[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: DU -- FYI
There are some statements from both sides in this press article that require
some serious qualification.
For example, the statement that DU is much less radioactive than Unat. The
U-235 chain is unimportant in the context of activity of either Unat or DU,
so Unat comprises principally four nuclides (unless it's exceedingly fresh)
of nominally equal activity, and DU comprises the same activity of the first
three of these (unless it's exceedingly fresh), plus a small quantity of the
remaining U-234. If you looked at both Unat and DU with a G-M pancake
detector you'd be hard-pressed to differentiate between the two, because
almost everything you're seeing is the same Pa-234m in each case. With
regard to doses from potential intakes, the activity of alpha emitters (the
uranium isotopes) in DU is nominally half that of the same mass of Unat.
And on the other side, the statement about 200 mrem/h from DU fragments or
rounds. To one significant figure (actual is about 10% higher) this dose
rate is from a saturation thickness (with respect to the Pa-234m beta range
in uranium) of a uranium slab (not fragment), due almost exclusively to the
heavy Pa-234m betas. Does the NRC really have a maximum limit of 100
mrem/year for small-area surface dose, as is ostensibly implied by the last
two paragraphs of the press article?
Bruce Heinmiller CHP
heinmillerb@aecl.ca
> ----------
> From: Charp, Paul[SMTP:pac4@cdc.gov]
> Reply To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> Sent: Friday, May 14, 1999 6:52 AM
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: FW: DU -- FYI
>
> the following press article was sent to me this morning.
> Paul A. Charp, (pac4@cdc.gov)
>
> > Sci/Tech
> >
> > Pentagon's man in uranium
> > warning
> >
> > A-10 tankbuster: They are now firing DU weapons over Kosovo
>
> >
> > By Environment Correspondent Alex Kirby
> >
> > As debate intensifies over the use of depleted uranium
> > (DU) weapons in the Balkan conflict, a former Pentagon
> > adviser has come out against them.
> >
> > He is Dr Doug Rokke, a US health physicist who led the
> > DU clean-up in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq
> > immediately after the Gulf War.
> >
> > In 1994, Dr Rokke, an Army Reserve captain, was
> > appointed director of the Pentagon's DU project, a job he
> > left in 1997.
> >
> > He helped develop an education and
> > training programme, and conducted
> > tests on DU explosives in the
> > Nevada desert.
> >
> > The Pentagon has confirmed that
> > A-10 aircraft are using DU rounds in
> > the war with Serbia. They are
> > extremely heavy, and are used for
> > their armour-piercing capability.
> > Veterans from the 1991 conflict
> > believe DU, which is both radioactive and toxic, may help
> > to explain the existence of Gulf War Syndrome.
> >
> > Levels of radioactivity
> >
> > They point to reports from southern Iraq of much higher
> > levels of stillbirths, birth defects, leukaemia and other
> > child cancers.
> >
> >
> > But Nato says DU is no more
> > dangerous than any other
> > heavy metal. Its spokesman,
> > Major Dan Baggio, says a
> > DU round contained about as
> > much uranium as would go
> > into "a glow-in-the-dark type
> > of watch".
> >
> > And the Rand Corporation
> > says its study of DU "found
> > little documented evidence of
> > adverse effects", from either
> > radiation or toxicity.
> >
> > It points out that DU is much less radioactive than
> > natural uranium.
> >
> > 'Burning dust'
> >
> > But Dr Rokke told BBC News Online it had been mislead
> > by Major Baggio.
> >
> >
> > He believes that Pentagon
> > officials have made "a
> > political decision and are
> > totally unwilling to recognise
> > that there are health
> > consequences of the use of
> > DU".
> >
> > Dr Rokke says the force of
> > the impact of a DU round
> > converts much of it into a
> > spray of burning uranium
> > dust. "Consequently, we
> > have DU dust which is a
> > radioactive, heavy, metal poison on or within the
> > equipment", and it is scattered up to 25 or 50 metres
> > away.
> >
> > He says anyone who has inhaled or ingested this dust,
> > or who has let it enter a wound, will need immediate
> > medical treatment.
> >
> > A senior officer of the US Defense Nuclear Agency said
> > in 1991 that radiation from fragments and intact DU
> > rounds was "a serious health threat". He said there was
> > "a possible exposure rate of 200 millirems per hour on
> > contact".
> >
> > "The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's maximum limit
> > ... is 100 millirems per year."
> >
> >
> ************************************************************************
> 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