Burgy,
There are three isotopes of U (238, 235, 234), all are radioactive and
decay to daughter isotopes. 238U is a long lived radioactive isotope, and
decays through quite a long daughter sequence and eventually ends up as
stable 206Pb. The half life is ~4.5 billion years, essentially the age of
the earth. It makes up ~99% of all U, because the half-lives of 235 and
234 are much shorter. 234U is actually produced in the decay of 238U as
one of the daughters in the decay series.
Other products can be produced I believe in reactors, though I'm unfamiliar
with the process.
I have no understanding of what "Depleted Uranium" would be. Depleted in
what? "Concentrated Uranium" sounds more like what is described.
Bullets made of U would certainly pose health hazards if the material were
placed into your body through food contamination, bullets, inhalation, dust
on your skin, etc. The radioactive decay produces gamma rays, alpha
particles (He nuclei), which can cause damage to cells and to DNA, not to
mention the Pb daughter product, dangerous to organisms in its own regard
as a heavy metal. These kinds of things should be classified as chemical
warfare if they aren't already. I find it quite disturbing that these
things would be used in warfare, and the claim that the US has used these
things within the US is disturbing enough to be difficult to believe. I'd
like to find out if the story has any credibility.
Yours,
Charles
At 01:15 PM 2/23/01 -0700, you wrote:
>I was at a meeting yesterday where the subject was the US sanctions on
>Iraq (the speaker, of course, was against them). Much of what he had to
>say made a lot of sense; some did not.
>
>In a leaflet he distributed and talked about was a description of what
>was called "Depleted Uranium," (DU), which was also identified as the
>isotope U-238. Included were all sorts of claims about it, claims which I
>do not see as credible. But my physics career is too far remote now in
>time for me to fairly judge these claims; perhaps someone here might
>comment on them.
>
>These are the claims, as extracted from somewhat more volitile phrases in
>the leaflet:
>
>1. The US used DU munitions in Iraq, Kuwait, Kosovo, Serbia, Bosnia,
>Puerto Rico, Okinawa and within the US.
>
>2. Thousands of individuals have been exposed (to what?) ...
>
>3. DU is a health hazard if inhaled, ingested, or gets in wounds.
>
>4. Respiratory and skin protection must be worn by everyone within 80
>feet of DU contaminated equipment.
>
>5. DU contamination makes water & food unusable.
>
>6. DU is made from the non-fissionable byproduct of the uranium
>enrichment process.
>
>7. DU is used in munitions, shielding and commercial concrete.
>
>8. DU munitions are solid U-238 (several examples given).
>
>9. Upon impact, radioactive and heavy metal poison U-238 fragments &
>oxides are created.
>
>10. Reported health effects (official DOD document, not identified)
>include (long list of diseases).
>
>11. Doing nothing wall leave "thousands of radioactive heavy metal poison
>bullets" around.
>
>The article is written by a Doug Rome, Ph.D., who is identified as a
>former ODS (?) health physicist and a former Army DU Project director.
>
>If U-238 is a stable isotope, as I always thought it was, then whence
>comes the radioactivity? And while I'm fairly sure that ground up U-238
>powder is probably not good to inhale, is it really a poison? That is, is
>it worse than, for instance, an equal amount of West Texas dust?
>
>The anti-sanctions movement seems to me to be a good one to support. But
>these claims, which seem wild to me, don't give me any confidence in the
>rest of their message.
>
>Comments appreciated.
>
>Burgy (John Burgeson)
>
>www.burgy.50megs.com
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><<>< <>< <>< <><
<>< <>< <>< <><
Charles W. Carrigan
Univ. of Michigan - Department of Geological Sciences
2534 C.C. Little Bldg.
425 E. University Ave.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1063
cwcarrig@umich.edu
"There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale
returns of conjecture
out of such a trifling investment of fact."
- Mark Twain
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><
<>< <>< <>< <><
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 23 2001 - 17:44:45 EST