Slashdot Mirror

Certainly not daylight, but probably quite visible to any decent gamma ray detector. If you did a Google Earth but at the gamma or x-ray frequencies, the Irish Sea would certainly be the brightest mass of water anywhere in the world and quite possibly THE brightest mass of anything outside of the remnants of nuclear test sites.

Well, the one from the NRPB might be a better one to look at. There have certainly been more than 5 cases - indeed the only 5 I could see in this report is to a specific section in the references. The Gardner Report, which DOES mention 5 cases, refers to 5 cases that occurred in a specific time interval over the entire nation where 4 of those occurred in Seascale. The Gardner Report is the one which is the most-cited reference to childhood leukemia in Britain.

In fact, the table at the bottom-right for the Gardner Report is the most interesting for this purpose - a six-fold rise in leukemia incidents in the region surrounding Seascale with levels of leukemia remaining (a) constant and (b) at expected levels everywhere else over the same time period.

Radionuclide research groups *fried* the attempts by BNFL to conceal the link at the time and would doubtless be disgusted by the other posters here trying to attribute the cancers to "natural lead poisoning". I look forward to seeing these alleged papers "proving" that these distinguished experts were wrong and that a pseud-anonymous Slashdot poster is so vastly better and brighter that they can identify a wholly imagined lead isotope as the cause without having done an ounce of legwork.

Other links to papers that may be of interest:

• The Seascale childhood leukaemia cases-the mutation rates implied by paternal preconceptional radiation doses
• Childhood leukemia and radioactive discharges at Seascale
• Leukemia Clusters Near La Hague and Sellafield
• The CERRIE Report
• An index of anything I might have forgotten

Like the increase in cancer for those living in the plume. http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/index.html?http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/467/4637.html

Don't you hate it when nuclear power causes people to get sick and die?

"Let's count up the deaths, shall we?

Three Mile Island : 0 deaths
Chernobyl : 47 deaths (there were also 4,000 cases of Thyroid cancer that were successfully treated)"

The mortality numbers are more like 5,000 to 20,000 for TMI Unit-2 meltdown.
Besides the Xenon airborne release.. Several million curries of contaminated Cooling water were dumped in to the Susquehanna River.

Chernobyl.. death toll stands @ 500,000+ and is still increasing. Eventually it will claim the lives of several million people in the region..

Why are these numbers much higher than mentioned previously..
Because we now know a lot more about radiation exposure and the cover ups that followed each incident.

Some additional interesting facts about reactor accidents..

TMI unit-2 (commissioned 1978) was in operation for approximately three(3) months before the meltdown(1979) event..

Japan's Breeder reactor was in operation for just 5 months before
it suffered a major coolant accident, shutting it down for the last 14
years.

Fermi-1 (30 miles outside of Detroit) was in operation for just
three(3) years before it suffered from a partial core meltdown.

Chernobyl Unit # 4 reactor exploded(1986) after just three years of operation(comm 1983).
Even worse this was the SECOND Meltdown EVENT at Chernobyl!!!
Unit #1 experienced a partial core meltdown in 1982 after just four years of operation(comm 1978).

Don't twist my words please.

Second, how can you be credible when you say that water vopour is a greenhouse gas in the same way as CO2? Water is always in a saturated state in the atmosphere. Yes, it is a major contributor to global warming that was *always there*. 70% of the surface is water! If CO2 was in pools like water and water was at the levels of CO2, then it would be backwards. Hope you can understand the difference between saturated, always there state and *new* additional greenhouse gases like CO2 and methane. The 2 latter ones are never saturated and hence add to the greenhouse effect of what gases we currently have in the atmosphere.

Another example would be Titan (moon of Saturn). Currently it is thought that it contains liquid methane seas, etc. Thus, on Titan methane would not be a "global warming" greenhouse gas like it is on Earth.

Regarding evolution, it is a scientific fact now. It may have been a hypothesis by Darwin (his free book here: http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/2009), but now it is a fact that microbiologists rely on. It is even observed in nature on large organisms without our short lifespans. Of course you may chose not to read what Darwin has to say regarding his observations but continue to believe in dogma.

