Nuclear power - do we need it?

[Outbackjack]

please VKXY... dont shut up. If you have some kind of professional knowledge we all nedd to know it and digest it. Blardy good first post...... Welcome.

[XR Martin]

The Depleted Uranium shells being radioactive is myth, people hear the word and suddenly everyone jumps to conclusions.

Depleted Uranium has the same radioactivity as granite.

http://www.fumento.com/military/depleteduranium.html

Thus the Daily News declared, "In January 2003, the European Parliament called for a moratorium on [using DU shells] after reports of an unusual number of leukemia [a blood cancer] deaths among Italian soldiers who served in Kosovo, where DU weapons were used." Actually, it was January 2001, less than two years after the Kosovo bombing began. Yet Japanese data going back to 1945 show it takes an average of 15 years for even massive radiation exposure to cause leukemia and 40 years to cause solid tumors, with "massive" meaning an A-bomb exploding over your head.

"Because of the latency period," noted a 2001 Australasian Radiation Protection Society report, "it is not credible that any cases of radiation-induced cancer could yet be attributed to the Kosovo conflict." Further, "There is no evidence to suggest that DU exposure could cause leukemias under any circumstances."

Britain's Royal Society found "a small number of soldiers might suffer kidney damage" if "substantial amounts of" DU are inhaled, "for instance inside an armored vehicle hit by a depleted uranium penetrator." But this applies to none of the Daily News's vets. Anyway, if your vehicle is hit by a DU penetrator then you should be so lucky as to worry about long-term illness.

Let's not stop at the kidneys and cancer, though. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry finds no radiological health hazard from long-term inhalation, dermal or oral exposure to even natural uranium, much less short-term exposure to the depleted variety. A 1999 Rand Corporation report concluded, "Negative effects from the exposure to the ionizing radiation from depleted or natural uranium have not been observed in humans."

[VKXY]

Originally Posted by Psycho Chicken

I know it's an old post, but whatever.



Apollo 1 wasn't a launch, it was a test on the pad. Half the cause was the pressurised pure oxygen in the command module, as well as a crap load of wiring that shorted out. Both being no issue in an unmanned rocket that was pointed at the sun.

Two shuttle crashes, both of which were preventable. Mind you only one of those was in the 15 years you gave. You'd be hard pressed to find a shuttle crash before the 80's though.

Not to mention countless probes have been launched with nuclear batteries onboard and no problems there.

During the 1970's a Russian (then Soviet) spy satellite re-entered Earth's atmosphere over Canada, It broke up and quite a few bits landed on the ground. Unfortunately, this satellite was powered by a nuclear reactor. Bits of the reactor and its fuel cell also broke into several pieces and scattered far and wide. The Canadians spents months flying around tracking down radiation hot spots, picking up the pieces, decontaminating the surrounding area, by removing plants and soil and hiding it somewhere. They then sued the Soviet government for the costs involved in cleaning up the mess. The Soviets agreed to pay as long as the satellites debris was returned to them, which it was. Just lucky it was over a relatively unpopulated area.
Nuclear spacecraft batteries are a wonderful thing for sure, they are well tested, High speed train crash straight into the battery container, they also dropped shipping containers on them from a great height. These virtually indestructable containers were for a few KGs of Plutonium. Let's send our waste into the Sun where it won't hurt us, Yes it could be done, BUT, you would want to send as much as possible. Average launch into Low Earth Orbit is a few tonnes, at several thousand dollars per KG, there hundreds of thousands of tonnes of this rubbish now lying around in 'STORAGE'. How many launches do we need? I wouldn't want this stuff in Low Earth Orbit, I want to send it into the Sun, multiply launch costs several times because to get a spacecraft to travel in towards to the Sun it has to be slowed down in order to fall into it. When launched it will be travelling with the Earth at a great rate of knots around the Sun. Unless you slow it down compared to the Earth, it is only going to follow you around. A massive amount of fuel is used to point the rocket in the other direction from Earths travels around the Sun and then brake its speed, which causes it to fall inwards. So now you have to have less cargo to make room for more fuel.
Every year, out of several dozens of launches by various nations, several of these launch vehicles blow themselves and their cargo to smitherenes.
I could go on about this, but I think it already must be seen as glaringly impracticle.

