[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: DU and ICRP - an activists view
Interesting and confused. Depleted uranium (DU) is uranium that has less
than 0.7% U-235. THAT IS THE DEFINITION! Uranium tailings contain U-235,
U-238, and U-234 -- the only naturally found U isotopes (except in places
like Oklo). DU from recycling and reprocessing can contain U-232 and U-236,
and any radiological health effect would, it seems to me, probably be from
U-232, which has a 72 year half life. In any case DU is at least 98% U-238;
natural DU is >99% U-238. So any exposure would be mostly to U-238 anyway.
The Heff for U-238 for inhalation and exposure to deposition on the ground
are five and four orders of magnitude smaller, respectively, than for any
other U isotopes. Anyone inhaling enough DU to get any radiological effect
would have some kind of heavy metal effect which would most likely
overshadow the radiological effect.
Most mined uranium is in secular equilibrium with its daughters, though
there are some younger deposits (e.g., Colville, in Washington State), and I
cannot see where that equilibrium would be affected by mining. In the
enrichment process, thorium and protactinium might be lost chemically, and
radon would certainly be lost, in the conversion to UF6.
Just my thoughts
Ruth Weiner
ruth_weiner@msn.com
-----Original Message-----
From: SBD <sbd@co.dnet.mindef.nl>
To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Monday, January 15, 2001 12:51 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