As for other examples, give me proof instead of idle talk. Especially about funding. And if you approach any project as "disprove of a", you'll not get funding because your method is unscientific. The idea is to observe something that then through that observation would disprove "a". This means, you cannot disprove evolution (which is a fact). Well, prove that creation happens right now. Prove to me that the bacteria that are now resistant to antibiotics were "created" in such a way that would contradict evolution (no, humans engineering them doesn't mean creation - unless you think humans are now gods? :). So far the "evolution way" has been seen observed in every repeated case for how these bacteria evolved to deal with the antibiotic.

Of course, there is Chernobyl. Or were these animals that clearly descended from the original ones did not change in response environmental pressures mysteriously created by some deity?

http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/index.html?http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/437/4324.html

Or are you going to state that this is it a government cover up of the alien experiments? :) lol

Anyway, at least read some articles from BBC (or do you considered them biased gov't sponsored propaganda?),
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/7074601.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7081026.stm

Unfortunately some of that stuff due to come down is radioactive
http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/index.html?http://www 10.antenna.nl/wise/629/5699.php

That's the thing. They are radioactive

With the information on that page and a few others, we can do some math, and shed some light on the matter.

"...the average radioactivity per short ton of coal is 17,100 millicuries/4,000,000 tons, or 0.00427 millicuries/ton" (or 4.27 Curies/ton)
Source: http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/ colmain.html

The United States consumed 1107 million short tons of coal in 2004
Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/quarterly/html/t 28p01p1.html

Electrostatic precipitators capture 99.8% of particulates.
Source: http://www.airbornepollutioncontrol.com/jul26_2004 .html

Thus, all coal-burning facilities in the United States release an estimated 4.27 Curies/ton * 1107 million tons * 0.002 = 9.454 Curies of radioactive material every year.

Chernobyl released 7 million Curies of radioactive material in 1986. Windscale in the UK released 20,000 Curies in 1957, and an early accident at the Hanford plutonium processing plant in the US released 205 Curies. Three Mile Island released 17 Curies.
Source: http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/369/3619.html

That's the thing. They are radioactive

With the information on that page and a few others, we can do some math, and shed some light on the matter.

"...the average radioactivity per short ton of coal is 17,100 millicuries/4,000,000 tons, or 0.00427 millicuries/ton" (or 4.27 Curies/ton)
Source: http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/ colmain.html

The United States consumed 1107 million short tons of coal in 2004
Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/quarterly/html/t 28p01p1.html

Electrostatic precipitators capture 99.8% of particulates.
Source: http://www.airbornepollutioncontrol.com/jul26_2004 .html

Thus, all coal-burning facilities in the United States release an estimated 4.27 Curies/ton * 1107 million tons * 0.002 = 9.454 Curies of radioactive material every year.

Chernobyl released 7 million Curies of radioactive material in 1986. Windscale in the UK released 20,000 Curies in 1957, and an early accident at the Hanford plutonium processing plant in the US released 205 Curies. Three Mile Island released 17 Curies.
Source: http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/369/3619.html

Look, I know this link is from a biased source (my wife is an epidemiologist and I will ask her for a more scientific foundation later), but I'm curious why you are so willing to accept the consequences of Chernobyl as if they didn't exist.

http://www.chernobyl-international.org/facts.html

You have acknowledged the thyroid cancer. If there is a high multiplier (claimed at x30 here) to the risk rate of thyroid cancer *that alone* would seem to indicate a "problem". Liukemia here is claimed to have a x1.5 risk factor and other cancers at x1.4. Birth defects are listed as x3 risk factor and the chart here seems interesting:

http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/index.html?http://www 10.antenna.nl/wise/330/3294.html

With one region showing a fairly impressive spike [5, 21, 39, 84, 50 over 1985-1989 with 89 data being a half year] (although the data range and group could have been selected with care).

I'm not saying that nuclear power shouldn't be used... in fact, I live in Arizona and pass the plant here without worry (and was amused by the glow in the dark baseball caps given to the workers: my friend's father worked at the plant). But to claim that Chernobyl didn't have bad effects is disingenuous and *harms* a realistic and reasonable discussion of risk. The bad effects were no where near what the doom criers said, but they do exist and need to be factored into design and construction discussions. (Near the plant the wildlife is mutated at very high rates, although it turns out that sci-fi type mutations are pretty rare: the handful of two headed animals that you find at fairs in *non* elevated radiation areas being trotted out don't indicate the realities of balding animals and the like.)