:-)

VKXY

[VKXY]

Originally Posted by XR6 Martin

The Depleted Uranium shells being radioactive is myth, people hear the word and suddenly everyone jumps to conclusions.

Depleted Uranium has the same radioactivity as granite.

http://www.fumento.com/military/depleteduranium.html

Hi XR6, Vini Vidi Vici, I went and read the link that you supplied and it is one of thousands that tow the government line, there are just as many opposing it. I sort of disagree. But I really need a sample of DU metal, it seems they use it in the standard 747 as a counter weight. Basically I think of DU having the same level of radiation as granite to be incorrect.
True that DU is much less radioactive than Natural or undepleted Uranium. But many of the weapons used made from Uranium use NDU. The radiation in Granite is caused by a small amount of Natural Uranium or NDU (non-depleted Uranium). I don't know where you found the statement about granite and DU. If I sit my pocket radiation detector on a piece of granite, it reads pretty much background levels, in other words, it doesn't noticebly changed. If I sit on a mountain of granite, there is a slight increase. All of my Uranium and Thorium mineral samples cause my detector to scream at me and the F.O.N. light comes on. (F#$# OFF NOW light)
Lead and Cadmium, we know are very poisonous chemically, Uranium is more poisonous than these metals. I would rather breathe Lead or Cadmium than Uranium, even if it weren't radio-active. Also there are 3 types of radiation, gamma, beta and alpha, my detector is primarily gamma, beta. Alpha particles are almost undetected, Uranium is mainly alpha active. I will ask you to prove that a 1 gram piece of DU has the same amount of radiation coming from it as a lump of granite. If you do, I will make a video of myself eating a printout of this thread. Alpha particles are a whole different kettle of fish compred to the gamma radiation from a nuke burst. Alpha contaminants like Uranium stay in your body forever once ingested, because it is chemically similar to other metals that your body needs, Alpha particles play havoc with DNA, constantly re-arranging and losing bits of it. You can see it coming can't you, cancer caused by cells that go silly to birth defects from wrong DNA encoding.

An anti-DU site with some figures,
http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/4.html

In 2003 scientists from the Uranium Medical Research Center (UMRC) studied urine samples of Afghan civilians and found that 100% of the samples taken had levels of non-depleted uranium (NDU) 400% to 2000% higher than normal levels. The UMRC research team studied six sites, two in Kabul and others in the Jalalabad area. The civilians were tested four months after the attacks in Afghanistan by the United States and its allies.

NDU is more radioactive than depleted uranium (DU), which itself is charged with causing many cancers and severe birth defects in the Iraqi population–especially children–over the past ten years. Four million pounds of radioactive uranium was dropped on Iraq in 2003 alone. Uranium dust will be in the bodies of our returning armed forces. Nine soldiers from the 442nd Military Police serving in Iraq were tested for DU contamination in December 2003. Conducted at the request of The News, as the U.S. government considers the cost of $1,000 per affected soldier prohibitive, the test found that four of the nine men were contaminated with high levels of DU, likely caused by inhaling dust from depleted uranium shells fired by U.S. troops. Several of the men had traces of another uranium isotope, U-236, that are produced only in a nuclear reaction process.

Most American weapons (missiles, smart bombs, dumb bombs, bullets, tank shells, cruise missiles, etc.) contain high amounts of radioactive uranium. Depleted or non-depleted, these types of weapons, on detonation, release a radioactive dust which, when inhaled, goes into the body and stays there. It has a half-life of 4.5 billion years. Basically, it’s a permanently available contaminant, distributed in the environment, where dust storms or any water nearby can disperse it. Once ingested, it releases subatomic particles that slice through DNA.

