Re: more Rokke-DU....

[JGinniver@AOL.COM]

In a message dated 27/9/04 9:37:29 pm, rujohnso@nmsu.edu writes:





> Agreed its a heavy metal toxin, but I'm not sure I would agree that dU 

> poses no radiological risk whatsoever. It is an alpha emitter, even if its 

> specific activity is exceptionally low. There is at least a potential hazard to 

> sensitive alveolar tissue, especially if the effective biological half life in 

> the lung is fairly long (don't know what it is offhand). I wonder if a good 

> study has been done lately in regards to tissue or organ response to controlled 

> doses of aerosolized dU? That would tend to answer the question. At this 

> point, it would be difficult to convince govt regulators there is no 

> radiological risk, and likely impossible to convince the general public of that. 

> -Russ

> 



Firstly, apologies for sending the contents of the whole page from the Royal 

Society (that august learned body from the UK), I felt that it was such a good 

summary that it was too good to leave it as just a link.   Hopefully the 

links work if not go to the following URL:   http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/policy/



Hope this answers a lot of the points raised in this discussion.   I do 

however think that sometimes a little more research would help before some comments 

are made on the list, very often the studies have already been done (on the 

last point, if you feel the need, please flame me personally rather than the 

list)



Regards Julian



 The health hazards of depleted uranium: part II



March 2002

Ref: 5/02

PDF File

Click on PDF file above for the Part II report (138 pages)



This is the second of two reports produced by the Royal Society on the health 

effects of depleted uranium munitons. Part II deals with the risks from the 

chemical toxicity of uranium, non-malignant radiation effects from DU intakes, 

the long-term environmental consequences of the deployment of DU munitions and 

responses to Part I.



The Part I report, published in May 2001, considered the increased risks of 

radiation-induced cancer from exposures to DU on the battlefield. Click here 

for the Part I report.



An eight-page summary covering both reports has been produced that covers the 

key conclusions and recommendations.

Click here for the summary.



The main conclusions of the Part II report are:

- The risks to the kidney and other organs and tissues from the use of DU in 

munitions are very low for most soldiers on the battlefield and for those 

living in the conflict area.

- In extreme conditions and under worst-case assumptions, soldiers who 

receive large intakes of DU could suffer adverse effects on the kidney and lung.

- Environmental contamination will be very variable but in most cases the 

associated health risks due to DU will be very low. In some worst-case scenarios 

high local levels of uranium could occur in food or water that could have 

adverse effects on the kidney.



The appendices of the Part II report refer to technical annexes A to G that 

are available through the links below:



Annexe A Estimations of kidney uranium concentrations from published reports 

of uranium intakes in humans

Annexe B Estimates of DU intakes from resuspension of soil

Annexe C Estimate of infant doses from the direct ingestion of soil or dusts 

containing uranium and DU

Annexe D Calculation of generalised limits for radioactivity

Annexe E Calculation of generalised limits for chemical toxicity

Annexe F Groundwater transport modelling

Annexe G Corrosion of DU and DU alloys: a brief review