The cost estimate from the article is Very Bad. According to http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/index.html?http://www 10.antenna.nl/wise/456/4525.html

and http://www.uic.com.au/wns0729.htm

and as another poster mentioned,
http://eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/nuc_reactors /superla.html

the cost is around $200M (not including estimation errors, mismanagement costs and other overheads).

Editors should check some of the fantastic claims.

-

Would you like a Honda Accord for $1.95?

And a 1,000 megawatt plant uses 4 million tons of coal a year, resulting in the release of 5.2 tons of Uranium and 12.8 tones of thorium.

If the proponents of nuclear power were genuinely concerned with the release of radioactivity in the environment, they would be much more concerned with by-products of mining uranium than that of burning coal.

As this report points out, the leftovers from uranium mining dwarf radioactive coal residue:

Uranium mill tailings are normally dumped as a sludge in special ponds or piles, where they are abandoned. The largest such piles in the US and Canada contain up to 30 million tonnes of solid material. In Saxony, Germany the Helmsdorf pile near Zwickau contains 50 million tonnes, and in Thuringia the Culmitzsch pile near Seelingstädt 86 million tonnes of solids.

These tailings are nearly as radioactive as the original ore and pose both an immediate and long-term threat to the environment. Even the Alex Gabbard article cited says the danger from radioactivity from burning coal is well in the future and can be reduced by new technology.

The dangers of radioactivity in other parts of the nuclear energy production cycle, including mining uranium, disposal of nuclear waste, and nuclear accidents, is much greater than from burning coal.

When the proponents of nuclear energy resort to such a blatantly selective use of evidence to bolster their case, it makes one wonder how strong their case really is.

Your argument whilst superficially attractive seems to be based on jealousy greed and ignorance.

For example, in related geographical, geological and political news

http://www.antenna.nl/wise/index.html?http://www.a ntenna.nl/wise/570/5419.html

It seems that the final cost of your national nuclear weapons defence program also offers you the choice of drinking radioactive water or paying your tax dollars to keep the Colorado river clean.

To summarise

"U.S. DOE announces plan to relocate Atlas Moab uranium mill tailings
During a ceremony, held on January 14, 2000, high on a cliffside bench above the tailings, Energy Secretary Bill Richardson announced a sweeping plan for relocating the Atlas Moab tailings away from the bank of the Colorado River. With this plan, Richardson is addressing the fears of Los Angeles water officials that the water supply for millions of Southern Californians would be threatened if the 10.5 million short tons of radioactive dirt were left on the flood plain of the Colorado River.
Two big hurdles remain in the drive to clear away the pile, left near Moab by Atlas when it went bankrupt: funding the multi-year project, which the DOE estimates would cost $300 million, and transferring authority from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to the DOE. (Deseret News / Salt Lake Tribune Jan 15, 2000)"

"A bill ordering the Atlas uranium mill tailings dug up and moved from the flood plain of the Colorado River near Moab was approved Oct. 12, 2000 by the U.S. Senate. The measure, which passed the House on Oct. 11, now goes to the president for his signature. (Salt Lake Tribune, Oct. 13, 2000)
President Clinton signed the bill on Oct. 30, 2000."

"President Bush has included no money in his 2002 budget to clean up the abandoned uranium mill tailings site near Moab, Utah, where federal officials have estimated 16,000 gallons of water containing radioactive uranium tailings are leaking into the Colorado River each day. Despite legislation passed by Congress last year giving the Department of Energy authority to begin cleaning up the site, the department has set aside no specific funding to get started. (Las Vegas Review-Journal, April 24, 2001)"

So your deffinition of private property rights includes opting out of being an American - presumably developing nuclear weapons in your garage capable of persuading the Soviet Union to surrender in the cold war. What you are suggesting is that you want to opt out of your own society. You may have perfectly good reasons to do so but I think you will find that you are in a minority of one - or maybe I'm wrong and you can persuade everybody that drinking radioactive water is good for you.

Whilst you consider your options, here is a beautifull view of the waste heap to watch whilst you think about it.
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/gjt/Moab.html

Everybody knows, that only privately owned companies are able to deliver quality goods at affordable prices to consumers. That is why the Chinese Communist experiment must fail. They will over-regulate the business process and drive costs into the sky. It is inevitable.