UMRC’s Field Team found several hundred Afghan civilians with acute symptoms of radiation poisoning along with chronic symptoms of internal uranium contamination, including congenital problems in newborns. Local civilians reported large, dense dust clouds and smoke plumes rising from the point of impact, an acrid smell, followed by burning of the nasal passages, throat and upper respiratory tract. Subjects in all locations presented identical symptom profiles and chronologies. The victims reported symptoms including pain in the cervical column, upper shoulders and basal area of the skull, lower back/kidney pain, joint and muscle weakness, sleeping difficulties, headaches, memory problems and disorientation.


From
http://www.americanfreepress.net/htm...d_uranium.html

The recent crash of a Boeing 747 in Halifax, Canada, raises a number of questions about the use of depleted uranium (DU) in airplanes, public health concerns and the 9-11 attacks. When a Boeing 747 crashed and burned on takeoff at Halifax International Airport in Nova Scotia, Canada, on Oct. 14, an official accident investigator said the aircraft probably contained radioactive depleted uranium.

Bill Fowler, an investigator with the Transportation Safety Board of Canada, said the plane was likely equipped with DU as counterweights in its wings and rudder.

“A 747 may contain as much as 1,500 kilograms [3,300 lbs.] of the material,” the Canadian Press reported. It took 60 firefighters and 20 trucks about three hours to control the fire.

Fowler said: “there is no threat or concern” about DU exposure to those working on the wreckage.

“That’s baloney,” Marion Fulk, a retired staff scientist from Lawrence Livermore National Lab, told American Free Press. Fulk, 83, is currently researching how low-level ionizing radiation causes cancer, birth defects and a host of other health problems. Burning depleted uranium creates a “whole mess of oxides,” Fulk said, “which is what makes it so wicked biologically.”

Hmmm, I came here to yak about Cars and look where I ended up.
Most interesting subject though. Very intense.

VKXY

[XR Martin]

Originally Posted by VKXY

Hi XR6, Vini Vidi Vici, I went and read the link that you supplied and it is one of thousands that tow the government line,

Quite an ignorant statement dont you think? "geeze, well their point of view doesnt match mine, so they must be towing a Government line"
Doesnt do your credibility any good does it?

Four million pounds of radioactive uranium was dropped on Iraq in 2003 alone.

2000tons? Ha, where are you getting your figures from? :
Only 300tons were reported to be used in Gulf War one, which was a hell of a lot higher than Gulf war two.


More actual evidence, instead of the hearsay of what you are posting.

Health aspects of DU

Depleted uranium is not classified as a dangerous substance radiologically, though it is a potential hazard in large quantities, beyond what could conceivably be breathed. Its emissions are very low, since the half-life of U-238 is the same as the age of the earth (4.5 billion years). There are no reputable reports of cancer or other negative health effects from radiation exposure to ingested or inhaled natural or depleted uranium, despite much study.

However, uranium does have a chemical toxicity about the same as that of lead, so inhaled fume or ingested oxide is considered a health hazard. Most uranium actually absorbed into the body is excreted within days, the balance being laid down in bone and kidneys. Its biological effect is principally kidney damage. WHO has set a Tolerable Daily Intake level for U of 0.6 microgram/kg body weight, orally. (This is about eight times our normal background intake from natural sources.) Standards for drinking water and concentrations in air are set accordingly.

Like most radionuclides, it is not known as a carcinogen, or to cause birth defects (from effects in utero) or to cause genetic mutations. Radiation from DU munitions depends on how long the uranium has been separated chemically from its decay products. If thorium-234 and protactinium-234 has built up through decay of U-238, these will give rise to some beta emissions. On this basis, DU is "weakly radioactive" with an activity of 39 kBq/g quoted (15 kBq/g if pure, compared with 25 kBq/g for pure natural uranium).

