Depleted Uranium May Stop Kidneys "In Days"

James writes: "The New Scientist, Reuters, and the San Jose Mercury News, are all carrying stories on a U.K. Royal Society report which confirms that depleted uranium shells, used widely in the Gulf War and the Balkan conflicts, are in fact deadly to bystanders. Moreover, it seems that U.S. servicepeople have been most at risk, and civilians remain at risk years after the use of such shells. The Royal Society report is being described as portraying the situation in the most favorable light, and critics say the truth is far worse."

Comments

"deadly to bystanders"

[Unknown Poltroon]

Correct me if I'm wrong, aren't they rather hazardous to the "intended" recipients?

A little exaggerated writeup, no?

[Otter]

The report (or at least the reporting on the report) strikes me as something like this: a small number of soldiers who survive hits from a DU shell may face elevated health risks. Conceivably bystanders might be harmed although there's no evidence of this. One chemist associated with an anti-DU group says the report doesn't go far enough.

Not the worst Slashdot writeup ever, but a pretty skewed one.

What I don't get is this -- is this supposed to explain elevated cancer rates in Gulf War and Balkans veterans? How many friendly fire DU hits were there?

Re:A little exaggerated writeup, no?

[Tackhead]

> > Soldiers who survived a tank hit with depleted uranium ammunition would likely have kidney uranium levels of 4 micrograms per gram.
>
>In other words, the slashdot write-up is an example of the worst kind of anti-nuclear hysterical ignorance.

Agreed.

And while we're at it, if I were a soldier whose tank survived a strike from DU artillery, I'd be thankful my kidneys (along with the rest of my internal organs) were still inside my torso, and that I was still alive to worry about how my kidneys would function at some point in the future.

In other news today, the Friends of Gaia report that infantrymen shot by lead bullets often report negative health effects. Radiant Willow Moon, head spokesbeing for the FoG, has urged the United Nations to pass a resolution banning the use of such ecologically unfriendly bullets in favor of bullets fashioned from naturally-occurring stores of driftwood or pebbles.

Re:On the other hand

[spike hay]

Uranium is dangerous, but not for the reason you'd think.

The radioactivity of depleted uranium is very low. Lower than uranium ore, oddly enough. That is due to the fact that the ore has radium, but the pure metal doesn't. Anyway, if it's less radioactive than ore, it's not to bad at all. Uranium Ore is not a radiological hazard. They make fiestaware plates out of it. And those are perfectly safe.
Anyway, uranium is dangerous because it is a heavy metal, like lead. You wouldn't want to eat it. However, I think this article and these studies are a little sensationalistic. They said you need 1 microgram per gram of kidney. Most soldiers got .005 grams. I think people are getting a bit worked up about this.

Re:On the other hand

[Ian-K]

(first of all, as others pointed out, that's way too much depleted uranium for your average kidney).

(now watch me get modded down by US citizens)

Secondly, that's a big relief to find out! :-) I live in a neighbouring country (to Kosovo) and I would like to thank the US govt so very much for making these kind donations to our environment while restoring "order" to the planet. (hint of sarcasm in case you missed it -- I hate wars)

OK, they didn't /nuke/ the place, but still, and even though I'm a thousand kilometers or so away (Greece in case you wondered), it's not particularly reassuring to find these things out officially (not that I/we wasn't suspecting them).

If you think I'm being paranoid/anti-american/whatever, come to my position: how would /you/ feel if somebody came and did all that to /your/ neighbourhood?

Trian