Only an agile managment that has a profit oriented agenda can reduce the overhead of overemployment in profit un-generating activities. (There was a focus on production, established by management, combined with taking minimum action to meet regulatory requirements that resulted in the acceptance of degraded conditions." )

Obviously, Captains of Business must take calculated risks when they try to compete with other entrepreneurs. (An unexpected leak of boric acid has eaten through nearly six full inches of solid high-grade metal in a critical internal component. Only 3/8 of an inch of carbon steel protection was left in tact when the hole was discovered in February. Soon thereafter a second hole was discovered, raising widespread fears that the reactor could be riddled with untold other seriously deriorated sites.)

What the industry does not need is Big Government mendling and fumbling in the day-to-day activities of the managment. A government employed beaurocratic overeducated engineer obviously can not have anyidea what a prospering production company needs.( Bush administration is moving to replace government safety requirements at federal nuclear facilities with standards written by contractors -- after Congress directed the government to start fining the contractors for violations. Long-established government minimum standards at the more than two dozen nuclear weapons plants and research labs around the nation would become unenforceable guidelines under the Energy Department proposal.)

When regulations are needed, the power industry will put in place voluntary requirements aimed at preventing blackouts. ( administered NAERC, which lacks the ability to hand down penalties. Many reliability rules were ignored during the outages.)

A rigid, self-regulation regime in the form of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will prevent any security anomalies. ( NRC says there is no real danger. But in the same releases it pointed out that the acid has compromised an extremely important safety
feature common to all pressurized water reactors. The NRC gets its funding from the industry it regulates.)

Only private companies are able to deliver the constantly needed supply of electric power at affordable prices.( in its interim report, the task force largely blamed FirstEnergy Corp)

That is why free market will rule, and big government must fail.

If the operators at TMI had known about the Davis-Besse incident they might have recognized the situation and let the plant take care of itself.

Which Davis-Besse incident are you referring to? The stuck valve incident? The corrosion incident? Or the Slammer incident? Is there a lemon law for nuclear reactors? How about for energy companies?

:w

I don't see what politics have to do with what you say.

Of course for your argument you are going to use a reference provided by the military, which will show no toxicity whatsoever. Perhaps the military has a vested interest in showing those results, same as they've denied for years the gulf war syndrome in veterans.

In fact there is research in the toxicity in DU and there exist guidelines for exposure.

DU is at least as toxic as lead (that much is obvious), with the added problem that unlike lead, Uranium oxidizes very easily upon impact and becomes a fine dust which is breathable. So DU is not very toxic in unexploded ammo, because it is not in dust form. However after use it turns into dust which is quite toxic. Also it can pass into drinking water and become toxic there. As a heavy metal it can concentrate in the body (it is not excreted) and the chemical and radioactive components do have a cumulative effect.

So it somewhat safe to handle but not good for you to visit a battlefield where DU has been used and much less to drink the water there.

Other references: here, here, or here .

No, it is not safe. Remember "we almost lost Detroit" and all the other near-catastrophes, including one that involved a nuclear plant that actually had a basketball covered in duct tape stuffed in a vent.

The one I "liked" Was the incident at Brown's Ferry involving a candle.

Scary!

So, basically, the current nuclear economy goes: Uranium Ore get refined, used in plant, produces spent rods, rods (can) get recycled. I rustled up a page on Uranium Deposits, which I can try to figure out the max amount of energy we can pull out of them, and that guide.

It looks like from some of the DoE literature that all plutonium is coming from spent rods too. So that can be taken into account too.

This is the kind of things I like to know when people start telling nuclear power is the way to go. I wish I wouldn't have dozed so much in college physics :)

Chernobyl mice are changing due to pollution, just a lot faster. The link discusses how mice have mutated more in the last 20 years than in the last 15 million, points out that pollution does have its effect. This is just anonter example of how life is changing, for the better or for the worse. I would guess that due to pollution, we are getting more copies of DNA in sensitive animals for redundency, but if those copies all express themselves, you might get more legs as an example.

Another thought, pollution could just be another form of chaotic engergy causing recombinations to occur. It would probally make for a nice study when compared to evolution.