In 2001 the UN Environment Program examined the effects of nine tonnes of DU munitions having been used in Kosovo, checking the sites targeted by it. UNEP found no widespread contamination, no sign of contamination in water of the food chain and no correlation with reported ill-health in NATO peacekeepers. A two-year study by Sandia National Laboratories in USA reported in 2005 that consistent with earlier studies, reports of serious health risks from DU exposure during the 1991 Gulf War are not supported by medical statistics or by analysis.

Thus DU is clearly dangerous for people in vehicles which are military targets, but for anyone else - even in a war zone - there is little hazard. Ingestion or inhalation of uranium oxide dust resulting from the impact of DU munitions on their targets is the main possible exposure route.

Statement by Australasian Radiation Protection Society
Potential Health Effects of Depleted Uranium in Munitions
February 2001.

Some military personnel involved in the 1991 Gulf War have complained of continuing stress-like symptoms for which no obvious cause has been found. These symptoms have at times been attributed to the use of depleted uranium in shells and other missiles, which are said to have caused toxic effects. Similar complaints have arisen from the more recent fighting in the Balkans, particularly the Kosovo conflict about a year ago.

Depleted uranium (DU) is natural uranium which is depleted in the rarer U-235 isotope (see below). It is a heavy metal and, in common with other heavy metals, it is chemically toxic. It is also slightly radioactive and there is therefore said to be a hypothetical possibility that it could give rise to a radiological hazard under some circumstances, e.g. if dispersed in finely divided form so that it is inhaled.

However, because of the latency period for the induction of cancer by radiation, it is not credible that any cases of radiation-induced cancer could yet be attributed to the Kosovo conflict. Furthermore, extensive studies have concluded that no radiological health hazard should be expected from exposure to depleted uranium.

The risk from external exposure is essentially zero, even when pure metal is handled. No detectable increases of cancer, leukaemia, birth defects or other negative health effects have ever been observed from radiation exposure to inhaled or ingested natural uranium concentrates, at levels far exceeding those likely in areas where DU munitions have been used. This is mainly because the low radioactivity per unit mass of uranium means that the mass needed for significant internal exposure would be virtually impossible to accumulate in the body - and DU is less than half as radioactive as natural uranium.

World Health Organisation link on DU

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/

bsorption of depleted uranium

* About 98% of uranium entering the body via ingestion is not absorbed, but is eliminated via the faeces. Typical gut absorption rates for uranium in food and water are about 2% for soluble and about 0.2% for insoluble uranium compounds.
* The fraction of uranium absorbed into the blood is generally greater following inhalation than following ingestion of the same chemical form. The fraction will also depend on the particle size distribution. For some soluble forms, more than 20% of the inhaled material could be absorbed into blood.
* Of the uranium that is absorbed into the blood, approximately 70% will be filtered by the kidney and excreted in the urine within 24 hours; this amount increases to 90% within a few days.

[VKXY]

Hi XR Martin, I still disagree with you,

QUOTE
Uranium Information Centre
Serving the web since 1995,
now part of Australian Uranium Association
http://www.uic.com.au/nip53.htm
If thorium-234 and protactinium-234 has built up through decay of U-238, these will give rise to some beta emissions. On this basis, DU is "weakly radioactive" with an activity of 39 kBq/g quoted (15 kBq/g if pure, compared with 25 kBq/g for pure natural uranium).
QUOTE

Thanks for this info, just what I was wondering.

This translates into, 1 kBq = 1,000 disintegrations per second.

Pure DU or U238 = 15 kBq or 15,000 disintegrations per second.

Natural Uranium = 25 kBq or 25,000 disintegrations per second.

Standard DU = 39 kBq or 39,000 disintegrations per second. (because it has accumulated daughter products)

A lump of granite in my hand might go through a couple of hundred
disintegrations per minute. Not tens of thousands per second.

My gieger counter works on counts per minute, not per second.

