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

On the other hand

[Violet Null]

We need to remember that using U-238 shells gives our marines a +2 bonus on their weapons range. That's nothing to sneeze at.

Re:On the other hand

[spike hay]

Soldiers who survived a tank hit with depleted uranium ammunition would likely have kidney uranium levels of 4 micrograms per gram. They could get kidney poisoning from the bullets.

OH MY GOD! Those poor people could be getting heavy metal poisoning from those high-explosive shells we're trying to kill them with!!!

Oh no!!!!! The trees!!!

[Picass0]

I wish that solders would stop and think about the environment when there is a tank coming after them. Depleted Uranium makes it hard for the daisies to grow. I know because Oprah told me so.

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?

[Otter]

Oh, and I forgot to add -- if the writeup were accurate and the report claimed that anyone walking by a DU shell would suffer critical kidney failure within days, and that was an optimistic spin on reality, don't you think people would have noticed entire tank brigades spontaneously dying from renal failure?

Re:A little exaggerated writeup, no?

[m_evanchik]

To quote the SJMC link:

The kidney is the most likely organ to suffer toxic effects from uranium. The few human studies that have been done indicate that kidney failure is likely to occur within a few days at concentrations above 50 micrograms of uranium per gram of kidney.

Minor kidney problems are thought to be linked with concentrations of about 1 microgram per gram of kidney.

The Royal Society estimated that most soldiers would have levels of 0.005 micrograms per gram of kidney, or less.

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. This isn't the first time such technophobia has appeared on Slashdot.

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:A by-product of nuclear reactors (not)

[jakobk]

NO. Natural uranium contains about 0.5% U235, which can be used in nuclear reactors. The remaining 99.5% is U238, which can't be used in fission. After some refining, the reactor uranium contains 3% U235. This may not seem much, but it is. But atoms of the remaining U238 isotope catch neutrons and become Plutonium Pu239. When the U235 is used up, the waste which contains U238, Pu239 and fission products is taken to La Hague or Sellafield, they filter the waste: Remaining U235 and Pu239 is taken back to the nuclear plant, U238 is used for bullets and bombshells. It may contain leftover Pu239. Remember: Both isotopes, 238 and 235 are radioactive.

Re:Why use Depleted Uranium in the first place?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

DU rounds go through tank armor better than any previous type of armor-piercing round. I'm not sure of the physics behind it (my gut tells me that momentum, m * v, is at least as important as kinetic energy, .5 * m * v^2, in getting through armor) but empirically, the best way to build an armor-piercing round is with a very hard (e.g. tungsten carbide) penetrator tip and something very dense (e.g. depleted uranium) behind it. Being a medic, I got enough up-close-and-personal views of vehicles (and buildings, some of them quite solidly built) that had been hit with DU rounds during Desert Storm to be quite sure that DU isn't just a sales gimmick. Fortunately I haven't had any kidney or other health problems.

Density isn't the only reason for the +2 bonus

[Kibo]

The other things depleted uranium has going for it is it is pyrophoric and self-sharpening. So as it pushes through the armor of its target the tip doesn't blunt. As it penetrates, instead, the material sort of peels back always leaving a sharp point. And when it is through the armor, the high temperature, and high preassure cause hot chips of the penetrator to fly off killing everyone unlucky enough to be in the opposing tank. Or what have you. From what I understand it would not be totally unlike throwing iron filings through a flame.

Re:Why use Depleted Uranium in the first place?

[twistedemotions]

As far as I can recall, uranium has this nifty property of being self-sharpening (as it go's through the air it keeps a nasty point).

Here is some info on it:

"To understand why DU makes a good anti-tank weapon you have to enter the Alice In Wonderland world of high-energy collisions. When metal meets metal at five times the speed of sound, hardened steel shatters like glass. Metal flows like putty, or simply vaporises. A faster shell does not necessarily go through more armour, but, like a pebble thrown into a pond, it makes a bigger splash.

Armour penetration is increased by concentrating the force of a shell into as small an area as possible, so the projectiles tend to look like giant darts. The denser the projectile, the harder the impact for a given size. DU is almost twice as dense as lead, making it highly suitable. The other metal used for anti-tank rounds is tungsten, which is also very hard and dense. When a tungsten rod strikes armour, it deforms and mushrooms, making it progressively blunter. Uranium is "pyrophoric": at the point of impact it burns away into vapour, so the projectile stays sharp. When it breaks through, the burning DU turns the inside of a vehicle into an inferno of white-hot gas and sparks."