"OK. I'm not trying to belittle you; I'm trying to help you. Keep that in mind as you read this." ...
"As for the claims you make in another post . . . Those numbers were invented out of whole cloth as pure Iraqi propaganda, meant to convince gullible suckers who will believe anything that casts the U.S. in a bad light. Sound familiar?"

You have a funny way of not trying to "belittle" someone. *cough*

"No, they began interfering with inspections from day one. Ken Pollack's book, "The Threatening Storm," contains a good, readable chronology of all of Saddam's many, many, many efforts to delay, confuse and/or obstruct the inspection process. You really ought to read it."

I'll keep it in mind if I spot it. But, since I can't read it on the spot, I can't argue for, agains, or just agree.

"Let's ignore your stupidly patronizing "like most Americans" comment for a moment."

What, you think people in the US magically get the news? Few people know the names of politicians outside of the President, much less pay attention to news abroad. The media here is slow and extremely cautious in reporting anything negative of our current government because it is a great way to get figuratively lynched job wise. For instance, in the US it is reported that "we" captured Hussien, while the rest of the world reports that he was handed over by an unnamed iraqi group.

"I notice that somehow, despite the fact that half the administration was saying something, you somehow managed to avoid including a *single example*." etc...

Well, since I can't find info discrediting all links, I'll back off and say a link to Al-Qaida.

NYT reprint: Colon Powel covering his rear.
Didn't O'Neill mention something about the Al-Quida-Iraq thing? I'm too tired to hunt for that one. From what I have read so far tonight, looks like a hint at it. But, nothing direct.
Dick Cheney is still holding strong to his original assertions, though.
"Bush has since conceded there was no link between Saddam and the Sept. 11 attacks and there has been no proven ties between the deposed Iraqi leader and the Al Qaeda terrorist network." ...and thats all I can dig up at the moment.

"See here for a comprehensive overview of the "threat" surrounding depleted uranium."

Ok, despite the link initially not working and the fact this is from someone's personal blog ie: internet diary instead of a fact source, I did eventually get to reading it. The fact he starts up with accusations that these are scare tactics and lies dreamed up by the "anti-war left" without documentation doesn't help his or your cause.

Ok, first the claim that DU is not harmfully radioactive. Yes, it's primary decay is alpha. In fact, I looked it up and found a nice table and graph. Now, I'm not an expert in thermonuclear physics, but I do realize when something radioactive decays it turns into another isotope and/or another element. Potentially the new atoms can be much more radioactive and have different decays. Please note the different half lifes of the varying steps on the table. And because of the pricipal of half life, DU doesn't magically decay at 4.5 billion years, that is a measurement of rate. Some of it decays much faster than the rate, some slower. This passes down through the decay process. Notice on the graph how around 9th and tenth decays it lets off ~.2 MeV w/ a halflife of 26.8 minutes and ~1.5MeV of Gamma radiation respectively, with halflives of 26.8 minutes and 19.9 minutes respectively. Whereas, U-235 AKA

"OK. I'm not trying to belittle you; I'm trying to help you. Keep that in mind as you read this." ...
"As for the claims you make in another post . . . Those numbers were invented out of whole cloth as pure Iraqi propaganda, meant to convince gullible suckers who will believe anything that casts the U.S. in a bad light. Sound familiar?"

You have a funny way of not trying to "belittle" someone. *cough*

"No, they began interfering with inspections from day one. Ken Pollack's book, "The Threatening Storm," contains a good, readable chronology of all of Saddam's many, many, many efforts to delay, confuse and/or obstruct the inspection process. You really ought to read it."

I'll keep it in mind if I spot it. But, since I can't read it on the spot, I can't argue for, agains, or just agree.

"Let's ignore your stupidly patronizing "like most Americans" comment for a moment."

What, you think people in the US magically get the news? Few people know the names of politicians outside of the President, much less pay attention to news abroad. The media here is slow and extremely cautious in reporting anything negative of our current government because it is a great way to get figuratively lynched job wise. For instance, in the US it is reported that "we" captured Hussien, while the rest of the world reports that he was handed over by an unnamed iraqi group.

"I notice that somehow, despite the fact that half the administration was saying something, you somehow managed to avoid including a *single example*." etc...

Well, since I can't find info discrediting all links, I'll back off and say a link to Al-Qaida.