1 gram of DU on my geiger counter would surely put it in overload.

Granite is far less radio active than DU.

So, if Standard DU actually has a higher level of radiation, why do they keep

quoting pure DU?

I actually consider anything over 10,000 counts per minute hot, not per second.

Most of these disintegrations produce alpha particles, with smaller amounts of gamma and beta radiation. As far as I know, studies of alpha particle radiation effects via ingestion are not as good or thorough as beta and gamma studies.

I also found this,

http://www.ccnr.org/decay_U238.html
QUOTE
Depleted uranium remains radioactive for literally billions of years, and over
these long periods of time it will continue to produce all of its radioactive
decay products; thus depleted uranium actually becomes more radioactive as the centuries and millennia go by because these decay products accumulate.
QUOTE
and,

Depleted uranium casts shadow over peace in Iraq
19:00 15 April 2003
Exclusive from New Scientist Print Edition.
QUOTE
DU is both radioactive and toxic. Past studies of DU in the environment have
concluded that neither of these effects poses a significant risk. But some
researchers are beginning to suspect that in combination, the two effects could do significant harm. Nobody has taken a hard look at the combined effect of both, says Alexandra Miller, a radiobiologist with the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute in Bethesda, Maryland. "The bottom line is it might contribute to the risk."
She is not alone. The idea that chemical and radiological damage are reinforcing each other is very plausible and gaining momentum, says Carmel Mothersill, head of the Radiation and Environmental Science Centre at the Dublin Institute of Technology in Ireland. "The regulators don't know how to handle it. So they sweep it under the carpet."
QUOTE
and,

from the Tehran times,
November 15, 2006
http://www.tehrantimes.com/Descripti...&Cat=4&Num=002
QUOTE
The Pentagon refuses to clarify the exact effects of depleted uranium, but Iraqi doctors attribute the significant increase in cancer and birth defects in the region to the U.S. and British troops’ use of DU.

Many researches conducted outside Iraq, and by several U.S. veterans organizations, suggested that depleted uranium could have played a role in Gulf War Syndrome, the still-unexplained malady that has plagued hundreds of thousands of Gulf War veterans.

The U.S. is believed to have used 320,000 tons of depleted uranium during the Persian Gulf War alone. Also British Armed Forces used depleted uranium in some of its ammunition.

Iraqi doctors reported significant growth in cancer and birth defects during the period between 1991 and 2003; the period of the two wars the country fought and in which the U.S. and the British forces were involved.

It was during these two wars that such weapons were used; which led to the noticeable growth in cancer and birth defects in Iraq.

In 2001, the World Health Organization (WHO) released a study on depleted
uranium after serious doubts emerged over its damage to health.

The study claimed that depleted uranium had very little risk of spreading.
But a scientist who had worked for the WHO at that time later stated that
another study that was kept concealed from the public contradicted WHO’s claim, and that it asserts that depleted uranium can cause cancer.
QUOTE
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
QUOTE
Cancer rate in Iraq has increased tenfold, and the number of birth defects has multiplied fivefold times since the 1991 war. The increase is believed to be caused by depleted uranium.

Many scientists sought to investigate these events, but Washington is blocking any attempt to inspect the aftermath of the war.

Also the U.S. refused to cooperate with the United Nations on the issue
QUOTE

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know about the 320,000 tonnes of DU material.
I don't know if figures for DU usage that agree with each other can be found.
I can't even find an official one.

I also read, (forgot to note URL) that DU stocks increase at the rate of 50,000 tonnes a year.

I read that a lot of people that study this are saying 'don't play with that'
But governments and mining companies and pro industry sources 'find' there is 'NO' problem.

I didn't think I made an ignorant statement, but apologies if it seemed like it.

To this, I say,
quote
"geeze, well their point of view doesnt match mine, so they must be towing a Government line"
quote
is only true if your view matches the Governments.

It must be obvious that I'm just a little sceptical.

