[OT] Depleted uranium was Re: [oclug] [OT] "A Fine Job"

[alayne at twobikes.ottawa.on.ca]

Stephen Webb asked: 

> I'm sorry to veer a little off topic (I'm not addressing any points 
> here), but could someone please
> explain to me why the use of depleted uranium for the manufacture of 
> bullets would be considered "evil?"
> I can't seem to connect any dots on this one, I must be missing a few.

What the World Health Organization (which, in this case, I don't believe 
has an axe to grind) says:

http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/env/du/en/
http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/en/Recommend_Med_Officers_final.pdf

The problem appears to be with high levels of depleted uranium, and the 
most immediate risk is to the kidneys. "There is no known specific 
treatment of uranium exposure" so it is treated like other heavy metal 
exposure (which also are very bad for the kidneys), which could cause 
kidney failure. There's also a possibility of lung cancer.

Similar conclusions at:
http://web.ead.anl.gov/uranium/guide/depletedu/health/index.cfm

OTOH, others have linked it to birth defects and cancer:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/95178_du12.shtml
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/view/678/1/77

The question seems to be the level of radioactivity and type of radiation 
from the DU. If it's low-level and only alpha particles and doesn't turn 
into dust that could be breathed in easily, the WHO conclusions seem 
reasonable. If not, ???

-- 
Alayne McGregor
alayne at twobikes.ottawa.on.ca

"There are only genres because there are shelves."  -- Jill Paton Walsh