NYT reprint: Colon Powel covering his rear.
Didn't O'Neill mention something about the Al-Quida-Iraq thing? I'm too tired to hunt for that one. From what I have read so far tonight, looks like a hint at it. But, nothing direct.
Dick Cheney is still holding strong to his original assertions, though.
"Bush has since conceded there was no link between Saddam and the Sept. 11 attacks and there has been no proven ties between the deposed Iraqi leader and the Al Qaeda terrorist network." ...and thats all I can dig up at the moment.

"See here for a comprehensive overview of the "threat" surrounding depleted uranium."

Ok, despite the link initially not working and the fact this is from someone's personal blog ie: internet diary instead of a fact source, I did eventually get to reading it. The fact he starts up with accusations that these are scare tactics and lies dreamed up by the "anti-war left" without documentation doesn't help his or your cause.

Ok, first the claim that DU is not harmfully radioactive. Yes, it's primary decay is alpha. In fact, I looked it up and found a nice table and graph. Now, I'm not an expert in thermonuclear physics, but I do realize when something radioactive decays it turns into another isotope and/or another element. Potentially the new atoms can be much more radioactive and have different decays. Please note the different half lifes of the varying steps on the table. And because of the pricipal of half life, DU doesn't magically decay at 4.5 billion years, that is a measurement of rate. Some of it decays much faster than the rate, some slower. This passes down through the decay process. Notice on the graph how around 9th and tenth decays it lets off ~.2 MeV w/ a halflife of 26.8 minutes and ~1.5MeV of Gamma radiation respectively, with halflives of 26.8 minutes and 19.9 minutes respectively. Whereas, U-235 AKA

Then again, for years GE has made parts for nuclear warheads, and I don't see the anti-war crowd buying less of their stuff. Actually, I shouldn't say that. Some might take it as a positive endorsement.

Excuse me? The boycott went on from 1984 to 1993. A Google search for "GE boycott" yields stories dating back to 1990, and they left the nuclear weapons industry in 1993. I'm no anti-war nut, I just think their consumer electronics are crap.

Another problem with pebble-beds is that they use natural or low-enriched uranium in a cycle where the fuel passes through the reactor relatively quickly and continuously (no big refueling outages). This makes them ideal Plutonium factories, which is obviously a matter of concern. Most of the graphite-moderated reactors ever built were designed primarily to produce Plutonium, including the Soviet RBMK's and the piles at Sellafield.

Don't get me wrong - I'm all for nuclear power for many reasons, but I'm not sure the pebble bed is that much of a breakthrough, and I don't think graphite is the best choice of material. And any operator of a plant in trouble that went home for the weekend should be shot. "Walk-away safe" my ass.

Yeah, disposal is a problem.. but it's not like it wasn't just lying around to begin with.

Oh please.. that old, tired argument again. YES, uranium occurs in most rocks in concentrations of 2 to 4 parts per million and is as common in the earth's crust as tin, tungsten and molybdenum. HOWEVER, uranium in the natural state is a mix of two isotopes; 99.3% U-238 and 0.7% U-235. And guess what? U-238 is barely radioactive, with a halflife of about 4500 million years. U-235 on the other hand is way more radioactive, and thus the part they are interested in using for reactorcores.

Guess what? The enriched uranium they use in reactors contains in the region of 3% to 4% U-235 - making it litterary too hot to handle. Even 'spendt' reacorfuel contains more U-235 than ordinary oranium-ore, as well as more than a bit of Pu-239 and Pu-240 (the longer the fuel stays in the reacor, the more Pu-240). And Pu-239 and Pu-240 is two isotopes of an element better known as plutonium... granted, it's not weapongrade plutonium, but it's still something I wouldn't have scattered about.

Fact: There is little or no pollution from an operative reacor.

Fact: Spent fuelrods from reactors are a major enviromental problem.

You might find this and this webpage interesting.

I'll see your document, and raise you another:

Science or Science Fiction? Facts, Myths, and Propaganda In the Debate Over Depleted Uranium Weapons
Dan Fahey - March 12, 2003

"The impact of DU ammunition against a hard target creates a fine DU dust that contaminates the impact site, though small amounts of DU dust drift downwind. Test data from the United States demonstrate that, normally, about 20 percent of a DU penetrator is aerosolized on impact with a tank. The impact of one 120 mm DU tank round could therefore create approximately 950 g of DU dust. During a single attack by an A-10 aircraft shooting a burst of 30 mm ammunition, between five and 16 DU bullets will likely hit the target, creating 300 to 960 g of aerosol.