Anyway, I find that 1 gram of DU is a lot more radio active than 1 gram of granite.

Also, I find that Thorium would be better to make power from than Uranium.

Finding figures to quote on this subject that agree with each other is like having clocks that don't tell the same time. You have to go and find another one to see which is correct, and if that one is different as well, argh.

Excellent reply XR Martin. I doubt whether the two of us or the others here will sort out the worlds problems though.

But we're learning from the debate, are we not?

[GK]

Haven't read every post, don't have time to read 200+, however, my observation is that no matter what energy we produce, there will be consequences of one sort or another.

Here's the Trillion dollar question.
Which energy source will give us the most power, for the cheapest cost, for the least damage to the environment.

And the answer to that trillion dollar question depends of course on which scientists you believe, depending also on which mult-national is sponsoring their research! LOL!

Also depends on how much kick-backing is going on in government.

GK

[GK]

Originally Posted by VKXY

I wouldn't want this stuff in Low Earth Orbit, I want to send it into the Sun. VKXY

Imagine the cost of a one way trip to the sun!

GK

[flappist]

Originally Posted by GK

Imagine the cost of a one way trip to the sun!

GK

Very cheap actually. Just push it out of Earth's gravity and the Sun will just drag it in.......

[GK]

Originally Posted by flappist

Very cheap actually. Just push it out of Earth's gravity and the Sun will just drag it in.......

Really that's it. just nudge it out of orbit and it'll be dragged in? What about the gravity of other planets. Saturn for example has trillions of bits of rock suspended in rings around it.

Surely it's not that easy?

GK

[Outbackjack]

Originally Posted by GK

Really that's it. just nudge it out of orbit and it'll be dragged in? What about the gravity of other planets. Saturn for example has trillions of bits of rock suspended in rings around it.

Surely it's not that easy?

GK

It is that easy..... You dont just hurl a capsule into space and cross your fingers. C & T 's would be calculated and a launch window opened. You could use the gravity of other planets to actually accelerate the thing.

Cheers.

[RS027]

It's a yes from me

[GTjake]

Originally Posted by VKXY

P.S. Solar light concentrators, (mirrors) shining on a target produce thousands of degrees temp. That would make a lot of steam for power. As far as I am aware, this has only been used for testing refractory materials for spacecraft. It would only produce during the day, but heat accumulators, which every power station already has, could store that heat for night use.
I have an inkling that the new Victorian Solar power design runs along these lines.

The working one in the US is not for testing heat shielding.
Ultra-high-speed and temperature gas jets are used to test heat shielding! Sunlight does not damage spacecraft, it is re-entry friction on the skin.

It was designed to test the technology and discover engineering problems.
It does not use a "standard" heat exchanger but rather uses molten sodium chloride (salt) which then is pumped through a typical steam generator.

One of the many problems related to this technology is that the mirror farm is extraordinarily expensive and vulnerable to damage.


P.P.P.S. The U.S. found a great way to get rid of the Uranium that won't burn in a reactor, they make depleted Uranium weapons out of it, it is very hard, very heavy and will punch through a tanks armour like butter while catching fire and burning everything near it.
The slight drawback is, now depleted Uranium is all over the place, will stay radio-active for as long as it does, contaminates your own troops as well as any civilians, and really the whole area should be fenced of. But, in reality, this crap dust is now blowing around everywhere, smart, NOT.


VKXY

OK. For starters, most DU comes from the enriching process to make Uranium concentrated enought to use in a reactor. NOT from reactor waste (though some does).
Second, reactors dont burn anything unless they are in meltdown!
Fission is NOT the same as combustion.

DU is used in projectiles for some (NOT most US weapons as you claim) weapons because it is dense (19500kg / m3) and as a side benefit it is pyrophoric.
If it really did 'contaminate your own troops', why are DU rounds stored in crew compartments?
The problem, as with most metals, is inhalation toxicity.

Lastly, DU was chosen because the US does not have Tungsten deposits.

