[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: DU and ICRP - an activists view
Many thanks
I am off to Kosovo on Wednesday for a preliminary visit to the British
Sector.
D SEF Pol is leading the MOD working group on the enhanced environmental
survey.
Maurice is remaining here and is to be a member of the Health Effects
working group.
The Minister is NOT happy and various people are running around like
headless chickens
I am now working DU full time all other work has been dropped
I try to keep you posted on developments.
Regards Fred
Fred Dawson
Health Physics section of UK MOD's Directorate of Safety, Environment and
Fire Policy at:
Directorate of Safety, Environment and Fire Policy
Room 5/117
St Christopher House
Southwark Street
LONDON SE1 0TD
United Kingdom
tel +44 20 7305 4175
fax +44 20 7305 4144
----- Original Message -----
From: "SBD" <sbd@co.dnet.mindef.nl>
To: "Multiple recipients of list" <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 7:34 AM
Subject: DU and ICRP - an activists view
> 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
>
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html