[ RadSafe ] is uranium genotoxic? (was Re: CB interview onenrichedU)

[Steven Dapra]

Oct. 28

         That would be my broader point --- there would have been no 
point in using a DU weapon in Fallujah.  Regular high explosives 
would provide the desired carnage and destruction.  Busby can't 
figure out that DU's nature is such that it is for use against 
armored vehicles, and not against buildings and people.

         To reiterate, it's more of Busby's lunacy, or ignorance, or 
what-have-you.  Perhaps now he will commence blustering that it's a 
bunker buster weapon.  So what?  Were bunker busters needed in Fallujah?

Steven Dapra


At 09:53 AM 10/28/2011, you wrote:
>What would be the point in using something like that at Fallujah?  To
>the best of my knowledge, the fighting was mostly in residential areas,
>of houses made of ordinary building materials (mostly concrete block,
>from what I could see.  There would be no reason to use some
>super-secret advanced bunker-busting weapon.  Even conventional armor
>piercing projectiles would be of less value in that kind of environment,
>as they would pass right through the target building, leaving relatively
>neat holes front and back, with matching holes in non-targets down
>range.  Much more desirable from the military's point of view would be
>weapons that would enter the target and blow up, killing the people in
>the target without doing damage to nearby structures, where your people
>might be.  Given that the military has many such weapons, and that they
>are undoubtedly cheaper that the hypothetical super-secret weapons, it
>seems unlikely the military would go with the more expensive, less
>effective option, just to give activists something to catch them at.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
>[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Steven Dapra
>Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 7:33 PM
>To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
>Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] is uranium genotoxic? (was Re: CB interview
>onenrichedU)
>
>Oct. 27
>
>          This is more of Busby's lunacy.  (See his message way below.)
>
>          Under the heading "The Battle for Fallujah" Busby's paper says:
>
>"CAS (Close Air Support) weapons included AGM-114 Hellfire, AGM-65
>Maverick and TOW missiles. These mainly use shaped charge warheads
>believed to contain Uranium shaped charge liners (concept identified
>in US Patent 4441428 [fn 55]).  CAS operations in Fallujah also used
>500lb GBU-12, 38 and possibly larger hard target guided bombs e.g.
>GBU-24 for hard targets and suspected bunkers. The advanced
>penetrator warhead versions of these (BLU-110, 111) use high-density
>metal ballast - either tungsten or Uranium [fn 57]."  (The footnote
>numbers are the ones in Busby's paper.)
>
>          For patent 4441428 (fn. 55) go to this link
>
>http://www.patents.com/us-4441428.html
>
>          The abstract to the patent reads, "This invention relates to
>a new Blasting Device especially adapted to drilling oil and gas
>wells, characterized by a shaped charge of explosives, having a liner
>of depleted uranium."
>
>          According to Busby's lurid fantasy, this "concept" (his
>word) of a blasting device to be used for drilling oil and gas wells
>was being used as a weapon in Fallujah.  You may make of that what you
>will.
>
>          The device in Busby's footnote 57 is described by this
>abstract:
>
>"A target penetrating aerial bomb including a penetrating body shaped
>for improved target penetration, having a narrower impact profile at
>approximately the same weight as an existing bomb. An aerodynamic
>shroud encases the penetrating body and emulates the aerodynamic
>shape of the existing bomb, and the weight, center of gravity, and
>moments of inertia of the bomb closely approximate those properties
>of the existing bomb. The bomb constructed according to the present
>invention may be qualified by similarity to the existing bomb, thus
>avoiding lengthy and costly qualification procedures."
>
>          This bomb is a bunker buster bomb intended for use against
>hard targets, and is not a penetrator (anti-tank) weapon for use
>against armored vehicles, as Busby correctly says below.  Hence,
>**technically,** --- and only technically --- Mike Brennan was
>incorrect when he mentioned its use against armored vehicles.  Note
>however that Mike said "presumably mostly against armored
>vehicles."  **presumably**  Not being an expert on this weapon he
>didn't know its application.
>
>          A Google search for patent 6639977 (in Busby's fn. 57) will
>take you to this Wikipedia link:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLU-116
>
>          According to the Wikipedia article, some organizations have
>linked the BLU-116 bomb to depleted uranium.  However, the article
>continues, these claims "do not constitute evidence that either
>material [tungsten or DU] was used in the actual weapon."  The patent
>application describes this device as a "shrouded aerial bomb," and
>says it can use DU.  That doesn't prove anything about its actual use
>in Kosovo, or anywhere else.
>
>          The patent link is
>
>http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL
>&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,389,977.PN.&OS=
>PN/6,389,977&RS=PN/6,389,977
>
>          The patent description says DU can be used in the
>bomb.  Whether or not is has been used, and on what battlefields (if
>any), is another matter entirely.
>
>          Of course Busby's huffy correction (just below) is
>irrelevant and immaterial.  The dispute is over the human health
>effects of DU, and not whether or not a weapon is an anti-tank
>penetrator.  As he often does, Busby pitches a fit over a minor or
>insignificant error while cleverly ignoring the larger or fundamental
>part of the debate.  For instance, on Oct. 15, he corrected someone
>by saying that he was a Visiting Professor, and not an Visiting
>Assistant Professor.  He harangued us for over a week to read his
>Fallujah hair sample paper.  After I posted a critique of his paper
>he managed to maintain a thunderous silence.
>
>Steven Dapra
>
>
>At 03:31 PM 10/27/2011, you wrote:
> >Excuse me people. This is not an anti tank penetrator. It is not the
> >same weapon. Ok? Its a new weapon. For which patents have been
> >found. Cited in the paper. OK? So anti tank arguments are misplaced.
> >Chris

[edit]