Just because you own a geiger counter doesnt make you Albert Eistein.

[S3SR]

Originally Posted by Falcon Coupe

Why can't the waste be barreled and shot into space ?

because it was to blow up in the atmosphere we're all fug'd

i voted yes....as long as no fly zone and any plane which does is shot down before it hits...id rather them all die then destroy half of australia
oh and half price electricity for everyone..

[Walkinshaw]

Originally Posted by FALCONSR

oh and half price electricity for everyone..

erm, look at the intial capital outlay for a u235/u238 reactor.....

[flappist]

Originally Posted by GK

Really that's it. just nudge it out of orbit and it'll be dragged in? What about the gravity of other planets. Saturn for example has trillions of bits of rock suspended in rings around it.

Surely it's not that easy?

GK

Saturn is a long way away. The Sun's gravity is so strong that it actually affects the tides. Anything that is going slow enough and gets caught in a gravity field will eventually be drawn into the source of that field.

The radiation/halflife problem is only transient. It is only a worry because at this time we do not know how to resolve it. Remember there are people alive right now who when they were born there were no computers, television, nuclear anything, credit cards, aircraft (well not many of them left), 90% of all the medical services etc. etc.


We WILL work out how to turn radioactive waste into something useful or at least safe, it is just a matter of time.

[XR Martin]

Originally Posted by VKXY

Hi XR Martin, I still disagree with you,

QUOTE
Uranium Information Centre
Serving the web since 1995,
now part of Australian Uranium Association
http://www.uic.com.au/nip53.htm
If thorium-234 and protactinium-234 has built up through decay of U-238, these will give rise to some beta emissions. On this basis, DU is "weakly radioactive" with an activity of 39 kBq/g quoted (15 kBq/g if pure, compared with 25 kBq/g for pure natural uranium).
QUOTE

Thanks for this info, just what I was wondering.

This translates into, 1 kBq = 1,000 disintegrations per second.

Pure DU or U238 = 15 kBq or 15,000 disintegrations per second.

Natural Uranium = 25 kBq or 25,000 disintegrations per second.

Standard DU = 39 kBq or 39,000 disintegrations per second. (because it has accumulated daughter products)

A lump of granite in my hand might go through a couple of hundred
disintegrations per minute. Not tens of thousands per second.

My gieger counter works on counts per minute, not per second.

1 gram of DU on my geiger counter would surely put it in overload.

Granite is far less radio active than DU.

So, if Standard DU actually has a higher level of radiation, why do they keep

quoting pure DU?

I actually consider anything over 10,000 counts per minute hot, not per second.

Most of these disintegrations produce alpha particles, with smaller amounts of gamma and beta radiation. As far as I know, studies of alpha particle radiation effects via ingestion are not as good or thorough as beta and gamma studies.

I also found this,

http://www.ccnr.org/decay_U238.html
QUOTE
Depleted uranium remains radioactive for literally billions of years, and over
these long periods of time it will continue to produce all of its radioactive
decay products; thus depleted uranium actually becomes more radioactive as the centuries and millennia go by because these decay products accumulate.
QUOTE
and,

Depleted uranium casts shadow over peace in Iraq
19:00 15 April 2003
Exclusive from New Scientist Print Edition.
QUOTE
DU is both radioactive and toxic. Past studies of DU in the environment have
concluded that neither of these effects poses a significant risk. But some
researchers are beginning to suspect that in combination, the two effects could do significant harm. Nobody has taken a hard look at the combined effect of both, says Alexandra Miller, a radiobiologist with the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute in Bethesda, Maryland. "The bottom line is it might contribute to the risk."
She is not alone. The idea that chemical and radiological damage are reinforcing each other is very plausible and gaining momentum, says Carmel Mothersill, head of the Radiation and Environmental Science Centre at the Dublin Institute of Technology in Ireland. "The regulators don't know how to handle it. So they sweep it under the carpet."
QUOTE
and,

from the Tehran times,
November 15, 2006
http://www.tehrantimes.com/Descripti...&Cat=4&Num=002
QUOTE
The Pentagon refuses to clarify the exact effects of depleted uranium, but Iraqi doctors attribute the significant increase in cancer and birth defects in the region to the U.S. and British troops’ use of DU.