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0%2C3858%2C4019520 %2C00.html

Re:bullcrap

[m_evanchik]

Making the headline depleted uranium may stop kidneys "in days", when such an occurence is almost impossible is fear-mongering.

The case of Gulf War veterans will not be aided by deliberately misleading headlines.

From what I read in the article, Italian troops in Bosnia had a lower incidence of cancer than the general population.

The facts cited in the article make widespread harm from DU weapons seem unlikely, especially in the short term.

In my world, I base my opinions on the data, which is something that it seems you should play closer attention to in your so-called "reality".

Its all about power-

[purduephotog]

I talked to a friend that was over there during the gulf war about the DU slugs that were being used. Unclassified speed of 1 mile per second (hint: Classified is faster :P) and able to penetrate a sand dune as if it wasn't there.

Apparently the enemy enjoyed the ostritch approach- hide the tanks behind a dune. A DU slug fired would penetrate the dune like a hot knife thru butter. If you punch in 1600meters/sec into a mass/energy equation, you can see a loosely packed sand dune is not going to offer sufficient resistance to even slow these things down.

Now when these things are fired they rest in a plastic, two piece mount. It comes apart (the mount) immediately after exiting the barrel. The mount is fatal to troops on either side (if the round leaves at 1mile/sec+, that mount is flying off at a 90 degree angle at pretty much the same speed - the nose is cone shaped so the air deflects it away from the round

This plastic piece could concievably abrade the DU slug (it IS hard plastic to withstand the acceleration).

This dust is then airborne, and could be breathed by practically anyone. Hence the problems and the health risks.

It wasn't as if anyone was LICKING the rounds :P

materialschlacht and WWII ammo

[Peter H.S.]

A lot of people say "Oh, so DU ammo is dangerous, 'snicker'".

When I was a kid here in Denmark, it was a fairly common event, that some 40 year old WWII "horned" mine was seen drifting into a harbour. I remember that a couple of kids that died, because that rusty old tincan they kicked, in fact was a german stick granade. (those "potatomasher" granades are higly unstable).

Even today it is very common, that fishermen gets a stack of corroded gas granades, usually mustard gas, in their nets, since incredible amounts of WWII gas ammmo, was dumped into the baltic sea after the war.

Some years ago, I visited a woodclearing where german small arms and AA ammo was tried destroyed. It wasn't a well done job; the entire clearing was littered with shells. The holes where the detonations had taken place, was still, after 55 years, without a trace of a single leave of vegetation. Probably caused by the phosphor from the tracer rounds.

The danish coastline was part of the Atlantik Wall, and therefore heavely mined (more than 1.4 million mines). Roughly 1 mineclearer died, for evey ten miles of coastlines, and there are still areas not cleared to this day.

The rest of Europe and the former USSR is littered with WWI and WWII ammo.
The "war most be fought with all means" proponents, really lives in the "here and now", and forget the decades, and centuries that comes afterward, and the huge amount of civilians who has to live on or near the former battlegrounds.

Relevant Pubmed/Medline abstracts for this

[nukebuddy]

Firstly, uranium (any isotope) is a heavy metal and for that reason tends to be toxic to the kidneys beyond certain dosages.

Secondly, kidney toxicity, from any cause, is radically reduced when the owner of the kidney(s) injests antioxidants that operate in the kidneys. There are many, such as alpha lipoic acid. (ALA reduces damage from metals all over the body, BTW, not just in the kidneys.)

Thirdly, people might want to get their medical science news from the source: peer-reviewed medical journals. You can search for and read medical journal abstracts at Pubmed:
http://www4.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed/

All newspapers are sensationalist, contrary to the claims from some /. posters that some newspapers are "respectable." Newspapers cannot be relied upon for unbiased reviews of any hard science topic.

