dorbie 0 #151 December 21, 2004 It's saddenning to read this kind of report. Analogies to radioactive bombs and payloads by the 'Nagasaki' are only designed to confound and terrify. It aslo makes it virtually impossible to assess if the report is even remotely accurate even on it's own terms. The Nagasaki bomb was actually Plutonium not Uranium about 8kg of 90% pure Pu-239. So the comparrison being made is certainly obtuse. (edit: maybe it was cleaner and so makes for an impressive number). The Hiroshima bomb was of course highly enriched Uranium which is predominantly U-235. There was about 60kg of Uranium in it but some of that may have been tamper/jacket I don't know, it would fission with the escaping neutrons increasing yield and 60kg seems high just for the pit. Since the US is dropping DU munitions it makes the natural Uranium in the kids surprising. Uranium isotopes are chemically identical and difficult to separate hence the extensive and elaborate enrichment programs. You don't contaminate kids with DU and get natural Uranium. It's quite clear on this point so they must be testing this with some kind of mass spectrometer and know what they're seeing (?). One could make comparrisons of radioactive yield from the Mount St. Hellens erruption that would dwarf anything dropped in all the conflicts combined. It might make about as much sense. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #152 December 21, 2004 QuoteI hope they're testing this with some kind of mass spectrometer and know what they're seeing (?). Here. Ifound this sight. It contains all the necessary math to calculate the radiation from a small breathable particle of aerosoled DU. http://www.xs4all.nl/~stgvisie/VISIE/Dietz-L/Dietz-du-3.html Also see, for further info: http://www.xs4all.nl/~stgvisie/VISIE/ud_main.html I'm sure there is a link to answer any questions you might have.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #153 December 21, 2004 P.S. if those test subjects that were used had some kind of pathology that correlated with the results I might be persuaded, however if all 9 for example had some ailment and 4 tested +ve what does that tell you? Why were these particular individuals chosen? How does a random sample compare? These are the kinds of studies that have been conducted with returning vets and nothing found to link DU. It doesn't seem that difficult to ask these kinds of questions and do the tests when considering the safety of a weapon system. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #154 December 21, 2004 QuoteWhy were these particular individuals chosen? As I understood it, troops from that unit deployed to Iraq, and they were all tested upon returning.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #155 December 21, 2004 Yes but was it random, were they showing symptoms or did they suspect exposure? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #156 December 21, 2004 QuoteWhy were these particular individuals chosen? I heard, and agaain, I don't "know," but I heard it the whole unit was tested. How or why that unit came to be tested, I'm not sure. Did you see the math demonstrating the annual radiation of a single microscopic particle of DU? See, there is math to support my argument. Du is some nasty stuff, and we should cease using it immediately, and permanently, as well as offer testing to all our troopswho have been exposed in battle or aftermath.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bseriesboosted 0 #157 December 21, 2004 Pruitt Skydive The Farm Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #158 December 21, 2004 A key part of the radiation exposure calculations you posted when comparing to worker dosage is a comparrison of volume. The exposure calculations are based on exposure per volume. This paper bumps up the exposure value for an individual by considering the locality of radiation exposure as limited to a region around the particle of a tenth of a millionth of one cubic centimeters or 0.00000015g of flesh where the alpha particles are expected to be absorbed. It then extrapolates this up to exposure limits considered dangerous as they apply to the whole body. While I'm not saying these local exposures shouldn't be considered differently this is a *very* dubious way of treating them when you compare to safety levels as they apply to full body exposure. It makes the comparrison useless and merely verifys my own results w.r.t. the sorts of levels of radiation you get from particulates. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #159 December 21, 2004 Perhaps they have underestimated the lethal dosage, but that dosage in itself was so miniscule compared to real world inhalation exposures that the point is moot. Perhaps it does indeed somehow accumulate in the sperm. I've heard that, but I'm not a doctor, so I'm no expert. Just a guy trying to stay informed, right? Anyway, say, for argument's sake, it accumulates in the sperm. I bet that miniscule particle and its small surrounding volume could due untold damage to DNA. Hell, even outside of reproductive organs, that may well be a high enough dosage to screw up the DNA enough to allow a malignant growth, which could be fatal. Or not. But, who wants cancer? There is corollating observational evidence. While it admittedly does not prove causation, We, through those that represent us in our government, should certainly give serious and deliberate consideration to discontinuing the use use of DU munitions. The fact that we have been using them for decades does not make it better, it makes it worse, IMO. Thanks, Dorbie, for helping me realize just how bad this stuff really is. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #160 December 21, 2004 QuoteIf you're going to keep misrepresenting my position then perhaps you could explain to me how someone with your credentials could be apparently unaware of the isotope ratios in DU and that the half live of U-235 was 710 million years? Were you just unaware when you accused me of deliberately misleading everyone here or was it another cynical attempt to discredit any opposition using the flimsiest of pretexts? That's got to be pretty embarrassing, I mean U-235 isn't even 1% of natural Uranium and you accused me of dishonesty for not factoring it in DU. I didn't write anything whatsoever about isotope ratios. Who are you trying to mislead now? Your calculation was based (1) on pure 238, which DU is not, and (2) on a linear rather than exponential decay. In addition you have made no attempt to include the actual dose ingested or the difference in susceptibility of lung tissue compared with skin for an alpha emitter.. Your calculation is simply wrong.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #161 December 21, 2004 Here is a link to what appears to be an unbiased report on what we know about Depleted Uranium and its effects. It calls both sides of the issue on distorting truth/ lying, and is very well documented. http://www.antenna.nl/wise/uranium/pdf/dumyths.pdfMath tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)