Many researches conducted outside Iraq, and by several U.S. veterans organizations, suggested that depleted uranium could have played a role in Gulf War Syndrome, the still-unexplained malady that has plagued hundreds of thousands of Gulf War veterans.

The U.S. is believed to have used 320,000 tons of depleted uranium during the Persian Gulf War alone. Also British Armed Forces used depleted uranium in some of its ammunition.

Iraqi doctors reported significant growth in cancer and birth defects during the period between 1991 and 2003; the period of the two wars the country fought and in which the U.S. and the British forces were involved.

It was during these two wars that such weapons were used; which led to the noticeable growth in cancer and birth defects in Iraq.

In 2001, the World Health Organization (WHO) released a study on depleted
uranium after serious doubts emerged over its damage to health.

The study claimed that depleted uranium had very little risk of spreading.
But a scientist who had worked for the WHO at that time later stated that
another study that was kept concealed from the public contradicted WHO’s claim, and that it asserts that depleted uranium can cause cancer.
QUOTE
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
QUOTE
Cancer rate in Iraq has increased tenfold, and the number of birth defects has multiplied fivefold times since the 1991 war. The increase is believed to be caused by depleted uranium.

Many scientists sought to investigate these events, but Washington is blocking any attempt to inspect the aftermath of the war.

Also the U.S. refused to cooperate with the United Nations on the issue
QUOTE

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know about the 320,000 tonnes of DU material.
I don't know if figures for DU usage that agree with each other can be found.
I can't even find an official one.

I also read, (forgot to note URL) that DU stocks increase at the rate of 50,000 tonnes a year.

I read that a lot of people that study this are saying 'don't play with that'
But governments and mining companies and pro industry sources 'find' there is 'NO' problem.

I didn't think I made an ignorant statement, but apologies if it seemed like it.

To this, I say,
quote
"geeze, well their point of view doesnt match mine, so they must be towing a Government line"
quote
is only true if your view matches the Governments.

It must be obvious that I'm just a little sceptical.

Anyway, I find that 1 gram of DU is a lot more radio active than 1 gram of granite.

Also, I find that Thorium would be better to make power from than Uranium.

Finding figures to quote on this subject that agree with each other is like having clocks that don't tell the same time. You have to go and find another one to see which is correct, and if that one is different as well, argh.

Excellent reply XR Martin. I doubt whether the two of us or the others here will sort out the worlds problems though.

But we're learning from the debate, are we not?

First of all 320,000 tonnes of DU used in Gulf War I is a flat out lie, perhaps the "Tehran Times" (great source btw) have got their kg and tonnes mixed up. First of all its not used in every weapon, only armor piercing bullet/missiles/bombs. And it only makes up a small amount of the weapon.
That figure there is 10% of the tonnage of bombs dropped on Vietnam over ten years, compared to a few months of Gulf War I. Absolutely impossible.
300 tonnes is the accepted figure of DU used in Gulf War I

Also the cancer increase doesnt prove anything, it takes 15 years for cancer to appear after environmental effects. First of all did you ever think Iraqi diagnosis of cancer may have improve since the 80s? (like everywhere) Hence the increase, what about the chemical weapons used by both Iran and Iraq during the 80s? That will definately make a difference to cancer rates.
What you are posting is not proof, its just posibilities. I have posted atleast three sources that prove that DU has no effect of the human body unless induced beyond the scale possible.

[AU2PWR]

We Dont Need Nuclear Power , We Need More Desalinization Plants and More Hydro Electricity !

[Sourbastard]

And we need less thread mining.