Here are the latest Pubmed/Medline abstracts regarding DU and kidney health ("Renal functioning" in some of the below abstracts means "kidney functioning"):

Environ Res 2000 Feb;82(2):168-80
Health effects of depleted uranium on exposed Gulf War veterans.
McDiarmid MA, Keogh JP, Hooper FJ, McPhaul K, Squibb K, Kane R, DiPino R, Kabat M, Kaup B, Anderson L, Hoover D, Brown L, Hamilton M, Jacobson-Kram D, Burrows B, Walsh M.
Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. mmcdiarm@medicine.umaryland.edu

A small group of Gulf War veterans possess retained fragments of depleted uranium (DU) shrapnel, the long-term health consequences of which are undetermined. We evaluated the clinical health effects of DU exposure in Gulf War veterans compared with nonexposed Gulf War veterans. History and follow-up medical examination were performed on 29 exposed veterans and 38 nonexposed veterans. Outcome measures employed were urinary uranium determinations, clinical laboratory values, and psychiatric and neurocognitive assessment. DU-exposed Gulf War veterans with retained metal shrapnel fragments are excreting elevated levels of urinary uranium 7 years after first exposure (range 0.01-30.7 microg/g creatinine vs 0.01- 0.05 microg/g creatinine in the nonexposed). The persistence of the elevated urine uranium suggests on-going mobilization from a storage depot which results in a chronic systemic exposure. Adverse effects in the kidney, a presumed target organ, are not present at this time, though other effects are observed. Neurocognitive examinations demonstrated a statistical relationship between urine uranium levels and lowered performance on computerized tests assessing performance efficiency. Elevated urinary uranium was statistically related to a high prolactin level (>1.6 ng/ml; P=0.04). More than 7 years after first exposure, DU-exposed Gulf War veterans with retained metal fragments continue to excrete elevated concentrations of urinary uranium. Effects related to this are subtle perturbations in the reproductive and central nervous systems. Copyright 2000 Academic Press.
PMID: 10662531

Sci Total Environ 2001 Jul 2;274(1-3):115-8
Biological effects of embedded depleted uranium (DU): summary of armed forces radiobiology research institute research.
McClain DE, Benson KA, Dalton TK, Ejnik J, Emond CA, Hodge SJ, Kalinich JF, Landauer MA, Miller AC, Pellmar TC, Stewart MD, Villa V, Xu J.
Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute, Bethesda, MD 20889-5603, USA. mcclain@mx.afrri.usuhs.mil

The Persian Gulf War resulted in injuries of US Coalition personnel by fragments of depleted uranium (DU). Fragments not immediately threatening the health of the individuals were allowed to remain in place, based on long-standing treatment protocols designed for other kinds of metal shrapnel injuries. However, questions were soon raised as to whether this approach is appropriate for a metal with the unique radiological and toxicological properties of DU. The Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute (AFRRI) is investigating health effects of embedded fragments of DU to determine whether current surgical fragment removal policies remain appropriate for this metal. These studies employ rodents implanted with DU pellets as well as cultured human cells exposed to DU compounds. Results indicate uranium from implanted DU fragments distributed to tissues far-removed from implantation sites, including bone, kidney, muscle, and liver. Despite levels of uranium in the kidney that were nephrotoxic after acute exposure, no histological or functional kidney toxicity was observed. However, results suggest the need for further studies of long-term health impact, since DU was found to be mutagenic, and it transformed human osteoblast cells to a tumorigenic phenotype. It also altered neurophysiological parameters in rat hippocampus, crossed the placental barrier, and entered fetal tissue. This report summarizes AFRRI's depleted uranium research to date.
PMID: 11453287

J Occup Environ Med 2001 Dec;43(12):991-1000
Surveillance of depleted uranium exposed Gulf War veterans: health effects observed in an enlarged "friendly fire" cohort.
McDiarmid MA, Squibb K, Engelhardt S, Oliver M, Gucer P, Wilson PD, Kane R, Kabat M, Kaup B, Anderson L, Hoover D, Brown L, Jacobson-Kram D; Depleted Uranium Follow-Up Program.
Department of Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, 405 W. Redwood Street, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA. mmcdiarm@medicine.umaryland.edu

