DU and ICRP - an activists view

["SBD" <sbd@co.dnet.mindef.nl>]

An interesting view on the position of the ICRP


ing. Jetty Middelkoop
Head of the Radiological Protection Service
Netherlands Ministry of Defence


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Norman & Karen Cohen [mailto:norco@bellatlantic.net]
> Sent: 09 January 2001 03:20
> To: du-list@egroups.com
> Subject: [du-list] DU infrom from abolition list
>
>
>
> kevcross@webtv.net wrote:
> > [
> > ================ + ===============
> > From: future@nor.com.au (Hans-Peter Schnelboegl)
> > Date: Tue, Jan 9, 2001, 11:08am (EST+16)
> > To: kevcross@webtv.net
> > Cc: peter.diehl@sz-online.de
> > Subject: DU
> >
> > Dear Kevin,
> > Thanks for all the information on DU. I personally did some
> > investigation into uranium tailings, which have a lot in common with DU.
> > After a few hundred thousand years, when the full decay chain of the
> > parent isotope U-238 has been re-established (some 13 radioactive
> > isotopes), the isotope ratio will be actually the same for DU and for
> > uranium tailings.
> > However, DU will remain highly concentrated, while the uranium in
> > uranium tailings remains some ten thousand times diluted by powdered
> > rock (from the original uranium ore). Consequently, the bulk of uranium
> > tailings is much larger. I would guess that we have produced about 500
> > to 800 million tonnes of uranium tailings worldwide - 60 million tonnes
> > in Australia alone. And we may have produced 600 000 tonnes of the
> > highly concentrated DU (a rough guess).
> > The radioactivity of uranium - be it DU or uranium tailings - is not
> > man-made but rather derived from the uranium in the uranium ore. There
> > is no increase in activity. However, mainly due to the modified
> > consistency of the uranium (in the case of DU highly concentrated powder
> > or gas, or combustable metal, and in the case of uranium tailings vast
> > quantities of powder) the radiation from DU and uranium tailings is
> > millions of times more dangerous than that from the original uranium
> > ore. For more details see my paper "Long-term Consequences of Uranium
> > Mining", chapter 1 (available on www.nor.com.au/community/future).
> > I consider DU to be the biggest curse from our nuclear age. Integrated
> > over all future, it produces most harm of all radioactive wastes
> > (extremely long half life of 4500 million years for the main isotope,
> > continuous production of radioactive decay products including the
> > gaseous radon-222). While the future of life on this planet may not last
> > that long, we have no right to simply discard life and health of
> > countless future humans and animals. The Precautionary Principle has to
> > be given priority over greed and power. Instead, we allow sixty years of
> > nuclear age to harm all life for billions of years (reminds me of the
> > story of Adam and Eve and the end of paradise).
> > The health effects of DU are both radiological and toxicological. The
> > radiological health effects can be quantified by the use of an extremely
> > complex system of conversion factors and biological transfer models,
> > established by the ICRP (International Commission on Radiological
> > Protection). This organisation is arguably the most criminal
> > organisation of humans ever established, being responsible for the death
> > of hundreds of millions to trillions of humans from future generations.
> > For more details on this organisation see my paper "Long-term
> > Consequences of Uranium Mining", chapter 5.1 (available on
> > www.nor.com.au/community/future). Unfortunately, their system is the
> > only system available to calculate radiological health effects. Other
> > organisations in this field (UN-SCEAR, BEIR, etc) are intrinsically
> > connected with the ICRP.
> > As far as DU is concerned, the credibility of the ICRP model is further
> > undermined by the fact that they decreased the conversion factors for
> > the uranium isotopes considerably after the Golf War, about by a factor
> > of four. This allows a four times higher exposure to uranium. Simple.
> > Obviously, they claim scientific reasons for this, which certainly would
> > have been supplied by scientists selling their brains to the highest
> > bidder.
> > More likely, the reasons for increased conversion factors are twofold:
> > the eternal contamination of vast areas with DU by the US army, and the
> > difficulty of the mining industry to comply with the previous dose
> > limits in underground uranium mines.
> > Using the ICRP's models to quantify the health effects of DU, we find
> > indeed that the recent leukemia cases couldn't possibly be connected to
> > DU ammunition. The ICRP model suggests a leukemia risk (considering the
> > short time lag between exposure and disease) some 100 times lower, with
> > various uncertainties. I suggest we have to maintain an open mind in
> > this as the ICRP model may be somewhat valid - or it may be utterly
> > ridiculous as in other repect. The future may show. While it is beyond
> > our means to do the research ourselves and to establish alternative
> > models, epidemiological evidence has repeatedly proven the ICRP model
> > wrong in the past, for example:
> > * more recent Hiroshima statistics have discredited the ICRP's model for
> > low level radiation
> > * fatalities from the major US nuclear research facilities are far
> > higher than can be expected from the dose received by the workers using
> > the ICRP's model.
> > It would be extremely important to get epidemiological evidence for DU
> > because of its eternal effects. Unfortunately the situation in Iraq and
> > in the US army is not conducive for the collection of such evidence. The
> > situation should be better for the people in Bosnia / Kosovo and for the
> > European armies involved.
> > Peter
> > __________________________________Some figures:
> > By mass, the uranium content of DU consists to some 99.8% of Uranium-238
> > (HL [halflife] = 4500 million yeras) some 0.2% of U-235 (HL = 700
> > million years) less than 0.006% of U-234 (HL = 245 000 years) There are
> > no significant variations in this ratio, except over time.
> > However, the activity of DU comes to
> > some 49% from U-238
> > some 49% of U-234
> > about 1% from U-235.
> > There may be some variations in this ratio.
> > After some 300 000 years the activity of DU will have increased about
> > sevenfold due to the generation of its radioactive decay products. After
> > 1000 million years the activity of DU will still be about six times
> > higher than it is today, and after 4500 million years the DU's activity
> > will be about three times higher than it is today.
> > PS: The WISE - website <www.antenna.nl/wise/uranium> includes a
> > calculator
> > for radiation fatalities, which uses the ICRP model: Please don't forget
> > to refer to the criminal aspects of the ICRP when publishing results
> > calculated with their model - otherwise you contribute to their crimes.
> > Prof. Wolfgang Koehnlein gives more details on the ICRP in "Kurzer
> > historischer Ueberblick ueber die Aktivitaeten and Empfehlungen der
> > Internationalen Strahlenschutzkommission (ICRP)", Institut fuer
> > Strahlenbiologie der Westfaelischen Wilhelms-Universitaet, 48149
> > Muenster, Germany
> > ______________________________________________
> > Peter Schnelboegl, Diplom Ingenieur (Techn. Univ. Munich)
> > future@nor.com.au
> > www.nor.com.au/community/future
> > Ph: 61 2 66220243


************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html