"About 90 percent of the DU dust created by the impact of a tank round against a hard target falls to the ground within 50 meters of the target, although airborne DU has been measured out to 400 meters immediately following an impact."

Ergo, using worst case here, something less than 100g falls outside a 50 meter radius of a destroyed tank.

You'd have to be standing directly downwind, inhaling the smoke and dust deeply, to get an real amounts in your lungs.

the handwashing as they say is all you would really need. They're the experts, they deal with it. Trust them.

They should only be attempted by those who are highly experienced in the field and very familiar with each individual topic.

Health risks:
In the former German Democratic Republic, thousands of miners were working with Uranium ore. Twenty years earlier they died than the rest of the people, by average.
See health hazards.

You forgot that NBC is owned by GE, which besides making great products, also built nuclear weapsons at one time.

Although I'd think that 'Friends' in it's own right should be considered a WMD.

Chernobyl is not the only nuclear accident in FSU. It's the only reactor breach, but there have been severe accidents in fuel processing and waste storage sites, such as the one in Tomsk April 6 1993.

A friend of mine lived in Provence (Southern France). His mom used to cook with a lot of thyme (an aromatic herb) collected from her garden.

The French denied that the radioactive clouds emitted by the Chernobyl explosions ever crossed the border (that ole' Maginot line is vairee effective, Monsieur!). The French government never sent any serious warning.

My friend developed a thyroid cancer. He now sports a beautiful throat scar but he's alive. The surgeon's professional opinion is that thyme and other aromatics concentrate radioisotopes, and that eating stuff grown in a Provence garden from 1986 to 1990 or so was asking for trouble. He said he had already seen a lot of case and had never been so busy with new thyroid cancer cases.

Curiously, right after the Chernobyl events, the French government reclassified Geiger counters as restricted military items unavailable to civilians...

So as you can see, the French managed to keep a lid on truth even better than the Soviets. The sad fact is that while the babushkas were controlled in Moscow, nobody in France had sent a warning about checking certain crops for radiations.

The truth is not going to be easy to unearth in that case because the subject is highly political.

-- SysKoll

Do you have any sort of evidence on the cancer rates in Kosovo, or are you just making stuff up?

In contrast you may want to look at This site on the effects of DU in the Balkans.

Yeah, I sure would like to know more about DU in weapons tech. - if you feel like posting more about it, you've got my vote.
I am familar, however, with some of the basics - uranium is primarially an Alpha ray emitter. These are basically harmless - a sheet of paper can stop them. Of course, decay can produce Beta and Gamma radiation. The fact that the "real" danger from, as you rightly point out, depleted uranium only arises when you're talking about inhalation of dust-like particles (for whatever that 'fact' means- according to the media today and yesterday in Ireland, Britain and France the 'facts' about DU seemed to change from station-to-station hour-to-hour) has not escaped me.
The thing that I find deplorable -if true- is the way that such matter can effectively and easily poison a water/food supply. I assume this could happen because of the radioactivity of the matter produced by a DU weapon's strike. However, details were sketchy on the TV reports.
I've looked up the subject of DU on the internet - again lots of controversy but with the anti-DU voice being the loudest.
Try http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/du.htm. I must state, I am very wary of a site like iacenter.org, but sites such as this (http://www.rama-usa.org/ducdi.htm) hold much more sway as they seem less politically motivated. Another site, this time an American veteran's, is here, and a very comprehensive site is here.
For my money, the better site is http://www.psr.org/duissuebrief.html.

Mind you, just to add my voice to the mass of anecdotal evidence out there: I've been around a variety of dangerous chemicals and elements. I've had fun with everything from quick silver(liquid mercury to the modern man) to a variety of radioactive isotopes(calm down- it was within the confines of a university 8). I am well aware that there is unecessary panic by those without a good knowledge of the related chemistry and/or physics. However, I am still very uneasy about certain things I have had direct contact and just because I've experienced no side-effects, it doesn't mean everyone else will escape side-affects after sharing the same experience as myself.

8)