Public radio call-in show on DU

[RuthWeiner@AOL.COM]

Today I swallowed my distaste and got in on a National Public Radio call-in show about DU, and I thought you all might be interested in the experience.  The guests were a retired professor (chemistry, I think) a Gulf war vet, and a local anti-nuke.  The latter two were predictable, but I was interested in the professor, and here is what I remember of his presentation:



He didn't say anything actually wrong, but he did distort.  He said that DU was radioactive (without saying how radioactive), he said that it was a by-product of "the process that enriches uranium for nuclear plants and nuclear weapons" (without mentioning U235 or U238), he did give the right percentage of U235 in natural U (without actually mentioning the isotopes), he said uranium was a nephrotoxin (again, without mentioning quantities), he said tungsten would be a good substitute, and when asked, he said yes, DU was "radioactive waste."



When I called in, I tried to attach some numbers and comparisons, and had to keep stressing that the specific activity of NU, DU, U238, etc was well-known and didn't change depending on the chemical composition or physical nature of the DU. I did point out the ubiquity of NU.  The anti-nuke claimed that DU shrapnel was 100 times as radioactive as a piece of DU he picked up at Sandia.  He also talked (surprise!_) about Chernobyl.  So I said DU is nothing like the emissions from the Chernobyl accident -- I went into some detail on this point. I also pointed out that the chemical toxicity of uranium is much like that of any heavy metal.



Bottom lines:

1. Re Gulf war syndrome, I said two things: that we really do need to investigate what causes it and not just seize on something radioactive, and that saying that the activity of DU was low and chemical toxicity unlikely was NOT that same as saying soldiers don't suffer in war, and shouldn't be characterized that way.  Essentially I said that by deciding the syndrome was caused by either the radiotoxicity or the chemical toxicity of DU, we could well be missing the actual cause.

2.  I did not question Gulf war syndrome.

3.  I don't think I got anywhere.  I'm sure I didn't change any minds.

4.  The three guests made up some stuff, I am pretty sure, and there seems to be no way to call them on it or counter it.  The closest I got was to keep insisting that the specific activity of NU and DU are what they are -- you don't increase the specific radioactivity of DU by making a weapon out of it.

5.  Everyone seemed to know what I was talking about.  I didn't use jargon -- the retired professor did.

6.  In spite of my frustration, I think it is important to get in on these programs.  Maybe if enough of us do it often enough, it will have an impact.



Ruth

-- 

Ruth F. Weiner

ruthweiner@aol.com

505-856-5011

(o)505-284-8406



************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/