To determine clinical health effects in a small group of US Gulf War veterans (n = 50) who were victims of depleted uranium (DU) "friendly fire," we performed periodic medical surveillance examinations. We obtained urine uranium determinations, clinical laboratory values, reproductive health measures, neurocognitive assessments, and genotoxicity measures. DU-exposed Gulf War veterans with retained metal shrapnel fragments were excreting elevated levels of urine uranium 8 years after their first exposure (range, 0.018 to 39.1 micrograms/g creatinine for DU-exposed Gulf War veterans with retained fragments vs 0.002 to 0.231 microgram/g creatinine in DU exposed but without fragments). The persistence of the elevated urine uranium suggests ongoing mobilization from the DU fragments and results in chronic systemic exposure. Clinical laboratory outcomes, including renal functioning, were essentially normal. Neurocognitive measures showing subtle differences between high and low uranium exposure groups, seen previously, have since diminished. Sister chromatid exchange frequency, a measure of mutation in peripheral lymphocytes, was related to urine uranium level (6.35 sister chromatid exchanges/cell in the high uranium exposure group vs 5.52 sister chromatid exchanges/cell in the low uranium exposure group; P = 0.03). Observed health effects were related to subtle but biologically plausible perturbations in central nervous system function and a general measure of mutagen exposure. The findings related to uranium's chemical rather than radiologic toxicity. Observations in this group of veterans prompt speculation about the health effects of DU in other exposure scenarios.
PMID: 11765683

Mil Med 2002 Feb;167(2 Suppl):117-9
Health effects of embedded depleted uranium.
McClain DE, Benson KA, Dalton TK, Ejnik J, Emond CA, Hodge SJ, Kalinich JF, Landauer MR, Livengood DR, Miller AC, Pellmar TC, Stewart MD, Villa V, Xu J.
Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute, 8901 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20889-5603, USA.

The health effects of embedded fragments of depleted uranium (DU) are being investigated to determine whether current surgical fragment-removal policies are appropriate for this metal. The authors studied rodents implanted with DU pellets as well as cultured human cells exposed to DU compounds. Results indicate that uranium from implanted DU fragments distributes to tissues distant from implantation sites, including bone, kidney, muscle, and liver. Despite levels of uranium in kidney that would be nephrotoxic after acute exposure, no histological or functional kidney toxicity was observed with embedded DU, indicating that the kidney adapts when exposed chronically. Nonetheless, further studies of the long-term health impact are needed. DU is mutagenic and transforms human osteoblastic cells into a tumorigenic phenotype. It alters neurophysiological parameters in rat hippocampus, crosses the placental barrier, and enters fetal tissue. Preliminary data also indicate decreased rodent litter size when animals are bred 6 months or longer after DU implantation.
PMID: 11873491

Mil Med 2002 Feb;167(2 Suppl):123-4
Health effects and biological monitoring results of Gulf War veterans exposed to depleted uranium.
McDiarmid MA, Hooper FJ, Squibb K, McPhaul K, Engelhardt SM, Kane R, DiPino R, Kabat M.
Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, 10 North Greene Street, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA.

A small group of Gulf War veterans have retained fragments of depleted uranium (DU) shrapnel, the long-term health consequences of which are undetermined. We evaluated the clinical health effects of DU exposure in Gulf War veterans compared with nonexposed Gulf War veterans. History and follow-up medical examinations were performed on 29 exposed veterans and 38 nonexposed veterans. Outcome measures used were urinary uranium determinations, clinical laboratory values, and psychiatric and neurocognitive assessment. Gulf War veterans with retained DU metal shrapnel fragments were found to be still excreting elevated levels of urinary uranium 7 years after first exposure to DU (range for exposed individuals is 0.01-30.7 micrograms/g creatinine vs. 0.01-0.05 microgram/g creatinine in the nonexposed). The persistence of the elevated urine uranium suggests ongoing mobilization of uranium from a storage depot, resulting in chronic systemic exposure. Adverse effects in the kidney, a presumed target organ, were not seen at the time of the study; however, other subtle effects were observed in the reproductive and central nervous systems of the DU-exposed veterans.
PMID: 11873493

-Nukebuddy

Re:"deadly to bystanders"

[Cy Guy]

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

Exactly. And since we have in the past bombed Osama bin Laden's encampments and caves, and we are informed Pakistan that bin Laden has failing kidneys, and may in fact of died this winter if he was not able to get to a working dialysis machine, it may eventually be discovered that the US killed him years ago (following the Embassy bombings?) but that it just took hime years to die.