Sandia Depleted Uranium Study: No Serious Health Risks Found.

The topic of 'Depleted Uranium' (DU) has been hotly debated within the halls of ATS in the past. On July 24 of this year, Sandia National Laboratories completed a two-year study of the potential health risks associated or attributed to DU.

U.S. and British forces used DU in armor-piercing penetrator bullets to disable enemy tanks during the Gulf and Balkan wars. DU is a byproduct of the process used to enrich uranium for use in nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons. During the enrichment process, the fraction of one type of uranium (uranium-235) is increased relative to the fraction found in natural uranium. As a consequence, the uranium left over after the enrichment process (mostly uranium-238) is depleted in uranium-235 and is called depleted uranium.

The article continues on to assert:

Marshall's study concluded that the reports of serious health risks from DU exposure are not supported by veteran medical statistics nor supported by his analysis. Only a few U.S. veterans in vehicles accidentally struck by DU munitions are predicted to have inhaled sufficient quantities of DU particulate to incur any significant health risk. For these individuals, DU-related risks include the possibility of temporary kidney damage and about a 1 percent chance of fatal cancer.

And...

Several earlier studies were carried out by the U.S. Department of Defense, by University Professors Fetter (University of Maryland) and von Hippel (Princeton), and by an Army sponsored team from Pacific Northwest National Laboratories and Los Alamos National Laboratory.

The conclusions from the Sandia study are consistent with these earlier studies. The Sandia study, however, also includes an analysis of potential health effects of DU fragments embedded as shrapnel in the bodies of some U.S. veterans. The Sandia study also looked at civilian exposures in greater detail, examined the potential risk of DU-induced birth defects in the children of exposed individuals, and provided a more detailed analysis of the dispersion of DU following impact with a number of targeted vehicles.

Sandia Completes Depleted Uranium Study; Serious Health Risks Not Found

Here is the link to the 208-page .pdf file for the report entitled:
"An Analysis of Uranium Dispersal and Health Effects Using a Gulf War Case Study"

A related article:
Sandia Scientists Study "Natural" Alternative To Cleaning Up Uranium-Contaminated Sites

Related past ATS topics on DU:
Poison DUst: Depleted Uranium Kills
More On DU (Two Graphic Images Linked)
Pentagon War Crimes: 250.000 Nagasaki Bombs in Iraq: US Radiation In Iraq equals 250,000 Nagasaki bombs.
Destroying Iraq with DU
More can be found here: Depleted Uranium


Now, with this latest study, backed by other reports and studies, is there still an issue concerning the use of depleted uranium? Place them, but I would earnestly and humbly suggest that the Sandia DU Study be read.





seekerof

[edit on 26-7-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof Only a few U.S. veterans in vehicles accidentally struck by DU munitions are predicted to have inhaled sufficient quantities of DU particulate to incur any significant health risk. For these individuals, DU-related risks include the possibility of temporary kidney damage and about a 1 percent chance of fatal cancer.

Why read a report from an organisation which can come up with the doubletalk above?

If we believe what they say in the quote then:

a) Inhaling DU dust is causing kidney damage in US veterans.

b) Inhaling DU dust is causing fatal cancer in US veterans.

We are supposed to accept that because it is 'predicted' that only 'a few' inhaled enough dust to cause a one percent chance of fatal cancer then it's all good to keep flinging the stuff around?

How does one 'predict' who breathed the dust in a US vehicle accidentally struck by DU munitions?

What about all the non US vehicles deliberately struck by DU munitions?

Flinging nuclear waste around someone else's desert is a no brainer.

End of story.

Sorry, but the government doesnt exactly have a very good reputation right now for telling the truth. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

I refuse to take anything the government says at face value anymore. Especially when it's in their interest. And it's not because I'm a skeptic, it's because this administration lies over and over and over again. They've lost my trust completely.

This study means nothing to me. As far as I'm concerned, it's fixed.

Q. When is an obvious health risk not a health risk?

A. When you are paid to say it's not.

What about the long term effects for the people that live in warzones where loads of this DU has been blasted around for years.

If the soldiers that were in short contact already have some cases of illness because of it, what about the people that have to live the rest of their lives right in the middle of the DU dumpsites?

Is it the same Sandia National Labs described below?

en.wikipedia.org...

Sandia National Laboratories is a major United States Department of Energy research and development national laboratory with two locations, one in Albuquerque, New Mexico and the other in Livermore, California. Its primary mission is to develop, engineer, and test the non-nuclear components of nuclear weapons. Its main secured campus is ~4.4 square miles (11 km2) and is located on Kirtland Air Force Base.

Sandia's primary mission is to implement the nation's nuclear weapon policies through research, development, and testing related to nuclear weapons. This includes maintaining the reliability and surety of nuclear weapon systems, performing research and development in arms control and nonproliferation technologies, and contributing solutions to the problem of hazardous wastes resulting from the nuclear weapons program.

