconds.

    The report also warned that DU particles in the ground near attack sites could contaminate the soil and pose a risk if some of the soil is swallowed by children.

    Hey kids, see that burning hulk of a tank carcass over there in that crater! Let's go eat the soil around it.

Slashdot Top Deals

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. -- Arthur C. Clarke

Close