DU issues

[Phillip Hypes <phypes@nis5.lanl.gov>]

As an HP who also has experience as an Armor officer, I'd like to make a
few points about the use of DU in the gulf.  I have done my best to
minimize my comments on non - radiological topics, although I may have
stretched the definition of “radiological topics” once or twice.

First of all, some background is necessary to be able to intelligently
consider the issue of whether the use of DU by soldiers meets the ALARA
principle.  It is the responsibility of any nation sending
it’s sons (and daughters) to war to equip them as well as possible, giving
them the best possible chance of coming home.  As has already been pointed
out, the alternatives to DU hardly have a clean bill of health either.  And
nothing (despite what the folks who used to make a LOT of money selling
tungsten to ammo manufacturers say) is more effective than DU, for
metallurgical reasons.  The Geneva accords require that the weapons used in
war not cause unnecessary suffering (I can’t
remember the exact wording, but that’s the gist of it).  To my knowledge,
there has never been an ethical objection to the use of these munitions.

Yes, there are ethics on the battlefield.  I know of no long-standing army
in history that has had a better ethical record than the U.S. Army,
although I will be the first to admit that this is hardly an unbiased
opinion (and there have been tragic exceptions to the rule).  The law of
war does require combatants to use the least force that will get the job
done.  This is why tanker doctrine does not allow firing DU main gun rounds
at infantry when there are other alternatives.  No law of war prevents
using whatever means are necessary to defend yourself.  If all you have is
main gun ammo, you can (and will) use it.  That being said, I have never
heard a gulf war veteran talk about using DU tank ammunition against
infantry.  DU tank ammunition was used against Iraqi armored vehicles, and
it is
reasonable to assume that any crewmen fortunate enough to survive may have
body burdens of DU.  I doubt if anyone could even hazard an order of
magnitude guess as to how many veterans of the world's conflicts are
walking around today with fragments of other metals in their body (lead,
steel, tungsten, etc.).  Had U.S. penetrators been made of tungsten, the
war would have lasted much longer, been much bloodier, and we'd probably be
hearing about heavy metal poisoning from tungsten instead of radiation from
DU.  If we weren't hearing about tungsten poisoning, it would be because
nothing catches headlines like the "r" word.  Claiming that the U.S.
contaminated Iraq with radioactive materials gets a lot more attention that
complaining about bits of "ordinary" metal littering the landscape.

Much the same situation has prevailed with environmental contamination (of
which there is plenty after any conflict, as any land mine expert can tell
you).  The main difference is that throughout much of history, the
vanquished have been charged for damages in the form of reparations.  This
has taken place even when the vanquished nation has suffered more damage
than the victorious nation.  In the particular case of DU, given the
relative densities of DU dust and sand, I would not expect much of a health
hazard from DU dust post-conflict.  True, some respirable particles will
probably be produced when a DU round strikes a hard target, but I doubt
their "respirable life span" (to coin
a term) would be longer than a few days.  I imagine they would soon form
larger, non-resuspendable particles and be submerged in the lower layers of
sand.  Solid masses of DU could pose a low level external exposure risk, of
course, if laying on the surface.  The magnitude of this risk can be
appreciated by the fact that it takes extended periods of time in close
proximity to large quantities of
penetrators to approach the U.S. exposure limit for members of the general
public (100mrem/yr).  Handling a solid piece of DU, of course, would raise
the issue of potential internal contamination.  The magnitude of this
hazard will depend on the chemical form of the DU oxides and the particle
size, as discussed later in this message.

An interesting development in the issue of environmental contamination,
though, is the fact that issues like Gulf War Syndrome have forced the
military to change the way it thinks about deployments.  The military is
working toward being able to apply peacetime occupational health standards
in operations up to and possibly including full scale war.  How do you deal
with an area that needs to be patrolled or guarded when your opponent has
used a radiation dispersal weapon (or the mere rumor of one) to spread low
level contamination in the area?  How do you demonstrate that
personnel in that area will not exceed 100 mrem/yr?  If they will exceed
it, how do you provide any sort of dosimetry in a combat zone?  We seem to
have a public that believes that any endeavor should be made into a “zero
risk” activity, even war.

Whether DU poses more of a toxological hazard or a radiological hazard
depends on it's chemical form and particle size.  Respirable sized particle
of soluble compounds can be absorbed into the bloodstream through the lungs
and present a heavy metal toxicity hazard to the kidneys.  Respirable sized
insoluble compounds may be retained in the lungs long enough to pose a
radiation exposure risk.

Larger particles can be trapped in the linings of the upper respiratory
system and may eventually be expectorated or swallowed.  For such
particles, their solubility in the digestive tract (which may differ from
their solubility in lung fluid) will determine if the heavy metal toxicity
to the kidneys outweighs the hazard from the exposure of the digestive
system to radiation.  Of course, in many of these instances, the issue of
which hazard outweighs the other may be irrelevant.  If the levels are low
enough, they may well be no significant biological response.  Other factors
may override the DU body burdens as well;  injury, disease, malnutrition
from your own army neglecting to supply
you with food...

Far be it from me to ridicule the sacrifice made by any soldier in any war,
but that does not require me to treat the unscientific, PR-driven claims of
an oppressive, totalitarian regime with anything but contempt.  The U.S.
had every right to use the most effective means available to defend an
ally.  Any ally, by the way, is a nation with which we share various goals,
including economic goals.  Many wars have been fought over economic issues,
one of any nation’s primary concerns.  Okay, now I’m totally off topic (not
that I don’t have company in that respect), so I’ll back away from the
keyboard.

PURELY my own opinions.  Not to be constued as the official policy or
position of any governmental organization.  Not my current employer, not
the U.S. Army, JUST MINE.

Address flames to:

Phil Hypes
phypes@nis5.lanl.gov 



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