This sounds like Phillip Morris saying that there's no proof that smoking causes lung cancer..

[edit on 26-7-2005 by AceOfBase]

I knew this would be slammed by the Tulipwalkers.


I am shocked though, I just can't believe that the New York Times would lie like that and tell me that the whole American Army and all Iraq citizens would be glowing in the dark in 2 years. Damn now I am crushed, I guess I need to read the LA Times now....

Originally posted by edsinger
I knew this would be slammed by the Tulipwalkers.

We 'tulip walkers' may turn out to be a lot tougher than you think.

Your post is just a troll post. . . . if you can't say something sensible then start name calling and Hee Haawing. . . . that's a troll tactic.

You are a troll.

Go to the beach and you will see that a bag of sand is more radioactive.

Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart
If we believe what they say in the quote then:

a) Inhaling DU dust is causing kidney damage in US veterans.

b) Inhaling DU dust is causing fatal cancer in US veterans.

Of interest to Roy Robinson Stewart, in relation to the above mentioned?

For the first time, a study has found an increase in brain-cancer deaths among Gulf War veterans who might have been exposed to the nerve agent Sarin by the destruction of Iraqi weapons in 1991.

About 100,000 of the 350,000 Army soldiers in the Persian Gulf could have been exposed to Sarin after soldiers blew up two large ammunition caches in Khamisiyah, Iraq, in March 1991, according to a study commissioned by the military and performed by the Institute of Medicine. The institute advises the government on health policy.

Goes onto mention:

Later, however, United Nations inspectors found that some of the weapons contained Sarin, which can cause convulsions and death. The military has since contacted about 300,000 veterans who were in or near areas that might have been affected. The potential "hazard area," where shifting winds could have carried traces of chemicals, extended at times as far as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

Did you serve over there, Roy Robinson Stewart?
Anyhow, this is then mentioned:

The study did not address "Gulf War syndrome," as some have called the collection of ailments experienced by returning veterans. It examined whether soldiers possibly exposed to the destruction of Iraqi weapons were more likely to die for any reason. The study also singled out specific diseases: breathing problems, infections, circulatory problems, digestive ailments, accidents and suicides, as well as four types of cancer.

Cancer Linked to Nerve Agent




You, as with others, AceOfBase, etc, are aware that when a DU round is fired and contacts a armored target, that the DU rounds melts and has a self-sharpening process for continued increased penetration? You, as with others, are aware that this self-sharpening process produces DU dust? That this DU dust mostly falls to the ground within a 50+/- yard radius of the penetration site? This 2 year study is quite similiar to the one performed by RAND in 1999:

RAND Review Indicates NO Evidence of Harmful Health Effects From Depleted Uranium, where it mentions:

....there are no peer reviewed published reports of detectable increases of cancer or other negative health effects from radiation exposure to inhaled or ingested natural uranium at levels far exceeding those likely in the Gulf.

Yes, I understand that many do not believe anything that may be remotely connected to the Defense Department or the government, but what you, as with others, are ignoring is that various independent organizations and scientists have studied and found the very same that is being asserted by the Sandia Study. Interesting, no?

But alas, they will be ignored as being "paid off," as well, correct? Why? Because they do not fit your view of how you have interpreted depleted uranium? Some are aware of that the European Union, in 2001, released a study that asserted that 98%+ of inhaled and ingested depleted uranium would be immediately discharged when one took a number 2/faeces and that the amount left would be neutralized from the blood system in a matter of weeks? That the EU study concluded the same as this Sandia Study?

Or how about 54 page 2001 report to the European Parliament comparing those exposed to DU versus uranium miners that stated:

The fact that there is no evidence of an association between exposures—sometimes high and lasting since the beginning of the uranium industry—and health damages such as bone cancer, lymphatic or other forms of leukemia shows that these diseases as a consequence of an uranium exposure are either not present or very exceptional.

Other article related:
2001: Hysteria Over Depleted Uranium

You, as with others, are aware that the World Health Organization (WHO) agreed that DU posed no great health threat?
WHO asserted:

....because DU is only weakly radioactive, very large amounts of dust (on the order of grams) would have to be inhaled for the additional risk of lung cancer to be detectable in an exposed group. Risks for other radiation-induced cancers, including leukaemia, are considered to be very much lower than for lung cancer.

Another WHO report mentions:

The radiological hazard is likely to be very small. No increase of leukemia or other cancers has been established following exposure to uranium or DU.

Related:
Reason: Nuclear Genocide? Piercing through the depleted uranium myths.

Question: What does the word depleted imply and mean?
Personally and IMHO, I would be very careful on who one asserted was a troll, k?





seekerof

[edit on 26-7-2005 by Seekerof]

I'm intrested to know is the why they contact the tests...

www.sandia.gov...

"Standard BioKinetic models........" page11, line 6 Uh...you mean the model is alive? or it is a running program?

"Risks compared to the U.S average because reliable statistics were not found for Iraqi civilians....." page 13 line 6 (Oo? DU use very offen in US?? And near civilian populations?

Too much info to read (>....

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Sorry, but the government doesnt exactly have a very good reputation right now for telling the truth. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

I belive the correct saying goes like this (at least unless the president is an idiot??):

"There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once -- shame on -- shame on you. You fool me, you can't get fooled again."
mp3.dubyaspeak.com...

But yeah, since when would anyone with an ounce of self respect, listen to a report from the Government nuclear research agency into the affects of DU which says it's safe?

Originally posted by Seekerof


Only a few U.S. veterans in vehicles accidentally struck by DU munitions are predicted to have inhaled sufficient quantities of DU particulate to incur any significant health risk. For these individuals, DU-related risks include the possibility of temporary kidney damage and about a 1 percent chance of fatal cancer.

The point is that the study quoted by yourself has detected that DU causes kidney damage and fatal cancer.

However, looking at this statement more carefully, it can be seen that it says:

1) A 'few' veterans have inhaled sufficient DU to incur a significant health risk.

2) These individuals have about a one percent chance of fatal cancer.

Since one percent has been defined as the level of 'significant risk' it is redundant to tell us that individuals within the 'significant risk' group have a one percent risk of getting fatal cancer !

Removing this meaningless padding from the paragraph leaves only the proposition 'Only a few veterans who were in a vehicle accidentally struck by DU munitions have a one percent chance of getting fatal cancer".

What does this tell us?

Does it tell us that DU is not 'significantly harmful' ? . . . . that depends upon what you mean by significant. A one percent chance is 'significant'. . . but then we are told that only a few veterans have a one percent chance. . . so we are back to square one because no one tells us what 'a few' means.

The fact is that the statement says that DU dust can lead to cancer. The so called statistics in the statement are not statistics at all !

If it can cause cancer it can cause cancer.

The rest of the statement is just intelligent sounding padding which means nothing but gives the impression that tests show the stuff to be harmless while actually saying the opposite. If just one paragraph is so misleading and problematic then why bother with the rest ? ?

as posted by TheShroudOfMemphis
But yeah, since when would anyone with an ounce of self respect, listen to a report from the Government nuclear research agency into the affects of DU which says it's safe?

When it is backed by independent studies and reports.
You might want to check and see just who all was involved with the 2 year study....





seekerof

[edit on 26-7-2005 by Seekerof]

Roy Robinson Stewart, you say:

The point is that the study quoted by yourself has detected that DU causes kidney damage and fatal cancer.

Re-read what you have quoted.

...the possibility of temporary kidney damage and about a 1 percent chance of fatal cancer...

How does a word that implies probability equate to an absolute in your assertion quoted above, in bold.
No, what the study suggests is the possibility of.

As for the rest of what you seem to be implying, explain how tank crew men, that were surrounded and handled DU rounds on a daily basis, are not showing traces of problems. How about explain how many of those ground soldiers that came upon DU destroyed tanks, be it from other MBTs or A-10s firing 50 or so rounds, have shown no signs of problems. The list of other such examples can go on. Might want to read that .mil report on those troops being around when they destroyed those Sarin munitions....

Again, the report is backed by independent studies and reports from the EU, WHO, etc. I suppose they are lying, as well, correct?







seekerof

[edit on 27-7-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof

as posted by TheShroudOfMemphis
But yeah, since when would anyone with an ounce of self respect, listen to a report from the Government nuclear research agency into the affects of DU which says it's safe?

When it is backed by independent studies and reports.
You might want to check and see just who all was involved with the 2 year study....

Problem 1: The reports tend to agree that DU causes cancer.

Problem 2: If DU causes cancer then anyone who says that it is 'safe' is lying.

Problem 3: The credentials of the authors do not mean anything when their conclusions contradict their own findings!

Problem 4: We are supposed to ignore the fact that DU causes death when used as a projectile !



[edit on 27-7-2005 by Roy Robinson Stewart]

Again, no, the reports mention possibility.....





seekerof

Id believe DU causes no affects right after I believe the WMD's aruond bagdad.....
or even the plane in the pentagon FACT
or even the OSAMA is hiding FACT
even mayeb the zarqawi FACT
but id more than likely beleive the FACT the usa knew nothing prior to sept11 b4 i beleive Du has no effects.

I know this thread is not speficaly about "Gulf War Syndrome" but...
I'm starting to think the whole depleted uranium story was a smokescreen for the real reason soldiers after the Gulf War were getting sick...

They have discovered high concentrations of Anti-Squaline antibodies in vets linking GWS to the Anthrax vaccine used...

www.autoimmune.com...

I will be going through my 3rd GWS evaluation next week, 2 days of MRI's (yuk!) and tests...I will be asking about Squaline/Anthrax...

Don't you have some Israel-bashing topic to attend to, GlobalDisorder?




seekerof